~(paragaph berikut dipakai untuk window dalam article)
~(paragaph berikut dipakai untuk window dalam article)
'The action should change to a broader and bigger U.S.
role in empowering Indonesian SMEs to enter the global market.'
Revisiting Indonesia-United States relations
By Tony Agus Ardie,
President of KIKAS*
Recent times have seen a profusion of developments which
could substantially influence the state of relations
between Indonesia and the United States.
Some originated from the Indonesian side: the so-called
"sweeping" of American hotel guests in Surakarta, anti-U.S
demonstrations, a call for boycotts of American branded products,
the Bali bombings, as well as the abolishment of the free visa
facility for U.S. citizens.
Some others came from the U.S. side: warnings for American
citizens not to visit Indonesia, new limitations on imports of
Indonesian products, the war in Iraq. Directly or indirectly,
most have the potential to strain or even worsen relations.
Regardless of the developments, however, the fundamentals
of Indonesia-U.S. relations have remained largely unchanged.
Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country with
more than 210 million people, is geopolitically pivotal to peace
and stability in Southeast Asia. As the nation with the largest
Muslim population, its position has become even more crucial in
the present global constellation.
It has the potential either to become a bridge between
the U.S. and other Islamic peoples, or an obstruction to better
relations. Indonesia is also richly endowed with a vast variety
of natural resources for American industries.
The United States, as the world's largest economy, the
biggest source of technology and the greatest influence on the
global financial market, the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank, plays an important role in supporting
Indonesia's efforts to solve its economic crisis.
As the most powerful democracy it could also assist
Indonesia in coping with the painful process of transition from
an authoritarian, centralized government into a more democratic
and decentralized state.
These fundamentals are strong reasons for both sides to
work for closer relations. However, this is not reflected in the
changing reality. The gap is widening - not closing - for various
reasons, e.g. domestic politics, differences in national
interests and priorities.
Actually, the very same reasons are also arguments for
striving toward good, sustainable relations. A stronger, more
stable Indonesia - in political as well as economic terms - would
be more beneficial for U.S. interests in many aspects, including
in implementing its war on terrorism.
A more basic reason for this gap is information
disparity: the lack of knowledge, thus of understanding and
empathy, on each side about the other.
Basic knowledge about Indonesia is negligible in the U.S.
Most Americans have very little idea about Indonesia,
geographically and otherwise. Bali is still better known than the
whole country. American reference books still put the wrong date
about Indonesia's independence and disregard its revolution. Yet
an incident in any small Indonesian town would be interpreted as
if the whole country is unsafe.
Distortion could bring dire consequences when it comes to
complex analyses of the country. Complications in the reforms
undertaken by Indonesia since 1998 are to be expected considering
its enormous dimensions and speed. But it often prompts many U.S.
politicians and analysts to be fixated with the daily turmoil of
events, raucous demonstrations, corruption cases or security
problems, neglecting substantial progress.
This often results in overly pessimistic assessment of
Indonesia's future, overlooking the medium and long term
perspectives after all this agonizing learning process.
True, structural impediments such as the lack of trust in
the judicial system, excesses in the initial process of
transferring power to district-level administrations, virtually
bankrupt big corporations and low investor confidence have been a
turnoff to new investment.
However, these problems are being tackled with great
assistance from the World Bank, the IMF and the international
creditor consortium, the Consultative Group on Indonesia (CGI),
of which the United States has been a loyal donor member since
1967.
Progress has been made, as can be noted from the strengthening
macroeconomic and political stability. The most positive
development is that Indonesian national resilience has passed the
toughest test over the past five years of political turbulence
and economic debacle. Such progress, however, is seldom reported
by the media and hardly known in the U.S.
To be fair, similar distortions concerning the U.S. also occur
in Indonesia. Despite admiration for American products, popular
culture and lifestyles, Indonesian public understanding of the
U.S. is superficial at best.
Their image is filled with negative stereotypes, prejudices
and skepticism. The U.S. is invariably described by the country's
media as an arrogant power whose actions bring far-reaching
consequences unfair to Indonesia.
When the U.S. issues travel notices to dissuade Americans from
coming to Indonesia, it is also discouraging visitors from other
lands and thus affecting the tourism industry extensively.
U.S. trade pressure to import and consume American products is
contrasted to its tight control of Indonesian imports. New rules,
such as anti- bio-terrorism inspection, add burdens to Indonesian
exporters at US$250 per container box.
The widespread image is its own self-interest, shown in the
decline in purchase contracts for Indonesian's manufactured
goods, the withdrawal of investments and the relocation of
activities to other countries, while simultaneously expecting
Indonesian support for U.S. interests.
These actions are neither unusual nor unreasonable in
international practice of doing business. Nevertheless, they do
not contribute to the accomplishment of understanding and trust
with the wider population.
It does not matter that such sanctions may in fact be
directed at big economic players. But the ultimate impact will be
felt by the grassroots who may arrive at simplified conclusions,
e.g. that U.S. actions are the cause of their tough lot,
declining job opportunities and increasing the already high rate
of unemployment.
In the public perception, such acts show a lack of compassion
for the already tough lot of the general public. As the majority
is composed of the same Muslims that the U.S. supposedly likes to
befriend, this is also viewed as a lack of sensitivity and
comprehension regarding Indonesia's Muslims' social situation.
Clearly, the relationship between any two countries can only
be improved if it is based on sufficient knowledge and mutually
favorable attitudes. These include adequate regard and respect,
high credibility, and trust between each other.
With current advancing distrust, communications efforts should
be shifted to nonverbal, practical actions-which could speak much
louder than words and statement, as the saying goes. Such action
should begin in an area of mutual concerns to both peoples. This
is an employment opportunity.
Indonesia's unemployment and underemployment today are
estimated at a total of 40 million, and the number keeps rising
by 2.5 million annually, particularly in the lower classes in the
Moslem community.
Notwithstanding the contributions of American giants in
Indonesia's development, the action should change to a broader
and bigger American role in empowering Indonesian small and
medium-size enterprises (SMEs) to enter the global market,
including the U.S.
After all, the American small business development scheme
under the Small Business Act is one of the best-managed programs
in promoting business incubation.
The choice of SMEs is even more appropriate as it is the
business sector that is closest to the general community and has
accomplished a lot to overcome unemployment since the crisis.
When many big national companies collapsed, more than 95
percent of the SMEs were able to survive. Of this figure, 31
percent succeeded in restructuring their organizations while 64
percent others expanded operations and passed the crisis with
flying colors, thus capable of providing jobs for 64.3 million
people.
The U.S. model has been tested by pioneering SME empowerment
efforts in Yogyakarta, involving the community's three pillars -
the local administration, committed private entrepreneurs and
Gadjah Mada University - which are now attracting support of the
Vienna-based United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
With its long experience in community-based development
projects in various provinces in Indonesia, the United States
Agency for International Development could play a role in SME
empowerment as well.
Such action programs will extend and upgrade the present
relations between the United States and Indonesia into a new,
people-to-people based diplomacy, which facilitates and improves
the official relationship that in the past was hampered by people
vs. people misunderstanding and prejudice.
*KIKAS is the U.S. Committee of the Indonesian Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (Kadin).
-----------30-------