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.