Promoting U.S.-RI partnership important: Ambassador<\/p>\n
The following is an excerpt of remarks made by the United
\nStates Ambassador to Indonesia J. Stapleton Roy at a party hosted
\nby the United States-Indonesia Society on May 10.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA: Having seen in this century the consequences of
\nwithdrawing into isolationism, we are trying to do something that
\nwe have never successfully accomplished in our history. That is,
\nto continue playing a leadership role in non-bipolar world that
\nnow lacks the stark security that marked the Cold War.<\/p>\n
We will withstand the pressures in the United States to focus
\non our domestic affairs to the detriment of our international
\nrelationship. U.S alliances in the Pacific enjoy bipartisan
\nsupport. Some of us focus on political alliances, others on
\neconomic, others on strategic, and still others on moral
\nalliances. But all of us recognize that those alliances need
\nstrengthening. The question is how to prioritize our objectives.
\nRecent developments in this region, including President Clinton's
\nvisit to Japan and Korea, illustrate that the mood in the United
\nStates is not to pull back from Asia.<\/p>\n
At the same time, we also face another challenge, which is to
\nadapt the style of our diplomacy to dealing with the more fluid
\nglobal situation that has emerged in the post-Cold War world. The
\nUnited States may be the strongest individual country both
\neconomically and militarily, but we have neither the desire nor
\nthe capability to dominate the world, and it would be foolish and
\ncostly to try to meet potential future security challenges on our
\nown. Rather, with its preeminent power, the United States is the
\nsingle country best positioned to maintain both global and
\nregional power balance that will provide the stability essential
\nfor continued growth and economic development.<\/p>\n
The United States recognizes that our military presence in
\nEast Asia is essential to maintain the region's security and
\nprosperity. As a result, President Clinton has stated that we
\nwill maintain 100,000 troops in Asia, a number roughly equal to
\nour troop presence in Europe. As an Indonesian analyst wrote in a
\nrecent article in The Jakarta Post. \"The U.S. presence is vital
\nto the maintenance of a minimum balance of power in the region.
\nIn that sense, the U.S. military presence is not a temporary
\nphenomenon, but a fundamental part of the strategic development
\nof the Asia-Pacific in the future...\"<\/p>\n
The United States has the will and resources to play a
\nconfidence-building role, but we are not, nor do we aspire to be,
\npolicemen. We seek a close, collaborative relationship and
\npeaceful engagement with all Asian-Pacific powers, not the
\nestablishment of sentry posts.<\/p>\n
To play this role effectively in the post-Cold War world, the
\nUnited States must pursue a form of enlightened pragmatism that
\navoids the extremes either of sanctimonious moralism or cynical
\nrealpolitik that does not suit the American character. Ideals and
\nprinciple must be related to our longer term goals, and not used
\nas restrictive tests for the practical measures that will
\nmaximize our ability to foster the trends most compatible with
\nour interests.<\/p>\n
Secondly, we need to give greater attention to the problems
\nand challenges faced by developing countries. During the Cold
\nWar, our paramount security concerns provided the underpinning
\nfor our close relationship with developing economies such as the
\nRepublic of Korea and Taiwan whose domestic political systems
\nwere repressive and authoritarian. With our relationship
\nstabilized in this fashion, the rapid economic growth in these
\neconomies, sustained over three decades or more, helped spawn
\npolitical transformation that made their political systems more
\ncompatible with American values.<\/p>\n
In the post-Cold War world, however, security arguments are
\nless compelling as the basis for tolerating the systemic
\ninadequacies that characterize much of the developing world. This
\nundercuts the U.S. ability both to stabilize our relationship
\nwith countries struggling with problems of development and to
\nplay the balancing role that our interests require during this
\npromising but potentially dangerous transitional period in world
\naffairs. With our own exceptionally stable political
\ninstitutions, we sometimes give too little attention to the
\ninterrelationship between stability and economic development that
\nlies at the heart of the development process.<\/p>\n
Thirdly, in dealing with giant developing countries such as
\nIndonesia, we need to ensure that our perspective does not become
\ndominated by too narrow viewpoints. Crises and acts of violence
\nmake headlines and shape perceptions. The United States-Indonesia
\nSociety can play an important role in promoting the broad,
\ninformed mutual understanding that must underpin long-term
\ncooperation between our two countries.<\/p>\n
Indonesia for its part also faces important challenges as it
\nlooks toward the 21st century. With the world no longer divided
\ninto the blocs that marked the Cold War, the significance of the
\nNon-Aligned Movement, in which Indonesia has played such a
\nleading role, will inevitably change, just as the military
\nalliances that helped stabilize the Cold War are facing
\nreadjustments and reexamination. While it would be premature to
\nadvocate simply discarding such tested relationships because
\ncircumstances have changed, prudent thinkers will recognize that
\nthey cannot continue in their old forms.<\/p>\n
Indonesia is well positioned for such readjustments because of
\nthe dramatic success of ASEAN in providing a focus for
\ncooperation in Southeast Asia and more broadly in the Asia-
\nPacific region. Indonesia's recent defense agreement with
\nAustralia indicates that the country's leaders are indeed
\nadapting Indonesia's diplomacy to the changing world scene. This
\nis a positive development that can pave the way for the emergence
\nof a new type of cooperative partnership between Indonesia and
\nthe United States that can promote stability and prosperity.<\/p>\n
Secondly, Indonesia faces the challenge of contributing to and
\nhelping to sustain the open global trading system without which
\nthe East Asian economic miracle would not have happened. Free and
\nopen trade among nations is in the interest of all countries,
\ndeveloping and developed alike. The United States is fully
\ncommitted to the APEC goal of free and open trade and investment
\nin the region by 2010\/2020, and President Clinton strongly
\nsupported President Soeharto's initiatives at Bogor in 1994.<\/p>\n
As Indonesia succeeds, so does the United States. Indonesia's
\ndynamism creates enormous new markets for our products. We have
\nlearned that prosperity is a two-way street; our best suppliers
\nare also our best customers. In 1995, Indonesia exported US$7.4
\nbillion worth of goods to the United States, an increase of over
\n70 percent in just three years. In the same year, the United
\nStates exported $3.3 billion to Indonesia, an increase of 20
\npercent in just one year.<\/p>\n
Indonesia's rapid economic growth has been based on the
\ncomparative advantages it enjoys in world trade: low labor costs,
\nan extraordinarily rich range of natural resources, and an
\nimportant strategic location at crossroads between two continents
\nand two oceans. Building on this strong base, Indonesia has taken
\na number of positive steps to improve its competitive position,
\nbut so have other countries. More remains to be done.<\/p>\n
The Indonesian experience has shown that the fastest way to
\nimprove economic productivity is by improving the business
\nclimate, thereby attracting both domestic and foreign investment.
\nDeregulation plays a crucial role in this process. In 1993,
\nforeign investment approvals came to only $9 billion. In 1994,
\nthe year of deregulation, investment approvals soared to $23.7
\nbillion. And last year, the government approved $39.9 billion in
\nforeign investments.<\/p>\n
Improving the transparency of government decision-making on
\neconomic and business issues is another critical element in this
\nstrategy. Investor's perceptions -- a country's reputation as a
\nplace to do business -- is a critical factor in deciding what
\nkind of business gets done -- and where.<\/p>\n
The same considerations apply to protecting intellectual
\nproperty rights. A recent International Finance Corporation
\nreport noted that improved intellectual property protection laws
\nand their effective enforcement are likely to translate into
\nsignificantly larger inflows of foreign direct investment. This
\nissue is of great importance to the United States, and we welcome
\nMinister\/State Secretary Moerdiono's recent announcement of plans
\nto intensify enforcement of existing anti-piracy laws and to
\nupdate these laws as well.<\/p>\n
Indonesia also faces a third challenge faced by all rapidly
\ngrowing countries; that is managing the social and political
\nchanges that are an inevitable and essential part of the
\ndevelopment process, while avoiding the extremes of instability
\nor repression. Strengthening the rule of law and respecting human
\nrights is a common interest of all of us. Moreover, in the modern
\nworld, countries conduct their domestic affairs in the full glare
\nof the international publicity that is an inseparable part of the
\ninformation age. Infractions of human rights, whether in East
\nTimor or in America's inner cities, attract instant attention
\naround the world and can have far reaching impacts on
\nrelationships.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/promoting-us-ri-partnership-important-ambassador-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}