Upholding democracy can mean interference

Upholding democracy can mean interference

By David Keller

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia, at this time in history, is truly in
a dynamic state with its Indonesian-style democracy. Whether this
is for better or worse as the recent past may suggest, the
continued dynamics between conflicting political groups is a
positive sign, meaning a dynamic state is necessary if true
democracy, with no Indonesian Military (TNI) dual function, is to
develop.

This is due to the simple fact that true democracy works and,
in a predominately democratic world, globalization will ensure
the true form of democracy will prevail.

Indonesia, burdened by its diversity in ethnicity and history,
cannot operate true democracy at the moment because the living
past still exists in the present.

This implies that it will be a matter of time before true
democracy emerges when new generations are exposed to
globalization.

The term "globalization" has reached saturation point. Most
observers should be aware that internal economics and politics of
any state in the world that wishes to be a part of the democratic
global community can be subject to the leverage power of foreign
states, multinational corporations and multilateral institutions.

In other words, true democracy does mean interfering in other
nations' affairs, which is something Indonesia must realize. This
is especially true if it means enforcing the universal
declaration on human rights to which Indonesia is a signatory.

In all honesty, would any readers of this article accept
having their basic human rights violated?

"Definitely not" would be the predominant answer. No better
example of interference was the pressure by the international
community on Indonesia to allow a United Nations peacekeeping
force into East Timor to bring a halt to the suffering of the
populace.

Australia, the foreign state applying most of the pressure --
for reasons which include geographic proximity and a government
and media that does not tolerate human rights violations --
became vocal on the issue.

The media, as the source of information in transmitting the
inhumanity occurring in East Timor, created emotionally charged
public opinion.

This angst caused the Australian government to act promptly to
make sure that international laws on human rights were upheld.
Following this, other nations and multilateral organizations such
as the United Nations, World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund offered both support and threats in order to see the
materialization of a peacekeeping mission.

Of course, the Australian government's response incurred
positive public support which gives Australian Prime Minister
John Howard leverage via opinion poll results.

However, this certainly should not be an excuse to undermine
the real reason for intervention -- to stop human rights
violations in East Timor. Furthermore, Australian politics is a
fickle business; any prime minister who thinks he or she can ride
the wave of public popular opinion over a single deed to election
day will be written into history earlier than he or she expects.

There are two sides to every story, which means that national
governments can never hold the interests of all in society,
especially one as diverse as Indonesia.

The United Nations is therefore a blessing for the displaced
minorities of this world and it must continue to interfere where
human rights are violated, especially when actions are government
backed, not excluding the developed countries of this world.

As should the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World
Trade Organization and other institutions in imposing economic
restrictions because being part of these institutions means
abiding by rules which are accepted by most who wish to operate
in the world market economy.

The breaking of rules means the loss of privileges which in
Indonesia also causes a loss of national pride.

In terms of lost pride, Indonesia as a people has not lost any
dignity by receiving foreign peacekeepers to control the
situation in East Timor. If TNI has lost face, then this was its
own doing; if TNI did not anticipate United Nations intervention,
well then, welcome to global democracy and endorsed interference
whenever human rights are violated.

Where the Indonesian people may have lost pride was in their
incapacity to ensure that the violence in East Timor would cease
through strong public opinion, starting from the mid 1970s but
even more so during this era of reform.

Furthermore, in support of the pro-Indonesian perspective, if
true democracy existed in Indonesia and East Timor during the
mid-1970s or at least after the Cold War ended in the late 1980s,
which nullified the communist threat, the cry for independence by
the East Timorese may well have diminished.

This is because the integration message would have been
conveyed without military action via the true democratic
practices. Although, not to be, let this be a lesson for the
policy makers of Indonesia that to prevent further fragmentation
of the country, they must learn from past mistakes and develop
true democracy for the people starting now with dynamic dialog to
get at the source of problems.

A final note as someone who represents a part of the
Australian population with the opinions expressed here: I would
welcome with open arms "interference" of foreign forces in
Australia in the name of upholding international human rights
laws.

It is for the simple reason that international human rights
laws are universally accepted and, thus, should be interpreted
in their purist form. They should not be given a different
interpretation by single governments in order to suit national
domestic policy.

This is globalization.

The writer, an Australian, is currently conducting research at
the Indonesian Institute of Sciences' Center for Social and
Cultural Studies.