[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 121 (Monday, August 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                      THE IMPORTANCE OF INDONESIA

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last November I rose to speak on the 
subject of Indonesia and the importance of keeping a dialog with that 
country to promote human rights. At that time, I was able to report on 
some measures the Indonesian Government had taken to improve its 
performance on human rights. In June I was pleased to note that the 
Indonesian Government had allowed visits by the International Committee 
of the Red Cross and was withdrawing troops from East Timor. 
Unfortunately, these advances were accompanied by a crackdown on 
freedom of the press and on labor activists.
  Recently, in conjunction with the foreign operations appropriations 
bill, the human rights record of Indonesia was discussed again. After 
the bill was passed by both Chambers, but before it went to conference, 
some disturbing events occurred in East Timor. On July 14, 18 or more 
students were injured when security forces in East Timor broke up a 
peaceful demonstration. The students had been protesting the treatment 
of Catholic nuns who were registering for classes. This occurred less 
than 3 weeks after an incident in which soldiers committed sacrilegious 
acts in a Catholic church south of Dili.
  The calendar is also a reminder that too much time has passed without 
a resolution to the problems surrounding the status of East Timor: 1996 
will mark 20 years since Indonesia annexed the former Portuguese 
colony. The United States has taken the position that the people of 
East Timor have not been given an opportunity to exercise their right 
of self-determination. Indonesia has taken far too long to comply with 
U.N. Security Council resolutions that call for the withdrawal of 
Indonesian armed forces from East Timor and for respect for its 
population's right of self-determination.
  We are therefore once again faced with the dilemma of formulating an 
approach to Indonesia that balances our concern for human rights with 
our realization that Indonesia is an important Asian ally of the United 
States. I have advocated a carrot and stick approach, in which we 
continue to criticize human rights abuses and take appropriate actions 
if and when these abuses continue. It would, however, be a mistake to 
cut off our contact with Indonesia; economic, political, and military 
cooperation should continue, so that it may remain a tool for promoting 
improvements in human rights.
  The Congress has recognized these concerns in the approach it has 
taken in the foreign operations appropriations bill. The two Chambers 
have agreed to codify the existing policy of not selling Indonesia 
small and light arms and crowd-control equipment until the Secretary of 
State reports that human rights improvements have occurred. This 
prohibition on sales is carefully crafted to focus on those military 
items that could be used for repressing the East Timorese population, 
and for this reason I support it.
  Nevertheless, the United States will not institute an across-the-
board prohibition on the sale of other military items to Indonesia--as 
some have proposed that we do--partly because these items are not of a 
nature to be used for human rights violations and partly because we 
recognize the importance of maintaining a relationship with the 
Indonesian military. Because of the significant role of the military in 
the Indonesian Government, this relationship is crucial to any 
influence we can exert over the future direction of Indonesian policy.

  The United States also recognizes that there are limits to this 
military relationship and that those limits may also depend on progress 
in human rights. Arms sales to Indonesia still need to be scrutinized 
on a case-by-case basis as authorized by the Arms Export Control Act, 
and Congress will continue to act as a watchdog over that process.
  Last year, Congress expressed its intention to cut off military 
training to Indonesia by denying Indonesia funding for the 
International Military Education and Training Program [IMET]. The 
clearly expressed will of the Congress was flouted when Indonesia was 
allowed to pay for its military training. The prohibition on IMET has 
been included once again this year. I hope that--in the future--
Indonesia will make sufficient improvements in its human rights policy 
that we can once again offer it IMET. Under the expanded IMET Program, 
information on international human rights conventions, human rights 
laws in the recipient's country, and appropriate behavior of military 
personnel are emphasized. I believe that this training would be 
appropriate for Indonesian military personnel and would lead to an 
improvement in human rights practices in that country. I have also 
asked myself whether it is at all likely that members of the Indonesian 
military would receive human rights training if they did not receive it 
under IMET.
  In order to promote human rights in East Timor, the United States 
must be engaged in a constructive relationship with Indonesia. We have 
an opportunity to establish and build on such a relationship through 
the growing economic importance of Indonesia to the Pacific rim and, in 
particular, to California. I believe that trade will contribute to 
Indonesia's prosperity and decrease its propensity to use repression to 
achieve political goals. Our expanding economic ties will contribute to 
the goal of human rights improvements, but we must continue to attempt 
a delicate balance. Engaging in this dialog will require continuous 
monitoring and adjustment of our policy to achieve the desired results.

                          ____________________