In 1998, in the twilight of the 20th century, the resignation of Indonesia's autocratic president Suharto ushered in a new political era. Corresponding changes occurred in Indonesia's economic, social, and cultural landscape. That transformation challenged and transformed the thinking of many Indonesians. One of them was Dr. Dino Patti Djalal, who recently became his country's ambassador to the United States. "I entered the twenty-first century with a new mindset," said Djalal to an overflow audience at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) on November 18, 2010.

As the son of a renowned Indonesian diplomat, Djalal spent much of his youth and early adulthood abroad. He attended high school in the United States and college in Canada, and went on to earn his doctorate from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Djalal's diverse professional talents and experience encompass writing, politics, and film production. Passionate about inspiring and empowering young Indonesians, Djalal founded Modernisator, a youth leadership movement in Indonesia. Before becoming ambassador to the United States in September 2010, he served on the staff of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as a spokesperson and special adviser on foreign affairs.

Djalal's speech at Shorenstein APARC featured his top eight personal beliefs about the 21st century. His remarks were a mixture of optimism and wonder tempered by caution. This new century in Djalal's eyes promises great progress and opportunity, in contrast to the 20th century, which he called "probably the bloodiest century ever in human history." Looking forward, he spoke of an "explosion of creativity," the growth of emerging and developing economies, and major advances in technology. The power to eradicate poverty and to achieve world harmony is within our grasp, he argued, provided countries are willing to be open to new ideas and to embrace progress and change.

The last century, Djalal noted, saw the fall and fragmentation of empires and the birth of many new states. Looking ahead, he did not foresee great changes in the world's geopolitical map. He hoped that world leaders would not promote a further proliferation of new countries, which would increase rivalry and instability. Instead the goal should be unification, as in the case of the Korean Peninsula. He spoke optimistically of the trend whereby existing countries such as Indonesia manage to "proliferise," or acquire new and greater global relevance, and advocated a "geopolitics of cooperation" among larger and smaller countries, as in the Group of 20.

Djalal stressed the need for rapid innovation and ongoing social, economic, and educational change. A nation that wants to succeed in the 21st century must be open and adaptable. Analysts once thought that major changes could only unfold over several generations, but now, Djalal argued, dramatic change can occur in the span of a single generation. In addition to developing open and progressive political thinking, said Djalal, good governance is essential if the world is to enjoy stability and prosperity in this century. Having a democratic government does not automatically ensure good governance, he argued. Political leaders must strive to build strong, accountable institutions that emphasize positive outcomes in key sectors such as health, education, and entrepreneurship.

Addressing the younger generation, Djalal said, "skill is your best currency" in the present century. Individuals, empowered by education and technology, are now free to make their way in the world based on their own talents. He recalled that in an earlier era in Indonesia, as in many other parts of the world, access to information was limited by social status, wealth, and gender. More than any other factor, according to Djalal, technology is the "most important driver of change." It is the small, innovative technologies such as cell phones and online banking that will most change the world, provided we learn "how to adopt it without destroying the human soul."

Globalization is here to stay, Djalal argued, so it is crucial to "embrace it intelligently." Indonesia is a large country. But rather than rely on superior physical size, Indonesia and other large countries must climb the global ranks on less tangible dimensions such as education, including the skill sets needed to develop their economies. While being open to engaging with the rest of the world, he added, countries must also cultivate a strong sense of national identity.

Djalal closed on a high and provocative note, suggesting that the free, innovative, and global nature of the current century provides the means for young people today to become "potentially the best generation of all previous generations." How then should we proceed, as individuals and as countries, to realize that bright future? Djalal left that question hanging in the air for his audience to consider and to answer.

On Monday, an undersea earthquake shook Indonesia's remote Mentawai Islands and triggered a 10-foot tsunami: It has killed at least 272 people, and left 412 missing. The first cargo plane with humanitarian supplies arrived today. Hundreds of miles away in eastern Java, the volcanic Mount Merapi erupted Tuesday and killed at least 30 people.

That's two disasters in less than 24 hours.

 Indonesia is no stranger to catastrophe. It is located along the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is one of the most seismically and volcanically volatile areas in the world. Its last sizeable earthquake and tsunami duo struck in December of 2004, killing more than 225,000 people in 14 countries.

But despite the death and destruction of the last 48 hours, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said today that he doesn't yet see a need for foreign aid or rescue assistance.
So far, only the Philippines and the United States have offered to help Indonesia. But Natalegawa's behavior seems counter-intuitive. In the face of disaster, why would any country preemptively say no to aid?

A look into Indonesia's history reveals latent political sensitivities that may have influenced Natalegawa's decision. Indonesia's first president, Sukarno, was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement, an organization of countries who are not aligned with or against any major world power.

Indonesia prides itself on its "independent and active" foreign policy, which was first developed by then Vice President Mohammad Hatta on September 2, 1948 in Central Java. "Do we, Indonesians, in the struggle for the freedom of our people and our country, only have to choose between Russia and America?" he asked. "Is not there any other stand that we can take in the pursuit of our ideals?"

The "other stand" became known as "mendayung antara dua karang" or "rowing between two reefs."

Indonesia doesn't want to appear incompetent, or weak, to outside governments, and may also be wary to accept aid for fear of undermining its national legitimacy.
 
In 2004, Indonesia's acceptance of aid had an arguably negative effect on its citizens. "Though the post-tsunami reconstruction efforts in Aceh were generally successful, the amount of aid did engender some resentment in Jakarta over whether the national government had lost control of the reconstruction, and also potentially altered the economy in Aceh," explains Josh Kurlantzick a fellow for southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. "So people remember that."

Donald Emmerson, the director of the Southeast Asia Forum at Stanford University's Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, cites several reasons for Natalegawa's response. First, he says, if the Indonesian government solicited foreign aid, it would be inundated with offers. Coordinating offers of assistance right now would be a severe burden on the government.
 
Then there's the question of scale: so far, the destruction seems manageable in comparison to the 2004 disaster. Still, it's unclear whether Indonesia will be able to adequately respond on its own. "Indonesia is a large country, and its infrastructure is overstretched," Emmerson says. "Its capacity to respond effectively to domestic disasters is not as good as it might be."