Foreign interference

Foreign interference

After testifying in the U.S. Congress on Jan. 30, I gave an
interview to a reporter from The Jakarta Post, repeating some of
the points in my testimony. I was surprised to find those
comments criticized by my friend General Sayidiman in a column in
these pages a few days ago.

I sympathize with General Sayidiman's concern about foreign
interference in Indonesia's affairs. I do not like foreign
interference in the affairs of my country either. However, we
live in an interdependent world. As long as the United States,
for example, depends heavily on borrowing from Japan and other
countries for the healthy functioning of the American economy,
Americans cannot ignore the views of Japanese investors about the
stability of our economy and political system.

Indonesia is even more dependent, particularly now, on the
confidence of foreign investors in Indonesia's economic
management and the prospects of economic recovery in Indonesia.
And Indonesia also must rely on the decisions that foreign
legislators make about committing the tax dollars of their
citizens to support Indonesia's economic recovery. That is why
the House Banking Committee of the U.S. Congress was holding
hearings and why I testified there in support of U.S. assistance
to the countries of East Asia.

In fact, my testimony to the U.S. Congress was regarded as
extremely positive about Indonesia and about its government. If I
had not acknowledged some of the problems that obviously exist,
my testimony would have been viewed as not credible. Members of
Congress have to answer tough questions from their voters about
what happens when U.S. taxpayer dollars go to help Indonesia.

I was happy to speak in support of such assistance because I
grew to love Indonesia during the three years that I was
fortunate to serve there as American Ambassador. Moreover, as an
American, I believe that a strong and independent Indonesia is
important for the United States -- for the stability of a
critical region of the Pacific Basin, as one of the big potential
markets of the future, and because Indonesia sets an example of
religious tolerance for the entire world.

This last point is particularly important, so I would like to
quote from what I said to the U.S. Congress:

"Indonesia has the largest Moslem population of any country in
the world... And the character of Indonesian Islam is as
important as its size. Islam as practiced in Indonesia is
moderate and extremely tolerant... As one looks around the world
today at the tragic effects of religious intolerance, I think it
becomes apparent how important it is for the country with the
world's largest Moslem population to be a model of religious
tolerance. I believe that if Indonesia can resume its impressive
economic development, its influence as a country of religious
tolerance and moderation will grow over the coming decades."

My own admiration for Indonesia is partly based on my
admiration for Indonesia's record of religious tolerance and the
open-mindedness of Indonesian Islam. In fact, as I said in a
speech 10 years ago to the Teachers' College of Muhammadiyah, "I
do not believe that one can understand Indonesia without
understanding Islam in Indonesia."

I agree strongly with General Sayidiman when he says that "A
well-educated Moslem community will give rise to more Moslem
moderates, which in turn will advance the cause of democracy in
Indonesia", and that "a moderate and educated Moslem community
will show greater tolerance toward other religious groups and the
outside world in general."

I am sorry that General Sayidiman thinks that I disagree with
him on these points, because I could not agree more strongly. In
fact, I am personally committed to helping in that process in
every way that I can.

My statements to the U.S. Congress reflect not only my
obligations as an American citizen but also my genuine concern
for Indonesia. I do not believe that Americans should make
judgments about individual personalities. Those should only be
made by Indonesians themselves, and I cautioned the Congress
against doing so. However, it is appropriate to emphasize the
importance of institutions and inclusion: institutions that are
capable of managing the great challenge facing Indonesia as it
transitions to a new generation of leaders, and inclusion of all
elements of society in facing the dangerous economic crisis that
confronts the country today.

That is why I urged the development of an Indonesian
equivalent of what might be called a "government of national
unity" and urged the government to "broaden its base of support
in a way that will allow the country to face its developing
economic crisis with as much unity as possible... by reaching
out even to critics and disaffected elements, not by narrowing
the base of government with strict tests of loyalty."

As I concluded to the House Banking Committee: "This is a tall
order, but I believe that it would go a long way toward avoiding
a calamity in a country that does not deserve one and should not
have one. There is great talent in Indonesian society and still a
broadly felt desire for social harmony. And President Soeharto
has shown in the past that he is capable of great things.

A distinguished diplomat from the Philippines told me not long
ago that one of the great differences between Ferdinand Marcos
and President Soeharto is that Marcos was despised by his people.
President Soeharto could earn his people's lasting admiration if
he can rise successfully to the challenge of the present danger."
(The full testimony can be found on the House Banking Committee
Website at http://www.house.gov/banking/13098pw.htm)

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Washington, D.C.