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.