In search of Indonesia’s ‘grand strategy’

----------

In search of Indonesia’s ‘grand strategy’

Original link: http://www.sr-indonesia.com/2011-08-09-22-09-10/commentaries/153-in-search-of-indonesias-grand-strategy

 

For a large and populous country that lies along a strategically vital trade route, Indonesia does not have a clear and coherent “grand strategy.” Experts both inside and outside the Indonesian government may claim otherwise, noting the peaceful foreign policy slogan of “a thousand friends and zero enemies” and the bebas aktif (free and active foreign policy). This, however, remains a very vague policy with limited practical implications, in particular on what kind of actions Indonesia must take to achieve its goals.

The fallout from the lack of a grand strategy is evident in Indonesia’s security policies. Take the recent debate on whether Indonesia should buy 100 Leopard tanks from the Netherlands as part of a plan to modernize its Armed Forces. The talk centers around whether buying the tanks is a great idea for an archipelagic nation, whether Indonesia’s transportation infrastructure such as roads and bridges are strong enough to handle the 60-ton tanks, whether such a purchase would negatively impact Indonesia’s own defense industry and whether Indonesia should abandon the plan considering the nationalistic uproar following the Dutch parliament’s opposition to the sale because of perceived human rights violations in Indonesia.

There was no discussion at all, however, on where the tanks fit into the strategic calculations generally elaborated in a grand strategy.

Even explanations from Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro and Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Pramono Edhie Wibowo, and then President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, failed to address this question. They were mostly centered on the need for Indonesia to keep up with the Joneses: because other nations in Southeast Asia had Leopard tanks, it is only natural that Indonesia should also have them.

In essence, there has been no debate whatsoever on what kind of military Indonesia must have to fulfill both its foreign policy and national security needs. Defenders of the Leopard tank procurement would have a much stronger case to make to both parliament and the public had they managed to show where the tanks would fit within Indonesia’s grand strategy, and the short and long-term military goals to meet the demands outlined in this grand strategy.

The fact that Indonesia does not have a grand strategy means there is simply no good argument to justify the purchase of any type of hardware it may want. At the same time, any political opposition could derail Indonesia’s scheme to modernize its Armed Forces.

Regionally, Indonesia’s policy of bebas aktif works to some degree, especially in dealing with the rise of China. As noted in an interesting analysis by Jessica Brown, a researcher at the Australia-based Center for Independent Studies, Indonesia has managed to juggle the interests of both the United States and China while benefitting greatly from their overtures. Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty M Natalegawa has often remarked that Indonesia wants to promote the paradigm of “win-win” solutions, through which it reduces the chance of diplomatic backlash and makes everyone happy.

Such an approach, however, has not helped strengthen ASEAN, which is also one of Indonesia’s key foreign policy priorities. Frontline states that are most directly influenced and threatened by China, most notably Vietnam and the Philippines, do not share the optimism of Indonesia’s approach and actually see its win-win strategy as a clear lack of commitment to standing together against such threats.

Not surprisingly, both the Philippines and Vietnam welcome more US involvement in Southeast Asia, as they see America as less threatening and the lesser of two evils compared to China. Thus, Vietnam applauded US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2010 ASEAN Summit in Hanoi when she said the United States had an interest in preserving free shipping in the South China Sea, and that it would be willing to facilitate multilateral talks on the issue.

This was implicit affirmation that the US was refocusing its attention on the Asia-Pacific region. For its part, the Philippines reacted positively when US President Barack Obama announced last November that 2,500 Marines would be deployed to Darwin, Australia. Indonesia’s reaction was more pessimistic and subdued, with policymakers criticizing growing security competition in the region.

The problem here lies in the fact that there is no encompassing formal security institution that binds ASEAN, unlike in Europe where most members of the European Union are also members of NATO. In Europe, such overlapping institution helps bind nations because they are to some degree certain that their security concerns are addressed. Within ASEAN, however, even though its member states are more economically integrated, security arrangements lag behind, and as a result they seek out better security guarantees than can be provided by the regional grouping.

In the short term, Indonesia’s win-win approach works beautifully for its own interests in maintaining the status quo in the region and managing its relationships with both the US and China. In the long run, however, the policy will only undermine Indonesia’s cherished ASEAN project and its own credibility in international affairs.

Therefore, why does Indonesia not have a grand strategy? Actually, the country did have a grand strategy during the Soeharto era, which was evident in how Indonesia dealt with Cambodia’s four-way civil war in the 1980s. Even though Indonesia’s neighbors feared Vietnam’s expansionist ambitions and wanted to “bleed Vietnam white,” Indonesia’s main concerns centered solely on the threat of China’s expansion into Southeast Asia through its protégé, the Khmer Rouge.

Such calculations guided Indonesian foreign policy behavior, culminating in the two Jakarta Informal Meetings in July 1988 and February 1989. These meetings de-escalated the Cambodian conflict and led to the July 1990 International Paris Conference on Cambodia, co-chaired by Indonesia and France, which would end the civil war the following year.

In today’s Indonesia, however, the fragmented nature of its bureaucracy, with unclear chains of command due to overlapping organizations, self-interests, cronyism, lack of leadership and political will (and imagination), the inability to develop coherent policies, and the need to maintain the status quo rather than take painful bureaucratic reforms work in tandem to prevent any meaningful effort to craft a grand strategy. The creation of a grand strategy would force many within the various governmental bureaucracies to actually shape up and reform to meet national goals outlined in the grand strategy.

That is a shame because in the light of an uncertain global environment, and the changing nature of international affairs, it is a time for Indonesia to start developing one, lest it become more and more irrelevant, even in its own backyard.

Must Try Harder: Yudhoyono’s School Report Shows Much Room to Improve

The idea for this article came during the lunch meeting with Ben Otto. We were discussing about my articles and where it should go, when he mentioned the idea that the Jakarta Globe was going to do some articles on "2011." I volunteered to write an article on evaluating SBY's performance, followed a week after, by an article on the most important events of 2011.

Not surprisingly, this became the longest article I had written for the Globe at approximately 1400s words.
While was really tempting to say that SBY's presidency was a failure, I had to be objective in this case. I had to evaluate the presidency carefully, paying attention to which ones he could not have done anything had he wanted to and which ones were the missing opportunity.

Thus, I could not put in the hijacking of Indonesian freighter by the Somalian pirates (though it was very tempting to write all the government's missteps that exacerbated the situation) and many more blunders. Still, it was an interesting mind exercise.

Of all the comments, I found Christianto Wibisono's to be the most amusing. He said that no wonder I was not a popular teacher - I was harsher than Pak Fitch in grading Mr. SBY.

----
Must Try Harder: Yudhoyono’s School Report Shows Much Room to Improve
Yohanes Sulaiman | December 20, 2011

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono speaking at the Democratic Party's 10th anniversary event on Thursday.
(Rumgapres Photo)

With a few days to go before the new year, this is a good time to evaluate the performance of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2011.

Politics: 2011 was another year of wasted opportunities. With the opposition in disarray due to multiple scandals and misconduct and lawmakers’ popularity at a new low, Yudhoyono could have shown himself to be the only adult in town by being an effective administrator pushing for economic, law enforcement and political reforms.

Instead he was distracted by multiple scandals involving his own political party.

While Yudhoyono remains the most popular politician in Indonesia, Golkar has been working hard behind the scenes to ensure that it wins regional elections and ultimately the national election in 2014. At this juncture, Aburizal Bakrie may succeed in his bid to become the next president thanks to his ability to maintain discipline within Golkar. Grade: C.

Stability: Yudhoyono has a mixed record in maintaining the stability of the country. On one hand, he did a great job in tackling and managing the impact of bombings, preventing them from creating a new panic. In the case of Maluku, so far he has managed to prevent the situation there from degenerating further into an ethno-religious conflict.

Papua remains in turmoil, with the government unable to do much to curb corruption and to address local grievances. The government’s heavy-handed approach in dealing with discontent will hurt in the long run. Grade: B.

Economy: The economy has grown nicely this year, with every macroeconomic indicator in the black.

There are also signs of trouble, however, building on the horizon. Most of the nation’s growth so far has been driven by domestic consumption and international demand for our coal, gas and various other natural resources, which may decline drastically should China enter a period of recession.

There are concerns that all the economic gains do not trickle down to the middle and lower class, creating more inequality.

At the same time, some respected economists, such as Christianto Wibisono, have argued that growth of the Indonesian economy was solely driven by the private sector, with the government doing nothing but dragging the growth rate down due to massive red tape, conflicting regulations between the local and national levels and corruption.

Moreover, some short-sighted policies did nothing but sour the climate for investment further. For instance, Communication Minister Tifatul Sembiring’s threat to shut down Research In Motion’s operation in Indonesia and Churchill Mining’s troubles in East Kalimantan will spook foreign investors, wary that their investment will be politicized or simply taken away due to regulatory loopholes and corruption.

On the plus side, Dahlan Iskan’s appointment as the minister for state enterprises seems to be a great choice so far. Grade: B-.

Governance: Yudhoyono has a dysfunctional cabinet, with ministers unwilling to be the bearer of bad news to the president and unwilling to coordinate with each other. He succumbed to his political calculations and instead of streamlining the decision-making process, he created several positions of deputy ministers that further bloated the bureaucracy. Grade: D.

Corruption: Despite his campaign promises, corruption remains rampant within the bureaucracy and has had direct implications on people’s well-being and our national reputation, such as the collapsing bridges and graft surrounding the housing for athletes at the Southeast Asian Games.

Unchecked attempts to emasculate the to Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Gayus show, Nazaruddin and Nunun’s adventures abroad (that only ended after public outcry), then Justice and Human Rights Minister Patrialis Akbar’s decision to reduce the sentences of graft convicts, and the failure of many regional courts to punish those who commit graft are just the very top of this wreck that did nothing but undermine the public’s trust in the seriousness of the government to clean house. Grade: F.

Human Rights and Religious Freedom: While the government always stresses its commitments in defending human rights and religious freedoms, events prove otherwise.

Religious extremists are still running around with implicit clearance from the law enforcement apparatus. The failure of the government to defend the Ahmadiyah, let alone to persecute their attackers, did nothing but to sully Indonesia’s name abroad. Worse, the Bogor mayor’s decision to close down the GKI Yasmin Church, citing dubious excuses and in spite of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the church’s position, made further mockery of the rule of law. Grade: D.

Military Reform: The military remains committed to transforming itself into a modern, professional organization.

Though the progress is slow, and misconduct remains rampant, the improvement has been steady. The government has also helped the reform with its commitment to slowly increasing the budget for arms procurement and in improving the military’s ties with the United States. Grade: A.

Law Enforcement: Corruption remains rampant within Indonesian law enforcement, extending from the police corps and the office of prosecutor to the judiciary system.

The Constitutional Court is the only relatively bright spot in an otherwise rotten system. While there are efforts to clean things up, most prosecutions are politically influenced or driven by popular outrage. Grade: D.

Foreign Policy: While there were many foreign policy accomplishments this year with Indonesia as the chair of Asean, the country also had its share of missteps. For instance, even though the Asean Summit was a huge international event, there was little coverage in Indonesia, with the government unable to rouse public enthusiasm for the event. In addition, various governmental missteps, such as its inability to protect its workers from unjustified capital punishment abroad put a blemish on the government’s record.

On the plus side, the government handled the border crisis decently, keeping the situation from spiraling out of control. Grade: C.

Final Evaluation: 2011 was a year of several missed opportunities, with Yudhoyono unable to develop a coherent long-term strategy for Indonesia. The promised reforms were nonexistent, due to the lack of decisiveness. One hopes that the government will show a little backbone next year, especially in tackling the issue of corruption. Overall Grade: C-.

-----

carolinetanjaya

1:42pm Dec 20, 2011

Although I cannot say I disagree with the rest of the evaluation, some of the examples mentioned under the corruption heading are not thoroughly accurate or balanced. Some of the collapsing bridges were procured and built before SBY assume the presidency,like the Kukar bridge and the new Justice and the Human Rights minister ordered for a stricter procedure to reduce the sentence of the graft convicts. Furthermore we have to appreciate the fact that Nazaruddin and Nunun were indeed caught and brought back to Indonesia for trial. However, I agree that there is still much room for improvement.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

9:03pm Dec 20, 2011

@Carolinetanjaya: Thank you for your kind comments. While you are right that some of the collapsing bridges were built before his era, had he been through in cracking down on corruption, the local government would have been unable to skim the money used for the regular maintenance. We could even see a parade of the responsible parties on trial. Yet, a few weeks after the collapsed bridge, seems everything is back to the doldrums, that nobody got dragged kicking and screaming to the court to face the music.

On the new Justice and Human Rights minister: I am grading him on his yearly performance, and like it or not, Patrialis could not do anything without his acquiesence, so Patrialis Akbar's blunders still stop at his desk.

On Naz and Nunun: Yeah, they got arrested after popular outrage and much embarassment. That's not a plus in my estimation.

DrDez

7:05am Dec 21, 2011

Yohanes
More or less agree, I would have ranked a score lower on some issues re human rights & religious freedoms since he has been ineffective & has avoided the issues whenever religion has been a central theme.. Minor disagreement
However where I do disagree significantly is related to Military Reform. The bill (2008?) requiring the TNI to withdraw from SOE's has been all but ignored and in many ways that ties in with your corruption score - I would score MF no better than a C.

Caroline - Many of the maintenance contracts are controlled by a Kalla owned Group - they are paid extortionate amounts to and I quote 'check a few nuts and bolts'

Yohanes-Sulaiman

6:02pm Dec 21, 2011

@Dr. Dez: On religious freedom and human rights, I don't think he is THAT failed -- he had a bad score thanks to all these messes from GKI Yamin, Ahmadiyah, and now, that killings of the farmers in Lampung. Yet, we have to acknowledge that this is far from a police state, and he is guilty of being passive -- thus the grade D.

On military reform: we can agree to disagree here. Yeah, the military is still in a mess, but from my dealing with them on a constant basis, it seems to me that the military itself is geniunely interested in reforming itself -- especially among the rank and file. True that they are still defending their vested interests and have a very narrow understanding of what their roles supposed to be and how to deal with e.g. Papua, but as a whole, the institution is truly moving forward, which is far cry to the rest of the nation.

Still, I may be biased here.

RuleBritannia

6:32pm Dec 21, 2011

@Yohanes: Concur re. your grades. However, in the words of Edmund Burke, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" so, the crime of passivity is perhaps one of the biggest crimes of all for a ruling president.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

6:47pm Dec 21, 2011

@RuleBrittannia: I agree, but well, I could not say he was passive so this was a year of failure. Though I think Bung Hatta would have put it succinctly by quoting Schiller, his favourite poet: "The century has given birth to a time of greatness, But the great moment finds man small."

RuleBritannia

7:11pm Dec 21, 2011

@Yohanes: Indeed . . And I'm sure those celebrating Christmas in a parking lot, together with many others, will be praying for John 4:23 'Cometh the hour, cometh the man.' as their New Year Wish!!

DrDez

9:26pm Dec 21, 2011

The real crime is that SBY had a whole nation behind him - he had not only the elite but a popular vote to make real change... Almost no politician in history has had such a luxury - JFK, Churchill, Ghandi in the modern era perhaps - but the simple truth is he has blown it.. No debate, no more analysis, no more what if's... His next few years will be spent preparing the legacy (his protection)... It is abject failure if viewed from a national perspective as simple as that

nonredneck

10:13pm Dec 21, 2011

I 2nd caroline & Yohanes views.This comes back to political game of balances. To catch the fish,sometimes u hv to let the mud settle down OR sometimes u hv to disturb the water. To us it's easy when we see it on the news "hey u're not doing anything SBY!" but not so when we'r in tht position ourself having to deal with our own internal party, military, the imams, foreign preassure, economic etc. This reminds me of Sukarno's fragile balance of nasakom and cia. In order to attract a sizable amount of investment for further economic progress,a relative stability is required. A political strugle or worse if military & extremist-open-war is involved. These could even worsen the fragile situation. There's no quick attack solution for hundreds yr old problems,but regardless of heritage/culture/military/protests/religious,all balance will never be achieved if there is no economic prosperity. Indo can be monarcy like brunei for all I care but economic prosperity must be priotiry fr all policies

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:19pm Dec 21, 2011

Risking myself to be seen as starry-eyed idealist, I think we need a complete revamp of the election law. We should make it that a president can only reign for 1 term of 6 years. We will have the DPR election on the second and fourth years of the presidency -- providing feedback and rebukes to the ruling party. So, instead of having those clowns to sit pretty for 5 years in the parliament, they should be judged by population every two or four years.

Otherwise, I'm afraid that the democracy can no longer be salvaged thanks to these clowns up there.

DrDez

5:16am Dec 22, 2011

Yohanes
Many (of us) have lobbied for voting reforms for years via working groups, business groups, advisory groups etc etc and what we witness time after time is that as soon as their power/prosperity is challenged the doors are firmly shut. You may recall my post about the spatial planning fiasco a few weeks ago - A typical example of exposing a deep flaw in the administration and then getting the door slammed.
NRN - I am sorry but economic prosperity at any costs is not a wise path. It is already twisted and used as the excuse for personal gain as it is and is incredibly narrow in its benefits. We are doing this/that for the nation translates to we are making a killing (literally sometimes) and don't care about the consequences

nonredneck

2:35pm Dec 22, 2011

DD: Just curious, in your business dealings, do you make money first and fix the system later, OR fix the system to perfection first then make money later? Assuming you are in the situation of the poor majority.

DrDez

4:07pm Dec 22, 2011

NRN
Born from a philosophy to make things right first time, we employ the best people we can, pay very well & use a Toyota based system. We made no money for years & then about 35 years ago we took our first major export step Toshiba. A 1000% increase in turnover in 2 yrs resulted. 40 staff to 500. We still stuck by our philosophy & it stood up well.
20 years ago we had accredn with FAA & the biz exploded again. Current CEO is my oldest grandson who we have groomed since he was 15 & hopefully he will do the family proud.
I would say we plan well and always try get the model right; knowing that it will make money
Starting pay is 1.8x min wage + FF medical cover, free canteen and travel allowance. After 1 year we offer a lot of other stuff including profit share (2010 was Rp25jt/per person)
In return we have almost zero staff turnover and almost zero defects, we run at an ebita over 30% and pay our taxes. Our biggest issues are usually from the local mosques and village chiefs

blightyboy

4:59pm Dec 22, 2011

DrDez - I can only applaud.

blightyboy

5:03pm Dec 22, 2011

nonredneck - The name you have chosen really is quite offensive.

nonredneck

5:56pm Dec 22, 2011

blightyboy: I've explained my stance on my username before on different topic. If you're not an extremist, not a sawn-off-shotgun slinger, not a fighting-pitbull breeder, not a slave owner, and not a forest burner then you are also my friend... also a non-redneck.

nonredneck

5:58pm Dec 22, 2011

DD: Your way sounds absolutely the way a business should be run, and I agree 100%. But in larger application, can this model be applied in larger scale of a nation? If it is applied though, won't this turn back to autocratic leadership style, and there will be no voting/protests to influence the direction of the company. Singapore is an example of how a state is run like a profitable enterprise, and the result is amazing! But this would also means lack of public involvement, and single party dominance over all policies. And SG policies as we know it tends to favor businesses, and economic prosperity. Only recently after the election, they change their style. So going back to economic first or system first, if for example Indo is to use your business philosophy then that would mean a strong dominant leader at the top to determine the direction of the ship, and among which social-strata can we find this kind of uncorrupted leader?

DrDez

6:27pm Dec 22, 2011

NRN its a business model not a model nation. We do things by committee and only rarely does Mathew or previously myself make a singular decision. We run works councils, Health & Safety Councils, NPI Councils so that everyone has a say – They all own what they do and they are proud of the company and we are proud of them. We all wear the same gear, eat in the same canteen, start and finish at the same time, our wage structure is public – we operate a grades system. Nothing is underhand and if we have an issue we always deal with it publicly .
If I had to run a nation – I would devise a different model – that model would start by splicing religion and state, it would also sell off all SOE’s and disband the military. It would open our doors to the world without prejudice… then see what we would become...At my age I have seen hope and despair in this nation - right now I have no confidence in our peoples ability to overturn the oppressor

padt

6:30pm Dec 22, 2011

And the issues from the local mosques and village chiefs are DrDez?

BilboBaggins

8:08pm Dec 22, 2011

DrDez
"right now I have no confidence in our peoples ability to overturn the oppressor "

It makes me sad that I feel that you are right on this point.

DrDez

8:15pm Dec 22, 2011

Padt : threats, stirring up trouble, asking for donations or bribes (not to cause trouble) & worse
Example: years ago we built 2 schools & still pay for uniforms, books & our onsite Nurse visits to check on the kids
The local mosque man came saying he could get the stuff cheaper & it would give local people employment. The Nurse noticed the kids had not got new uniforms so she asked the teacher who said they had not had anything this term. My wife confronted the cleric. I had given him via bank transfer Rp15jt down payment as requested about 8 weeks previously. He said he had not had the cash, so I involved the bank who proved it had been paid. The Police refused to press charges unless we paid a fee. We lost Rp15jt – we bought more books and uniforms and then stopped the annual gift to the mosque (Rp25jt) Can you believe he came to ask for it the first year! We refused resulting in vandalism and threats to staff direct from him
Aceh1 Remind me again why I should like Islam?

DrDez

8:16pm Dec 22, 2011

Bilbo
The problem is that the majority would in their shoes do exactly the same

Valkyrie

9:21pm Dec 22, 2011

DrDez...

I am able to understand how you feel about religion.
Just need to tell you that there are still some good apples in the basket.

SirAnthonyKnown-Bender

11:35pm Dec 22, 2011

Nice story from Dr Dez there and alas all too typical I fear. Rather than good apples, who would be good apples in any case, my own view is that religion, like the flag, is far more often something for bad apples to hide behind and mask their negativity behind a patina of respectability. And in related news I see that Iraq has lasted precisely one week after the Yanks left before reaching the verge of Islamic internecine civil war.

DrDez

6:40am Dec 23, 2011

Val
I have said this a million times. I have no issue with people being religious - UNTIL they start using their belief in god to hurt, kill, corrupt, oppress, control, outlaw blah blah(you get the picture)
Religion is a fine thing - it gives people hope and a support system.
What really pisses me off is when pious people have incredibly obvious double standards and use religion for personal gain.
What pisses me off even more is the ultra sensitivity that Islam is displaying right here right now
what pisses me off even more than that is the response of most religious people here 'well he cant be a Muslim the Koran forbids that' and on and on. ergo an Ostrich response
Sheesh when are we going to learn to live together? Why is Islam so frightened of criticism that the instant response is attack? When are the state going to stand up and protect the minority? Do recall that the minorities account for some 50 million people (approx 20% of 250m)its not like its a small number

DrDez

7:36am Dec 23, 2011

Sir
Yes I agree - and re Iraq it looks like an all out sunni/shia conflict is on the cards - They will of course blame the CIA or Zionists... But the Sunni have been slaughtering Shia in Iraq this year via the bus load (literally)
2012 will be a bad year I can feel it in my water

Yohanes-Sulaiman

12:14pm Dec 23, 2011

@all: What we observe here is the unholy incest between religion and politics. As long are religion is used as means to achieve political goals without paying much attention to rule of law, expect such idiocy to continue unhindered.

nonredneck

4:58pm Dec 23, 2011

DD: AHA...something clicks when you said "at my age"... Now I can see why we share many common agreement on issues, but the differece is in "hope". I'm guessing we as human measure our surroundings & future outlook based on our own lifespan. Say you live to 100 or more, it is most likely that you won't see much change at all,hence explain your outlook on the country. On the contrary I have a longer time to reach 100 so my outlook for the future is more hopeful therefore deemed more positive. But I'm surprised at so many younger audience reading JG having cynical views, I don't know if it's the sheep mentality, or they genuinely have cynical views at their young age, if they are genuine then I'll be worried because it's a vicious-cycle.

nonredneck

4:58pm Dec 23, 2011

On iraq, it has officially become a stage for proxy wars, secular propaganda must be strengthen. I don't care how, but the PR machines must work hard to spin that secular propaganda in the hearts and minds. Nationalistic fascism is better than religious extremism, north korea is easier to dismantle than extremist hydras

DrDez

5:20pm Dec 23, 2011

NRN
84 & married to my Indonesian wife (whom I met in Paris) over 50 years, we have lived in JK for nearly 44 years
I have seen a LOT of changes here, I see repeated & predictable patterns & right now we are in a cycle that will get significantly worse before it gets better. The TNI will figure large
Iraqi: the region will in 2012 see deaths beyond imagination. Civil war will continue in Syria & Yemen, sectarian violence will worsen in Iraq, Iran will maintain the support for Syria and The Shia in Iraq, Pakistan will continue killing itself until ISI takes over and no doubt will draw India into conflict. Behind the scenes Saudi will be pumping cash into Islamic extremism, the US will use the CIA as a counter measure, Russia and China will carry on their subversion. The MB will screw Egypt and probably in desperation take them to war with Israel, Turks meanwhile will continue to kill the kurds Marko would say its NWO time
I am not looking forward to '12. The grim reaper will be busy

nonredneck

4:36pm Dec 24, 2011

Hmmm many many dead bodies in mideast.... which is happier god or syaitan? > if their answer is 'g' then they're indicating that their 'g' is bloodthirsty. And if their answer is 's' then why use the 'g' name?

Missed Opportunity: the US & Indonesia After 9/11

-----
Missed Opportunity: the US & Indonesia After 9/11
Yohanes Sulaiman | September 12, 2011

On Sept. 17, 2001, President Megawati Sukarnoputri arrived in the United States. She became the first head of state to visit the country in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack that shocked the United States and the world.

On Sept. 19, Megawati gave a speech at the USINDO gala dinner. Written by politician Rizal Mallarangeng, the speech was eloquent and hit all the right notes. It stressed the importance of the US-Indonesia relationship, noted that the United States had been very influential in Indonesia and that Indonesia had a strong strategic importance with the country. It reminded the United States that Indonesia was a newly democratic country that had the largest Muslim population in the world and that it would be critical in maintaining regional stability and would be very important in America’s future “War on Terror.”

More important, Megawati stressed that despite the United States’ military embargo that had crippled Indonesia’s ability to defend itself, Indonesia was willing to help the United States in times of need. The help, however, was not free. Megawati commented on the challenges facing Indonesia, notably its limited resources and its own internal troubles of a financial crisis, corruption, separatism, GAM-led terrorism and ethno-religious conflicts that would hamper its ability to contribute to US interests — implicitly demanding some sort of quid pro quo.

Such a demand was not unethical. Rather, it is common in international relations that the stronger state, in this case the United States, should bring something to the table in exchange for support.

And the potential payoff for Indonesia was enormous. The United States could pressure its allies to stay out of Indonesia’s internal affairs; it could throw in a lot of much-needed economic and technical assistance; and it could lift the arms embargo on the Indonesian armed forces, accelerating their modernization. There were also trade concessions being dangled.

And there was reason to expect this kind of massive payoff. In October 2001, Frida Berrigan, a peace activist and research associate at the World Policy Institute who was not a fan of US-Indonesia rapprochement, complained in the World Policy Journal that President George W. Bush “promised Megawati economic aid totaling more than $700 million, including money for police training and civilian courses in defense under the E-IMET program [Expanded-International Military Education and Training]. Bush also expressed his desire to resume regular military contact, and lift the embargo on the sale of ‘non-lethal’ weapons.”

In essence, Indonesia would have received much of what it wanted from Washington without too much hassle or arduous negotiations, simply because Indonesia was in the right place at the right time.

Unfortunately, the Indonesian political elites did not think of the long-term interests of the nation, instead focusing on their own short-term interests and as a result blowing a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

After the United States began bombing Afghanistan, Indonesian political leaders raced to condemn the action, simply to court the fabled “Muslim vote” that would supposedly bring an absolute majority in the legislature. Vice President Hamzah Haz demanded that the United States end the hostilities in Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, faced with political pressure, Megawati quickly backtracked from her position of support for the United States.

Thanks to this, many of the offers that Bush put on the table were withdrawn. It was not until 2005 that the military assistance to Indonesia was partly carried out, and it was conditional on a yearly evaluation by the US secretary of state of conditions in Papua.

In 2008, the US foreign aid request for Indonesia was just $185.6 million. In contrast, Pakistan, which publicly opposed the US invasion of Afghanistan and covertly supported the Taliban, but allowed the United States to use its airspace to invade Afghanistan, benefited greatly from this double game. According to the Congressional Research Service, the United States waived nuclear weapons sanctions on Pakistan, rescheduled the country’s debts and provided both official and unofficial foreign aid totaling $20 billion.

In the meantime, in spite of Haz’s bold assertion that there were no terrorists in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiyah struck Bali with car bombs, killing 202 people in 2002. The bombing crippled Bali’s tourism for years, depriving Indonesia of much-needed income.

The tables were turned. Instead of Indonesia demanding payment from the United States for its cooperation, Indonesia had to ask for US assistance in its own “War on Terror,” helping the United States to fight its war without gaining as many economic benefits as it could have.

For Megawati, the Bali bombing inadvertently spelled the end of her presidency as it presaged the ascension of Gen. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who in the aftermath of the bombing managed to show his leadership, his command and control of the situation. This later ushered him to the presidency, as ordinary people yearned for bold and decisive leadership, a proverbial stonewall in the middle of chaos caused by the greedy political class.

Ten years after 9/11, Indonesia’s internal situation is vastly improved. The terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah has been decimated, major ethno-religious conflicts are no longer seen as inevitable as people mature and understand the stupidity of such conflicts, and the country’s economy is growing.

Sadly, however, Indonesia’s political elites remain mired in their old ways of thinking, preferring political posturing in order to score short-term political gains, rather than doing something bold and decisive, and focusing on the long-term interests of the nation. Such thinking robbed Indonesia of its once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It won’t be surprising if there is an encore.
---------

jchay

4:27pm Sep 12, 2011

Until Indonesia has a leader with the best interest for the nation, people and its resources instead of "selling" them out for the sake of their own short-term interests, we will keep reading this kind of historical stupidity.

DrDez

5:21pm Sep 12, 2011

66 years Yohanes - its shameful. We are one of the richest nations on earth regarding natural resource and with a population size that could exploit it for the benefit of the whole nation - but instead we choose greed and conflict

Valkyrie

6:41pm Sep 12, 2011

DrDez:

I am going an inch deeper into my thoughts as to why, Indonesia is not able to become a solid economic nation.
Wikileaks is just toying around the surface. Like you, I have been too long in this country not to notice strange situations.
Tell, you what. When this country is free from external religious influences and the next generation has amassed adequate education, change will take place.
Right now "someone" outside seems to look at Indonesia as an unstable entity.
Think about geopolitics and you'll see what I mean.

Ppar512

11:36pm Sep 12, 2011

I disagree with this article. Except with the sentiment that our leaders are and were incompetent. But i think in this instance they've done the right thing.

With hindsight, I couldn't understand how anyone could argue that supporting US wars in Afghan & Iraq is the right thing to do. I'm even confident that the majority of US citizens now, after seeing the cost and facts would've chosen to go to war in the first place. Afghan is a failed state now, US casualties everyday. And for what? Bin Laden is killed in Pakistan, with intelligence work and covert ops, not full blown assault. Iraq? All evidences points to WMD alert as full-on fabrication. Cant see any defensible reasons for this war except oil or post war construction jobs.

And just look at what standing fully behind the wars leaves Blair and Howard and their respective parties? What good has it done to them? So how can you seriously advocate it now in all times?

As for playing a blatant double game in supporting what amounts as illegal invasion bordering on genocide? I do wish we dont have to resort to despicable acts like that and still maintained what left of our semblance of dignity. Money can be found elsewhere but honor is apparently scarce in this modern world.

jetset24

6:02am Sep 13, 2011

Too many missed opportunities since Indonesia's independence. Sorry to say that their history wasn't fed with a silver spoon therefore why not take today the opportunity (providing there is still a chance) and excel while burying away the egoistical attitude on every level.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

6:23am Sep 13, 2011

Thank you all for your comments.
@Valkyrie: The problem, unfortunately, is the quality of education itself is suspect. As you may notice in today's Globe, grafts robbed many schools of its desperately needed funds. Now, politicians found that they could increase the money for the Ministry of Religion, and calling it "fulfilling the constitution that mandating 20% of state budget for education" even though this ministry has far worse records on grafts.

On geopolitics, I know who you mean, but don't think I should speculate about their motives, etc.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:13am Sep 13, 2011

@Ppar552:

On "genocide," I am sorry but I think you are using that term too liberally. Genocide is a state's OFFICIAL policy of exterminating a group of people based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or other characteristics.

As much as I disagree with Bush, I have a hard time finding any of his policies that we can safely call "act of genocide" and I am already giving "genocide" here a very loose definition.

In fact, your claim of "genocide" actually looks silly, compared to what the Talibans did or Saddam's gassing the Kurds.

I do think that Iraq was a bad policy - they severely underestimated the difficulties of nation-building. Afganistan, however, is a problem of neglect, coupled by the fact that Karzai is simply a weak and corrupt leader. Bush paid too much attention on Iraq, and allowing the Talibans to regroup - not to mention helps from Pakistan; thus making it a failed state.

It is not black and white- even before Bush's invasion, Afghanistan already a failed state ruled bu fundamentalist cult that treats women like dirt and will be used by Pakistan to launch a proxy war against India and may destabilizing the region. At least the US tried to do something good by building infrastructures etc. Did you know that the US is far more trusted than any local official in Afghanistan today?

I do think that counterfactually, had Indonesia been involved, we could have done many things, trying to influence the events there thus minimizing the messes that the US did. More importantly, however, it would help bolstering our own anti-terrorism program, thus avoiding the Bali Bombings. Still that's a counterfactual and I have to admit that it is my speculation only.

Anyhow, we can agree to disagree here. Keep in mind, however, that there's no morality in international relations. It is all based on interests and morality is only used to justify the means.

SirAnthonyKnown-Bender

11:17am Sep 13, 2011

Genocide is genocide, no matter what any official policy is YS. You can't sell genocide to the American people under a nominally democratic system so it becomes a case of who controls the labels and, most importantly, the consent manufacturing media. In the Vietnam war, Henry Kissenger demanded attacks by "anything that flies on anything that moves". This is as an overt a call for genocide as can be imagined. Of course these transcripts were not released until 25 years after the fact, I wonder why? It's been argued that if the Nuremberg principles were rigidly applied, every US President since WWII would have been hanged. If you want to reduce terror in the world there's one very easy way to do so: stop participating in it.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

12:29pm Sep 13, 2011

Sir Anthony: I don't like the term genocide - it is mostly used as a strawman to simplify others' argument while and thus rather than debating the fine points, just ended up in a shouting match. Besides, why post WWII? I can make argument easily about the US committing genocide on Japan and Germany in WWII, and every single state doing horrid things to others - the Mongol Conquest came to mind. Thus, when will it end? Then it will open tons of cans of worms of holocaust enabler, the "willing executioner" and "innocent bystander" theory.

Let's stick with the facts: the US was in Afghan in order to flush Al Qaeda out. I'd argue that it was a just and necessary war: you keep AQ alive, it will be emboldened and keep funding other terror attacks, notably the Jamaah Islamiyah. There are some reports stating that the reason why JI stopped fighting in Molucca and Poso was due to their fund dried out and AQ egged them to have another strike, thus you have Bali.

Iraq, however, is an unnecessary war because Saddam was contained and they didn't think too much about nation building, not to mention distract from the real objectives: Al Qaeda and Taliban.

You want to stop terror? Cut the head and make sure you de-radicalize the rest.

Anyway, I have to say its a nice comment. I'd love to hear your reply. Thanks!

Valkyrie

2:39pm Sep 13, 2011

Yohanes,

I am thoroughly enjoying your articles/postings. Thanks to "enakajah" who told me about you. He was correct.

Cheers!

Ppar512

4:51pm Sep 13, 2011

Yohanes-Sulaiman: I apologize for the improper use of genocide. My mistake. Thank you for the correction.

Obviously you know far more about politics than me so I instead would like to ask for your opinion in my scenario of what ifs. In my belief if Megawati is steadfast in her support for the US wars wouldnt her opponents with the increasingly unpopular wars pounce on that and amass support in the house to oust her? At best she would last until 2004 and lost anyway, cause the wars are already extremely unpopular then, and she wouldve been labeled as the one who supported it.

And I do agree that morality is only about perception. But your proposal of double game is in my opinion would be unpopular enough to cause enough disturbances in this country to make the gain moot and even be counter-effective.

Another question, do you not think that your confidence in our power and standings in international relation is exaggerated? If we do as you proposed, are we really able to have enough influence to impose ourselves to change the course of history?

Lastly, you described Yudhoyono as a bold and decisive leader. In his first term, all evidences points to this. But why is it that in his second term, even with added advantage of people majority support, he seems to be the antithesis of that? What contributed to this stark differences? Is there an X ingredient missing now?

Thank you for the informative argument. Apologies for my lack of cohesive reply.

SirAnthonyKnown-Bender

5:03pm Sep 13, 2011

As Britain found out in Northern Ireland and umpteen attempts at reducing terror since, cutting the head off just leads to more terror as a response and new leaders springing up in the beheaded terror leaders' place. It's more like cutting the grass...it keeps growing. I don't buy the line that you declare war on an entire country in order to flush out a small group responsible for one specific crime. Obama has increased the onslaught on innocent Afghanis if anything and for what? As soon as the US pulls out the so-called democratic government of Afghanistan will collapse within 48 hours. Democracy emerges from some inner will and impulse of the people and cannot be created by an annexing, Imperial power. Iraq, on the other hand, has been radicalised in a way it wasn't before and the Middle East is now shaping up for a Shia/Sunni conflagration that'll destroy any hope of peace for a generation. These two countries have been pretty much ruined by wars of aggression dating back decades, wars that the West have been complicit in and waged. The Taliban were US favourites until they fell out of favour. Iraq was shattered by bombs, then sanctions, then bombs again. It's inconceivable that America will allow an independent Iraq, but they simply haven't known what the hell they've been doing and are now left having failed in their one war aim: namely to make sure that Iraqis don't rule their own country. Under international law, all the consequences of these wars are the responsibility of the aggressing party, to wit, the US and its allies. The Middle East is the world's great energy prize and the West wants its hands on the spigot, it's as simple as that. The 9/11 bombers were all from Saudi Arabia - the country that has a growing fundamentalist terror problem and which is, at a deep level, the most fundamentalist religious country in the world. They're the US's allies. These are the facts. Just war? The West needs its "just wars" it distracts attention away from other stuff, such as Obama appointing people to clean up the financial crisis who were responsible for causing it in the first place.

Orangjkt

6:36pm Sep 13, 2011

Merican bule got bombeb because of their fault. Their habit of being nosy and arrogant caused 9/11, we didnt need to feel sorry for them...they deserved it. How many peop,e has the american killed in iraq,vietnam,afghan and so on? Hundred of thousands!!!

Roland

8:57pm Sep 13, 2011

@Orangjkt! Your "opinion" that they deserved to die is a very sad reflection of your very own humanity against others..
Innocent people NEVER deserve to be killed and this includes also all the civilian who got killed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, regardless on who killed them. It wasn't their fault as it wasn't the fault of the victims of 9/11 to be (mostly) US Americans. It is simply wrong! Your excuse of making it right by adding assumed attributes as "nosy, arrogant" to their character does NOT contribute in your direction!
I pity you and your cruel mindset!

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:21pm Sep 13, 2011

Hoo boy, this will be a long night for sure, trying to answer such great comments. I guess next time I should write something as polarizing as this one. September 30 comes to mind, but well, let us digress.

@Valkyrie: Thank you so much. Say hi to enakajah for me. I haven't bugged him in ages because I believe he is pretty preoccupied with his current project.

@Ppar512: I don't know you, so it is possible that probably you know more politics than I do. Ok, lets move on to your questions:
1. Keep in mind that I don't entirely blame Megawati for missing the opportunity. If you re-read my oped, I blame the immature Indonesian political elites, who prefer to focus on their short-term interests than thinking the long-term interest of the state.

Honestly though, even if the parliament would try to get rid of Megawati, I doubt that in 2002 there was a viable alternative to Megawati. Gus Dur could be replaced because there was Megawati whom everyone agreed to be able to replace him. Hamzah Haz? Yeah right. Amien Rais? Possible, but don't think he was that popular. Even the rise of SBY was to some degree very unexpected.

So, back to your core argument: aside of SBY, who would be that popular in 2004? Even in the hindsight, I could name nobody.

2. Could "bad" foreign policy caused disorder? Call me cynical, but I'd guess probably just the usual suspects who would cause havoc, people who are paid to cause havoc. Other than that, call me cynical, but regular people simply don't care about foreign policy.

Since Indonesian independence, foreign policy had always been used as a club to beat the political opponents - thus Hatta's famous 1948 speech on "Bebas Aktif," which was essentially him trying to preempt the attacks from the leftists who were pissed off that he was so close to the United States. Yet, should the elite be united, there were no ruckus at all about "biased" foreign policy.

You can ask Suharto for that in regards to East Timor. Even Sukarno did not do anything when Sukiman signed the Mutual Security Act with the United States, until the Masjumi brought that as an issue to bring down the Sukiman cabinet as a payback for the collapse of the Natsir Cabinet.

3. Well, I will use the usual cliche: we are strategically important, in the middle of two oceans and two continents. Thus, geographically Indonesia has always been critical. In fact, there would not have been US involvement in Vietnam had there been no Commies in Indo. Nixon would not have withdrawn from Vietnam had Indonesia been a communist country.

Powerwise, however, Indonesia is weak - thanks to decades of authoritarianism that destroyed the ability of the military to think critically and nepotism that destroyed professionalism. Not to mention the fact that the budget for the military is very low,

Allying with the US would help us modernizing our army and thus increasing our power. In short term, we would still unable to change the course of history or influence the global balance of power, but in a long run, I am crossing my fingers.

4. On SBY: before the first term, he got nothing to lose. In his first term, his popularity was ok, but his power in the parliament was not that high. He had to take risks. In second term, however, he got the power and popularity, and some people even said that he was hoping to build a dynasty. Thus, when you are in good position, you tend to be risk-averse. It is Prospect Theory 101. There was an article about Prospect theory in Kompas a few months ago, but you should not read it. It was horrid and wrong.

In short, he no longer feels the need to take a risk. Then again, it becomes his downfall, and you know, that kinda reminds me of Obama after his "Obamacare victory." There's an interesting parallel between these two.

Thanks for your interesting comments. Sir Anthony is next. Stay tuned.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:48pm Sep 13, 2011

@SirAnthony:

You raised lots of great examples, but sadly those examples could go both way.

There's a parallel between Northern Ireland and Afghanistan, where the leaders of the extremists could go across the border for protection. That what made it very difficult to cut the head. You have safe havens to regroup, restock, and to make plans.

Of course, the assistances are unofficial, but they do wonders in making your anti-terrorism policies ineffective.

Keep in mind that the US never declares war against Afghanistan, but only Talibans, who were not popular at all, and they could only survive thanks to the Pakistani's intelligence service's support.

I am not a fan of Obama, mind you. I think he is an overrated empty suit. Still, he didn't target innocent Afghanis. He targetted the Talibans.

On Democracy, you must be kidding. While the US did share some blame for messing up the place, the majority of the blame should be put on Karzai, who manages to create an empire of kleptomaniacs. Had he been a better leader leading a responsible government, he would have been very popular indeed. Corruption is Karzai's wrongdoing and he had to live with it. You can't blame US for that.

Actually, making democracy is easy. Suharto has been doing it nicely with his elections. Improving the quality, however, is a tough job, because you really need to have credible and capable political elites who would think the long term interests of their nations, like Bung Hatta.

On Sunni-Shia conflagration: you know what, I don't buy this entire idea of ancient ethnic hatred. These people had been living there for centuries nicely, even with the Jewish and Christian populations.
The problem, however, is when you have idiotic thuggish elites who want to rule the state by using religion as his or her sole selling point.
WHen you have a bunch of thugs under a Shiite leader start beating a bunch of SUnnis, the Sunnis would of course be upset and would rely on fellow Sunnis to settle the score.

Once these kind of people were out of picture, you won't have any more religious conflicts. Ask the Germans who had a 100-year religious war back in the days. Today, seemed to me both their Catholics and Lutherans are getting along nicely.

On Independent Iraq: I think you better ask Syria, Iran, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia. They are the ones who are hoping that there is no independent Iraq. For US, the sooner they leave, the better as Iraq is so costly.


On oil: do you realize that the US gets its oil from Venezuela, Mexico, Canada and Nigeria? It is the Japanese and Europeans who got their oil from the Middle East, including Iraq.

On consequences of war: I think the US had done a good job trying to fix what they broke. Well, it is not their fault that the local elites are not mature enough to act responsibly.

In essence, true, part of the blame is to the US. Yet, you can't really blame everything on the US. It is a two-way street, and seem to me that the irresponsible locals also share part or probably the majority of the blame.

On Obama's just war: meh, I am not going to defend Obama. Wake me up when he got kicked out and Hillary or at least Romney got in.
If it is Perry, four more years of winter. If it is Bachmann, better bring ski to hell.


@Roland: hear, hear!

SirAnthonyKnown-Bender

3:20am Sep 14, 2011

“On Democracy, you must be kidding. While the US did share some blame for messing up the place, the majority of the blame should be put on Karzai, who manages to create an empire of kleptomaniacs.”

Seriously? You blame a Washington stooge for the mess of Afghanistan? How is a man such as Karzai, a Western puppet, supposed to project power in a land of perpetually warring tribes? As I said, democracy, representative government, call it what you will, comes from an inner impulse of a people of a given country and cannot be imposed from outside, and Afghanistan is the paradigmatic case. It’s pure Western hubris to think that these populations just can’t wait to set up there own versions of America’s by now extremely corrupt form of government. Karzai’s power extends to the edge of Kabul and that’s it, he’s not a credible leader but he’s the West’s man. Nobody else is going to toe the imperialist line.

“Actually, making democracy is easy. Suharto has been doing it nicely with his elections.”

Well now we get down to the nitty gritty. If you consider this chap to be a virtuous supporter of democratic ideals and not one of the most vicious tyrants of the 20th century then we really are in trouble.

“…because you really need to have credible and capable political elites who would think the long term interests of their nations, like Bung Hatta.”

He was a socialist, as were all of Indonesia’s founding fathers. Suharto stopped all of that and turned this country into a Western client state: small domestic elite who control the resources and labour and who allow the first world to plunder exactly what they want. What popular movements here can rival those of South America? Where’s the labour agitation? Compare someone like Bakrie with Brazil’s Lula. You may not agree with everything he did but he was a working man propelled to the presidency by the people. In Indonesia today such a thing would be inconceivable, despite both countries being at a similar level of development.

“On Sunni-Shia conflagration: you know what, I don't buy this entire idea of ancient ethnic hatred. These people had been living there for centuries nicely…”

These people have been ruled down the barrel of a gun for decades. Now Iraq has collapsed, thanks to the West, a huge population of Sunnis have been released to face off Iran’s Shia majority. These two countries fought a war and Iraq’s Shia minority (well, around 50 percent) have strong links to Iran. Some of the worst Sunni/Shia violence ever has come in the wake of the US invasion. The prognosis is not good on this front.

“Well, it is not their fault that the local elites are not mature enough to act responsibly.”

Again, we get to the crux of the matter here. Why are elites the sole guardians of their country? What of the people? Of real democracy and popular activism? The answer is they are just scum who have to be controlled and managed while the country is plundered. Look at the Arab spring. It follows the usual model of Western diplomacy. The West backs the dictator until it becomes impossible to continue to do so due to popular foment. They then make fine, noble noises about “democracy” and “the will of the people” while working hard behind the scenes to make sure that as much of the old regime stays intact as possible. There are people who think they own the world Yohanes, and they are going to try their hardest to keep it in their control.

Valkyrie

6:53am Sep 14, 2011

Yohannes,

I am not able to communicate with "enakajah" at the moment. He's incommunicado. (where he currently is, at least)
I know that he'll certainly return when it's all over.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

9:49am Sep 14, 2011

Wow what a fun morning.

@Valkyrie: yeah he is in an undisclosed location. I'd hazard to guess that he is accompanying Dick Cheney? :D

@SirAnthony: interesting comments.

I am serious in blaming Karzai and his ilks. He is not a complete puppet. He has a choice of running a regime professionally. He chose instead to run his regime with his cronies. To say he is a complete puppet is oversimplifying the reality of situation there.

You may want to check some articles written by Ahmad Rashid, a Pakistani journalist on that. There are many more papers written on the limit of US influence on Karzai regimes.

Still, it is interesting when you argue about the "inner impulse" of people, because if you think about it, then there is no such thing as "democracy" because every single revolution, including the US Revolution, is done by a group of elites who then impose democracy on people. It is only after years of internal transformation then a system can truly become democratic.

Similarly in South America. Throw in bread and circus to people, bribe or terrorize political elites, mobilize people with unsustainable welfare state, and voila. Chavez been doing it using his bread and circus. Lula been doing it too, though he is not as blatant as Chavez - he knows very well that he might scare away investors and seeing how well such scare tactics serve Chavez, Lula is smart enough not to repeat it. Yet, corruption is very high there. You can ask Dilma who has to sweep the mess.

So if that's the case, why do you even take offense when I am half-seriously said, “Actually, making democracy is easy. Suharto has been doing it nicely with his elections?”

Of course we all know that Suharto's democracy is very flawed (though the fact that today there are many people truly want to return to that era is very troubling indeed). Still, it did follow every single "demands" of democracy, notably as a way to represent people's will.

Suharto did take this very seriously, he was watching the percentage of voters choosing PDI and PPP and surmised that meant the disatisfaction to his regime was increasing. In places where the dissatisfaction were high, he replaced the leaders. Sounds like working pretty well for me! :D

Though, counterfactually, what if in 1980, more political elites decided to join the Petisi 50? What if Benny Moerdani's discontent was joined openly by other generals? What if their pressure managed to make Suharo resign in 1983, 1988 or 1993?

It is a counterfactual, but I am saying that it is possible that Suharto's democracy could evolve, especially had the political elites back then got their acts together.

Suharto was not Stalin or Mao. His soft authoritarian allowed limited discontent and some choices on the political elites. Still the elites remained with him because it was profitable. People did support Suharto because he gave them bread and circus and stability. Go to villages today and you will find that surprisingly he is still very popular!

On Sunni and Shia: here's my question. If these people hate each other so much, why they were able live together for centuries? Think about it. If I don't like other religion living next to me, I could expel them like the Spanish did in Reconquesta.

The answer: states' manipulations, notably the interests of Saudi and Iran and the influence of power-hungry local elites.

Like it or not, majority of people are apolitical. They don't give a damn about politics and they are only concerned with their daily lives - including all your Lulavistas in Brazil, what they care about are bread and circus. So, yeah, I am actually agreeing with you.

Still, it is important to understand that people do and will change. In the US, the elite-based democracy then slowly evolved to liberal democracy of today with suffrages and emancipation. Democracy, in essence, is providing a choice for people who will slowly learn to pick a better leader.

The speed of learning, however, is influenced by the political elites because they have the ability at present day to change the game. Thus, I am blaming Karzai for wasting this opportunity.

Meh, hope this makes sense.

Valkyrie

11:30am Sep 14, 2011

Yohanes,

Hey! You're sharp!..., but sorry I was told of his whereabouts in confidence.
----------------------------------

"It is only after years of internal transformation then a system can truly become democratic"

As long as Religion permeates Politics, I do not believe "true" democracy can be achieved. The other thorn on the side I can see is the ever present feudalism.

You mentioned "petisi 50." I was around then and I was very close to one person (four star, not BM)) who could easily have removed Suharto.(enakajah and I discussed this in lrngthy detail, actually) However, being a true blooded Javanese he couldn't make himself support P-50.
BM was a Suharto loyalist even after the so called "de-benny-nisation". Thus, it was thought if P-50 had a Judas Iscariot amongst them.
Well, the rest is history as you know it too!

Yohanes-Sulaiman

12:16pm Sep 14, 2011

@Valkyrie: he told me too, so no worries. All I can say is that he is somewhere over the rainbow. :D

Petisi50 was an opportunity lost for early Indonesia democratization, so yeah it was a huge shame. I got the info from different person. It"s a small town anyway. :D

On religion: I agree, but until the govt and political elites are mature enough to understand that excessive and blind involvement of religion and fundamentalism in politics brings nothing but long term grief, I'm afraid it will always be a problem until people get sick of it and wise up and begin the secularization of political life.

BTW, Valk: Are we getting paid for putting juicy gossips and long replies like this? :D

Valkyrie

3:05pm Sep 14, 2011

Yohanes

Personally, I am grateful to JG for the opportunity to express my opinions and let off some frustrations. I guess this is adequate reward for my efforts. Yes, I can tell you were pulling my leg on that one.

You know, I met BM once during a social gathering and found him a cocky sob. Loves to fight and shoots from the hips. But, he proved himself with that rescue operation in Thailand.

As Nations Gather in Bali, Indonesia Puts Its Lack of Imagination on Display

The problem here, I think, is the lack of a coherent grand strategy of Indonesian foreign policy. SBY wants it to be "grand," but without direction?

---
As Nations Gather in Bali, Indonesia Puts Its Lack of Imagination on Display
Yohanes Sulaiman | July 19, 2011

With little fanfare, the 18th Asean Regional Forum got under way in Bali this past weekend. Sadly, local coverage of the meeting is next to nonexistent.

Such a lack of attention and promotion from both the Indonesian government and the media can be attributed to the fact that neither find it to be as important as local political scandals threatening President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s popularity.

It is a shame, because the forum will be attended by key players in global security, such as the US secretary of state and the foreign affairs ministers from North Korea, South Korea, Japan and China.

In the news at least, the Japanese are taking the forum seriously. The Japan Times, The Mainichi Daily News, NHK World, Nikkei and Kyodo News have launched an English language Web site solely to provide news of this meeting. Seoul is also looking at this forum intently, as its national news outlet Yonhap reported that the South Korean foreign minister was willing to meet his North Korean counterpart during the forum.

The attendance of global luminaries and the massive attention from the international news outlets show how vital the diplomatic community finds the Southeast Asia region. Were Indonesia prepared, it could take advantage of the global spotlight to showcase its international ambition and leadership in the Asean region.

The lack of promotion from the government may simply be because it does not know what to expect from this forum, considering the intractable problems on the table — from the Cambodia-Thailand border spats that threaten Asean’s raison d’être to China’s growing influence in the region, including in the South China Sea. Not to mention the speculation that the forum may be used to jump-start the stalled negotiations on the Korean Peninsula.

The Cambodia-Thailand border spats seem not to be ending anytime soon, in spite of Yingluck Shinawatra’s victory in recent Thai elections. Even though Yingluck decisively won Thailand’s recent election and her elder brother, the fugitive former Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra, has a good relationship with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, she had to tread the waters carefully, lest her opponents accuse her of selling out to Cambodia.

At the same time, the South China Sea will be on everyone’s mind. The growing might of China, its swelling blue-water ambition — evidenced by the recent unveiling of its new aircraft carrier— and its perceived provocations toward Asean countries that have made claims to the Spratly and Paracel island chains will put the relevancy of Asean to the test. At this point, Asean has no common policy or structure set in place to respond to the rise of China and India. Nor does it have a plan to deal with the waning of the US’s international commitments.

While the former US defense secretary Robert Gates announced in Singapore during his visit last June that “the US defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further,” he warned NATO just a week later that “there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress — and in the American body politic writ large — to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

Even though such warnings were reserved for NATO, it also gave signals to other states that rely on US assistance that they have to keep “playing ball” lest the United States no longer provide military assistance due to the public resistance to continued spending of blood and money to be global policeman.
As the largest and the most populous state in Asean, Indonesia has the opportunity to rise to the occasion. Unfortunately, with the defense budget even lower than “the little red dot” city of Singapore and the likelihood that the budget will be slashed again in the near future, Indonesia’s commitment and ability to take the reins and lead regional security efforts are questionable.

Such diplomatic paralysis is deplorable and unfavorably compared to Indonesian diplomacy during Suharto’s New Order. Back in the 1980s, Indonesian foreign ministers Mochtar Kusumaatmadja and Ali Alatas directed foreign policy toward the dual objectives of ending of the Vietnamese intervention and also the civil war in Cambodia. These foreign policy objectives were pursued in spite of objections from some Asean members who were hoping that the Cambodian conflict would, in Dewi Fortuna Anwar’s words, “bleed Vietnam white.”

For Indonesia back then, what really mattered was preventing China from increasing its regional influence and, secondly, the spread of communism after the Vietnam War. While many Asean countries were not pleased with Indonesia’s initiatives, in the end its foreign policy was vindicated with the ending of the Cambodian civil war, the withdrawal of Vietnam and the expansion of Asean through the inclusion of Vietnam. At the same time, both Indonesia and China were aware of their growing importance in global affairs, which led to the rapprochements of both countries and, subsequently, the re-establishment of diplomatic relations in 1990.

Such imagination and audacity is unfortunately lacking in Indonesia’s foreign policy objective today. Instead of trying to lead Asean, to find a breakthrough to end the Cambodia-Thailand border conflict and to create a common regional response toward the rise of the influence of China and India and the withdrawal of the United States from global affairs, Indonesia seems more interested in just holding the forum. In fact, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa was quoted as saying that he did not expect any resolution to many of these issues at the talks. To put it simply, there is no goal, no international objective to pursue.

In the end, Indonesia needs to get its groove back. It has to start acting again as the regional leader. We can start by taking a careful look at our foreign policy objectives.

-----