What Americans want for Indonesia

By A.M. Hendropriyono

JAKARTA (JP): The Washington Post editorial of March 2, "Judging Indonesia" was of interest given the potential of a leading daily in shaping public opinion in the United States.

What was interesting was not only the editorial's conclusion but more so its dialectic arguments, which reflect opinions of the Republican government and that of a public which is also influenced by the Democratic party.

On one hand, the editorial reflected the deep concern of the American government with Indonesia's prolonged political and economic instability, the result, it said, of ineffective leadership under President Abdurrahman Wahid.

Conveying concern over ethnic violence in Central Kalimantan, the editorial touched on the difficulty of responding to the trouble given the fact that the government was not only ineffective, but that President Wahid faced danger of impeachment.

It further wrote that the "worrisome" picture in Indonesia had led to "some consideration in the new administration of renewing once-strong U.S. ties with the Indonesian army, which will be a decisive power broker if ... the battle over Mr. Wahid's impeachment turns violent." But this would be a mistake, the editorial wrote, saying that a longer guarantee of Indonesia's stability would depend on "rooting out the old corrupt order."

To do this, the President had promised to hold trials for military officers and police officials implicated in atrocities in East Timor, a promise which has not materialized, the editorial noted.

It concluded, "The Bush administration could help both Mr. Wahid and the larger cause of democracy in Indonesia by insisting that these cases, rather than a costly battle over impeachment, take center stage."

So on one side, American public opinion reflected here reveals reconsiderations on mending relations with the Indonesian Military in anticipation of various social political problems.

On the other side, even though the American public does not deny the need for a short-term role of the military to stabilize the situation, they hope the law is upheld against personnel from the former regime who have broken the law, including those implicated in human rights violations in East Timor.

Personally, this writer does not see anything controversial in either of these opinions, as reports here have suggested. The government and the political elite should be able to extract the positive essence of both opinions as part of efforts to seek an alternative solution. Not only because the need for such a solution is supported by Indonesia's political groupings, but because political support from both the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. will also help the government in recovering the economy, which would contribute to bringing back security and stability.

The essence of these arguments revolve around the weakness of the President's leadership, not only in politics but also in upholding laws and in preventing the spread of violence between different ethnic groups.

That is why the following issues need to be considered by the government and the political elite regarding interpretation of American public opinion as reflected above.

First, the government and the political elite are challenged to create a strong, legitimate government. Without trust and efficacy, as a political scholar noted, a government would be hard-pressed to make commitments with the elite, thus impeding national development efforts.

The question now is how the legitimacy of Wahid government can be rectified. The answer would determine success and failure of the President to carry out the critical duties of law enforcement and prevention of widely spread conflicts.

The support of 86 percent of legislators in issuing the first censure against the President on Feb. 1 was sufficient to show how little legitimacy the President enjoyed at that time.

That condition was further worsened by a lack of seriousness on his part regarding the clashes in Sampit, Central Kalimantan, which not only increased resistance of the political elite, but also increased disappointment among the public.

This condition certainly complicates the President's ability in displaying any political prudence. He faces a rebellious political elite, the consequence of a lack of responsiveness that President Wahid shows toward their suggestions.

To prevent this continued stalemate the government and the political elite must seek an alternative solution. The government must have legitimacy to effectively carry on its duties. Lack of legitimacy, not surprisingly, has led to more hope on Vice President Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Under these conditions Megawati would be the better president, not only to synergize the executive political forces and the legislature, but also, most importantly, to accelerate political and economic stability, and national security.

If American public opinion was to analyze Megawati as a "weaker actor", as the above editorial mentioned, then this should be treated as an early warning for Megawati against repeating the mistakes of her predecessor.

That is why Megawati should strengthen preparations for a future Cabinet by including the major elite parties, to enable the House of Representatives' political support of the Cabinet.

If this feedback were acted on, Megawati's leadership would definitely be far stronger than the present leadership.

The second challenge to the government and the political elite, raised in the American public opinion above, is to uphold the law and prevent the spread of violence between ethnic groups.

This is urgent because, as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes wrote in his Leviathan (1839), each community member has given a "contract" to the government to create order. That order can only be formed if the government upholds legal supremacy by enforcement, Hobbes wrote.

Americans are not too concerned with who should be Indonesia's leader, as long as the law can be upheld and violence ended.

The problem now is, can we still hope on President Wahid's ability to uphold the law?

Similar to U.S. government and American public opinion, many here have judged that the President has been far from successful in law enforcement. Not only because he is considered "not quite serious" in tackling these problems, but also because steps taken by law enforcers have not been seen as being firm enough. The President and legal officers, needless to say, need to take a long look at themselves.

A show of seriousness and strong political will on the part of a national leader will motivate his subordinates in standing up to any type of difficulty. The ability of the U.S. to control stability regarding national security, and also overseas, such as in Korea, Vietnam and Panama, is very much supported by its civilian authority.

The success of the American federal government in handling violence between ethnic groups in California in 1992, following the bashing by a few Los Angeles Police Department officers of Rodney King, a black man, was supported by fast action and the civilian authority's boldness in giving firm instructions.

A firm command from the national leader is a decisive factor. So specific and resolute should such a command be, that there would be no room for security personnel to hesitate in taking action -- provided they have the necessary skills, including those regarding strategies and courage in making decisions, sensitivity and ability to cooperate.

The acts of violence in Maluku and Sampit, among others, are invaluable lessons to national leaders. The source of the conflicts go back decades, and are complex; but preventing casualties and the spread of the conflict is still the responsibility of the national leader and related government institutions.

Thus, the Sampit casualties are the responsibility of the President. Such situations demand emergency steps related to relief for victims and firm action against perpetrators. There is no time to wait for "procedures" involving reports from low-level institutions.

There is no acceptable excuse for a delay of action, given today's technology. Reports from local authorities might have taken time to reach to Jakarta; but the instant broadcasting of the outbreak in Sampit at dawn on Feb. 18 was enough information to act on.

In learning from the past, if she assumes national leadership, Megawati would, again, have to build relations among the elite in the executive, legislative and judiciary bodies as part of efforts to renew stability. It is this stability in Indonesia that people in the superpower country of the U.S. wish for.

Lt. Gen. (ret). A.M. Hendropriyono is chairman of the National Resilience Institute alumni organization and a member of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle.