Indonesia may be in a position to influence Burma, both as the chair of Asean in 2011 and as a positive example of how a democracy can emerge from a dictatorship

JAKARTA—Twenty-five years ago, both Indonesia and Burma were ruled by totalitarian regimes known for their human rights abuses, lack of genuine democracy and corrupt leaders who siphoned off national resources. Indonesia is now a functioning democracy and human rights advocate with a relatively transparent, free market economy. Burma, on the other hand, has slid further into the pit of oppression and corruption.

Former Burmese dictator Ne Win, left, and Indonesia’s then President Suharto in Jakarta in September 1997. Less than a year later, in May 1998, Suharto was forced to step down after 32 years of military-dominated rule. (Photo: AFP)

Although Asean’s general-secretary, Surin Pitsuwan, once vowed that Asean would be a “wheel of change” in the region, observers say that since its establishment in 1967, the organization has come up short in its meager efforts to improve the human rights record of member states. While Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia have recently become more active in calling on the Burmese regime to institute democratic reforms, members such as Brunei, Singapore and Vietnam are still reluctant to pressure the junta.

Observers hope that when Indonesia—Asean’s largest and most populous country— takes over as chair of Asean, it can help find a common platform among Asean members that could provide a basis for calls for reform in states such as Burma. Sources within Asean also said that Indonesia may use its chair position to actively pressure the Asean Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) to push Burma to improve its human rights records and institute democratic reforms.

Ready to Lead?

Jakarta may already be laying the groundwork for that push. At the 16th Asean summit that took place in Hanoi in July, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said the bloc wants very much to see an election in Burma that meets international standards for recognition and credibility. And in March 2010, Natalegawa told his Burmese counterpart in Naypyidaw that Jakarta expected the regime to “uphold its commitment to have an election that allows all parties to take part.”

This is not the first time, however, that expectations were raised regarding Indonesia’s potential influence on Burma. In August 2009, the executive director of the US Campaign for Burma, Aung Din, said “Indonesia is a leading member of Asean, a close friend of Burma and has access to the generals in Naypyidaw. Indonesia is also a reliable partner of the US and EU in many areas. Therefore Indonesia can help to build a bridge between the Western powers and the generals in Burma.”

He was not alone in making such predictions, but despite the fact that Indonesia will soon take over the Asean chair, some Indonesians close to the situation are skeptical their government can have an impact on Burma through Asean.

Rafendi Djamin, the Indonesian representative to the AICHR, told The Irrawaddy he doesn’t believe that Asean as an organization will exercise significant pressure for change in Burma.   

Thung Ju Lan, a professor at the Research Center for Society and Culture (Indonesia Institute of Science), said she doesn’t believe Indonesia is the best country to help Asean members improve their human rights records because Indonesia itself is still in  transition. “We have to learn from each other. We have to find a common platform rather than talking about one country to lead others,” she said. 

Margiyono, an Indonesian journalist who is the advocacy coordinator for the Alliance of Independent Journalists, noted that “The Indonesian government has made many calls to release Aung San Suu Kyi, but there is no mechanism to force Burma to release her.”

Asean’s policy of non-interference is a primary reason observers doubt Indonesia will take a leading role in international efforts to effect change in Burma, with some going so far as to say that Asean’s non-interference policy has been a key factor in allowing the Burmese military regime to entrench itself over the last four decades.

Anggara, a human rights advocate and lawyer who is the executive director of the Indonesian Advocates Association in Jakarta, said that his country needs to abandon the non-interference principal. 

One potential opportunity for finding both a collective Asean platform and a forum for abandoning the non-interference policy that did not exist in previous years is the proposed “Asean community” outlined in the Asean Economic Community Blueprint, under which members would establish a single market and production base that would allow the free flow of goods, services, investment, capital and labor throughout the region.

“For me, the concept of an Asean community is very good. We really need to go together,” said Thung Ju Lan. “But I’m concerned about it because we pay too much attention to politics. The first thing we need to do is try to understand the differences and respect them.”

She and other observers say that while an Asean community is good in concept, the existence of undemocratic member states, especially Burma, will make it difficult to find an effective mechanism to implement the program. “Burma, of course, will be a challenge for an Asean community if it only thinks about its own interest,” Thung Ju Lan said.

As a result, some observers such as Aladdin D. Rillo, the head of the Asean Secretariat Finance Integration, have expressed doubts about the integration of Asean in the time frame outlined in the blueprint. “My personal view is that there will only be a semblance of economic integration … not the full integration that the term implies,” he told The Jakarta Post.

However, if Burma’s undemocratic politics and rights abuses are seen as holding up Asean efforts to establish one economic community, and its members believe they are losing the potential economic benefits to be derived from the blueprint, then it could provide an opportunity for them to bond together under Indonesia’s leadership, forego the non-interference principle and put significant pressure on Burma to change.

Debbie Stothard, a regional activist at Alternative Asean Network on Burma said, “It is time Burma should help Asean, not Asean help Burma to improve its human rights records.”

In the end, however, most observers say that Burma’s revolution must come from within, just as Indonesia’s did, with voluntary change from within the circle of decision makers such as top military officials.

“Activists, media and the international community have to inspire the masses. But the real change will come from the government and the people within,” Djamin said.

“There will be a lot of risk. The more repressive the regime is, the smarter people you need to be able to play in order to sustain the movement,” he said.

Thung Ju Lan said the role of educated young people is also important for change in Burma. “Youth inside and outside Burma should join hands in struggling for democracy. Strong opposition in exile is needed and educated young Burmese people should go back to Burma and struggle for change in different means,” she said.

“Sometimes, it doesn’t mean you need to go back to your country physically. You can do many things even when you stay in exile,” Thung Ju Lan added. 

Anggara said popular support is needed for the democracy movement in Burma to be an effective force. “We need a group of brave people. And they need to be supported by the people, the media and the international community,” he said.

Lessons from Jakarta

But even as most observers acknowledge that Burmese reforms must begin internally, many also say that both the Burmese junta and its opposition could benefit from Indonesia’s support and learn from the history of its transition over the past three decades from a dictatorship under Suharto to a democracy today.

Suharto seized power in a coup d’état in 1967, five years after Gen Ne Win did the same in Burma. Suharto executed an estimated 1.5 million opponents, many more than Ne Win, and Transparency International reported that Suharto and his cronies siphoned off an estimated US $15-35 billion in national assets while in power.

In 1998, university students launched protests at campuses across Indonesia following a massive fuel price rise. This instigated a nationwide uprising, including riots during which approximately 1,500 people died and scores of shops, houses, office buildings, shopping malls, markets and hotels were destroyed. In May 1998, Suharto stepped down and reforms were introduced by the democratic governments that followed.

In 1988, Ne Win was forced out under circumstances similar to those present during the overthrow of Suharto—he also faced student protests and a series of nationwide uprisings in which thousands of people were killed. Then for a brief moment, when Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy dominated the 1990 election, it appeared that Burma might be taking the same democratic reform path as Indonesia. But when the new junta threw out the results of the election and placed Suu Kyi under house arrest, the moment was lost.

Since that time, conditions have only deteriorated in Burma, while the situation in Indonesia continues to improve. Today, Indonesia has a democratically elected government under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, while Burma remains under the rule of military strongman Snr-Gen Than Shwe. Indonesia has a modern banking system, while Burma still doesn’t have its first ATMs. Jakarta residents enjoy access to the latest IT innovations, while in Rangoon, cell phones are beyond the reach of all but the very wealthy and well-connected. While Indonesians have the right to express themselves freely, Burmese face arrest and imprisonment for violating draconian censorship laws.

“If there are injustices, people in Indonesia can complain directly to the government, while in Burma we cannot,” said Snay Aung, an ethnic Karenni attending a peace-building training conference in Indonesia.

Analysts have noted that Burma’s military junta is looking to North Korea as its apparent role model for maintaining power and increasing influence. But most agree that Indonesia, a country that has successfully transitioned from a dictatorship engaged in human rights abuses to a democracy promoting the cause of human rights, would be a better role model if the Burmese regime wants to lift its people out of the economic and political abyss that it has dragged their nation into.

In addition, if the Burmese opposition is looking for an example of a successful overthrow of a dictator for inspiration, it may look to Indonesia. And if some members of the Burmese military can look beyond Naypyidaw to Jakarta and see that in a democratic society everyone is better off, then maybe change from within the regime can begin as well.

This article was published as part of a fellowship the author received from the 2010 Southeast Asian Press Alliance, SEAPA.