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.