Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia

By Beni Bevly
Most of the times, after attending a seminar, I absorb some thing new and I feel smarter. But not with this particular one that was conducted by World Affairs Council of California in San Francisco, on March 15, 2007. In this seminar, I had mix feeling, embarrassing and irritating. Thanks to Donald Emerson who provided a silver lining in that nearly fruitless seminar. At least that what some of my colleagues and I felt.

The seminar that discussed the issue about US-Indonesian Relation in the Current Context of East & Southeast Asia was featuring the main presenter, Sudjadnan Parnohadingningrat (Ambassador of Indonesia to the United States) who was accompanied by Donald Emerson (Director, Southeast Asia Forum, Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University). And Gordon Hein, Vice President of Programs, the Asia Foundation was the moderator.

There were three – small and big – things that happened in this seminar. Of course, all these were pertaining to Indonesia Ambassador to the United Nation, Sudjadnan Parnohadingningrat. I would like to elaborate them one by one as follows:

First, feudalistic impression.
Parnohadiningrat showed feudalistic impression when he was about to start his presentation. At that time, the screen that located behind him was just blank. With his very serious facial expression, he looked at someone (probably his assistant or “ajudan”) and pointed at the laptop that was sitting in front of him. That person was running to the front and touching the laptop, then the map of the world appeared on the screen.

Parnohadiningrat might not realize his action, but this sort of action is uncommon in the United States, especially in San Francisco, where the egalitarian and libertarian movement started. This is not the home for feudalism to grow. To turn back the screen on after screen saver is a very easy task to do, especially if you are a person who often gives seminar and utilizes laptop and projector like Mr. Ambassador. Or, probably he simply did not know how to do it. I feel sorry for him then.

Second, indirect and foggy message.
When Parnohadiningrat mentioned his first element that was regarding how important Indonesia to the United States, he did not go strait to the point.

Basically, what I understood that he wanted to mention that Indonesia was a strategic country in South East whom the United States could embrace to be its ally. By doing that way, the United States would be able to compete or counter against China’s aggression. My impression, he was still using the framework of cold war situation, which the United States believed in domino effect by the communist countries’ aggression.

Parnohadiningrat used that words of “power sharing configuration in South East Asia,” “new architecture in South East Asia.” But on the other side, he said, “I do not mean contending China” several times. So what actually he meant?

In commenting Parnohadiningrat, it seemed, in quoting the United States government officials, Don Emerson did not agree with him. Emerson mentioned that regionalism in South East Asia was not the main focus of the United States’ foreign affairs anymore, as well as partnership with Indonesia in this case. Emerson also questioned Indonesia’s action – as one of the Security Council in United Nations – that did not support the United States in pressuring Myanmar to establish its democracy.

For me personally, it is hard to understand where Indonesia stands for. Parnohadiningrat’s explanation did not help me. Probably, other American audiences in this seminar had the same problem as I did.

Third, the answer did not answer the question.
When it came to the question and answer session, Hein as the moderator read my question to Parnohadiningrat, “How does Indonesian government handle Muslim Fundamentalists movement who want to have Syariah law as the legal foundation of the nation? E.g.: FPI demanded to close down Christian School.”

In short, his answer was “Let the free market determines it. Every school needs to have the license from government.” He also stressed that there were only about 1 million Muslim Fundamentalists that would not win if they fight against more than 220 million people.

It meant, according to him, government would not do anything to handle this situation. Commenting this matter, I heard one of the participants said, “Is it an anarchy?”

Next question, so why does he think that Indonesians elected president and other government officials? The answer is — of course — for them to do their jobs. In this case, according to his answer, I conclude that government did not do their jobs.

Parnohadiningrat said something regarding my question, but he did not answer my question at all. Even though when I had a chance to talk to him one on one, I repeated my question one time and my colleague repeated again my question two times. He kept answering the same thing.

My final thought, I think that an ambassador should have known and adhered the host country’s custom and culture (direct and not feudalistic). Also, an ambassador should pay attention to his people’s question in the host country and let them know what actually their home country government does or will do. Oh, my ambassador, did you and me study this at the college?

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.