Embargo and lessons from history

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.