'Interference' furor: Out on a limb<\/p>\n
By Martin R. Jenkins<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Given that Indonesia is a nation born out of an
\nindependence struggle against Dutch colonialism, it is perhaps
\nunderstandable that the country is prone to nationalist
\nsentiments and xenophobia.<\/p>\n
For years, founding president Sukarno, pursued a policy of
\nkonfrontasi with the United States and Europe, memorably telling
\nthe West to \"go to hell\" with its aid.<\/p>\n
After Soeharto took over the reins of power, however,
\nIndonesia adopted a much more conciliatory approach in regard to
\nits bilateral relations.<\/p>\n
Soeharto's anticommunist stance went down well with the United
\nStates and assured the country of substantial financial support
\nfrom the international community, which, supported by a stable
\ndomestic political environment, paved the way for years of strong
\neconomic growth.<\/p>\n
Since the fall of Soeharto, though, strong nationalist
\nsentiments have resurfaced. The decision by the overwhelming
\nmajority of the East Timorese to vote for independence in an
\nUnited Nations-sponsored ballot and the presence of foreign
\ntroops, especially Australian, on former Indonesian soil touched
\na particularly raw nerve.<\/p>\n
At the height of the crisis, flag-burning mobs took to the
\nstreets of Jakarta, urging the government to break diplomatic
\nties with Australia. The ill feeling toward Australia has
\ncontinued until now and prevented President Abdurrahman Wahid
\nfrom accepting an invitation to visit that country this year.<\/p>\n
Besides Australia, Indonesia's bilateral relations with the
\nUnited States also have soured. Strong U.S. criticism of the
\nslaying of three UN workers in West Timor by pro-Jakarta militia
\nmembers and forthright comments by U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia
\nRobert Gelbard on a number of issues have ruffled feathers in
\nJakarta.<\/p>\n
Certain prominent Indonesian politicians played the
\nnationalist card and called for the ambassador to be expelled.<\/p>\n
Relations reached a low following rising anger over Israel's
\nbrutal crackdown on Palestinians, which the U.S. was seen as
\nsupporting.<\/p>\n
In Surakarta, extremists searched hotels for U.S. citizens,
\ninsisting they leave the country or \"face the consequences\". The
\nU.S. Embassy in Jakarta closed to the public for over a week on
\nfears of what it called a \"credible\" terrorist threat.<\/p>\n
But are the U.S. and Australia really to blame for the
\ndeterioration of their bilateral relations with Indonesia?<\/p>\n
The problems seem to center on Indonesia's sacred principal
\nthat foreigners must not \"interfere\" in Indonesia's internal
\naffairs. Any suggestion that a foreign party is \"interfering\" in
\nthe nation's domestic affairs, and therefore \"undermining the
\nnation's sovereignty\", seems certain to trigger a jingoistic
\nbacklash in this country.<\/p>\n
Gelbard, for example, was heavily criticized for comments he
\nmade in relation to the failure of the Indonesian government to
\nsettle a claim with the Overseas Private Investment Corp., as
\nwell as for suggesting that foreign terrorist groups were
\nattempting to establish themselves in the country, and also for
\nsaying that the disarmament process in West Timor was proceeding
\ntoo slowly.<\/p>\n
But do these comments really constitute \"interference\" in the
\naffairs of Indonesia? Does not a democracy mean that anyone (even
\nforeigners) has the right to say things that the government does
\nnot agree with?<\/p>\n
If the government does not like the comments a foreign
\ndiplomat makes, then would it not be sufficient for it to simply
\nrebuff them? After all, at the end of the day, it is only the
\ngovernment which has the power to form domestic policy. Foreign
\ndiplomats can only make their opinions known.<\/p>\n
The government should learn to react proportionally to
\ncriticism rather than to become embroiled in a bitter war of
\nwords. In the case of an outspoken diplomat, such as Gelbard, the
\nbest policy would be simply to make a considered response to his
\ncomments rather than to succumb to nationalist sentiments and
\naccuse him of \"interference\" in domestic affairs.<\/p>\n
Take Singapore, for instance. Although this country has a huge
\nnumber of foreign workers and has attracted many foreign
\nbusinesses, it never panders to petty nationalism and rarely
\naccuses foreigners of \"interference\" in domestic affairs.<\/p>\n
It should also be realized that it is impossible for foreign
\ninstitutions to have a presence in Indonesia and not \"interfere\"
\nin the country's affairs. Was the International Monetary Fund not
\n\"interfering\" when it threatened to halt the disbursement of
\nloans unless the Bank Bali scandal was resolved? (Not that it
\never was, of course.)<\/p>\n
What about the economic programs of the IMF, such as the
\nprivatization of state-owned enterprises? Although key issues
\nlike these are just as political as economic in nature, the IMF
\nhas so far managed to avoid being accused of \"interference\".<\/p>\n
Similarly, foreign firms are also liable to \"interfere\" in the
\nnation's domestic affairs. Is a foreign cigarette company, for
\ninstance, not \"interfering\" when it lobbies the government over
\nexcise tax rates? Is a foreign mining company that exploits the
\nnation's resources, causes environmental damage and upsets the
\ntraditional way of life of the local population guilty of
\n\"interfering\" in Indonesia's domestic affairs? If so, then why is
\nthe Indonesian government so keen to persuade foreign companies
\nto invest here?<\/p>\n
Perhaps because it has little choice. Given the dire state of
\nthe Indonesian economy, the reality is that Indonesia is heavily
\ndependent on foreign loans and investment. Just to absorb the 30
\npercent to 40 percent of the workforce currently underemployed or
\nunemployed, as well as the massive 3 percent annual growth in the
\nworkforce, the economy needs to grow at least 8 percent per year.<\/p>\n
Indonesia therefore has nothing to gain from deteriorating
\nbilateral relations, especially with the U.S., one of Indonesia's
\nkey trading partners and which carries such substantial weight
\nwith international institutions such as the IMF and the World
\nBank.<\/p>\n
This does not mean that Indonesia should not speak out when it
\nthinks it has to. But it would be good if nationalist and
\nxenophobic sentiments were confined to where they belong: the
\nrubbish bin.<\/p>\n
The writer is a consultant with a private company in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/interference-furor-out-on-a-limb-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }