Posts
Entering 61 years Indonesia – U.S. Bilateral Relationship, 1949 – 2010:
Since official acknowledgment the U.S. Government toward the Republic of Indonesia Post Round Table Conference (1949) untill the Signing of Comprehensive Partnership Agreement (2010)
(Based on U.S. perspective)
National Interest:
A Universal Theory and Its Implementation by the USA
in Indonesia
Case Study: East Timor or Timor Leste and Post Terroris Attact on 11 September 2001
Written by: M Siswanto Prajogo
Jakarta, September 2010
(II)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Abstract
East Timor is one of the arenas for U.S. foreign policy implementation. This matter seemed when Indonesia began to integrate East Timor territorial to the Republic of Indonesia, the U.S. Government fully supported both politically and security assistance. But when Ramos Horta – who supported by East Timor Action Network (ETAN) that based in the USA – struggle for East Timor independence, the U.S. Government gave widely opportunities for the released of East Timor from Republic of Indonesia. This situation occurred due to there was a changing on the U.S. foreign policy in dealing with global threat and challenging which oriented to its national security. Terrorist attack on 11 September 2001 changed the U.S. Foreign Policy globally. As a result the USA tried to recover bilateral relationship with Indonesia.
1.1. Abstract
East Timor is one of the arenas for U.S. foreign policy implementation. This matter seemed when Indonesia began to integrate East Timor territorial to the Republic of Indonesia, the U.S. Government fully supported both politically and security assistance. But when Ramos Horta – who supported by East Timor Action Network (ETAN) that based in the USA – struggle for East Timor independence, the U.S. Government gave widely opportunities for the released of East Timor from Republic of Indonesia. This situation occurred due to there was a changing on the U.S. foreign policy in dealing with global threat and challenging which oriented to its national security. Terrorist attack on 11 September 2001 changed the U.S. Foreign Policy globally. As a result the USA tried to recover bilateral relationship with Indonesia.
Key words:
Foreign policy, security assistance, global threat and challenge, national security.
1.2. U.S. Foreign Policy: Background and Its Implementation
Historically, in one side the U.S. had ever involved in the civil-war, that indeed it was the worst experience, yet, in another side the U.S. also as the winner of the 1st and 2nd World War, was very concern on the U.S. Homeland Security. To guarding such security U.S. applied expansionist foreign policy which is the realization of maximalism doctrine:
In the reality it was that maximalism is not a new thinking in the U.S. foreign policy history. This thinking basicaly emphazed on the achievement of demand which is conducted either directly or revolusionary, without compromise. The foreign policy was patterned to achieve strategic breakthrough to transform at the situasion which capable to support the U.S. global influence continously. [1]
The statement mentioned above could be tracked from American history, that expansionist politic basically had been applied since the establihment of U.S. nation embryo (John Winthrop with his written on ”the city upon a hill”) until the establishment of the States (declaration of independence). The expansionist politic seems will not ever terminate even untill now and may be untill the next future.
Expansionist spirit of American which pointed of by John Winthrop through his famous sermon ”the city upon a hill” stand-out when Winthrop as a Puritan figure want to develop the freedom to running religious service in the new world. With the ”charter” he has obtained from King Charles, he and his follower carried out the voyage with Arbella ship to the New World as was written by Paul Lauter (editor):
… The charter, which granted the Massachusetts Bay Company the right to settle in New England, is unique in that no provision was made for a designated meeting place for the administration of the Company, thus freeing it to establish a government in New England. The Company was lucky to have been granted such a liberal charter, … [2]
In 1629, Winthrop established the government in the new site (New England) with his Puritan communities which totaled approximately 400 people. Prior to establishing the government, to motivate his follower Winthrop in their voyage gave a Model of Christian Charity sermon which then was known as “the city upon a hill”. The core of the sermon was encourage his follower to sail go in direction of the place in which the God ever promise for Israel nation. In the new place the God promise glory and prosperity for His human being. With his sermon Winthrop planted a motivation or “image” to his follower to build a city upon a hill, it meant, was a challenge to build glorious which will eradiate to a whole place under the hill. With the image, it was become justification in activities of expansion for the fist time for the embryo of American with the spirit of frontier which never dies.
While from the lesson learn of expansion which could be drawn from the spirit of the initial independence (declaration of independence) was the formulation of declaration of independence by Jefferson which adopted from ”Government Contract Theory” which introduced by John Locke as written by Tindall:
…, was an eloquent restatement of John Locke’s contract theory of government, the theory in Jefferson’s words that governments derived “their just Powers from the consent of the people,” who were entitled to “alter or abolish” those which denied their “unalienable right” to “life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”… [3]
With the formulation of independence declaration the U.S. “founding father” from generation to generation had come in for image spirit as planted by Winthrop which laid down a strong foundation for the nation (American) with the rights for “life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” With such strong foundation the American leaders from one generation to the other generation searched opportunity to pursue happiness in wherever it was, as the result, it was born a great expansionism doctrine such as “manifest destiny”. [4]
Beginning from territorial expansion then continued by economic expansion for well being of the American people. And, to secure whatever they have achieved from the prior expansion, the U.S. made more efforts to expansion of democracy. The U.S. do believe when democracy could be spreaded and implemented in around the world, the world would save and peaceful. So that, it will impact to the secure in the U.S. Homeland Security.
In running the foreign policy through the spreading of democracy, the U.S. establihed a lot of U.S. Security Assistance Programs for the developing countries. With democracy spreading in around the world which was supported by manifest destiny spirit, so that, in terms of U.S. National Interest it was identic as its global interest. Thereby, the U.S. nation assumed that its national interest was in particularly directed for giving security aspect to the citizen. So that why, national security was become main part of its national interest. Such national security was really guarded by any means. One of the effort to guard the national security was conducted through expansion or build cooperation or bilateral relation with the others countries in terms of creating the world order which secure, peaceful and prosperous.
If we pay more attention, the U.S. national interest was running in accordance with the concept which introduced by a few of the expert on international relation, which define that the national interest a nation will have close correlation with internal problem and also external problem. Hans J. Morgenthau deliver his view on national interest concept as follow: The concept of the national interest, then, contains two elements, one that is logically required and in that sense necessary, and one that is variable and determined by circumstances. [5]
Thereby, national interest concept according to Morgenthau, basically consist of two elements, the first element was, it’s based on the fulfillment of the need for each and every people, and the second one was, by considering various strategic environment. In terms of fulfill of the necessities of each people are able to get through protecting the sustainability of the life of the nation in defend sovereignty of national territorial integrity, politics system, and national identity from the threat coming from outside. Then, considering the existing of various strategic environment situations by carrying out foreign policy as diplomacy tools for the sake in creating the peaceful world. In the mean time, Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R, Wittkopf stated that the aim of a country in terms of pursuing its national interest is:
The State should promote the internal welfare of its citizens, provide for defense against external aggression, and preserve the state’s values and way of life. … No country can long afford to pursue its own welfare in ways that reduce the security and welfare of its competitor. [6]
Charles W. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf stated that national interest from a country ought to not only based on the effort in increasing intern prosperity for each and every its citizen, then provide protection toward military aggression from outside, as well as preserving state’s values and way of life; moreover they also stated that it was out of question for a country could pursue its national interest with reducing the security and prosperity toward its competitor. To pursue the aim of national interest as they expected, each and every country should link its national interest through cooperation effort with a lot of nations in terms of creating global prosperity and security.
In this regards, each country should always make effort to cooperation with the other country, either in form of bilateral or multilateral. To realize such cooperation needs to implement appropriate foreign policy as diplomacy tools to secure for developing its national interest. Thereby, there are close relation between national interests and foreign policy in each country.
In this context, there are two foreign policy reseacher drawn very close correlation with national interest. In this regards, they stated that the implementation of foreign policy a country, it is should be based on a lot of resources which referred to various form of its national interest. In their written, they mentioned that foreign policy in a country, the most important thing was should be based on fundamental national interest. Such national interest was national survival and national territorial integrity. The most fundamental of source foreign policy objectives is perhaps the universally shared desire to insure the survival and territorial integrity of the community and state. [7] Or, in another word, national security was placed in the highest priority for every nation.
Furthermore, foreign policy should be based as well on the source of another national interest which was very vital. Such national interest which have relation to economic interest of the nation, and also how does the nation applied democracy system which capable to accomodate individual interest as well as business group interest of the nation.
… the most important set of domestic sources of foreign policy are the economic needs of the community. … It is important to emphasize that economic needs are fundamental sources of a state’s foreign policy. … there are strong pressures generated in the state’s political system to satisfy individual or group economic needs through foreign policy. [8]
Moreover, foreign policy in a country should also based on the other source of national interest which perhaps not so significant. In another word, such national interest just have role as supporting. For instance, the national interest which have conjunction with the effort to preserve the root of culture and ideology as national indentity which could be become as pride in international forum. Besides that, it is also the concern of the nation toward creating the peaceful world as the moral obligation of the nation which should be met.
Another major domestic source of foreign policy is what we might call the political needs of a state and its leader… Still another major domestic sources of foreign policy is the cultural, psychological, and/or ideological needs of the state for prestige and status in the world: identity or meaning in life, needs for fulfillment of religious or sacred ideological imperatives, need to follow moral principles of fulfill obligation… [9]
Then, how was it actually the U.S. attitude in relation with Indonesia in terms of its national interest? It’s interesting to be observed, in particularly in relation to the U.S. support and also in terms of releasing its support toward Indonesia in conjunction with East Timor issue. Could be said that East Timor become one of arenas for the U.S. in implementing U.S. foreign policy. This regards, could be observed when the time Indonesia begin integrating East Timor, the U.S. Government gave fully supported, either politically or by giving U.S. Security Assistance. Yet, in another occasion, when Ramos Horta, the local communist leader at the time – which have been supported by East Timor Action Network (ETAN) which have based in the U.S. – tried to struggle the independence of East Timor, the U.S. Government even has given the wider opportunities for releasing East Timor from Indonesia. So, what was happen at the moment? It seemed there was changing in U.S. foreign policy in dealing with the global threat and challenging which oriented to its national interest. Such situation mentioned above was not being released from the U.S. pragmatism value, which often appears controversy in the implementation of U.S. foreign policy globally.
... Pragmatism of America, in politically appropriate with the principle of the U.S. democratic liberalism which also have characteristic which in line with U.S. pragmatism oriented, it was benefit principle. It seemed U.S. democratic liberalism have given an appropriate place for pragmatism, as a result, it appeared such attitute which inconsistent and even paradox. [10]
The U.S. pragmatism more revealed when the threat of global terrorism come again by terrorist attack on 11 September 2001, which performed by Islam radicalism group. U.S. foreign policy toward Indonesia change again. The role of Indonesia as the country with mostly have the biggest population of Moslem, by the U.S. Government was reconsidered to be approached again. Additionally, after Indonesia entering reformation era in which Indonesia applied democracy in the government system. By then, Indonesia even was evaluated by the U.S. as the third biggest democratic country which has the biggest Moslem population. The changing of U.S. foreign policy was signaled by the releasing of embargo or restriction gradually. The U.S. Government resupporting U.S.Security Assistance to recover bilateral relationship between the both parties. This situation, it seems will be achieve in the peak on the signing of the very important document called “comprehensive partnership agreement” by President Barrack Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudoyono, on November 2010 in Jakarta. That is a new momentum for bilateral relationship between both nations after entering 61 years.
Refferences:
[1] Alfian Muthalib, “Politik Luar Negeri Maksimalis Amerika,” Nation, PPSN, volume 5, no. 1 (2008): 111.
[2] Nicholas D. Romber, Jr., “John Winthrop 1588 – 1649, ” in The Heath Anthology of American Literature, vol.1, 2nd ed, ed. Paul Lauter (Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1994), 224.
[3] George Brown Tindall, America a Narative History, vol.1 (New York, London: W.W.Norton & Company, 1984), 201.
[4] About Expansionism Doctrine “manifest destiny,” Tindall in his book America A Narative History in pages 512 stated that in 1845 John Louis O’Sulivan, editor the United States Magazine and Democratic Review, introducing the term “Manifest Destiny” for the struggle spririt for American pioneers who move in massive from Eastern to Western America continent (Westward Movement).
[5] Hans J. Morgenthau, “Another “Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States,” in Classics of International Relation, 3rd ed, ed. John A. Vasquest (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1966), 147.
[6] Charles J. Kegley and Eugene R. Wittkopf, World Trend and Transformation Politics, 8th ed (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001), 653 – 54.
[7] Keith R. Legg and James F. Marison, “The Formulation of Foreign Policy,” in Perspective on World Politics, 2nd ed, ed. Richard Little & Michael Smith (London: Croom Helm in association with Open University Press, 1992), 62.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 62-63.
[10] Albernine Minderop, Pragmatisme Amerika: Di Bawah Bayang-bayang C. Pierce, W. James, J. Dewey (Jakarta: Obor, 2005), 105.
Sponsored by:
