JP/6/SAYIDIM

JP/6/SAYIDIM

Indonesia needs to adjust attitude toward U.S.
OR
Indonesia cannot afford to antagonize the U.S.

Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo
Former Governor
National Resilience Institute
(Lemhannas)
Jakarta

There are three important events in history that necessitate
reevaluation of the relations between Indonesia and the United
States. The first event is the end of the Cold War with the
victory of the U.S. and the end of the Soviet superpower. Second
is the East Asian economic crisis of 1997 and the subsequent
resignation of president Soeharto in 1998. And the third is the
Sept. 11 tragedy and the start of the U.S. war against terrorism.

Since the defeat of the Soviet superpower, the U.S. has become
the world's only superpower regarding its military, technology
and scientific advances.

Although no hegemony will last forever, as with the
termination of British supremacy in World War II, we can expect
that the U.S. power will remain at least for the next quarter of
a century. Alternative superpowers such as China and Japan are
unlikely in the next decade.

Indonesia has to face that fact and adjust her attitude
accordingly. On the other side there is a growing uneasiness and
even resentment among many Indonesians watching and experiencing
the arrogance in U.S. behavior after becoming the only
superpower.

Moreover, the double standards demonstrated so often in U.S.
diplomacy makes it more difficult to maintain the same relations
with Americans like we had in the 1950s and 1960s.

The role of the U.S. in the operations of the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank has aggravated the bitterness
among many Indonesians toward the U.S. The international
financial institutions that are supposed to support developing
countries to achieve prosperity, and especially to help countries
troubled by economic crisis, are instead hampering them with
policies that only favor the U.S., and in particular the
interests of big capital.

That makes many suspicious of globalization because of its
similarity with Americanization. And after Sept. 11 it has become
very difficult for an Indonesian Muslim not to feel that the U.S.
is making Islam its enemy, despite denials from Washington.

Nevertheless, Indonesia cannot afford to antagonize the U.S.
Without becoming a yes-man to U.S. policies, Indonesia should
follow what can be called the sophistication of our traditional,
active and independent foreign policy.

U.S. foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights
is in accord with Indonesian values as formulated in Pancasila,
the basic state philosophy. We also want democracy in which the
people are the holders of sovereignty, although the system does
not need to be the same as that in the U.S.

Human rights was already a basic objective for Indonesia since
the declaration of Pancasila in 1945. That the U.S. in its war
against terrorism wants Indonesia to be active in eliminating
terrorism in Indonesia does not contradict our interests either.
We also do not want our country to be used as an operations arena
or a training ground for all kinds of terrorist elements.

This country encountered terrorism long before the U.S.:
During the struggle against the Dutch colonial power in the late
1940s we had to endure acts of terror by Dutch forces or Dutch-
supported forces. Later came terrorism by Darul Islam rebels in
the 1950s, followed in the late 1950s by foreign-supported acts
of terror during the PRRI/Permesta rebellion against Jakarta.

More than once was first president Sukarno's life endangered
by terrorism. We have therefore had enough of terrorism and
should thus not hesitate to take action against terrorism and
also prepare the necessary legal framework.

But Indonesia must also be able to reject or disagree with
U.S. policies and intentions that are not in line with our
interests and principles. The rejection of U.S. intentions to
attack Iraq militarily, recently announced by our Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, is the right attitude. Because Indonesia cannot
condone the use of violence in international relations, except in
self-defense, even by a superpower.

We must also beware of any U.S. endeavors to play Indonesia
off against other nations that are considered by the U.S. as
rogue nations or do not have U.S. favor.

Indonesia's relations with the U.S. should enable us to
improve and enhance our progress and prosperity. We must in
particular strengthen the economy of the common people, because
that should be the basic strength of our nation. We should
therefore convince U.S. policymakers to change the behavior and
policies of international financial institutions, especially the
IMF and the World Bank.

They should be committed to the original purpose of their
existence, namely to support developing countries to achieve
prosperity and alleviate poverty. We should use our relations
with the U.S. to enhance the rule of law by improving the
attitude and capabilities of the police and the judiciary.

Of high importance is the improvement of education and the
development of science and technology. We must convince the U.S.
that an advanced Indonesian society does not endanger U.S.
interests; as a nation with the world's largest Muslim population
Indonesia could stimulate and promote better relations between
the U.S. and Islam in general.

Relations with the U.S. should not weaken Indonesia's
traditional diplomacy in the Third World. Indonesia's progress
should instead enable a more realistic support for developing
nations that face the continuous problem of poverty.

Also, Indonesia's role in the Organization of Islamic
Countries (OIC) should remain strong. What Indonesia did in the
early 1990s was generally recognized as bringing many advantages
to developing nations through the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and
other Third World organizations. That should be revived and even
enhanced and improved quantitatively and qualitatively.

Indonesia's role in ASEAN and other regional organizations
should make them stronger and able to play a concrete and
positive role in ensuring peace and the growth of prosperity in
the region. After Indonesia became a victim of the 1997 economic
crisis not only did domestic conditions deteriorate, but ASEAN
was also weakened.

That became a source of many problems, like the expulsion of
illegal Indonesian workers in Malaysia, which could create a
disruption of ASEAN.

Having said all this, one cannot deny the need for an
effective and capable national leadership. Without it, there can
be no clear and positive attitude and decision-making in foreign
relations. Also there can be no action taken to use relations
with the U.S. for our progress.

In the past, an effective, independent and active foreign
policy clearly demanded strong leadership in order not to deviate
from its course. This is more true today when a sophisticated,
independent and active foreign policy should be formulated and
implemented. However, there is not much of an alternative for
achieving much better conditions of the nation in the future.