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.