Indonesian foreign policy inconsistent, says expert<\/p>\n
Indonesia recently joined those countries who have condemned
\nIsrael for its troops' brutality against Palestinians. This
\nstance was adopted, however, following a period of what critics
\nsaid was official foot-dragging because of President Abdurrahman
\nWahid's reluctance. Political observer and lecturer Mochtar
\nMas'oed at the Yogyakarta-based Gadjah Mada University
\nscrutinized shortcomings in Indonesia's foreign policy.<\/p>\n
Question: Palestinian diplomats criticized the President's
\nstance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What is your opinion?<\/p>\n
The government may have really wanted to have stayed neutral
\nand not disturb the U.S.-led negotiations, surely with some
\nconsideration of the government's own interests in reaching such
\na stance. Furthermore, Gus Dur (the President) is a pluralist, so
\nit is understandable if he wished to remain neutral in the
\nPalestinian-Israeli conflict.<\/p>\n
This, of course, should be differentiated from its stance on
\nthe violence between Israeli troops and the Palestinians which
\nkilled about 150 people. The government should certainly condemn
\nIsrael for human rights violations.<\/p>\n
Indeed, Indonesia is known for inconsistencies in its foreign
\npolicy. In the 1970s, when the Arab countries slapped oil
\nembargoes against the U.S. and Netherlands, we sold the commodity
\nto the two countries in huge quantities. We took advantage of the
\nembargo. Which was why we failed to elicit Arab support over the
\nEast Timor case back then.<\/p>\n
Do you think the President was biased because of his
\nmembership of the Shimon Peres' Foundation?<\/p>\n
The foundation was actually established to promote peace
\nbetween Palestine and Israel by (disseminating the understanding)
\nthat not all Jews support Zionism.<\/p>\n
It is Gus Dur's right, as a pluralist, to join the
\norganization because of his belief that all human beings are
\nessentially the same. Besides, his record as a pluralist is
\nactually longer than his record as a politician or a president.<\/p>\n
You have said that Indonesian foreign policy is often used by
\npoliticians and the government to gain political benefit. Could
\nyou elaborate?<\/p>\n
It is undeniable that those who strongly condemn Israel have
\nhidden political motives. They (aim for) support not only from
\nMuslims in the country but also from nationalists, who consider
\nthis issue as an example of the struggle against the world's
\nconservative power.<\/p>\n
Remember that not all Palestinians are Muslim. There are
\nChristians too. We need to remind our leaders that the suffering
\nof the Palestinians is too great to be used as a mere political
\ntool.<\/p>\n
We have never separated Zionism from Judaism, a confusion
\nwhich benefits politicians.<\/p>\n
In Indonesian Muslim politics, the term Jewish is often linked
\nwith Zionism -- which is an ultranationalist ideology just like
\nthe chauvinism which existed during the Nazi period in Germany.
\nSo if we mention Jewish or Israel, there is always the negative
\nconnotation of Zionism -- which considers the Jews as a superior
\nnation. This has racialist and expansionist overtones.<\/p>\n
That this is the case may be because Indonesian Muslims
\nalready have a negative impression of the Jewish people because
\nof what the Koran says. Literal interpretation (of the Koran)
\noften casts the Jews as examples of what is bad.<\/p>\n
But there is a diversity of people in Israel, and they can't
\nall be lumped together as Zionists. There are actually groups in
\nIsrael who oppose Zionism. However, it would certainly be less
\ninteresting for politicians seeking popular support to speak
\nabout the diversity of Israelis.<\/p>\n
In the long term, it should be clear who our enemy is in this
\nregard: the Jews, Zionism or Israel? Currently we are condemning
\nthe aggressive behavior of a state which has resulted in victims.<\/p>\n
... Our protest against Israel must be really directed to
\nsupporting those victims. It must not be used to mobilize
\ndomestic political support. Such a protest must be raised against
\nany country conducting aggression.<\/p>\n
Do you share the feeling that anti-Israeli actions could
\nspread and give rise to tension between Muslims and non-Muslims?<\/p>\n
That would be strange because again, the Palestinians we are
\nstanding up for include Christians.<\/p>\n
The troublesome part of all this is the xenophobia which could
\narise in any anti-Israeli protest. This could become excessive.
\nEven though it refers mainly to anti-U.S. feeling, it could
\ndevelop into anti-any party relating to Israel.<\/p>\n
The government now depends on investors, some of whom are said
\nto support Israel.<\/p>\n
Ideally there should be a separation between our search for
\neconomic support and violations of human rights by Israel. We
\nmust condemn Israel although we should still continue our
\napproaches to international donors.<\/p>\n
It is true that many parties who have the funds and resources
\nwe need are mostly biased towards Israel. But formal and informal
\ninternational fund managers will understand if Indonesia feels it
\nneeds to denounce Israel.<\/p>\n
Gus Dur's government has stated its plan to open trade ties
\nwith Israel. What do you think?<\/p>\n
The government was right when it stated it planned trade ties
\nwith Israel. It shows that the government has the freedom to take
\nup a stance in relation to any country. It also directly
\napproached China for the same purpose.<\/p>\n
Having trade ties with a country doesn't mean we can't
\ncriticize it when it's in the wrong. Indonesia has often
\nprotested the actions of America, Britain and the Netherlands.<\/p>\n
Arab countries also have ties with Israel (as indicated) by
\nIsraeli products on sale in Arab countries.<\/p>\n
Can we separate domestic political influences from foreign
\npolicy?<\/p>\n
It is, relatively speaking, possible, but no longer so in
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
In the initial years of independence, foreign policy was used
\nas a means to defend the country's territory. Even now we do this
\nregarding the issues of Aceh, Irian Jaya and East Timor.<\/p>\n
Foreign policy has also long been used in the domestic
\nstruggle for power. (First president) Bung Karno used foreign
\npolicy to settle conflicts between himself, the army and the
\nIndonesian Communist Party by diverting attention to
\nconfrontation with Malaysia.<\/p>\n
And foreign policy has also been used to support economic
\ndevelopment; which is now being done by President Abdurrahman
\nWahid.<\/p>\n
The conclusion is that Indonesia can so far only take care of
\nits own homework, and cannot do much about the region. Bung Karno
\nused to have ambitions of remaking the world order through NEFO
\n(New Emerging Forces) and other designs.<\/p>\n
We may want to share a role in ensuring the world's peace but
\nmost of our time and energy has been used up in resolving
\ndomestic problems. (Asip A. Hasani)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesian-foreign-policy-inconsistent-says-expert-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}