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-