Foreigners questionable agenda

Foreigners questionable agenda

By Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo

JAKARTA (JP): It is difficult for ordinary Indonesian people
to understand concern shown among foreign circles over the choice
of Indonesia's next vice president, to be elected during the
General Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) in
March.

The interest began about one month ago, when a large part of
the Western media suggested that Indonesia should refrain from
electing Dr. B.J. Habibie as the next vice president. He is
viewed as a big spender and a danger for foreign investment. Even
parochial local newspapers in the U.S., which rarely print news
on Indonesia, took part in the character assassination.

Then came a statement made by former Singapore prime minister
Lee Kuan Yew, who suggested the same without mentioning Habibie
by name. A former U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, Paul Wolfowitz,
also jumped on the bandwagon, airing criticisms in an interview
with The Jakarta Post.

It is difficult to believe that all these statements are made
independent of some political agenda. They are allied to a
political interest that is opposed, not to Habibie personally,
but to what he represents.

Had Habibie joined a political group which wanted to recruit
him in the 1970s, he would never have fallen victim to all this
negative propaganda.

In fact, while Habibie finds himself the immediate target, the
main objective is President Soeharto himself. Again, the grudge
is borne not against Soeharto in person, but against the
domestic political paradigm over which he has presided in the
1990s.

Soeharto became unpopular within certain circles in Indonesia
and abroad, especially in the U.S., when in 1990 he endorsed the
establishment of the Association of Indonesian Moslem
Intellectuals (ICMI) with B.J. Habibie as its chairman. He was
accused of initiating an institution that would enable Moslems to
gain broader influence in Indonesian society.

Prior to that, the Indonesian New Order government had always
minimized the role of Islam. Especially when the late Ali
Moertopo and his OPSUS group, assisted by a well known think
tank, still held influence with the President.

We can assume that groups in Indonesia which oppose the new
paradigm in domestic politics have been successful in influencing
foreign public opinion. Or, foreign political interests that
disagree with the new line of thinking in Indonesia has called
upon allies in Indonesia to do something about it.

Since 1993 there have been a number of attempts to topple
Soeharto. Public opinion has also been manipulated to create an
impression that the Indonesian people were in favor of Soeharto
stepping down.

But it is doubtful whether the people who want to topple
Soeharto would continue to declare opposition to him if Soeharto
still followed their desire to minimize the influence of Islam in
civic society. If this were the case, they would want to see
Soeharto remain in power for as long as possible.

All efforts to topple Soeharto failed until the monetary
crisis struck. For the opposition, the crisis provided a timely
opportunity to try once again, in the run up to the General
Session of the MPR which begins in March.

Why is there so much opposition to broad Moslem participation
in Indonesia? That Moslems are in the majority in Indonesian
society cannot be denied. An advanced and prosperous Indonesia
without advancement for the Moslems cannot be envisaged.
Indonesia can only become prosperous if the majority of its
people progress materially and educationally.

Furthermore, a well educated Moslem community will give rise
to more Moslem moderates, which in turn will advance the cause of
democracy in Indonesia because the Moslem community, particularly
moderate Moslem intellectuals, are in favor of democracy.

A moderate and educated Moslem community will show greater
tolerance toward other religious groups and the outside world in
general. Many positive consequences will result, including the
disappearance of latent anti-Chinese sentiment.

An Indonesia with an advanced Moslem community will be more
stable and therefore become a better partner in political,
economic and security issues. It is therefore difficult to
understand why people like Lee Kuan Yew and Wolfowitz do not
favor advancement for the Moslem ummah in Indonesia, although
they have not explicitly said as much.

If Moslem participation is kept to a minimum, as it was in
colonial times, extremists will take center stage among the
Moslem community and fundamentalism will rise. Tolerance will be
replaced by extremism and hostility toward other religious
groups, especially those favored by the government.

Resent of the Chinese minority will remain strong, especially
if the gap between rich and poor remains large. These are not the
conditions in which democracy can develop, but are fertile beds
for violence and social disturbance. Is that what people like Lee
Kuan Yew and Wolfowitz want for Indonesia?

A more advanced Indonesia will be a more favorable country for
foreign companies to invest in than a socially troubled
Indonesia. International trade, including the import of Western
products, will grow steadily in a stable and prosperous
Indonesia. That will favor the U.S. economy given the huge
potential market that lies dormant in Indonesia.

But of course, a stronger Indonesia, with the majority of its
people united, will be more independent and less likely to
succumb easily to foreign pressures. Is such an Indonesia
unacceptable for the U.S. and Singapore?

If that is the case then we have to agree with the late
president Sukarno who believed that Indonesia did not face
"peaceful co-existence and mutual respect" among nations, but
instead met "neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism" at every turn.

The writer is a retired general and a former Governor of the
National Resilience Institute. He is now an Ambassador at Large
to the Non-Aligned Movement.