Friday, March 13, 2009

Soeharto and U.S Arms

How Important Are U.S. Arms for Soeharto Regime
Soeharto regime and U.S

During the 1977 House International Relations Committee hearing, George H. Aldrich, the State Department's Deputy Legal Advisor, testified that "roughly 90%" of Indonesia's weapons during the time of the 1975 invasion of East Timor came from the United States. As one high-ranking Indonesian general bluntly pointed out, "Of course there were US weapons used [during the attack on East Timor]. These are the only weapons that we have."

During Indonesia's prolonged battle to occupy the island of East Timor, US-supplied counterinsurgency aircraft also proved essential. Certainly one of the deadliest weapons in Indonesia's arsenal was the US-supplied OV-10 Bronco, especially designed for close-combat, which is equipped with infared detectors, and can carry up to 3600 pounds of ordnance, grenade launchers, rockets, napalm, and machine guns.  In the late 1970s, Indonesia used OV-10 Broncos and other US-supplied equipment to carry out extensive and continuous bombing missions in the interior highlands, eradicating crops and forcing 300,000 East Timorese to flee to the Indonesian-controlled lowlands. From there, refugees were herded into concentration camps, where thousands died of starvation and disease.

Although Jakarta has diversified its weapons sources since that time, turning to Britain, France, Germany and others to round out its arsenal, U.S. supplies remain essential. According to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, from 1992 to 1994 (the most recent years for which full data is available), Indonesia received 53% of its weapons imports from the United States. Since the mid-1980s, Indonesia has relied almost entirely on the United States and its Western European allies (particularly the United Kingdom, France, and Germany) for its imported armaments, obtaining anywhere from 91 to 100% of its imported weapons from U.S. or Western European sources over this time period.

Major deals with European powers have included imports of 20 105mm howitzers from France, several squadrons of Hawk fighter jets from the United Kingdom, and dozens of combat ships from Germany (equipment that belonged to the former East German navy).This concentration of imports from the U.S. and its key European allies suggest that a coordinated policy among these nations to limit arms to Indonesia in exchange for improvements in human rights and withdrawal of Indonesian forces from East Timor could have a considerable impact in shaping Indonesian policy. With a handful of close allies supplying most of Indonesia's weaponry, the old argument that "if we don't sell it, somebody else will" rings particularly hollow.

Table II provides data on the major sources of arms to Indonesia from 1978 through 1994, based on data from the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (see p. 10, below). Because Indonesia has accumulated so much U.S. weaponry in the past two decades, there is also a brisk trade in spare parts and upgrades for U.S. systems that are already in Jakarta's arsenal. According to data supplied by the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC), in Fiscal Year 1994 U.S. companies received 198 licenses for the export of $88.3 million worth of weapons and weapons components to Indonesia; in F.Y. 1995, the Department granted 248 licenses for items worth more than $221 million.

The majority of these licenses will not result in final sales; historically only about one-sixth to one-third of the value of licenses granted to a given country result in actual sales. Nevertheless, even if $50 to $100 million of the $309 million in licenses approved during 1994 and 1995 result in transfers of arms and arms technology to Indonesia, that will represent a significant boost to the Indonesian military. Among the items licensed are millions of dollars in spare parts for Indonesia's U.S.-origin A-4, F-5, F-16, and C-130 aircraft; spare parts for armored combat vehicles and Sidewinder missiles; and small licenses for spare night vision scopes for U.S. made rifles, pistols and revolvers, and ammunition manufacturing.
Table II: Major Arms Suppliers to Indonesia
1978-1994
Years Total Arms Imports Top Suppliers (by %)
1992-1994 $170 million U.S. 53%
Germany 47%
Total, Top 2: 100%
1991-1993 $210 million France 47%
U.S. 33%
Germany 19%
Total, Top 3: 99%
1987-1991 $950 million U.S. 37%
France 14%
Other Western European 45%
Total from U.S./Western Europe: 96%
1985-1989 $770 million U.S. 26%
United Kingdom 10%
Other Western European 55%
Total from U.S./Western Europe: 91%
1984-1988 $715 million U.S. 29%
United Kingdom 15%
Total, Top 2: 44%
1982-1986 $750 million U.S. 25%
U.K. 13%
France 13%
Total, Top 3: 51%
1979-1983 $1,360 million U.S. 20%
France 15%
U.K. 7%
Total, Top 3: 42%
1978-1982 $1,300 million U.S. 19%
Germany 11%
France 9%
Total, Top 3: 39%
Source: United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, editions covering, 1993-94, 1991-92, 1990, 1989, 1987, 1985, and 1972-82. Corporate Culprits
Among the U.S. corporations that are profiting from arms sales to Indonesia are Lockheed Martin (maker of the F-16 and the C-130 transport, both of which have been shipped to Indonesia); Textron (whose Cadillac Gage and Bell Helicopter divisions have supplied armored vehicles and military helicopters to the Jakarta regime); Colt Industries (which has sold thousands of M-16 rifles to the Indonesian armed forces); and General Motors/Hughes (which has sold 500MD helicopters to Jakarta as well as air-to-air missiles)
Related under articles: U.S Arms transfers to Indonesia 1975-1997
Table of Contents
Introduction
Soeharto and U.S Arms
F-16 Pending Project
Who will pick up the tab?


Link on:



Book's review:

Human Rights, Politics and Corruption in Indonesia: A Critical Reflection on the Post Soeharto Era
Human Rights, Politics and Corruption in Indonesia
Indonesia in the Soeharto Years: Issues, Incidents and Images
Indonesia in the Soeharto Years

READ MORE - Soeharto and U.S Arms

U.S. Arms Transfers to Indonesia 1975-1997

When U.S Arms Make a deal with Soeharto Regime; Who's Influencing Whom?
by William D. Hartung
Table of Contents

Introduction

Soeharto and U.S Arms
F-16 Pending Project
Who will pick up the tab?


Introduction: The Issue of Arms to Indonesia Heats Up
The events of the past year have cast a harsh spotlight on the longstanding U.S. government policy of providing weapons and military training to Indonesia. The awarding of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize to Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo and José Ramos-Horta, activists in the struggle to reverse Indonesia's brutal occupation of East Timor, has reinforced international concerns about the legitimacy of continuing U.S. arms sales to the Suharto regime. Congressional investigators have been probing the role of contributions from the Indonesian-based Lippo group in the 1996 presidential campaign, and upcoming public hearings will address the question of how these foreign donations may have influenced U.S. policy toward Indonesia. 
 
In the meantime, the human rights situation on the ground in Indonesia appears to be getting worse. In June of 1996, the Suharto regime engineered the ouster of Megawati Soekarnoputri as head of the opposition Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI), sparking what Human Rights Watch has described as "the most serious riot in Jakarta in two decades." The government then arrested Muchtar Pakpahan, the head of Indonesia's largest independent labor union, on specious charges of inciting the riots. Pakhapan and a dozen other labor and student leaders are now being tried on charges of subversion that could result in long prison sentences or even the death penalty for the "crime" of criticizing the Suharto regime. 



In the midst of these developments, the Clinton Administration is planning to sell at least 9 F-16 fighter aircraft to Indonesia, the first U.S. sale of major combat aircraft to Jakarta in over a decade. The total F-16 package, including upgrades, spare parts, and support equipment, will be worth roughly $200 million. The deal has been postponed several times, first in response to the crackdown on dissent in Indonesia that began in the summer of 1996 and then because of the embarrassing political timing involved in proceeding with it in the midst of Senate hearings on the role of Indonesian funding sources in the 1996 presidential campaign. But as of this writing the administration remains committed to the Indonesian F-16 sale, and is expected to move on it some time later this year. 

At a news conference held just after the election on November 8, 1996, President Clinton adamantly denied that his policy towards Indonesia had been in any way influenced by the soft money contributions of the Lippo group to the Democratic National Committee:
"[T]he answer to that is absolutely not. Indeed, look at the difference in my policy and my predecessor's policy. We changed our policy on arms sales because of East Timor, not to sell small arms. And we cosponsored a resolution in the United Nations in favor of greater human rights in East Timor. And I'm proud that we did that. So I can tell you categorically that there was no influence."
In a counterpoint to President Clinton's rosy view of U.S. arms sales policy towards Indonesia, Nobel Peace Laureate and East Timor independence activist José Ramos-Horta has sharply criticized the administration's plan to sell F-16s to the Suharto regime, arguing that "it's like selling weapons to Saddam Hussein." Ramos-Horta has had painful personal experience of the impact of U.S. arms sales to Indonesia, as he set out in detail in an October 1996 article in the International Herald Tribune:
"In the summer of 1978, with East Timorese guerillas continuing to resist the Indonesian military occupation, the war struck my family. My sister Maria Ortensia was killed by a U.S.-made Bronco aircraft that was being used by Indonesian forces in East Timor for counterinsurgency operations. The same year I lost two brothers, Nunu and Guilherme, the first killed by fire from a U.S.-designed M-16 automatic assault rifle made under license in Indonesia, and the second during a rocket and strafing attack by a U.S.-supplied helicopter on an East Timorese village."
While the Clinton Administration should be commended for imposing a ban on the sale of small arms to Indonesia, the proposed F-16 deal and continued supplies of spare parts for Indonesia's impressive accumulation of U.S.-origin weaponry can only serve to undermine ongoing efforts to pressure the Suharto regime to loosen its grip on East Timor and increase its respect for human rights within Indonesia. 

Significantly, the President has waffled in response to requests from concerned members of Congress such as Sen. Russ Feingold and East Timorese leaders such as José Ramos Horta to support a United Nations administered referendum in which residents of East Timor could choose for themselves independence or continued affiliation with Indonesia. When Feingold and 27 other Senators sent a letter to President Clinton in late October of 1996 encouraging him to raise the issue of self-determination for East Timor in an upcoming meeting with President Suharto, White House spokesperson Mike McCurry reported only that "President Clinton also raised continuing American concerns about the human rights situation in Indonesia, particularly East Timor." 
 
So, while the Clinton Administration has taken some initiatives towards Indonesia that set it apart from its predecessors, concerns about human rights and democracy are not at the forefront of U.S. interactions with Jakarta. To get a sense of how the Clinton policy measures up, it is important to put the U.S.-Indonesian relationship and the proposed F-16 sale in historical perspective. 
 
The United States government has aided and abetted the Suharto regime's illegal annexation of East Timor from the moment of Indonesia's 1975 invasion up through the present. Beyond turning a blind eye to Indonesian repression in East Timor, the most tangible expression of U.S. support for the Suharto regime has been a massive, steady supply of U.S. armaments to the Indonesian military.


Source:
REPORTS - Weapons at War in March 1997
For further information:
William D. Hartung,
212-229-5808, ext. 106
or Frida Berrigan,
212-229-5808, ext. 112 


 Link On
U.S. Security Cooperation Agency Handbook (World Business, Investment and Government Library) 
U.S. Ammunition (Except Small Arms) Manufacturing Industry Report 
The New Start Treaty Between the U.s. and Russia 
 Reluctant Champions: U.S. Presidential Policy and Strategic Export Controls, Truman, Eisenhower, Bush and Clinton 
Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America's Arms Trade 

Book's review:

World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1999-2000 (World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers, 1999 2000) (S/N 002-000-00107-1)
World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers


 
READ MORE - U.S. Arms Transfers to Indonesia 1975-1997

The needs of Multicultural education in Indonesia


Written by: Setiono Sugiharto

As a nation-state with a pluralistic society, Indonesia is prone to social unrest and intra-group tension in terms of race, ethnicity and religion. Recent media headlines reported that discrimination and intolerance toward other religions were on the rise, the latest case being the closure of a Jewish synagogue in Surabaya, East Java. This was done in a show of solidarity with Palestinians being attacked in the Gaza Strip.

This, however, is just one indication of the fragility of our democracy, which upholds freedom of choosing different faiths. Another case of religious intolerance was the barring of Ahmadiyah followers from disseminating their religious dogma, which is considered heretical and blasphemous by hard-line Muslims.

Still another case was the Islamic Defenders Front's (FPI) ambush of a peaceful rally for religious tolerance at the National Monument, Central Jakarta.

Instances of opposition against religious pluralism prevailed long ago and are likely to continue to prevail in the future.

As part of its concerns about the real threat against pluralism, education practitioners once proposed that multicultural education be part of the school curriculum and be made a compulsory school subject.

The discourse on multicultural education was voiced in an effort to counteract growing radicalism in the country and to instill a sense of inclusiveness in the young generation.

When effectively implemented in a multiethnic society like ours, multicultural education provides the opportunity for young and adult learners to learn fundamental principles that help them critically evaluate and respond to what they see and experience as they live in a culturally heterogeneous society.

These principles include learning for the acquisition of social skills important for interacting with students from other racial, ethnic, religious and cultural groups; learning to understand universal values shared by all cultural groups such as compassion, justice, equality, tolerance, peace, freedom and care; learning about possible stereotypes and other related bias that could produce deleterious effects on racial, ethnic and religious relations.

In practice, teachers can, for example, assign students with meaningful tasks such as a case study, problem-solving approach and discovery learning, which will help students demonstrate universal values shared by other religious and ethnic groups, and critically analyze, weigh and evaluate prejudices.

As schools here are now experimenting with multicultural education, it is perhaps too premature to arrive at a definitive conclusion that they are doomed to failure in implementing multicultural education.

However, the increasing rate of violence against minority religious groups and the rise of radicalism among both youth and adults is a test case that poses a challenge to schools in effectively implementing multicultural education.

What is more, regional autonomy granted by the central government has made it possible for all regions to impose local ordinances that tend to favor the dogmas of the dominant religion. This is just antithetical to multilingual education, which respects and values freedom and differences in all walks of life.

In fact, the country has been embroiled in a seemingly never-ending spat regarding the imposition of sharia bylaws, with opponents arguing that it can destroy the spirit of pluralism in the country.

Another potential challenge is that teachers might not be ready, if not unsure, how to teach multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a highly intricate and elusive concept, demanding teachers to learn about the multiple perspectives from multidisciplinary studies such as education, sociology, psychology, politics and history.

Mary Stone Hanley, a proponent of multicultural education, warns that knowledge construction drawn from this multidiscipline is imperative because before teachers can effectively teach multiculturally they must reconstruct their world views.

Diminishing cultural pride is also important for teachers to be able to teach effectively. In a primordially-rooted culture, doing so is difficult, if not impossible.

It is also important to note that as multiculturalism embraces an assimilationist ideology, it contradicts both teachers' and students' community cultures where homogeneity and commonality are highly valued, and where ethnocentricity is deeply rooted.

Not all teachers and students are willing to take the risk of losing their ethnic identity and being socially and politically alienated within their cultural community simply because they are invited to adhere to assimilationist ideology.

As a final remark, multicultural education has the potential to equip students with skills needed to interact with others from different faiths, ethnicities, races, cultures. But without a deeper and sound understanding of it, and political commitment to support its implementation, we are just trivializing its goal -- the transformation of society via education.

The writer is chief editor of the Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching and teaches English composition at Atma Jaya University, Jakarta. He can be reached at setiono.sugiharto@atmajaya.ac.id.

Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/01/22/multicultural-education-indonesia-opportunities-and-challenges.html

READ MORE - The needs of Multicultural education in Indonesia
 
Pro-Blogger theme by Introblogger