'Interference' furor: Out on a limb

'Interference' furor: Out on a limb

By Martin R. Jenkins

JAKARTA (JP): Given that Indonesia is a nation born out of an
independence struggle against Dutch colonialism, it is perhaps
understandable that the country is prone to nationalist
sentiments and xenophobia.

For years, founding president Sukarno, pursued a policy of
konfrontasi with the United States and Europe, memorably telling
the West to "go to hell" with its aid.

After Soeharto took over the reins of power, however,
Indonesia adopted a much more conciliatory approach in regard to
its bilateral relations.

Soeharto's anticommunist stance went down well with the United
States and assured the country of substantial financial support
from the international community, which, supported by a stable
domestic political environment, paved the way for years of strong
economic growth.

Since the fall of Soeharto, though, strong nationalist
sentiments have resurfaced. The decision by the overwhelming
majority of the East Timorese to vote for independence in an
United Nations-sponsored ballot and the presence of foreign
troops, especially Australian, on former Indonesian soil touched
a particularly raw nerve.

At the height of the crisis, flag-burning mobs took to the
streets of Jakarta, urging the government to break diplomatic
ties with Australia. The ill feeling toward Australia has
continued until now and prevented President Abdurrahman Wahid
from accepting an invitation to visit that country this year.

Besides Australia, Indonesia's bilateral relations with the
United States also have soured. Strong U.S. criticism of the
slaying of three UN workers in West Timor by pro-Jakarta militia
members and forthright comments by U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia
Robert Gelbard on a number of issues have ruffled feathers in
Jakarta.

Certain prominent Indonesian politicians played the
nationalist card and called for the ambassador to be expelled.

Relations reached a low following rising anger over Israel's
brutal crackdown on Palestinians, which the U.S. was seen as
supporting.

In Surakarta, extremists searched hotels for U.S. citizens,
insisting they leave the country or "face the consequences". The
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta closed to the public for over a week on
fears of what it called a "credible" terrorist threat.

But are the U.S. and Australia really to blame for the
deterioration of their bilateral relations with Indonesia?

The problems seem to center on Indonesia's sacred principal
that foreigners must not "interfere" in Indonesia's internal
affairs. Any suggestion that a foreign party is "interfering" in
the nation's domestic affairs, and therefore "undermining the
nation's sovereignty", seems certain to trigger a jingoistic
backlash in this country.

Gelbard, for example, was heavily criticized for comments he
made in relation to the failure of the Indonesian government to
settle a claim with the Overseas Private Investment Corp., as
well as for suggesting that foreign terrorist groups were
attempting to establish themselves in the country, and also for
saying that the disarmament process in West Timor was proceeding
too slowly.

But do these comments really constitute "interference" in the
affairs of Indonesia? Does not a democracy mean that anyone (even
foreigners) has the right to say things that the government does
not agree with?

If the government does not like the comments a foreign
diplomat makes, then would it not be sufficient for it to simply
rebuff them? After all, at the end of the day, it is only the
government which has the power to form domestic policy. Foreign
diplomats can only make their opinions known.

The government should learn to react proportionally to
criticism rather than to become embroiled in a bitter war of
words. In the case of an outspoken diplomat, such as Gelbard, the
best policy would be simply to make a considered response to his
comments rather than to succumb to nationalist sentiments and
accuse him of "interference" in domestic affairs.

Take Singapore, for instance. Although this country has a huge
number of foreign workers and has attracted many foreign
businesses, it never panders to petty nationalism and rarely
accuses foreigners of "interference" in domestic affairs.

It should also be realized that it is impossible for foreign
institutions to have a presence in Indonesia and not "interfere"
in the country's affairs. Was the International Monetary Fund not
"interfering" when it threatened to halt the disbursement of
loans unless the Bank Bali scandal was resolved? (Not that it
ever was, of course.)

What about the economic programs of the IMF, such as the
privatization of state-owned enterprises? Although key issues
like these are just as political as economic in nature, the IMF
has so far managed to avoid being accused of "interference".

Similarly, foreign firms are also liable to "interfere" in the
nation's domestic affairs. Is a foreign cigarette company, for
instance, not "interfering" when it lobbies the government over
excise tax rates? Is a foreign mining company that exploits the
nation's resources, causes environmental damage and upsets the
traditional way of life of the local population guilty of
"interfering" in Indonesia's domestic affairs? If so, then why is
the Indonesian government so keen to persuade foreign companies
to invest here?

Perhaps because it has little choice. Given the dire state of
the Indonesian economy, the reality is that Indonesia is heavily
dependent on foreign loans and investment. Just to absorb the 30
percent to 40 percent of the workforce currently underemployed or
unemployed, as well as the massive 3 percent annual growth in the
workforce, the economy needs to grow at least 8 percent per year.

Indonesia therefore has nothing to gain from deteriorating
bilateral relations, especially with the U.S., one of Indonesia's
key trading partners and which carries such substantial weight
with international institutions such as the IMF and the World
Bank.

This does not mean that Indonesia should not speak out when it
thinks it has to. But it would be good if nationalist and
xenophobic sentiments were confined to where they belong: the
rubbish bin.

The writer is a consultant with a private company in Jakarta.