'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.