SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
45–910 CC
1998
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD INDONESIA
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 7, 1997
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM GOODLING, Pennsylvania
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio
MARSHALL ''MARK'' SANFORD, South Carolina
MATT SALMON, Arizona
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN McHUGH, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
LEE HAMILTON, Indiana
SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD BERMAN, California
GARY ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PAT DANNER, Missouri
EARL HILLIARD, Alabama
WALTER CAPPS, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
STEVE ROTHMAN, New Jersey
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
JIM DAVIS, Florida
RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MICHAEL H. VAN DUSEN, Democratic Chief of Staff
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
PETER T. KING, New York
JAY KIM, California
MATT SALMON, Arizona
JON FOX, Pennsylvania
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
WALTER H. CAPPS, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MIKE ENNIS, Subcommittee Staff Director
RICHARD KESSLER, Democratic Professional Staff Member
DAN MARTZ, Counsel
HEIDI L. HENNIG, Staff Associate
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
The Honorable Aurelia Brazeal, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Johns Hopkins University
Ms. Sidney Jones, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia
Mr. Michael Gadbaw, U.S. ASEAN Council
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Hon. Aurelia Brazeal
Mr. Paul Wolfowitz
Ms. Sidney Jones
Mr. Michael Gadbaw
Additional material submitted for the record:
Amendment of Mr. Howard Berman, a Representative in Congress from California, ''Indonesia Military Assistance Accountability Act''
Questions submitted for the record to Hon. Brazeal
UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD INDONESIA
WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:35 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Doug Bereuter (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. BEREUTER. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Today's hearing looks at U.S. policy toward Indonesia, a country few Americans have heard much about until the recent allegations regarding campaign financing. That is unfortunate because Indonesia, with a population of over 200 million people, almost certainly will be, if it is not already, the dominant nation in Southeast Asia. Also, it is important to recognize that Indonesia increasingly has emerged as a major constructive player on the world stage, playing key roles in ASEAN, APEC, the NAM, the OAC and the United Nations.
Indonesia has done much to preserve peace in Southeast Asia, something very much in the U.S. interest. Indonesia has forged, or helped to forge, the Cambodian settlement, relieved tensions with China over the Spratly Island dispute, and brokered a settlement between the Philippine Government and the Moral Liberation Front. Although not a formal military ally, Indonesia has cooperated with us in numerous ways. During the Persian Gulf War, Indonesia, an Islamic country, was a major supporter of the alliance against Saddam Hussein. Indonesia has welcomed the U.S. security presence in the region and has granted U.S. forces access to Indonesian facilities.
I believe that continued military interaction through training under the expanded IMET or E-IMET program and the sale of appropriately limited military equipment will advance U.S. security interests as well as the cause of democracy and human rights, if we pay attention to this relationship and if we make wise policy choices.
Indonesia's economic potential, of course, is enormous. U.S. exports during the 1996 year totaled $4 billion, and U.S. investment, not counting investment of petroleum and gas, has reached about $7 billion. Still, it is my distinct and, I believe, informed impression that American business has yet to fully discover Indonesia. We will be interested to hear from our witnesses today about the opportunities and the obstacles for U.S. business in Indonesia and what the U.S. Government can do to ensure that American business can more fully participate in the ongoing Indonesian economic miracle.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While Indonesia and the United States cooperate in many areas, there are a number of troubling features in the Indonesian landscape that have complicated our overall relationship. Perhaps the most prominent is the nature of Indonesian politics, especially the government's restriction on and practices related to human rights and the democratic processes.
These circumstances have been especially evident during the current nationwide election campaign which some time next year almost certainly will re-elect President Suharto for a seventh 5-year term. If he is alive and well and he runs, he will be re-elected. The government's heavy-handed election procedures, including deciding who can run and what they can say, quite evidently show a basic lack of trust in the Indonesian people. That will lead many to question the legitimacy of the election results.
The Indonesian Government's security-oriented approach to the East Timor problem has failed to win the loyalty of the inhabitants. The recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize for Bishop Belo and Jose Ramos Horta has lifted the hopes of those people in East Timor or their supporters who call for full autonomy or independence. But the prospects for a peaceful, satisfactory settlement of differences seem as far away as ever.
Although serious human rights problems continue in Indonesia, including in East Timor—and, I might say, Irian Jaya, it should be recognized that Indonesia has institutions, some established by the government, that are establishing and advancing the cause of democracy and human rights. Perhaps the most important of such new institutions is the National Commission on Human Rights.
I was pleased to visit with them and learn some of the details of their activities in their headquarters last January. Established in 1992, the Commission has established itself as the leading force for the advancement of human rights in Indonesia. In addition, institutions such as the Legal Aid Society and many other non-governmental organizations have promoted respect for human rights, awareness of the need to preserve the environment, and legal and electoral reform.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, we will be interested to receive an update on developments in Indonesia, to hear any recommendations our witnesses might have for U.S. policy. As we here in Congress consider and conduct oversight on U.S. policy toward Indonesia, I believe it is also important to realize that our influence on the Indonesian Government is limited, especially when we act alone. Indonesia does not depend upon the United States for its security. Japan, not the United States, is the dominant external force in the Indonesian market. Our overall impact on their economy is not substantial. Therefore, although we can influence Indonesia's behavior, our impact is likely to be mostly on the margin.
I also believe it is essential that we not demonize Indonesia, although there may be a strong temptation to do so because of the highly questionable, perhaps unlawful, activities of Lippo Bank with regard to American election laws and perhaps our national security. Also, I would emphasize that I have not seen evidence of a link between the Government of Indonesia and reported transgression of Indonesian businessmen or Indonesian citizens during the 1996 election. I think we must be very careful not to attack the government because of alleged illegal acts that some of its citizens, corporations or Indonesian Americans may have committed.
Finally, it seems to me that the debate in this country over U.S. policy toward Indonesia is not about goals. Most Americans would like to have excellent relations with Indonesia across the full range of U.S. interest—economic, human rights, political, security. Instead, the debate is over means—how can the United States best accomplish our goals and support U.S. interest in Indonesia for the benefit of both of our countries and peoples.
To discuss these issues and many others today, we have a very distinguished panel of witnesses. Representing the Administration will be the Honorable Aurelia Brazeal, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Welcome, Ambassador.
Ms. BRAZEAL. Thank you.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. It is a pleasure to welcome you before the Subcommittee.
Our second panel that I will name and introduce at this point includes Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, currently the Dean of The Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Wolfowitz has held many high-ranking positions in the government including Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 1989 to 1993 and U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia.
Second on the panel, we are pleased to have Mr. Sidney Jones, a noted authority on Indonesia. He is executive director of the Human Rights Watch/Asia.
And, third, Mr. Michael Gadbaw, a vice-president and senior counsel for General Electric who is the chairman of the U.S.-Indonesia Business Committee at the U.S. ASEAN Council for Business and Technology.
Thank you all for coming and participating. I know we will benefit greatly from your insights and advice. Your entire statements will be made a part of the record and I would ask you to summarize your comments in approximately 10 minutes so we have time for questions.
Before I begin and recognize the Secretary, I would like to turn to the Ranking Member and distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, for any comments he might like to make.
Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With the parliamentary elections in Indonesia only a few weeks away, this is an opportune moment for the Subcommittee to take the pulse of our relationship and assess its direction and I congratulate you for calling this hearing.
President Suharto's party has won every election since 1971. No one doubts that the ruling Golkar Party will once again win on May 29. Next March, I think it is everyone's expectation that President Suharto will win a seventh 5-year term, although at 75 or 76—there seems to be a dispute about his age—it is unclear how much longer he will remain in charge.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
President Suharto has accomplished much for his country since coming to power in 1965. He has knitted together a geographically and ethnically diverse country, achieving high rates of economic growth. Development has come at a price, however: repressive policies against political opponents, trade unionists, environmentalists and other critics of government policies. There has been a great deal of attention focused on the situation in East Timor which the Indonesia military invaded in 1975. But there have been problems elsewhere, including Irian Jaya, and among union organizers in the new export-oriented industries and tribal groups protesting land confiscation by corporations, just to mention a few.
The Congress has been vocal in expressing its concern, ending military training for the Indonesian military in 1992 because of concerns over human rights. Just last week, the International Relations Committee adopted an amendment which I offered to H.R. 1486, the State Department authorization bill, entitled, ''The Indonesia Military Assistance Accountability Act,'' (see appendix) and the effect of that amendment was to continue the prohibition on IMET and to suspend military assistance of items that can be used to violate human rights.
Ironically, as our bilateral security relationship with Indonesia appears to be strengthening, the human rights situation appears to be worsening. Among investors, there is increasing concern over the corroding effects of corruption among the first family and its cronies. Ford Motor Company, for example, just announced it would not build cars in Indonesia until tax breaks to the president's automaker-son were ended. President Suharto's legacy of political stability and economic growth may be endangered by cronyism and political intolerance. This would be sad because Indonesia has gained so much and we have so much to gain from strengthening our bilateral relationships.
I look forward to the hearing and to the witnesses that you have scheduled, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Berman.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have not met Sidney Jones but I begin with an apology. It is Ms. Sidney Jones. I made the wrong guess. We look forward to her testimony.
And I recognize either of our other two Members in attendance. Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening today's hearing to give Members of the Subcommittee an opportunity to learn more about U.S. policy toward Indonesia, particularly in the area of human rights, trade, and labor standards.
The attention of the world in the past several months has been focused on the plight of workers in factories making Nike shoes. We have heard reports of the payment of wages below subsistence level, forced over time, managers treating their workers abusively, and the refusal to provide adequate safety equipment. My constituents, like millions of other Americans, want to know that the sporting goods they purchase are not the fruit of child labor, sweatshop conditions, abusive labor practices, and less than subsistence wages.
One of the primary methods the United States has for addressing these abhorrent practices is through awarding or denying GSP trading privileges. The premise of the Generalized System of Preferences is that the creation of trade opportunities for developing countries is an effective, cost-efficient way of encouraging economic development, and a key means of sustaining the momentum behind economic reform and liberalization.
The U.S. Trade Representative is required by Congress to certify progress on workers rights as a condition for a developing country's continued participation in the GSP program. According to the USTR's 1996 annual report, a central purpose of GSP is to ''afford all workers internationally recognized worker rights.'' This requirement is achieved by conducting periodic country practice reviews.
Since 1994, however, the United States has suspended the practice of conducting formal reviews of Indonesia's eligibility for GSP privileges. During that same year, the GSP program allowed Indonesian firms to ship $1.5 billion in goods to the United States duty-free, saving those firms an estimated $35 million in tariffs and making Indonesia the world's fourth-largest beneficiary of the program.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And yet, what has the Indonesian Government done since 1994 to merit this waiver of the formal review process?
The State Department's 1996 human rights report condemned the Indonesian Government for severe restrictions on the freedoms of press, speech, assembly and association and, equally importantly, for suppressing the development of a ''truly free trade union movement.'' Amnesty International has reported that the government held over 200 political prisoners in 1996, many of them prisoners of conscience, and that torture of detainees was common, in some cases resulting in death.
Human Rights Watch/Asia reported in 1995 that no unions other than the government-controlled All-Indonesia Workers Union have been allowed to operate. Minimal progress has been reported over the last 2 years. The same group has stated that ''intervention by the military in industrial disputes is routine''. And Indonesia's leading independent union leader, Muchtar Pakpahan, is currently on trial for subversion for having spoken out against the government's denial of the right of Indonesian workers to form independent labor unions.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I am equally concerned with the responsibility of corporate America in Indonesia, especially that of Nike. Although the company seems to have experienced a moral conversion of late, with its participation in the Administration's Fair Labor Standards Coalition and its employing of Andrew Young to investigate working conditions in its Asian factories, doubts about ''the swoosh'' remain.
Will Nike redouble its vigilance to root out forced overtime within its Indonesian factories, as well as ensure that adequate protective gear is available for worker use? Will the company actively implement its code of conduct, transforming it into a living, breathing document rather than a meaningless piece of paper which has existed prior to this? These and other questions await an answer in the coming months, and the American people, as well as this Congress, will be watching.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the rapidly evolving global marketplace, American workers and businesses have been forced to compete against countries that deny workers the right to form independent unions, allow their companies to pay wages below subsistence level, and refuse to take action to eliminate child labor. Either the United States must insist on minimum standards for workers in countries like Indonesia, or we will find our own workers locked into an unwinnable race to the bottom in wages and working conditions. The GSP country review process provides the United States with a unique opportunity to assure that our trading partners respect basic human rights and internationally-recognized labor standards. We should use that GSP country review process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Martinez, the gentleman from California.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no statement. I would like to hear the witnesses.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will have no statement.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.
Ambassador, we are looking forward to your comments. You may proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE AURELIA BRAZEAL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. BRAZEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted a fairly lengthy statement for the record, but I would like to read a short statement as fast as possible so we can get to the questions of interest to the Members.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our exchanges this afternoon should help illuminate the major opportunities and challenges facing us in managing our ties with this vibrant nation of Indonesia whose population is the world's fourth largest and whose 17,000 islands span the strategic intersection of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In this regard, it might be useful to examine several central aspects of our bilateral ties, including human rights, our mutual economic interest and our security relationship, as well as Indonesia's growing role in Southeast Asia and internationally.
Few countries are more difficult to characterize than Indonesia. Its cultural diversity, encompassing over 300 different ethnic groups, matches its geographic reach that equals the distance from Boston to San Francisco. Nearly 90 percent of its 200 million people are Muslim, which almost exceeds the combined population of the Middle East. Yet, Indonesia is not an Islamic State and affords generally effective constitutional protections for all the major religions.
The largest member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, Indonesia works with its neighbors through ASEAN to encourage consensual and constructive approaches to regional issues. Although a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement, Indonesia welcomes a strong, continuing U.S. security presence in the region.
Boasting one of the most dynamic economies, Indonesia has a rapidly growing middle class that already nearly matches Australia's population, although many Indonesians still live at subsistence levels.
Popular attention in the United States, as the Members have pointed out, in recent months has focused on Indonesia's shortcomings, especially in the area of human rights. These include serious problems in East Timor; violations of worker rights and, in particular, the ongoing trial of labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan; restrictions on press freedom; ongoing civil unrest; recent convictions of several political activists on subversion charges and claims of abuse against the military.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Upcoming parliamentary elections will occur in the framework on an electoral system that severely limits political competition and denies Indonesians the ability to change their government democratically. These developments are certainly cause for serious concern, as it was made clear in this year's State Department human rights report. However, and moreover, as President Clinton has said, our relationship with Indonesia, as important as it is, will not reach its full potential until there is improvement in that country's human rights performance.
While Indonesia's human rights problems are serious, a closer examination of the workings of this diverse society provides a complex and nuanced picture. Unlike other countries whose governments rely entirely on repression to control their populations, hundreds of independent non-governmental organizations function in Indonesia, despite recurring episodes of government pressure. These organizations promote democratic principles and better governance; defend individuals in legal proceedings; support environmental causes; advise ethnic groups on land rights; ease religious and communal tensions; and press for democratic reform. In other words, strong voices continue to urge reform.
The Indonesian National Human Rights Commission has gained wide respect among human rights activists in Indonesia and outside for its independent position on sensitive issues. The Commission's report on the major riot of July 27 following the government's engineered takeover of an opposition party headquarters directly blamed the government for interfering in the political process and for the ensuing unrest. The Commission has conducted other investigations on equally difficult issues that have led to actions against officials or military personnel responsible for human rights abuses.
The Indonesian press practices self-censorship. The government has banned publications, pressured the independent journalists' union and sentenced three individuals under laws prohibiting government criticism. Yet the Indonesian press remains remarkably outspoken. Newspapers routinely feature articles on human rights issues. The press devoted extensive coverage to the Human Rights Commission's critical findings of the July 27 riot and to the State Department's pronouncements following the riot and subsequent arrests. Even our human rights report on Indonesia prompted an approving editorial in a leading English-language paper. The press has also covered lawsuits against the government and efforts by human rights groups to overturn the anti-subversion law.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Indonesia does not prohibit private satellite dishes or restrict free access to the Internet. Growing numbers of Indonesians enjoy unfettered access to international news sources.
Indonesia's armed forces are also showing evidence of positive change in carrying out their responsibilities, although instances of abuse still occur. Indonesia's military have benefited from expanded IMET courses and courses offered by the International Committee of the Red Cross requested by the commanding officer of Indonesia's special forces. Some soldiers have been convicted for violating human rights and some commanders have been removed from positions of authority when troops under their control harm innocent civilians. During recent civil disturbances, the armed forces demonstrated considerable restraint under difficult circumstances. Senior military leaders, however, acknowledge more must be done.
Indonesia's economy has grown in recent decades at an average rate of almost 7 percent. While economic growth has produced wealth for some, poverty has also declined dramatically. The average Indonesian has benefited greatly from the growing economy, as reported in several World Bank studies. Such rapid relatively equitable growth is important because it helps cushion political and social problems and gives Indonesia greater resilience as it faces the still substantial challenges that lie ahead.
So, Indonesia is a society in flux. There are areas of concern, but also reasons for optimism. Debate is underway among Indonesians regarding the country's political future. As President Suharto gets older, more Indonesians realize the country is entering a transition to a new political leadership and at least some mechanisms exist that ensure differing views can be heard.
Let me review briefly, Mr. Chairman, some of our actions to promote human rights and, in the words of former Secretary Christopher, to encourage an orderly transition that will recognize the pluralism that should exist in a country of this magnitude and importance. Our influence on events in Indonesia, as you pointed out, is limited. Ultimately, Indonesia's people and political leaders must shape their own future. This said, we have taken a number of actions to help encourage greater respect for human rights while furthering the numerous mutual interests we share with Indonesia.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
East Timor has long been important in our dialog. President Clinton has raised our concerns directly with President Suharto in 1994 and 1995. Secretaries of State Christopher and Albright and Ambassador Roy have discussed them extensively with their counterparts. We have strongly supported U.N.-facilitated discussions between the foreign ministers of Indonesia and Portugal, as well as the dialog among the Timorese themselves. We are encouraged that Secretary General Kofi Annan's recent decision to appoint Ambassador Jamsheed Marker to be his special representative on East Timor matters will give new impetus to these key decisions. I will be meeting with Ambassador Marker later today and will underscore with him the importance we give to the U.N.'s role in finding a solution to the East Timor problem.
Although many of our approaches are private, we do not hesitate to speak out. Last month, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution with U.S. support that expressed deep concerns over Indonesian policies in East Timor. An overall solution there must incorporate proposals that give East Timorese themselves greater control over their economic and political life in keeping with their unique history and culture. In the meantime, we have urged the government to reduce troop levels, to allow increased access to the province and to release prisoners of conscience. We have also called on the East Timor resistance to foreswear violence and join efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution of the dispute.
Over the years, we have been the largest international aid donor to East Timor with eight projects now currently underway with a total budget of $15.8 million. Our aid programs aim to improve the lives of average Timorese while helping them achieve more control over their economic future.
In the area of workers' rights, we have urged Indonesian officials to implement internationally accepted labor standards and I have encouraged the Indonesian Ministry of Manpower to adopt a plan of action from the November, 1994 period that laid out a number of important benchmarks. Indonesia has made progress in implementing these commitments by increasing regional minimum wages and improving enforcement of the minimum wage law. The government has permitted formation of plant-level unions and allowed them to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. We are encouraging more progress in addressing remaining worker rights issues such as further relaxation of restrictions on freedom of association, continuing the implementation of the 1994 action plan and reducing security forces' intervention and legitimate trade union activities.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of immediate concern is the trial of labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan on subversion charges and his resumed imprisonment on a 4-year sentence for inciting labor riots in Medan in 1994. Assistant Secretary Shattuck made a special point of visiting Mr. Pakpahan in March to stress our concern that his rights be respected and that he promptly receive all necessary professional medical treatment. We also remain deeply concerned at reports of continuing harassment of labor leaders and limitations on freedom of association.
With the Indonesian military, we are working to encourage further improvement in its interaction with civilian populations while supporting the armed forces' own desire to improve its professionalism in carrying out its responsibility. No better tool exists to achieve these results than IMET courses, as has been suggested.
The evidence shows that Indonesian officials, officers trained in the United States, are strong advocates for human rights and accountability for the armed forces. We can think of no better means of encouraging better human rights performance by Indonesian military officers than by giving them extensive exposure to U.S. military forces with our doctrines of respect for civilian authority and the rights of civilian populations.
As for the recent trials of political dissidents, we have publicly underscored our support for the rights of free association and free speech and we have urged respect for the defendant's rights to due process. Assistant Secretary Lord, as well as Assistant Secretary Shattuck, were permitted to meet with Budiman Sutjatmiko, an imprisoned political activist, last September. In addition, embassy officers attended these trials to demonstrate international concern for dissidents' rights.
The United States provided approximately $20 million out of an average of $50 million in total aid funding from Fiscal Year 1995 to 1997. Approximately $20 million of that is in financial support in the areas of human rights, democratization, good governance and the environment, much of which is spent through NGO's. In fact, we are the largest international donor to these organizations. Similarly, we have purposely sought ways to help highlight the important work performed by the National Human Rights Commission.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, I have chosen to devote considerable attention in this statement to human rights, given that subject's prominence in recent months, and I could frame very briefly—and I do not want to repeat what you have already said about the importance of our economic ties and our security ties—but I will point out that we have tremendous interest in working with Indonesia in the area of economics and security.
So, in concluding, let me commend you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues on the Subcommittee for holding these important hearings on Indonesia. As I have attempted to show in my statement, our relationship with Indonesia is a highly complex and unusually important one. It involves numerous key U.S. interests. I am certain you agree that policies designed to advance those interests must be grounded in the full appreciation of the dynamic Indonesian domestic scene as well as a thorough understanding of that nation's large contribution to stability and prosperity in Southeast Asia and the wider region.
In short, Mr. Chairman, our overall approach should encourage a continuation of Indonesian Government policies that reinforce our regional and global interests while supporting those Indonesians working for a more pluralistic and democratic Indonesian society and greater respect for human rights. I am confident that our discussions today will sustain support in Congress for a sound relationship with Indonesia and contribute greatly to ensuring our policies advance important U.S. interests. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brazeal appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Ambassador, for your excellent statement and for your written testimony as well.
I will begin the questioning. We will use the normal 5-minute rule.
I want to focus on East Timor initially, at least, because it is one of the more notable problems that Members of Congress have with what is happening in Indonesia, and we have this debate related to E-IMET, for example. There is an element in the Catholic Church in this country, the more militant liberal end of the Catholic Church, whose organizations are very much focused on this issue. And members who come from Portuguese-American constituencies lead the effort against E-IMET or IMET or the greatest expressions of concern about Indonesia.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, I need to know, as briefly as you can tell me, but carefully, what is U.S. policy regarding independence, autonomy, semi-autonomy or referenda for East Timor?
Ms. BRAZEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have recognized the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia without any, I think, elaboration. Today, we are very supportive of the U.N. efforts. As I mentioned, I will be meeting later this afternoon with Ambassador Marker, who is a special representative, to discuss what his plans are. He has traveled to Indonesia, to Portugal, to other parts of the world to assess the situation and he is now visiting the United States to get a fix in Washington of our views of how we would like to proceed and how he would like to proceed. We want to hear him out. We have indicated we want to be very supportive of the U.N. efforts; that is, to bring both Indonesia and Portugal together and also to support the intra-Timorese dialog. It is a little difficult to be more precise until I have heard what Ambassador Marker has to suggest.
Mr. BEREUTER. But, Ambassador, is it true that the United States has not, as a policy, endorsed or recommended independence for East Timor?
Ms. BRAZEAL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, we have not.
Mr. BEREUTER. Is it also true that we have not taken a position, formally, at least, on the possibility of a referendum?
Ms. BRAZEAL. We have not taken a position on that.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Now, one of my old friends and colleagues in the North Atlantic Assembly is now the Foreign Minister of Portugal, and he has been using his country's leverage in the European Union to force the issue on East Timor, to some extent. Portugal, of course, was a very neglectful colonial power when it came to its colonies, and the most neglected of all, of course, was East Timor. When they left, they left with no infrastructure, no training for the Timorese people. They left it in worse condition than any other colony throughout the world. And Indonesians say that, despite their efforts of late (the Portuguese, supposedly being willing to meet with Indonesia to discuss East Timor to understand what the objectives of Portugal are and what kind of accommodations, if any, and progress might be made), find reasons not to meet with Indonesians.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Can you say whether or not there is validity or any potential validity in what they are saying? And do you regard what the United Nations is doing as a way of possibly overcoming what seems to be a delay or impasse?
Ms. BRAZEAL. We do know the meeting——
Mr. BEREUTER. And, in short, what are the Portuguese trying to do with respect to East Timor?
Ms. BRAZEAL. We know the meetings from last December when Indonesia and Portugal were to meet were postponed and put off. I do not know a date that has been fixed for a renewed meeting schedule, but I think Ambassador Marker has some dates in mind for renewing that. It is difficult to characterize what the Portuguese have in mind for East Timor, except that we detect an interest in allowing the people to have more political freedoms. They have not really declared a position that I am aware of for independence or not. They are still trying to work within the U.N. initiative.
I am sorry. I saw the red light, so I thought I had better stop.
Mr. BEREUTER. You can finish your sentence, though, if you have not.
Ms. BRAZEAL. That is fine.
Mr. BEREUTER. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ambassador.
The gentleman from California is recognized, Mr. Berman.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two areas I would like to go into. One, the question of the role that IMET plays in influencing the Indonesian military. Could you tell the Subcommittee how many Indonesian military officers and enlisted men have benefited from expanded IMET which still remains in effect since the ban on regular IMET was implemented by the United States? Also, how many Indonesian military officers and enlisted men have participated in non-grant IMET programs, programs paid for by the Indonesian Government, since the ban on grant to IMET was implemented and what was the value of those programs?
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BRAZEAL. I do not have with me the total numbers of Indonesians who have been trained, so I would like to take that question and we would have to get the data back to you. I do know that of those trained, several have gone back to Indonesia and have been instrumental in writing human rights-related terms of reference and to the guidance for the troops under their control. The ones who have been trained have also been involved in hostage rescue operations and also riot control operations. Those trained seem to have a different approach than those not trained through our IMET programs in better protecting the rights of the civilian populations under each of those issues or situations.
So, we believe that IMET and the way military people are trained to do whatever it is they are trained to do—if they are trained to take human rights into consideration, then they do that. If they are not trained, then they tend to do perhaps the wrong thing or what they have always done.
Mr. BERMAN. First of all, I would like to get the numbers. If you could get them to my office, I would be very grateful.
Ms. BRAZEAL. Sure.
Mr. BERMAN. And, second, I guess from that you conclude that expanded IMET has a beneficial effect from a human rights point of view on the Indonesian military.
Ms. BRAZEAL. Yes, we do believe that and almost any of the IMET training, regular IMET, if it were allowed, we see having a beneficial impact on the Indonesian military because they will be exposed to our military people for long periods of time. You cannot replace that kind of people-to-people training.
Mr. BERMAN. One last question. Sidney Jones, in the next panel, her written testimony calls for U.S. Trade Representative to resume the review which was suspended in 1994 of Indonesia's access to GSP trade benefits on workers' rights grounds. You mentioned our longstanding concern over workers' rights conditions in Indonesia, including the arrest of an independent union leader, limitations on freedom of association and that you are continuing to review whether or not to reopen the previous review of GSP privileges. When did your review of the review begin, and when do you expect your review of the review to end?
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BRAZEAL. Well, the review of the review has been ongoing at least as long as I have been in this position, which is about 8 months. I think when it will end, in part, depends on what happens with GSP. As you know, it expires on May 31, the GSP program. So, given the circumstances, what we hope to do in the executive branch is to proceed with working out with Indonesia new benchmarks in the labor rights area, despite the expiration of the GSP program; proceed with that and then, if GSP is reinstituted, we will then again look at having a review of the review at that point. But we are proceeding, or our intention is to proceed, with working out new benchmarks, or enhanced benchmarks, with the Indonesians in this area.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
In light of Mr. Brown's absence, I would call on Mr. Martinez for comments or questions he might have. He is recognized.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand the problems that they are having in Indonesia and especially in East Timor and, in reading a description of the riots that took place, I am reminded of instances here in the United States where we have this evolved democracy and everything should be running hunky-dory. And I certainly remember just not too long ago the Watts riots or South Central Los Angeles riots and where it started with a couple of people being mad about something that happened in the court and throwing a few rocks and a few more people throwing rocks and it ended up looting, burning and pillaging. And so it is not so unlike what happened in the United States, what happened in that country. And we have to understand that if they are an evolving and emerging democracy, that they may not be as advanced as we are and we are still seeing the same occurrence of things there as we see here.
But my real question goes to part of what Mr. Brown was talking about earlier about Nike and the American companies that have established factories there in that country and the very low wages they are paying. And I would ask the question, does the government establish the rate of pay or does the company that hires the employees establish the rate of pay?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BRAZEAL. Oh, there is a minimum wage that is a floor and then companies can move up from that, if they choose, depending on the job.
Mr. MARTINEZ. All right. So, the government sets the minimum wage.
Ms. BRAZEAL. Yes.
Mr. MARTINEZ. So, if in the situation with Nike, as Mr. Brown indicated, they are paying below that minimum wage, then it would be the company that would be responsible here. And more so, if the American companies are paying just the minimum wage and his fear is driving the wages down here, which, to some degree, that might be true, but my question is, why do our companies take such advantage when you take a pair of Nike shoes, we do not get that much of a break from the lower wages that they pay in those countries. When those Nike shoes come into the United States, they are sold at the top price that you can pay. And so, that means just a larger profit to those companies. But I think those companies have a responsibility when they go into these countries to help raise the standard of living of these people that they are engaging in work there. As you say, I would see it would be harmful to the economy if they raised the wages comparable to what they are in the United States. I do not expect that. But I do expect that they would take into consideration that these workers need to not make just the bare sustenance for life but to make something a little bit better and encourage the upgrading of the economy there.
Ms. BRAZEAL. Well, your points are well taken. I have no evidence of Nike paying under the minimum wage. I think that people and different groups are trying to be vigilant to make sure that at least minimum wage conditions are met and perhaps salaries are higher. I think that you have made a good point on the complexities of Indonesia in terms of the people. There are over 300 ethnic groups there and, unlike the United States where we have sort of adopted a melting pot approach, here they have adopted more of an approach, I think they have as a motto, ''Unity in diversity.'' So, they have kept the diversity. If Indonesia can work in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious way keeping its diversity, I think that will be a very important country to look at for the rest of us.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MARTINEZ. I know there is a vote and we have limited time. Just let me ask one last question here. Did you mention that there were hundreds of groups, let's say tantamount to civil rights groups, that are fighting for the rights of the people there within that system?
Ms. BRAZEAL. I did. I said there are many non-governmental organizations that are partly supported by our aid funds and other sources that have as an objective broadly human rights development and civic society development.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, don't you think that this is a step in the right direction that, after all, that is the way it happened here? I go back to the sixties and the civil rights marches of Martin Luther King. Inherent in the Constitution was the right of all American citizens to vote, but they really did not get that right to vote. In fact, women's right to vote, women's suffrage, was a more modern history event back in the early twenties. So, we were not always in keeping in enforcing our laws in keeping what was in the Constitution. But groups fought for that. Martin Luther King fought for the right of the blacks to vote without poll taxes and literacy tests in the south and that is an evolvement. A more recent-day evolvement. The sixties is not that long ago and even yet today we find in a lot of instances where certain people, because they are Hispanic, they are challenged as to whether they are citizens and have the right to vote or not. So, these things are ongoing here and I would say that they have roots back there, fine that way. That is one of the positive things that we can say about Indonesia, wouldn't you say?
Ms. BRAZEAL. Yes. I agree totally with you. It is a very positive development and we see it as one of the strengths of the system as change will occur and will occur in Indonesia.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
I would just simply close by saying that I wish we were more tolerant of slower-developing democracies than our own and understood the problems that they have in those countries and then try to base our foreign policy on that. Thank you.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BRAZEAL. Thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Brown, I think you have a question before we recess.
Mr. BROWN. I will be very brief.
Mr. BEREUTER. Please proceed.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I think it is agreed that the GSP program provides the United States with an important means to encourage compliance with international labor standards. Lack of progress in worker rights by Pakistan led to the partial suspension of benefits last year. Sidney Jones, in her upcoming testimony, says that prior to 1994, it is important to note that Indonesia's accceptance of both plant-level unions and a major increase in the minimum wage can be attributed, in part, to pressure created by the USTR's review of Indonesian labor rights and practices under the generalized system of trade preferences. Yet, the Administration suspended the formal review process in 1994 and has resisted pleas from international labor organizations and human rights groups to reinstate it. Your 12-page testimony today, Ambassador, has but one sentence on GSP which says, literally, almost nothing. ''We continue to examine the question of reinstating the formal review of Indonesia's eligibility for GSP privileges.'' Why the delay? Why have we suspended it and why are we not moving forward?
We have this enforcing mechanism. Why are we not using it?
Ms. BRAZEAL. We have had that benchmark action plan that was worked out in 1994. Perhaps I should say that although there is no label of a formal review, we have had a member of USTR travel out to Indonesia to take an assessment. We have our embassy also assessing these benchmarks. And, as I indicated, perhaps when you were absent briefly, what we intend to do is proceed with working out with Indonesia new benchmarks in this area with the recognition that the GSP regime here expires May 31.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With the stop-start sort of progress in GSP perhaps having some influence, we still intend to proceed directly with Indonesia on worker rights issues. Then, if GSP is reinstated as a U.S. Government program, we will review again to proceed to a review at that point. Meanwhile, we don't want to stay still. We don't want to not take action. So, we are going to proceed with working directly with the Indonesians' new benchmarks.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Ambassador, we need to go vote. I would like to leave a question for you to respond to in writing, if you would. The Indonesian army has been secular. On my trip to Jakarta in January, I heard allegations that there was pressure or quiet incentives being used to Islamicize the senior officers corp. So my questions are, do you have any additional information on the validity of those allegations; and, if so, if there was a move to move it away from a secular kind of orientation toward a more militant Islamic orientation, or at least an Islamic orientation, how would that affect U.S. interest? If you could get back to me and I will share it with the Committee.
Ms. BRAZEAL. Thank you. We will give you an answer.
Mr. BEREUTER. I appreciate it.
And, in light of our vote, I would like to release you and thank you for your testimony today. We will recess and reconvene in 15 minutes with the second panel.
The Subcommittee is in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. BEREUTER. The Subcommittee will come to order. As soon as we can collect our second panel, we will proceed.
I have already introduced the three members of the panel, giving you a brief biographical sketch. But they are, again, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Dean of The Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University; Ms. Sidney R. Jones, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch/Asia; Mr. Michael Gadbaw, Chairman of the U.S.-Indonesia Business Committee, U.S. ASEAN Council.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would ask that you summarize your remarks in approximately 8 minutes or so, and your entire statements will be made a part of the record. We will then proceed with questions.
Dr. Wolfowitz, Ambassador Wolfowitz, Secretary Wolfowitz, we look forward to your testimony. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL WOLFOWITZ, DEAN OF THE PAUL NITZE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify and I very much appreciate this Subcommittee's interest in this subject. I will just confine my remarks to a brief summary of the five main points I have in my prepared testimony, which I believe you have.
In fact, my first is about the importance of Indonesia because I believe it, unfortunately, can be safely said there is no country in the world as important as this one about which we know so little. It is partly because Indonesia is extremely important. It is even more so because at times it seems to me we are just appallingly ignorant about the country.
In talking about its importance, I have highlighted as the first thing a fact that I think too few Americans are aware of, which is that this country has the largest Moslem population of any country in the world and, in fact, nearly as many Moslems in Indonesia as in the entire Arab world put together and yet Islam is not the State religion in Indonesia. There is no State religion. In fact, as a matter of law, they practice religious tolerance and, I think to a rather impressive degree, have achieved religious tolerance among the Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist and Moslem communities. And I believe, given the problems of intolerance in the world today, the United States has a great stake in the success of a country that practices religious tolerance.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, the economic and commercial importance of Indonesia about which Mike Gadbaw will be saying much more, so I will just mention briefly that the Department of Commerce has recognized this in designating Indonesia as one of the ten big emerging markets. And when you have a country, the fourth largest country in the world, growing at 7 percent in real terms over an extended period of time, you have something that is emerging as a very significant economic force.
And, finally, I think it is important to note Indonesia's strategic location and I do not mean it in the way that most Navy admirals will explain it to you, although they are not wrong when they do so. They are very impressed with the fact that some of the most important sea lanes in the world, those that connect Japan with the Persian Gulf, all pass through or near Indonesian waters. But I think Indonesia is even more important strategically because it is a major neighbor of China and, in fact, Southeast Asia is, in many ways, China's doorstep.
I think we are rightly, these days, preoccupied with how to build a constructive relationship over the next 15 or 20 years with the China that is emerging as one of the world's leading powers. I think our ability to do that is going to depend very strongly on whether Southeast Asia is a stable and progressing part of the world or whether Southeast Asia becomes, as it has been in the past and fortunately is not now, a source of instability. I think China will find it hard to stay out of Southeast Asia's problems if it has a lot of them. I think China is likely to stay out if Southeast Asia can maintain the course that it has been on. So, there is a lot at stake there.
Second, I think it is important in talking about this country about which we do not know very much and which tends to pop on the screen when there are problems, to recognize that it has only been an independent country for a little more than 50 years and, in those 50 years, it solved some extraordinary problems. Just the creation of a single nation out of this multiplicity of ethnic groups is an incredible achievement and to have achieved the acceptance on a very wide scale of Indonesia as a national language is a major achievement. And I would note, it was an act of statesmanship on the part of Indonesia's early independence leaders to pick as the national language a variant of Malay, which was spoken in the native language of only a few million people in this huge country instead of trying to impose the language of the largest ethnic group, Javanese.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think, in fact, among the achievements over the last 50 years that I have noted in my testimony, I think the achievement of ethnic peace in this huge nation is an extraordinary achievement. We are talking about a country, if you put it on a map of Europe, that would stretch actually from London to Moscow. It is huge. It is on the equator so we sometimes do not notice it on our maps. But there are probably as many different ethnic and religious groups in Indonesia as in that whole expanse of Europe from London to Moscow. And to have as relatively peaceful relations among those groups as they have achieved, I think is a great accomplishment and I think it has to be counted as a victory for human rights.
So, too, I believe the achievement of religious tolerance that I have referred to already is a real victory for human rights and I think if one construes human rights at least in a broad sense, it is an incredible achievement that this country where just over 30 years ago, tens of thousands of people starved to death on this paradise of an island called Bali to have a country now where tens of millions of people have moved above the poverty line is a great achievement of which they are properly proud and which I think, again, counts on the list of successes for human rights in the broad terms.
And, finally, in terms of Indonesia's achievements, I believe it would be a failure not to note that Indonesia has played a very, very constructive role diplomatically in the region. The creation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which will celebrate its thirtieth anniversary this fall, would not have been possible if Indonesia had not decided at that time in the late sixties to adopt a fundamental change in its policy toward its neighbors and to work on getting along with even the smallest of them, rather than trying to impose its will. It is not something to take for granted that the biggest country in the neighborhood is willing to be a good neighbor and I think we have all benefited from that, as have we benefited from Indonesia's leadership role in the new structures that are emerging like APEC and ASEAN Regional Forum.
I say that by way of preface to the fact that there are human rights problems in Indonesia today, and this is my third point. I think it is important to see them in this historical context because I believe there is, on balance, a lot of progress and I think a lot of reason to expect that these problems, over time, will be solved. I feel very strongly about the importance of this, not only from the point of view of Indonesia's interests but I think America's larger interests are served by a movement toward what I called when I was ambassador greater political openness in Indonesia. In fact, I made a speech to that effect not long before I left Indonesia and I found that it had an enormous resonance not because I was the American ambassador but because I was expressing a view that I think a great many Indonesians share, particularly those outside of the government but also, in fact, an impressive number of people inside the government, including some rather senior officials.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And in the 7 years since I left Indonesia, I think, on the positive side, there has been significantly greater openness in a number of respects. There is more open questioning of public officials on government decisions, I believe. There have been some important court decisions that have gone against the government, although in most cases, the government eventually prevailed. There have been court martials of military officers for the massacre in East Timor in 1991. And I might note that I think for any military to court martial its officers for that kind of action takes an effort.
Most recently and notably, I think the government established a human rights commission which, although official in its creation, has had enough independence to issue reports that have been critical of government actions at various junctures. At the same time, there is no such thing as uniform progress and there have been some very, very serious setbacks. Among the most serious, I count the closing of the extraordinary news weekly, TEMPO, just 2 years ago. In fact, I came to this hearing from a luncheon honoring the editor of that news weekly, Goenawan Mohamad, who is a very, very courageous journalist and I think properly honored for his role. So, the struggle for press freedom in Indonesia remains a struggle and, in fact, it seems to me that if I were to note the area of greatest concern it is that while I think the government is showing a somewhat greater willingness to open up legal channels of expression, it seems to be extremely harsh in dealing with political expression that is outside of those legally authorized channels and there seems to be, I think, a disturbing tendency to use its very harsh subversion law against labor organizers, against political activists and against journalists who operate outside of the fairly narrowly constrained legal channels.
In my testimony, I noted the case of Andi Syahputra, whom I misidentified as the editor of the unauthorized news magazine, Suara Independen. In fact, he was only the printer and I think it is viewed as particularly harsh to have descended on him in this way. He was convicted of subversion and there are two members of the Alliance of Independent Journalists who were convicted earlier who remain in jail.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has been evident in the recent subversion sentences of nine activists from the Democratic Peoples Party, as it styles itself. In fact, I think those sentences have actually been questioned by members of Indonesia's own human rights commission. And there is the prominent case of labor leader, Muchtar Pakpahan. As I note in my testimony, there has been some discussion recently of the possibility that the government might release Muchtar Pakpahan to go abroad for needed medical treatment and I personally believe that that would be a very welcome humanitarian gesture.
One point I want to make is that as one approaches the question of human rights, or I think, in fact, when we used to think of it more broadly, the question of political change, is to realize that in Indonesia, there is a very powerfully felt need for stability as well. When I was ambassador in 1987 during the election campaign at that time, and I think you probably realize election campaigns in Indonesia are not the freewheeling events they are here, to put it mildly, but the democratic, the PDI, the Indonesian Democratic Party, one of the two opposition parties, held a rally in Jakarta which is really remarkable and it lasted 6 or 7 hours. It was not in one location. It roamed all over the city. And the estimates were roughly a million people demonstrating peacefully in the city of Jakarta on behalf of an opposition party. And I thought this is a sign of extraordinary progress, not only that such a demonstration was permitted but that it was conducted entirely peacefully. And when I expressed my pleasure a few days later to an Indonesian friend, and this friend was someone who is very critical of many government actions, who is distinctly liberal in the broad sense of the term politically in Indonesia, who very much wants to see a more open society, I was astonished that he was not as enthusiastic about this mass demonstration as I was. And he said, ''You have to realize, my wife came home shaking with fear having seen thousands of red-shirted youths shouting in the streets. It reminded her of the time in the 1960's when my friend was the target of mobs stirred up by the old Soekarno regime.''
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many people of his generation, which are now people in their forties and older, experienced incredible tragedy in earlier periods of instability in Indonesia and I think there is always a nervousness, particularly given the ethnic differences in that country and the religious differences. There are many people who want to see change who are afraid of change taking place too fast. And I think as we, from the outside, advocate change, and I think it is appropriate to do so, I think we also need to keep in mind that, for them, the balance between change and stability is very different than for us. That does not mean that every time some official drags out the danger of instability as an excuse for resisting change that they are right. I do not mean that at all. But it is a real problem and I think if we are not sensitive to it, we actually will diminish our influence.
And that brings me to my final point, which is what can we do to influence change in Indonesia. In order to approach this with some humility, I mean, right now we are going through our own problem about Indonesians—I would emphasize private Indonesians—getting involved in our political process and we do not like it. That does not mean that the situations are entirely equivalent. But we should recognize that we are foreigners, that we are talking about someone else's country. And, in the case of many Americans, we are talking about a country about which we knew nothing even a few weeks ago and still very little. And I think, if we are going to offer advice, we should offer it with some humility and some recognition that ultimately it is their country and they have to live in it.
I do believe we should offer advice. I am not arguing for keeping silent about problems. I have noted some serious ones in my testimony just now. But I think I would offer a few pieces of advice to advisors. First, if advice is going to be offered, I think it should be done with some humility. We are not in a position to dictate. We should not sound as though we think we are.
In an unrelated issue involving intellectual property rights, I had an assignment as Ambassador to try to get the Indonesians to change one of their laws and I began, mistakenly, by telling them publicly that if they did not do so, they faced 301 action. And one of the ministers who was working very hard to get the law changed told me, ''Mr. Ambassador, it would help a lot if you would shut up because I'm trying to convince Indonesians that this is in our own interest and we're not doing it just because the Americans are telling us to do it. We're doing it because it's good for Indonesia. And every time you threaten to punish us if we don't, the people who are fighting me say, 'You see, he's just the running dog of the Americans.' ''
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I said, ''OK, Mr. Minister. I'll make a deal with you. I'll shut up, as long as you understand that it's a fact that if we don't make progress here, there is going to be 301 action.'' And the fact is, over the course of the next year and a half, we were able to work very effectively with them and the law was changed. That was not on an issue as sensitive as human rights issues can become and I think there you are talking about probably that caution has to be more in mind even more clearly, which brings me to my second point.
There are ways to offer advice in public and ways to do it in private. There are some things that Sidney Jones can and will say that, coming from Sidney Jones, are, I think, very helpful. Coming from an American official like Deputy Assistant Secretary Brazeal would make it very hard for the U.S. Government to move things forward. So, I think that balance has to be kept in mind.
I think whether the advice is public or private, it makes a big difference whether it is seen as coming from people who are basically friends or whether it is seen as coming from people who would just as soon see Indonesia fall apart. In this connection, I would note that the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ramos Horta, has gone around not only advocating independence for East Timor but suggesting this would be a great precedent for Aceh and West Irian and West Papua, as he calls it, as well. That is a good way to put anyone in Indonesia who argues for change in East Timor in the position of siding with somebody who wants to break up their country. That is not a way to make progress.
And, finally, I think if we want to encourage positive change, I think our role needs to be to persuade and not to coerce. I think most often sanctions do more to make us feel better than to actually change things and, in some cases, I think sanctions have been—not might be—actually counterproductive. There are many Indonesians working inside the system to try to change people in the government, people in the news media, people in many NGO's, and I have been struck at how many of them have said to me, ''Why on earth did the Congress cancel IMET?'' The thing that most educates our military officers to what a democratic system can be like, that most accustoms them to understanding the kinds of democratic practices you have in the United States, has been the experience of going to the United States for IMET training. And now, the Congress, in the name of human rights, has made that nearly impossible. In fact, the military probably minds less than people who want to promote change in the country.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me note, finally, and I will identify, if you will like, I am not an interested party. I am a volunteer trustee of both the Asia Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy. I do believe that these non-government organizations that are largely funded by the U.S. Congress—and I include with that the National Democratic Institute, the Free Trade Union Institute, the International Republican Institute and SITE—all of them that have programs in Indonesia, I think, are doing a great thing to promote change in a positive way. There are many Indonesian groups that have benefited from that kind of assistance. I mentioned earlier the number of possibly 100 NGO's. I think a lot of those NGO's have gotten their start or gotten help through the Asia Foundation or through other similar foundations and I believe that Congress can do a great deal in a positive way by continuing to support those activities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolfowitz appears in the appendix.]
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Ambassador Wolfowitz.
You mentioned the lack of knowledge about Indonesia. I referenced that, too, in my opening remarks, and it occurs to me that whatever we do and act on in this room has resonance around the United States because we have people from all over the world who live here or who are residents, who are citizens, who are expatriates. But, relatively speaking, there are not many Indonesians. Not nearly as many as Vietnamese-Americans or Portuguese-Americans or Filipino-Americans, for example. And I think that has some impact upon our deliberations here. And I noted with some interest that Indonesians do not go away from home as often as most people do. They stay there. And when students come to this country, I understand they have the highest return rate—over 85 percent—going back home after their education in the United States. So, they are attracted back home and taking their education back home. That may be one of the reasons why we know less about a country of 200 million than we ordinarily would expect to know about it.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. But it is a factor giving us huge influence there. All those Indonesians who have been here who go back home are almost uniformly friendly to the United States.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Very positive impact for us around the world, I think.
Ms. Sidney Jones, we look forward to your testimony. You may proceed as you wish.
STATEMENT OF MS. SIDNEY R. JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH/ASIA
Ms. JONES. Thank you very much and thank you very much for inviting me to testify.
I will summarize the main points in the longer testimony. But I would like to stress that, from our point of view, Indonesia has actually been sliding backwards on human rights over the last 3 years or so. I would not disagree with the statements that people have made already about the importance of the NGO community, but it is important to note that controls and surveillance of those NGO's has tightened, not loosened, over the last 3 years. And, at the same time, we have seen a deterioration of human rights on virtually all fronts. We have also seen a growing resentment popularly in Indonesia against President Suharto and particularly his children. We have seen a perceived widening of the income gap. For a while there was no economic data supporting the fact that there was a rising gap between rich and poor. That data now exists. And we are also seeing rising political tensions between Java and the outer islands and also within some of the outer islands themselves. These would be problems under any circumstances, but they are even more acute now because there are not political institutions in place to deal with the succession and it has to be a long-term concern of the United States that these tensions are building in a way that may have implications for the long-term stability of Indonesia. I think, in the short term, they also have implications for the American business community in Indonesia.
Let me just run through a few quick problems and possible actions that the U.S. Congress could take. First of all, in terms of the political participation issue, we are probably seeing tighter controls during this election period than we have seen in the past. You have the most popular politician in Indonesia, Megawati Sukarnoputri, being banned from the ballot, together with all of her supporters, and one of her chief aides, a man named Abserson Sialoho, who is actually a serving member of the opposition PDI party, and is currently on trial for insulting the President. Activists who have been campaigning for an election boycott have been arrested in the dozens and either charged with spreading hatred toward the government or, in one case, subversion.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first effort in an independent election monitoring organization, which in Indonesia is called KIPP, has been continually harassed from the day it got started in 1996. And most recently, on April 7, there was a meeting in Ujung Pandang in Southern Sulawesi where, despite the fact that a workshop of KIPP had full legal permission to hold this workshop, security forces broke it up after half a day.
Now, I would urge you since even though the elections are only 3 weeks away and the time is very short, it would be wonderful if a Member of this Congress or if this Committee could work with parliamentarians from one or two other countries to actually try and get a team together, even at such short notice, to actually request to observe the elections, if only to secure the principle that election monitoring is something that is desirable. The last we heard, there were contradictory statements from the Indonesian Government back and forth about whether election monitoring would be permitted. We understand now that the government would allow monitors to come and observe the elections, but the foreign ministry was saying no such request had been made. And I would urge you strongly to make that request.
Second, on freedom of expression, Dr. Wolfowitz mentioned, and it is certainly the case, that the students who were sentenced last week got very harsh sentences. It is important to note that they were the harshest sentences for political dissent in over a decade, with one student who is about 27, the leader of this particular militant student organization, getting a sentence of 13 years which, basically, puts him away for most of his most productive years.
I would urge USAID to give any additional support that it can to organizations which support freedom of expression, in particular, such as the Alliance of Independent Journalists which has just conducted a very interesting monitoring of Indonesian television stations showing that the ruling party, Golkar, gets 60 percent more time during the election campaign than the other parties.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On worker rights, we noted that the Indonesian Government allows only one officially recognized union. That continues to be the case. While reforms were forthcoming in early 1994, partly as a result of GSP pressures, these reforms have not been adequately monitored and they certainly have not been adequately enforced. The most important one of these reforms was allowing workers to form unions at the plant level to negotiate collective bargaining agreements and the Indonesian Government is now saying that there are 1400 such agreements that have been concluded. Unfortunately, nobody has been able to get a list of the 1400 plants at which these agreements have been concluded and we would urge you strongly to just simply request from the Indonesian Government a list of these 1400 plants so that NGO's in Indonesia and perhaps Members of this Committee themselves can try to find out exactly how the agreements were concluded and whether they were, in effect, representative of the workers at those plants.
I will not say anything additional on Muchtar Pakpahan except to say that, for many, he does represent the struggle for worker rights and that his subversion trial is an affront to freedom of association more generally. We believe the USTR should immediately resume the review of Indonesia's labor rights practices under GSP. But I would note that it is important to have a fallback, (a) if GSP does not get refunded, and (b) if the Indonesia Government decides to graduate itself out of GSP, citing its level of economic development. If that happens, I think that the onus rests, to some degree, on the corporate community and there is a very positive role the corporate community in Indonesia—that is, the American corporate community—could play in trying, for example, to help urge the Ministry of Manpower to make a public statement affirming Indonesia's respect for international labor standards; also, to help obtain a list of these 1400 plant-level agreements; and perhaps to convene seminars in Jakarta on industrial relations that would involve NGO's, academics, employers and members of the National Human Rights Commission.
Many people have said thus far that Indonesia has been very tolerant of other religions and respectful of other communities and I think this is beginning to change for the worse and it is something that needs to be monitored. Religious intolerance and communal violence is increasing in Indonesia. The last 6 months have seen major outbreaks of communal violence, several of them on Java involving Muslim attacks on Christian churches, but the worst in West Kalimantan that has resulted in perhaps a death toll of as high as one thousand involving attacks by indigenous people, the Dayak, on immigrants to the area from the island of Madura who, I would note, are overwhelmingly very strongly Muslims. So, Muslims have been victims as well.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In all of these conflicts, government policy has exacerbated communal tensions. While the immediate cause of the West Kalimantan violence, which lasted from December to March, was a fight over a woman at a dance, the underlying cause appears to be the systematic alienation of Dayak ancestral land by the government for timber concessions, commercial plantations and mining operations, the major beneficiaries of which have been close associates of President Suharto. Over the last two decades, Dayak land claims—and this is true of other indigenous groups—have been ignored in favor of Jakarta-based business interests and government development imperatives. The sources of subsistence and cash income for these indigenous groups have been systematically depleted. Their lifestyle and culture have been treated with disdain as primitive and destructive in comparison with that of coastal Malays or other immigrants from Java and Medura. Unless this issue is addressed and addressed fairly soon, I think we are going to see more communal clashes and more violence which has, as I said before, major implications for the business community.
We believe the U.S. Embassy should devote as much of its resources to monitoring growing conflict in Kalimantan with regard to complications, obviously, because both areas are remote and involve difficult and expensive travel. But I think, just in terms of the credibility of the United States in monitoring human rights, it is critically important.
Finally, East Timor. No major change has taken place in the last several years. The human rights problems persist. And I would urge everyone to read the recent resolution supported by the United States that was passed by the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva just last month expressing concern about violations and the lack of progress made by Indonesian authorities. But it is particularly important to look at the recommendations. The resolution called on the Indonesian Government to, among other things, ensure the early release of East Timorese detained for their political views, to invite the commission's special rapporteur on torture to East Timor—and this is something that Members of this Committee could strongly support—to facilitate the stationing of a program officer from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Jakarta and allow him or her unhindered access to East Timor; to encourage the Secretary General of the United Nations to continue to use his good offices to achieve a just and internationally acceptable solution in East Timor; and to provide access to East Timor for human rights organizations. Following through on those recommendations would be essential.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I would like to say two words; one about Komnas, the human rights commission in Indonesia, and one about IMET. The human rights commission in Indonesia is, as everyone has said, an independent body which has done very good work. But it is important to note that its recommendations to the government have been often as ignored as they have been accepted. In terms of the recommendations made after the July 27 riots in 1996 last year, out of, I think, six separate recommendations they made, not a single one has been adopted. Likewise, when the human rights commission went to Irian Jaya to investigate abuses in August, 1995, the military prosecutions of four officers was the only recommendation that was actually followed through on. So Komnas is a very good organization, but it does not mean that its recommendations are adopted by the government on a uniform basis.
And, finally, about IMET, it is simply not the case that we know whether IMET has any useful impact or not. I think it is very important to try and put some kind of monitoring procedure together whereby the people who go through the IMET program can be systematically tracked, looking at what their records have been in the past and where they have been stationed, looking at whether those areas have been involved with major human rights abuses or not, and looking forward in the future to see whether the positions that they then take up are ones in which they actually do practically take any kind of different stance than they did before they went through the IMET program. That data does not exist now and I would strongly urge this Committee to see if it can be forthcoming.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BEREUTER. Ms. Jones, thank you.
I think we will need to make the distinction between E-IMET and IMET, if——
Ms. JONES. I think both should be monitored, however.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones appears in the appendix.]
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Gadbaw, I apologize. I briefly have to go and help establish a quorum in a banking subcommittee markup, so I will turn the chair over to one of the Members here shortly, and I apologize. I will be back as quickly as possible. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL GADBAW, CHAIRMAN OF U.S.-INDONESIA BUSINESS COMMITTEE, U.S. ASEAN COUNCIL
Mr. GADBAW. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I am pleased to be here on behalf of the U.S.-Indonesia Committee of the U.S. ASEAN Business Council.
I would like to commend your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and the other Members of your Committee in scheduling this hearing because I agree that the understanding of Indonesia in the United States is not commensurate with our interests there. Together with over 100 of my business colleagues, I visited Indonesia in March to participate in the first ever ASEAN Business Summit. Last year, I had a chance to visit some of the cities beyond Jakarta, including the bustling center of Surabaya and Batam Island, a development center in the Indonesia-Singapore-Malaysia growth triangle. Your decision to approach the issue of U.S.-Indonesia relations in a deliberate and thoughtful fashion is critical to building an understanding of Indonesia and, on behalf of the 400 companies of the U.S. ASEAN Business Council, I want to thank you for treating this relationship with the care that it warrants.
The Indonesian economy is one of the great success stories in Asia, having grown at an average annual rate of 7 percent for 25 years. In 1960, more than 60 percent of the population lived below the poverty line with per capita income at $70. Today, less than 15 percent live below the poverty line with per capita income of $1,000. Indonesia's middle class is at 20 million, larger than Australia's. The World Bank has estimated that by the year 2010, Indonesia could be the world's sixth-largest economy.
But the most compelling statistic that underlies this economic growth imperative is that Indonesia must sustain a growth of over 6 percent to absorb the 2.3 million people that are annually entering its workforce. Indonesia's transformation is the result of a steady stream of liberalization measures and sound free-market principles that have made Indonesia an international model of economic reform. Indonesia has succeeded not only in expanding the volume of its economy, but also in diversifying it. In 1984, oil and gas contributed 70 percent of export earnings and 65 percent of government revenues. Ten years later, these figures were 25 percent and 22 percent respectively.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All this progress has happened while maintaining stability in a country of great ethnic and cultural diversity. When I explain to my children, I talk about Indonesia as if you take a cookie three times the size of Texas, crumble it into 17,000 pieces and spread it across an expanse of ocean equivalent to the distance from Boston to San Francisco. You put over 200 million people on there speaking more than 500 languages and constituting over 300 ethnic groups.
The U.S. ASEAN Council started a program 2 years ago of engagement with the Indonesian Government and business to discuss changes that were needed in Indonesia to make the market more attractive to U.S. manufacturing companies seeking to trade and invest. We identified three priorities: amending the Indonesia-U.S. tax treaty, liberalizing the Indonesian distribution regulations, and customs reform. During the past 2 years, we have gotten remarkable cooperation from both the Indonesian Government and the private sector, with whom we have established a bilateral dialog in all three of these areas.
In June 1996, the Government of Indonesia introduced a deregulation package, liberalizing their distribution regulations. In July, 1996, the United States and Indonesia signed a protocol to their tax treaty lowering the withholding taxes on U.S. companies. And, finally, we have developed an active program of technical assistance for Indonesian customs officials.
We are now working against a backdrop of increasing tensions in the bilateral relationship with the involvement of Indonesian private citizens in the financing of the U.S. Presidential election, the introduction of sanctions in the Massachusetts legislature, and just last week we marked the rise of Indonesia in the American political consciousness with an Indonesian sanctions debate in the International Relations Committee. These developments complicate the stiff competition in Indonesia. American businesses face competition from Japanese, European, Singapore and other companies. Compromising U.S.-India relations will decrease U.S. competitiveness and cede one of the world's fastest growing markets to our foreign competitors.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although U.S. exports to Indonesia doubled this year, our market share is declining. We have gone from a 14 percent share of the Indonesian import market in 1992 to a nine and a half percent share in 1996. We are the third-largest exporter to Indonesia, the fifth-largest investor, and we rank sixth in terms of the amount of aid we grant to Indonesia.
Indonesia has been a leader in establishing integration and liberalization in the region, as shown in its role in developing ASEAN-AFTA and leading the way to free trade with APEC. Given Indonesia's strategic importance from an economic and security perspective, it is in our collective interest to make sure that the U.S.-Indonesia bilateral relationship continues to grow and develop. Indonesia's growth shows no sign of abating. The extent to which U.S. and American companies participate in that growth will largely be determined by whether we choose to be engaged in that country and the forces of change.
Our commercial interest should be seen to be complimentary to—and not in conflict with—our overall interests. The more we can align our policy interests, our commercial interests and our transaction interests, the more effective we will be in achieving our common goals.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gadbaw appears in the appendix.]
Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you very much for the testimony. I have a couple of questions.
On page two, Mr. Gadbaw, of your testimony, the last paragraph says, ''I make this assertion not because I think our commercial interests displace our interests in economic and social development, or to minimize the importance of foreign aid, but because I believe there is a positive linkage between commercial engagement and our values and objectives in the social sphere.''
Do you believe that there is any connection between increased commercial engagement with a country and reports of human rights violations?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, Ms. Jones, that is obviously your field, so if you want to join in the answer.
Do you believe there is a nexus?
Mr. GADBAW. Well, I believe there is a positive linkage between the engagement of American companies and the improvement of the social and economic conditions of the countries in which we participate. I think this is true of Indonesia and I think it is true of many other countries in which American companies participate. I think it is probably the most important issue we face in this discussion of how we ought to integrate our commercial interests and our overall foreign policy interests. So I spend a fair amount of my time now trying to understand how that linkage works and trying to strengthen that linkage. But I do believe it exists.
Ms. JONES. Can I just say that I do not think there is a very easy answer to that. I neither believe that commercial engagement automatically improves human rights practices, nor do I believe that it automatically results in human rights violations. But I think Indonesia has examples of both very clearly from some place like the investment of Mobil up in Aceh in the northern tip of Sumatra, where, in some cases, Mobil has contributed very much to the community in the surrounding areas. On the other hand, the fact that many of the workers at that plant come from outside the area has created lots of resentment that Acehenese themselves are not being trained and employed. So, you have a very complex issue wherever you have foreign investment coming in.
Mr. MANZULLO. Ambassador.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. I think this varies from country to country. I would not make a sweeping statement about business engagement. But I think in Indonesia the record is pretty strong and, I mean, if you make the assumption that if Mobil were not in Aceh, there would be no development and therefore there would not be the tension that arises from the development, there also would not be the development. But that is not the case. If Mobil were not there, it would be a Japanese oil company or a French oil company. And I think the difference between how American companies operate and how other foreign companies operate is really very, very dramatic in Indonesia.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With your permission, I would actually like to submit for the record a letter that one of my successors, Ambassador Robert Barry, sent to Congressman Patrick Kennedy in connection with his legislation.
Mr. MANZULLO. It will be made part of the record.
[The letter had not been submitted at time of printing.]
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. And if I might just say, very briefly, he mentions a number of things which are consistent with my experience also. I am reading from his letter, ''I think U.S. companies have done more than any other foreign investors to train Indonesians.'' That is the case and, frankly, it, in some ways, is just good economic sense. But I think it is also because American companies work pretty much within the law, whereas, without mentioning other companies, I think there is a tendency when you do not have a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to buy permits to bring in expatriate workers.
American companies, I think, have generally treated their workers well. I think partly because of the restrictions of our own laws, particularly the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I think the behavior of American companies raises the general standard of behavior in the country. And I think, finally, the contact with Americans, including the very large numbers of employees of companies like Mobil, that are educated in American universities means a larger number of Indonesians that come back having been educated in the United States and, frankly, I do believe that, overall, that effect is quite significant in the general direction of change in Indonesia.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Hastings.
Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chair and thank you, Howard, for allowing me to go in advance of you.
I appreciate the testimony of all of you and I appreciate very much Chairman Bereuter and his staff for putting this kind of hearing together where we do have responsible individuals that have been studying this problem for quite some time.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to use a lot of time, and perhaps I will at some point, try to reach out to you to better understand. My interest is piqued, as one of the new kids on the block, by Ambassador Wolfowitz's comments about—and I think I quote you correctly—that sometimes our country's people are appallingly ignorant of not only Indonesia but foreign policy matters generally. I know you know this, Dean, that appallingly, people who are in Congress—and I may fall in that category in this particular arena—are equally not as mindful of what is going on in countries that they half-heartedly approach policy matters about.
Mine is less than a question at this point and, Dean, I know that you have immense responsibilities. But I urge upon you, based on your final comments that were sound advice and, in my view, really textbook for operating as policymakers, diplomats, even businesspersons with your advice with reference to how we approach countries. In this instance, you were referring specifically to Indonesia. But I think you would agree with me that the basic premise that you set forth would be equal anywhere in the world. As one who is beginning to get a grip on how we approach others from the diplomatic standpoint through the executive and through the legislative process, I am beginning to feel that we are making a hell of a lot of mistakes and we can correct some of that. And you and others might be instrumental in assisting in that correction.
Not any time soon, but if it is at all possible, to develop a weekend curriculum for Members of Congress who are interested and their staffs such that we would hear from you and others with some expertise regarding how we should conduct ourselves when we go to countries. I do not mean to cast a shadow on anybody. I am not a protocol expert. But, damn it, when I go to these places, I at least read about them and try to understand whether or not you ought to spit on the streets and whistle, you understand? And there are people who I have traveled with who simply did not take the time to do that and made serious mistakes or just little things. We need your help. And I will urge our Chairman Bereuter and chairman of this Committee that Members of this Committee, it ought to be a prerequisite that if they are going to serve in this arena, that they at least ought to have a better background than I see when we are abroad doing the business of this country.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sometimes, as you say, it is better to leave things unsaid and certainly sometimes it is better to say things privately in a more persuasive manner than to show our intellect and our ego and how powerful we are and how limited our knowledge is on a specific subject that we can expound on in front of a Premier or Prime Minister or a dictator at a given time. I just wanted to get that off my chest and ask you to please give consideration to that and then ask you and Mr. Gadbaw a question.
Dean or Ambassador or Your Excellency, in your opinion, in light of the fact that you cite to the fact that we do not have very much leverage and that we should persuade rather than coerce or by using sanctions—and I might add, I agree in the long haul that that is the better approach—what is, in your opinion, our best leverage in Indonesia to persuade them to become more transparent?
And my question to you, Mr. Gadbaw, is, do we at any point in time have any contact with others of our allies—Japan, for example, that has a big economic presence in Indonesia; I do not know Australia's presence, but I, for one, think that we do not use Australia's influence sufficiently in our policymaking in that area of the world while they are there, that big rock sits there, and they deal with these people a little bit different than we do and that is all the way up to China—and I am curious as to whether or not there is any interface with American businesspersons and the Australians who might very well have reasons to have a need to participate with others.
Sorry it took me so long. Ms. Jones, I do not want you, by any stretch of the imagination, to believe that I am ignoring the criticality of human rights concerns. I just did not put a question to you because I hear you loud and clear and we all know what those problems are. But I hope in there somewhere I have said something as a new kid on the block.
And, Dean, if we have any time, if you could address just anything that I threw out there, I would appreciate it.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And thank you so much for giving me that amount of time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Just very quickly, you said what I thought were some extremely important points at the beginning and I do not just say that as somebody who is the dean of a school of international affairs. I might be accused of having a professional interest. I am actually a dean because I believe it is very important for our country to be even better educated about these matters and my faculty would always love more students and I would like to come and see you. If we could get some weekend students from this important body, it would be, I think, no trouble getting some people to spend time with them.
I would also urge, and not just the Members of Congress but particularly the press, to encourage foreign travel. I think no corporation with interests in Indonesia as large as the United States had would keep its board of directors from ever visiting the country. But we have a situation where, when a Congressman travels abroad, they have to worry about people criticizing them. I never, during the time I was in Indonesia, had a single congressional visit that did not advance American interests in some way—sometimes small, sometimes large. One that just blew in for a half a day and I thought I was going to get nothing from them but a shopping trip, they ended up inviting the speaker of the Indonesian Parliament, who at that time was taking on the executive branch in some significant ways. It turned out it was the first time any congressional delegation ever called on the Indonesian Parliament. So, I really encourage those visits. They are very valuable.
On the general point of where do we have leverage, it is very complex. I do not want to be understood, either, as saying that we should not say things in public. I think some people need to be more public, some people need to be more private. Two things that I think are elementary: we have a lot more leverage when we have people in Indonesia on our side. It is very easy to push something off a table when it is already ready to tilt and it is very hard to push something if it is firmly on the table. I am referring, among other things, to this notion, if we start to become advocates for East Timor's independence or referendum, which is the code word for independence, we can argue till the moon turns blue about whether this is good or bad. But most Indonesians are against it and we are not going to get a whole lot of sympathy for our general point of view if that is where we try to push. But I think if we push on some of the things that I have mentioned and at some of the things that are in Sidney Jones' testimony where, in fact, members of the human rights commission are publicly criticizing some court verdicts, for example, I think we have a better chance.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, finally, I very much endorse your point about if we can get other countries to join us, and particularly the countries with big influence in Asia and Japan is No. 1 in that regard, it is very, very hard to do. I do not underestimate the difficulty. But, at times, we are so satisfied with the sound of our own voice that we do not think enough about how to get other people to join us.
Mr. GADBAW. Congressman, I would like to second the comments made by Ambassador Wolfowitz and certainly be willing to support any efforts of an educational nature regarding Members of Congress and to share what we know about Indonesia and other countries.
In response to your question about the extent to which we work with business from other countries, the answer is we definitely do that. At the ASEAN Business Summit, there were participants not just from the ASEAN region but from outside of the ASEAN region, including Australia. In the APEC context, this is the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation process, there is an active business participation. I do not think we do it as well as we should and I am involved in a number of groups to do it better because I firmly believe that transactions drive policy and policy drives transactions and if we can get those aligned in a constructive, positive way, we have a tremendously effective force.
I would say, in the Indonesia context, one thing you might study is the Paiton Power Project, which involved cofinancing from U.S. export credit agencies, Eximbank and OPIC, and Japanese financing agencies which not only secured for Americans jobs and exports but also helped to create a way of doing business in Indonesia that I think influences both their infrastructure arena but also carries over into other areas of their economy, by setting a pattern which I think is an important pattern for how they ought to allow the private sector to operate, for the role of government in regulating and which, I think, has a very positive impact and is the kind of thing that we ought to be doing together with our counterparts in other countries.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
I understand the gentleman from California has commitments and I would be pleased to recognize him.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have to go to a meeting.
Dr. Wolfowitz's reputation for realism has been undermined by his notion of coming to Congress and suggesting that when we offer advice, we should do it with humility.
Neither of the two of you on either end talked about the corruption issue. We have heard Ms. Jones say, and to some extent I think Dr. Wolfowitz acknowledged, that there has been some regression in the area of human rights participation in the electoral process, communal tensions, greater evidence of communal tensions, some of them exacerbated by government policies. But, in addition, I have just all kinds of clips of pretty rampant kinds of corruption at the top, from the children of the ruling family and their whole role in this process. To what extent does that undermine the very focused efforts of the President to move Indonesia ahead on an economic sphere? And I would be curious about your reactions of how we would deal with that particular issue.
And then, I guess I will ask my questions and be quiet and listen to the responses. I am curious about the issue of Indonesia's importance as it relates to China. I can certainly understand the importance of the country in terms of its size, its diversity, its position as the largest Muslim country, the sea lanes. But is this a notion of Indonesia as a counterforce to China in some fashion and, if it dissolves in civil war and the breaking up of the country, that there is some impact in terms of Chinese policies where they will thereby become more aggressive or seek to move in and fill vacuums? I am not sure what you meant by that.
And my final point is, perhaps, mostly to Mr. Gadbaw. I am still trying to understand better what the evidence is that the role of American investment, in and of itself, produces benefits not simply for the workers in the communities where that investment is located in the economic, which is certainly important, but which should cause us, in the context of dealing with all these issues in many different countries, assume that our desires to promote pluralism, political transparency, respect for human rights, is inherently better off because American companies are actively investing in that country. I would like to know evidence for the side benefits of that because, if that is clear and established and true everywhere in the world, it sort of makes a compelling case for approaching issues in a certain fashion. But I am wondering if it is a self-serving conclusion by American business. Is it also supported by independent evidence?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I mean, sometimes a self-serving conclusion can also be a correct one. I am just wondering if this may be a bigger issue than should be addressed at this hearing, but it is certainly an important question which you have addressed.
Thank you.
Corruption, China and the other.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Yes. Let me take the hard one first. I mean, there is no question corruption is a problem. The Indonesians have a way of talking about it even at a fairly official level and they refer to it as the ''high-cost economy.'' And it puts burdens on the economy and I think it is a problem that is widely believed to have gotten worse in recent years, although not entirely. It is not uniform.
The main bright spot, I think, has been that starting 10 years ago, roughly, there was a major push to not privatize the Indonesian economy, because that was a bad word, but they used the word deregulate. And while there have been a significant number of things carved out for powerful individuals, which I think is a burden on the economy as well as unfair, there has been a lot that has been opened up. And the pressure to do that was, in fact, the pressure to compete internationally and the recognition that Indonesia could not continue to grow if it simply depended on oil resources.
In fact, probably the single greatest leverage we have on this issue, in a larger sense, I think, is the desire, the competition among all these countries, for foreign investment. And when Indonesia does some of the things it has done, like the National Automobile or the intrusions on the Busang Mine when it was still thought to be a mine, I think it has a dampening effect on foreign investment in general. At the moment, there is an awful lot of foreign investment available everywhere, so the competition is a little less acute. But I think that is one thing that has some influence.
I believe that the way we do our own business—and I think this is a reason why, given a choice among investors, I think there is an objective reason to prefer American investors because we are required by our own law to behave in a way that other countries do not have to. I do not know if there would be a way to internationalize the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, but it seems to me it would be not a bad thing to try to do. As I understand, in Germany, if you pay a bribe, you actually can take a tax deduction for it. It is not so far from being illegal. Maybe we cannot influence the German Government, but it would seem to me we might have a better chance working on them than working on the Indonesians.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. We cannot even agree on what technology to sell to Iran with the Germans, so I do not know.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Well, there are limits to what we can do. But, I mean, we had a GAO inspection when I was in Jakarta of our PL–480 program and I was fairly new, so I did not figure it was something that I would have to apologize for. But I was really quite concerned. How do you run a program like that in a country with the business climate that was described and not have problems. And the GAO did its damnedest to find problems and we had to conclude that when the rules were clear enough and laid down by USAID, the Indonesians followed our rules because they wanted our program. And I think, similarly, they want the technology American oil companies have to offer and so they play by the rules that those companies have to live with. And I think we do have a significant influence within the sphere that we operate in in raising people's standards.
I am sorry, China. I in no way meant Indonesia as a military counterweight to China. In fact, one of the impressive things about this country is that even though it is dominated by the military, the military budget is relatively honest. And, as a military force, Indonesia is not the counterweight to anybody. What I meant is that I do believe that if Southeast Asia were to go back to where it was 30 years ago with wars between Indonesia and Malaysia and disputes among the Spratlys, not just between China and the ASEAN countries but between Vietnam and Indonesia, it would be almost impossible for China to stay out, even if they wanted to. I think they would be drawn in to one side or another to protect their own interests.
Conversely, if Southeast Asia remains stable as it is and, in fact, they have integrated Vietnam and they are about to bring Laos and Cambodia in, so the differences among them are kept to a minimum, I think it will, even if the Chinese want to interfere, it is going to be much more difficult for them to do so because they will not be able to play Vietnam off against Indonesia or Indonesia against Vietnam. They will have to deal with the whole entity. That is what I meant.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. I am being called by my Committee to get over there. The question I gave to you is way beyond the scope of this hearing. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts about it at some point, but I am not going to be able to now and it seems unfair to you to ask it to you and then leave while you are giving the answer, so let me apologize.
Mr. BEREUTER. Do you want him to answer it? We will have it for the record, if you do.
Mr. GADBAW. I would be happy to answer it and come back and talk to you directly, personally, if you would like.
Mr. BEREUTER. I liked his question, so if you would like to proceed, we will have it on the record.
Mr. GADBAW. Thank you.
I think the Congressman has asked two of the most important questions that we in the business community face and they are at the top of my agenda and the top of, I think, the U.S. Government's policy agenda. I think, on the issue of corruption, the most important thing to recognize is that the Indonesians themselves have acknowledged the problem of corruption and there is considerable discussion in the press on this subject. I think, despite the existence of this problem, American companies are able to operate in Indonesia without giving bribes and with integrity. I believe that by our involvement and insistence on operating in an ethical manner, that we strengthen the forces in Indonesia that want a transparent and corruption-free society. I think that this is part of a much larger issue that has to be addressed in a comprehensive way. I think the efforts of the U.S. Government and the OECD to get agreement among the OECD countries that would level up the playing field and criminalize foreign bribery in all of the OECD countries and to enforce the recommendation that the OECD has already adopted to deny tax-deductibility for bribes are two very important initiatives that deserve our support. I think there are other things that can be done, but we have to recognize that in the end we have to encourage action on the part of these countries to take this issue in hand and to deal with it effectively.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think, on the question of the linkage between our involvement and the social development and the development of human rights in these countries, I think that by our presence, we bring a set of values. That is, American companies and Americans that go over to these countries to trade and invest bring with them the values that we have and the corporate cultures that embody these values. Ultimately, I think that economic development that is based on the kind of market principles and transparency and liberal reforms that the Indonesians have begun to pursue are the best reinforcement of the kinds of political and social changes that we are trying to advocate.
We, in the U.S. ASEAN Council, have been working hard to understand in more detail how the linkage works. We did a survey of our companies on their practices with respect to community involvement and attached to my testimony is a summary of that survey. But I think we also need to be sensitive to the appropriate role of business. There are definitely limits to how far we can go and we can only support the kind of government-to-government initiatives that are ongoing and the role of the non-government organizations represented by others.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much.
Did that clear up Mr. Berman's outstanding list of questions? All right.
I have a couple, myself, to conclude with, and I guess the first would be addressed to Ms. Jones and Ambassador Wolfowitz, in particular. I asked Secretary Brazeal if she would respond in writing to a question since we were about to recess to go vote, and so the question was basically related to allegations that I heard in Jakarta when I was there. I do not know how much credibility to give to those allegations. But the allegations are that there is pressure, there are positive incentives is another way to put it, for the persons serving in the General Officers Corps, or hoping to serve there, to be Muslim and to move away from a secular kind of orientation in the military. I am wondering if you see any evidence of that, or have you seen any evidence in the past? And, if that were to be the case, whether or not the allegation has substance. What would be the effect on U.S. policy, on U.S.-Indonesian relations? What would be your concerns?
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. JONES. If I can start there, I think that there are two points that need to be addressed in that regard. One is that there is an increasing evidence of factions within the Indonesian military, one of which is called the Green Faction—that is, the group of officers that are more devoutly Muslim than others—but there are other factions as well and there is great resentment among part of the senior officer corps about the rapid rise of Suharto's son-in-law, Prabowo, and also of his agitans, Hortono. And so there are factions in the military more generally of which there is one Muslim faction. I do not think it is cause for concern, especially if one remembers that a former commander-in-chief of the armed forces named Mohamad Jusuf was probably one of the most devout Muslims that the army has ever had as commander, is one of the most beloved and one of the cleanest and most respected at the officer corps. So I do not think that, per se, is a cause for concern.
I do think that the Indonesian Government's policies over the last 7 or 8 years of encouraging a more strict adherence to Islam through organizations like ICMI, this organization of Muslim intellectuals, and so on has not been a direct consequence but it has been an indirect consequence of giving a cover to some of the more militant Muslim groups that operate without direct government support in a variety of different settings that have led, for example, to an increase in the use of blasphemy, for example, as a charge against people who have been making puns about verses in the Koran and so on. We have seen a number of blasphemy cases used against people who criticize the government. So, I think there is a decidedly growing sense of religious intolerance that has come about as an indirect consequence of some government policies. But that is a broader question within the Indonesian Government and not specifically related to the officer corps.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. I think, with respect to the armed forces, there clearly is a certain degree of factionalism based on religious identification, but I would emphasize two things. No. 1, I do not think any of the officers are Muslim fundamentalists in any western notion of the word. It is, rather, a matter of arguing whether Muslims should be promoted more rapidly, less rapidly. And I think, in fact, it is, in part, a legacy of the fact that earlier I do not think it was in any way unfair but there was actually a disproportion of Christian officers and non-Muslim officers in the top ranks of the military for reasons that I think had nothing to do with an anti-Muslim bias. But there was that allegation made. I think it is internal army politics is basically what we are talking about and it is not something that is going to affect the larger climate in Indonesia.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to the larger climate, I think there is some truth in what Sidney Jones says about an injection of religion into politics which, in part, the government bears some responsibility. On the other hand, it is also a reason why even a lot of people who want to see change in Indonesia are afraid of having it come too fast because if politics is wide open in Indonesia, there will be people who will demagogue the religious issue. There is no question about it. The government is guilty of doing that to some extent recently itself.
Mr. BEREUTER. It has been said that the Indonesian military is one of the forces, one of the few institutions—some people go so far as saying the only institution—that really seems to unite the country. What would you say about its role and its importance to Indonesia?
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. I think it is very important and it is very important for that reason and I believe that, on the whole, this should be added to what was said earlier. I think at least on the question of integrating across ethnic groups and across religions on the whole, the record of the military has been very good within its own institution. It is a weakness of the country that there are no other institutions and I think it is a fair criticism that when those institutions have tried to develop, usually they have been cut down. And in spite of that, I believe because of the broad nature of political and social change in Indonesia, a lot of these things are happening and that is what one means when one talks about the development of a middle class. I am not an economic determinist, but I do believe that more and more Indonesians, outside of the military Indonesians, are developing the confidence and ability to organize on a national scale in a way that ultimately will be a great strength for that country.
Ms. JONES. I think it would be a huge mistake to see the military as the sole or even the strongest uniting force in Indonesia if that meant that it precluded the search for other institutions or, indeed, prevented the United States and other countries friendly to Indonesia from pressing the government now to try and do what it can in the time remaining in Suharto's rule to develop alternative political institutions. But to look at the army as the only uniting force in Indonesia, I think would be a great mistake.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. But I do not think you would find too many people in this country or Indonesia that think that is a desirable end to have it as the only one.
Ms. JONES. No.
Mr. BEREUTER. Ms. Jones, perhaps in particular, but I welcome comments from any of you—there is a small Chinese ethnic minority, relatively small, in the country. I understand, at least in some parts of the country, it is mostly Christian, and there have been burnings of churches, destruction of churches, destruction of Chinese-owned businesses. Is this action likely to be against the Chinese because they have a significant share of the retail establishments and wealth in some parts of the country or is it against Christians?
Ms. JONES. I think primarily it is anti-Chinese. But the two, as you say, are being fused increasingly. And I think there are two possible causes that need to be highlighted. One is that through this process of deregulation that Dr. Wolfowitz mentioned, it has been true that a number of the Chinese entrepreneurs and financiers in Indonesia have benefited enormously and in a very conspicuous way, even though it is also true that others in Indonesian society have benefited. But the attention has been very much focused on these extremely wealthy Chinese conglomerate owners and so on, so the resentment against Chinese, I think, has probably intensified in the last several years.
The other thing is that whenever there is major social unrest in Indonesia, it is taken out on the Chinese because they are not in a position to defend themselves. And those tensions, as I noted, have increased substantially. And I think we are going to see more anti-Chinese riots, not less, unless the economic and sort of the underclass in Indonesia, particularly in the poor urban areas, is addressed. I do think that one unfortunate aspect of this growing religious intolerance that I mentioned is that churches have become an easy target. I would say also, in East Timor, mosques have become a target when people want to rev up sentiment against the Indonesian immigrants who are there. So it is a failure more widespread in Indonesia that people suddenly realize that you can get a lot of people out on the streets by using religion as a mobilizing force and I think that is very dangerous.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. I would just like to add, I mean, I think these incidents are disturbing, but they are incidents in a very large country and I think it is healthy that most Indonesians are disturbed at the appearance of these things. We are not talking about a country that is aflame in religious violence. We are talking about a country that has known quite extraordinary peaceful conditions for some time now, including even for the ethnic Chinese community that has frequently, as Sidney Jones notes, been the target of violence that when it starts to erupt, people get very concerned and very nervous. And if the trend continues, it will be indeed disturbing. But I think some perspective should be kept on it. That is all I would say.
Ms. JONES. Don't you think the trend is increasing?
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. I do.
Ms. JONES. Yes.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. No, it is increasing. But I am just saying that it started from a rather placid level a few years ago and that is reason for concern.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Mr. Gadbaw, I think there is one element that has sort of been neglected by our questions and that is about the business climate and practices that the American businesses face there, except for the area of corruption which we have talked a little bit about and possibly the influence of the President's family on business and economic and trade relationships. But I wonder if you could more specifically address—and, again, the Ambassador's comments are welcome or any of the three of you—what categories, in brief, without necessarily much detail unless you want to provide it, what categories of obstacles do we face—our own, or Indonesian, or something else—which keep us from expanding our business involvement, participation and limits our ability to take advantage of opportunities there?
Mr. GADBAW. Yes. I think it is a very important area and the area on which we spend a great deal of our time. I think in my longer testimony you will find a bit more detail on those subjects.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think the first point is that we have a very successful business-to-business and government-to-government dialog about the business conditions in Indonesia and specific ways to improve those conditions. I had mentioned the success we had in the distribution area, in the tax area, and in the customs area. I think in all of those areas we want to continue to press forward with further reforms, particularly in the customs arena where the Indonesians have introduced some important changes, that we will want to make sure to move in a positive direction.
In the area of deregulation, particularly in the energy sector and the downstream petroleum products sector, there are important efforts that need to be made to further deregulate and allow for private participation in those areas and I think that what is heartening is that we have a very constructive effort on the part of both business and government to take on those issues provided that we can focus in on specific doable things that can then build support for the longer term reforms that we think are essential.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
When I visited Jakarta, I visited with the American banking community there since I am a Member of the Banking Committee. And, not unlike most of Asia, we do not have national treatment. We have far from national treatment. In the area of retail banking, what is called retail banking, for example, we have almost no ability for our institutions to function in that area. I would think that is a limitation on our and on other foreign countries' ability to work in the area and to assist American or foreign-based businesses operating in Indonesia.
This hearing has focused so much, it seems to me, on the problems that we have in our relationship and the potential problems because, for one thing, we are trying to better understand some of the concerns that our colleagues had, not only in this Committee but throughout the Congress. And I do want to say that I think there are very many positive things about our relationship, and I tried in my opening statement to emphasize the increasingly constructive role that Indonesia plays in the region. As I visited with Indonesians—and I would include specifically the military—there was a warmth that existed toward America. Many of them have had experiences here. We could talk about common experiences that they had during their military training or their education here, and so I think there is a lot to be said about the base for further improving Indonesian-American relations. This is, of course, our goal within our national interest and always only within our national interest. But I see little reason why improving Indonesian-American relations is not consistent with our principles and goals, always in our national interest.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would ask you, in conclusion, for any of you to make a contribution here, two questions, converse sides. What is it that Congress should avoid doing to complicate or damage Indonesian-American relations in our national interest? And what, second, should we specifically do to maintain and enhance Indonesian-American relations within our national interest?
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Do you want me to try to go first?
Mr. BEREUTER. The top of your list, both directions.
Mr. WOLFOWITZ. Let me start with the positive side, and I appreciate what you said. I think we tend to look at the problems. But the opportunities here are enormous and not just in the trade and business area. I think we have the opportunity, if things go well—and I think they will go well over the next 15 or 20 years—to have a huge country in Asia, a huge country with a position in the Moslem world, that is progressing, that is progressive, and that is very warm and friendly to the United States. I think there is a lot at stake.
I think one thing that Congress can do of a positive sort I said to Congressman Hastings. I think more Congressmen need to go there. It is a long way away. It is a difficult trip. But I do not know anyone, as I said before, I do not know any Congressman who has visited who did not advance American interests in some way and I do not know of any who did not come back considerably better understanding both the opportunities and the problems there and I really would encourage more congressional travel there.
I believe that programs that bring Indonesians to the United States—and I include IMET in that regard—are very helpful. I do not have much doubt at all that, as a general proposition, Indonesians that have exposure to the United States are more likely to see things our way and more likely to share our values. And I specifically believe that the efforts that we do to help non-governmental organizations, as I mentioned, through the Asia Foundation, through the National Endowment for Democracy, are very, very positive.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think what Congress should avoid doing is coming out with actions that seem simply hostile or destructive, I think particularly on the issue of East Timor. Even a lot of Indonesians who have concerns about human rights abuses in East Timor will complain that at times it seems as though the United States does not realize that there is the rest of Indonesia. That the only problems in Indonesia are in East Timor.
And also, I think as I said very clearly, I think if you are going to make progress on East Timor, you have to recognize that independence is not the issue now. I believe, in fact, that if Portugal were willing to show some flexibility, I think there would be an opportunity to get the Indonesian Government to move quite a long way. But if the issues seem to be independence, I think it becomes very destructive and I would urge the Congress to try to avoid that sort of destructive presentation of the issue.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Ms. Jones.
Ms. JONES. I think I would urge Congress not to just look at Indonesia in terms of what happens in Jakarta primarily and that it is critically important not only for these congressional delegations but for other kinds of communication going back and forth to look at what is happening in Sumatra and Kalimantan and Irian Jaya and elsewhere because I think that is going to be increasingly important in both a positive and negative way in the years to come.
I also would endorse what Dr. Wolfowitz said, that style is very important. I think you can say a lot and you can put a lot of pressure on the Indonesian Government in terms of the substantive content of that pressure as long as it is done in a style that does not seem to be completely hectoring and from a completely American point of view.
And then, I guess, finally I would say, on East Timor, that it is critically important, I think, to find ways of supporting the U.N. initiatives and sometimes that even may mean offering financial support, which I know is difficult to come by these days, for specific initiatives like a visit of the special rapporteur on torture to East Timor because it does put it into an international context that makes it much more acceptable overall.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Mr. Gadbaw.
Mr. GADBAW. I think the United States needs to stay engaged. We need to understand the positive linkages between our commercial interests and our overall policy interests. And I think we have to strengthen the mutually reinforcing relationships between policy and transactions. I think what we should stop doing is stop looking purely at the negative measures to sanction behavior that we do not like without regard to whether it achieves the objectives that we intended to achieve and find ways to strengthen, positive means to reinforce and incentivize behavior and the achievement of objectives that we all share.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much. I found this hearing to be extraordinarily helpful. Your comments, your testimony, and responses to our questions were to the point and very beneficial to us. I think, as a matter of fact, I will ask Mr. Berman to join me in having our staff prepare a summary of your remarks today, along with those of the Secretary, and provide a summary in the Congressional Record—which is rarely done here—as opposed to just having it end up in our Committee files. That is how valuable I think your contribution has been here as members of the second panel.
So, thank you very much for your time. We very much appreciate it. Hope to see you again.
The Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Insert "The Official Committee record contains additional material here."
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC