Problems shadow RI-U.S. strong ties, Barry says

Problems shadow RI-U.S. strong ties, Barry says

By Yenni Djahidin

WASHINGTON D.C. (JP): Relations between Indonesia and the
United States are "very sound" although some problems have
recently crept up to cast a shadow over them, says Robert L.
Barry, who served as American ambassador to Indonesia from 1992
to 1995.

Although he retired from the State Department as soon as he
finished his post in Jakarta, Ambassador Barry remains close to
Indonesia in his new occupation: he is a partner in Phoenix
International, a company which does business in Indonesia.

The company is now in the process of forming a power
consortium that would include among others the Indonesian
government, state-electricity company PLN and an American utility
company. Ambassador Barry's work involves traveling to Indonesia
once a month.

Ambassador Barry now lives in Washington D.C. with his wife
Peggy. Their home is decorated with ornaments and photographs
from various parts of Indonesia, a testament of their extensive
travels during their three-year stay in Indonesia. In February,
the couple traveled to Indonesia to indulge in their favorite
past time: scuba diving.

The former diplomat says he still follows the development in
Indonesia closely, through the Internet, newspapers, and by
staying in touch with Congress.

His fondness for Indonesia is not unusual, he maintains. "I
think you'll find that all the former U.S. ambassadors to
Indonesia are an unusually loyal or supportive group."

"And that's not only true of Americans. I have an old friend
who was the Yugoslav ambassador to Indonesia in the late 1960s.
He later went on to be ambassador to the U.S., ambassador to
Germany and foreign minister, but he still says that he has the
fondest memory of his time in Indonesia.

"So people who served there, I think, come out with a lasting
affection for the country," he says.

Ambassador Barry agreed to an interview early this month to
discuss the current relations between Indonesia and the United
States, and their prospects.

Question: How do you see relations between the U.S. and
Indonesia?

Answer: I think the relationship is still very sound. There
are a couple of problems here that are casting something of
shadow over it. The first has to do with the period of tension in
Indonesia caused by a variety of things; the July 27 incident,
the run-up to the general election, and some of the measures that
have been taken against political parties or individuals. This
always creates some tension in the relationship because we
believe that reforms, both political and economic, are very much
needed. We Americans want to align ourselves with those people in
the society who are on the side of that kind of reform ...

This election period is going to be a tense period. And there
are real hazards here: that's if there turn out to be major
incidents in which there are serious human rights violations of
some kind, it's going to lead to an America taking a critical
look at Indonesia.

The other aspect is ... the issue of political contributions
to the (U.S.) election campaign. This caused us, the American
administration, and people in Congress, to be wary of doing
things with Indonesia that may look as if it's being done because
of Indonesian contributions to a political party, which I don't
think the (Indonesian) government had anything to do with. I
think this is a private individual matter and I don't really see
the contributors sought or received any particular favors in
return for those contributions. But the mere picture of it makes
people shy of doing things with Indonesia.

Will the Clinton administration be tougher toward Indonesia
because of this?

It's not so much that they will be tougher, it's that they
will be more hesitant about taking steps that could be portrayed
by the other side, by the other political party, as being done in
return for previous favors.

But now, take for instance the issue of the sales of F-16s to
Indonesia. This administration, after saying back last summer
that we were going to move ahead with the sales in January, now
is reluctant to go forward with these sales or to notify
Congress. The issue of political contributions plays a role in
this. So, they're going to be more reluctant to stick their necks
out for Indonesia than they might have been otherwise.

How important is Indonesia to the United States?

It is important in three or four ways.

First of all, it is a very, very large country in a very
strategic part of the world. The fact that there are 200 million
people in Indonesia and that Indonesia has been a relatively
quite successful, developing country is important in terms of the
stability of the whole region. And if there were a kind of
economic collapse or political explosion in Indonesia, it would
send shocks waves all over Southeast Asia.

It is important from a geopolitical point of view because
Indonesia spreads out over such a large area of the lines of
communications between Asia and the Middle East. And an awful lot
of very strategic material goes back and forth through Indonesian
waters and in terms of access to troubled areas of the world.

It is important to us from an economic sense because America
is a major investor in Indonesia. Many big American companies
have been very successful in their dealings in Indonesia,
successful from the point of view of the American stockholders,
but also in terms from the impact they have had on political and
economic developments in Indonesia.

Indonesia is the country with the largest Moslem population in
the world, and that variety of Islam has been tolerant and a
model for other Islamic states looking for something to model
themselves after, such as the Islamic states of Central Asia, who
are looking at Iran, Iraq and Turkey, and Indonesia is perhaps
the best example for them to follow.

And it's important because it has been an economic success
story. The question is, is it going to follow that economic
reform and that economic development with a parallel political
development?

How significant is the Indonesian lobby in the States?

Indonesians do not emigrate. They stay at home. If you look
around, if you look at the Thais, you will find a Thai restaurant
on every street corner here. If you look at even Malaysians,
there are far more per capita Malaysians living here than there
are Koreans, and Vietnamese. So there is no constituency for
Indonesia in America. The groups which have a strong interest in
Indonesia tend to be people who have a cultural interest in
Indonesia, anthropologists, musicologists, ethnologists, the
people that have over the years traveled to Indonesia for
tourism, the people who come in contact with Indonesia through
the sizable Indonesian student population here on a consistent
basis.

At the same time, at universities, the East Timor activists
have had a huge impact on students, so in that sense, the net
result is sort of neutralized by the strong attacks by the East
Timor activists on the Indonesian government; the academic
community is kind of split between those who are interested,
sympathetic, and those who are critical.

What about on Capitol Hill?

There have been, in the past, a few people who were very
interested in Indonesia, and positive about it. I would cite
senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, who has since left
Congress. Senator Inouye of Hawaii, who is still an important
figure in Congress. A few people who came there as members of
Congressional delegations, who went away surprised by how
developed Indonesia seemed to be. But with the recent (U.S.)
elections, there are so many people who are new to Congress, and
they don't know very much about Indonesia at all. They don't have
the vaguest idea how big a country it is or that it's mostly
Moslem or anything like that. They've heard at most about Bali
and Dili, and so at a time like this, when people are looking
around for countries to be critical of, and China has sort of
been declared immune from this because we've been through the
battle about China already, so human rights activists and others
are, they've looked at Burma (Myanmar).

So the problem is, in a time like this, most Congressmen, when
they look at an issue, like a bill that provides for criticism of
Indonesia or says we shouldn't sell them military equipment such
as the bill that Congressman Patrick Kennedy has got now, most of
them turn to their staff and say, what is this all about? And
the staff sort of look at this and say, for us, there is no
downside to voting for it. There are no constituents for
Indonesia in our district. There are no big companies that are
affected by this, and so the Congressman says, "Well, this will
win me some support among the activist groups that are critical
of Indonesia, some of the trade unions, and things like that, so
why not?" So these bills tend to roll up large numbers of
sponsors, they tend to go through, although, of course, I guess,
it was in 1994 that there was a bill to go forward by Senator
Feingold and a couple of others that was eventually defeated in a
vote. But it's very rare that a vote like that becomes an issue
people really contest because they figure it's a free ride.

What do you suggest that Indonesia do?

I think that Ambassador (Arifin) Siregar is already trying to
reach out to people in Congress, and members of the public, and
trying to explain the Indonesian side of things, and I think that
is very important. One of the reasons why 1997 might be a tough
year is because of what will happen in connection with the
(Indonesian) elections. My advice is to try not to, try to avoid
repressive measures during this election period because that
would not only create hostility in Congress, it would also make
the situation domestically in Indonesia much more difficult to
manage. I know tougher regulations have been decided, no street
demonstrations, that all speeches need to be cleared in advance,
these do not strike Americans as very reasonable things to do and
can aggravate the situation a good deal.

And the whole question of East Timor, we have consistently
said that some forward steps need to be taken in the direction of
special status or autonomy for East Timor and we've been
disappointed that it has been so difficult to take some of these
steps which were at one point generally considered by many of the
senior political people and military people to be worth taking in
order to ease situation in East Timor. So, my advice for
1997/1998 would be to avoid repressive political measures and
search for ways of beating some of the legitimate concerns of
people who are worried about East Timor.

How do you assess the recent riots in Indonesia and the
upcoming election?

Let me say first what the good side is. I think there's been
more restraint in terms of degree of force that the police and
military are using in crowd control. They have avoided the use of
deadly force or they have punished those who have used deadly
force more often now than they have in the past. That, I think,
is a good development. On the other hand, I think that being
unnecessarily harsh and manipulative in trying to ensure that the
Golkar percentages remain up high is going to be, in the long
run, not very productive in terms of the future of civil society
in Indonesia. And, I think, there are more positive changes
taking place in Indonesia over the years that is generally
recognized by people on the outside.

If you look at the press in Indonesia, despite what happened
with Tempo, the press reflects a fairly broad and critical range
of opinions, and, I think, compares favorably with the press in
some other Southeast Asian countries in their willingness to be
critical of things that the government does.

I don't think it's going fast enough, I think many Indonesian
don't think it's going fast enough. And, I think, some of the
earlier promises of political openness have not been yet
fulfilled.

Do you agree with the view that change in Indonesia is
unlikely without pressure from the United States and others?

No, I don't think that change can be imposed on Indonesia from
the outside. Outside countries can support change and align
themselves with those who want to see change. But I don't think
that you can legislate change in the U.S. for Indonesia. I think
it can be counterproductive. Americans got pretty upset that
people were trying to influence the American political system
from the outside, whether it be contributions from Indonesia or
from China. I think people in Congress ought to recognize that
other people get upset when you try to impose change on them from
the outside in the same way that we did. So often, I think, that
if you are too heavy-handed or if you have too long a list of
things that you are trying to get people to change at the same
time, or if you are trying to impose unilateral sanctions on
them, that it stirs up feelings of nationalism, resentment
against outside interference and that it slows change rather than
speeding it up.

That does not mean that we should be indifferent to those
forces in Indonesia that want to see change. We are not
indifferent to it and we've never been. We've spoken out for it
privately and publicly, but to impose it from the outside is, I
think, counterproductive.

Some people say that the U.S. has a two-boat policy; on one
hand, it is nice to the Indonesian government, but on the other
hand it funds prodemocracy movements. Can you comment on this?

That's quiet true and that is part of aligning ourselves with
the force of change. Yes, U.S. private institutions are providing
money, like the Ford Foundation had for years. The U.S.
government through AID is providing money, which is designed to
promote economic reform and political reform. And it's not just
Indonesia, we do this all over the world. We believe that it's
perfectly consistent with the friendly relationship with the
Indonesian government. The NGOs are not enemies of the Indonesian
government. The NGOs are facilitators of change in the country.
In that sense, they contribute to political stability.

The writer is correspondent for the Jakarta-based Media
Indonesia daily newspaper in Washington D.C. She has written this
article for The Jakarta Post.