What Americans want for Indonesia

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.