Indonesia-U.S. relations on a collision course?

Indonesia-U.S. relations on a collision course?

The following article is based on a paper presented by former
cabinet minister Mohammad Sadli at a recent conference in
Houston, Texas. The conference on Indonesia was sponsored by the
Asia Society and the Jakarta-based Center for Strategic and
International Studies.

HOUSTON, Texas: Are Indonesia-U.S. relations on a collision
course?

If appearances are not deceiving, this seems to be the case.

In terms of foreign policy stances, the U.S. is charging
forward and Indonesia is becoming more defensive.

President Clinton appears to prefer a "war-like posture", as
is the case with his domestic policies. He seems to feel the need
to win this war and that war.

The trouble with war gaming is that one party in any dispute
has to lose. If the disputing parties would just sit down quietly
and be willing to strike bargains, a "win-win situation" could be
created for everybody.

Indonesia and ASEAN prefer a "constructive engagement" policy
as applied to Cambodia and Myanmar, for instance. One does not
confront a contending party with a take-it-or-leave-it
proportion.

One tries to understand the other party's internal problems
and attempts to cultivate and encourage the will to reform.

The Chinese and the Indonesians are certainly willing to
reform. They realize that their future lies with an open economy
and integration into the world trading system.

They recognize that domestic prosperity will depend on
progressively unleashing the potentials of the people. It is
clear that the people must enjoy certain freedoms and the rule of
law.

But reforms must be handled so as not to jeopardize economic
and political stability. In principle everybody could easily
agree on this. Unfortunately, the West often appears to be more
impatient with the results than the affected party in Asia, be it
China or Indonesia, with respect to democracy and human rights
issues, or Japan, in connection with the opening up of its
markets.

Asia feels self-confident enough not to go overboard. For that
reason it can be expected to undertake reform for its own
perceived self-interest and at its own pace.

If the U.S. threatens economic sanctions, Asia will feel
uncomfortable because it needs the U.S. market. But at some
point, its economic pragmatism may lose out to political pride,
thus motivating Asia to adopt a more stubborn attitude.

The U.S. also risks East Asia ganging up against it in a
response to the war-like stance. The Bush administration was dead
set against Mahathir's idea of forming an East Asian Economic
Grouping because that would split the Pacific Basin right in the
middle.

Japan, the Newly Industrialized Economy nations and Indonesia
also would not like to see a confrontation and they have watered
down the original Malaysian concept, making it a "Caucus within
APEC", whatever that means.

But at least the Bush administration was not an ideological
crusader like the present administration appears to be.

Some circles in the U.S. and in Indonesia got worried recently
that the bilateral relations were being spoiled by the United
States. America's accusations that Indonesia was still violating
human rights in East Timor and in other provinces rubbed the
administration of the archipelago the wrong way. Voices from the
U.S. are still heard to be saying that workers' rights are not
properly safeguarded, leading to exploitation of employees and to
"social dumping" of labor intensive goods on foreign markets.

The Asia Society in New York, the Jakarta-based Center for
Strategic and International Studies, and the newly established
U.S.-Indonesia Society, sponsored by a few former U.S.
ambassadors in Jakarta and well-known Indonesian personalities,
such as Sumitro Djojohadikusumo and Emil Salim, have taken the
initiative to launch a campaign of public information and public
education in the United States.

This will be a year-long commitment for the Asia Society,
while the new U.S.-Indonesia Society will find it a continuing
preoccupation.

The idea is that the American public, the press and ultimately
the decision makers should not only be influenced by what they
know about East Timor and the alleged abuses of human and
workers' rights, but should also take into fuller account the
more positive aspects of Indonesia's existence. This view should
include its role in the Asia-Pacific region, seen in terms of
economic, political, as well as security, interests.

The U.S., in its ideological zeal, would like to see East Asia
full of democratic societies in the image of itself.

In this respect, Indonesia has to remember that about 50 years
ago the U.S. pressed the Dutch to negotiate with the Indonesians
rather than fighting a war. The threat of withholding Marshall
Plan Aid was dangled in the face of the Dutch if they did not
comply.

The Indonesians were then thankful for this American (and
Australian) political support. Now, both the U.S. and Australia
are trying to persuade the Jakarta government to modify some of
its policies with respect to East Timor, the union movement and
others.

This time around, we may not like the intervention and feel
the need to cry foul because of perceived undue interference in
domestic affairs. But at the end of the day we must keep our
heads cool and see things in a wider perspective.

We will then be able to answer the Americans that we have no
quarrel about the ultimate objectives, but couldn't they do this
in another style, a style more engaging, more educative and more
working with incentives, that is, dangling a carrot rather than
swinging a big stick?

Thoughtful American friends counsel their Indonesian friends
not to overreact to brash American political gestures because the
latter may be the preferred style of some politicians in
Washington.

The quieter, behind doors diplomacy should continue thrashing
out accommodations through which both parties stand to gain.

Indonesia emphasizes South-South cooperation as an important
means for helping each other in economic development, and
creating peace among developing countries.

On the other hand, Indonesia also recognizes that North-South
cooperation is equally important because developing countries
need a lot of resource transfer for that development.

The Asia-Pacific cooperation scheme is a North-South
proposition, and that is why Indonesia is favorably disposed
towards APEC.

If the leaders of APEC can understand each other, respect each
other's feelings, and are willing to chip in for the common good,
the APEC leadership meetings may become the cornerstone of a
peaceful and prosperous Asia-Pacific community.

-30-