Indonesia Looms Big on U.S. Worry List

To see what the Clinton administration could face in Indonesia in 1999, let’s look at just a sample of the news from that country in the past couple of days.

On the island of Sumatra, police opened fire Monday on hundreds of farmers who had occupied a state plantation. According to Reuters, the farmers occupied the plantation because their land had been taken away from them without compensation.

Meanwhile, police on the island of Sulawesi clashed with a crowd of thousands in the town of Poso as the police tried to break up a fight between rival gangs, whose members were carrying sickles and swords and were throwing gas bombs at houses. The unrest had begun a few days earlier when rumors spread that a Christian had stabbed a Muslim.

This is the uneasy state of affairs in Indonesia, which is the world’s fourth most populous country. Impoverished by the Asian economic crisis, with its political leadership in flux and a well-organized student movement pressing for far-reaching change, Indonesia seems to be barely holding itself together.

In Washington, no one knows what might happen next year--and all the administration can do is to prepare for all contingencies. Indonesia might manage to keep going under President B.J. Habibie, who took over after President Suharto’s resignation last May. The country might deteriorate into chaos and begin to break up. Or it might be taken over by some new leader or movement.

For that reason, Indonesia ranks high on the worry list for the Clinton administration in 1999. Not only is Indonesia the biggest country in Southeast Asia, but its islands lie alongside the sea lanes through which oil is transported from the Middle East to East Asia.

From the Clinton administration’s viewpoint, a chaotic breakup or a political revolution in Indonesia would be damaging to American interests. One Asian diplomat in Washington says the Clinton administration is particularly worried that some fundamentalist Muslim leader or movement could gain control of the strategically important country.

“Everyone’s watching [Indonesia] very closely,” acknowledged a senior administration official. “There is some very serious social dislocation, and some serious questions about where the army is going to come out.”

Throughout Indonesian history, students often have provided the impetus for political change. It was student demonstrations that brought forth the popular groundswell for Suharto to step aside last spring. Now students are demonstrating against Habibie’s government, calling for new restrictions on the military’s role in politics and for a drive against corruption.

“The bad news is the uncertainty in the streets,” said another senior U.S. official responsible for Indonesia. “Every day, you wake up not knowing if there’s going to be a demonstration in the streets, and if the demonstration is going to get out of control.”

The Clinton administration was supposed to work out its policy toward Indonesia in a series of interagency meetings earlier this month. But the sessions had to be postponed because of the crisis in Iraq.

Still, the general outlines of American policy are clear. It seems to have three main components.

The first and highest priority is to provide support for the Indonesian elections that are scheduled for June. Indonesians will elect a new assembly, which in turn will choose the next president. The Clinton administration is talking about contributing as much $75 million to help Indonesia’s electoral process.

But there are disputes in Washington over what exactly should be done. What groups should get the money? Should the funds go to Indonesian political parties or to non-government organizations seeking to make sure that the polling is carried out fairly? Is there any group capable of serving as independent election monitors, as a Philippine group did during the 1986 presidential battle between Ferdinand E. Marcos and Corazon Aquino?

“The hard question is how to do this well,” said one senior U.S. official. “Indonesia is a country that hasn’t had a contested election since the 1950s.”

A second component of American policy will be to maintain some form of low-level interaction between the Pentagon and Indonesia’s armed forces.

Last year, the Pentagon cut back on its military ties with Indonesia after Congress found that some of the American programs had helped to train special forces units and personnel later involved in serious human rights abuses. U.S. officials say the Pentagon now helps the Indonesian military only on humanitarian missions such as disaster relief and medical training.

The administration has decided not to cut off this military relationship. ‘It gives us an insight into what’s going on in Indonesia,” explained one official. “We do have strategic interests in the region.”

The third component of American policy appears to be an effort to develop stronger ties to moderate Islamic leaders--those in Indonesia who might serve as the core of a new government if Habibie should falter.

“What [U.S. officials] want to do is to ensure there’s a counterweight to any Muslim fundamentalist resurgence,” explained a Washington-based diplomat from Southeast Asia.

No one is sure whether any of these U.S. efforts will matter. Right now, admitted a senior Clinton administration official, the future of Indonesia is turning into “a race between the streets and the political process.”

In such a contest, “the streets”--political demonstrations and riots that can spiral out of control--often have the edge. And that, in a nutshell, is why Indonesia could prove to be one of the biggest headaches for American foreign policy next year.

Jim Mann’s column appears in this space on Wednesdays.