Challenges to future Indonesia-U.S. ties

Challenges to future Indonesia-U.S. ties

By Jusuf Wanandi

JAKARTA (JP): The relations between the United States and
Indonesia have been going through a rough ride over the last six
months or so. This has been partly due to some bilateral problems
and sometimes to misunderstandings, including those between U.S.
Ambassador Robert Gelbard and some high ranking Indonesian
officials, including the Speaker of the People's Consultative
Assembly Amien Rais, Minister of Defense Mahfud MD and a number
of legislators.

To put the relationship in its proper perspective and,
therefore, to create more professional and more friendly
relations, now is a timely opportunity to consider a new
relationship and the future ties between the two countries. Some
suggestions would be useful here to improve relations.

It has always been argued that the two countries have many
fundamental differences, such as those regarding their
ideologies, political systems, stages of development and their
international relations.

However, the bilateral relationship has been relatively stable
over the last 30 years or so because of the Cold War, the
importance of Indonesia in the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations, which is the lynchpin of U.S. relations in Southeast Asia,
as well as in the nonaligned movement. As Indonesia becomes an
important emerging economy, the attraction of Indonesia to the
U.S. as a potential economic partner has further increased.

While some aspects of these bilateral relations have been
maintained, changes have taken place because of the end of the
Cold War, the economic crisis of 1997 and Indonesia's fundamental
political reforms designed to turn the country into a democracy.
The end of the Cold War made the bilateral relationship less
important for the U.S. strategically, because the ideological
divide has been removed and the U.S. has won out against the
former Soviet Union and communism in general.

Now the U.S. places greater emphasis on her real national
interests, which include expanding democratic concepts, human
rights values, and the liberal capitalist economic system (the
market system) throughout the world.

In this respect, Indonesia's transformation into a democratic
country has added a new rationale for the U.S. to pay greater
attention to Indonesia, being the world's fourth largest
democracy and a developing nation with a Muslim majority.

As such, Indonesia's success as a democracy will become a
model of political development for large developing nations in
the future.

In the first six months of his term, President Abdurrahman
Wahid has become a model of an Islamic leader who exercises his
influence for bringing about moderation and tolerance in
religious affairs. Therefore, he has become very popular in the
U.S.

However, that enthusiasm has gradually diminished among U.S.
leaders because of the inability of the Indonesian government,
and the President in particular, to deliver effective and good
government and governance.

The economic crisis has limited Indonesia's ability to exert
influence and deliver on her leadership in ASEAN, which taken as
a whole is also in crisis. This has reduced ASEAN's influence and
role in the various regional institutions it had earlier
initiated, supported and led, such as the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation forum and the ASEAN Regional Forum. In turn, this has
also reduced Indonesia's influence in the region, and therefore
it has become less important for the U.S.

On the other hand, due to the economic crisis Indonesia will
depend much more on the U.S., which as the only remaining
superpower is critically important for continued overseas
development aid and foreign direct investment flows into
Indonesia, because of her influence on other developed nations,
international financial institutions and international
businesses.

The bottom line is that now Indonesia needs the U.S. more than
before, especially in regard to achieving successful economic
restructuring, a prerequisite to sustained economic recovery and
to achieving political stability.

Strategically speaking, the U.S. presence in East Asia is also
very important. This presence in the region ensures a balance of
forces that will help maintain regional peace and stability. This
has contributed to the economic dynamism of East Asia over the
last 30 years and provides another good reason for maintaining a
healthy bilateral relationship with the U.S.

But this is not happening now because some of our officials
and representatives, as well as other leaders, behave as if we
don't need the U.S. at all. Even worse, there is the belief that
the U.S. is trying to subvert Indonesia in order to prevent her
from becoming a great nation. That is a very mistaken notion and
should be corrected soon before more damage is done to the
relationship and to Indonesia.

Ambassador Gelbard is not a specialist on East Asia or
Indonesia, but he is well meaning and his heart is in the right
place for supporting Indonesia.

His direct ways and his tendency to air some of his opinions
and frustrations in public, could sometimes create a problem. But
if Indonesians consider bilateral U.S.-Indonesia relations to be
critically important for Indonesia, than we should be able to
overcome those personal idiosyncrasies and educate the Ambassador
about our more indirect and personal ways.

We will only hurt the relationship if we act immaturely, such
as demanding that the envoy be declared persona non grata, and
demonstrate in front of the Embassy every time he says something
that might be considered as an insult, however true this might
be.

On some specific issues, such as the matter of the Independent
Power Producers when he became too overbearing and biased, we
should let him know as a friend that he needs to change his
attitude and his rhetoric. He can make mistakes as we too can
make mistakes. As a friend we should be able to overcome this in
a civilized way. And since we are not a banana republic, we must
be able to do that.

It should be recognized that the problem of Palestine versus
Israel has complicated the bilateral relationship with the U.S.,
because the U.S. is seen as defending Israel at all costs.

In particular, the excessive use of force by Israel over the
last month has created much revulsion among the Indonesian
population, particularly the Muslim community, and has created a
very strong emotional reaction which has also been targeted at
the U.S..

Indonesian public opinion has always been pro-Palestinian
because they are defending their right of self-determination and
because they are the underdogs.

This has not been the concern of the Muslim community alone.
While this complication is a fact, it should be decoupled from
our bilateral relations with the U.S.. How this can be done will
depend very much on the Indonesian leaders and on the policies of
the U.S. government concerning the Palestine question, which
should be more evenhanded.

In any case, the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and
Indonesia is of critical importance to Indonesia, and it should
be improved by establishing a clear view of its objectives and
the ways in which these may be achieved. This is not only a
concern of the government and legislature, but also of the public
and civil society organizations in particular.

Therefore, a public discourse on the future relations between
the U.S. and Indonesia should be started in an extensive and
responsible way through the media as well as through public
education activities such as conferences, seminars and lectures.

The writer is Chairman of Supervisory Board of the Centre for
Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta.