[Nasional-m] Facing the changes in Jakarta-Washington ties

[Ambon]

The jakarta Post
Aug. 20, 2002

Facing the changes in Jakarta-Washington ties
Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo, Former Governor,National Resilience Institute
(Lemhannas), Jakarta

There are three important events in history that necessitate reevaluation of
the relations between Indonesia and the United States. The first event is
the end of the Cold War with the victory of the U.S. and the end of the
Soviet superpower. Second is the East Asian economic crisis of 1997 and the
subsequent resignation of president Soeharto in 1998. And the third is the
Sept. 11 tragedy and the start of the U.S. war against terrorism.
Since the defeat of the Soviet superpower, the U.S. has become the world's
only superpower regarding its military, technology and scientific advances.
Although no hegemony will last forever, as with the termination of British
supremacy in World War II, we can expect that the U.S. power will remain at
least for the next quarter of a century. Alternative superpowers such as
China and Japan are unlikely in the next decade.
Indonesia has to face that fact and adjust her attitude accordingly. On the
other side there is a growing uneasiness and even resentment among many
Indonesians watching and experiencing the arrogance in U.S. behavior after
becoming the only superpower.
Moreover, the double standards demonstrated so often in U.S. diplomacy makes
it more difficult to maintain the same relations with Americans like we had
in the 1950s and 1960s.
The role of the U.S. in the operations of the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank has aggravated the bitterness among many Indonesians
toward the U.S. The international financial institutions that are supposed
to support developing countries to achieve prosperity, and especially to
help countries troubled by economic crisis, are instead hampering them with
policies that only favor the U.S., and in particular the interests of big
capital.
That makes many suspicious of globalization because of its similarity with
Americanization. And after Sept. 11 it has become very difficult for an
Indonesian Muslim not to feel that the U.S. is making Islam its enemy,
despite denials from Washington.
Nevertheless, Indonesia cannot afford to antagonize the U.S. Without
becoming a yes-man to U.S. policies, Indonesia should follow what can be
called the sophistication of our traditional, active and independent foreign
policy.
U.S. foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights is in accord
with Indonesian values as formulated in Pancasila, the basic state
philosophy. We also want democracy in which the people are the holders of
sovereignty, although the system does not need to be the same as that in the
U.S.
Human rights was already a basic objective for Indonesia since the
declaration of Pancasila in 1945. That the U.S. in its war against terrorism
wants Indonesia to be active in eliminating terrorism in Indonesia does not
contradict our interests either. We also do not want our country to be used
as an operations arena or a training ground for all kinds of terrorist
elements.
This country encountered terrorism long before the U.S.: During the struggle
against the Dutch colonial power in the late 1940s we had to endure acts of
terror by Dutch forces or Dutch-supported forces. Later came terrorism by
Darul Islam rebels in the 1950s, followed in the late 1950s by
foreign-supported acts of terror during the PRRI/Permesta rebellion against
Jakarta.
More than once was first president Sukarno's life endangered by terrorism.
We have therefore had enough of terrorism and should thus not hesitate to
take action against terrorism and also prepare the necessary legal
framework.
But Indonesia must also be able to reject or disagree with U.S. policies and
intentions that are not in line with our interests and principles. The
rejection of U.S. intentions to attack Iraq militarily, recently announced
by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is the right attitude. Because Indonesia
cannot condone the use of violence in international relations, except in
self-defense, even by a superpower.
We must also beware of any U.S. endeavors to play Indonesia off against
other nations that are considered by the U.S. as rogue nations or do not
have U.S. favor.
Indonesia's relations with the U.S. should enable us to improve and enhance
our progress and prosperity. We must in particular strengthen the economy of
the common people, because that should be the basic strength of our nation.
We should therefore convince U.S. policymakers to change the behavior and
policies of international financial institutions, especially the IMF and the
World Bank.
They should be committed to the original purpose of their existence, namely
to support developing countries to achieve prosperity and alleviate poverty.
We should use our relations with the U.S. to enhance the rule of law by
improving the attitude and capabilities of the police and the judiciary.
Of high importance is the improvement of education and the development of
science and technology. We must convince the U.S. that an advanced
Indonesian society does not endanger U.S. interests; as a nation with the
world's largest Muslim population Indonesia could stimulate and promote
better relations between the U.S. and Islam in general.
Relations with the U.S. should not weaken Indonesia's traditional diplomacy
in the Third World. Indonesia's progress should instead enable a more
realistic support for developing nations that face the continuous problem of
poverty.
Also, Indonesia's role in the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) should
remain strong. What Indonesia did in the early 1990s was generally
recognized as bringing many advantages to developing nations through the
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and other Third World organizations. That should
be revived and even enhanced and improved quantitatively and qualitatively.
Indonesia's role in ASEAN and other regional organizations should make them
stronger and able to play a concrete and positive role in ensuring peace and
the growth of prosperity in the region. After Indonesia became a victim of
the 1997 economic crisis not only did domestic conditions deteriorate, but
ASEAN was also weakened.
That became a source of many problems, like the expulsion of illegal
Indonesian workers in Malaysia, which could create a disruption of ASEAN.
Having said all this, one cannot deny the need for an effective and capable
national leadership. Without it, there can be no clear and positive attitude
and decision-making in foreign relations. Also there can be no action taken
to use relations with the U.S. for our progress.
In the past, an effective, independent and active foreign policy clearly
demanded strong leadership in order not to deviate from its course. This is
more true today when a sophisticated, independent and active foreign policy
should be formulated and implemented. However, there is not much of an
alternative for achieving much better conditions of the nation in the
future.