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.