Address by H.E. Mr S. Wiryono
Ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia

At the Tenth Anniversary Meeting
of the Foreign Correspondents Association
Australia
Sydney, 29 May 1996

Mr President.

Distinguished Guests,

Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is a great pleasure for me to address this distinguished association of journalists on its tenth anniversary. As some of you may recall, the speaker at the inaugural meeting of this association ten years ago was the Indonesian Ambassador to Australia at the time. The coincidence leads me to imagine my predecessor of a decade ago approaching this forum, as 1 do now, with a mixture of hope and trepidation: hope that his message would be well received and trepidation that he might make a mistake. For it is said that while the mistake of a doctor is buried and the mistake of a lawyer is hanged, that of a diplomat gets into the front pages and stays there until he makes a new one.

In fact. a diplomat does not have to make a mistake - 1 have been warned. He only has to be seen by the press as fit for roasting and he is sure to be well-done if not altogether burned. 1 can therefore understand what Napoleon Bonaparte meant when he said that he feared one hostile newspaper more than ten enemy divisions.

And yet, as a serious diplomat I must acknowledge that Diplomacy owes a great deal to the profession of journalism. There is no doubt that the press has indeed contributed considerably to making the world first a global village and now a global neighbourhood. It has made people all over the world tremendously more knowledgable and interested in international affairs. Thus'. more than ever before, people today regard diplomacy as too serious a business to be left to the devices of diplomats.

Direct dialogues between governments remain an important element of diplomacy, but there are also a tremendous number of diplomatic initiatives and responses being undertaken among business organizations and individual business-people of different countries. Local governments and councils engage in some form of diplomacy when they establish sister state or sister city relations with their counterparts in other countries. Universities are working together with universities in other countries on projects that impact on future generations. Non-governmental organizations (NG0s) are doing the same. Ordinary citizens touring other countries and young people going through colleges and universities abroad often find themselves being cited as ambassadors of goodwill, and rightly so, for they are indeed engaged in some form of diplomacy. In fact, ordinary citizens, being the vessel of public opinion, have a great deal to do with the making of a government's stand on national and international issues. And much of public opinion is based on the information. analyses and opinion leadership provided by the press.

In a very real sense therefore, the press is inexorably involved in diplomacy. Although it does not make foreign policy, it exercises a certain measure of influence in the making of foreign policy, albeit in an indirect and subtle way. It certainly supplies a great part of a people's perceptions and therefore has something to do with their responses to the policies of a foreign government. Accordingly, a diplomat, no matter how skilful and experienced, can hardly do a good job of winning appreciation for his country's policies if those policies are not taken up by the press. Moreover, it is not enough that the policies of a country are reported; it is even more important that they are reported correctly.

Therefore. far from being natural enemies, the diplomat and the journalist, whether they like it or not, are in fact the most natural partners, wary as they are with each other: they both have something to put across to the public. The diplomat wants to put across his government's policies and all that his government stands for. On the other hand 5 it is the job of the journalist to report the facts and his understanding of the facts about those policies. Between what the diplomat wants to convey and what the journalist actually reports, there should be little difference. Unfortunately that is not always the case. They are also often at odds in the matter of timing: the journalist acts on the basis of his deadline while the diplomat waits for the right moment. I know some diplomats who have acquired such a dread of premature disclosure that their capacity to communicate has been seriously impaired.

I certainly hope I have that capacity intact, for it is my intention today to make a few disclosures, share a few thoughts and views about my country and the regional organization of which it is an active member. and trust that they will contribute in bringing about a better understanding and appreciation of its situation and its policies.
Indonesia is no different from Australia or any other country in the world in its striving to achieve prosperity through social and economic development under a stable and yet dynamic political system. Especially at the beginning, ours has been fraught with difficulties. Some three decades ago, Indonesia was on the brink of political and economic chaos, but since the advent of the New Order Government under President Soeharto. we have taken a steady course on the road to development. Today, with a GDP of US$207.5 billion . Indonesia is the largest economy in Southeast Asia and for the past two decades has been consistently growing at an average rate of seven percent annually. One of the dominoes in Southeast Asia during the Cold War, it has in recent years won recognition as one of the dynamos in an economically dynamic region.

All our endeavours in this development process have been guided by a philosophy concerning the relationship between stability and progress. It may be worth noting that there is a global debate today on this question. One view has been propounded by former Prime Minister and now Senior Minister Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore who does not believe that democratization should be a priority in a developing country, as discipline rather than democrat, is what is needed to achieve social progress and economic growth. A voice for the contending view is that of Madame Aung Sang Suu Kyi of Myanmar who has said, (quote) "The argument that it took many years for the first democratic government to develop in the West is not a valid excuse for Asian and African countries to drag their feet over democratic reform".

We Indonesians take a position that is somewhere in between these two views. On various occasions, President Soeharto has stressed that in striving for development we must be guided by a basic concept called the "Trilogy of Development" which prescribes three inseparable and mutually reinforcing conditions. i.e. stability to make growth possible, growth in order to create new wealth to share. and equitable sharing of the responsibilities for and the fruits of development. Such equitable sharing is expected to help maintain stability which makes further growth possible. And such equitable sharing. to us Indonesians, has a great deal to do with democratization and inevitably will have to lead to further democratization.

In our view. there is no choosing between democratization on one hand and stability and development on the other. We must strive for all three simultaneously or else we can never be really assured of any of them.

The debate on the relationship between democratization and development will remain unsettled for a long time. Meanwhile, the reality is that as countries attain prosperity, as the middle class grows and the people no longer have to worry about their day-to day basic needs, they tend to grow more politically active: they want to participate in the decision-making processes which impact on their lives, they want to take charge of their own destiny. This is a tremendous.force which could threaten the social and political stability and integrity of the nation. It should not be allowed to become such a threat. it could and should be harnessed to enhance the stability of the nation. This is what we are trying to achieve when we pursue the Trilogy of Development, an endeavour in which we have had a measure of success - but it has not been an easy process.

For the process of democratization is never easy, nor is it ever quick and simple. Many nations have taken centuries to become democratic. Of course 5 it should not take that long in the case of Indonesia. but we do need some time to fine-tune our social institutions and to become the nation that we aspire to be. We have gone through various stages of political development and have tried various forms of democracy but it was only with the New Order Government and through the scrupulous implementation of the Trilogy of Development philosophy under the leadership of President Soeharto that we made substantial economic progress. We are now convinced that we have taken the right direction and that we are on the right road. But by no means has the journey become an easy one. nor will it be conclusive because for a fighting nation, there is no journeys end.

And it does not become easier when we are criticized for not adhering to certain Western formulas on the implementation of human rights and labour rights. There are indeed certain circles in the developed countries of the West who have made it their business to simply attack the efforts of developing countries to strike a workable balance. between democratization and economic development. They have even made developing countries a convenient scapegoat for losses of jobs in Western industries. This reflects an attitude that is more defeatist than constructive. a luxury that developing countries cannot afford to indulge in. We just have to proceed according to our best judgements, according to our perceptions of the problems confronting us. And we do feel that as a nation of more than 300 ethnic groups comprising 195 million people living in some 17.000 islands, we should give the highest priority to national unity. solidarity and cohesion and in the process stress the responsibility of the individual to his community and the rights of the community. We respect and promote the right of the individual. of course. but never at the expense of the community. And if we are criticized for this. it should not paralyze us. We should simply continue forging on according to our best judgements with what we consider to be the best way to deal with the problems.

With such determination. we have succeeded in establishing a strong foundation in terms of both nation-building and economic development. Indonesia continues to build on this strong foundation, a fact generally recognized by those who closely know Indonesia but not by those who have already made a judgement.

We do realize that there are pitfalls on the road to prosperity. History is littered with cases of nations that became intoxicated with prosperity, lost. their moral perspective and fell into decadence and decay - thereby also eroding their own security. On the other hand, there have been nations that have dissipated their resources in unnecessary arms races that bankrupted their economies. This is not to say that a nation should not possess a basic military capability, but that resources for military security have to be carefully and intelligently apportioned, for it is still a factor - though no longer as decisive a factor as it used to be - in achieving the stability necessary for socioeconomic development.

Recent history teaches us that developing countries on the road to prosperity should be encouraged and those that are faltering should be assisted. It is certainly to the interest of the rest of the international community that developing countries succeed in their development endeavours. This was the basic idea behind the launching of the Marshall Plan which set the economies of Western Europe back on their feet again after being laid low by the devastation of the Second World War. If the wartorn countries of Europe had been left unaided by the United States at that time. they could have become easy victims of communist expansionism. But with the Marshall Plan in place, a prosperous and stable Europe, strong enough to resist the encroachments of international communism,, emerged from the ashes of the war. Today. communism is no longer regarded as an international threat. but there remain the larger threats to global security such as poverty. underdevelopment and socioeconomic imbalance. mass migrations and degradation of the environment. These threats 5- too. can be addressed by the philosophy behind the Marshall Plan. For all aid programmes, multilateral and bilateral, operate on the basis of this philosophy: they are undertaken for the direct purpose of assisting the recipient countries achieve prosperity so that in turn they would be able to help maintain a security network which covers the donor countries as well including the global non-military threats that the world faces today. Of course, there is an economic corollary to this philosophy: a destitute developing country is a barren market and an inauspicious trading partner but if effectively assisted it could become a vibrant contributor to global prosperity. We in Indonesia subscribe to this philosophy, but we also maintain that a country can more effectively contribute to the prosperity and general security of the international community if it were allowed to develop a political system that is appropriate to its history, culture and traditions - a political system that is consistent with the instincts,' habits and perceptions of its people, rather than a mere copy of the Westminster, French or the American model. While outsiders can and will comment. and even criticize, the search for an appropriate sociopolitical system remains the primary responsibility of the country concerned.

We Indonesians have opted for a political system that is consistent with our history, culture and traditions - which we call Panca Sila democracy. This system is by no means static. It is very much capable of adapting to a changing environment, especially in this era of globalization and interdependence among nations. It is also capable of perceiving and responding to an internal need for change. For example, it may be recalled that immediately after the upheaval of 1965 and during the implementation of the First Five-Year Development Plan (REPELITA 1), our greatest efforts were focused on the creation and consolidation of a condition of stability and maintenance of strict security within the country. As stability was better established and maintained. we gave more stress to the need for growth. While growth continues to be important we also realize that the achievement of a measure of prosperity does not automatically result in an equitable distribution of the fruit of development. Some 13.5 percent of the entire population of Indonesia,' or about 25 million people, are still living under the poverty line. The Government of Indonesia has therefore made it a point to strive for an exhaustive reduction of the incidence of poverty in order to ensure that this socioeconomic gap will not occasion new political insecurity and present obstacles to further socioeconomic growth. For in the pursuit of the Trilogy of Development - stability, growth and equity - we have to ensure that the element of equity does not lag behind the other two essential elements or else the Trilogy does not work. We must see to it that more and more Indonesians share in the responsibility for and in the fruits of development. This means wider and more intensive participation in the decision-making processes. In a word, democratization. This we are determined to achieve not at a pace that is dictated by external influences but one that is comfortable to all our people.
Some aspects of the situation prevailing in Indonesia today may also be found reflected in the countries of Southeast Asia. particularly those that now comprise the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). These represent economies that, together with other East Asian countries 5 constitute the most economically dynamic region in the world today. One of the many things they have in common is that they have all benefited from a situation of relative peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region in which trade and investment as well as economic cooperation have flourished. In a very real sense, the dynamic East Asian economies. including the ASEAN countries, are today enjoying the fruits of peace.

This was not always the case - for the history of Southeast Asia is characterized by long periods of instability and strife as a result of the interference of rival external powers compounded by a multiplicity of domestic political and security concerns which varied from country to country. Some of these problems had economic roots: pockets of poverty, social and economic underdevelopment which bred subversion and other forms of destabilizing internal disturbances. However 5 with the launching of ASEAN in 1967, a sea change took place as the member countries steadily and consistently worked to achieve and maintain both their respective national resilience and regional resilience through a broad range of common initiatives in the sociocultural ,economic and political fields. ASEAN has thus given impetus to the achievement of stability in the region, to the broadening and intensification of consultation on political and security issues, and to the growth of cooperation in both the political and economic fields.
It was in 1971. with the Vietnam War still raging, that the foreign ministers of ASEAN - then comprising Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore. the Philippines and Indonesia - had the sagacity to meet in Kuala Lumpur and plan for a post-Vietnam War Southeast Asia. They envisioned a Southeast Asia that would include Vietnam and the rest of the former Indochina 51 that would be more peaceful, more prosperous and more interdependent. The underlying desire was to find ways of moving towards a condition of greater harmony and stability in which mutually beneficial cooperation could be undertaken so all may be able to develop their economies in common security.

To promote peace and stability in the region, the ASEAN countries have developed two fundamental approaches to security, the first of which is based on a concept of comprehensive security which embraces, not only the military dimension. but primarily political, economic, social and cultural factors. We would therefore strive to achieve comprehensive security by developing, separately as individual nations and jointly as an Association, the political, economic and sociocultural strengths which, in addition to a basic military capability 5 constitute a nation's capacity to cope with security threats whether from within or from without. This is the essence of resilience - national and regional - which we believe can best be achieved. not through military alliances nor through arms buildup, but through confidence-building and cooperation.

This internally directed approach to security is complemented by another fundamental concept applicable in the wider Asia-Pacific region. I refer to the concept of a Zone of Peace,' Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) in Southeast Asia which is actually the blueprint for a new framework for regional cooperation. It consists of a set of principles and guidelines that would serve as a code of conduct governing relations among the states within the Zone as well as those outside it. It stipulates the measures and voluntary restraints to which the zonal states as well as the external powers, especially the major powers, should commit themselves. On the part of the Southeast Asian countries, this will entail commensurate political will and greater capacity for peacefully resolving, by themselves, actual and potential conflicts in the region. On the part of the major powers, they would have to review their perceptions of their interests in the region and, as appropriate, adjust their security doctrines and strategies.

In 1976, a year after the end of the Vietnam War, the ASEAN countries quickly moved and agreed on two important documents. The first was the Declaration of ASEAN Concord which provides the statutory basis and framework for political cooperation, and the second was the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). Some of the elements of the ZOPFAN concept have been incorporated in the TAC to which ASEAN and all other Southeast Asian countries as well as Papua New Guinea have subscribed. The Treaty will be open to non-Southeast Asian powers wishing to commit themselves to its principles and purposes. An essential component of ZOPFAN, the establishment of a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in Southeast Asia, became a reality when the ASEAN and other Southeast Asian countries signed the NWFZ Treaty in Bangkok late last year. It is the hope of ASEAN that the nuclear powers will endorse the Treaty by acceding to its protocol.

Although there is today relative peace and stability in the entire Asia-Pacific region, potential conflict and tensions nevertheless persist. The nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula, the overlapping claims over the Spratly Islands and other territorial disputes, the tension between mainland China and Taiwan. all represent potential conflicts which could adversely impact on the security and the economic prosperity of the region.

ASEAN has therefore actively promoted dialogue as a way of managing potential conflict and persistent tensions while building confidence among the countries and powers active in the region. Thus the Post Ministerial Conferences which began in 1979 gradually shifted focus from economic matters to political and security concerns. At their fourth Summit in 1992 in Singapore, the ASEAN countries agreed to further intensify this dialogue on political and security issues with Dialogue Partners within the framework of the Post Ministerial Conference. In 1994, ASEAN launched the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) so that. as Indonesia's Foreign Minister Ali Alatas has put it. "through dialogue and consultation, strategic change in the region could be managed in such a way that a stable relationship among the major powers as well as the regional powers can evolve peacefully over the next decade."

Even as they are seized with political and security concerns. the ASEAN countries have also taken significant steps to integrate themselves with the world economy. They have decided to complete the establishment of an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) by 2003, 2010 in the case of Vietnam. This would be their contribution to a global regime of free trade and investment.

In the face of growing interdependence and the rapid integration of the world economy. ASEAN as an outward-looking regional organization. decided at the turn of the last decade that the time had come to widen and intensify cooperation among the Asia-Pacific economies. So when Australia proposed the launching of the consultative forum called Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in late 1989, the ASEAN countries were among the first to participate and to commit themselves to its objectives. APEC has since then metamorphosed and grown to include 18 of the most dynamic economies in the region. It now has become not merely a forum for consultation but is becoming a more effective vehicle for intensive cooperation and policy coordination. The APEC Economic Leaders Meeting (AELM) in Seattle in 1993, articulated a vision of an Asia-Pacific economic community based on a recognition of the growing interdependence within our economically diverse region, comprising developed, newly industrialized and developing economies. At the second AELM in Bogor in 1994, the APEC Members adopted a set of formidable but realizable objectives and demonstrated their finn commitment to these objectives by setting a time frame within which the goal of free and open trade and investment would be completed - no later than the year 20 1 0 for the developed countries and the year 2020 for developing countries. These objectives were further fieshed out at the third AELM in Osaka. Japan with a concrete plan of action. The plan is expected to be further refined in the AELM in Subic Bay in the Philippines in November this year.

The ASEAN countries are therefore deeply engaged in two vital processes that cover the Asia-Pacific region: the ARF in the political and security field of which they are the driving force, and APEC in the economic field. These and the other arrangements and processes in which ASEAN is involved, such as the AFTA and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, complement one another and constitute a crucial security network in this part of the world.

Australia has been an important and prominent contributor in the realization and maintenance of this security network and wisely so, because all countries in the region have a stake in the success of the endeavours of ASEAN to manage potential conflict and promote political and economic cooperation. All countries in the region have a vital stake not only in the continued success of ASEAN as a forum for managing potential conflict and for building mutual confidence, but also in ASEAN remaining an area of economic dynamism, and in the economic success of the individual ASEAN countries, including Indonesia with which Australia shares an extensive common border. Indeed. 1 believe the security and the aspirations for prosperity of 18 million Australians are consistent and interdependent with the security and the endeavours toward prosperity of some 350 million Southeast Asians,' including 195 million Indonesians.

We need to work together on the basis of common interest, mutual respect and benefits and shared responsibility. 1 hope that my expose will give you a better understanding of Indonesia and 1 will be happy to entertain questions if there are any.