Seeking for a new format in RI-U.S. ties

Seeking for a new format in RI-U.S. ties

By Aleksius Jemadu

JAKARTA (JP): The Indonesian government's decision to cancel
the purchase of United States F-16 fighter jets and to withdraw
from the American-run International Military Education and
Training (IMET) program signified a new episode in bilateral
relations between the two countries.

The decision reminds us of the 1992 rejection of Dutch aid
when The Hague was perceived to be intruding in Indonesia's
domestic affairs. Foreign policy analysts would be curious to
investigate the new nuances in relations between Indonesia and
Western countries, especially the U.S.

Can Indonesia's decision be considered a spontaneous reaction
or is it part of a long process of finding a new orientation in
Indonesia-U.S. ties?

I would argue that political and economic changes both at
domestic and global levels have generated new demands and
expectations which might urge the two governments to find a more
relevant format of bilateral relations.

Under the new format, the two countries are expected to
understand each other's position in the wider context of post-
Cold War global politics. Growing global interdependence which
characterizes the relations between developed and developing
countries would not only necessitate close economic cooperation
but also more egalitarian relations.

In addition to knowledge about changes in the global
environment, it is equally important to grasp the extent to which
the dynamics of internal politics has influenced those relations.

As far as Indonesia is concerned, the political system seems
to be preoccupied with seeking a balance between rising popular
expectations due to better economic welfare and the capacity of
the government to accommodate them. At the same time, the need to
democratize the political system tends to run against the vested
interests of the existing political and economic establishment.

Under such circumstances, political leaders tend to be
vulnerable to criticisms against their policies.

For the U.S. and western countries in general, problems of
human rights and democratization have no national boundaries.
Such a view is based on the assumption that respect for every
human being is a universal value. Moreover, U.S. policy makers
would consider certain values such as liberty and democracy as
part of their definition of national security.

U.S. foreign policy is traditionally determined to ensure that
those values are respected by governments throughout the world.
In Western societies themselves, governments have no difficulty
enforcing the application of those values because public control
functions effectively.

Human rights and democratization problems in developing
countries are much more difficult to deal with because they have
to pursue three agendas simultaneously, namely economic
development, political institutionalization, and nation building.

In addition, the three policy agendas may not necessarily
complement each other. In many instances, success in one aspect
could generate setbacks in other aspects. For instance, rapid
industrialization and economic growth could create a widening gap
between modern and traditional sectors in the economy.

Political institutionalization led by the state could
marginalize the grassroots. Unfortunately, policy makers in
industrial countries tend to favor the "black and white" approach
in perceiving political realities in developing societies.

As clearly indicated in the statement made by Minister of
Foreign Affairs Ali Alatas, government officials in non-western
countries have difficulty in discerning why politicians in the
West are so concerned with human rights issues abroad.

Western leaders' criticism against human rights records in
developing countries are considered a blatant interference in
domestic affairs. There are at least two approaches which can be
used to explain the so-called "clash of civilizations" (Samuel P.
Huntington) between Western and non-Western countries.

The first, and probably the most important one, is a cultural
explanation. Western leaders have a common inclination to believe
that values which are considered important in the West should be
important worldwide.

Individualism is known to be a distinguishing feature of the
West in the twentieth-century. The West believes individual
rights should be respected throughout the universe regardless of
one's nationality and cultural affiliation. There is always a
legitimate concern for the violation of human rights anywhere in
the world.

The second is a political explanation. This argues that
western leaders are using human rights issues to cover up their
own interests to dominate the non-western world not only in
politics but also in international trade. Of high importance in
this regard is the hidden agenda of western politicians in
criticizing the human rights records of governments in developing
countries.

In some cases, a politician's commitment to articulate the
aspirations of his or her constituency could determine how that
politician would react to human rights violations abroad. U.S.
Congress representative Patrick Kennedy's concern over
Indonesia's human rights record in East Timor is one example.
Kennedy is known to be a second-term Democrat from the strongly
Portuguese American state of Rhode Island. It was Kennedy who
initiated a bill in the House seeking to terminate the U.S.
military and programs for Indonesia (The Jakarta Post, June 8,
1997).

It is interesting to learn that despite of "war of statements"
between officials of both sides, they remain committed to more
constructive and extensive bilateral relations. Leaders of the
two countries believe that there are still many good aspects in
their relations.

No one would gain if the present rift escalated. What is
probably the most important thing to do now is to create more
opportunities for constructive dialog so that the two sides might
be able and willing to understand each other.

Only through open and sincere dialog can leaders of two
countries create a "win-win situation" instead of the present
"lose-lose stalemate". A lack of mutual understanding and
unilateral actions can only damage the Indonesian-American
friendship which has been threaded together over so many years.
Could this simple suggestion be a basis for a new format in
Indonesia-U.S. ties?

The writer is the Director of the Parahyangan Center for
International Studies (PACIS) at the Catholic University of
Parahyangan, Bandung.

Window: This would lead to a situation in which the U.S. might
find the promotion of democracy is a dangerous and frustrating
business.