U.S. harbors new foreign policy in Asia-Pacific

By Anak Agung Banyu Perwita

BANDUNG (JP): Almost all local media reported Indonesia's recent cancellation of the purchase of nine U.S. F-16 fighter jets and the government's refusal to take part in the American- run International Military Education and Training.

The government's decisions were political responses to U.S. criticism over the implementation of democracy in Indonesia.

How can this be seen as a result of the two countries' foreign policies? Will it affect U.S. policy toward the region?

With the geopolitical changes in the Asia Pacific, many analysts believe the U.S. will no longer be in a dominant position to ensure stability through unilateral military action. In the next decade, the U.S.'s hegemonic regional system of Asia Pacific that emerged during the Cold War must be fundamentally changed.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the Senate Subcommittee on foreign operations that the economic, political and military evolution of nations in Asia will have a profound effect on U.S. foreign policy.

In this context, economics and politics are intimately connected. The Asia Pacific has been a major region for U.S. national interests. Based on these interests, the U.S. should take a 'selective commitment' approach toward the region.

This approach provides for sustained U.S. global containment, combined with a large concerted operation among the major economic and political powers to ensure global stability.

It is also likely to entail active U.S. participation in international affairs in an effort to defend its vital interests. As the only superpower, the U.S. will have to assume leadership of the international community, enforce international law, and deter aggression that would cause international chaos under the selective concept.

Such action implies the U.S. will pursue its quest for a peaceful world order on the basis of peaceful and free trade and respect for international law and democracy.

Thus U.S. involvement looks forward to having a combination of moralistic and realpolitik in its foreign policy. As David Callahan stated in his book Between Two Worlds: Realism, Idealism and American Foreign Policy After The Cold War, the center of a new U.S. foreign policy should lie at promoting democracy, strengthening collective security, fostering sustainable development while guaranteeing a more equitable distribution of global wealth.

Furthermore, there are two separate enterprises that fall under the topic of promoting democracy: the consolidation of fragile democracies and the creation of democracies where they do not exist.

President Bill Clinton has devoted himself to this goal, declaring that no national security issue is more urgent than securing democracy's triumph around the world, and also saying it is time for America to lead a global alliance for democracy as united and steadfast as the global alliance that defeated communism. In doing this the U.S. will always try 'to make the world safe for democracy'.

Nevertheless, promoting democracy in nondemocratic countries is far more controversial. With over sixty democratic countries, the chances are high of one or more of those governments finding themselves under internal and external criticism at any given time. This would lead to a situation in which the U.S. might find the promotion of democracy is a dangerous and frustrating business.

More importantly, to insist on democratic governance in all circumstances may be harmful to U.S. national interests. Washington would be foolhardy, for example, to pressure Third World countries to become democratic that estranged them, derailing cooperation on security matters. As Richard Haass said, the U.S. cannot dictate the social contract for societies and cultures with long and distinct traditions of their own.

To put it another way, if the U.S. gives the cold shoulder to repressive leaders, limiting aid, trade, and arms, such leaders will become more isolated and may feel pressure to institute democratic reforms. The U.S. could become guilty of cultural and political arrogance if it tries too hard to spread its values.

The U.S. should not dictate the social contract for other governments but neither should it give unconditional support to regimes that violate basic human rights and democracy.

The writer is a research staff of Parahyangan Center for International Studies at Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung.