U.S.-RI ties ambivalence but friendly

U.S.-RI ties ambivalence but friendly

By Mohammad Sadli

SAINT PAUL, Minnesota, United States (JP): For two years now a
group of Americans and Indonesians have been mounting a public
education campaign in the United States. Not an expensive
operation but hopefully effective. The Asia Society in New York,
the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta and
a new organization called the U.S.-Indonesia Society, initiated
by former U.S. ambassadors in Jakarta (including Edward Masters
and Paul Wolfowitz), and influential Indonesians such as the
professors Emil Salim and Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, have sponsored
a series of public seminars in a number of major cities in the
United States to persuade the American public that Indonesia is
not only about violations of humans, workers' and intellectual
property rights and freedom of the press.

Indonesia is little known by the American public. It seldom
hits the front pages of The New York Times or a CNN newscast. The
trouble with the American media is that normally "good news" from
developing countries is considered incapable of catching the eye
of the public. On the other hand, apart from natural disasters
such as earthquakes and tidal waves, man-made disturbances such
as revolutions, unruly demonstrations, shootings and killings,
are.

Since the Cold War is over, American and other Western
societies are in a crusading mood about human rights, self-
determination and democracy. NGOs flourish among the younger
generation and some advocacy movements are very vocal in
defending minorities, women and ethnic groups, whose rights they
consider being trampled or not properly respected. These NGOs are
also ardent campaigners of the environment and they regard some
developing countries as squandering the heritage of mankind. In
the United States, the Democratic Party is known to be more
attuned to such populist issues than the Republican Party, which
has a reputation of being more pro-business. That is why
Indonesia has rougher sailing in Washington DC now than under the
Republican administration.

Thus this joint undertaking is for public education in the
United States. Public education is not the same as public
relations. Public relations is an information campaign to show
only the good side. Public education does not negate the
controversial aspects but tries to persuade the public that those
are only one part of the whole story and that the other aspects
should also be known and be recognized as parts of the equation.

The more positive aspects of the Indonesian story is, among
others things, the good news about economic growth and
performance. That is the part American businesses like to hear.
But even here it is worth knowing that, especially since last
year, many new opportunities have been seized by American
businesses, as was pointed out by Ambassador Robert Barry, who
for two years in a row repeatedly informed seminar audiences
about the new development, especially since the Blake Island APEC
forum. At the Bogor APEC forum, billions of dollars in American
investments were ceremonially blessed by the presence of
presidents, prime ministers or ministers.

Hence, Ambassador Barry does not think that the bilateral
relations are in serious trouble because of threats to withhold
GSP rights, criticism about happenings in East Timor and closure
of popular mass media. But he does not conceal that the U.S.
administration and Congress remain very concerned about alleged
violations of human, workers' and intellectual property rights.

U.S.-Indonesian relations cover economic, political and
security concerns. Ambassador Barry likes to see the two-way
trade doubling in five years and so far the trend is on track.
U.S. investments have also been up very much, for instance in
oil-and-gas, mining (Freeport expanding its copper mine and,
together with Japanese partners, is constructing a large copper
refinery) and infrastructure (power plants, telecommunication,
etc.).

Yes, the U.S. remains critical about certain social and
political issues, such as with respect to East Timor, workers'
rights and the right to publish, but the dialog and diplomacy
have become more restraining, more engaging while avoiding open
confrontation. Security in the Asia Pacific area is still very
important to the U.S., and in this respect Indonesia, an
important country because of size of population and geography,
has played a very constructive role. The continued cooperation of
Indonesia is indispensable to the United States whose super-power
capabilities have become restricted. Hence the bilateral
relations have matured, especially since the Blake Island and
Bogor forums where the two national leaders learned to appreciate
each other.

Indonesia, who is playing a very important role
internationally, such as that of current leader of the Non-
Aligned Movement, has also become aware that this role requires a
less blemished record nationally as well as internationally.
Indonesia has to be willing to pay a price for international
respect and influence. The more so if it sooner or later aspires
to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Coming back to the series of public seminars in the United
States to attain a more rounded image of Indonesia, one question
is how to determine whether the costs in terms of money and
precious time of ministers visiting the U.S. -- Minister
Ariwibowo made a special trip to Washington DC, and last year
Foreign Minister Alatas deftly fielded interventions on East
Timor in New York -- are worth the while. Indonesia has been
relatively obscure and under-reported during much of the past
twenty-five years of the New Order government and that was not
ill-suited.

The Philippines, India and China are much more known by the
general public in the U.S. but that does not always guarantee
friendly publicity. When a Western country feels close to a
developing country, often it is more critical and ambivalent, as
though in a love-hate relationship. The Netherlands and Australia
have such feelings toward Indonesia, and the U.S. toward the
Philippines and China, close allies during World War II.

How would one measure the success or effectiveness of a
campaign of public education like the one the Asia Society is
undertaking on behalf of Indonesia with the support of
organizations such as the U.S.-Indonesia Society and
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and which is
not a costless affair? The Asia Society will not repeat its
assistance next year. How much should the Indonesian sponsors
then spend in terms of money and effort to persuade the best
people to contribute precious time to travel? There are no clear
measurements of success of effectiveness.

For sure, the East Timor problem will not go away from the
international scene, however much public relations and education
Indonesia undertakes. It can only be resolved if no disturbing
incident pops up every now and then. The solution to the problem
lies in East Timor for the most part, and for another part with
the UN, because the unfortunate thing for Indonesia is that the
UN has not recognized the inclusion of the territory into the
republic. And with the rising influence of the NGOs in the West,
their governments cannot disregard their demands, even if they
wanted to.

Indonesia can live with the East Timor situation unresolved
because it does not threaten its political and economic
existence. I asked an ambassador whether for Indonesia the Timor
problem is "a nuisance, a nasty irritant or a stone under its
foot hindering forward movement". The ambassador was convinced it
was the last one. It may have material costs in the possible
forsaking of the International Military Education Training
program and possible GSP (General System of Preferences)
facilities.

An Indian staffer of the Asia Society who attended the
seminars tells me that Indonesia stands a good chance of becoming
a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but it must have
the endorsement of ASEAN, the non-aligned movement, the
international Islamic community and last but not least of APEC
(with its G-7 members).

Although from a parochial interest he would like India to
become the new member, he is doubtful whether India can mount the
international support. India also is encumbered by a political
millstone, the Kashmir problem. Hence the East Timor problem
could stand in the way of Indonesia's aspiration.

The Timor problem was not raised in cities outside Washington
and New York, and in Washington DC only to a certain extent at
Capitol Hill. Although some of the Indonesians became very
concerned, American friends tried to reassure that the
interventions at the Hill were done in a spirit of friendship.
There was no reprimanding, no lecturing. It was more an
expression of deep American concerns. The morning meeting at the
Hill they saw as a big success: Fifteen staffers attended and
four senators dropped in and out (apart from greeting the
Indonesian delegation these senators had to move back and forth
between committee meetings and a visit of King Hassan).

The meeting showed that Indonesia could count on an increasing
reservoir of goodwill. In this respect, the amount of time and
effort the Indonesians expended was well spent and a good gesture
of reciprocating that goodwill. Understanding, sympathy and
goodwill require constant feeding and nurturing.

Our American hosts in the various city seminars, and also Asia
Society officials who can compare, have praised the quality and
candor of the discussions and many participants who paid the
US$60 ($30 for students) registration fee regard it worth their
while. The audience was greater than expected. In Washington DC
about fifty had to be turned away (about 250 packed a hotel
conference room), and in other cities the conference rooms were
nicely filled and people stayed through to the end. Last year I
wrote a similar piece for The Jakarta Post and I selected the
eye-catching title: "U.S.-Indonesia relations: On a Collision
Course?"

I have to be milder this year.

The writer is a prominent economist and a former cabinet
member.