PRESIDENT YUDHOYONO’S IDIOSYNCRASY IN MANAGING INDONESIA-AUSTRALIA RELATIONS POST EDWARD J. SNOWDEN’S REVELATION ON AUSTRALIA’S SPYING CONDUCT (NOVEMBER 2013 – AUGUST 2014)

Abstract

The issue of spying or espionage has been around taking International Relations study‘s attention ever since the Cold War. Often its occurrence—if revealed—cause serious strain and even conflict to nations states involved. As the development of technology advances, the issue of spying becomes no longer state-level issue only. Individuals and almost all layers of community play part. Ever since Edward J. Snowden chose to play a role in freedom of information, states gain more challenge to be concerned upon. His revelation on Australia‘s spying conduct on Indonesia‘s top leaders including President Yudhoyono through Wikileaks had caused some major disturbances to both states‘ bilateral relationship for at least nine months. As of current, there is no binding legal international norm or agreement governing the conduct of espionage. Hence, states determine their own regulation based on negotiation and agreement between them bilaterally or multilaterally. At this point, the role of nation‘s leader takes the utmost important part. Leaders or presidents have choices whether to put measures and burden the relationship or peacefully settle the strain in a form of foreign policy. This particular research centered upon the idiosyncrasy of President Yudhoyono in influencing the strain settlement process between Indonesia and Australia by analyzing the international espionage tolerability, the concept of presidential power, idiosyncratic factors in foreign policy analysis, the concept of decision making in foreign policy analysis, the argument from both states and finally the steps President Yudhoyono took in the settlement process. The time frame taken is from November 2013 – August 2014. Qualitative method will be used by this research in order to examine and explain the analysis in narrative order supported by some pictures and diagrams. The research seeks to conclude that political leaders‘ idiosyncrasy is paramount in foreign policy decision making process.