Friday, Feb. 1, 2008 Suharto puzzle still in play
By KEVIN RAFFERTY Special to The Japan Times HONG KONG In death, Indonesia's former President Suharto was praised as a great and almost saintly ruler. At Suharto's state funeral Monday, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono saluted the casket, one general to another, and declared "His service is an example to us." World leaders vied to praise the late dictator's contribution to building peace and prosperity. Was this the man also responsible for the deaths of so many people, for the turmoil and destruction and death in East Timor, and for corruption and kleptocracy on an unparalleled scale? The truth is that in death, as in life, the regime of Suharto raises awkward questions for politicians, economists, professors, Indonesians, Asians, and the rest of humanity. It raises particular questions for the elite club of world rulers as to whether they were complicit in the excesses of his rule by their support or their silence. Mr. Clean himself, Lee Kuan Yew, former leader of Singapore and now minister mentor, visited the Indonesian leader on his deathbed and lamented later that: "I feel sad to see a very old friend with whom I had worked closely over the last 30 years, not really getting the honors that he deserves. The younger generations both in Indonesia and in the world do not remember where Indonesia started. "I do (remember). He gave Indonesia progress and development. He educated the population. He built roads and infrastructure. And from Sukarno's konfrontasi and other foreign policy excesses, he stabilized international relations, cooperated in ASEAN. . . . And today, we have a stable Southeast Asia." Lee acknowledged: "Yes, he gave favors to his family and his friends. But there was real growth and real progress. I think the people of Indonesia are lucky. They had a general in charge, had a team of competent administrators including a very good team of economists to build up the country." Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda was more restrained, but expressed, "heartfelt sorrow on behalf of the Japanese government and people." Other southeast Asian leaders gave thanks for Suharto. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd argued for a benign view of the Suharto era: "Until the catastrophic Asian financial crisis of 1997, he oversaw a period of significant economic growth and modernization at a time when Indonesia faced fundamental political, social and economic challenges." I never met Suharto, though I was once forced to take 10 smart paces backward as he and his entourage swept through the Jakarta hotel where I was staying. But I enjoyed many conversations over 20 years with most members of the "Berkeley Mafia," the technocrats responsible for the economic success that Suharto and his friends have claimed for him. Suharto was a difficult person to read. Although most of Indonesia's 235 million are Muslims, making it the biggest Muslim country in the world, it is a religion filtered and influenced by its rich past of Buddhism, Hinduism, colonialism and a strong belief in the powers of the world of spirits and of being in harmony with them. Suharto deliberately cloaked himself in much of this mysticism. He came to power as the beneficiary of the bloodbath that led to the toppling of founding President Sukarno, another man who stayed on too long. He mysteriously escaped the slaughter of other generals in what was billed as a failed leftist coup. In the crackdown on Communists, leftists and others who did not fit in, between 500,000 and a million people died. Suharto avoided responsibility, even though he was head of the army and soldiers who carried out atrocities. He took over a sprawling, divided, impoverished country and turned it into a relatively stable country that survived his brutal adventure in East Timor. Suharto's Indonesia won the plaudits of respected economists as a developing country that was really prospering and developing until its economic policies were called into question in the 1997 Asian financial crisis. A year later two months into his seventh five- year term Suharto fell. "I am sorry for my mistakes," he said after mass rioting and the deaths of 500 student protesters. He presided over but could not claim personal credit for the economic policy that saw soaring growth rates. Widjojo Nitisastro and his team sought a liberal, deregulated economy, and there will always be criticism of whether the policies led to the growing income gaps. But the technocrats were undermined and undercut. The sharp rise in oil prices in the 1970s allowed General Ibnu Sutowo to build Pertamina recklessly until his grandiose schemes broke the company and nearly the nation. Throughout the time when they were supposedly running the economy, the technocrats had to contend with political and economic nationalists or just golfing buddies who had the ear of Suharto: "That is a political decision, not in our hands," they would say with a sad shrug. And there was corruption. Even in her lifetime, Indonesians called Suharto's wife, Tien, "Madame Tien Percent," because she took her cut on deals. When she died in 1996, their children were unconstrained and became multibillionaires. Suharto institutionalized corruption big deals to family and friends, favors for a whole raft of businesses, totaling $35 billion for the family alone, according to Transparency International. The awkward questions remain: How many people have to die to allow a ruler to become a strong ruler? How many freedoms of how many people have to be curtailed in the name of stability? For fellow dictators, Suharto's last sad years should be a lesson, and worth remembering Lord Acton's dictum: "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Members of the elite club of rulers should ask whether their support or turning a blind eye to abuses of power means that they are guilty of complicity in corruption, terror or atrocities. Indonesia and Asia and even Suharto himself would have been better off if his brother rulers had dared to speak out and encourage him to restrain his excesses and his corrupt friends. Indonesia has picked itself up but has not fully recovered and remains a fragile country with too many fault lines that prevent it from fully tapping its immense riches, natural and human. Kevin Rafferty is editor in chief of Plain Words Media, a group of journalists specializing in economic development issues. He previously was in charge of Asian coverage for the Financial Times. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20080201a1.html Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
