Indonesia: Moving from openness to the winds of reform

Indonesia: Moving from openness to the winds of reform

By Yenni Djahidin

WASHINGTON (JP): Paul Wolfowitz, one of the most popular
American ambassadors to serve in Indonesia, is remembered most
for setting off a healthy but short-lived discourse on democracy
in his last speech before ending his term in Jakarta.

It is now more than 10 years since he left his Jakarta post,
yet Wolfowitz's Bahasa Indonesia is good, attesting to his
frequent travels to the country he loves very much.

Now dean of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Washington, D.C., he is
still involved with Indonesia, including testifying in Congress,
and closely monitors the changes taking place there.

He recently visited Indonesia to help the International Public
Institute draw up a strategy in assisting the preparations for a
free and fair general election. He said he detected strong
enthusiasm among people in anticipating a genuine and democratic
general election.

The following are excerpts of Wolfowitz's interview on various
issues, including his controversial speech 10 years ago, his
relations with Soeharto, and his opinion of President B.J.
Habibie. The core part of the interview appears on Page 1.

Question: In your last speech as ambassador in Jakarta, you talked about
keterbukaan (openness). Can you relate your ideas with the
current reformasi (reform movement)?

Answer: It was 10 years ago and obviously there is much more openness
in Indonesia now than there was then. The press freedom is
spectacular. If the process had opened up in a more gradual and
steady way, Indonesia could be, at this point today, without some
of the turmoil and some of the negative aspects. If, for example,
there are too many political parties as some people think, one
reason for that is because for 30 years there was no movement.

Soeharto used to talk a lot about dynamic stability, which was
the idea that you don't achieve stability just by standing still.
And that idea of dynamic stability, incorporated the idea that
you need to keep changing. And I think one of the problems is,
and I said it at the time 10 years ago, I thought economic
progress had been very impressive, but to continue that progress
for another 25 years, it was necessary to have a greater openness
in a political sphere as well. Unfortunately, I believe that the
events for the last 10 years have confirmed that.

Q: You often testified in Congress in favor of the Indonesian
government, so much so that you have been accused as being
Soeharto's lobbyist. How do you feel about it?

A: I didn't testify on behalf of the Indonesian government. I
testified in favor of certain American programs with the
Indonesian government. I don't think anyone had any secret about
my views, about the need for political change in Indonesia or the
need for political openness. I said it not only privately, I said
it out in the public and in the open. I believe to this day that
canceling military training for Indonesian officers is a big
mistake. It's not because I love the Indonesian government and
the Indonesian Military and think that everything they do is
right, but I believe that the training that Indonesian officers
get in the United States, for the most part, is helpful for
progress in Indonesia. That doesn't mean that you can't find
somebody who was trained in military techniques and then misused
those techniques when they went back to Indonesia.

I will give you a very concrete example. When I was in
Jakarta, I met with Minister of Information Yunus Yosfiah, who
has talked about abolishing the whole ministry and has stopped
any limitations on press freedom. And this man is a military
officer who had his first education about the press at the U.S.
Army Command and Staff College in Levenworth (Texas). He took a
course on the media and it changed his whole view on the media.
Does any human rights person believe that it would have been
better to keep that man in Indonesia and deny him a chance for
training in the United States? To me that kind is one example
that would prove the case, but there are many examples. I don't
believe that isolating Indonesia or isolating the government of
Indonesia would have been good for Indonesians. I really don't.
And I also don't believe that everything the old government did
was bad. And I think one has to be fair, one has to be balanced.
There was a lot to be criticized, I think I made the criticism
clear.

Q: What's your personal view on Soeharto?

A: I expressed it in an article I wrote in Wall Street Journal a
year ago. I called it the "Tragedy of Soeharto". I believe if 10
years ago he had dealt seriously with the issue of succession,
corruption and the need for a greater democracy and greater press
freedom, he could have prepared the way for a great change in
Indonesia and he could be a hero today. And not only for the
economic progress, but for all these things. It's a tragedy that
instead of doing those things, he allowed corruption to increase
through his children, he suppressed the attempt to develop
alternative political leadership and he tightened up on the
press, tightened up on the political parties. Everyone of those
things was a mistake.

It's tragic. I don't think Soeharto is Ferdinand Marcos, I
don't think Marcos did anything good for the Philippines. But
unfortunately, the way Soeharto had gone in the last 10 years,
he's seriously damaged his historical reputation.

Q: Have you had any contact with Soeharto since then?

A: I don't think he wants to see me. He doesn't think I was a
great supporter of Indonesia.

Q: What do you think about President B.J. Habibie?

A: (After a long pause) In my view, Habibie missed an
opportunity. I think he had an opportunity to really be known as
the man who made a new democratic system work. But to do that he
would have to step back and be like a referee in a soccer match.
You can't be a referee and be a player on the field. And he's
trying to be both. And as a result, I think, he can't do either
nearly as well.

It remains to be seen what, how this election goes and what
the Indonesian people think of him. And what they think of him is
much more important than what I think about him. But if there was
an opportunity that was lost in the past 12 months, it was the
opportunity to have a government that declares "we are a
transitional government, we have no further ambitions for public
office, our only ambition is to make this democratic process
work." I think the chances of a successful process would have
been even greater.

Q: What do you think of Habibie's policy on East Timor? Is the
government moving too fast?

A: I'm not sure it's too fast. There's no question that Indonesia
is moving in the right direction. There's no question in my mind
that Timor was significant 20 years ago in a way it completely
lost its significance today. It is not unreasonable 20 years ago
to be afraid that a so-called independent East Timor would
actually become an outpost of the Soviet Union. And after what
Indonesia had been through, you did not need a communist country
on your doorstep. But that's history. It's totally irrelevant
now. And I don't think Indonesia gains anything very much from
hanging on to East Timor. So, I sympathize with that view, but I
also believe that there's less consensus within East Timor than
the typical international press story will have you believe.
There are divisions in that society, but I'm afraid that right
now, some of the Indonesian officials and the military people
there are exacerbating those divisions instead of trying to calm
them down. But that's the issue, whether you can have an
election, a referendum in an atmosphere of a lot intimidation.
And even if real opinion is deeply divided, then you have a
question about how you deal with that.

Q: How do people in Washington view Indonesia today?

A: It depends on who you talk too. You heard what I think and I
think people who are very interested in Indonesia think as I do,
that something very important is happening there and there is a
very hopeful possibility and there's also very big danger clouds.

But, I'm afraid that most people in Washington don't think
about Indonesia very much at all. And one of the reasons for that
is the appearance that it's just another place where ethnic
groups are killing one another. So, it's indistinguishable from
Sri Lanka or, you name it, and not to mention the Balkans. And, I
believe that the view here of Indonesia will change a lot if the
process that Indonesia is heading into emerges as a real triumph
for democracy because that really gets attention here. I've seen
it happened when Mrs. Aquino became president of the Philippines;
I've seen it happened when Korea became a democracy. Even after
Korea was already democratic and Kim Dae-jung became president,
that produced a further increase in interest and attention here.
So, you could say it's a sign of success and people here like to
support success, but I also think it's a matter of common values.

There is a genuine deep belief in this country in democracy
and when people seem to be moving in that direction, there's a
genuine desire to help. And when people don't seem to be doing
much except making trouble for one another, then you lose
interest because, what can you do about it? That's the attitude.
I'm not defending it, I think it's a wrong attitude, but it's the
reality.

Q: A year ago, many foreign investors backed off from Indonesia
because of the economic and the political crises. What advice do
you give to them now?

A: I think what they think right now is "it's a very very risky
place to put your money". I would say to them, it is risky but it
could also go very well. Risk is both ways and there are
opportunities as well as risks. This is why I think the election
process is so important. It's going to determine a lot about how
people view the risks and opportunities in Indonesia. And it
could turn a very difficult situation into a very hopeful one.
One of the things that happens when people begin to see the
possibility of things turning around, even if it's still a few
years away, they start to make decisions now that make that come
true. And I think you also find a lot of Indonesian
businesspeople who would move money out of the country and bring
it back if they see stability being restored and a good political
process being developed.