Discourse on Israel ties

Discourse on Israel ties

President Abdurrahman Wahid has created a political minefield
for himself by announcing that he is forging ahead with plans to
open commercial ties with Israel. While Abdurrahman, a noted
Muslim scholar, thrived on controversy before he became head of
state, this issue is so complex and loaded with emotion that he
should tread with greater care.

Abdurrahman's proposal, disclosed only a day after he was
elected President on Oct. 21, is a significant departure from
Indonesia's traditional policy toward the Jewish state. Rather
than rushing to incorporate commercial ties with Israel into his
administration's foreign policy, he first should allow public
discourse on the issue to secure widespread public support. He
certainly cannot pursue a foreign policy that does not enjoy
popular support.

In the past, principle and a dose of pragmatism have guided
Indonesia's foreign policy. The preamble to the Constitution and
the 10 Bandung Principles underscored the country's active and
independent foreign policy since its independence in 1945.
Pragmatism, or national interests, determined policy priorities.

These principles led Indonesia to remain nonaligned throughout
much of the Cold War and to forge solidarity with developing
countries in various international fora. With pragmatism,
particularly in trade and investment matters, Indonesia
cultivated mutually beneficial ties with major Western countries,
including the United States. The combination of principle and
pragmatism also has allowed Indonesia to pursue its one-China
policy while at the same time enjoying a brisk trade with Taiwan.

While one cannot resist making the analogy with Taiwan, any
ties with Israel, including commercial, cannot simply be
explained by principle and pragmatism alone, as Abdurrahman has
attempted to do. Any move toward the Jewish state will trigger
the emotions of some Muslims in the country, who see this as a
religious issue.

In crafting their Middle East policy, Abdurrahman and Minister
of Foreign Affairs Alwi Shihab should take into account the
feelings of the people; winning the academic debate, a tall order
in itself, is not sufficient.

Abdurrahman and Alwi, both prominent scholars, have
constructed their argument for trade ties with Israel on three
premises. First, commercial ties with Israel will allow Indonesia
to reach out to major American corporations, most of which they
say are controlled by Jews. Second, ties with Israel will let
Indonesia play a more direct and active role in the Middle East
peace process. Third, Indonesia has full diplomatic relations
with China, as it did with the Soviet Union, a communist giant
which tramples religion. Abdurrahman contends that if religious
principles guided foreign policy, then Indonesia should have ties
with Israel, which respects religion, and not with China.

The President has not yet won the academic debate. Far from
it, since we are still in the early stages of this particular
discourse. His detractors say the plan to open commercial ties
with Israel violates the principles that have guided Indonesia's
foreign policy in the past. They doubt whether trade ties with
Israel would give Indonesia significantly greater access to
American corporations, and they question whether Indonesia could
become an effective player in the Middle East peace process.

The biggest challenge facing the government, however, is in
winning the emotional debate. This will take time, and patience
and perseverance are of the utmost importance. The President
cannot ignore public opinion, particularly with an issue as
emotional as this one.

With the President determined to proceed rapidly, the debate
over his plan to open trade ties with Israel will intensify,
sapping much of the nation's attention and energy. The question
is whether we can afford this at a time when there are other,
more pressing problems facing the country. Abdurrahman and Alwi
have spent a great deal of their time since assuming their
positions explaining their Israeli plan. The country already is
consumed by the issue, ignoring other urgent problems which
deserve our attention.

In the past, the visionary Abdurrahman often was criticized
for being too ahead of his time on a number of issues. Whether
his plan to open commercial ties with Israel falls into this
category, the best course the President can pursue at this stage
is to encourage public discourse and move forward only once he
has received the public's approval.