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.