By Mohammad Hatta
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, APRIL 1958 ISSUE
Pengantar:
Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, tidak banyak orang Indonesia tulisannya diterbitkan oleh Foreign Affairs dalam artikel utama (kalau tidak salah hanya Adam Malik dan Mohammad Hatta. Tulisan ini adalah persembahan salah satu putra terbaik negeri ini. Selamat menikmati.
----------
INDONESIA, rich in natural resources and having 84,000,000
inhabitants, comes automatically as an important factor onto the chessboard of
world politics. It is not surprising, then, that the Western press has been
asking questions recently about the direction of Indonesian foreign policy.
Will she turn her back on the West and move closer to the Communist countries
whose center of attraction is Moscow? None of the politicians, diplomats,
journalists or businessmen who have occasion to visit Indonesia can keep from
speculating on this subject.
Anyone
who remembers my article on Indonesian foreign policy in this review in April
1953 will not lightly jump to any such conclusion. Our policy is independent
and active--independent because Indonesia does not wish to align herself with
either of the opposition blocs, the Western bloc or the Communist bloc;[i] active because it actively carries out
a peaceful policy as a loyal member of the United Nations. In view of her
origins and her aims as a member of the United Nations, the Republic of
Indonesia will rally to every effort within the framework of the United Nations
to do away with the controversy between the two blocs, or at least to grind off
its sharpness, and in this manner to help ward off large-scale conflicts that
might set off a third world war. This policy of peace took shape in the
well-known Resolution passed by the Asian-African Conference at Bandung in
1955.
The
Republic of Indonesia has no desire to set up a third bloc in partnership with
the states of Asia and Africa. She wishes to see a meeting from time to time
among the Asian and African states, like that of 1955, as a "moral
union" which can influence, in the interest of peace, those states which
are banded into blocs.
By
practising her independent and active policy Indonesia endeavors to seek
friendship with all nations--whatever their ideology or form of
government--upon a basis of mutual respect. She is prepared to accept
technical, material and moral help from any country whatsoever, provided only
that the donor government does not interfere in our domestic affairs or weaken
or threaten our independence and sovereignty. Her policy will not easily
undergo change because it stems from certain fundamental causes. Among these
are certain natural factors, such as our country's geopolitical position, its
national history, and the state ideology known aspanchasila: Divine Omnipotence, humanism,
nationalism, democracy and social justice.
During
the freedom movement, Indonesian leaders asked the people to strive for the
attainment of an independent, sovereign, united, just and prosperous nation.
Since the struggle succeeded in the achievement of a free and sovereign
Indonesia, the Government's primary task has been to make it united, just and
prosperous. It will easily be understood that, in order to carry out this task,
Indonesia needs peace and friendship with other nations. She is rich in natural
resources, but she is still young as a nation and is handicapped in nearly
everything; she must have material and intellectual help from the outside world.
This is one more reason which makes it incumbent upon her to practise a policy
of being a friend of all, an enemy of none. Her own ideology --the panchasila,
which gradually assumed shape during the struggle for freedom--and the
religious feeling which is present in nearly the whole population, prepare her
to coöperate with the states of the West without being reluctant to be on terms
of friendship with the Communist states. She well understands the policy of
coexistence and non-interference. Thus, states with a different ideology from
ours can readily exist peacefully side by side with us provided one absolute
condition is met--abstinence of each from interference in the internal affairs
of the other.
We
realize that difficulties are involved in carrying out this proviso of
non-interference. A democratic country has no possibility of interfering in the
internal affairs of a Communist state, since everything there is under
government supervision and no freedom of expression exists. Things are
different in a democratic state. For example, even if Soviet Russia makes an
agreement of coexistence and non-intervention and undertakes not to intervene
in another country's internal affairs, the Communist Party there will
nevertheless follow a policy in accordance with the directives emanating from
Moscow. This is a risk which a democratic state which holds to the three
freedoms of expression, movement and assembly must be prepared to accept. A
democratic state should have sufficient confidence in the strength of its
citizens' spirit of freedom and sense of responsibility. When a democratic
state is able to provide a prosperous life for its citizens, the influence of
Communism will not be great. Conditions and experience in the Western world
prove this truth.
In
his treatise on "Historical Materialism," Marx's collaborator
Friedrich Engels propounded as the very kernel of his theory that "it is
not the awareness of man which determines his condition but, on the contrary,
it is his social condition which determines his awareness." This
statement, previously chiefly used to analyze the attitude of capitalists and
the church, now applies to labor itself. When the laboring classes lived in
misery, their attitude was revolutionary, but when their social condition improved
their revolutionary spirit evaporated and their outlook became evolutionary.
For this reason Communist infiltration could be withstood and eliminated by a
sound economic policy. Whenever a non-Communist government can provide
increasing economic benefits for its people it will offset the demands put
forward by Communism and progressively lessen its chances of expansion.
Generally
speaking, the Indonesian people place their faith in religion, and religion is
basically a dike against the spread of Communism. In spite of this, the bad
economic situation in the country and its unrealized ideals open the door to
the spread of Communism and have allowed it to make progress in two successive
elections, one for parliament and the other for the regional councils. Communism
has not spread in Indonesia because of the appeal of its ideology, but because
it has promised the people prosperity. It has promised the allocation of land
to the landless farming class. Moreover, the Communist Party of Indonesia has
been in the vanguard of the struggle for the return of West Irian to the
territory of the Republic of Indonesia. When a proper economic policy has begun
to benefit visibly the daily livelihood of the people, and when West Irian is
incorporated within the Indonesian Republic, the Indonesian Communist Party
will lose its main weapons; and by that time the curbing effect of religion can
have made its influence felt.
Even
though an agreement regarding coexistence and nonintervention would have one
result in a country which is Communist and totalitarian and another in a
country which is democratic, it nevertheless can reduce tension in
international politics in general. It could also be used to determine whether a
Communist state would or would not live up to its obligations. As for the
subversive activities which might be carried on by a Communist Party in the
domestic affairs of any country, the government has means of checking them. It
can protest to the Soviet Union, if it feels that it has a hand in those
activities, or it can deal with them directly. When the Communists attempted a coup
d'état in what has
come to be known as the Madiun Incident of September 1948, the Indonesian
Government showed the proper firmness and took the swift action which a
democratic government should take. In a situation based on coexistence and
non-intervention, Moscow loses the right to interfere with a democratic
government's action against the Communist movement within its borders. Through
the establishment of such a relationship, Indonesia hopes to be able to carry
forward constructive activities for the development of its resources in peace.
I
am fully aware that the independent and active foreign policy practised by the
Indonesian Government, and its shift, in consequence, in the direction of
coexistence and non-intervention, is not acceptable to the Government of the
United States, which is able to see the world only in its division into two
blocs which have no contact between them--namely, what is called the "free
world" and the "totalitarian Communist world." But I think the
American people, with their high democratic ideals, will agree with me that
other peoples can hold different views and still be democratic. A democracy
which is intolerant of other viewpoints is no longer democracy but strays into
totalitarian ways of thinking.
I
think that an atmosphere of peace might speedily be secured if the two greatest
world states, the United States and Soviet Russia, would simply make an
agreement not to be at war with each other for the next 25 years. Such an
agreement would fall short of the ideal by not condemning war for all time, but
it would be sufficient to lessen international tensions for the present. In a
world filled with psychological enmities, it is difficult to realize hopes and
desires which are too idealistic; but a purely realistic decision can produce a
climate of peace which in the long run may make hopes and desires which seem
too idealistic today become the realities of tomorrow.
The
United States and Soviet Russia have demonstrated their skill and recorded
their great progress in various fields of knowledge and technology; each in
turn overtakes the other in presenting a new invention. It would be good if
they would compete with each other, and each try to excel the other, in creating
an atmosphere of peace in the world. Indonesia would be one of the
beneficiaries.
Indonesia
believes that peaceful coexistence among states with opposed ideologies will in
time come to pass. Intense rivalries have in the past lost their asperity. Consider,
for example, the terrific conflict between capitalism and socialism in the last
century. Capitalism, guided by laissez faire and free competition, ruthlessly
oppressed labor; it rejected out of hand labor's demand for social welfare.
Labor, for its part, thought of class struggle without wanting conciliation.
Gradually, the conflict has become less sharp; it is still there but is being
carried on in a spirit of conciliation. A good many socialist ideals formerly
unceremoniously rejected by capitalists are now defended by them in order to
secure social peace in their enterprises. Article 55 of the Charter of the
United Nations lays down the foundation for bringing into effect social
justice--an ideal which has its roots in the socialistic movement of the
nineteenth century. Democratic groupings and social philosophies which
previously were at odds are drawing close to each other. The social democratic
movement which originated in Europe as a destructive trend now reveals itself
as a constructive force aiming to set up the welfare state.
Whereas
in the nineteenth century the West was threatened by socialism, today what are
termed the "underdeveloped" countries are exposed to the threat of
Communist infiltration. Protected from attack from outside by her active and
independent policy based on political coexistence and non-interference,
Indonesia seeks to secure domestic stability and construction so that her
people can be prosperous. To carry this into effect she needs foreign help,
both material and intellectual. She is ready to accept the loan of overseas
capital from whatever direction it may be offered, and she desires the
assistance of technological and educational experts provided only that they
come without any political or other strings. She hopes for a climate of
international coöperation in which this aid will be possible.
In
carrying her project out Indonesia faces numerous difficulties. One is that the
policy outlined is not easily acceptable to the Western world which is tied to
the concept of a world divided into blocs. Each act of the Republic of
Indonesia which can be construed as turning a smiling face towards Soviet
Russia and the People's Republic of China is considered wrong; Indonesia has
entered the Communist trap, it is said, as though her leaders were not
politically mature. And not infrequently the help given to Indonesia is
measured by her attitude towards those Communist states. It has happened that
orders for goods vital to the daily life of the Indonesian people have not been
attended to for months. Perhaps Westerners consider this merely a businesslike
attitude. But such an occurrence hurts the feelings of Indonesians, and is put
down to pride. They feel that an effort is being made to make them realize that
they cannot exist without foreign aid, especially from the Western world. They
feel they are being asked to go down on their knees in order to obtain it. This
feeling of being humiliated automatically makes the thin-skinned population
react in a way which occasionally seems hostile.
It
should not be forgotten that Indonesia is a young country, and that like other
newly-emancipated nations she is sensitive and quick to take offense,
especially in matters affecting her honor and the necessities for national
existence. There is nothing which a nation feels to be so derogatory as to be
told that its politics are dictated by other states, and this is all the more
true in the case of the Indonesians since their freedom did not come as a gift
made in the discretion of the colonial rulers but as the result of a great
political struggle. Indonesia adheres to an independent policy in the sense
that she is free from the influence of either the United States bloc or the
Communist bloc, whether the influence be of capital or of ideology. She is anxious
to be friends with all nations, whatever their ideology or system of
government. She has her own objective and her own ideology, and she does not
want to exchange them for those belonging to others.
These
psychological factors should receive careful attention in Western capitalist
states, especially the United States, because if they are disregarded the
relations of these states with the so-called underdeveloped countries cannot
improve and possibly will get worse. Because it is stiff and terribly businesslike,
the policy of the United States, even if based on friendship, does not awaken a
friendly response in the country which receives its help. When it wants to help
some country, the United States puts forward too many of its own views and
ideas and pays too little attention to the desires and ideals of the nation
involved. Everything is measured by American axioms, the American view of life.
Consequently the help given by the United States does not produce effective
results. Care should be taken to see that American policy towards the
newly-emergent states of Asia is not felt to be "dollar diplomacy."
It
can be stated as a fact that Soviet Russia has a more dynamic policy and as a
result is cleverer in captivating the hearts of the so-called underdeveloped
countries. The Soviet political success in the Middle East, in comparison to
the failure of Western policy, is due to the fact that the Russians understand
better the feelings and national psychology of the Arabs and what they seek. By
a policy of strength, by flaunting its wealth, the West will not succeed in
getting nearer the minds of the people of the East. However great the material
changes among the peoples and states of Asia may be, they make an evaluation in
ethical terms, and in their eyes this takes precedence over the economic
evaluation. Considerate treatment is more appreciated than a profitable
business deal.
Despite
what I have said, relations between Indonesia and the United States are
fundamentally good and the Indonesian people value the American help which has
been given them. The spontaneous reaction of Indonesian public opinion towards
tactless or unfriendly treatment does not change the feeling of friendship
which is the keynote of the relationship. Nevertheless, there is one vital matter
which can obtrude upon those sentiments of friendship, namely the problem of
West Irian. This is a national claim by the Republic of Indonesia which cannot
be ignored.
The
United States stand of neutrality in the feud between Indonesia and the Netherlands
over West Irian does, in fact, give support to the Dutch. Because of it, and
its adoption by various other states, Indonesia's suggestion in the General
Assembly of the United Nations for the opening of discussions with the
Netherlands regarding West Irian was never able to muster the necessary
two-thirds vote and failed to pass. It has been rejected three times, with the
result that relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands are extremely bad.
Indonesians
cannot understand why the United States should assume such a halfhearted
posture in this matter. The United States has been the moving force in setting
up NATO and SEATO to halt the spread of Communist influence and power in Europe
and in Asia. Yet to permit West Irian to continue indefinitely as a bone of
contention between Indonesia and the Netherlands is to afford Communism an
opportunity to spread in Indonesia. The claim to West Irian is a national claim
backed by every Indonesian party without exception; but the most demanding
voice, apart from that of President Soekarno himself, is that of the Communist
Party of Indonesia. By putting itself in the vanguard of those demanding
realization of this national ideal, and because it agitates about West Irian as
a national claim--in line with President Soekarno's standpoint--and because it
backs this up by good organizational work, the Communist Party of Indonesia is
able to capture the imagination of an ever-growing section of the population.
The
West Irian question thus represents a tragedy. The United States, the
Netherlands and Australia, all equally afraid of the spread of Communism in
Southeast Asia, are carrying out a policy which in fact strengthens Communism.
For, so long as West Irian is in Dutch hands, that long will the Communist
Party of Indonesia be able to carry on a violent agitation, using nationalism
as an excuse, to oppose colonialism and thereby touch the soul of the
newly-emancipated Indonesian people whose memories are still fresh with the
struggle for freedom against colonialism. The anti-colonialist feeling is so
deeply burnt into the hearts of the Indonesian people that it is incorporated
in the Preamble to the Indonesian Constitution. The first sentence of the
Preamble says that "freedom is the right of all peoples and therefore
colonialism should be wiped out from the face of this earth because it is
opposed to humanity and justice."
In
Indonesian eyes continued Dutch occupation of West Irian is both a remnant of
colonialism and an illegal seizure of a portion of Indonesian territory.
According to the Linggadjati Agreement of 1947, the term Indonesia embraced the
territory of the previous Netherlands East Indies in its entirety. Yet after
putting their official signature to the Linggadjati Agreement, the Dutch worked
to divorce West Irian from that territory. Doubtless a small section of the
Dutch people want it as a reminder of old colonial glory. The 1949 Round Table
Conference at The Hague reached no agreement on the question of West Irian. In
order that it should not interfere with the transfer of sovereignty to
Indonesia, the solution of the problem was, at the suggestion of the United
Nations Commission for Indonesia, postponed for a period of a year; but
negotiation during that year brought no solution. Meanwhile the Netherlands
unilaterally incorporated West Irian within its territory through its
constitution. This unilateral action of the Netherlands Government did not in
any way affect Indonesia's claim based upon the Linggadjati Agreement. Due to
the inability of the United Nations to provide machinery for a solution the
West Irian dispute continues.
For
the Netherlands this is a tragedy. Its continuing occupation of West Irian has
involved it in an expenditure of something like 75 million florins a year. It
also endangered the position of the Netherlands-Indonesian Union--now
dissolved, its economic interest in Indonesia and certain advantageous economic
relations with Indonesia. The excuse that the Netherlands has a
newly-discovered moral obligation towards the people of the territory has no
strong foundation. During the days of the Netherlands East Indies the
population of West Irian remained exceedingly backward and even at the time of
the Linggadjati Agreement no talk was heard about a "moral
obligation" toward them.
For
Australia, which supports the Dutch stand, the problem of West Irian is a
tragedy also because its policy strengthens the very thing it so strongly
opposes--Communism in Indonesia. The thesis that the Netherlands position in
West Irian will be a shield for Australia against a Communist attack from the
north cannot be proved by any valid argument. The experience of World War II
points to the contrary. Actually, an Indonesia that was friendly to Australia
would be a much more valuable protection. Although Indonesia is now a young and
weak state, the potential energy awaiting development in her rich natural
resources, coupled with her large population, will in time make her strong. A
strong Indonesia practising an active and independent policy will not be attacked
by any country seeking passage in the direction of Australia.
The
fear that Indonesia, after obtaining West Irian, would claim East New Guinea is
totally unfounded. The Indonesian people do not feel any links of a common lot
or history with the people of that area; hence their national claim, historical
and juridical in nature, does not extend that far. Apart from boosting
Communism in Indonesia, Australia's policy with regard to West Irian can result
in a slackening of the ties of friendship between the two countries. This is to
be regretted because the Indonesians have a great appreciation of the moral
support given them by the people of Australia in the struggle against Dutch
colonialism.
One
can understand the difficulties raised for the United States by the
Indonesian-Netherlands dispute, for it is a friend of both countries. But its
so-called neutral attitude creates a tragedy for the United States too. It
wants to eradicate Communism, but its policy merely helps it spread. In
addition it leaves Indonesia with a sense of grievance. Communist gains in
Indonesia, besides alarming the people, have endangered national unity by
sharpening conflicts among different sections of the population. Of course West
Irian is not the only cause for these Communist gains; other reasons are the
low standard of living in Java and the lack of sufficient land to divide up
among the landless farm laborers. Only in the outer islands where the
population is scanty is there land to be had for the asking. But this can be put
to use only in connection with transmigration on a big scale and this involves
expenses which the state cannot afford. Thus the question has not only social
but financial aspects. Meanwhile the all-pervasive influence of the West Irian
question upon sentiment and politics has no little effect in retarding
reconstruction. Anyone who wants to say that this is a tragedy for Indonesia is
free to do so. Indeed, till the question of West Irian is settled Indonesian
politics will be more irrational than rational.
The
above description portrays clearly that the problem of colonialism casts its
shadow upon the friendly relations between the Western world and the
Asian-African nations in general and Indonesia in particular. This does not
mean that Indonesia will turn her back on the West. Her intellectual and
cultural relations with the Western world are too many and too deeply rooted in
history for that. But because Indonesia is fed up with the policies of the West
she will develop relations with the other nations of the East and will
culturally enrich herself. Her active and independent foreign policy, based
upon the fundamental necessities of existence, forbid her from drawing close to
one bloc at the expense of the other. While safeguarding this basis of friendship
with all nations, the nature of her relationship in practice will be determined
in each case by what is at that time the reigning national interest.
Looked
at from afar, Indonesia today seems to be in chaos and confusion. Many of the
outer regions appear to be in turbulence and opposed to the Central Government.
The foreign press represents this as a revolt of the regions. But alongside
this turbulence consultations are going on between the Central Government and
regional civil and military authorities on ways to overcome the national
difficulties. It is hard for outsiders to understand what is happening. However
paradoxical it may sound, none of the dissidents intend to bring about
fissuring and separatism. They aim to strengthen the unity of the people based
upon the proclamation of independence of August 17, 1945, and to ensure a
strong government blessed with authority and supreme over all the regions.
Further, all the incidents and turbulence which have occurred in Indonesia,
beginning with President Soekarno's breathing life into his National Council
and continuing with the military's seizure of authority from civil hands in the
outer regions, are a reaction and protest against a wrong turning taken by
Indonesian democracy in the direction of party oligarchy, anarchy and
corruption. Formally and juridically all these steps are wrong, even though
they are meant to speed up reconstruction and to revitalize democracy which, as
the Indonesian people understand it, is not political only but also economic and
social.
The
conflicts in Indonesia are frightful to behold, but if they are carefully
examined they are not on the level of the civil war which the United States
experienced after freeing itself from British control. If Indonesia can get
over this temporary confusion she will carry ahead speedily her constructive
work and obtain more time in which to strengthen her bonds of friendship with
all nations, those of the Western world not excepted.
[i] People in the West often term the
Communist bloc the "Eastern bloc," a term which really is not apt
because many Asian countries are accustomed to calling themselves Eastern
nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment