Blatant intervention?
Blatant intervention?
United States Ambassador Ralph L. Boyce is at the point of
leaving Indonesia, having been reassigned to represent his
country in Thailand. The job he was assigned to fill in Indonesia
since presenting his credentials on Oct. 24, 2001, has not been
an easy one.
The traumatic events of Sept. 11 of that same year
dramatically shifted U.S. global diplomacy to combating terrorism
wherever it occurred. Obviously, Indonesia, with the largest
Muslim population in the world, has become a top priority as far
as Washington is concerned. The Bush administration is keen to
ensure that Indonesia remains a country that does not tolerate or
condone terrorism as a justified means of redressing perceived
injustices.
In this respect, it is not too early to conclude, Ambassador
Boyce has succeeded in balancing two difficult jobs. On the one
hand, he has been effective in persuading Washington that the
Islamic community in Indonesia has rich and complex traditions
that do not befit a black-and-white judgment. While on the other
hand, as the most senior U.S. representative here, he has
conveyed to Indonesian officials and leaders of the Islamic
community that the anti-terrorist sentiment is very strong, not
only in Washington but in American society as a whole.
He also managed to tactfully convey to Indonesians that it is
in the common interest of both the United States and of the
future of democracy in Indonesia to join hands with the
international community to fight terrorism around the globe.
His sense of humor and his tendency to not take himself too
seriously, his tactful dealings with officials and community
leaders -- some of whom have on occasion been infected with an
inflated sense of self-importance -- made Ambassador Boyce an
effective diplomat in enhancing the common interests of the U.S.
and Indonesia.
That is why we could not help but harbor a lingering suspicion
that the recent clamor surrounding the departing U.S. ambassador
was most probably an ingenious ploy cooked up by his dedicated
embassy staff, who did not want to see their popular and much
loved boss leave the Jakarta scene so unobtrusively.
We are, of course, referring to the wave of criticism,
sometimes expressed in strong language, accusing the U.S.
ambassador of blatantly interfering in Indonesia's judicial
dealings with the Indonesian offshoot of an American company. As
has been reported, Ambassador Boyce paid a courtesy call on
President Megawati Soekarnoputri to say farewell. He obviously
also raised the fate of some of the U.S. citizens who are
executives of the company in question.
The Indonesian litigation lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea, who is
well known for his aggressiveness, accused Ambassador Boyce of
using the leverage of the world's sole superpower to pressure the
President, presumably to ease the burden on the U.S. executives.
Looking at the list of prominent non-governmental
organizations and established litigation lawyers that have joined
together in the organization calling itself the Advocacy Team for
Concern for the People's Burdens, we wonder whether these
educated people realize that one of the main tasks of a
diplomatic representative is to protect the rights and the safety
of his or her country's citizens.
If Ambassador Boyce should happen to allude to the fact that
the problems facing PT Newmont Minahasa Raya could affect the
investment climate in Indonesia, that statement should not be
taken as a threat, but rather as a straightforward remark
concerning the realities of international business.
We believe that the Buyat Bay case, in which Newmont Minahasa
Raya is the only party that stands accused, is one that has many
aspects. In time, everything will surely be cleared up.
In the meantime, we wish Ambassador Ralph Boyce and Mrs.
Katherine Boyce selamat jalan. Ambassador Boyce can rest assured
that, either way, he will be well remembered in Indonesia.