Rice's visit and a changing U.S. foreign policy

The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 03/16/2006 8:13 AM | Opinion

Jusuf Wanandi, Jakarta

The 2006 State of the Union address by President George W. Bush about six weeks ago shows that his tone and direction have changed in a fundamental way.

During his first presidential election campaign he had talked of playing a minor role in foreign policy. The Sept. 11, 2001 attack changed all that and antiterrorism plus non-proliferation of WMD have become the overriding policies. They are to be achieved through unilateral actions and preemption, if necessary, as shown in the Iraq War.

While support from the U.S. populace was high in regard to antiterrorism and Iraq in the first few years, since 2005, support for the Iraq War has dwindled because many mistakes have come to the fore and the costs have become very high. The U.S. public has started to look inward, and there is the danger that the country could sever many important foreign relations, including in the economic field, which will be detrimental not only to the U.S. national interest, but also to world interest.

The issue of a Dubai company taking over the management of U.S. ports was greatly criticized due to great resentment, particularly created by Bush's earlier policies. But there is also the question of immigration, outsourcing, competition from India and China in the future, which will dampen enthusiasm for foreign trade, foreign investment and also heighten protectionist sentiments. These are reactions against globalization. Nonetheless, Iraq is the heart of the matter.

Secretary Rice's visit to Indonesia aimed at sending a message that U.S. policies toward Indonesia are not only about cooperation in fighting terrorism -- which for the last 4-5 years has become the cornerstone of all other U.S. policies in East Asia.

The U.S. now wants to reiterate the importance of the other aspects of the relationship, particularly in the economic field, now that one of the sticking issues -- the ExxonMobil deal -- has been finalized. Private investors might be encouraged by this development, as this could indicate that Indonesia is able to implement laws and agreements.

It is also good that the U.S. pays a great amount of attention to support Indonesia's budding democracy, by providing support for the legislature, political parties and decentralization efforts; which are all critical to democratic consolidation in Indonesia. Support for education, especially at the tertiary level, is equally important.

The idea of establishing a fund for supporting the education of future Indonesian leaders is also critical for future U.S.-Indonesian relations. This should include support for Muslim educational institutions.

Improvements of military-to-military relations are important for their symbolism and have been timely. The efforts to reform the Indonesian military are continuing. The U.S. could encourage them to continue with these efforts, including the improvement of the organizational structure, education and training, as well as on the issue of accountability of past abuses.

Part of this effort should include continued police training, which has been going well.

Visits by high-ranking officials from the U.S. such as Rice and Assistant Secretary Hill earlier, as well as Congressman Burke are all important, not only symbolically, but also to be able to continue the dialog and cooperation.

U.S. policy on East Asia for too long have been focused on North East Asia. That is valid since that is where the main issues are. But East Asia has become one, and U.S. relations with Southeast Asia are also important, especially if she expects ASEAN to be the driving force for regionalism in East Asia.

This means that the U.S. and ASEAN should cooperate to reform and strengthen the two regional institutions, APEC and the ARF. At the end of the day, U.S. presence and role in East Asia is very crucial for the long-term stability of the region. She is the guarantor of the region over the long haul. In fact, I agree with the proposition by Niall Ferguson and Michael Mandelbaum (a historian and an expert in international relations, respectively) that if the U.S. is no more willing to underpin global governance as we have known it to be in the last 60 years, then the world is going to be at the mercy of bad elements and rogue states.

Thomas Hobbes' view of human nature, homo homini lupus (Each man is the wolf of his neighbor) will take place, and peace and stability that are so critical in this changing world of ours will just evaporate.

But the U.S. also has to be able to get its act together and be able to move in the Middle East, particularly on the Israel-Palestine problem and Iraq, and to do that successfully.

Serious considerations should be given on the role of Hamas as Palestine representatives in the future if they undertake basic policy changes. Also critical to public opinion generally, and not only in the Muslim world, is the handling of the situation in Iraq that continues to deteriorate, by having a responsible exit strategy.

On this, the Bush Administration is trying hard to achieve some successes, despite changes in U.S. public opinion. They should be supported on this because global and regional stability and peace might depend on those efforts.

The writer is Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees, and senior fellow of Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta.

Comments (0) | Post comment

A | A | A |