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.