Embargo and lessons from history

By Riza Sihbudi

JAKARTA (JP): Modern political history shows that embargoes have hardly ever achieved their purposes.

An embargo is essentially a policy of political isolation by one or several countries or by international organizations towards certain countries, aimed at making the targeted countries comply with the wishes or rules determined by those issuing the embargo.

Embargoes can be economic in form, sanctions or boycotts directed at the military, diplomatic isolation or all three.

South Africa and Taiwan, for instance, survived years of embargoes in the past; the former for its apartheid policy, the latter for its dispute with the People's Republic of China which had a better international lobby.

South Africa and Taiwan have even become among the most advanced states in their respective regions.

Another example is Israel. Despite economic and political embargoes against it by most Third World countries, and also by the Soviet Union and East Europe, all of which sympathized with the struggle of the Palestinians to set up their own state, the Jewish state survived.

We also know that Israel never lost in a number of wars against its Arab neighbors. The latest case of military, political and economic embargoes towards Libya, Iraq and Serbia have shown that these countries have not become entirely flat broke despite reports of devastating effects on children.

If history has proved the failure of embargoes in achieving their aims, what is the United States' real objective with its embargo threat towards Indonesia?

There are four possible explanations.

One is that the U.S. is increasingly worried about indications of the revival of political Islam here, indicated on one hand by our closer relations with U.S. enemies such as with Iran, Iraq and Libya; and on the other hand, the considered failure of the President in establishing diplomatic ties with Israel, America's main ally, due to strong resistance from Muslims here.

As a Jew, State Secretary of Defense William Cohen must be uncomfortable with this situation. Also, a number of Jews in the cabinet of President Bill Clinton have strategic positions.

Another possibility is the U.S. disappointment with the reappointment of Sony Keraf as State Minister of Environment in Abdurrahman's reshuffled cabinet, who is seen to be "anti" U.S. in business. America also seems disappointed with the appointment of Rizal Ramli as Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs with his image of being "anti-IMF".

The third possible answer, as stated by Defense Minister Mahfud MD, is that the U.S. and its Western allies, mainly Australia and Portugal, intend to cover up their failure in handling the situation in East Timor following last August's self determination referendum.

This also relates to America's ambition to make East Timor their military base after being "thrown out" of the Philippines.

A fourth possibility is related to the conditions prior to the November presidential elections in the U.S. It has become a tradition in Uncle Sam's country that some country becomes "sacrificed" for domestic political interests.

Prior to the 1992 and 1996 polls, for instance, countries like Iraq, Libya, and Iran were sacrificed. Now it is Indonesia's turn.

Clinton cannot be reelected but his Democratic party clearly harbors ambitions to stay in the White House.

One major theme of the Democrat's campaign is "spreading values of democracy and human rights." Pressuring Indonesia seems to be part of this theme, although Israel seems exempt.

If the above assumptions are not too far from the truth, the threat of an embargo to Indonesia is clearly quite serious. And although history has never shown a country going completely broke from an embargo by the U.S., it would be too risky for Indonesia to follow the steps of Iran, Iraq or Libya in resisting the sanctions.

Apart from a fairly stronger economic basis these countries are stronger than Indonesia; their leaders have much wider political support than that enjoyed by Abdurrahman; the three countries are also relatively free of threats of disintegration.

President Abdurrahman Wahid's government has little choice but to carry out the UN resolution in earnest and engage itself in proactive diplomacy, mainly towards the five members of the Security Council -- the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China.

The eight-point resolution issued by the UN Security Council on Sept. 9 included the urging of the Indonesian government to immediately disarm and dissolve the pro-Indonesia militias of East Timor, restore law and order in East Nusa Tenggara, guarantee the safety and security in refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent infiltration across the East Timor border and bring those responsible for attacks against international personnel in East Timor and in East Nusa Tenggara to court.

The Indonesian government, the resolution said, should also guarantee significant progress towards the disarming and dissolving of the above militias.

Even without any form of sanction, Indonesia is virtually broke already.

The writer is a researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Science in Jakarta.