Corruption: An obstacle to regional security

Corruption: An obstacle to regional security

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly',
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta

The statement by Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew that
terrorist leaders are still at large in Indonesia was a big blow
to us. Now, another big blow has hit the country. The Hong Kong-
based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) recently
reported that Indonesia remains Asia's most corrupt country. PERC
ranked the country the most corrupt among 12 national economies.
On a scale of one to 10, Indonesia scored highest with a grade of
9.92.

The survey result seems to suggest the following: (a)
Indonesia is still not serious in combating corruption and
punishing corruptors; (b) the entire national legal system is in
shambles; (c) state institutions are still weak, unaccountable
and suffer from a lack of transparency; (d) there is an absence
of integrity in public administration; (e) Indonesia has failed
in poverty reduction strategies; and (f) there is a rampant lack
of awareness on the part of officials of the negative impact of
corruption.

Indonesia has long been the target of international criticism
for its corruption. The historic relationship between power and
wealth explains why corruption has been more pervasive in
Indonesia than in many other countries.

The financial crisis that severely hit us in 1997 is believed
to have been caused by mismanagement of the national economy. The
crisis also has been attributed to widespread corruption in the
forms of nepotism and cronyism and a government for hire. A clear
example is the bribery of officials to influence government
policy, judicial decisions and to obtain favored treatment by
government agencies.

The change in national leadership in 1998 from Soeharto to
B.J. Habibie was perhaps the apex of the people's fight against a
corrupt government and their demand for good governance. At that
time, corrupt leaders were replaced. People expected the change
would result in a more transparent and accountable government.
This did not happen.

A year or so following the regime change, charges of
corruption began to emerge against the new leadership. Now, under
the presidency of Megawati Soekarnoputri, Indonesia still cannot
escape international criticism because of its too high tolerance
of corruption.

There was in fact an anticorruption plan initiated by 15
countries of the Asia-Pacific region. Although non-binding, each
participating country was to identify reform priorities and
implement them, introduce strict sanctions against bribery of
public officials and money laundering and establish codes of
conduct and transparent public procurement systems.

Countries like Japan, Singapore and Vietnam endorsed the plan.
But Indonesia and China were reportedly unwilling to commit
themselves to the action plan (The Japan Times, Nov. 27, 2001).
Indonesia seems to be disregarding the possible impact of
corruption on regional stability, as well as the fact that
corruption also facilitates transnational criminal activities.

Corruption, which manifests itself as extortion, will
undermine the legitimacy of political and economic reforms, and
may even threaten democracy itself. An even more insidious side
of the corruption is its corrosive effect on regional security.
Being the region's largest country, Indonesia has always been the
focus of the strategic calculations of other regional and extra-
regional powers.

But a seemingly weak and corrupt Indonesia will certainly
result in a destabilizing domestic situation. The country will be
highly vulnerable to other crimes such as the trafficking of
drugs and people. Moreover, because citizens are the ultimate
victims of corruption, they will continue to put strong pressure
on the government to fight corruption more effectively.

The government's unresponsiveness will certainly lead to a
more aggressive public, and this can disturb domestic security
which in turn can significantly affect regional stability.

A corruption-free Indonesia is as important as its security
role in Southeast Asia. But a driving force behind its fight
against corruption seems to be nonexistent. Corruption is indeed
one of the major destabilizing elements in newly emerging
democracies such as Indonesia. Now we face the challenges of
reform simultaneously with the problems of organized crime and
corruption.

Insecurity is growing here because the state is perceived to
be unable to perform properly basic functions such as justice,
policing or even defense, which may also contribute to regional
instability.

Thus, regional stability and welfare cannot be seen in
isolation of domestic security. If the situation here worsens due
to continued corruption and, because of this, weakened and eroded
state institutions, Indonesia will be seen by organized criminals
in Southeast Asia as being a safe haven for illegal regional
networks for illegal activities.

Southeast Asia will also witness that a weak Indonesia is
likely to be new source of regional instability. This would lead
to an erosion in the regional confidence that Indonesia is
performing a pivotal role in regional security. Southeast Asia
also would witness a movement toward building regional anti-
corruption agenda and plans.

Indonesia will not be able to escape being the target of
regional cooperation in the fight against corruption; and we will
also be accused of being a source of friction in regional
multilateral relations, hence hindering regional efforts toward
confidence-building measures.

There have been regional and international meetings on
corruption. But fighting corruption requires sustained activity
by governments inside their borders and, increasingly, in
cooperation with other governments.

If Indonesia does not do anything, it will lose any
competitive advantage it has against other countries. Corruption
weakens Indonesia's ability to enhance international and regional
diplomacy and compete in the world's marketplace.

The rule of law and anticorruption initiatives should now be
the key elements of our foreign policy, so that confidence in
government institutions can be promoted.