Indonesia's progress: There's a good reason for renewed military ties

WAS THERE a contradiction this week between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's reprimand of the human rights records of Burma and Vietnam and the simultaneous U.S. decision to resume ties with a once-notorious branch of Indonesia's military? Some human rights advocates seem to think so; they are furious that the Obama administration would reach out to Indonesia's special forces. We think they are missing a key point. Indonesia today is a democracy -- one of the great political success stories of the past decade. Vietnam, for all its loosening, remains a one-party state with little tolerance for dissent, and Burma is one of the world's most repressive nations. The administration is right to make distinctions accordingly.

After meeting with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in Jakarta Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced "a gradual, limited program of security cooperation" with Kopassus, a special forces unit within Indonesia's military. The unit was accused more than a decade ago of kidnappings and other abuses, especially in East Timor, which was an Indonesian province before winning its independence. The army's critics, notably Human Rights Watch and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), maintain that Kopassus has not reformed or repented sufficiently to merit U.S. cooperation. The Indonesian activist Suciwati makes their case on the opposite page today.

Accountability for past crimes is essential, and Mr. Gates said the United States will continue to press for that. But the critics lose sight of the enormous changes in Indonesia since the fall of dictator President Suharto in 1998. Indonesia has held multiparty elections and witnessed peaceful transfers of power. The world's most populous Muslim-majority nation, with 240 million people, it remains mostly hospitable to its Hindu, Christian and other minorities. It has fought Islamic extremism and intolerance. And its military is under civilian control. The prospects for human rights in such a situation flourish as long as democracy progresses -- and the United States has every reason to strengthen its alliance and help, as much as possible, democracy to become more entrenched.

In Vietnam, by contrast, simply joining a political party other than that of the ruling Communists is enough to earn someone a long prison sentence. As in China, Vietnam's rulers have loosened their control of the economy and of people's personal lives, which has unleashed economic growth. But in the past year, rulers have intensified their crackdown on political dissidents. Ms. Clinton, visiting Hanoi, vowed to continue to seek improved relations. But she rightly added that "the United States will continue to urge Vietnam to strengthen its commitment to human rights, and give its people even greater say over the direction of their own lives."

Meanwhile Burma's ruling junta is preparing to hold elections that, as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday, are on track to be "bogus" and a "sham." Ms. Clinton, in only slightly more diplomatic language Friday, said the vote is "unlikely" to be free and fair. The junta has written the rules in such a way as to disqualify what was Burma's most popular and legitimate political force, the National League for Democracy, and its imprisoned leader, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. As long as they are sidelined, a State Department official told us Friday, "we are not going to accept these elections as free, fair, credible and legitimate. They will not be."

Many factors play into U.S. decisions on how to engage with nations in this dynamic region, including economic interest and the importance of offering a balance to China's rising power. But the nations that remain on a democratic track, such as Indonesia and the Philippines, offer the potential to be far more useful allies -- and more responsible respecters of human rights -- than any dictatorship. Human rights advocates ought to recognize that.