Politics and Society

Say It Wasn't Me!

2009-07-06T08:24:00.001-07:00

When presidential hopeful, Jusuf Kalla, shot at Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, another presidential hopeful, in the final round of presidential debate organized by the Election Commission on the single round presidential elections campaign, SBY simply answered that the advertisement is not his.

SBY said, “Those are not mine and they do not belong to my official campaign camp.”

Whose advertisement? Who provide the fund for the campaign?

Danny JA, the director of Lingkaran Survei Indonesia, while denying that the single round presidential election campaign advertisement by his polling institution is not illegal, gave no clarification on the source of fund for the advertisement that stemmed from LSI’s latest opinion poll.

My question is where is the transparency?

I remember in the recently concluded elections in the world’s biggest democracy, India, the Congress Party spent thousands of Indian Rupee (approximately Rs. 400,000) just to buy the rights of the song Jai Ho (means Let there be victory or simply Victory) from Oscar winning movie Slumdog Millionaire and used it as the Party’s campaign song. The spirit of the movie and the message of the song had certainly played positive effect to the Indian Congress Party thus allowing it to reap the biggest electoral victory long after their domination in Indian politics ended in the late 80s and early 90s. Two Gandhis, one Singh and a spirited Hindi song helped the Congress Party won the elections.

Here, we can clearly see that the principle of transparency has been highly placed in Indian political landscape. In that way, we have to take our hats off and asked ourselves, can we do that? Can our neetas (Hindi for politicians) do the same thing as the Congress Party did in India?

Back in Indonesia, ever since the campaign period for presidential election was started earlier last month, there has been non-stop airing of an altered version of the popular jingle of one of Indofood’s product, Indomie, on the radio and on various TV stations. It made me question myself, have the copyright of the jingle been bought by the campaign team of SBY – Boediono? Or has the Indofood freely given the copyright of the jingle and donated it to the campaign team of SBY – Boediono and let them alter the jingle to suit the campaign purpose?

If it did buy the copyright of the jingle, how much did they pay? And if it was given or donated for free to the campaign team of SBY – Boediono, what will Indofood get if SBY – Boediono win elections? Should it be reported to the Election Commission as a donation from a corporation? How much does it amount to?

And many other questions that need clarifications and answers.

Assuming that the jingle was deliberately altered by SBY – Boediono’s campaign team without the consent of Indofood to suit the campaign purpose, it definitely an obstruction of one’s rights. It is amount to the practice of piracy, a problem that Indonesia continues to face. But if it was altered with the consent of Indofood, there should be explanation to the public and to the Election Commission about the matter, about the amount of money donated by Indofood to SBY – Boediono’s campaign team.

Similarly, if Danny JA with his single round presidential election campaign advertisement continues to be aired and spread nation wide, he must clarify the source of fund for his ad and report it to the Election Commission.

Because, even though he claimed that the ad is for the sake of political education and has nothing to do with any presidential candidate, but with the picture of SBY – Boediono in the advertisement, we do not need to ask an expert about who is behind the campaign advertisement.

To conclude, democracy is expensive and needs a lot of efforts to substantially establish it in Indonesia. Similarly, building transparency, honesty and integrity as part of a working, substantial democracy should start from within our selves, if not, who else will start?

As such, whoever wins in the July 8 elections, transparency must be established and practiced, between us.

Another note on transparency in Indonesian democracy

2009-06-12T00:17:00.000-07:00

This is the second time I wrote about an issue of transparency in Indonesian elections. I wrote on similar issue in March during the early days of campaign period for legislative election.

Officially, the campaign period for presidential election to be held in July 8, 2009 was started earlier this month and the open campaign phase in which public rally and other legally sanctioned campaign methodology has just been started on 10 June 2009. The three presidential hopefuls have kicked off on their campaign trails, trying their level best to win the most votes. And money does play significant part in this process.

Naturally, the bigger the chance for a candidate to win the bigger the money that follows.

Thus, if we believe the result of several recent surveys by different pollsters that SBY – Boediono will win the battle, it is no surprise that SBY – Boediono leads the roster with the most campaign fund followed by Mega – Prabowo and JK – Wiranto. Data from the Election Commission confirmed this information about the campaign fund. The bigger the money will certainly provide the needed ammunition for the campaign team to conduct diverse campaign activities to widen the candidate’s opportunity to win in the election. But we all have to wait until the voting day to see the final result.

As such, I will not delve into predicting who is the winner or the loser in the July 8 election and instead I will discuss about the issue of transparency, especially on the use of money and the amount of donation given to the candidates for campaign purposes.

In the recently concluded elections in the world’s biggest democracy, India, the Congress Party spent thousands of Indian Rupee (the exact amount was not disclosed) just to buy the rights of the song Jai Ho (means Let there be victory) from an Oscar winning movie Slumdog Millionaire and used it as the Party’s official campaign song. The result: the spirit of the movie and the message of the song had certainly played positive effect to the Indian Congress Party thus allowing it to reap the biggest electoral victory long after their domination in Indian politics ended in the late 80s and early 90s. Two Gandhis, one Singh and an inspirational Hindi song helped the Congress Party won the elections.

Similarly, when Karan Johar of the Kuch Kuch Hota Hai (Something happened) fame produced his equally successful movie Kal Ho Na Ho (If tomorrow never comes) in 2003, he bought the rights of the famous movie Pretty Woman’s theme song for Indian Rupee 800,000 (approximately 15 – 16 thousand US Dollars) just to ensure the legality of its modification of its lyrics and its use in his movie. It proved that the Pretty Woman song had added the movie with additional selling point thus catapulting it to the box office of Bollywood movie.

From the above illustrations, we can see that the principle of transparency and respect on copyrights in compliance with international law on copyrights has been held high in Indian democracy. Both the Indian Congress Party and Karan Johar, an Indian movie director, transparently declared to have spent enough sum of money just to ensure the legality of using someone else’s product. In that way, we have to take our hats off and asked ourselves, can we do that? And to be more specific, can our neetas (Hindi for politicians) do the same thing as the Congress Party did in India?

Hearing again and again the altered version/lyrics of popular jingle of Indofood’s Indomie on the radio and watching it on various TV stations made me question myself, have the copyright of the jingle been bought by the campaign team of SBY – Boediono? Or has the Indofood simply given the copyright of the jingle and donated it freely to the campaign team of SBY – Boediono and let them alter the jingle to suit the campaign purpose?

Next, if the copyright of the jingle was bought, how much did it cost? If it was given or donated for free to the campaign team of SBY – Boediono, what will Indofood get if SBY – Boediono win elections? Has it been reported to the Election Commission as a donation from a corporation? How much does the copyright amount to? (maximum amount of donation for corporation is 5 billion Rupiah)

And many other questions that need clarifications and answers.

Assuming that the jingle was deliberately altered by SBY – Boediono’s campaign team without the consent of Indofood to suit the campaign purpose, it definitely an obstruction of one’s rights. It is amount to the practice of piracy, a problem that Indonesia continues to face.

But if it was altered with the consent of Indofood and freely given to the SBY – Boediono campaign team, there should be explanation to the public and to the Election Commission about the matter.

If big businesses continue to fund politicians in exchange of favor or business deals once the politician grabs the power, it will be difficult for the politicians to realize their campaign promises to the voters.

In an election, the voters are king makers and transparency, honesty and integrity are keywords for the politicians to win the hearts and minds of the voters. Thus if our neetas continue to preach but fail to observe what they preach, what will happen to the people and the nation?

As such, there is a great deal of necessity to start establishing transparency, between us.

The Luxury of Transparency in Indonesian Democracy

2009-02-16T03:53:00.000-08:00

The third post-reformasi general elections is around the corner. With less than two months before the Election Day, political parties and their legislative candidates have been working hard to try to win the elections. Both first-timers and seasoned politicians are using all legally sanctioned means to campaign and advertise themselves in the hope that when April comes, the voters will remember their names, their parties and vote for them. Thus it is understandable that political advertisements in all forms can easily be found both in print and electronic media.

I remember in the last week of January when I was waiting for my train in Gambir Station, I received a freely distributed book published by the State Secretariat. The book, blue in color reflecting the color of the incumbent presidents’ party, was also distributed to anyone at the station. It was such a high quality publication.

However, upon opening and reading the book, several questions popped up in my mind.

First, the book only lists the highlights of the so-called achievements by the current government. From poverty reduction to economic growth, the book tells all about the milestones that have successfully been achieved by the incumbent government. The illustrations in the book are dominated by the pictures of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Furthermore, no single flaw of or under-achivement by the government has been disclosed in this book. The content is starkly one sided.

Why hide the facts and data about the state of development in Indonesia? What about the unending drama of Lapindo mudflow, the malnutrition cases, the increase of unemployment, the increasing cases of horizontal conflicts?

Quoting Anas Urbaningrum of Partai Demokrat in response to the latest political advertisement by Partai Keadilan Sejahtera which critizes the tug-o-war between leading presindetial contenders, the duties of a government is to provide positive information to the public while the negative or the so called under-achievements should become the responsibility of the opposition parties to response.

Is that so?

In my view, an official publication or report should provide a balanced picture about the state of progress in Indonesia’s development. There should not be any hidden facts and data so as to build culture of transparency and accountability thus providing greater trust and confidence of the people towards the government.

The next question disturbs me even more.

Where does the source of fund come? Does it come from the taxpayer’s money? Or does it come from other sources?

Since the book is published under the banner of the State Secretariat, it must have used money from the taxpayers as the source of fund. State Secretariat is a public office that functions using public money. It is highly unlikely that any personal/private money is used to fund such state sponsored publication project. It would be foolish for any rich person to fund such state sponsored publication for free. Nothing is free in this country. You have to pay for everything, even if you have to go to relieve yourself for nature’s call.

Thus, assuming that the source of fund for this publication is coming from the taxpayer’s money, how can we justify this fact? Does it amount to the practice of corruption and misuse of power?

I will leave the answer to this question to the readers. And since it is election time, the Baswaslu (General Elections Oversight Body) should conduct investigation on this matter.

To preach about morality and good deeds is easy but to do what you preach is difficult. In the same vein, to eradicate corruption and to build culture of transparency and accountability in a country such as Indonesia is not an easy task. All elements in Indonesian society, regardless of their background, should work hand in hand (gotong royong) to realize the dream of creating better future for Indonesia as stated in the Preamble of 1945 Constitution.

And even though I am less optimistic about the result of the upcoming April elections, it should, however, provide a strong basis for Indonesia to move forward and transform the procedural democracy into substantial one. Furthermore, the increasing role of civil society organizations in playing a watchdog to the government should provide incentive in the progress of Indonesian democracy.

Some Rooms to Improve the KPU

2009-02-12T00:15:00.001-08:00

Policy reforms that alter the formal rules should have the capacity to generate important consequences for political representation and for voting behavior. Indonesia’s political development during reformasi period has introduced major changes in many aspects of the nation’s democratic life starting from building a legitimate government, amending the constitution to lay the foundation for a democratic construction that has sufficient checks-and-balances, and introducing political practices aiming at building an effective and accountable government and trustworthy representation. The current political development has built a critical momentum for these changes to fully entrench democratic practices through the development of a competent independent electoral management body by taking advantage of the Law 22/2007. This momentum should be capitalized through seizing the opportunity provided by this improved legislative framework to build a credible and competent KPU.

Furthermore, any intervention framework such as reforms to the legal statues and party rules governing party eligibility and candidate nomination, the administrative process of electoral registration and voting facilities, the regulation of campaign finance and political broadcasting, and the process of election management shall be based on the assumption that the program must incrementally push for substantive democracy that would ensure such long term and sustainable support to all the actors in the field. This entails that intervention be made aligned with the agenda to not only encourage deeper political knowledge, understanding and disposition on the part of the citizens but also essential skills and competencies of political leaders and activists alike. It is assumed that through this kind of approach, initiatives to effect changes to the formal rules would be feasible. Surely, such a development takes time but careful and attentive process of shepherding shall guarantee that the reform does not become a mere flash in the pan phenomenon.

Institutionalizing Election Best Practices for Sustainable Democracy

Democratic practices can be found anywhere in this globe irrespective of the locations. It might be found in the highest peak of Himalayan mountain or at the shore of Vanuwatu. The conduct of the last two democratic elections of 1999 and 2004 had built national confidence that Indonesia has the capability to conduct regular free and fair elections with ambitious timetable for its comparatively massive electoral size. While this confidence is important, it should not be under estimated that the past two miraculous achievements were made possible because of strong motivation driven by the euphoria of reform. As voters started to face democratic reality and accumulate apathy this motivation will die down and needs to be substituted by sustainable organizational capacity to institutionalize the democratic practices. Formalization of the principles and procedures and building technical capacity in conducting regular practices should be systematically carried out. Permanent democratic institutions including the KPU, the parliament, and the whole governance machinery need to be strengthened. The period leading, during and after the upcoming election is an epoch where those practices could be institutionalized through yet another practice, but with more permanent processes and less ad-hoc approaches.

Similarly, institutionalization of international election best practices shall provide additional input to the process of instilling professionalism and accountability of electoral management. Combined with local election best practices, there would be substantial framework to achieve sustainable democracy in Indonesia.

Building Long Term Political Education Capacity

Experiences around the world suggest that democracy and political education cannot be achieved only by conducting few regular elections. However, it is clear that election is a real opportunity for an effective political education. Election events which demonstrate direct interaction between electorate and the elected would serve as a powerful civic education tool. The 1999 and 2004 elections have been viewed by many as democratic festivities, but had not been used as a means of educating the public to critically look at the good and bad lessons of democracy. Codifying the experiences from the election as large as Indonesia’s will provide important teaching not only for the Indonesian, but also for the inspired citizens in other emerging democracies.

By building long term political education capacity, it is assumed that the public would become aware of their important position in the political process. The public would also understand that their active participation in the political process will ensure the sustainability of democracy in Indonesia.

Engineering Electoral Management

2009-01-31T23:58:00.000-08:00

Electoral management largely determines whether an election is free and fair, or rather whether it represents some kind of symbolic event or affirmation of the incumbent leadership. In this regard the more pure an election is in terms of being free and fair and open for participation by all groups like voters or candidates, the more secure such an election will be as conveyor of popular sovereignty. In essence, the conduct of the elections determines the legitimacy of the elections as a reflection of the people's choice.

The two democratically administered general elections in the post-Suharto Indonesia, 1999 and 2004, marked Indonesia’s departure from non-democratic society into an evolving vibrant democracy. It allows greater participation of the Indonesian people in the decision making process through the democratically elected representatives. Various political parties that emerged in the post-Suharto Indonesia provide the necessary channel for the functioning of a representative democracy. New party cadres have been born from this process to ensure the re-generation of political actors as a means of establishing sustainable democracy in Indonesia.

The 1999 General Elections provided several valuable lessons for more effective and independent electoral management. The composition of KPU which comprised of representatives of political parties was proven to be problematic. While an inclusive KPU was useful in engaging political parties in the management of the electoral processes, the partisan nature of the members created difficulties for the KPU in producing effective decisions. The large number of the political parties contesting the 1999 election also posed special challenges in maintaining peaceful campaign. Voting and ballot counting during the 1999 election also presented a new challenge for the KPU. With previous elections prior to 1999 being mostly a formality to maintain the dominance of Golkar as the New Order’s political machinery, there had been many detailed election processes that the KPU was not prepared to anticipate. Genuine voting, vote tallying, and seat allocation were all new to both the KPU and the political parties. As most voters were happy enough to be able to exercise their democratic rights without being afraid of the government’s interference, little attention was paid to the representativeness of the election results.

The 2004 General Election was a major improvement in both the electoral management and the electoral system. In 2001 a new KPU was formed as a non-partisan institution. But, its formation based on a presidential decree was seen as a temporary measure although nomination of its members involved a consultation with the DPR. The 2004 legislative election was eventually implemented based on Election Law (Law 12/2003) which introduced several new additions such as the direct election of DPD, the use of partial open-list system for candidacy of DPR and DPRD, and the mix of proportional and district representation system for the election of members of DPR and DPRD.

The passing and enactment of Law No 22/2007 on General Election Organizer by the Government of Indonesia, which put the General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum – KPU) as a national, independent and permanent body rectifies this situation and provides further assurance in establishing sustainable Indonesian democracy. The presence of such an independent institution shall induce some sense of security and trust in the minds of the public on the conduct and management of elections. In addition, the Law made the KPU as one of the ancillary state institutions with a specific mandate of managing the critical component of Indonesia’s democratic cycle that is electoral management on the basis of professionalism and accountability. The KPU is the sole authority for any democratic election for elected offices in Indonesia, be that for national executive leadership (president and vice president), legislative (DPR, DPD and DPRD), or for regional and local executive leaderships (governors and regents/mayors).

This development reflects significant departure from Indonesian election and electoral management being an ad-hoc activity which only occurs once in every five years. The enactment of the Law No 22/2007 has also added some constitutional framework and a starting point toward building national institutional capacity to manage Indonesia’s open democracy.

However, there is always room for improvement. Mere presence of an independent, permanent electoral management body with full constitutional backing does not guarantee the successful functioning of such a body and the administration of democratic elections. The eligibility and result of the selection process of the KPU commissioners proved to be problematic. With seven members of KPU commissioners for 2009 general elections having different background and considering the current situation related to the preparation for the elections, there is likelihood that the administration of 2009 general elections might face some hiccup. Revamping the membership of the KPU, the eligibility for the position and the division of role and function between the election commissioner and the Secretariat General shall rectify the situation in the future. Adoption of international best practices on electoral management body shall provide necessary inputs to rectify the current state of Indonesian electoral management body.

Similarly, national debates on other important aspects such as electoral threshold for parties to contest elections, district magnitude, party magnitude, women candidacy as well as on possible implementation of fully open list system for legislative elections have continued to take place. It indicates the presence of significant aspirations for the electoral systems and processes to be further improved to move toward more reasonable number of political parties as well as the adoption of electoral system which could ensure more representative results.

Electoral system is one of the most basic democratic structures, from which much else flows. It determines how votes cast in an election translate into seats won in parliament thus it is the central rule of the game determining who governs. Failure to adopt suitable electoral system to accommodate the diversity of aspirations and equality of representation in a heterogeneous society such as Indonesia would only hamper the democratization process. Strong, independent and permanent electoral management body will not be able to produce quality outputs if the electoral system does not reflect the goal of establishing democracy and good governance. Electoral engineering has the capacity to generate major consequences by altering the strategic behavior of politicians, parties and citizens. It allows the feasibility of deepening process and entrenchment of democratic principles in young democracies. Thus, continuous adjustment of electoral system to develop the most suitable electoral system for certain polity to achieve the goal of sustainable, substantial democracy becomes possible.

Political Party and Political Legitimacy

2009-01-11T23:57:00.000-08:00

Political party is an organization that is locally articulated, that interacts with and seeks to attract the electoral support of the general public. It plays a direct and substantive role in political recruitment and education. Political party is also committed to the capture or maintenance of power, either alone or in coalition with others. It becomes the vehicle for mass political participation based on political culture and ideology. In a democratic polity, political parties play a significant role that they become the backbone of the polity. The quality of democratic political system depends on the ability of the political parties to absorb demands and aspirations of the people and deliver them back as a product of political process. With Indonesia's return to democracy in 1999, operational controls on political parties and the ban on the establishment of new parties were lifted. This situation has allowed greater opportunities for all Indonesians to actively participate in Indonesia's transition to democracy.

Similarly, moral acceptance of the subjects to the authority of the rulers is deemed important for the justification of their right to rule. Legitimacy relates to the acceptance of power by the people and the process whereby power gains acceptance by the people which essentially includes the process of mobilization of support through ideology, institution building, system of rewards and punishment, performance or manipulation. It involves the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society. Furthermore, legitimacy brings about stability and possibility to create changes and improvements in the society. It also expands the authority of the ruler as well as limiting it. Legitimate government will bring about political stability and eventually deliver what the voters expect. Thus in order to create political stability and changes in the society, rulers or regimes need to have legitimacy, the moral right to rule, failing of which crisis of legitimacy and stability is the consequence. Democratically administered elections will provide a thoroughfare for a party or coalition of parties to gain necessary political legitimacy to rule.

In the same vein, the electorate in a democratic polity plays a very significant role: it can either establish or bring a government down. No party or parties shall possess any moral right to rule or legitimacy unless it receives endorsement from the electorate. As such, government is merely a form of representation of the people through a democratic process called elections. Once installed, a government is expected to be effective: to run its large administration efficiently and to set goals for policy that are realistic and achievable, and within the broad outlines of its election program. Moreover, it is expected that the government is to be publicly accountable: "the government must be able to give an account of their actions and policies, to explain and justify them to an appropriate audience." The government must act within the terms and conditions of their authority, and conform to standards of conduct that are appropriate to their office.

However, in emerging democratic society like Indonesia, many of a time we find out that once elected, the representatives tend to forget the fact they are essentially subjected to being publicly accountable. They neglect their constituents who have successfully catapulted them to power. Once elected, they would mostly indulge in their own business and greedily reaping the "fruits" of being successfully elected as the "respected members" of people's representatives while neglecting their foremost responsibility and duty as people's representatives: to articulate, defend and support the interests, preferences and grievances of those whom they represent. Instead of focussing on their professional responsibility as people’s representatives, personal gains becomes their main agenda in office. They ignore the fact that they are there for a reason: to serve the public at large.

To rectify this situation, one should return to the fundamentals of representation. Political representation essentially implies “government of, by and for the people”. In parliaments, whether at the national, provincial or local levels, the representatives are obliged to articulate the aspirations and supports from their constituents, and turn them into policies or laws, which would affect not only their constituents but also the public in general. Sound judgment and bold arguments of these representatives are thus functions of a good policy or law. Without them, everybody loses, including those who are not their direct constituents.

Such fundamentals will highlight the need for people's representatives to fully comprehend their duties and responsibilities in a system of political representation. They must realize that the positions they are holding come with huge responsibility. They are merely the extension of people's power and their ultimate duties and responsibilities are being professionally serving the public, not only their own constituents but the public at large. The representatives should be held accountable to the people whom they supposedly represent.

Problems of Participation

2008-12-22T00:06:00.000-08:00

Larry Diamond has noted in one of his works that one paradox of democracy is that in some circumstances a political system can be made more stably democratic by making it somewhat less representative. At the same time, electoral system is the central rule of the game determining who governs in a polity. Its position is so important that careful steps should be taken before taking any decision to adopt any kind of electoral system, be it the proportional representation, the district system or the mixture of the two. This is what has so far been done by the so called political reformers in the post-Suharto Indonesia. In the name of limiting ethnic or regional movements and promoting more stable politics by encouraging broad-based parties, Indonesian political reformers purposely adopted an electoral system that provides necessary means to achieve the agenda of "stable democratic polity" in Indonesia.

Through a combination of spatial registration for political parties, pressures for smaller parties to amalgamate into larger ones, reductions in the electoral system's proportionality requirement, and regional vote-distribution requirements for presidential elections, political reformers in Indonesia have attempted to engineer the development of a few large parties with a national reach. However, the results of both 1999 and 2004 general elections showed the opposite. Instead of resulting in a moderate multi-partism, the general elections further fragmented the already fragmented party system. While the numbers of parties have reduced significantly in the 2004 general elections, on the contrary, parliamentary fragmentation increased. Measures to promote nationally focused parties and limit the enfranchisement of minorities have had some modest successes, but have not fundamentally changed the nature of electoral politics.

So far as the process of political engineering in Indonesia is concerned, it has been focussing more on protecting the incumbents and the continuance of the status quo. It is yet to focus on utilizing the opportunity to engineer substantial political transformation. Even though legislative framework continued to be enhanced through enactment of new laws prior to the successor election with the aim of creating more credible electoral process and achieving more representative results, this incrementalism has resulted in the elections being tightly scheduled creating major logistical complexity with little time for appropriate planning. Moreover, the drastic reduction in the district magnitude in the 2004 general elections has considerably raised the threshold for electoral victory and made it much more difficult for smaller parties to win seats than at previous elections, when districts were based on entire provinces. This electoral arrangement is considerably more advantageous to the large, well-organized, established parties than towards smaller, new parties, and threatens the prospect of wider political representation.

Several observers had suspected that the prolonged last minute preparation may be deliberate to avoid public scrutiny to the internal political process of the parties in putting forward nomination and as a cloak to shift public attention from demanding political accountability. Furthermore, the tight scheduling is believed to have benefited political elites close to the central party boards and deprived regional candidates. Political oligarchy has been holding captive the efforts to achieve the common good and to improve the process of political representation.

Travails of Indonesian Democracy

2008-12-12T23:28:00.000-08:00

Since the ending of President Suharto’s New Order regime in 1998, Indonesia has been undergoing a systemic transition towards full-fledged democracy encompassing the economy, the political system, the judiciary and societal life. Some of the primary institutional choices pertaining to the structure of government, most notably the relationship between the executive branch and the legislature, have, at least for now, been resolved. Two successfully administered democratic elections in 1999 and 2004, four constitutional amendments and the reform of basic political laws, have also introduced democratic practices and the principles of good governance. New political parties have been allowed to form and contest general elections and the president has been directly elected.

In a huge effort, the country is undergoing the decentralisation of government and services, delegating power from the centre to hundreds of districts and municipalities. The process of Indonesia's transition to democracy is substantially real and the pace in which it tries to absorb and instil democratic practices and the principles of good governance is remarkably impressive.

Despite all the progress on democratisation that has been made, however, the transition is still fragile. Indonesia's economy is struggling to absorb the huge numbers of unemployed and new graduates annually, and poverty, rampant corruption and occasional outbreaks of ethnic violence create a sentiment of mistrust in the government and its institutions. The country’s leaders are forced to redefine the role of government and the relationship with its citizens. The direct election of regional government heads has brought government closer to the people and thereby increases the demand for better services and greater accountability.

Furthermore, in young democracy, the performance of governments in terms of delivering social and economic advancement is critical for legitimacy and political survival. Prolonged failure to meet minimal public expectations invites the possibility of not just the fall of a particular government, or even a series of particular governments, but the breakdowan of democracy. Chronic and severe undeperformance not only begets mounting public dissatisfaction, but opens the door to ambitious political actors who may seek to take advantage of the situation and seize power themselves. Thus it would be dangerous to be complacent about governance in a young democracy such as Indonesia. The reformasi movement which was marked by the downfall of Suharto's regime has not yet been able to achieve the ultimate goal of entrenching the principles of good governance and substantial democracy in Indonesia.

De-radicalizing the Radicals: A Proposal

2008-07-31T03:04:00.000-07:00

Bahtiar Effendy recently wrote an interesting article about the problems of combating terrorism in Indonesia (The Jakarta Post, 21/07/2008). He has rightly pointed out that one of the most important problems in combating terrorism is the lack of any serious efforts by the government to address the theological or doctrinal basis for terrorism.

Recent project by the Partnership for Governance Reform and Crime Prevention Foundation in Indonesia (LCKI) from May to December 2007 which focused on finding alternative mechanism of managing terror prevention efforts in Indonesia arrived at three broad suggestions. First, structurally, it suggests the establishment of a national coordinating body for countering terrorism under the control of the president. It is responsible for effectively coordinating cross-sector activities by different anti-terrorism agencies in the prevention and management of terrorism. Planning, organizing, implementing, monitoring, controlling as well as providing financial support for joint programs to prevent and tackle terrorism will become the main focus of this body. It will not take over the specific functions attached to the existing agencies but instead it will harmonize these functions, to make them efficient, more effective and focused on the common objectives.

Second, instrumentally, there is a need to re-arrange an umbrella law on the prevention and management of terrorism in Indonesia that will consist of: (a) formulation of an umbrella law for the establishment of a national counter terrorism agency, (b) strengthening of the existing umbrella law, particularly the refinement of Law No. 15/2003 on Terrorism Crime, (c) formulation of laws related to radical and anarchic organizations, (d) policy formulation on the effectiveness of intelligence reports, (e) socialization of national policies and strategies on terrorism eradication, and (f) adjustment of the national laws to relevant international laws, particularly international conventions which so far have been ratified by Indonesia.

Third, culturally, there is a need to engage various religious bodies and figures to create better awareness of the community on legal issues and different aspects of terrorism. This so-called soft-power approach or de-radicalization process through intensive direct engagement and dialogue will become an important entry point to achieve what Bahtiar has mentioned as addressing the theological or doctrinal basis for terrorism.

The three suggestions or objectives above are not easy to achieve. Theoretically, the first two (structural and instrumental objectives) could successfully be achieved through the use of intensive public pressure to the executive and legislative bodies to conduct and formulate necessary strategies on this matter. Legal-formal approach through existing democratic channels should maximally be utilized as a strategy to achieve the objectives.

On the other hand, the third objective is more delicate to achieve than the first two objectives. Altering or making a change to one’s mindset is not an easy task to do. Brainwashing strategies are not the best known and appropriate activities to achieve this objective in a democratic society. Instead intensive dialogue and communication would be deemed more acceptable and appropriate approach to achieve this objective.

Politics is about managing problems and democracy allows this process. Different views and opinions should be allowed to emerge and solutions are achieved through discussions and consultations.

One possible, tangible step that can be proposed as an entry point to arrive at this target of altering the mind of radical groups is through the introduction and dissemination of human right values. The fact that all religions teach human rights and that respect of human life and all living beings is an integral part of religious teachings should provide an opening for an intensive discussion and communication with these groups. This process should lead to a common ground that all acts of terrorism and radicalism are contrary to human right values.

Better understanding of human rights and respect of human life and living beings would, in my view, help radical groups to understand better about the differences of various elements in the society they are a part of. It would help them in exercising and practicing their religious teachings better. Fateful incident such as Monument National incident on 1 June 2008 would be avoidable in future.

It should be noted here that this proposal is not easy to achieve. Any absence of goodwill or willingness from the groups to learn about the subject such as human rights could become a huge stumbling block. The nature of exclusivity in such groups should become matter of concern before embarking on this proposal.

However, to be optimist, this proposal should be tried and tested. Thus, the role of civil society organizations in this matter is so important, especially in the current context of democratization in Indonesia. For de-radicalization process of radical Muslim groups in Indonesia, the role of NU and Muhammadiyah as two leading civil society organizations in Indonesia should be accounted for. They must play a vanguard position to ensure that Islam is really a religion that is rahmatan lil ‘alamin.

At the same time, the media as the fourth pillar of republic should also play important role in providing information, education and bringing up discourses related to this issue so that an integrated effort could be established to achieve this objective.

It will be a long process though but worth to try.

Capital Punishment: Yes or No?

2008-07-28T00:37:00.000-07:00

In the past one week, debate over the implementation of capital punishment in Indonesia has become the headlines in several TV stations. Two opposite camps have been pitched against each other, debating the pro and con on the issue. The executions of five convicts who have been found guilty of drug trafficking and planned murder in July 2008 alone have triggered the debate: “Should capital punishment (death penalty) be retained or be abolished altogether in Indonesia?”

The abolitionist, the group who opposes capital punishment, argues that, first, the right to life cannot be abrogated at any cost by anyone and the state is held responsible in ensuring this situation. Thus a convict who has been proven guilty for serious crime cannot be punished with capital punishment instead he/she should be put in jail for the longest term possible.

Second, decision by the Indonesian government to ratify the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) into Law No. 12/2005 should make it mandatory for Indonesia to abolish capital punishment. Life imprisonment is the only alternative to punish any serious criminal offence, and not capital punishment if Indonesia wants to move forward in this globalized world.

Third, Article 28I (1) of 1945 Constitution guarantees the right to life of each and every Indonesian citizen. It is inline with the ICCPR and Law No. 12/2005. Retaining death penalty in Indonesian penal code (KUHP) is a contradiction and a proof of inconsistency in Indonesian constitutional law system.

Finally, on the question of justice for the victim, the group argues that by punishing the perpetrator with death penalty, it does not do justice to the suffering being inflicted by the crime that has been committed. Life imprisonment will, in their opinion, bring more justice to the victim since it will amount to multiple miseries, both mentally and physically, to the perpetrator.

On the contrary, the retentionists who support the implementation of capital punishment in Indonesia argue that Indonesia is a sovereign, independent state which, even though it ratified the ICCPR, but it has the constitutional right to define what serious crimes are and the type of punishment to these crimes. ICCPR gives this options and it has nothing to do with Indonesia’s future in this globalized world.

Besides, even though the Indonesian Constitution guarantees the right to life of each and every Indonesian citizen, but in the same Constitution, the right to life can still be taken by the state for certain reasons restricted by law for the sole purposes of guaranteeing the recognition and respect of the rights and freedoms of others.

Moreover, argument of inconsistency in the Constitution has been ruled out by recent ruling issued by Indonesian Constitutional Court on Decision No. 2-3/PUU-V/2007. The ruling says that there is no inconsistency on this matter and at present, Indonesia still needs the application of capital punishment for serious crimes categorized under the international laws.

On the question of justice, capital punishment still holds justice to any serious crimes committed by a perpetrator. However, there is a necessity to look into the legal process in order to arrive at a justifiable final conclusion of applying capital punishment to such crimes. Competent judges and legal system in a country holds the most prominent position in this matter.

In our view, since it has been officially interpreted as constitutional, therefore capital punishment should still be applicable in Indonesia. Apart from being utilized as a deterrent for the perpetrators of serious crimes, ratification of ICCPR does not mean that Indonesia cannot decide what is applicable and what is not, especially in relation to capital punishment.

Even though majority of nations in the world has approved the abolition of capital punishment (129 of 196 countries), but being the minority in this matter shall not make Indonesia incapable of fitting into the new world. As a sovereign nation, Indonesia has all the rights to decide its own future.

The right to live is for everyone, both for the perpetrators and the victims alike. The Constitution guarantees that right and, in our opinion, it is both for the state and the citizens to respect and uphold this basic human right.

With democracy that allows transparency and by revamping and improving Indonesian legal system, the question of justice and the application of capital punishment should not be a problem in Indonesia. Instead, it will bring better future for Indonesia as a democratic society.

Note: Pan Mohammad Faiz, S.H., M.C.L. from Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, India who is currently working at Indonesian Constitutional Court, has added his views in this article.

It is Time to Party

2008-07-11T00:52:00.000-07:00

Finally, the long awaited list has been announced. The Indonesian Elections Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum – General Elections Commission, KPU) has just announced the prospective political parties that will be eligible for April 2009 general elections. If the 2004 general elections had 21 contestants, the 2009 elections will have 34 political parties that will fight for seats in the Indonesian parliament and the nomination of the next Indonesian president. 16 of them are political parties that won at least a seat in the Indonesian parliament in 2004 elections while the remaining parties are new parties that have passed the long verification process conducted by the KPU.

It should be noted here that only party or coalition of parties that have at least 15 percent of the seats in the parliament can field a candidate for presidency. Thus the competition for 2009 elections will be tight.

Even though big names like Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle (PDI-P) and Golkar Party will dominate the contest, but there are resurgent players that might disrupt the party. The Islamist party, Welfare and Justice Party (PKS), the most successful cadre party in Indonesia, continues its good showing in local elections and will likely to continue the trend up until 2009 general elections. Their latest achievement in local elections was by beating candidates fielded by PDI-P as well as Golkar Party by a good margin in West Nusa Tenggara gubernatorial elections. Tracking poll conducted by different pollsters support this trend.

Besides, new players like Partai Hanura, led by ex-army chief of staff, retired general Wiranto, and Gerindra Party, led by another ex-army general Prabowo Soebijanto, should be players to watch. Their vigorous campaign and abundant source of fund should become a matter of concern by other parties.

Indonesian transition to democracy has been an up and down journey. Scenes like impeachment of a president, arrests of corrupt lawmakers, riots over fuel price hike, problems of electricity supply have endlessly marked this process. Health problems like malnutrition and suspected bird flu infection in several regions are other matters of concern that needs to be addressed. In addition, unemployment and lack of employment opportunities need be sorted out by the government.

But one thing should be noted here that Indonesia’s transition process to democracy is something inevitable. Indonesian people understand that their future lies in the working of a democracy. Ten years is such a short period to build a real democracy in such a diverse country like Indonesia. However, with the increasing maturity of Indonesian young guns, this transition process will surely find its way to its destination. The next general elections will be crucial for the future of Indonesian democracy and Indonesia as a nation. The world is watching closely, how democracy and Islam, the second largest religion in the world and the religion of the majority population in Indonesia, work hand in hand in Indonesia to achieve a common goal of creating a welfare society.

Do We Need To Boycott Beijing?

2008-04-03T03:01:00.000-07:00

Ever since the riot in Lasha early last month after the arrest of some 60 monks dominated the headlines of newspapers across the globe, there is a mounting pressure from different quarters to boycott the upcoming Olympics to be held in Beijing in October. From France, the French President, Nicholas Sarkozy called for a boycott to the Games and it was echoed by his Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, who has said that the European Union should consider punishing China with a boycott of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

Robert Meynard, the head of the Reporters without Borders, called for the same action and has urged the “world’s big democracies to find the courage” to boycott the Olympics.

On earlier occasions, too, there have been attempts to sabotage the Olympics. The boycott by many Western countries of the 1980 Moscow Olympics when the Cold War was at its height is a notable example.

Earlier, a conference held in Delhi in June last year by a group that calls itself “Friends of Tibet” focused on ways to use the upcoming Olympics to highlight the issue of “free Tibet” globally. The Beijing Olympics, many participants of the conference emphasized, was the “one chance” for the Tibetans to come out and protest. A call was issued for worldwide protests and a march of Tibetan exiles in India and Nepal to Lhasa was also announced to coincide with the opening of the Games.

Across the Atlantic, some members of the American House of Representatives submitted their formal objection to the plan by President Bush to attend the opening ceremony of the Games in Beijing.

But, do we really need to boycott the Games?

I still remember in July 2006 when the Indonesian Tennis Association (Pelti) decided not to send the Indonesian Fed Cup Tennis Team to play against Israel in Tel Aviv in a protest to the Israeli government's continuing occupation of Palestine. This protest let the Israeli team to advance to the next stage of championship while the Indonesian team must suffer from the penalty by the ITF for its failure to play. Apart from the administrative penalty, the Indonesian Fed Cup team was also suspended for the whole one year from the competition. It was only last year that the Indonesian Fed Cup team could re-join the competition.

As a tennis lover, I was disappointed by the incident because the valiant effort by the Indonesian Fed Cup team to win a position in the play-off in New Delhi in 2005 had gone in vain. Politics has taken over the beauty of the game of tennis.

However, personally, I firmly understood the decision to boycott the game. Indonesians and the Indonesian government are known for their long history of support towards the Palestinian cause. Thus the atrocities conducted by the Israeli government towards the Palestinians are undeniably irresponsible and should be stopped.

A similar decision was once taken by the Indian Davis Cup team in the 1974 when they refused to play against South Africa in protest of the apartheid policy in South Africa.

But, I do not think that we have to boycott the Games. The Games is about sport and sportsmanship, no politics is allowed.

I do sympathize with the Tibetans and give my full support to their cause. But I also want to see the successful celebration of sports in the form of the Olympics. The Games must go on and we have to support the Chinese government's effort to guarantee its successful organization.

If we have to boycott the Games, we should have done it in the first place when Beijing was chosen as the host of this year's Olympics. Trying to obstruct the successful organization of the Games now is like a hypocrite who is afraid to say no when the announcement about Beijing was done and now is trying to steal the world's attention as a show of sympathy towards the Tibetans.

What about human right abuses in Iraq, in Afghanistan or in Guantanmo Bay?

I believe that Tibet is the domestic problem of China and the Chinese government is trying to solve it. As a suggestion, it is only through dialogue that the problem of Tibet could be resolved. The use of force will only heightened the hatred and rebellious attitude of the oppressed while dialogue will pave the way for peaceful solution to the problem. Putting Dalai Lama in an equal position and making him as a partner in the dialogue, I believe, will be the best way to solve the problem and the Olympics must go on.

Threat of Transnational Crime

2008-04-02T03:09:00.000-07:00

In 2001, Osama bin Laden filled the headlines of newspapers across the globe. His sin was being accused as the man behind the WTC tragedy in September 11, 2001 in New York. In late March 2008, Geert Wilders, a Dutch MP, received condemnation from Muslims across the globe for his irresponsible act of broadcasting a derogatory documentary film towards Islam on the internet. At the same time, three Malaysian nationals were arrested by the custom officials at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport for trying to smuggle 9.3 kg of drug to Indonesia.

What is the similarity between the incidents above? It is globalization. Globalization has permitted the movement of people across borders without any hurdles and transnational movement is an undeniable phenomenon at this age.

The term transnationalism was introduced for the first time in the 20th century by Randolph Bourne to describe a new way of thinking on the relationships between cultures. It is a social movement that grows due to interconnectivity between men across the globe and due to the depleting borders among nations.

According to Thomas L Friedman, globalization as the main motor behind transnationalism is a new system in the 21st century which focuses on integration and the abolition of borders between states. Globalization also advocates openness in which it allows the development and the strengthening of civil society which is important in the deepening process of democratic principles. The current democratic process in Indonesia is the resultant of this phenomenon. At the same time, globalization eases the process of transfer of strategic technology to assist the development process in a country.

Apart from the implementation of free market policy, the demolition of Berlin wall that symbolized division of the world and the emergence of internet are key factors that influence the birth of globalization. Friedman says that globalization has three balancing platforms: (1) the traditional balance that defines the relations between nation states; (2) the balance between the global market and the states; (3) the balance between individuals and the nation states.

If the first platform focuses on the role of states, the second platform puts the market as the decision making institution on important happenings in the world. Super power and supermarket are the two dominating power at this period. Meanwhile, the third platform emerged when the borders between states have depleted and the world is fully interconnected by a single global network thus allowing individuals to come on to the world stage at will. The super-empowered individuals are the dominating force at this stage of globalization and their impacts might either be useful or harmful to the global community. And the phenomena described in the beginning of this article represent the capability of these super-empowered individuals.

By using the triple "T" revolution – telecommunication, transportation and technology – these super-empowered individuals are capable of conducting their actions at ease and the resultant of their actions can instantly be felt and known by the rest of the population in this globe. Globalization has given opportunities to these individuals to conduct transnational crimes as well and this phenomenon is undeniably increasing and unavoidable. Indonesia must be prepared to face this new threat.

Containing Transnational Crimes

For Indonesia, the threat of transnational crimes is very much real than ever before. As the biggest archipelagic country in the world, Indonesia needs to build a comprehensive national security system to contain the threats in its various forms, be it the illegal logging, illegal fishing, terrorism, human trafficking, smuggling of drugs as well as other forms of transnational crimes. International cooperation is importantly needed to fight this dreadful menace.

One of the strategies is by adopting the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime established in November 2000. The Convention allows the signatory countries to avail international support and cooperation in setting up a series of measures against transnational organized crime. These include the creation of domestic criminal offences to combat the problem, and the adoption of new, sweeping frameworks for mutual legal assistance, extradition, law-enforcement cooperation and technical assistance and training. Thus it allows the successful containment of the threats of transnational crimes.

Besides, the Indonesian government must meticulously studies the root cause of this threat in Indonesia. By providing facilities and the opening of job market in Indonesia, the government will, I believe, be successful in preventing the locals from being tempted to be irresponsible super-empowered individuals. Transnational crime is a threat brought by globalization and Indonesia must be prepared to fight it at all cost.

Monks as Agents of Change

2008-03-25T05:15:00.000-07:00

So far as the tradition in the Buddhism is concerned, worldly affairs are beyond the concern of the monks. Instead, achieving the purity of life and spiritual happiness become a life time dedication for these holy men. Once a Buddhist decides to choose a life as a monk, he/she has to relinquish his/her worldly desires and surrenders his/her life for the sake of spiritual happiness.

Recent phenomena, however, seem to have shown a departure from this tradition. Recent incidents of worldly affair involving these holy men described the better half of a monk's life. In Myanmar, they marched down the streets of Myanmar's major cities to demand the restoration of democracy and justice there. The endless suffering of the Myanmar people at the hands of the military junta has transported the monks beyond their spiritual lives.

Similarly, the latest incident in Tibet seemed to echo the previous monk-inspired social agitation in Myanmar. The Tibetan monks marched down the street of Lasha, the capital of Tibet, in a peaceful demonstration to demand freedom and abolition of injustices there. The Chinese iron rule in Tibet has made the Tibetans suffer. The Tibetans have been facing grave injustices from the decade long Chinese occupation.

But why did these monks rebel and go against the Buddhist tradition of non-interference on worldly affairs?

The answer to the question might come from the fact that monks are also human, like the rest of the population. They are integral part of the society, the most respected one in a Buddhist society. Even though the life of a monk is dedicated solely to the non-worldly affairs and the attainment of spiritual happiness but being in the highest order in the society, the monks are responsible for keeping the balance of life in the society. Thus, the presence of any form of injustice which obstructs the balance of life in a society cannot be tolerated and should be banished. The decision by the monks to choose the path of agitation through peaceful demonstrations should not be construed as a departure from their tradition of non-interference on worldly affairs. Instead, it is their responsibility to fight against injustices as an implementation of Buddha's teachings.

In Myanmar, the monks could no longer tolerate the injustices suffered by the Myanmar people. Their rights as the citizens of the State have been robbed and curtailed by the military junta that long has been controlling the small, natural resource rich nation in Southeast Asia. Thus, it was time for the monks to fight against this injustice and peacefully march down the street to assert moral pressure to the authority. They hoped that their peaceful march would turn into noise that could be heard by the authority and injustice in Myanmar can be abolished.

The latest incident involving the Buddhist monks in Tibet bore similarity to the one in Myanmar. The Tibetan monks could no longer tolerate the control of the Chinese government there. The Tibetan people have been robbed from their basic rights. Acceding to the data from London School of Economic, the double digit annual economic growth in Tibet fails to improve the socio-economic condition of the Tibetans. The minority Han community in Tibet are the one who benefits the most from it while the majority of the Tibetans are living in poverty. 40 percent of them are illiterate and only 15 percent Tibetans are educated, the lowest in China (60 percent). The Tibetan people must thus fight for their freedom and the monks led the way.

Not all the initiatives by these holy men, however, resulted in positive change. In Myanmar, the junta responded the demonstration with force and violent response. They arrested the monks and threatened these holy men not to repeat the act or face severe consequences. The demand for change went into deaf ears and injustice prevails.

Similarly, the demand for greater autonomy in Tibet that long has been advocated by Dalai Lama has so far not yielded any positive result. Tibet is still under the iron control of the Chinese government and the Tibetans are still suffering from injustice, both socially and economically.

It is important to note here, however, that in both Myanmar and Tibet the Buddhist monks have played important role in advocating change and fighting against injustices in their society. Even though their valiant efforts have not yet yield any visible change but they have played a role as agents of change. And better change is arriving, sooner rather than later.

Should we protest the visit of Israeli MPs to Indonesia?

2007-04-25T20:56:00.000-07:00

After the fall of Thaksin’s government by a bloodless military coup in September last year, Indonesia must now bear the consequences. Thailand was scheduled to host this year’s Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU) meeting. But in the absence of a democratically elected parliament in Thailand, Indonesia has been honored to host this meeting which will be held in Bali from 29 April – 3 May 2007.

Established in 1889, IPU has now more than 140 members and Indonesia is also a member of this Union. The appointment of Indonesia as a host for this year’s meeting should be welcomed with open arms and should be seen as a show of recognition from the international world that Indonesia is a working democracy. On the contrary, protests and objections have been raised by various Muslim organizations towards the government. Israel is the main point of argument in these protests.

As a member of IPU, Israel will participate and send its MPs as a delegate in this meeting. But as the scheduled meeting is getting nearer, protests and objections have been raised even louder over the proposed visit by Israeli MPs to Indonesia to attend the meeting.

The President of Nahdlatul Ulama (the biggest Muslim organization in Indonesia) KH Hasyim Muzadi said in Jakarta on Monday (23/4) that Indonesia would bear a heavy psycho-political and security burden if the government allows Israeli MPs to attend the meeting. Politically speaking, the arrival of these MPs in the meeting is the sole responsibility of the IPU, but Indonesian government is fully responsible for their safety and security during their stay in Indonesia.

According to Muzadi, imminent dangers from various elements in the Indonesian society towards the visiting Israeli MPs in Indonesia should become an important consideration for Indonesian government before granting them visa to attend the meeting in Bali. Security and safety is the core issue in this matter.

Furthermore, he predicted that considering the possible reaction from Indonesians, the Israeli Parliament would abandon the plan to attend the meeting in Bali. But on the contrary, he doubted the firmness of Indonesian government to reject any visa application from Israeli MPs regardless of any availability of pressures towards the government.

At the same time, rejections also come from the President of Muhammadiyah (the second biggest Muslim organization in Indonesia), Din Syamsuddin. He said that Israel has been illegally occupying Palestine, it is practicing colonization. In the opening of Indonesian Constitution 1945, it is clearly stated that Indonesia rejects colonization in any forms. Thus it is normal for Indonesians to reject the proposed visit by the Israeli MPs to Indonesia.

Furthermore, according to Syamsuddin, as a sovereign nation, Indonesia possesses tradition as well as rules and regulations that must be observed. It cannot easily bow to foreign pressures. Protests should be continued if the government is still stubborn and allows Israeli MPs to visit Indonesia. These protests should be used as pressures to the Indonesian government to consistency follow its own principles, he argued.

Other Muslim organization like the Forum for Muslim Community (FUI) also rejects the proposed visit. Rejecting the claim by Indonesian Foreign Minister that Indonesia is bound by international convention thus must accept the proposed visit by Israeli MPs to Indonesia, the written statement of FUI says that Indonesian government does not have any diplomatic relation with Israel thus it must reject the plan.

Considering the reasons described above, it would be unwise for the Indonesian government to allow the delegate of Israeli MPs to visit Indonesia. Besides security as the main reason, allowing Israeli MPs to visit Indonesia would mean the recognition of Israel as an independent state. Indonesia has never recognized Israel since it is practicing colonization. Furthermore, the Indonesian Constitution is clearly against colonization thus allowing Israeli MPs to visit Indonesia means perpetuation of colonization.

However, it should be noted here that Indonesian government has not been so consistent in its policy towards Israel. Even though it forbade Indonesian Fed Cup Team to play a mandatory tie with the Israeli team in Tel Aviv, Israel, last year citing the absence of any diplomatic tie with Israel, the Indonesian government allowed the members of Indonesian Chamber of Commerce (KADIN) to visit Israel last June 2006 to conclude a deal with the Manufacturers Associations of Israel (MAI).

Both have no political implication on Indonesia, purely sport and business, but yet received different treatments.

Thus, if the Indonesian government could allow President George W. Bush to visit Indonesia, the US has been illegally occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, why it cannot allow the Israeli MPs to visit Indonesia?

In my opinion, regardless of what the Israeli government has done towards the Palestinians, but their arrival in Indonesia is the responsibility of the IPU in which Indonesia is also a member. As a responsible host, Indonesian government should allow the delegate from Israel to attend the meeting. I think it is time for Indonesia to re-design its policy towards Israel. If India, a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, can work hand in hand and even opened up a diplomatic tie with the Jewish state without lessening its support to Palestine and the Palestinian people, why Indonesia can’t do the same?

Dialog as a bridge between Islam and the West

2007-04-24T20:54:00.000-07:00

Earlier this month, members of European and Asian parliaments under the banner of Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) met Abdurrahman Wahid, Indonesia’s former President, at his party’s office in Jakarta. Led by ALDE’s chief, Graham Watson, they had a discussion on the need to build a bridge between Islam and the West.

According to Wahid, currently, there is a global tendency to institutionalize Islam instead of adopting Islam as a culture. This situation has made Islam in a collision course with the West. They both claim to be the savior of humanity thus putting them in an enmity.
Globalization has partly contributed to this situation. The fact that in globalized world, the world has become “flat”, to use the term coined by Thomas L. Friedman, and a small village has been created in which each and every member of the communities that live in the village bumps into and interacts with each other. Globalization has obliterated any distance that ever exists.

Thus collisions, frictions and fierce competitions become inevitable. Survival of the fittest becomes the rule that everyone must embrace. And current trend, in which domination of Western civilization upon global village has become apparent, has made other group, in this case Islam, to feel insecure. The recent development of Islam in Indonesia provides example to this phenomenon.

Several Muslim groups in Indonesia advocate an aggressive stance toward the West. They believe that Islam is incompatible with the West and seek to destroy it. Their diminutive number yet aggressive and opposing stance over the “enemy of Islam” have put Indonesian Muslims in a difficult position: to be branded as radicals and fundamentalists.

The feeling of being insecure and threatened has forced people to seek solace and protection from something or someone. When a group feels threatened over a perceived domination by other group, they would dig deep into their own self to seek answers as a rejection of domination. And if Islam, for an example, is threatened by other civilization, by Western civilization for an example, Muslims would dig deep into Islam and come up with ideas and answers to reject that domination. And the efforts to dig deep into one self might give different results which could be contradictory.

The first result is strong rejection and confrontation. By digging deep into Islam, a Muslim might come up with an idea of fundamental Islam that rejects anything that is different. Fundamentalist movements in the name of religion then spruce up to fight the “enemy”. Thus if the domination of the West is perceived as a threat to Islam, it must then be rejected and confronted with all force. Violence and force must be maximally utilized to implement this idea and as a show of force that they exist. Furthermore, these fundamentalists believe that Islam must win over Western civilization with all costs.

The second result brings about the moderate values and principles of Islam and teaches its followers to confront any differences wisely and with an open heart. This has been reflected in what is called moderate Islam. Moderate Muslims put Islam as a way of life that possesses a high degree of tolerance towards other groups or followers of other religions for the sake of creating a harmonious society in the midst of disparities and differences. Moderation is the key and Islam teaches its followers to be moderate. Thus any perceived threats to Islam must be solved wisely through the process of dialogs and discussions to find the middle way and to avoid confrontation and the use of force.

From the illustration above, we find that from one source there are two contradictory results: first, a proposal of fundamentalism and the use of force and violence; and, second, moderation and dialog as tools to solve problems and differences.

So far, the first group, though in minority, has been dominating the limelight with their aggressive actions. They stole the show and successfully painted a bleak picture of Islam: Islam means violence. Meanwhile, the second group, the majority of Muslims, has been in silence and unable to project the moderate values of Islam. They seem to struggle to erase the depiction of Islam as a religion of violence. Thus, it is time to re-define Islam.

Islam rejects violence and the use of force to solve problems. Instead, Islam clearly advocates dialog and discussion to find the middle way. Muslims must understand this principle in order to change the current the situation. Loud rejection of violence and the use of force along with the promotion of dialog and discussion to solve problems by the moderate Muslims will, I believe, erase the depiction of Islam as a religion of violence.

Furthermore, reciprocal action must also be taken to successfully change the situation. Non-Muslims, notably the West, must also help this process. Both sides need to embark upon developing sustainable dialog to understand each other’s culture and civilization. It is only through this process of dialog and willingness to understand each other’s culture and civilization that any clash between the two in this globalized world can be avoided and the notion of fundamentalism and radicalism can be suppressed.

Indonesian political parties fail to produce new leaders

2007-04-23T20:50:00.000-07:00

Almost a decade after the momentous moment of reform movement in 1998, Indonesian political parties fail to produce new leaders. Latest survey conducted recently by Indonesian national daily, Kompas, showed that political parties in Indonesia failed to produce future national leaders. The lack of cadre-based political party and the domination of mass-based political parties become an important reason for this failure.

According to the survey, current Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono still leads the pack followed by Megawati Soekarnoputri, Abdurrahman Wahid and Amien Rais. Other names like current Vice-President Jusuf Kalla, Sultan Hamengkubuwono X of Yogyakarta Sultanate and Hidayat Nurwahid are also there but their popularity is still small.

Direct pilkada (local executive elections) held during this period also failed to produce quality leaders. Most of the winners in these elections are non-party personalities who are either gone after their tenures end or convicted in corruption charges. Political pragmatism among political parties for the sake of winning these elections has worsened this situation. The process that was hoped to produce national leaders through local elections has failed. Two years before general elections in 2009 no new, fresh faces that yet to emerge. It is quite unfortunate for political parties in a young democracy like Indonesia to fail in producing quality cadres.

Several reasons have been put forward by politicians and political analysts as to why political parties fail to produce new, quality cadres. They believe that the current political laws that forbid civil servants to join active politics have contributed to the absence of first-class citizens to be involved in active politics. Most of them work as civil servant and mostly teach in government universities, thus making them unable to join active politics without first resigning from their status as civil servants. The uncertainty of their future in politics has held them back from joining active politics.

Besides, the lack of transparency in the internal political process in the political parties has also contributed to this situation. The failure of party elites fail to delegate strategic positions to the right personalities has indirectly forced professionals to avoid active politics. Favoritism and personal connection are the rules of the game. At the same time, rampant practice of money politics, especially in the pilkada, adds to the problem.

Furthermore, the lack of quality human resource in the political parties becomes a huge stumbling block to the process of expanding and educating party cadres. Thus, this situation has made it difficult for political parties to produce quality local leaders that could be projected as national leaders in the future. In the end, political parties turn to non-party cadres but qualified personalities as their candidates in the elections.

If the transition process to democracy in Indonesia is to be successful, this situation must be put to an end. Some drastic, radical changes must be taken to force political parties to produce quality leaders.

First, current political laws on political party membership must be amended. It should allow those first class citizens who currently live in the ivory towers to join active politics. Political parties must change their mindset and must then open themselves to professionals and first class citizens to be their members and party cadres. Once quality party cadres have been created, local elections can be used as their mini battle ground while national election will be the real target. Pragmatism among political parties must also be discontinued.

Secondly, creation of a law to accommodate the promotion of young leaders at national level must be prepared to guarantee their acceptance in the political circles. This kind of reservation would help young leaders to prepare themselves before receiving leadership baton from their seniors. It could also be used as a means to erase political apathy among young minds.

But before all those suggestions could be put forward, party leaders and party elites must understand and realize that political elitism and political oligarchy in political parties must be put to an end. They must open themselves to the public. Once elitism and political oligarchy in the political parties have diminished new faces and bright minds would easily be absorbed and be a part of the system. First-class citizens would also feel that there is a chance for them to practice their theories in an active politics to answer the expectations and to improve the lives and welfares of common people. In the end, the combination of these steps would help political parties to produce future Indonesian leaders with strong leadership, professionalism, excellent expertise and capability.

Indonesia and Resolution 1747: The Policy of Inconsistency?

2007-04-17T01:41:00.000-07:00

Ever since Indonesia decided to vote in support of the UN Security Council Resolution 1747 on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program late last month, the reactions at home have been snowballing. Immediately after the vote, majority of Indonesian MPs decided to use their right to question the government on its foreign policy decision. Demonstrations have been held on the streets to protest the decision.

These protests and demonstrations throughout the country are reflections of solidarity towards Iran. They believe that the decision was a failure by the Indonesian government to protect its national interests and to follow the Indonesia’s principles of free and active foreign policy. Strong pressures from Washington have forced Indonesia to agree with the majority members of the UNSC on the Iranian issue. It was unable to say ‘no’ when it needed to say so.

Indonesian government has failed to play a leading role in this matter. Being the biggest country in the Muslim world and a member of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference), Indonesia should have played a leading role to defend the right of Iran, also a member of the OIC, to pursue its dream to develop nuclear technology. It should have gone further as to persuade Malaysia and Qatar, two other OIC member countries who are also the members of the UNSC, to reject the Resolution.

Thus, according to these protesters, Indonesian government has adopted the policy of inconsistency: it welcomed Iran as a partner in the development of nuclear technology but leaving Iran alone when it needed a friend to defend its right of developing such technology for “peaceful purposes”.

Contrary to these claims, however, the decision by the Indonesian government to support the Resolution must be seen as a diplomatic victory for Indonesia. Those who oppose this decision failed to read what have been written between the lines. If we really read the Resolution 1747 carefully, we will find that the Indonesian government fully supports the right of the Iranians to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. But at the same time, Indonesia will vehemently oppose any country which develops nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

An important clause proposed by Indonesia that was inserted in the resolution clearly reads “… a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including their means of delivery.”

Thus, the concern is not about Iran, Israel, Egypt or any other Middle Eastern countries but the Middle East that must become a nuclear free region. Nuclear weapons such as currently possessed by Israel and other countries in this region should be dismantled.

With this fact in mind, the UN Security Council Resolution 1747 on Iranian nuclear program should, first, be seen as a victory of Indonesian diplomacy. Indonesia succeeded in putting its influence on this important matter. It did not ape Washington and its allies. Indonesia was not under strong pressure from Washington either. On the contrary, it showed the independency of Indonesia, a reflection of Indonesia’s free and active foreign policy.

Secondly, the Indonesian government’s policy on Iranian issue has been consistent. It fully supports the right of Iran to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It embraces Iran as a potential partner in the development of the technology in Indonesia. But at the same time Indonesia will vehemently oppose any efforts to divert the technology for military purposes. The clause inserted in the Resolution that has been proposed by Indonesia means that the success of resolving the Iranian nuclear issue would trigger a positive wave in creating a nuclear free region in particular and a nuclear free world in general. The decision to support the Resolution was based on the fact that, according to the IAEA, Iran has not been fully cooperative with the IAEA as a necessary measure to ensure that nuclear program developed by Iran is truly for peaceful purposes.

Thus claiming that the Indonesian government has failed the interests of Indonesian people by supporting the Resolution is a misunderstanding. On the contrary, the support given by the Indonesian government to the Resolution showed the maturity and consistency of Indonesian government in pursuing a free and active foreign policy. It also sets a positive signal to the world that Indonesia is now ready to take a leading role as a member of the UNSC.

Dialectics of Party – Movement: A Note on PKB’s “Green Party” Declaration

2007-03-11T00:51:00.000-08:00

Theoretically, political parties and movements are different but sometimes are in collusion to reap the biggest benefit possible. While parties tend to organize on the basis of numbers, movements organize themselves on the basis of beliefs. Electoral success and therefore numbers matter to most parties thus it entails a tendency to be inclusionary and to compromise principles more readily than movements would. They mobilize most extensively just before elections and if elected, it is likely to subside.

By contrast, movements tend to be more committed, more uncompromising, and sometimes more exclusionary. They also tend to view mobilization as an end in itself, a source of creativity, empowerment, and identity-building rather than simply a route to achieving power. Thus movements tend to have more confrontational, spontaneous and open-ended mobilization than that of political parties.

These differences may be mutually advantageous. While allying with social movements is likely to heighten parties’ aura of being committed, egalitarian, and grassroots-based, the movements which ally themselves with political parties may achieve longevity, national prominence and political access. But these differences can also become source of tension. For example, the tendency of movements to use militancy, violent agitations and non-negotiable offer are in contrast with the methods and tendency of political parties to make compromises for electoral benefits. Thus, when this situation occurs, split is the most likely result.

On the basis of these theoretical facts, the declaration of the PKB as a green party recently needs to be scrutinized further. Because PKB is a political party while its new political agenda on the concept of environmental preservation is more movement-like theme.

Two reasons can be described here why the PKB suddenly took the issue of environmental preservation as its main political agenda. The first is the increasing challenge from other Muslim parties like the PPP, PAN, PKS and PKNU to win the support from Indonesian Muslims in the upcoming general elections. While the PAN and the PKS have built their own support base through their party cadres, the PPP, the PKNU and the PKB share similar background. They were born out of a single community, the Nahdatul Ulama community.

Thus if they have to fight it out in the elections to win the support of the NU community, the most likely result is the split of those votes into three opposing parties. It needs to be noted here that while the PKB and the PKNU were splinter groups from the PPP, the PKNU is born out of dissatisfaction of several PKB’s cadres over its leadership.

Second is the ambition of the PKB leadership to expand its support base. They understand that the party cannot solely rely on its traditional supporters, the NU community, when they have to fight it out against the PPP and the PKNU. The need to increase PKB’s political tally in the 2009 general elections forced the PKB leadership to take a new strategy. Thus by taking the issue of environmental preservation it hopes to expand its support base and to embrace wider audiences. Moreover, the PKB seems to describe itself as a “committed, egalitarian and grassroots-based” political party.

Environmental issues are usually voiced by NGOs to challenge governmental policies. By taking the stance of a movement, the PKB is unconsciously transforming itself as an opposition group. In a political system where the word “opposition” is still regarded as a taboo, PKB’s new avatar should be welcomed.

It should be noted, however, that the PKB should be careful in taking up environmental issues and not to be trapped in the interests of the NGOs and foreign agencies as Abdurrahman Wahid has rightly said. Because when they are indulged in popular environmental issues but unable to propose any solution, the PKB would lost the momentum it builds and get immersed in the sea of conflicting interests.

For a party to take a popular issue usually brought by a movement or NGO is interesting. Moreover, environmental issues have now become a global concern. Even an Al Gore, ex-US Vice President, took this kind of issue to global audiences and received wide support. Thus the decision by the PKB to take this issue as its political manifesto in the next election should be regarded as a huge step. We should now wait and see how this decision could be implemented into concrete actions.

If an Al Gore got an Oscar for his work on environmental issues, who knows that the PKB would get additional support in the 2009 elections.

Gus Dur, the PKB and a “Green Party”

2007-02-26T06:33:00.000-08:00

Ex-Indonesia's President, Abdurrahman Wahid or Gus Dur, has been known for his wits and his ability to coin and popularize new vocabularies. Vocabularies like kyai khos, kyai sepuh and kyai Langitan (the chosen Muslim preachers, the senior Muslim preachers and the Muslim preachers from Langitan, respectively) were coined by Gus Dur and became popular not only among his followers, the Nahdatul Ulama community, but also among Indonesians in general. The latest is his reference to kyai kampung – village Muslim preachers, as oppose to kyai sepuh.

According to Gus Dur while most of those kyai sepuh have become aloof and created distance or barriers from their followers, kyai kampung are more egalitarian and closer to their followers. And in view of growing competition among Muslim parties to build their support base, kyai kampung is meant to intimate the connection of the National Awakening Party (PKB) to its electorate at grass root level. By utilizing the kyai kampung PKB believes that it will create better understanding about its core constituents and hopes to convert this situation into prospective voters who will vote for the PKB in the 2009 general elections. Early this month, the PKB, by using the popularity of Gus Dur, invited thousands of kyai kampung to attend a sermon by Gus Dur in his residence in Ciganjur, South Jakarta. The success of the program prompted the PKB leadership to make it as PKB’s monthly program.

While kyai kampung will help the PKB to reassert itself as the party of traditional Muslims, PKB needs to expand its support base. Thus the declaration of the PKB as partai hijau (green party).

While hijau or green color connotes to Islam, the declaration of PKB as a Green Party is a reference to the greenery, the environment, the nature. The PKB wanted to create more awareness among Indonesians about the degrading condition of global and local environment and the importance of environmental preservation.

It is a public secret that environmental management is absence in Indonesia. Both the government and the Indonesian people seem to be lacking of attention on the importance of managing and preserving the environment. The urge and desire to reap immediate and bigger economic benefits have put their conscience in the backseat. The results are various, mostly man-made, natural calamities such as floods, land slides, drought, forest fire as well as the unending crisis of Lapindo’s dangerous mud flood in Sidoarjo, East Java. Besides the huge amount of lives and materials that have been lost, these calamities have also left the environment in a very bad shape and open to further calamities.

Thus, realizing this degrading environmental situation and the lack of attention to it, the PKB wanted to project itself as a green party and put environmental preservation as its national agenda. Two strategies have been proposed to support this idea. First, the PKB will suggest the amendment of the Constitution, or at least the national law, on environment, forestry and land as well as actively criticizing government’s policies through the eyes of environemental preservation. Secondly, the PKB will pose itself as a party-movement that advocates the needs of environmental preservation by declaring the PKB as a green party. By declaring itself as a green party, the PKB will pioneer the movement to save and preserve the environment.

While the first strategy will take longer course to materialize, the second strategy has already been started. This week, the PKB chose Bali, the Island of Gods, as a place to declare the PKB as a green party. Besides inviting all its regional leaderships, the PKB also invited various local as well as international NGOs like the Green Peace to be a part of this declaration ceremony. Similarly, as a concrete action of this grand idea, the PKB’s General Secretary, Lukman Edy, said that the PKB will order its cadres to plant at least one tree around their residences or in barren areas so that to create responsibility towards environmental preservation.

From various references on kyai (Muslim preacher) to the decision to choose hijau (green) as the color of life or environment, the PKB under the aegis of Gus Dur wants to emulate itself as an inclusive party. Not only the PKB wants to cater to its traditional supporters, it also wants to expand itself into a wider spectrum by choosing environment as its theme. The PKB wants to offer a pro-active solution to the environmental problems. Means that the PKB does not only offer solutions to preserve the environment but it also takes leading position in the movement. It remains to be seen, however, how this grand idea will materialize. Preserving our environment is a necessity and PKB’s grand idea must be seen as a breakthrough that need the full support of everyone regardless of their political affiliations.

PPP: Consolidating Muslim Politics?

2007-01-27T23:57:00.000-08:00

From 30 January to 3 February 2007, the biggest Muslim party in Indonesia, the Unity Development Party (Partai Persatuan Pembangunan, PPP), is holding its Sixth National Conference in Jakarta. Besides electing new party president, the party is also preparing new strategies to face the 2009 General Elections which is two years away.

Having learnt from the failures in the previous elections, the party is eager to improve its performance in the upcoming elections. Faced with fractured party politics, the party needs to find a strategy to consolidate the diverse elements in the society for its advantage. With other Muslim parties struggling to consolidate themselves, it is a perfect moment for the PPP to reformulate and reposition itself as the sole platform for Muslim politics.

If we look back at the history of party politics in Indonesia, we will find that in the 1950s, there was Masyumi (Majelis Syuro Muslimin Indonesia), a party created by the Japanese government in 1943 to become a common platform for Muslim politics. Diverse elements of Muslim politics were represented in this party. The NU, the Muhammadiyah, the Syarikat Islam as well as other Muslim groups merged into this body. Masyumi became a common platform for Indonesian Muslims to voice their political aspirations.

However, history told different story in which persisting conflict of interests in the Masyumi resulted into its split. Disappointed with the party policy, Nahdatul Ulama (NU), the biggest element in the Masyumi, decided to abandon the party to become an independent political body. This split resulted in the failure of Indonesian Muslims to win the 1955 General Elections. They failed to convert their majority number into a single, united voice in a single common platform. Masyumi secured 20.9 percent while the NU gained 18.4 percent. The biggest winner was the nationalist group under the Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI) which gained 22.3 percent of the total votes.

Had there been no split in the Masyumi, they would have been able to win the elections.

The change of guards in the Indonesian politics in the late 1960s was followed with the change of pattern of interaction in the party politics. The multiparty system adopted in the 1950s was abandoned and a simplified party system with two political parties and one service group was introduced. The nationalists and non-Muslim groups were forced to merge into one single party called the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI) while the Islamic leaning groups like the NU, Parmusi, PSII and the Perti were merged into the Partai Pembangunan Indonesia (PPP). A service group called Golkar was established by the regime as its political vehicle to run the country.

Being a common platform for Muslim politics with Islam as its ideology, the PPP succeeded in consolidating the diverse elements of Muslim politics by securing 29 and 28 percents of the total votes in the 1977 and 1982 General Elections respectively. The success of the PPP forced the regime to introduce a common ideology, the Pancasila, as the sole national ideology for all political as well as non-political groupings to eliminate any existing emotional influence of such an ideology like Islam. This policy resulted in the significant reduction of supports for the PPP in which in the 1987 and 1992 Elections, PPP only secured 16 and 17 percents of the total votes respectively.

The absence of Islam as party ideology was one of the reasons for this poor showing. The disappointment of the NU, an important element in the PPP, towards party leadership and the allocation of seats in the Parliament were other reasons for this significant drop of support for the PPP.

Determined to regain its position as a common platform for Muslim politics, the PPP reintroduced Islam as its ideology after the fall of Suharto. But in an era of openness and pluralism, the PPP faces stiff challenges from other Muslim groups. In the last two elections, 1999 and 2004, the Muslim votes were split into diverse Islamic leaning political parties like the PKB, PAN, PKS and other small parties like PBB and PSII. PPP’s leadership failed to utilize its status as an ‘old timer’ as a unifying body for these diverse elements of Muslim politics. It only secured fourth and third position in the last two elections respectively with meager total votes of 10 to 12 percent.

With 2009 elections is two years away, can PPP consolidate Muslim politics? Will the politicians, who are always loaded with ambition and greed to grab power, understand this situation and put aside their egos for common good?

If we look back at the history of Muslim politics in Indonesia, it is unlikely that the PPP can consolidate itself as a common platform for Muslim politics in Indonesia. Even though ideology is important, it cannot guarantee that the PPP will succeed in playing a unifying role. The results of the last two elections are enough to support this statement.

The failure of Muslim politicians to see bigger picture and accept differences for the sake of common, bigger target contributed to the failure of creating a common platform for Indonesian Muslims. To avoid the same failure, honesty and good will among Muslim politicians are necessary to achieve this goal.

Thus, whoever to be elected as the new PPP’s president must understand this situation and utilize this perfect moment for the utmost benefit of the party, the Indonesian Muslims, and for the sake of the future of Indonesia.

Bracing the Nuclear Tide

2006-12-13T06:58:00.000-08:00

Ever since the Iranian and the North Korean nuclear programs became the headlines and the India – US nuclear deal was inked in New Delhi in March this year that subsequently being approved unanimously by the US Congress last week, there has been a tendency among developing nations to follow the India way: building an alternative source of energy through nuclear technology.

With cheaper oil price is nowhere in sight and the possibility of expansion of the technology for peaceful purposes to even those NPT non-signatory states, the nuclear tide is surging high and fast. The latest to join the tide is the oil-rich Arab states, which declared last Sunday that they also want to acquire the technology for peaceful purposes.

Following the footpath of the Developing-8 Group, which declared its intention early this year after a summit in Bali to pursue the N-technology, the new ambition by the Arab states to pursue the same technology needs to be scrutinized. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are known for their substantial oil resources. Under the banner of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the group announced on Sunday that it commissioned a study on setting up a common program in the area of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, which would abide by international standards and laws.

Why these oil-rich Arab states so suddenly and so eagerly want to pursue the N-technology?

If we follow the recent development in this region, there is one very important factor that bothers these Arab states: Iran.

In the past months Iran has been so defiance toward the call by the US government and its European allies to suspend the uranium enrichment to support Iranian nuclear ambition. Even though Iran insists its program is for peaceful purposes including generating electricity, but suspicion among the US government and its European allies is high that Iran is also pursuing nuclear weapon technology.

The Sunni – Shia factor is also on the table. Iran is a Shia state while Sunni Muslims are the majority in the region, including those of six Arab states. With no sign of immediate end of Sunni – Shia sectarian violence and domination of Shia party in Iraq and the overt Iranian support for the Palestinian’s Hamas-led government and the Hezbollah group in Lebanon, there is a growing worry among the Sunni states on the increasing Iran’s influence.

This Iranian factor has forced the Arab states to react. Kuwaiti columnist, Fouad al-Hashem wrote in Al-Watan newspaper that the declaration by the GCC is a clear, strong and courageous message to Iran that GCC nations will not sit and watch while Iran presses forward with its nuclear program. And with the help of their allies, these Arab states want to balance the power equation in the region by developing nuclear technology, even though they do not really need it.

It is true that double standard is apparent on the nuclear technology issue. Iran, a democratic state and a signatory of the nuclear NPT that has been religiously following the guidelines given by the international atomic body, the IAEA, has been prevented from pursuing its rightful choice to develop peaceful nuclear technology.

The US and its European allies have been arguing that Iran is not fully pursuing the technology for peaceful purposes but it intends to build a nuclear weapon technology. Reasons like Iran’s defiance to stop its uranium enrichment program and that Iran is among the largest country in the world that possesses substantial natural resources have been used as the basis of suspecting Iran’s ill intention.

On the other hand, countries like Pakistan, India and Israel, all are non-signatories of the NPT, have developed and possess nuclear technology, both for civilian and military use. Pakistan and India have declared themselves as nuclear power states while Israel has been in denial about its nuclear weapons. But the recent admission by Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in a TV interview in Germany claiming that Israel possesses nuclear weapons proved this double standard.

Asked about Iran’s nuclear program, Olmert said, “… when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France, Israel, Russia?”

Furthermore, with the final approval by the US Congress to a Bill on the Indo – US nuclear deal signed in March this year came this week that will allow the transfer of nuclear technology and material to India, the nuclear apartheid is even clearer.

To conclude, developing nuclear technology is the basic right of any country, be it India, Iran, Indonesia, Israel or even the Gulf countries. This is not an exclusive right of the P-5 nations. As long as the country is acting responsibly and uses the technology for peaceful purposes like generating electricity and medical research, there is no need to prevent them from acquiring such technology. The decision by the GCC to pursue the nuclear path to join the tide should not be of a worry as long as they act responsibly and for the benefit of humanity.

What is needed is strict guidelines and control by an independent international body like the IAEA with regard to the usage and development of such technology so as not to be deviated into military purposes like developing nuclear weaponry. Treaty like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is of no use when even the signatory to the treaty is prevented from developing the technology while the non-signatories of the treaty freely develop the technology.

When there is a possibility to develop cheaper, more sustainable alternative source of energy to suffice the growing, insatiable energy need, why don’t we join the tide and enjoy the ride? Concerns about a regional nuclear arms race is understandable but concerns about the benefits of the technology for humanity is also important.

Is Indonesia a Muslim State?

2006-12-03T03:34:00.000-08:00

Recently, I came across this article discussing the lack of democracy in Muslim world. Citing examples on Muslims states in the Middle Eastern and Gulf region like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Oman, several African states like Libya, Egypt, Morocco and Tanzania as well as in South, Central and Southeast Asian region like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Malaysia, it says that,

“It is hard to find a purely democratic country in the Muslim world, one that is governed by the people directly or through elected representatives. But pseudo-democracies abound and have various names: "guardian controlled," "military-based," "dictator-based," "religious-based," "unstable," "limited" and "puddle," among others.”

I cannot agree more with the statements above. Democracy is visibly lacking, or rather, if it ever exists, it is limited, unstable or controlled like in Malaysia and Iran. But there is a part in the article that made me beg to differ. It says,

“In the largest Muslim state, Indonesia, democracy is unstable. Corruption, communal riots and political clashes have plagued Indonesian democracy.”

While I agree with the fact that corruption, communal violence, political clashes and relative stability are the features of Indonesia in the post-Suharto period, but is Indonesia a Muslim state? What defines it as a Muslim state?

Is it just because the majority of its population follows the teaching of Islam and it is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference then Indonesia is a Muslim state?

What about Suriname or say Thailand? Suriname is a member and Thailand is an observer of the OIC but the majority of their populations do not follow the teachings of Islam. Can we call them as Muslim states merely due to their association with the OIC?

Asghar Ali Engineer once wrote about Islamic state. He said that Islamic state has no Qur’anic sanctions and that, “Muslim countries claiming to be Islamic states are far from these ideals. The greatest ideal projected by the Qur'an is justice ? both in personal conduct and in distribution of wealth. It is conspicuous by its absence in the Muslim countries.”

He further explains that,

“… the Qur'an presents a concept of society, not of any state. … The Qur'an was greatly concerned with establishing a just society. It exhorted the rich to be sensitive to others' suffering and required them to redistribute their wealth and levied Zakat (alms) which was to be spent on the poor. … The Qur'an laid stress on justice and benevolence in all socio-economic matters.”

And as for the Madina state founded by the Prophet in which Islamists believe to be the ideal concept of an Islamic state, Asghar has something to say about it. He said that, “Madina was a pluralist society and there was no attempt whatsoever to impose Islam on anyone unwilling. It was `secular' in as much as plurality of religion was recognized.”

Thus it needs to emphasize here that Qur’an does not explain about an Islamic state but it gives the concept of an ideal society. Furthermore, during Prophet’s tenure as the head of Medina society there was no imposition of Islam on anyone unwilling. The Prophet had given full freedom to all Medina populace to practice their respective religions, be it Christianity or Judaism. Medina was a pluralist, secular society in the sense that there was an equidistance of respect and recognition of the variety of religion.

Now, let’s return to the question about whether Indonesia is a Muslim state or not. Before answering this question, it will be interesting to explain here the basic idea about Indonesia.

Indonesia is a country which has more than 190 million Muslims. More 80 percent of its populace follows the teachings of Islam but Indonesia never declares itself as a Muslim state. The Indonesian state is based on the idea of Pancasila (five principles) that covers the idea of a belief in God, humanitarianism, unity in diversity (pluralism), representative democracy and social justice. It is nowhere to be found in the Indonesian Constitution that mentions about Indonesia being a Muslim State.

As for the Islamists who have been fighting for the establishment of an Islamic state in Indonesia, they have been defeated both through bullets and ballots. The successful suppression of rebellion by Islamists in the turbulent days of the 1950s and the results of the democratically administered general elections in Indonesia held in 1955, 1999 and 2004 are clear proof to this conviction. In these elections, even though Islamist parties secured quite a number of votes but they never came up as a majority in a country where more than 80 percent of its populace follows Islam. Secular-nationalist and religious-nationalist parties secured better results in these elections.

The recent and current resurgence of Islamic leaning parties in Indonesian politics needs not to be worried. It is just an integral part of an evolving Indonesian democracy. The recent media coverage about the imposition of local laws based on Islamic tenets by a ruling Islamic party in their districts has been blown out of proportion to create an impression that Indonesia is controlled by Islamists. Islamists do not control Indonesia.

It must be remembered here that even though these so-called Islamic parties supported an Islamic ideology, but once they go to the masses to appeal for their votes in the elections, they choose political pragmatism over ideology. Because they know Islamism does not sale and the voters know that it is the economy, social justice, eradication of corruption and eradication of other social illness that matter the most.

Thus to say that Indonesia is a Muslim state in the same brackets as those states cited in the beginning of this article is misleading. Indonesia is not a Muslim state. But going by the suggestion about an Islamic society as explained by Asghar Ali Engineer, Indonesia is definitely going into that direction. It is still a long and winding way ahead but surely, a pluralistic Indonesia is the best ideal that all Indonesians must strive for.

A Skeptical Note on Bush’s Recent Visit to Indonesia

2006-11-23T01:53:00.000-08:00

On Monday, 20 November 2006, the US President, George W. Bush was on a brief visit to Indonesia, the largest Muslim populated country in the world. He was in an Asian tour from Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia. Indonesia was his last stopover before returning home. Accompanied by U.S. Secretary of State Condollezza Rice, Bush held a meeting with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, followed by a discussion with several prominent Indonesian scholars and thinkers in economics, educations, politics and regional development. The visit was only six hours, but the preparation for and reactions to the visit had become headlines in the Indonesian media for weeks.

To welcome the six hours visit, the Indonesian government must spent a whopping 6 billion Indonesian Rupiah (more than half a million US Dollar), not a small amount of money for a country like Indonesia, just to build two unused helipads especially meant for President Bush’s arrival in Bogor in the vicinity of Indonesia’s famous Bogor Botanical Garden, a major center for botanical research that host many exotic plants. And to make matter worse, the Bush entourage did not land there and instead the landed in a sport stadium nearby and used motorcade to arrive at Bogor Presidential Palace to meet President Yudhoyono. The helipad is a total waste of taxpayer’s money and at the same time, it poses some danger to the ecosystem in the Garden.

Civic groups have called the preparations for Bush’s short visit in Indonesia simply overwhelming. The security was over-prepared, the guards were over-acting and no wonder that the people, too, were over-reacting. On the contrary, the government said that preparations, including the construction of two helipads in Bogor Palace and the interruption of public communications and transportation during the visit, were acknowledged as a normal measure.

Why so much preparation by the Indonesian government to welcome President Bush when the reaction on the ground against the visit was so overwhelming?

To begin with, Indonesia is the largest Muslim populated country in the world while President Bush is considered to be the public enemy number one in the Muslim world. Moreover, in the post-9/11 world, the American image worldwide and in Muslim world in particular is declining each day. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of war against terror and spreading democracy contributed to this major decline of American image worldwide. These policies have been considered as direct confrontation against the Muslims.

So, even though the fundamentalist Muslim group is a minority and the majority of Indonesian Muslims are moderate, but these policies have angered even the moderate Muslims. If the fundamentalists consider Bush as public enemy number one, the moderate vent their anger and protest as an expression of solidarity to the suffering of their Muslim bothers and sisters in countries dominated and exploited by the US and its allies. It is thus of anyone’s guess that a personality like President Bush is not welcomed.

Similarly, other local issues such as U.S.-based multinational companies operating in various parts of Indonesia, which have been criticized for running their operations based on unfair agreements and the lack of responsibility to the environment, is also on the minds of most protesters. With issues like these, the protestors against Bush do not solely belong to Muslim groups alone but also from other groups belonging to other ideological affiliation who are against the hegemonic policies of the US government.

Thus, before and during Bush’s visit to Indonesia, there were reports on anti-US demonstrations staged by these groups in various parts of Indonesia. From Yogyakarta to Jakarta, from Surabaya to Surakarta, demonstrations were endless with American symbols such as McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken had been targetted by the demonstrators, while Bush effigies were burnt.

On the other hand, Indonesia is still struggling to re-build its economy and other social structures devastated almost a decade ago by the Asian crisis. The transition from authoritarianism into a full-fledged representative democracy is hard and demanding. The rotten system has to be overhauled and it is not an easy task. Helps and cooperation from various sources must be utilized in the best possible way for the benefit of Indonesia. A lending hand from a government like the US, the oldest democracy in the world, is welcomed.

This, I think, is the reason why President Yudhoyono was very enthusiastic to welcome President Bush to Indonesia. But was it worth enough for Indonesia to make such a meticulous preparation just to welcome a President that has a dipping popularity at his home front? What will Indonesia gain from this brief, seemingly insignificant visit?

Many analysts in Indonesia have been skeptical about the outcome of this visit for Indonesia. The lack of important substance discussed during this brief visit added to this skepticism. Quoting Bantarto Bandoro from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jakarta, the visit is much more important for Bush than to Indonesia’s need. With the depleting support at home, a successful visit to a Muslim nation like Indonesia would boost the confidence of Bush to take the challenges at home and abroad in the months to come.

Expressing similar view, Dewi Fortuna Anwar from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) said that the visit would have helped restore the US’ image among Muslims in Indonesia in particular and, most importantly, in the Muslim world. But what is important now is for America to realize its promises to Indonesia, she said. During this visit, Bush had offered Indonesia financial help to fight bird flu, assistance in establishing a tsunami early warning system, and technology for alternative energy. In addition, the U.S. had committed US$55 million to support Indonesia's fight against graft and to develop economic strategies for more jobs, and $157 million for assistance in education and health.

Muslim intellectual like Azyumardi Azra, the former rector of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, said that the visit would give less to Indonesia but would give major boost to the US’ image worldwide. The fact that the $157 million in aid promised in 2003 to President Megawati for education and health had yet to be disbursed was a clear indication of Bush’s reluctance to engage Indonesia more seriously. It is more of a lip service than a genuine effort to engage an important partner like Indonesia.

To conclude, apart from being in the headlines of national and international news agencies, Indonesia virtually gained nothing from this visit. So much wasted, yet so little gain. I think the following quotation from a citizen who wrote in a leading Indonesian newspaper, not untypical of many, can serve as a reflection to this visit.

He wrote: “Bush came to Bogor to discuss education and economic development for ordinary people. But what was the use of these discussions when the schools in the surrounding areas were closed in order to provide high-security and while all street vendors were banned during his visits? ... We are sick of U.S. intervention...Stop your unilateral acts Mr. Bush!”

But then, will President George W. Bush ever learn “something” from his Asian tour this time? I don't think so.

North Korea’s Nuclear Threat and the Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike

2006-10-16T13:44:00.000-07:00

On Monday, October 9, 2006, the North Korean government proudly claimed to have successfully conducted an underground nuclear test near Kilju county in North Korea’s northeastern province of Hamkyung. The international community reacted almost unanimously to condemn the nuclear test and urged the world body, the United Nations, to take immediate actions to contain future “nuclear threats from North Korea”.

This universal condemnation is the standard response when any nation joins the nuclear club, as India and Pakistan discovered in the summer of 1998. And there is little surprise, in a gathering U.N. consensus on rebuking North Korea, with Russia and China likely to sign off on some symbolic sanctions to punish it. China is the closest ally of North Korea.

Later in the weekend, the UN Security Council, pushed hard by the US, unanimously approved tough sanctions against North Korea for its claimed nuclear test. This US-sponsored UN resolution demands North Korea to eliminate all its nuclear weapons but expressly rules out military action against the country; orders all countries to prevent North Korea from importing or exporting any material for WMD or ballistic missiles; orders the nations to freeze assets of people or businesses connected to these programs; and, ban the individuals from traveling.

However, division for the implementation of the sanctions soon cropped up. Even though China concurred that the sanctions have sent “a balanced and constructive message", but it refused to collaborate in the effort to inspect cargo leaving and arriving in North Korea to prevent any illegal trafficking in unconventional weapons or ballistic missiles.

Wang Guangya, China’s UN Ambassador, said that China strongly urges the countries concerned to adopt a prudent and responsible attitude in this regard and refrain from taking any provocative steps that may intensify the tensions in the region. Furthermore, Chinese foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao said in a statement on the ministry’s website that China maintains that the action of the Security Council should clearly state the firm stance of the international community, create conditions conducive to the peaceful resolution of this [North Korea] issue through dialogue and negotiations.

On the other hand, other countries like South Korea, Japan and Australia promised to immediately enforce the sanctions and said to be considering a harsher imposition of penalties of their own against North Korea.

Rejecting this resolution, North Korea’s Ambassador to the UN accused its members of a “gangster-like” action, which neglects the nuclear threat posed by the United States.

The Bush Concept of Pre-Emptive Strike

A pre-emptive strike is a military attack designed to prevent, or reduce the impact of, an anticipated attack from an enemy. It could cover all the branches of the military, names the land, air and sea borne forces or may be confined to just one wing. It can also be used to describe any offensive (as opposed to defensive) action that is taken to prevent, or reduce the impact of, an anticipated offensive action by another party. These actions can be either physical or non-physical.

However, in the post 9/11 world, the legality of pre-emptive strikes became a particular issue after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by the USA. This was an attack against a sovereign state, aimed explicitly at removing its internationally recognized government, without specific authorization from the United Nations Security Council, not in response to a prior act of aggression, and carried out not by a multilateral organization but by the world’s greatest military power, acting alone or with the backing only of a few loyal allies.

The justification of this concept by the Bush administration was that an attack against Iraq would be an act of self-defense against the threats of terrorism on the US. Because of the new threats that the United States faces, it is claimed, a proper understanding of the right of self-defense should now extend to authorizing pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors, cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US that might be devastating in their scale and scope. Furthermore, it said that the traditional strategies of deterrence and containment were no longer sufficient.

Thus deterrence meant nothing "against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend" and containment could not work "when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies." Under these circumstances, President Bush concluded, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."

These are the bases on which President George W. Bush justified his concept of pre-emptive strike on Iraq: an American self-defense from a possible WMD attack by Saddam Hussein.

President Bush proved to be wrong: no WMD in Iraq, no relation between 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, no real threat to the US from Saddam’s Iraq. The pre-emptive strike on Iraq was thus illegal and destructive.

In conclusion, the wariness of North Korea on the possible nuclear threat from the US through a pre-emptive strike is understandable. Iraq is an example and the nightmare must be in the minds of the North Koreans. At the same time, the main reason behind the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology by a country like North Korea is, I think, more of a diplomatic tactic than to creating threats to the political stability in the region and to protect itself from a possible fate like Iraq. In today’s world, a reliable source of national security is often defined by the “N” word. India, Pakistan, Israel, and now North Korea are examples of countries that claim that the main reason for the acquisition of nuclear weapons technology is for its national security and not to pose threat to anybody.

In the end, without writing off the possibility of a nuclear threat form North Korea, we have to be ready for any eventuality of such WMD to fall into the wrong hands. The nuclear threat is apparent but it is relatively lesser than the threat posed by a possible pre-emptive strike by the mighty US forces.

Revisiting Political Pluralism: India and Indonesia

2006-10-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

In general term, pluralism means the affirmation and acceptance of diversity. The concept is used in a wide range of issues like religion, philosophy, science, politics, etc. In science, the concept of pluralism often describes the view that several methods, theories or points of view are legitimate or plausible. This attitude may arguably be a key factor to scientific progress. In politics it is popularly known as political pluralism.

Political pluralism is the affirmation of diversity in the interests and beliefs of the citizenry. It is one of the most important features of modern representative democracy.

Political pluralism is a participatory type of government in which the politics of the country are defined by the needs and wants of many. Political pluralism is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In a politically pluralistic society there is no majority or minority and the basic ideas of government are seen through the ideas of individuals and groups to ensure that all the needs and wants of society are taken care of. Thus in a politically pluralistic society a tolerance and mutual respect for divergent thinking tends to develop easily as a way to accommodate the differences in aspiration.

Political pluralism is an effective form of running and governing a heterogeneous country. It allows the accommodation of the diverse aspirations that emerge from the diverse contituencies. However, for pluralism to function and to be successful in defining the common good, all groups or constituents must agree to a minimal consensus regarding shared values, which tie the different groups to society, and shared rules for conflict resolution between the groups. This minimal consensus on shared values acts as a unifying force amidst diversity. As such, mutual respect and tolerance become the most important values to keep political pluralism in place.

Mutual respect and tolerance will allow different groups to co-exist and interact without anyone being forced to assimilate to anyone else's position in conflicts that will naturally arise out of diverging interests and positions. Differences in social and personal values are engaged in a critical, but respectful, dialectic of reciprocal evaluation. Conflicts that might arise can only be resolved durably by dialogue which leads to compromise and to mutual understanding. Coercive action is used only when another mode of life or cultural expression causes harm, otherwise it engages in a dialogue of critical evaluation of different modes and expressions through persuasion. Thus, stable democratic principles, standards of life, consistent directives, vital and practical democratic norms, skills and traditions become the common features in pluralistic society.

Defining Common Shared Values

India and Indonesia are examples of pluralistic societies. People of different backgrounds (religion, caste, culture, language, ethnicity) are bound together as a single unit. While Hindus and Hindi speaking people are the majority in India, Muslims and Javanese speaking people are the majority in Indonesia. Other groups of people belonging to different backgrounds also live and share the space in both India and Indonesia. India and Indonesia are developing societies with political pluralism as its backbone.

Having diverse groups of people belonging to different backgrounds, it is natural for this kind of society to follow a participatory type of government in which the politics of the country are defined by the needs and wants of many. The government in these societies is built from the people, by the people, and for the people. And since the basic ideas of government in these pluralistic societies are seen through the ideas of individuals and groups to ensure that all the needs and wants of society are taken care of, the majority groups in India and Indonesia must willingly share an equal partnership with the smaller communities.

The differences in aspiration among the constituents in the society are accommodated equally to preserve the ideas of mutual respect and tolerance. At the same time, a minimal consensus on shared values, which tie the different groups to society, and shared rules for conflict resolution between the groups must be agreed upon by all the contituents so that to create a unifying force amidst diversity.

This affirmation and acceptance of diversity in India and Indonesia is clearly defined in their national Constitutions. In India, drawing extensively from Western legal traditions, the Constitution enunciates the principles of liberal democracy and elaborates the principles that reflect the aspirations of the Indian people to end the inequities of traditional social relations and to enhance the social welfare of the population. The Constitution has provided so much impetus toward changing and rebuilding society for the common good. It ambitiously wants to secure for all its citizens justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), equality (of status and of opportunity) and to promote fraternity to assure the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.

Furthermore, it agrees to follow secular and democratic principles as the minimum shared consensus. Secularism in Indian concept implies equality of all religions and religious tolerance; no official state religion; and that every person has the right to preach, practise and propagate any religion they choose. The government must not favour or discriminate against any religion and it must treat all religions with equal respect. All citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs are equal in the eyes of law.

While democracy in India means that the people of India elect their governments at all levels (Union, State and local) by a system of universal adult franchise. Every citizen of India, who is 18 years of age and above and not otherwise debarred by law, is entitled to vote. Every citizen enjoys this right without any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, colour, sex, religion or education.

Indonesia adopts similar position in this regard. To accommodate and to reflect the affirmation and acceptance of diversity in Indonesia, the Indonesia people agreed to a minimal consensus regarding shared values, which tie the different groups to society, and shared rules for conflict resolution between the groups in the form of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. Pancasila stipulates the five principles of Indonesia: Belief in God, Humanitarianism, National Unity, Democracy, and Social Justice while the 1945 Constitution elaborates these principles even further. With humanity and humanitarian concern as its core ideas, the Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution serve as the guiding principles for the Indonesian government and the people of Indonesia to live together in diversity. Its national motto is unity in diversity, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika.

With democracy, secularism, Pancasila, and humanitarianism, the people of India and Indonesia defined the minimal shared values among themselves in which all members in both societies must follow and respect. These shared values become the basis in which mutual respect and tolerance are shared and observed among the populace.

Political Pluralism in India and Indonesia

Political pluralism is nothing new for both India and Indonesia. It is a natural phenomenon in such pluralistic societies. Pulls and pressures from the different sections in the society become the norms of the day. Moreover, in a democratic and heterogeneous society in which every individual is equal before the law, he/she shares the responsibility to fill any missing gap in the society. Politically speaking, he/she has the equal share to lead the country and define the national policies for the shake of achieving better future, being ultimate in diversity. And to achieve this goal, he/she must always respect the minimal shared values and maintain mutual respect and tolerance towards others.

The Indian history of a participatory type of government in which the politics of the country that are defined by the needs and wants of many has been continuous barring the short period of dictatorship in the late 1970s. Ever since its independence in 1947 political pluralism has always been regarded as the most effective method to accommodate the diversity of aspiration.

Since representative democracy is observed and practiced religiously in India, political parties play an important role as the medium of communication between the system and the people. It acts as the unifying vehicle for the diverse aspirations that emerge among the different groups in Indian society. The Indian National Congress Party, the biggest national party in the early years of an independent India, acted as the unifying umbrella for the various groups to voice their concern and aspiration. The INC successfully accommodated the aspirations of the Leftist, the Centrist, the Rightist, the Secularist, the Regionalist and other groups. However, the mounting pressure from these diverse constituents forced the INC to split into different, competing political groups. As such, there is now the Congress Party, the BJP, the Communist Party of India, the Samajwadi Party, the AIADMK, the Trinamool Congress Party, the National Conference as well as various other parties of national and regional stature. They compete and cooperate with each other to create the current face of party politics in India: diverse, competitive yet constructive.

This transformation process of party politics in India is quite natural. It is very unlikely for such a pluralistic society to have a single unifying party to accommodate the diverse political aspirations. It is an opposition to the concept of political pluralism. The heterogeneity in the society compels the Indian people to accept diversity. Every single citizen of India has the same right and is equal before the law. Their political aspiration is also diverse and often times contradictory with each other. Some of them might even resort to the use of violence to achieve their goals. But with the agreed shared values in the form of democracy dialogue between conflicting factions in the society become the most effective means to durably resolve differences. Furthermore, with secularism as the core uniting value in India, the pulls and pressures of either Right or Left block is avoidable. It acts as a balancing platform for these forces. Selfless, visionary and charismatic leadership in the early years of an independent India had also given important contribution to the celebration of political pluralism. Together, this combined elements created a unifying track that balances the diverse groups in the Indian society. It helps the perseverance of the concept of unity in diversity. It also created mutual respect and tolerance between factions in Indian society.

Indonesia, on the other hand, has a different history of political pluralism. Even though the early days of the Republic witnessed the observation of a pluralistic society and the democratic principles, but there was an unfortunate deviation from these norms in the Republic for over three decades.

The first fifteen years of Indonesian independent was a witness to political pluralism at its best. The diversity of Indonesian society was accommodated and accepted as an unavoidable consequence for such a pluralistic society. With democracy and Pancasila, the formative years in Indonesian history was filled with the celebration of unity in diversity. Indonesia was built to be ultimate in diversity. The Leftist, the Centrist, the Rightist, the Regionalist and other groups were represented by their various hues and color in Indonesian society. The politics was colorful and the pulls and pressures from various factions in the society were very imminent. Mutual respect and tolerance was observed by these diverse elements in Indonesian society during this period.

However, it was this colorful representation of diversity and the mounting pulls and pressures from various factions in Indonesian society that unfortunately brought a dark history in Indonesian celebration of unity in diversity. Unlike in India, which has a continuous history of unity in diversity barring a brief dictatorship period in the late 1970s, political pluralism in Indonesia experienced a great set back when the curtain of diversity was closed and uniformity was being forced into the Indonesian society for over three decades by civilian leader as well as by men in uniform. During this period from the early 1960s to the late 1990s political pluralism in Indonesia was a mere lip service. The noble ideas of democracy and Pancasila were hijacked to suit the needs of those greedy personalities who claimed to be the champions of Indonesian unity in diversity.

Fortunately, under such a complicated situation, the curtain of diversity in Indonesia was finally re-opened in the late 1990s. With this new lease of life political pluralism is celebrated rigorously by the new generation in Indonesia. The present face of Indonesian politics is similar to India’s: diverse, competitive yet constructive.

The question now is: why India, a much larger, diverse, multi faceted society is capable of preserving its political pluralism rigorously and continuously whereas Indonesia, a smaller reflection of India, must learn the hard way to achieve what it gets today?

It is going to be difficult to answer the question above. But considering the facts explained in the beginning of this article, it would be interesting to conclude this article with some possible suggestions.

To begin with, India and Indonesia possess similar features as pluralistic societies but they have a strikingly different history. Even though the British colonial ruler in India plundered and divided the country into various, warring factions to suit its colonial interests, it somehow allowed the celebration of a limited civil liberty. It educated the masses in the hope of making it a “partner” albeit the lack of equality in it.

These colonial incentives opened up the door for establishing a united society out of diverse and contradictory elements. The presence of selfless, charismatic and visionary leaders in the name of M.K. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Maulana Azad, just to name a few, contributed a lot of help in this process. At the same time, a unifying vehicle to accommodate the diverse aspirations of the people in the form of a political party, the Indian National Congress, added to the possible celebration of political pluralism in a pluralistic society like India.

Indonesia, on the other hand, experienced a bloody struggle against the ruthless colonial masters. The Dutch and the Japanese were no different: they ruthlessly ruled its colony for the sake of its own benefits without any real intention to establish an independent colony. Such incentives given by the British ruler in India was absence in the East Indies. Prominent nationalist leaders like Sukarno, Hatta, Haji Agus Salim, Mohamad Natsir, just to name a few, were charismatic, inspirational and visionary yet they were diluted with their personal concepts of Indonesia. A unifying political vehicle for the diverse interests in the society was also absent. How would it then be possible for Indonesia to celebrate political pluralism?

Indonesia did celebrate political pluralism amidst these contradictory facts. But in the absence of important features like the ones appeared in India, Indonesia succumbed to dictatorship and authoritarianism. Democracy and Pancasila as the minimal shared values were being failed and thus sending political pluralism into graveyard.

To revive and preserve newly found political pluralism in Indonesia, it is important for Indonesia to learn from the Indian experience. Even though the Indian experience is far from perfect, but it has been successful so far to accommodate the varying interests of its populace. The long tradition of mutual respect and tolerance along with selfless, charismatic and visionary leadership in the early years of an independent India proved to become important factors that helped in cementing the concept of political pluralism. Without these factors, I believe, it would be very difficult for India to accept the fact that India is a united entity made of diverse and contradicting elements.

In the end, if India, a country twice the size of Indonesia that has a much more complex and complicated constituents, can celebrate and observe political pluralism religiously, why should there be any difficulty for Indonesia to practice the same? I believe it is a matter of time for Indonesia to really respect political pluralism as a consequence of a pluralistic society.

My Response to Askanazi

2006-09-27T03:26:00.000-07:00

This post is about my responses to the e-mail queries of Evan M. Askanazi, a student at Ohio State University.

(Note: Q stands for Askanazi's Question while A stands for my Answer)

Q:
I noticed on your blog your apparent interest in Middle East affairs.

A:
First of all, I would like to stress here that my academic interest is more into the politics and society in South Asia, especially India. Middle East affairs just happened to be one of those affairs in international politics that attract the attention of most of political scientist or political analysts. I fall into the category of those political scientists/commentators who are interested in this Middle East affairs but do not consider myself as the specialist in this matter.

Anyway, being a student of political science, I would like to share the knowledge I’ve learned in the classroom in the hope of spreading the knowledge to wider audiences.

Q:
Just wondering, do you see the Israel-Palestine conflicts as entirely the fault of Israel or do you feel Israel, Palestine and Hezbollah share responsibility?

A:
Talking about responsibility, I see the responsibility lies in the hands of all the participants in this conflict (Israel – Hezbullah conflict). All parties are responsible for the humanitarian tragedy inflicted upon the population in the region. These innocent people, regardless of their nationalities and religions, are the ones who suffer the most in this conflict. They were, and still are, trapped in the conflict of interest of those greedy personalities who disregard the value of human lives.

Bigger players in international politics like the US and its European allies also share this responsibility. In my opinion, it is these governments that created the mess in the first place. Israel and Hezbullah are like the peons in a chess game. They are forced to fight against each other while the big boys standing in the periphery, waiting for the tragedy to unfold.

As for the Israel – Palestine conflict, I see it as something slightly different from the Israel – Hezbullah conflict. Israel was created by the victors of the WW II in the land that belonged to the Arab Palestinians (both Muslims and Christians), justifying the move as the implementation of the Biblical description of the Promised Land.

In my opinion, Israel was a mere puppet state created by these victors to wash out their hands from the responsibility of the Holocaust tragedy. If they really wanted to repay the mistake they made for letting the European Jews to be killed mercilessly in the Holocaust during the WW II, they should have integrated the Jewish people back into the society they belonged to instead of creating an exclusively Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East and in doing so, they robbed the fundamental rights of the Arab Palestinian people to live peacefully in their own land. The creation of a Jewish state of Israel in the Middle East was not the correct solution to the problem and instead it created more problems in the region. The subsequent Israeli – Palestinian conflict is the outcome of this shortsightedness, or I may say that it was purposely designed to serve the greed and interest of these powers?

Q:
Do you think Israel has a right to exist, but simply disagree with their policies, and protect itself, and how do you think Israel should have responded to the kidnapping of its soldiers?

A:
Every human being has the right to live. Both Palestinians and Israelis have this same right. We have to respect this fact. And since we cannot turn back the time, I see there is no problem for Israel to exist. At the same time, Israeli government should have no problem for an independent state of Palestine. Don’t you think that the Palestinian people have the same right to create an independent state of Palestine in their own land?

As for the kidnapping case, if Israel is really a “democratic” state, they should conduct dialog and negotiation to solve the problem instead of using their superior military prowess to kill innocent people in the region. I think dialogue is the best way forward to achieve a meaningful solution to the problem. What is your take in this matter? How Israel should have responded to the kidnapping of its soldiers?

Q:
Do your Indonesian friends on a whole support or condemn Israel? Does the divide between support and opposition occur solely on religious grounds or are there Indonesian Muslims who support Israel and Indonesian Christians who condemn Israel?

A:
Indonesia is an independent state. Indonesian Constitution firmly rejects all kind of occupation and colonialism. If it is true that Israel is wrongfully occupies the rightful territories of the Palestinian people, it is justifiable if Indonesia condemns Israel.

I cannot say much about the personal views of my fellow Indonesians as a whole. But if you want to know about it, you can browse the Indonesian blogosphere to see the reaction yourself. Religion, apart from this national philosophy, is, I believe, also plays a part in the reaction to this conflict.

Q:
I should add as a disclaimer that my opinion of the Middle East is influenced as well, being of Jewish heritage and the son of holocaust survivors. I feel Israel's apparent hostilities toward Hezbollah are due to the fact the Jews were loaded onto trains and put into ovens the last time they tried appeasing their enemies. Personally see Israel as in a fight for its survival; to me it seems that if Palestinians lay down their arms, there is no more war but if Israel lays down its arms, there is no more Israel. Moreover, I don't see Israel's conduct as being fundamentally different from other countries and find it has been actually mild compared to how countries like Indonesia, Algeria, Pakistan, the
Sudan and China conduct themselves militarily.

A:
About the conduct of the Indonesian military, I should say that they made mistakes in the past. A lot of human right abuses have been done by the military in conflict areas like Aceh or the erstwhile Indonesian province, the East Timor. But you have to understand that these mistakes occurred during the military regime of General Suharto and with tacit approval from Washington. Just like what the Israeli government is now doing with the clear approval from President Bush.

One thing should also be cleared here that the case in Indonesia is different from Israel. Indonesia was under an authoritarian rule, a military regime, while Israel follows democracy. Aceh is a rightful territory of the Indonesian state. The military was used by the government to curb the separatist group from advocating the independence of Aceh from Indonesia. East Timor is a total mistake. It was against the Indonesian Constitution.

At present, Indonesia is a democratic state and the military is under the leadership of a civilian leader. The current Indonesian military is different from the one under the Suharto regime.

What about Palestine and the suffering of the Palestinian people? Would you comment about it?

Q:
Also, I've heard that in Lebanon, the towns being bombarded are largely towns accused of hiding terrorists; Christian areas have remained untouched. I personally view that as a sign Israel is simply trying to hunt down its enemies. Would your views on Israeli attacks be any different if the civilians being bombed were largely Christian?

A:
Hunting down enemies? Why Israel occupies Southern Lebanon? Whose territory is Southern Lebanon? Christian territories remained untouched? I suggest you to re-check your reference.

The advance of the IDF to the Southern Lebanon in the recent conflict was a total disregard of international laws and the action could be termed as an occupation, military aggression. Just like what Saddam did to Kuwait. What’s your take in this matter?

For me, any attack is inhuman. I would condemn all kind of attack towards any kind of group of people or population, regardless of the region, religion, ethnicity or any background they belong to. Being an integral part of multi faceted societies like India and Indonesia, I am blessed to learn to respect human lives regardless of their creed or skin color.

Q:
Lastly, if this is about Muslim solidarity and/or Middle Eastern solidarity, does it also exist for the Sudanese Muslims massacred by Arabs, the Lebanese Catholics massacred by Palestinians in the Lebanese civil war or Kurds and other civilians massacred by Saddam, for instance?

A:
Personally, I should emphasize once again that all atrocities as inhuman and I condemn them all. It is very sad and unfortunate that we have to be a part or to witness these tragedies. I hope that we all can live in peace and harmony.

Q:
Interested in your response.

A:
Thank you.

Cowboy Vs Tyrant: Iran or the US?

2006-09-13T03:57:00.000-07:00

"Why do you always want to settle world affairs by using force and weapons? This era is finished and we are in the era of thought and culture."
(A response by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to President George W. Bush of the USA who recently branded him as tyrant and threatened to use force to solve the nuclear dispute)

In diplomacy, words play very important role in conveying messages from one government to another. The diplomats might put the messages in flowery words to disguise their real intentions but often time the words are straightforward and directly targeted. President Bush of the USA and President Ahmadinejad of Iran are examples of diplomats or heads of states that do not mind the use of direct wording in conveying their messages across.

Remember the time when President Ahmadinejad told his supporters that “Israel should be wiped out of the world map” and “the Jewish holocaust by Nazi is a myth”? And remember the day after September 11 attacks of WTC in New York when President Bush said that “either you are with us or against us” as reference to Al-Qaeda? And his recent comments on “Islamic fascists” and description of Iran's leaders "tyrants," compared them with Al Qaeda terrorists and that the world's free nations would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

These are examples of direct use of words in diplomacy that tends to convey some confrontationist and aggressive policy.

It is a public secret that Iran and the US have not been able to get along well ever since the Islamic revolution took place in Iran in 1979. Moreover, the hawkish policy of the US government in the region and towards Muslim countries as a whole has provoked even further the disenchantment between the two governments. The latest is the Iranian ambition to acquire nuclear technology and strong opposition from the US government regarding the matter. Accusing Iran of building nuclear weaponry in the disguise of developing peaceful nuclear technology, the US use all its resources to block the realization of Iranian nuclear program.

Acquiring nuclear technology is the right of any sovereign nation. This is not an exclusive right of certain group or countries to possess the technology. As long as the concerned country is responsible and using the technology for peaceful purposes, there should be no objection to it. Iran, as well as other country like India or Indonesia, is eligible to acquire the technology for peaceful purposes. The increasing needs of energy to sustain the development of these developing countries have urged them to find sustainable source of energy. Nuclear technology is one of the ways to fulfill this energy need and thus they should not be denied of this right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Coming back to the quotation above, it is interesting to see that the president of a country that claims to be the leader of the “world’s free nations” and the oldest democracy in the world used strong and even confronting rhetoric to force its personal agenda of “dominating the world”. The use of “language of force” or threats to solve differences is an opposition to democracy and democratic principles. It is like a cowboy who always pulls his gun whenever and wherever he wants to solve problems he is confronting. In the free world, cowboys only live in movies, not in reality. Instead, dialogue, deliberation, discussion as well as the rule of law are the guidelines that should be followed by all inhabitants to solve problems. The use of force is no longer an acceptable way to resolve problems. On the contrary, the use of force will only add to more problems.

President Bush’s use of language of force in this free world against Iran’s “stubbornness” to defend its right as a sovereign nation is like a cowboy who is eager to pull the trigger of his guns to resolve his problem. Once enemy’s dead, problem’s solved. Simple. But look at Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon in recent time. The use of force only added to more misery and complication of problems to the populace in these countries. It did not solve their problem.

Realizing the grave outcome of any use of force, President Ahmadinejad said that the cowboy’s era is finished and “we are in the era of thought and culture”. Iran, a country led by a “tyrant”, is ready to discuss the nuclear dispute between Iran and the rest of the world and listen to the argumentations in order to arrive at the solution to the problem. Iran is against the use of force and weapons and it is against the US and British plans to dominate the world.

Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad last month invited President Bush to a television debate "under the condition that nothing is censored". However, the White House rejected the invitation terming it as a "distraction" from the nuclear dispute. It is an attempt by Iran to “threaten” the US.

Iran’s insistence to conduct dialogue, discussion and negotiation to resolve problems and differences instead of confrontation and the use of force and weapons shows that in the world of free nations even a “tyrant” prefers the peaceful means of discussion and dialogue and the rule of law to solve problems. The era of settling problems and world affairs by the use of weapons and force is over and the era of thought and culture has arrived in which reasons and dialogue rule. It is now “the era of people and nobody should believe that they can sit in their glass houses and rule over the world.”

Who is the tyrant and who is the cowboy? Is it something of two faces of the same coin? Or is it really two different things? The answer is up to you to decide.

Unjust Racial Profiling

2006-08-26T03:08:00.000-07:00

After the thwarted mid-air bombing earlier this month in Britain, suspicions toward Asian (brown-skinned, non-white people) are on the sharp increase. Consider these illustrations:

Immediately after the failed plot to blow airline mid-air, the British police arrested 24 British Asians for their suspected involvement in the failed plot. Two weeks later, only eight out of that 24 initially arrested were formally charged with conspiracy to murder and plotting acts of terrorism, and another three for lesser crime.

Last week, two male passengers in their twenties were offloaded from a Mornarch Airlines flight from Spain to Manchester, the U.K. because they looked like Middle Eastern and ‘may have been speaking Arabic.’ Their ‘suspicious behavior’ was the reason for this action.

The latest incident was the detainment of 12 passengers on board a Northwest Airlines plane from Amsterdam to Mumbai by the Dutch authority for 12 hours simply because they ‘looked’ and ‘behaved’ liked Islamic terrorists. According to Dutch authorities, US marshals on board of the flight got suspicious because the 12 passengers, later known to be Indian nationals, were using mobile phones, talking laudly and changing seats.

Isn’t there any racial issue involved? If not, why all these terrorist-suspicion related incidents involved Asians? Are Asian (non-white) terrorists? If it is so, can’t we consider this attitude as racism by the White, a racial stereotyping?

Many have thought that with globalization – increased migrations and more ethnicities living geographically together – racial hostilities and anxieties would diminish and become the thing of the past. After all, the old colonizing mindset of superiority was based on power and on general ignorance about ‘other’ peoples. Unfortunately, things have changed dramatically in the post-9/11 world.

Ever since the report on 9/11 tragedy in the US was released in which Arab Muslim terrorists under the banner of Al-Qaeda were allegedly conducted this inhuman attack on civilians, suspicion on non-whites, especially Asian, by the majority community (read: the white people) are on the increase. Terrorism became the popular word and non-whites are the targets. Whenever there is security alert on the possibility of terror attack, Muslims and Asians (brown-skinned people) are the first to be suspected and be held responsible. Illustrations above only support this argument.

True that being vigilant is necessary and natural in which we all have to be alert from any eventuality. But being constantly suspicious towards certain groups of community or ethnicity for their ‘distinct behavior’ is an overzealous suspicion at its worst. This vigilant attitude is amount to baseless fear and sheer paranoia. Adding to the worsening of the situation is the reactions from the security officials, whose job is to actually be able to not make dangerous generalizations, who seem to be as ignorant as the regular Joe racist. They would immediately jump to the conclusion of imminent threat of terror for any ‘suspicious behavior’ of non-white, brown-skinned people. Moreover, the ethnic profiling that has been in practice in Europe has so far mostly caused trouble to air travelers, especially to people with brown skin (non-whites) regardless of their faith. It was reported recently that Claude Moraes, a London Labour Member of European Parliament, has claimed that he has been repeatedly treated as a suspected terrorist while traveling because of his ‘distinct appearance.’

It seems the racial jump made to equate all Muslims or brown-skinned, non-white people regardless of their faith with a threat of terror has been too easy and immediate. This is very dangerous and if it is not checked and remedied immediately, we could possibly witness a clash of civilizations as the result of little else but sheer ignorance.

Rooting out this kind of knee-jerk behavior based along racial lines is hard but not impossible. Ignorance is, in my opinion, the root of this mess. Thus to root it out, we have to first eradicate this ignorance through dialogues and discussions between the different groups in the society in order to build up an understanding of their issues and differences. It would educate the members of the majority community about the ‘other’ people. This kind of inter-faith or inter-racial dialogues and cooperation can be used as an important opening to solve the problems.

At the same time, the government should be more pro-active and genuine in improving the situation. Government sponsored programs to integrate the minority communities into the mainstream can also be considered as important step towards rooting out this problem. Once this process is successful, insecurity feelings among minority communities and suspicions that prevalent in the minds of the majority community can be eradicated.

This is the homework that must immediately be cleared up by the authorities, especially the Western authorities. At the same time, in regard with terrorism, they have to re-think the way in identifying the potential of terror threat. There should not be any generalizations in this perspective and they should learn and care more about parts of the world and the peoples outside their vicinity. Ignorance is the very source of enmity and ignorance of ‘other’ people is a stop closer to terrible, civilizational tragedy.

Building Democracy in Myanmar

2006-08-21T03:47:00.000-07:00

This week, in the sideline of the five-day meeting starting Monday between Southeast Asian ministers in Malaysia to put plans for a European-style single market, an Asean Economic Community, by 2015 on the fast track, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations also plan to sign a pact to facilitate trade and investment with the United States -- a step closer to a free trade agreement that signals stronger linkages with ASEAN’s number 1 trading partner.

The proposed pact will be called a “trade and investment facilitation arrangement”, a cooperation pact that is less formal than an agreement. Foreign ministers from ASEAN countries will sign the pact and the US Trade Representative, Susan Schwab, will represent the US government. Downplaying the significance of the wording, ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong said that it was a flexible arrangement to overcome any potential US congressional opposition.

Since Washington imposes sanctions on Myanmar, one of the members of ASEAN, an informal arrangement like this does not require congressional approval to be operative. The decision to call the pact as an arrangement is, according to Ong, a tactical move to expedite the process. The arrangement will enable deeper business dealings between the US and all the members of ASEAN, including Myanmar, without Washington having first to lift any sanction imposed on one of ASEAN’s member state.

This proposed trade pact should be a welcome relief for ASEAN as an organization. The pact should allow the opening up of new opportunities in business and economic engagement between the two sides as well as an opening tactic to engage Myanmar actively. It is an open secret that the main reason for the EU or the US reluctance to engage ASEAN actively is Myanmar’s human right record and its lack of democracy. At the same time, the stubbornness of the military junta in Myanmar to improve the local situation added the situation from bad to worse.

The recent meeting of ASEAN ministers in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss about Myanmar’s problem failed to yield into any meaningful results. Pressures to Yangon by prominent members of ASEAN like Indonesia and Malaysia to show concrete steps towards democracy seem to have entered deaf ears in which Yangon only gave empty promises and no realistic steps have been taken so far. It even extended the house arrest term of Myanmar’s democratic leader, Aung San Su Kyi that should have been released this year.

This situation is definitely frustrating for other ASEAN member states. ASEAN as an organization wants to move forward but one of its members is stubborn enough not to be a part of the democratic setup in which a new ASEAN is based upon. If the situation continues, it will only add to more struggles and difficulties for ASEAN to strengthen its economic prowess and counter the increasing competition from the rising giants China and India.

How to clear, or at least reduce, this hurdle? Should ASEAN isolate Myanmar? Or should ASEAN engage Myanmar more actively to create a genuine impression about ASEAN’s intention to build a better situation in the region?

It is a tricky situation as long as democracy and human right are concern. Stubbornness shown by Myanmar’s military ruler to show concrete steps towards democracy is understandable. Relinquishing status quo is just like giving up our own lives. No body wants to do that, nor Yangon wants to relinquish its strict control over Myanmar people. At the same time Yangon seems to also see in some members of ASEAN the lack of democratic practice but no body seems to bother about it or tend to be apologetic about it. Look at Singapore or Malaysia for example.

Pressurizing Myanmar to show concrete steps towards democracy and to improve its human right records is like pressurizing Singapore or Malaysia to abandon its strict control over people’s basic rights and transform itself wholeheartedly towards liberal democracy in which people are free to practice their basic rights such as freedom of speech and expression. The recent effort by Malaysian government to control the free flow of blog, or citizen media, is a clear example of state’s effort to restrict its citizens’ right of freedom of speech and expression.

In my opinion, the most realistic way to clear, or at least reduce the Myanmar problem in ASEAN is by engaging it more actively and show more genuine efforts towards working together to improve democratic practice in Myanmar and in all other ASEAN member countries. It is not only Myanmar that needs to practice democracy but all members of ASEAN should be a part of a real democracy in which people are free to exercise their basic rights. Isolating Myanmar should be avoided at all cost. Because an isolation approach will only result in the opposite: Myanmar will fall into the hands of those countries that oppose the concept of democracy and respect of human rights.

Thus the decision by ASEAN and the US to sign a trade pact “arrangement” so as to allow all members of ASEAN to be a part of it is surely a positive “tactical move to expedite the process” towards democracy and improving human right record in Myanmar. It will be an important step towards establishing greater understanding among ASEAN member states, and the US in this case, towards engaging Myanmar more actively. If India, the world largest democracy, is willing to engage Myanmar actively as an effort to introduce democracy there, why ASEAN can’t do the same? Politics of isolation is doomed to fail but politics of engagement will flourish into a better future.

From Qana to a Sustainable Peace in the Mideast

2006-07-31T12:15:00.000-07:00

The continuous Israeli military offensive in southern Lebanon provoked by Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers has not stopped even though many countries in both Arab and non-Arab world have condemned the actions. This IDF military operation to “root out Hezbollah from Lebanon” has killed more than 500 civilians in Lebanon, injuring and displacing thousands others from the comfort of their homes. The latest and bloodiest attack occurred last Sunday when Israeli bombs reduced the buildings that housed refugees from other villages and cities in the village of Qana in southern Lebanon into ruble. Fifty-four civilians were reportedly killed, 37 of them children.

If the initial military offensive by Israel received mild and reluctant condemnation from the international community, this brutal killing of innocent civilians, mostly children who were asleep when the bombs landed, has received unequivocal condemnation and calls for immediate ceasefire from all corners of the globe but the USA. President Bush, speaking in Florida on Monday, said Israel had the right to defend itself and called on Iran and Syria to stop aiding Hezbollah. He further elaborated that there could be no cease-fire until Hezbollah was reined in and international borders respected, reiterating the U.S. stance on the conflict.

Israel, while regretting the loss of civilian lives, maintained that the Hezbollah fighters have used Qana to launch rocket attacks on northern Israel and that enough warning had been given to innocent civilians by way of air-dropped pamphlets. Thus they pleaded innocent and justified the attacks on Qana and blamed Hezbollah for this “accident”. Furthermore, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel would not agree to an immediate cease-fire and planned to expand military operations in Lebanon.

Reacting to this tragedy, Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora issued a statement describing the event as an “Israeli massacre”. He went even further by denying US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who was scheduled to arrive in Beirut on Sunday, from visiting Lebanon until the announcement of an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.

India, a country known to be having close relation with the region but which has so far been reluctant to strongly condemn the Israeli military operation in southern Lebanon because Tel Aviv claimed they were acting against sponsors of terrorism, issued its strongest statement of condemnation on the Qana tragedy. New Delhi slammed Israel’s Sunday massacre in Qana and termed it as “continued irresponsible and indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon by the Israeli military, ignoring calls for restraint”. If in its earlier statement India said to have only regretted Israel’s “disproportionate” reaction to Hezbollah’s attacks, it now called for “an immediate and unconditional ceasefire”.

In Indonesia, the government strongly condemned the Israeli airstrike on Qana in southern Lebanon. It further said that the tragedy has strengthened the urgent need for an immediate cease-fire in the region and the best way to stop this from happening again is for Israel to end its military operations.

Post Qana massacre, Israel announced a 48 hours halt to its aerial strike on Lebanon in order to conduct a probe on Sunday’s Qana tragedy and provide safe passage to stranded Lebanese in southern Lebanon to leave for safer place. The UNSC immediately held a meeting to discuss the possibility of setting up a new peacekeeping force in the region. But, less than 24 hours after the Qana bombing, Israel has resumed its military operation in southern Lebanon thus dimming the hope of any early solution to the crisis.

The quick turns of events in this Israel – Hezbollah conflict has definitely affected the possibility of creating a “sustainable” ceasefire in the region. The assurance by Ms. Rice that a resolution to the conflict could be reached by this week becomes meaningless when her boss in Washington and the Israeli government have insisted on reining in on Hezbollah first before any ceasefire could be called. At the same time, Hezbollah and its supporters would never let this scenario to happen and they will fight till the end.

This gloomy scenario is really disturbing. If the crisis continues many more civilians will be killed and peace in the region would become elusive. If only a “new Middle East” scripted by the US could be achieved, it would be very gloomy and bloody. Terrorism would escalate even further and civilians would suffer the most and become the victims in the conflicts. The current events in Iraq mirror the possible future in the region.

To avoid this worse case scenario, the international community must immediately work together through international organization like the UN to give a unified voice of concern and pressure to the US and Israel to end the crisis. The US can make or break any collaborative efforts to solve the crisis. The failure of Rome meeting last week was an example of US importance in this matter. At the same time, exclusion of Hezbollah in the meeting was a mistake.

Thus, to reach any meaningful result there should be some serious diplomatic engagement to all parties involve in the conflict. Once a common ground has been achieved, restraint and ceasefire that would lead to a long lasting, or sustainable peaceful agreement, could as well be achieved. Qana tragedy should become a grim reminder that a continuing crisis in the region will only kill more innocent civilians and instability.

Moral Responsibility and Tsunami

2006-07-20T12:04:00.000-07:00

On Monday, 17 July 2006, tsunami struck the southern coastal lines of Java Island. After a 7.7 magnitude earthquake that centered in the seabed of the Indian Ocean rocked the capital city of Jakarta, a small but devastating tsunami struck the southern coastal lines of Java, killing more than 500 people and injuring many others as well as devastating the livelihood and properties of the people living in the areas.

Immediately after learning about this natural disaster from various media, I wrote in my weblog that "... the authority immediately issued a tsunami warning to the people in the coastal areas, asking them to leave their homes for higher ground for any eventual tsunami."

However, I made a mistake when I wrote about this government's immediate response about any eventual tsunami that might strike the coastal areas after the earthquake that reached as far as the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. The fact is that it was the Indonesian Transport Minister, Hatta Rajasa, who issued an instruction to the people in the coastal areas already being hit by the tsunami to retreat to higher ground for their safety.

Neither he nor the Indonesian government issued this instruction before the tsunami occurred. Instead, his instruction came when a tsunami has already hit the southern coastal areas of Java and has taken the lives and properties of the people there.

Two days later, it was reported in various media that the warning about any possible tsunami issued by the Japanese Meteorological Department and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii soon after the 7.7 magnitude quake had actually come to be known by the Minister of Research and Technology, Kusmayanto Kadiman, through an SMS 20 minutes well before the actual tsunami occurred. However, upon receiving this message chose to remain silent and played down the threat. He only publicly revealed about the SMS and the warning he received well after the tragedy had struck.

The government knew about the danger but chose to remain silent. No official warning issued to the public. The officials said that they were too busy monitoring the aftershocks of this 7.7 magnitude quake.

For the record, no tsunami warning system has been set up for the southern coast of Java. An Indonesian warning system was supposed to be up and running by now after the 2004 tsunami, the worst on record, but it has stalled. No clear reason given by the government.

Had there been a tsunami warning system running in the areas hit by the quake, and had the Indonesian Minister who knew about the danger of tsunami informed the public and asked them to immediately leave for higher ground for their safety, the huge human and material loss due to this natural disaster could have been avoided.

Similarly, upon answering reporters' questions as to why no warning was issued on Monday, Vice President Jusuf Kalla claimed there was no need to issue such warning because most people had fled inland after the earthquake, fearing a tsunami. On the contrary, the strong quake felt in Jakarta was relatively negligible in these regions. Reports in various media say that only several persons in the coastal areas felt a slight tremor.

Furthermore, no one in the southern coastal region said that there was a mass movement of people to higher ground before the tsunami. Only some residents and tourists in the area recognized the signs of tsunami when the sea level receded suddenly and the wall of water approaching. They immediately fled to higher ground for safety. It was a purely natural instinct of saving oneself from danger and not from any tsunami warning issued by the government that minimized the number of the victims. But yet this natural signs and human instinct failed to save many others.

This government’s inaction and reluctance to inform the public about the imminent danger of tsunami, in my opinion, makes the government highly and morally responsible for this natural disaster. Aceh’s tsunami should have become the best teacher and experience to avoid similar catastrophe in the archipelago. But it seemed that the government is very slow to react. They played down the warning of an imminent danger of tsunami by “being busy monitoring the aftershocks” and claiming that “there was no need to inform the public believing that most people had fled inland after the earthquake, fearing a tsunami”.

Thus, in my opinion, the Research and Technology Minister, or even the Vice President Kalla, should willingly resign on moral ground. He failed to do his job and the public had to pay for it with their lives and the loss of properties. Had the government acted immediately and responsibly, the huge loss of human lives and properties caused by the tsunami could have been minimized. The government as a whole has to be held morally responsible for this tsunami disaster.

This post was published with some cuts and editings in The Jakarta Post on Saturday, 22 July 2006. The title of the published form was "Govt at Fault in Tsunami".

Sport, Business and Israel

2006-07-07T01:19:00.000-07:00

The unjustified ‘collective punishment’ by Israel to the Palestinian people seems to have evoked contradicting responses in Indonesia. Being a staunch supporter of Palestinian cause and statehood, Indonesian leaders think that Indonesia needs to show her sympathy and solidarity to the Palestinian people. But sport and business in Indonesia seem to have different take on this Israel – Palestine political conflict. Let’s take a closer look to the latest incidents related to this ongoing conflict.

First is the decision by the Indonesian government not to send the Indonesian Fed Cup team scheduled to play a playoff tie with the Israeli team for the World Group II in Tel Aviv later this month. Having worked so hard to reach the world group, this decision is a big blow to the Indonesian Fed Cup team: demotion from the World Group, inability to qualify for the World Group II next year and will face a host of penalties from the ITF.

Besides a possible fine of US$50,000 from the ITF and reimbursement of the Israeli association's expenses for hosting the tie for defaulting the tie, the players could also face suspension from international tournaments. And should the suspension last two years, it means Indonesia will miss the chance to play in the 2008 Olympic Game in Beijing. This is a very huge loss to the Indonesian tennis development.

Second, on June 25-29 a delegation from the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin) was in Israel and concluded an economic agreement with the Manufacturers Associations of Israel (MAI) in an effort to seek closer business relations and assistance for Indonesia's economy. Under the deal, the two groups will work to exchange business information, forming joint business projects, and assist Indonesian and Israel businesspeople in their activities in the two countries.

Kadin Chairman Mohammad Hidayat said that the Kadin’s delegation visit to Israel and the subsequent agreement signed between Kadin and MAI was conducted in the capacity of Kadin as an independent business association and purely for business purposes. He reiterated that there is no diplomatic or political issues involved in it and the challenges now are to realize the cooperation for Indonesia’s benefit without resulting in any political implications.

According to Kadin, two-way trade between Indonesia and Israel was valued at around US$160 million last year, up from $120 million in 2004. Indonesia mostly imported chemicals and electronic components valued at some $14 million from Israel last year, and predominantly exported electronic products, plastics and rubber. The new agreement would permit the exploration of more business opportunities from Israel in the fields of agriculture, horticulture, information technology and advance technology equipment. A pilot project in agriculture and horticulture is soon to be launched in Indonesia and more Israeli investment will be available soon in Indonesia.

In the first incident, the Indonesian government insisted that the Indonesian Tennis Association (Pelti) not to send the Fed Cup team to Israel as a show of solidarity and sympathy to the Palestinian people. Even though the invitation to play in Tel Avis was extended by the Israeli Tennis Association, an independent tennis body, and not by the invitation of the Israeli government, the current event in Palestine seems to have forced the Indonesian government to reconsider its previous stance to give the team a green light to go to Israel. The reason: the Indonesian government can no longer tolerate what Israel has done to Palestine.

On the contrary, Kadin insisted that its engagement with MAI is solely for business purposes and not related to any political or diplomatic cooperation. For the sake of business investment and economic development in Indonesia, Kadin insisted on giving the green light to the implementation of the recently signed agreement. Kadin had never officially informed the government about the visit nor sought any permission for it. The Israeli Embassy in Singapore was involved in arranging the trip while several Indonesian government officials knew about it beforehand. Until now, Indonesia and Israel do not have any bilateral diplomatic ties.

Politically speaking, the Indonesian tennis team should have gone ahead with the schedule and go to Tel Aviv to play against the Israeli team there. The team is invited by an independent organization, the Israeli Tennis Association, to play there and not by the Israeli government. If Kadin could visit Tel Aviv and go ahead with its plan of more intense bilateral relation between Indonesia and Israel in business and investment without prior blessing of the government, why can’t Pelti take similar, independent stand in this matter? Tennis is a sport, politics is wholly different matter. The two should be separated as far as possible. Let the players play the game of tennis, and the politicians play the game of politics.

Witnessing the heroic struggle of the Indonesian Fed Cup team to qualify into the World Group two years ago in New Delhi was a delight and a historic personal experience. Knowing that the team I have supported wholeheartedly to be demoted to a lesser degree due to political pressure is disheartening.

Showing sympathy and solidarity to the Palestinian people does not mean that we have to sacrifice our national interests. Kadin has given this example. Being able to play more active role in international forums to pressurize Israel to solve the conflict in the region peacefully is more important for Indonesia than boycotting a tennis tournament.

If India, another staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, can work hand in hand and even opened up a diplomatic tie with the Jewish state without lessening its support to Palestine and the Palestinian people, why Indonesia can’t do the same? Kadin’s decision to go ahead with its business cooperation with MAI is, in my opinion, a big step forward to improve the economic condition and investment opportunities in Indonesia. Let’s play the game of tennis.

Dragging Israel to ICJ?

2006-07-06T03:39:00.000-07:00

In late January 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory in democratically administered elections in Palestine. As a hard line Islamic group, Hamas took over the baton of leadership in Palestine from the Fatah faction and its victory has evoked mixed responses from different quarters. In Muslim world and young democracy like Indonesia in which the majority of its population is Muslim, the victory means that Islam does not contradict with democracy and instead it is a sign of an advance towards a democratic setup in Muslim world.

On the contrary, the West, especially the US, Israel, and their allies in Europe, rejected this victory and immediately distanced itself from the possibility of dealing with a Hamas led government in Palestine. They even went further by cutting off all financial aids and banking channels to the Palestinian Authority, an important lifeline for the functioning of any government in Palestine, once Hamas formed a new government. The seemingly pragmatist stance taken lately as well as the unilateral ceasefire by Hamas did not give any effect to their stance. Their reasons: Hamas is a terrorist group who refuses to recognize Israel and does not want to foreswear the use of violence in their struggle to establish an independent Palestine state. The boycott and closure of financial aids and banking channels have crippled the functioning of the new government in Palestine.

At the same time, the change of guard in Israel in late March 2006 from Ariel Sharon to Ehud Olmert seemed to have hardened the decision by the Israeli government to unilaterally define its national border. Having secured majority support in the Knesset, Olmert vowed not to conduct any negotiation with a ‘terror group’ (Hamas). He stubbornly continued Sharon’s effort to unilaterally define Israel’s national border regardless of any objection from the Palestinian Authority.

And when the atmosphere of hostility between Israel and Palestine seemed to start winding down, mostly due to the unilateral decision by Hamas not to conduct any attack to Israel and the changing attitude by its leadership towards Israel in which Hamas leadership seemed to be ready to take a pragmatic stance for the sake of the Palestinian people, Israel triggered a new conflict with Palestine. Not satisfied with its political and economic stranglehold on Palestine, Israel is now trying to grab more territory from the Palestinian Authority. PM Olmert has announced recently in Washington that a Greater Israel will be created by 2010 as a final settlement of the Palestinian issue. The Israeli state plans to annex formally the whole of Jerusalem and significant portions of the West Bank, including those already gobbled up by the ‘apartheid wall’, which Israel is constructing at breakneck speed.

Israel started its grandiose plan with an attack to innocent holiday-makers in Gaza beach, killing 10 innocent Palestinians and injuring many others to instigate a reaction from the Palestinians. It went even further by recently conducting series of air strikes in Gaza in which more innocent civilians have been killed and public infrastructure damaged, besides the illegal arrest of Hamas legislators, in brutal search of Corporal Gilad Shalit that has been held captive by Palestinian militants in Gaza. These attacks surely could precipitate another unavoidable intifada in Palestine and formally ended the ceasefire between Hamas and the Israel state.

Regardless of the status of Hamas in the eyes of Israel and its allies, they are the legitimate elected representatives of the Palestinians to rule the Palestinian Authority. On the contrary, the grandiose plan of PM Olmert to create a Greater Israel and the recent attack by Israeli forces on innocent civilians and public infrastructure in Palestine in which power and water stations and government buildings in the Gaza Strip were destroyed have violated international law. The attack has engendered humanitarian crisis in the region and has sent levels of stress and trauma higher among civilians.

In response to this heinous attack on innocent civilians, the Hamas-led Palestinian authority wants to take a legal route by planning to file a petition against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at Hague, accusing it of committing “war crimes against Palestinians”. The plan has an echo in Switzerland, a nation usually known for its political neutrality, in which it condemned this ‘collective punishment’ imposed on Palestinians, calling it a breach of the Geneva Conventions.

Palestinian Authority’s Justice Minister Ahmad Al Khalidi said recently that if the court fails to stop Israel’s aggression against the Palestinians, Hamas would have no choice but to use violence in order to protect the Palestinian people. Furthermore, he said that suing Israel in the ICJ is a test for international institutions. If they deny the rights of Palestinians, then the international community has to act responsibly when it comes to blocking the legal channels to the Palestinians, forcing them to use violence to defend themselves.

Surely, if this process goes successfully, it is a test for international institution and international community to react positively and use the common sense and do justice to those people that have been the victims of injustices. Bringing the matter of Israel and Palestine to the ICJ can also be used as a legal, middle way process to settle the conflict in the region once and for all.

If the international community could justify the establishment of Israel state in the bank of River Jordan in the post-Holocaust tragedy in Europe by the Nazi German, they must justify the basic rights of the Palestinians to live a life of dignity and peace in their own homeland. If justice can be done to the people of Palestine, violence and humanitarian crisis in the region could be well avoided. But if the bias and partiality in judgment prevail, the crisis would only plunge even deeper and violence would escalate further. The current Israeli offensives have enough force to trigger a third intifada by the militant groups in Palestine.

Building a Bridge through Europe

2006-06-25T14:55:00.000-07:00

On 20-21 June 2006, a second International Conference of Islamic Scholars was held in Jakarta. Representatives from various Muslim countries as well as those of other religious groups were present for the two days conference with the aim of building a better understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims through dialogue so as to eradicate hostilities and discord among them. The conference tried to project a moderate Islam as the legitimate representative of Islam in an effort to reject the increasing radicalism among Muslims throughout the Muslim world.

In this conference, leaders of Nadhlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s two largest Muslim organizations, expressed their commitment to campaigning for moderate Islam to counter the emergence of militant groups. They would not seek strict religious formalism in pluralist Indonesia – meaning the upholding of the outward signs and practices of the religion – nor tolerate the use of violence in the name of the religion.

At the same time, the results of a new international survey of more than 14,000 people in 13 nations (in Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States) by Pew as a part of Pew's Global Attitude Project for 2006 conducted in April and May this year was released. The survey found out that Westerners and Muslims around the world have radically different views of world events, and each group tends to view the other as violent, intolerant, and lacking respect for women. There is discord between Muslim world and West.

Muslims worldwide, including the large Islamic communities in Britain, France, Germany and Spain, broadly blamed the West, while Westerners tended to blame Muslims. Muslims in the Middle East and Asia depicted Westerners as immoral and selfish, while Westerners saw Muslims as fanatical.

The overall results of this research, according Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, show that “even though relations are not good, there has not been a spike in outright hostility between the two groups over the past year.” While both sides see relations as bad, it is, at least, “not getting worse.”

Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. Even though there has been an increase in the Muslim radicalism in Indonesia in recent years, but majority of Muslims there are having moderate view on Islam. The two largest Muslim organizations in Indonesia, the NU and Muhammadiyah, represent this group of moderate Muslims. It would be understandable then that an initiative to build a bridge between the opposing communities comes from moderate Muslim community in Indonesia. However, if we believe the result of Pew’s survey, Europe could be the starting point where a bridge could be built to improve the situation. Why?

There is one interesting thing in this year’s survey in which for the first time Pew interviewed Muslims in Europe as a group. Furthermore, the view from Europe could play a very important role in this process of creating “a bridge” between the widely divergent views of other Europeans and Muslims in Asia and the Middle East. Two reasons support this argument.

First, with support for terrorism declined in some Muslim countries surveyed, dropping dramatically in Jordan, where terrorist bombings killed more than 50 people in Amman in November and two-thirds of the French public expressed positive views of Muslims, and even larger majorities of French Muslims felt favorable to Christians and Jews, Muslims in Europe are less inclined to see a “clash of civilizations” than general publics in Europe and Muslims elsewhere.

Second, European Muslims lined up with European general publics on some issues, indicating that integration might be moving ahead better than recent events would suggest. Even though the survey found that British Muslims were highly critical of Westerners, holding negative views resembling those of Muslims in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and Nigeria, who generally saw Westerners as violent and immoral, for example, this view was not shared by Muslims in France, Germany and Spain.

Thus this distinct view of Muslims in Europe could be used as an initial foundation to build a bridge to create better understanding and erase discord between Muslim world and the West. Moderate Indonesian Muslims have the opportunity to lead the way, but European Muslims have already shown the way.

Without undermining the potentials and capabilities of Muslims in Indonesia to play important role in bridging the gap between Muslim world and the West, the European Muslim has the edge. Their first hand experience and contact with the West and an age-old democratic practice in Europe as compared to the peripheral geographic location of Indonesian Muslims with young democracy are more important than rhetoric and numerical strength. Experience is the best teacher.

However, a one-way step will not yield any fruitful result without the collaboration from the opposing side. A reciprocal action from the West is also important to make the process successful. They have to change their views and policies towards Muslim world, especially on Israel – Palestine’s relation and Iraq. A balanced policy on this issue would certainly create a breakthrough and could yield positive result in the future.

For now, it is European Muslims that have the edge to begin the arduous process of building a bridge that would minimize the gap and discord between Muslim world and the West. At the same time, having the number on its side, moderate Indonesian Muslims should no longer wait to also play their own role in this process. Leave the rhetoric now and start the real work. Collective effort is much better than individual effort.

PS:
This post was published in the Op-Ed section of an Indonesian national daily, The Jakarta Post on Friday, 30 June 2006.
The published title was Building the Bridge Through Europe

Tracking the Nuclear Logic

2006-06-16T00:39:00.000-07:00

The debates on Iranian nuclear issue have been heating up in the past few months. There have pros and cons on this contentious issue of basic right of any sovereign nation to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The US and its European allies have been pressurizing the international community to disallow Iran to pursue and develop its own peaceful nuclear technology. Assuming that Iran would divert the technology for developing nuclear warfare at any stage in the future, they have been lobbying member countries in the IAEA to issue an ultimatum to Iran to halt its Uranium enrichment programs or face international sanctions.

On the other hand, while it continuously opposes Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes as an alternative source for its future energy needs, the US has openly signed a nuclear deal with India last March. The US even develops new nuclear bombs to improve its so-called “strategic deterrent.” These decisions, many critics believe, could trigger a new arms race with Russia and China and at the same time could undermine arguments that countries such as Iran or North Korea must stop their nuclear programs.

Being a signatory of the NPT, Iran was categorically denied the right to develop a nuclear technology within the agreed guidelines and under the inspection of the IAEA while India, a non-signatory of the NPT, was warmly welcomed into the nuclear circle.

In support of this Indo-US nuclear deal, the IAEA chief, El-Baradei, recently said in an Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post that it will be illogical to deny civil nuclear technology to India – a country that has “not violated any legal commitment and never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation”. He further said that the deal is “a creative break with the past” with several potential spin-offs. Because, he concluded, while India will get the requisite technology to meet its whopping energy demand, the country will be a part of the international effort to combat nuclear terrorism and rid the world of nuclear weapons.

It is true that India has never violated any legal commitment regarding nuclear technology since it is a non-signatory to the NPT. But putting India as a country that never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation is, in my opinion, a cover up to the double standard being practiced by the US and its allies on nuclear issue. Remember Pokhran I in 1974 and Pokhran II in 1998? And what about the reaction from its neighbor, Pakistan? If India is said to be a country that never encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation how would we put all those “incidents” to be relevant in this context?

As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has so far shown good behavior in relation with nuclear technology development. It has been following the guidelines and instructions from the IAEA. It, in any case, has not violated any legal commitment it made with the nuclear body. Iran pursues its nuclear technology openly and in accordance with the guidelines given by the IAEA. Iranian government has repeatedly said that the nuclear technology it tries to develop is meant only for peaceful purposes and Iran has no intention to divert its nuclear technology into nuclear weapon. This statement has been issued over and again by the Iranian government in which countries like Indonesia and NAM members supported Iran’s effort and the right of any sovereign state to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

In conclusions, to say that it is illogical to deny India a right to develop nuclear technology is the same as illogically denying Iran, or any other country, to develop the technology for peaceful purposes. As a country with one-sixth of the world’s population, India should have this access to meet its enormous energy demand under what is the fastest-growing civilian nuclear program in the world. At the same time, Iran, the world fourth largest oil exporter with enormous natural gas reserve, also deserves the same treatment and respect. Fossil based energy cannot last forever and a new, cheap alternative source of energy should be invented and developed. Nuclear technology is one of the alternatives currently available to replace long-term dependency to fossil based energy.

If a sovereign country like Iran, a signatory to the NPT, is denied its legal right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under the guidelines of the IAEA while at the same time granting India, a non-signatory to the NPT, a wide access to the technology and turning blind eyes to Pakistan’s efforts to develop its nuclear technology, what would be the future fate of a country like Indonesia that has planned to develop its own nuclear technology to meet its increasing energy needs?

Developing nuclear technology is, in my opinion, the right of any sovereign country. There should not be any denial to access this technology but necessary steps and proper guidelines should be strictly followed so as to create bigger responsibility towards the importance of keeping the technology only for peaceful purposes. Any deviation from this purpose should be discouraged with extreme sanctions. Through this step, there would be some logic in encouraging or denying any country the right to develop nuclear technology.

Abu Bakar Ba’asyir and the Threat of Terrorism in Indonesia

2006-06-15T02:48:00.000-07:00

On 14 June 2006, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, a 67-year old Muslim cleric from Solo, Central Java was released from Cipinang jail Jakarta after completing his 30 months jail term for criminal conspiracy. His supporters welcomed the release of Ba’asyir with enthusiasm and jubilation. The name has long been linked with the shadowy terror network Jemaah Islamiyah, an Al-Qaeda-supported terrorist group in Southeast Asia. Most of the leaders of this group have either been arrested or killed by the Indonesia authority in the drives to eradicate terror threats in the past few years. The most recent success was the ambush to Azhari’s hideout in East Java that led to his killing.

Even though he was cleared by the Indonesian court from all terror related charges in 2003 and 2005, but his radical Islamic views has worried many quarters in the society. His radical stance also landed him into the position of being accused as the spiritual leader of JI who claimed the responsibility of several deadly bombings in Indonesia: Bali 2002, JW Marriot 2003 in Jakarta. Moreover, his vow to continue the fight for the implementation of an Islamic Sharia in Indonesia upon his release from jail would likely to influence the dormant terror attacks in Indonesia by radical Muslim groups.

The US and Australia have expressed their concern over Ba’asyir’s release from jail. Both countries were disappointed with the fact that Ba’asyir has only served a short period of jail term for his alleged ‘sinister conspiracy’ in connection with terror activities in Indonesia. They believe that his radical views on Islam might have encouraged the perpetrators of terrorism in Indonesia.

How far would the release of Ba’asyir influence the terror activities in Indonesia? Should his release be a cause of worry for the Indonesian authority of possible new waves of terror attacks? How should the Indonesian authority react to these possibilities?

To answer all those questions, we should start with the assumption that Ba’asyir is just a clergyman who has a strong view on Islam and how Islam should be implemented in Indonesia. He was put in jail not because of his proven involvement with the terror activities of the so-called JI in Indonesia. The judges found that Ba’asyir “knew the perpetrators,” and that his words “might have encouraged” them to conduct the barbaric activities of killing the innocents through suicide bombings.

From these two statements, we could see the doubt in the minds of the judges about any direct involvement of Ba’asyir with the terror activities of the JI. In my opinion, knowing a person/persons who commit crime does not necessarily imply that we are a part of any crime committed by him/her. Our views/words on certain matter that might influence the minds of the perpetrators to do a crime should not make us a party of the crime either. Unless there is any proven direct link between the two parties, we cannot be held responsible to the crime done by the criminals. The perpetrators conduct their crime based on their own understanding and capability of conducting such action.

Ba’asyir’s ruling on his alleged involvement in JI terror network, in my opinion, was the result of the continuing pressures from the US and Australia to the Indonesian authority to find perfect scapegoat for the mastermind of the terror attacks in Indonesia. It is just like accusing Saddam Hussein as the mastermind behind the terror attacks by the Al-Qaeda terror group in the US. Ba’asyir’s radical view on Islam is the perfect excuse for accusing him to be involved with the terror attacks in Indonesia.

Coming back to the question of any possible renewal of terror attacks in Indonesia after Ba’asyir’s release, I think it is an exaggeration. With or without Ba’asyir’s presence any terror groups could possibly conduct any terror attack in Indonesia. But Ba’asyir is a figure that needs to be watched closely. His radical view on Islam and his vow to fight for the implementation of an Islamic Sharia in Indonesia can be interpreted as a possible danger to the unity of a plural Indonesia. However, there should not be any exaggeration in taking care of his presence. His radical Islamic view is not solely his privilege but is shared by many different radical Muslim groups in Indonesia. He is just a variant and a part of a bigger group of radical minority in the Muslim community in Indonesia.

It is the homework for the Indonesian authority to contain any possible terror attacks in Indonesia. The current anti-terror department created in the hierarchy of Indonesian authority has so far done quite successful job to contain terror threats. The arrests of the perpetrators of terrorism like Amrozi, the killing of Azhari and the nearly successful effort in capturing Noordin Top recently have proven the seriousness of the Indonesian authority to fight terrorism and to ensure the safety and security of the Indonesian populace.

Terrorism does not know any religion. With or without a Ba’asyir terror threat is very much presence in any society. Only a vigilant authority with a cooperative society could defeat the threat of terrorism.

At the same time, moderation of view on certain subject, for example on Islam, should be of better benefits to ensure the unity and pluralism in a democratic and plural society like Indonesia. Finally, even though in a globalized world in which everything is interconnected, but Indonesia as a sovereign nation should not budge to the pressures and demands from foreign powers. Indonesia has a life and a system of its own and must trust its capability to ensure the functioning of rule of law to keep the law and order situation always in check.

A Derailed Democracy?

2006-06-12T06:25:00.000-07:00

Eight years have passed and Indonesia is still struggling to find the imagined form of democratic governance. The reform movement emerged in the late 1990s now seems to stumble upon a huge boulder that blocks its forward movement. The multiparty system, direct presidential elections and Constitutional amendments have not yet been able to create the desired dream of a democratic Indonesia. On the contrary, these promising processes of democratization in Indonesia have now seemed to lead into a derailed democracy in Indonesia.

The post-Suharto Indonesia is marked with the opening of political valves that led into an increasing level of political participation. The different political parties with various ideologies emerged as vehicles that would launch any individual into the top executive position in Indonesia. The Constitutional amendments allowed this political process to continue and shape Indonesian democracy. The president-centric constitution was transformed into a more parliamentary-oriented constitution in which the Indonesian parliament is designed to play a more significant role in the process of checks and balances of democratic governance.

The rubber stamp parliament during Suharto period is transformed into a legislative body that checks and balances the power of the executive, the president. With this process, a possibility of authoritarianism from a directly elected executive could be avoided. Early signs of the functioning of this new democratic setup could be found in the case of President Abdurrahman Wahid. His controversial and erratic presidency period in which he issued a decree to dissolve the parliament was rejected and he was ousted by the parliament from his office before the end of his tenure to be replaced by Megawati.

However, this early positive signs of balance between the executive and the legislative in Indonesian polity soon evaporated when direct presidential elections was held for the first time in 2004. With a majority seat in the parliament, the combination of Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party and Kalla’s Golkar Party controls the functioning of the parliament. Many of government’s controversial policies got easy approval from the parliament.Any voice of dissent emerges among the members of parliament opposing the policy would immediately be defeated in the early stage of parliamentary process through voting.

For example, the controversial policy of rice import from Vietnam got an easy approval from the parliament even though certain factions in the parliament opposed this policy. More recently, the decision by the Indonesian government to award an American company, Exxon Mobil, to manage the exploration and production process of Cepu oil field instead of giving the responsibility to the Pertamina, government owned oil company, in which both parties hold equal percentage of shares, has resulted in the protest by the members of the Indonesian parliament.

In both cases, the parliament threatened to use its constitutional right to question the government on the related policy. If this constitutional right is successfully implemented, it could either jeopardize or support the policy. But in both cases, the voices of dissent in the parliament proved to be mere hollow voices, far away from the high expectation from the people. In both cases, the move to question the government was defeated by the majority members in the parliament who, understandably, are the members or the representatives of political parties in the government. The parliament has once again turned into a mere rubber stamp parliament who approves all government policies without even dare to raise any question, leave alone the possibility of objecting it.

The vibrant and promising democratic process in Indonesia seems to have been derailed. The parliament is unable to play the role of checks and balances to the government. The elected people’s representatives who sit in the parliament are now the representatives of political parties who feel more obliged with money and the instructions from the party bosses than from the voice of the people they have claimed to represent. Fear of losing ‘lucrative’ positions and recall from party bosses are bigger than fear of betraying and destroying the trust of the people. The moral responsibility of these people’s representatives are at its lowest thus contribute to the possibility of an authoritarianism.

To avoid the possibility of democratic derailment in Indonesia, there are steps that might be taken for consideration. The multiparty system, direct presidential elections and constitutional amendments adopted by Indonesia should not be abandoned to create democratic governance. They are the perfect steps toward achieving this goal. It is the political parties and political leadership that should realize their moral obligation and responsibility in building democratic governance. Secondly, besides actively educating the people about politics and political process, the paternalistic philosophy long followed by political parties should be abandoned to make the party cadres more responsible to their constituencies.

These two steps, imparting moral responsibility among political parties and political leadership and abandoning paternalistic philosophy by political parties, if taken seriously, can be a stepping stone in avoiding democratic derailment in Indonesia. Besides creating responsible political leadership, it would also allow the checks and balances process to function properly. Strong political leadership and legitimacy by the executive through a direct election process would be balanced by a responsible parliament that is free from the pressure of paternalist political parties. Thus the vibrant Indonesian democracy would not be derailed due to personal ambitions and irresponsible political leadership.

Becoming An Ally or A Friend?

2006-06-08T01:18:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday, June 6, 2006, the embattled U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Jakarta en route to a NATO meeting in Brussels. He came with a message from his boss President G.W. Bush that Washington seeks to have a long-term military relationship with Jakarta. He said that the United States is to develop a relationship with the government of Indonesia from a military-to-military standpoint, in a manner that is comfortable to the people of Indonesia and the United States.

Having lifted its military embargo on Indonesia last November, the U.S. proposal of a long-term military cooperation with Indonesia is understandably acceptable for both countries. The proposed military cooperation would cover the areas of military assistance, weapons sales and training that would enable the two countries to work together as partners in military exercises and trainings for military personnel. This cooperation would also allow Indonesia to rebuild its military capability that suffered a major set back due to the imposed embargo by the U.S. in early 1990s. Indonesia’s dependency on American military technology contributed to this setback.

The U.S. proposal can also be seen as an effort by the current administration to expand its international alliance in its effort to fight the terrorism menace and to woe Indonesia to join the alliance. The fact that Indonesia is a country with the biggest number of moderate Muslim population in the world would give special benefits for the U.S. in this front. This view has been stressed again and again by the visiting US administrations to Jakarta as well as in the several meetings between President Bush and President Yudhoyono.

With this offer of military cooperation from the U.S., Indonesia would achieve lots of benefits as well as possible problems in the future. By having a closer military tie with the U.S., Indonesia would be able to rebuild its military and upgrade its defense technology to a level where Indonesia would be capable of using it to control and patrol the vast region the archipelago. Military trainings and assistance from the U.S. would enable the Indonesian military personnel to be more professional and efficient. They would be exposed to advance military technology and strategy to tackle any form of future danger in the archipelago.

However, this imminent benefit to be gained by Indonesia in the face of a close military cooperation with the U.S. is not without any possible long-term problems. One very imminent problem that might come up in the future is a possible repeat of a military setback in the face of any military embargo by the U.S.. The heavily Americanized Indonesian military was crippled to the core once the U.S. government imposed a military embargo in the early 1990s for an alleged human right abuses by the Indonesian military in East Timor.

Secondly, the negative record of the current U.S. administration vis-à-vis the Muslim world could possibly affect the legitimacy of the Indonesian government at home. Even though the majority of Muslims in Indonesia are moderate but many of them feel that the US behavior against the Muslim populace is unacceptable, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. A close alliance between Indonesia and the U.S. would affect the sentiment of the majority population in Indonesia as well as the already dwindling political legitimacy of the current Indonesian government.

To avoid these possible problems, the Indonesian government should realize that a close military cooperation with the U.S. does not mean that Indonesia does not have any other opportunity to build similar cooperation with other military power in the world. At the same time, the proposed military cooperation should look more into the possibility of transfer of military technology from the U.S. to Indonesia and not just a mere transfer of military equipments without knowledge to develop it indigenously.

This process of transfer of knowledge and technology would, in the future, enable Indonesia to build its own capability to manufacture and produce its own indigenous military equipments for security and national purposes. Thus in case there is an imposed military embargo, it would not affect Indonesia’s military capability. This process would also reduce the economic cost of importing all military equipments and spare parts in case there is damage or a need for an upgrade. India is a perfect example for this process. India builds much of its current indigenous military capability and equipment through the process of transfer of military technology from the erstwhile Soviet Union. Any military embargo imposed to India would not affect its military because it has the capability to build it indigenously.

Similarly, in the face of possible erosion of its political legitimacy and arousing the sentiment of the majority population due to Indonesia’s proximity with the U.S., the Indonesian government should be able to project its independency in matters of international policy. The editorial in The Jakarta Post on 7 June 7, 2006 has rightly said that, “At least morally, the U.S. is no longer in a position to preach about how we should conduct our war on terror. We also hope the U.S. administration will consider the sensitivity here when it comes to issues related to Islam, and at least not create new problems for the Yudhoyono administration in eliminating the roots of terrorism.”

In the end, in this globalized world, Indonesia should become a friend of the United States, but not an ally, and gain maximum benefits from this proximity. The Indonesian government should protect and follow its independent foreign policy so as not to fall into the trap of being an ally to the U.S..

The Nuclear Turns into "Green"

2006-05-15T06:11:00.000-07:00

The recently concluded summit of eight developing nations (D-8) in Bali has resulted in one interesting phenomenon. Amidst international objection on nuclear technology proliferation by non-nuclear states and seemingly inspired by the determination of one of its members, Iran, to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, the D-8 declared in their joint statement that they fully supported the development of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes by any country in the world. The D-8 believes that is in the basic right of any sovereign country in the world to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. They also agreed that nuclear technology would provide a very important alternative way to fulfill any shortage of energy in future.

The decision by the D-8 to adopt a nuclear friendly policy as an alternative source of energy has become an instant headlines in international news. The fact that most of the members in the grouping are big oil producers, their bold declaration has raised some eyebrows. If the continuing increase of oil price in international market is the source of worry to immediately shift their focus of energy sources to fuel their economic machineries to nuclear technology, it seems this reason is little bit hard chew. With the abundant reserve in oil and other natural energy resources, this price increase should not be a worry for them.

But if the facts that these natural energy resources like oil, gas or coal do not last forever and cannot be recycled become the main reason of adopting this policy and the fact that there is a possibility to create a cheaper and affordable source of energy through nuclear technology, then this reason is, in my opinion, wholly acceptable. Because in the world which is increasingly demanding higher supply of oil and natural resources to keep the economic machineries running steadily, the abundant reserve of oil and other natural energy resources in these countries cannot keep these machineries running in a long period of time.

Shortage of oil and natural energy resources would soon become an unavoidable reality in the near future. Thus, there is a good reason to give nuclear technology a fresher look.

Uranium which becomes the main fuel in nuclear technology is abundant in number and inexpensive in price as compared to oil and other natural energy resources. Nuclear energy produced through this technology can replace fossil-fuel power plants for generating electricity and other industrial needs thus reducing the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute heavily to global warming. Through nuclear technology there would be diversification of energy resources thus minimizes the use of oil and other natural energy resources and prolongs its usage. Nuclear technology is thus the most likely alternative source of energy in the future and the decision by the D-8 to choose nuclear technology as its future alternative source of energy is wholly perfect.

But the question now is how this declaration would affect the nuclear equation in international stage dominated by the US and Europe? Because, even though the manifesto of the grouping does not restrict its membership to only developing Muslim countries, but the current members of the grouping are eight Muslim dominated countries: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey. This gives an impression that the nuclear now goes ‘green’ and Iran has found more supporters to cheer her on in the quest of becoming a nuclear power state.

This declaration by the D-8 certainly could alter the international nuclear equation in the future. Because this declaration came in a time when there is an immense pressure by the US and its allies as well as by the international communities to Tehran, a member of the D-8, to stop its efforts to develop nuclear technology. Furthermore, this declaration seems to challenge the status quo of nuclear power and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Even though nuclear technology does not mean nuclear weapon, but once a country is capable of acquiring a nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, it is also, in the long run, capable of creating nuclear weapons from it. There is always possibility for that country to turn the spent fuel rod of uranium into nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan are clear examples. Or even worse, the current nuclear powers supply developing nations with uranium and taking the spent fuel rods back to create nuclear weaponry. The double standard given by the US on nuclear policy through a nuclear deal with India would further aggravate the situation.

To quote an editorial from the New York Times, “How much impact nuclear power could really have in slowing carbon emissions has yet to be spelled out, but there is no doubt that nuclear power could serve as a useful bridge to even greener sources of energy.” And with the declaration by the D-8, the nuclear has become ‘green’. But how far this ‘green’ would affect the nuclear equation in the future still remains to be watched closely. For now, nuclear technology is the most likely alternative source of energy which is green, affordable yet dangerous.

Between Economy and Politics: A New Challenge for D-8

2006-05-11T00:09:00.000-07:00

Going by the statistics of the economic relations among the members of the Developing Eight for the past 9 years after its establishment in June 1997, less than 4 per cent of their total foreign trade with the whole world, the up coming summit to be held in Bali on 13-14 May 2006 has resulted in some degree of pessimism in certain quarters. Questions like could this meeting boost economic relations in a tangible way? or would this meeting be just another routine meeting without any tangible results? have come up as the result of this pessimism.

Furthermore, in the world which is flat, to use the term popularized by Thomas L. Friedman, the D-8 faces a difficult choice between sticking to its agreed manifesto of sole economic cooperation and a temptation to indulge in responding to political issues that emerge between now and then among its member states. The ever-increasing interconnection between politics and economy in this globalized world has prevented the separation of economic development and political issues. This dilemma of choice is the most difficult challenge that needs to be addressed by the grouping at the earliest possible time. How?

Adopting a new manifesto that acknowledges the importance of political implications to the development of economy is, in my opinion, one most tangible answer possible to cope with this new challenge. Because by expanding the old manifesto into a manifesto that also deals with political issues, the grouping would be able to develop a new approach and design suitable framework to balance the implications of political issues on their economic development. Besides, this type of manifesto would allow the grouping to become a single entity in voicing their stand on certain political issues. In this way, their voice possesses much heavier political importance than a single voice of a developing country.

However, adoption of this kind of manifesto is certainly not without any challenge and obstacle. Even though the member states in D-8 share certain degree of democracy, but except Iran and Pakistan, the remaining member states in D-8 are not Islamic states. The Muslims in these countries, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria and Turkey, practice secularism to run the administration in their countries. Homogeneity through democracy and Muslim-dominated population is very much apparent in the grouping but heterogeneity among them cannot be neglected.

Thus, for an example, if the grouping responds to an international challenge faced by one of its member states solely based on their emotional relation of being Muslim-dominated countries would only further polarized the already fragmented world. The grouping must instead formulate an approach that would contribute to the elevation of humanitarianism and not to indulge in emotional responses solely based on hatred and enmity. The ability of the D-8 leaders to come up with this kind of formula to cope with the new challenges will be of great benefit to the long-term standing of this grouping in international politics.

By understanding the global implications of political issues on the development of economic growth and cooperation and immediately adopting appropriate approach to tackle the challenge, there is a greater possibility of the D-8 member countries to utilize their trade potentials to the maximum. In other words, since politics and economy are parallel to each other, the balance between the two will be very beneficial to improve economic growth and development.

If the grouping finally decides to adopt this kind of approach by considering the importance of political implications to economic development and cooperation, the Bali Summit would certainly not only just another routine summit without any tangible result. A whole new meaning in the grouping would emerge as a result of it. Besides, if Indonesia, as the next chairman of the grouping, could bring about an initiative in this direction, I believe, there would be positive responses from different quarters due to the increasing international standing of Indonesia as the biggest country in the world with biggest number of moderate Muslim population.

Between Poverty and Destruction

2006-05-05T10:10:00.000-07:00

Recently, there was a report on an international newspaper on a number of Saudi youth who drank alcohol-based cologne to ease out their ‘misery’. But instead of becoming ‘high’, they died due to the deadly type of alcohol found in it. This recent incident was a repeat of similar incident occurred four year before. 17 youth throughout the kingdom has been reportedly died while several others who drank it are now under the medical treatment for blood poisoning. It is not known how far this deadly habit has taken victim.

What drove these youth to take this deadly action? The report said that an urge to achieve instant relief from misery due to poverty and the lack of parental supervision have driven these youth to take this action. Besides, the lack of knowledge on the drinkable alcohol seen by these youth on international television programs widely accessible through satellite discs across the Kingdom also contributed to this incident. Some young people made the mistake thinking that anything that says alcohol is consumable. They are wrong.

In liquors, the alcohol used is known as ethyl alcohol, which is safe and consumable. In cologne products, a different type of alcohol called methyl alcohol is used as the main substance. The later type of alcohol is a deadly poison and is never intended for use as a beverage in any culture. The ignorant Saudi youth thought that the alcohol found in cologne products is safe and consumable thus they drank it and died because of it. To avoid any further incident, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry withdrew all the cologne from the market where ethyl alcohol exceeded 90 percent and methyl alcohol exceeded 50 percent.

One interesting point that I wanted to raise here is not about the legality or illegality of consuming alcohol in Islam or the correct type of alcohol which is consumable but instead it is about the statement by an expert of Islamic studies in this Kingdom, Dr. Saleh Awad Al-Garni, regarding this incident. He said that, “…Claiming unemployment or poverty are the reasons for it is nonsense. Since when was poverty the road that leads to destruction? Being unemployed does not mean killing ourselves.”

This statement seems to be true in a rich kingdom like Saudi Arabia where poverty and unemployment seems to be foreign vocabularies. True that unemployed does not mean killing ourselves. And to prove how true this statement is, more elaborate studies are needed. However, a paper by Afshin Molavi called Young and Restless published in Smithsonian Magazine, April 1, 2006, gave a different picture of Saudi Arabia at present. To quote,

“… The boomers, however, did not grow into fantastic wealth. In 1981, the kingdom’s per capita income was $28,000, making it one of the richest countries on earth. But by 1993, … the kingdom was recovering from both a long recession (oil prices had dwindled) and a war on its border (the Persian Gulf war of 1991). Per capita income was declining rapidly, and boomers were straining the finances of a largely welfare-driven state. Government jobs and scholarships for foreign study grew scarce. (In 2001, per capita income was a quarter of what it had been in 1981.)”

Clearly, the paper showed the changes that occur in the Saudi society, especially the distribution of wealth from the petrodollar. It is no wonder then that poverty and unemployment start to surface. Furthermore, with some 75 percent of the population under 30 and 60 percent under 21; more than one in three Saudis is under 14, the kingdom is a young nation ruled by old generation who has quite different approach to the reality. And even though the recently installed monarch, King Abdullah, has done his part to reform the society, but it is still not enough. More works still need to be done and more reform should be introduced to avoid any clash between the old generation and the young one.

On the contrary, in India where there has been recent surge in its economic growth, with a steady economic growth of 8 per cent, and increasing employment opportunities, suicide and indulgence in alcoholic drinks by poor people, especially farmers in the drought-hit regions, and unemployed seem to be an avoidable phenomenon. This is the contradiction of the two India: urban India and rural (real) India.

The urban India enjoys the fruit of economic growth and greater employment opportunities while the rural India still lags behind with its underdevelopment and lack of employment opportunities. The imbalance between the two India resulted in the almost everyday report in Indian national newspaper on suicide by Indians in the rural India who decide to take their lives due to severe poverty and mounting debt traps.

This is totally the opposite of the view given by Al-Garni. In India, poverty surely leads the road to destruction.

In conclusion, for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the recent incident is, I believe, just a tip of an iceberg of a much bigger problem faced by the Kingdom. The reform by the new administration is still far from being a success. A lot more efforts still need to be done to create jobs and employment opportunities for the young generation. With the growing competition from its neighbors and the shrinking world due to globalization, the new administration has to create a new approach suitable to accommodate with the new challenges.

Similarly, in India, the suicide by farmers in rural India can be understood as wake up call for the government, both the state and the central government, to give more attention to the rural India, the real India. It is time for the government to balance the development program between rural and the urban India. Poverty should be eradicated at all cost and all efforts should be mustered to achieve it. Agriculture should become the main focus of the administration. A second green revolution should be started at the earliest possible so that the Gharibi Hatao is not only just a meaningless slogan to gain votes and instead the slogan should really be applied and practiced by the government to eradicate poverty for the welfare of the people.

Restructuring Indonesian Defense System

2006-04-20T02:36:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to know that the Indonesian government has decided to revamp its defense system. With a Navy of only 65,000 personnel and an Air Force of 45,000 while an Army of 285,000 personnel in country where water and air contribute to more than half of its total territory, there is a clear imbalance between the three forces in Indonesia.

Even though the Indonesian Army has long been playing very important security and defense role in Indonesia but an Army-centered defense mechanism in an island nation like Indonesia is seen to be irrelevant if Indonesia wants to establish an effective and dependable defense mechanism to guard and defend its national security and interests. Thus there is an urgent necessity to draw a new system of defense most suitable for an island nation like Indonesia. Expanding the Indonesian Navy and Air Force is an important step to achieve this goal.

Following this logic, the Minister of Defense, Juwono Sudarsono said that the necessity of spending more on the two defense forces is “because the nature of our defense situation is more about the water and the air. For the Army, the key word is not modernizing, but stabilizing ... emphasizing the presence of the battalions." (The Jakarta Post, 19 April 2006, “Air Force, Navy to get bigger chunk of funds”)

Nobody can agree more with this view. By increasing the numbers of the Navy and the Air Force personnel while at the same time modernizing their weaponry and technology would definitely create a balance in the Indonesian military. Furthermore, this long-awaited defense policy change is expected to create a defense system more suitable to the country's archipelagic geography.

Even though the success of the revamp process of the defense system would rely on both Indonesia’s financial availability and also cooperation with neighboring countries, but the need to improve Indonesia’s increasing demand of security and defense is unavoidable. The relatively small military budget should be increased to meet the demands. Because with the currently weak capacity of sea and air patrols, Indonesia is estimated to lose about Rp 2 trillion annually due to illegal fishing practices in the country's waters. This fact only proves the argument on the need of improving and re-orienting Indonesia’s security and defense mechanism into water and air, while at the same time stabilizing its Army.

How and Where to Begin

The improving strategic relationship between Indonesia and the US can be used as an initial step towards the process. The decision by the US administration to resume its military relation with Indonesia will only add to the greater possibility of acquiring better technology and weaponry system for Indonesian military. In the nearer front, the long history of a cordial military relation with India should be utilized even more in this process. Indonesia can imitate the Indian experience of building up its Naval force. The proximity of the two countries can also be used as a step towards building up an important partnership in Indonesia’s effort to revamp its defense system.

As the biggest country in South Asia that occupies the biggest chunk of land in the Indian Sub-Continent, it was thus understandable that the Indian Navy was the most neglected of the three services because the national leadership perceived that the bulk of the threats to India were land-based. However, with the change of approach and priority, the Indian Navy has been transformed into a formidable naval power in the world.

Through the conscious and difficult process of indigenisation started in the mid 1960s in consonance with its national endeavour towards self-reliance, the Indian Navy embarked upon an ambiguous program of indigenous construction of ships and development of major sub systems, sensors and weapon systems with the help of its Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Defence Public Sector Understandings (PSUs). Even though fiscal constraints at that time had prevented the implementation of these ambitious plans for naval expansion but the determination among Indian leadership was high that through close partnership with foreign country like the then Uni Soviet, India succeeded in revamping its Navy. This long process of transformation has enabled the Indian Navy to become a builder’s Navy and not just be a buyer’s Navy. Self-reliance through indigenisation that has been the Indian Navy’s guiding philosophy over the last half century proved to be very effective in this transformation process.

At the same time, in the spirit of international military cooperation, India has made moves in the early and mid-1990s to enhance joint-nation interoperability. Indian naval exercises have taken place with ships from the Russian navy and those of Indian Ocean littoral states and other nations, including the United States. This experience can also become an important factor for Indonesia in its effort to implementing a defense policy that is friendly, non-threatening and is not carried out by massive provision of weapons.

If the Indonesian government can follow these initial steps, it will surely be successful in its process to revamp the defense system. Workable regional security cooperation can also be built through this process. Even though it would still be difficult to increase the defense budget due to some fiscal restraints, but a necessity is there to implement. The Indonesian leadership should chalk out long-term objectives to create self-reliance in the country. An indigenisation process followed by India can become a model for future Indonesia.

Amending the Citizenship Laws

2006-04-05T00:36:00.000-07:00

In a discussion between the Minister of Justice and Human Rights, Hamid Awaluddin, and the Indonesian community in New Delhi on 4 April 2006 evening, the Minister has reiterated once again the claim of ‘revolutionary’ decision by the government to re-draft and replace the old citizenship laws for the benefits of the Indonesian people in general and the Indonesian economy in particular.

The government wants to introduce a limited dual citizenship to Indonesian children born out of an international marriage and the possibility of granting permanent resident status to foreign investors in Indonesia. This permanent resident status offer is meant to boost the flow of FDI and help in improving the Indonesian economy.

In my opinion, a permanent resident status to be offered to those foreign investors in Indonesia is a good step towards building up a better future for Indonesian economy. The status will exempt the holders of the long and complicated process of immigration formalities. A permanent resident status offer to foreign investor is certainly a revolutionary step toward integrating Indonesia into the new international landscape.

However, the idea of a limited dual citizenship to be offered to Indonesian children born out of an international marriage is far from beneficial in easing out their citizenship problems. Because by limiting their chance to choose between being an Indonesian and a non-Indonesian after the age of 18 is discouraging. Protecting the citizenship right of Indonesian women from being forced to relinquish their citizenship in such an international marriage is one important thing but limiting the right of these ‘Indonesians’ to have an Indonesian nationality in future is something different.

Security reason cited as the basis of this idea of limited dual nationality is understandable but not giving a chance to these children to choose what they want to do in future is like denying their basic rights. In this case, the citizenship policy adopted by the Indian government might worth to consider. This citizenship policy has provided a lot of benefits to the development of India as a whole and Indian economy in particular.

Non Resident Indian (NRI), Person of Indian Origin (PIO) and Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)

These terms are very familiar in the Indian language vocabulary and economy. While the first one refers to those Indian citizens who stay abroad for employment/carrying on business or vocation outside India or stays abroad under circumstances indicating an intention for an uncertain duration of stay abroad, a PIO and an OCI are similar yet different. Both are those persons of Indian origin, up to the fourth generation, living abroad and having foreign passports except those of Pakistan and Bangladesh but the rights and benefits of these cardholders are slightly different. While the right of a PIO cardholder is limited, an OCI cardholder enjoys more benefits.

The benefits of an OCI cardholder are:

1) Multiple entry, multi-purpose life long visa to visit India;
2) Exemption from reporting to Police authorities for ay length of stay in India; and
3) Parity with NRIs in financial, economic and educational fields except in the
acquisition of agricultural or plantation properties.

The Overseas Citizens, however, will not enjoy the following Rights:

1) Right to Vote;
2) Right to hold Constitutional Offices (Member of Lok Sabha (DPR), Rajya Sabha (MPR), Legislative Assembly or Council (DPRD), offices of President, Vice-President, Judge of Supreme Court & High Court, etc.);
3) Appointment to Public Services (Govt. Services)

Compared to PIO card, OCI offers following benefits:

1) OCI is entitled to life long visa, free travel to India whereas for PIO cardholder, it is just for 15 years.
2) PIO cardholder is required to register with local police authority for stay exceeding 180 days in India on any single visit whereas OCI is exemption from reporting to Police for any length of stay in India.

In short, these policies have given a lot of choices to persons of Indian origin to choose. At the same time, the policies gave immense opportunities for India to boost the flow of India’s FDI. In fact, the 7 to 8 % of economic growth enjoys by India for the past few years can in part be attributed to the success of this policy.

If the current Indonesian government is really willing to ‘revolutionize’ the citizenship laws, the Indian experience is worth to consider. While not altering its policy on dual citizenship, India has opened up opportunities for persons of Indian origin belonging to developed countries and willing to invest in India to choose the status of being a PIO or an OCI cardholder.

Thus, instead of adopting a limited dual citizenship, Indonesia can adopt the NRI, PIO or OCI policies adopted by India. In future, there would be a Non Resident Indonesian (NRI), People of Indonesian Origin (PIO) or, for that matter, Overseas Citizen of Indonesia (OCI).

In the end, I believe that this kind of policy will become a breakthrough policy that would certainly offer an answer to the citizenship problem. At the same time, it would attract Indonesians living abroad to return and invest in Indonesia without any difficulties and thus help the development of all sectors in Indonesian.

Papua is Indonesia’s Internal Problem

2006-04-04T06:14:00.000-07:00

The response given by Damien Kingsbury to my op-ed article (Is Papua a danger of becoming another E. Timor?) published in The Jakarta Post on 29 March 2006 was quite understandable. I accepted his judgment that my article was just trying to highlight the misunderstandings between the two neighbors so that solutions to the current situation can be formulated for the benefit of both the countries in general and specifically for the Papuans.

However, I feel that there are several aspects that need to be clarified about the claim he made in the response to my article.

First, how different is the circumstances in Papua and the one in Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter when the Australian government decided to refuse their claim as political asylum seekers or to delay their process up to 6 to 12 months as opposed to the relatively quick response by the Australian government to grant the emergency visas to the 42 Papuans?

If human right abuse is the basis for granting the visas, didn’t these Afghans or Iraqis deserve the same treatment? Or there should be differences in their treatment? Wasn’t there any “long and well-documented history of human rights abuses” in these countries?

The seemingly hasty decision by the Australian immigration department to accept the claim of these Papuans as political asylum seekers and granted them visas rose some suspicion on the genuine intentions of the Australian government in supporting the sovereignty of Indonesia.

Secondly, by claiming that there is no Australian involvement to the current situation in Papua, it seems Damien forgot the fact that it was the international communities who had permitted the Indonesian government to implement the New York Agreement and conducted a ‘referendum’ for the future of West Papua in 1969.

Australia as a part of the international observers in the referendum left West Papua before completing its duty. This incident, in turn, resulted in the choreographed referendum that led to the integration of West Papua to Indonesia. No objection by the Australian government was raised to this result.

Thus, Australia is, in my opinion, also responsible to all the problems in Papua. And as a good neighbor, Australia should not exploit the current situation for its short-term objectives but instead Australia should support Indonesia in its efforts to solve the problem in Papua through shared civic values, in which all Indonesian citizens are treated with equality, respect and dignity.

Papua is Indonesia’s internal problem and should not be internationalized. The Government should resolve the matter as soon as possible to avoid being dragged into the traps of those agents who do not want to see Indonesia’s transformation into a powerful nation.

Published in The Jakarta Post on 13 April 2006.
Can be accessed through:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060413.F04&irec=5

Gets facts right and focus on the real problem

2006-04-03T21:58:00.000-07:00

In asking the question, is Papua in danger of becoming another East Timor, Ahmad Qisa'i does little more than highlight a number of misunderstandings about East Timor, Papua and Australia ( The Jakarta Post, March 29, page 7).

To start, the Australian government did not change its policy regarding East Timor in the late 1990s or following the fall of Soeharto. That change only came after the East Timorese voted for independence.

This is not to say that prior Australian policy was morally correct -- in supporting Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, it had been complicit in the many crimes against the East Timorese people committed by Indonesian forces. But that policy did not change until, by Indonesia's own agreement, East Timor chose to separate from Indonesia, and in light of TNI and its proxy militia destroying most of East Timor's infrastructure and murdering a further 1,400 of its people.

It is also worth noting that the UN-sponsored intervention in East Timor included a number of other countries, including New Zealand, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan and others, and had the strong support of the United States. That is, the post-ballot intervention under the auspices of the UN involved many countries, not just Australia.

That is now history, and if some Indonesians choose not to let it go then they will only remind others of how badly Indonesian forces behaved from the moment they invaded East Timor in 1975 until their departure in 1999.

But Papua is not East Timor, and the circumstances of the events of 1999 and now are very different. Just as Australia accepts all other people requesting asylum who can demonstrate a legitimate case of fleeing actual or potential harm, the decision by Australia to accept 42 of 43 Papuan asylum seekers was not a political decision by the government. It was an administrative decision by an independent body. This operates under the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, which Indonesia also follows.

In highlighting this case, Qisa'i succeeds only in raising the question; why were the Papuan asylum seekers granted asylum? The answer is because there is a long and well documented history of human rights abuses by the Indonesian Military (TNI) and police in Papua against indigenous people, and these asylum seekers were able to show that they had been and were again likely to be victims of such abuses.

There was no "pretext of harassment"; there was well documented abuse. Indonesian government promises that the asylum seekers would not face prosecution if they returned meant little when the TNI and police continue to act outside government purview in Papua. I am sure the government did not condone the murder of Theys Eluay either, but it still happened.

Australia's administrative decision to accept the asylum seekers makes no comment one way or the other on any sympathy that might be felt for Papuans in Australia. The Australian government continues to reaffirm its commitment to the sovereign unity of Indonesia, as it should under conventional diplomatic protocol, and Qisa'i would struggle to find any evidence that official and indeed unofficial policy in any way differed from that.

In so far as many private Australian citizens are concerned over human rights abuses in Papua, this is their legitimate right to do so. Australia is a free country in which its citizens can hold whatever political views they like about domestic or international issues.

To be concerned over human rights abuses wherever they occur is to recognize the universal value of human rights rather than to be concerned about the specific and sometimes narrowly conceived interests of those who wield power in a particular country. That is, universal human rights expresses concern based on the general quality of being human, not on the specific quality of being Indonesian, or Australian, or Papuan.

Like some others in Indonesia, Qisa'i is concerned about Australia's "insensitivity" towards Indonesia over Papua. One might better ask what about insensitivity towards the indigenous people of Papua who are, after all, the primary victims in this sorry mess.

In so far as Papua represents a "delicate problem", the way Papuans are treated in their own land is a long way from delicate. Perhaps a refusal to acknowledge the truth of what has been happening in Papua does raise the tricky question of how to reconcile contradictions between perspective and fact. But sometimes we just have to face facts, and "sensitivity" has to adjust to reality, or else we just end up deluding ourselves.

But perhaps Qisa'i is correct when he says the Indonesian government should act positively to avoid Papua breaking away from Indonesia. To that end, the government should give very serious consideration to fully and properly implementing genuine autonomy as a way of placating the legitimate grievances of the Papuans.

For this, it must be prepared to talk openly and honestly with Papuan leaders, who do exist and who have a common, united view, despite some views in Jakarta that this is not the case. It must listen to them, and find a settlement based on negotiation and agreement, not imposition.

The government of Indonesia did reach a reasonable outcome to the conflict in Aceh. Everyone who cares about peace and the future of Indonesia as a united country hopes this is now honored in the required legislation. Perhaps a similar outcome is also possible in Papua.

The administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has demonstrated with Aceh that unity and peace can only be achieved through shared civic values, in which all Indonesian citizens are treated with equality, respect and dignity.

Perhaps, then, those "nationalists" who are concerned about the future of Papua should focus their attention on the real problem, which is not in Australia, but in Papua. Perhaps, then, this problem could be resolved.

By Damien Kingsbury, Melbourne. He was adviser to the Free Aceh Movement in the resolution of the Aceh conflict and he is director of International and Community Development at Deakin University, Melbourne.

This is a response to my Op-Ed on the Papuan dilema published in The Jakarta Post on 29 March 2006. This response was published in the same paper on 4 April 2006 and can be accessed through the following address:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060404.E02&irec=3

East Timor Part II?

2006-03-25T12:51:00.000-08:00

The granting of the emergency visa by the Australian Government to 42 of the 43 Indonesian Papuans seeking political asylum there has re-open the memory of East Timor’s referendum. Having hailed the integration of East Timor into Indonesia as constitutional and legitimate, the Australian Government reversed its policy by 180 degrees in the wake of Suharto’s fall in the late 1990s when they approved the exercise of UN sponsored referendum there to decide the future of the ex-Portuguese colony.

The referendum resulted in an overwhelming victory of the pro-independence supporters hence the creation of an independent Timor Leste. This Australian move had angered Indonesia and the bilateral relation between the two neighbors went to a record low.

However, realizing the importance of building a better cooperation with its neighbors, successive governments in Indonesia have tried to improve the relation. And when everyone thought the relation has shown some significant improvement, the Australian government seemed to have thought of some short-term objectives. It granted visas to the Indonesian Papuans seeking political asylum on the pretext of being harassed by the Indonesian Government in Papua. The decision has resulted in angry responses in Indonesia.

The House of Representatives (DPR) has unanimously agreed upon severing diplomatic relation with Australia and recommended the Indonesian Government to implement this decision immediately.

On its part, the Indonesian Government has immediately sent a diplomatic note to the Australian Government through its ambassador in Jakarta, Bill Farmer, protesting this alleged insensitive decision taken by his government. According to the Indonesian government, the decision was not in consistent with the spirit of bilateral relations shared by the two neighbors as well as Australia’s tough policy on illegal immigrant. The Indonesian Government has also recalled its ambassador to Australia, a bad signal for a diplomatic relation in international politics.

Besides, this decision has also seemed to re-confirm the alleged long time suspicion of Australia’s involvements in the continuing struggle of independence in Indonesia’s eastern most region, the West Papua. It was a popular belief in Jakarta that Australia, or Australian NGOs, has been very much involved in the freedom struggle there.

On responding to the strong reactions from Jakarta, Elizabeth O’Neil, a spokesperson in the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, defended the decision saying that the Australian executive has no role in this process. This decision was taken solely by the Department of Immigration, an independent institution separate from the executive. The response also said that the visa granted to the asylum seekers is an emergency visa that is valid for three years only and renewal of the visa will need strict scrutiny and deliberation.

At the same time, it also reiterated Australia’s position on West Papua as an integral and legitimate part of Indonesia. The response from the Australian Embassy also denied any Australian involvement in the freedom movement in Papua.

Whatever the reasons given by the Australian Government to counter the angry reactions from Jakarta, the damage has already been done. It will now be very difficult for the Indonesian government to trust Australia and to belief at these explanations realizing the fact that Australia has joyously responded to the result of the UN sponsored referendum in East Timor in 1999.

On East Timor, Australia had long been the supporter of its integration with Indonesia when the Portuguese decided to abandon this colony of more than 400 years. Not willing to get its hands dirty, Australia had whole-heartedly supported the move by the then Indonesian President, General Suharto, to annexed the territory in the late 1970s. Besides, for its national security reasons in the height of Cold War era, it was better for East Timor to be ruled by an American friendly country like Indonesia than to be controlled by any Communist state. So Australia was always Indonesia’s loyal supporter on East Timor.

However, with the changing landscape in international politics and the continuing internal struggles in Indonesia in the late 1990s, Australia decided to reverse its policy on East Timor 180 degrees and fighting teeth and nails for the freedom of East Timor from Indonesia. The reversal of policy bore result when the UN sponsored referendum held in East Timor in August 1999 favored the pro-independence group thus leading to the birth of Timor Leste with full Australian support.

Now, with the simmering situation in Papua in recent weeks that has left several poor souls departed, Australia’s decision to grant visa to the Indonesian Papuans seeking political asylum there seemed to be like rubbing salt in the old wound. There is an indication of insensitiveness on the part of the Australian government towards the delicate Papuan problem.

The decision can be understood as an early warning for the Indonesian government to scrutinize and investigate the motives behind it. The Indonesian government should act immediately as to avoid the repetition of East Timor tragedy. The current government should realize that there would be no East Timor Part II in Indonesia. If the SBY government can successfully and peacefully end the conflict in Aceh, why there should be any doubt on Government’s ability to resolve the problem in Papua peacefully.

As for Australia’s insensitiveness towards the Papuan problem, the Indonesian government has to response strongly and correctly so as not to create an impression that Indonesia is just a Sick Man of Southeast Asia. Indonesia has to assert its importance in Southeast Asia for it to be counted as a powerful nation.

Published in The Jakarta Post on 29 March 2006.
Can be accessed through the following address:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060329.F01&irec=1

Democracy No Cure: Just Look at the Mideast

2006-03-07T22:30:00.000-08:00

There is a theory in political science to the effect that one democracy will never go to war against another democracy. Any conflict that arises between them will be resolved through dialog and mutual understanding. However, the recent confrontational reactions by Israel and the West, especially the U.S., to the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine has produced some doubt as to the truth of this theory.

At the same time, contrary to the reactionary responses of the Israeli and U.S. governments in cutting of foreign funds to the Palestinian Authority, the less democratically elected governments in the Arab world have decided to support the Palestinian case by finding ways to provide the necessary funds needed to run the new democratically elected Palestinian government.

Israel and the U.S. have long been known as champions of democracy. The governments of these countries and their governance practices are in accordance with the principles of democracy. However, their responses to the results of the democratic process in Palestine have given rise to doubts about their real commitment to democracy.

Immediately after the announcement that Hamas, long branded a terrorist group by the West and Israel, had won a landslide victory in the elections, the Israeli government refused to accept the result and decided to sever relations with the Palestinian Authority, ruling out any negotiations with Hamas. At the same time, the U.S. demanded that the Hamas leadership renounce violence and threatened severe consequences if they failed to oblige.

These threats came to fruition this week when the Israeli Cabinet, under the leadership of acting PM Ehud Olmert, decided to withhold the payment of the customs duties it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, worth around US$50 million a month, and to prevent residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from crossing into Israel for work.

The US, Israel, Iran and the Palestinian Authority are all practicing democratic principles. The governments in these countries are elected through democratic processes and receive a mandate from their peoples. So, in line with the theory referred to above, there should be no problems between the three countries. The democratic principles adhered to by these countries should become a bond that links them together to work for the benefit of humankind instead of fighting against each other.

There are three important reasons why these democracies are not eager to work together as powerful forces for improving the lot of all humankind.

The first and foremost reason for conflict between these democracies are the electors in each country.

Second is a desperate attempt by the West, especially the U.S., to assert its domination in this unipolar world.

The third reason is the absence of any secular, credible or egalitarian alternative to which the people can turn.

The neo conservative-dominated U.S. government under President Bush is determined to push its agenda of world domination at any cost.

In Iran, amid the failure of the relatively moderate Islamic government of Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose to the podium of power as an Islamic hard-liner. Similarly, Hamas is a militant Islamic movement that does not recognize the existence of Israel and is determined to bring about the destruction of the Jewish state.

The differences in the composition of the electors in each of these democracies have led to conflict between them.

The fact that the US is desperate to assert its domination in a more and more unipolar world adds further oil to the fire. On the pretext of saving humanity from terrorism, the U.S. government under President George W. Bush is desperate to control international politics. The defiance shown by Iran is only a natural reaction from an oppressed community.

Coming to the third reason, in the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative in society, people turn to whatever options are available. In the U.S., it is neo-conservatism. In Israel, the Jewish hard-liners are getting the biggest boost, while in Iran and Palestine, Islam has been chosen as the most appropriate alternative for fixing the ills of society.

With the propaganda of the "Clash of Civilizations" continuing to dominate the foreign policy of the global powers, it is only natural to expect retaliation from oppressed groups.

The writer is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Political Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India.

Published in The Jakarta Post, 8 March 2006.
Can be accesed through:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060308.F02&irec=2

Preserving Communal Harmony

2006-03-07T11:17:00.000-08:00

India is the land of multifaceted landscapes. Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism, Parse, Judaism as well as other isms are very much a part of the landscape. It is a multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural society. Even though Hinduism is the religion of the majority in India, but some 20 percent of the total population in India follows different other believes. Muslims are the second largest community after Hindus and followed by Sikhism and others.

The various elements of the Indian community have emerged as a single united entity that is known as India. It is very much like the Indonesian community that is varied and heterogeneous. It is not surprising that Indian community also faces problems that any other heterogeneous society is facing. So even though Indians are known to be tolerant and respectful to others, communal hiccups are, however, phenomena that cannot be missed since the beginning of India’s independence.

It was in the early 1940s that a proponent of a Hindu rightwing movement, Hindu Mahasabha, proposed a two nations theory for India, a Hindustan for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims. The theory was later re-packaged and proposed by M.A. Jinnah of the Muslim League in the mid 1940s and was finally approved by the British Government for the creation of the modern day India and Pakistan.

The Indian Partition of August 1947 was the biggest mistake of history in which thousands or even millions of innocent lives fell victim to the greed and lust for power of a few individuals. The Partition bore witness to the worst communal history in the 20th century. Religious affiliations have put the Indian people in a very difficult situation in which conscience was lost and they were left to the options of to kill or to be killed. Indian Partition of 1947 was the blackest chapter in the history of the Indian sub-continent.

Moving on into the independent India, the traits of communal disharmony is very much apparent as well as communal harmony in Indian society in which several large scales of communal clashes occurred and have left thousands of innocent lives killed in the name of religion. Politics have left many of these innocent lives to suffer.

In the 1980s India witnessed Hindu – Sikh communal violence in which thousands of innocent souls departed. A larger scale of communal violence had flared up in the early 1990s when Hindu activists claimed that at the very site of a mosque in Ayodhya built by a Muslim ruler, Babar, was once the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Thus they had to destroy the old mosque to make way of a temple construction. Politicians from the rightwing Hindu nationalist group took advantage of this situation and ignited the anger and religious sentiments of the majority community who then targeted the Indian Muslims and branded them as the invaders of the Hindu civilization that must be expelled. The violence in Ayodhya spread as far as Mumbai in Maharashtra.

Every one thought that the Ayodhya tragedy in the 1990s was to be the last communal violence ever to have occurred in the modern day India. However, India was shocked by a seemingly choreographed communal violence in 2002 in Gujarat in which an angry mob ransacked and killed thousands of innocent people after a freak train accident had killed some 50 kar sevaks (Hindu pilgrims) in a fire that burnt the coach of a train in Godra, Gujarat.

The communal violence that erupted after this train incident was seen by many as a choreographed and sponsored violence by certain political group as a strategy to win the support of the people, a similar scenario that was used in the 1990s of Ayodhya violence.

In last week of October 2005, during the busy days of a Hindu festival of Diwali and an approaching day of Muslim festival of Eid-ul-Fitr, series of bomb blasts rocked the Capital in which more than 50 innocent people have been killed and several others have been injured. Luckily, no communal flare up arose from this incident.

Yesterday evening, another series of bomb blast rocked the very city of Hinduism: Varanasi. 12 people have been reportedly killed and several others have been injured. This attack on the heartland of Hinduism is a clear sign by certain individuals or groups to ignite some communal sentiments of the majority communities for some personal or political gain, a grim reminder of the 1990s Ayodhya violence.

The governments, both in New Delhi and the state government of Uttar Pradesh, have quickly condemned the attack as an irresponsible act of terror and appealed to the people to remain calm and cautious. Security has been beefed up throughout the country and an appeal to maintain communal harmony has come from different quarters.

It is now the need of the hour to keep vigil and cautious toward any provocative actions by certain groups or individuals who want to break the tradition of harmony and tolerance that long has been practiced in India. The communal violence that occurred in the earlier periods must be taken as hard lessons that need to be remembered and avoided in the future.

Democratic tradition in India has long been entrenched in the society and such kind of provocation should not let the conscience of the people to be replaced by anger and sentiments that are destructive. Preserving communal harmony in a heterogeneous society is an important key to build a strong and powerful society. Falling victim to communal disharmony and intolerance will only lead to destruction and disintegration.

Conflicting Democracies

2006-02-19T10:33:00.000-08:00

There is a concept in political science that a democracy will never be at war against other democracy. Any conflict that arises between them is to be solved through dialog and mutual understanding. However, the recent confronting reaction by Israel and the West, especially the US, to the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine has posed some doubt to this concept.

At the same time, contrary to the reactionary response by the Israeli and the US government of cutting the foreign fund to the Palestinian Authority, the less democratically elected governments in the Arab world have decided to support the Palestinian case by finding ways to provide the necessary funds needed to run the new democratically elected Palestinian government.

Israel and the US have been known for long as the champions of democracy. The governments in these countries as well as the practice of governance there have been done in accordance with the principles of democracy. However, their responses to the result of a democratic process in Palestine have given some doubts to their practice of democracy.

Immediately after the announcement of the winner of the January 25 Palestinian Elections where Hamas, a militant Islamic group that long has been branded as a terrorist group by the West and Israel, has won a landslide victory in the elections, the Israeli government rejected to accept the result and decided to sever relations with the Palestinian Authority and ruled out any negotiation with future Palestinian Authority. At the same time, the US has forced Hamas leaderships to renounce violence and threatened them with severe consequences if they fail to oblige.

These threats have been materialized this week when the Israeli Cabinet under the leadership of acting PM Ehud Olmert decided to halt the payment of customs duties it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, worth around $50 million a month as well as prevent residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip from crossing into Israel for work.

At this point of time, the US Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice, is starting her Asian tour with the aim of building an opinion among the countries in Asia, especially in the Middle East, against the newly elected Hamas government in Palestine as well as against Iran. She will try to gather supports from the region to alienate and isolate these governments from the international communities. Iran’s defiance to call off its nuclear program has been the source of this call.

The US, Israel, Iran as well as the Palestinian Authority are all practicing democratic principles. The governments in these countries are elected through democratic processes and received the rightful mandate from the people. So, in line with the concept above, these countries are in no position to be against each other. The democratic principles adhered to by these countries should become a bonding principles for them to work together for the benefits of humanity instead of fighting against each other.

Reasons to Consider

There are three important reasons to be considered as to why these democracies are not eager to work together as a powerful entity for the improvement of the whole humanity.

The first and foremost reason of contradiction between these democracies is the constituents of the governments elected in these countries. Second is the desperate ambition by the West, especially the US, to assert its domination in this uni-polar world. The third reason is the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative for the people to turn to.

The neo-conservative dominated US government under President Bush is determined to push its agenda of world domination at any cost. In Israel, even though the current government is under the leadership of the ailing PM Ariel Sharon who has lately repositioned himself as a broad, peace minded leader, but the fact that he came and grew from a hard line party, the Likud Party, cannot erase the real face of General Ariel Sharon.

In Iran, in the failure of a moderate Islamic government of Khatami, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose to the podium of power as an Islamic hardliner. Similarly, Hamas is a militant Islamic movement that does not recognize the existence of Israel and is determined to the destruction of the Jewish state.

The differences in the compositions of the constituents of these democracies have led into a conflicting stance among them.

The fact that the US is desperate to assert its domination in the more and more uni-polar world further supports the growing conflict between these democracies. This is the second reason why these democracies are at a fix against each other. In the pretext of saving humanity from terrorist threats, the US government under President George W. Bush is desperate to control the international politics. The defiance shown by Iran is only a natural reaction from an oppressed community.

Coming to the third reason, in the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative in the society, people turned its choice to the available options. In the US, it is the neo-conservatism. In Israel, the Jewish hardliners got the biggest boost while in Iran and in Palestine Islamic virtues have been chosen as the most available alternative to cure the ailing society.

With the propaganda of the “Clash of Civilizations” continues to dominate the foreign policy of the global powers, retaliatory actions are the only natural things to be expected from the oppressed groups.

Concluding this article, the question as to why these democracies are in conflict is answered through the explanations given in the three important reasons mentioned above. The conflicting interests and the basis on which these democracies have been built are the keys as to why there is conflict among them. The absence of deep understanding on the importance of putting people’s interest above everything else and the absence of any secular, credible and egalitarian alternative in the offer, have also resulted in a conflict even between democracies. This conflicting situation becomes a proof that even the concept of social science is relative.

The Need for Consistency

2006-02-15T10:31:00.000-08:00

The elaboration given by MJ Akbar in his opinion published by The Jakarta Post on 16 February 2006 (The Answer is Mahatma Gandhi) was illuminating. It gave some profound ideas on how the tolerant behavior has been an inseparable part of the Indian society.

In his book, The Argumentative Indian, Nobel Prize holder Prof. Amartya Sen also gave a very good insight on the nature of the Indian society. Way back during the reign of Ashoka or Akbar, tolerance has been respected and practiced with some wonderful zeal.

Back to the opinion by MJ Akbar, I felt rather perplexed when after some reasonable and convincing explanation on the necessity to boycott Danish goods as a retribution for the irresponsible behavior of its press over the publication of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) caricatures, he came to a statement, to quote:

“It is not too difficult to live without Danish cheese, or even Bang and Olufsen. One would, in fact, like to extend the logic. If you have to buy a European product, buy British. That would be a nice way of saying thank you.”

From his statement, it seemed that he was somewhat lost or diluted by the current sensibility shown by the British press for not being tempted to publish the same caricature as its Continental counterparts did.

In his best-seller book, Shadows of Sword, MJ Akbar has described the atrocities of the British government, the Blair’s government, in Iraq. Now he has suggested us to buy British products as a nice way of saying thank you.

Isn’t there any ambiguity in his statement? If he decided to suggest the boycott of Danish goods, why then at the same time he suggested us to buy British product?

In my view, the guilt of the Blair’s government for its support on Iraq invasion in 2003 led by the US is of the same amount of the indecision by the Danish Prime Minister to prevent the cartoon conflict from spreading world wide in the pretext of press freedom.

The British government under Tony Blair is responsible for the crime against humanity in Iraq in the pretext of spreading democracy.

If MJ Akbar has suggested boycotting any Danish product, he should have done the same on British product and not doing the otherwise.

Published in The Jakarta Post on 3 March 2006
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060303.F04&irec=6

The Tolerance in Islam

2006-02-03T10:29:00.000-08:00

In reference to a letter from Ahmad Qisa'i (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 26), I would like to state that I see no conflict between my statement and what the Post (Jan. 18) reported. What the Post reported that the pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) are "no hive of tolerance" should be seen within the context of this qualitative research with an in-depth interview involving members of 20 pesantren in West Java.

The context, among other things, is related with tensions amid the global accusation that pesantren are a breeding ground of terrorists, the perceived inequality between non-Muslim and Muslim countries, the perceived double-standards of the West when addressing Muslim issues and the recent edict from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) that prohibits pluralism, secularism and liberalism.

At the same time, I also assert that there is actually a seed of tolerance in Islam that could further be developed. This was clearly stated by Prof. Machasin of Sunan Kalijaga Islamic State University of Yogyakarta during our seminar on Jan. 17-19 that Islam has actually a rich history of pluralism as it spans a long period of time and has an abundance of diverse thoughts, and many of them have sometimes been at odds with each other.

Even during the seminar, while some members of pesantren looked a bit anxious at first, the discussion was productive and at the end some of them were enthusiastic to offer their pesantren as the venue of our next training on multiculturalism.

I therefore agree with Ahmad Qisa'i that it is now homework for Indonesian Muslims to develop this seed of tolerance and enhance the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia.

Syafi'i Anwar
Executive Director, of ICIP, (International Center for Islam and Pluralism), Jakarta

Courtesy:
The Jakarta Post, 3 February 2006
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060203.F07&irec=6

Intolerance in Pesantren?

2006-01-20T10:27:00.000-08:00

On the basis of a recent survey by ICIP (International Center for Islam and Pluralism) on 20 odd boarding schools in Jawa Barat, it was concluded in a report by Hera Diani of The Jakarta Post that the pesantren is ‘no hive of tolerance’ ('Pesantren' no hive of tolerance: Survey, The Jakarta Post, 18 January 2006).

At the same time, the Executive Director of ICIP, Syafi’i Anwar, based on the same result of the survey, said in a seminar on “Deepening of Religious Understanding and Multiculturalism among Personalities in Pesantrens in Jawa Barat” held in Depok on 17/01/06, that respecting differences is not a new phenomenon among pesantren-based Muslims but in the current context of multiculturalism, a certain degree of conservatism is very much available among them. Thus, he concluded, to avoid the trap of a total conservatism among Muslims, this positive view over differences should be enhanced. (Perbedaan Bukan Hal Baru bagi Pesantren, Kompas, 18 January 2006)

Based on the reports quoted above, two opposite views are found in which Hera Diani clearly judged and concluded that there is no tolerance in the pesantrens while at the same time, the Executive Director of the ICIP himself acknowledged the availability of respect over differences among pesantren-based Muslims. And, he added, that it is homework for all of us to develop this tradition of openness and acceptance of differences.

In view of the current global perception of Islam as a religion of terror, such a report by The Jakarta Post will only support this proposition and further create confusion over Islam and Muslims in general.

Furthermore, this example of a partial judgment will only stir more controversy on pesantren as the breeding place of Indonesian terrorists and the misrepresentation of Islam in Indonesia. The fact that the terrorist attacks in Indonesia were conducted by a section of Indonesian Muslims cannot be used to generalize the Muslims in Indonesia in general as intolerance. Because majority of Muslims in Indonesia are known to be tolerant and opt for a moderate form of Islam in which Islam is regarded as more of a way of life than as a religion as such. Pesantren played a great role in shaping the moderate form of Islam in Indonesia.

The sufistic approach adopted by traditional pesantrens in teaching Islam to its students has resulted in their acceptance of differences in the society. The graduates of these pesantrens practice a moderate form of Islam. However, with the return of the Indonesian Muslim students from the heartlands of Islam like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the face of Islam in Indonesia changes. These students brought home with them the conservative form of Islam. Their mission then is to purify Islam in Indonesia thus denying the Muslims in Indonesia the practice of Islam they learnt from the pesantrens.

It is now homework for the Indonesian Muslim to preserve the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia by not succumbing to the pressure from the conservative and militant Muslims. Because if once they fail to preserve this status, then not only Muslims in general who will suffer but also other followers of different religions in Indonesia specially and in the world in general.

Thus, with the seeds of tolerance found in the pesantrens and the high need to picture Islam as a religion which is meant for humanity, a collective effort by all Muslims is necessary to fight conservatism and to promote liberalism and multiculturalism.

The following is the published form in The Jakarta Post, 26 January 2006

Intolerance in Pesantren?

On the basis of a recent survey by the International Center for Islam and Pluralism (ICIP) on 20 odd pesantren (Islamic boarding schools) in West Java, it was concluded in a report published in The Jakarta Post that the pesantren are "no hive of tolerance" ('Pesantren' no hive of tolerance: Survey, Jan. 18).

At the same time, the executive director of ICIP, Syafi'i Anwar, commenting on the results of the survey, said in a seminar titled: Deepening Religious Understanding and Multiculturalism among Personalities in Pesantren in West Java held in Depok on Jan. 17, that respecting differences was not a new phenomenon among pesantren-based Muslims but in the current context of multiculturalism, a certain degree of conservatism was prevalent among them. Thus, he concluded, to avoid the trap of a total conservatism among Muslims, this positive view over differences should be enhanced.

Based on the reports quoted above, two opposite views are found in which the Post's reporter clearly judged and concluded that there is no tolerance in the pesantren while at the same time, the executive director of the ICIP himself acknowledged that there was respect for differences among pesantren-based Muslims. And, he added, that it is homework for all of us to develop this tradition of openness and acceptance of differences.

In view of the current global perception of Islam as a religion of terror, such a report by the Post will only support this proposition and further create confusion over Islam and Muslims in general.

Pesantren have played a great role in shaping the moderate form of Islam in Indonesia. The sufistic approach adopted by traditional pesantren in teaching Islam to its students has resulted in their acceptance of differences in the society. The graduates of these pesantren practice a moderate form of Islam. However, with the return of Indonesian Muslim students from the heartland of Islam like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the face of Islam in Indonesia has changed. These students brought home with them the conservative form of Islam.

It is now homework for the Indonesian Muslim to preserve the moderate nature of Islam in Indonesia by not succumbing to pressure from conservative and militant Muslims. Because if once they fail to preserve this status, then not only Muslims in general will suffer but so will followers of other religions in Indonesia in particular and in the world in general.

Thus, with the seeds of tolerance found in the pesantren and the high need to project Islam as a religion which is meant for humanity, a collective effort by all Muslims is necessary to fight conservatism and to promote liberalism and multiculturalism.

Published in The Jakarta Post, 26 January 2006.
Can be accessed through the following address:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060126.F05

Moderate Muslims and the Challenge of Terrorism

2006-01-18T10:25:00.000-08:00

The 21st century witnesses the domination of the term ‘terrorism’ in the lexicon of international politics. The terror menace gained much of its popularity in international arena in the post 9/11 attack of the WTC in New York by the so called Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda.

Indonesia as the most populous Muslim country in the world is, however, not spared from the similar attack of this asymmetrical warfare, an attack to the unguarded targets in the society. A string of terrorist attacks has been terrorizing the peaceful coexistence of the Indonesian people.

The fact that these terrors have not even spared the Muslim community, it is then not an incorrect judgment to describe that terrorism has become a global menace that requires global efforts by all communities in the world to work together to eradicate it.

As the biggest Muslim community in the world, Muslims in Indonesia need to work very hard to explain to the international community that Islam is a true peaceful way of life and not a religion of terror. However, this task becomes a huge challenge for the Indonesian Muslims because of the fact that the terrorists who claimed to be Muslims have waged this asymmetrical warfare.

The 9/11 attack in New York, the attacks on the important offices like the embassies in various parts of the world, the series of bomb blast in India as well as the ones in Indonesia that all have claimed many innocent lives have been conducted, or allegedly conducted, by Muslim terrorists.

These acts of terror clearly showed the hijacking of religion for some personal gains. And because of these actions by irresponsible personalities, Islam has been globally perceived as a religion of terror. The Muslims, the followers of Islam, are terrorists.

The perception of Islam as a religion of terror and Muslims as terrorists has not even spared the moderate Muslims in Indonesia who put Islam as a way of life that possesses a high degree of tolerance towards other groups or followers of other religions for the sake of creating a harmonious society in the midst of disparities and differences.

The facts that the home grown Islamic militants conducted the terror attacks in Indonesia further support this generalization in the perception of Islam and Muslims even though the real culprits are small sections of the huge Muslim population.

The Role of the Nahdhatul Ulama (NU) and the Muhammadiyah

As the biggest socio-religious organizations in Indonesia (NU with more than 40 million followers and Muhammadiyah with some 30 million followers), the organizations have a very important role to play in creating a tolerant society and a better understanding of Islam in Indonesia. Even though there are differences between the two organizations in their approaches towards Islam, their difference will not become a hurdle for establishing a global framework in the fight against terrorism.

NU is known as the more traditional Muslim group in Indonesia as compared to Muhammadiyah. It uses Sufistic and liberal approaches to teach Islam to the people. The flexibility of the approach adopted by the group has resulted in the spread of Islam among the people in the rural areas thus the NU enjoys popular supports among the lower middle class Muslims in Indonesia.

On the other hand, the more progressive Muhammadiyah uses a different approach in understanding Islam. It rejects Sufistic and liberal approaches of the NU and relies more on the scriptural understanding of Islam as it is written in the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith. It invites Muslims to learn more about Islam through the study of the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith and strives to ‘purify’ Islam in Indonesia. This approach adopted by the Muhammadiyah gains more popularity among the upper middle class Muslims who are mostly educated and live in the urban areas.

The differences in their approaches and support base in Indonesia, however, do not give any diversion to the representation of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance and the Muslims in Indonesia are moderate Muslims.

The Sufistic and flexible approaches adopted by the NU give an impression to the general public of the flexibility and tolerance in Islam. At the same time, the more puritanical approach by the Muhammadiyah gives a better understanding to the core of the Islamic teachings which is full of tolerance and respect of humanity.

By combining the approaches adopted by the NU and the Muhammadiyah, there is a bigger possibility of success in picturing Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. Thus it will enable the Muslims in Indonesia to garner more supports from the followers of Islam as well as from the followers and the leaders of other religions in Indonesia and in other parts of the world as well to represent the true face of religion.

It is now a high time for the Muslims in Indonesia to wake up and to voice loudly their concern towards Islam and Muslims in the world. With the possible success of representing Islam as a tolerant and peaceful religion, the fight against terror by Islamic militants can be started from the very backyard of Muslims.

Urging Democracy in Myanmar

2006-01-07T10:23:00.000-08:00

The comment by Hassan Wirayuda, Indonesia's Foreign Minister, on the need for Myanmar to move on into a democratic setup needs to be secrutinized.

He said, "Myanmar is disturbing the balance" of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda told reporters in Jakarta. "And because of that we are asking it to show concrete steps toward democracy," Furhermore, he said that Indonesia's experience of moving from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one since the downfall of Gen. Soeharto in 1998 could be useful in helping to persuade Myanmar to introduce reforms.

Commenting on the internal matters of the ASEAN members by other members has not been a practice to be heard of since the beginning of the establishment of this group. However, time seems to be changing and it is becoming common nowadays that members of the ASEAN try to get more involved in the internal affairs of the other members of the Association. It seems that Indonesia's Foreign Minister is getting used to this new practice.

By blatantly urging the military junta in Myanmar to show concrete steps toward democracy, Hassan has represented the official view of the Indonesian government on Myanmar's internal affairs. His statement can be understood as an effort by Indonesia to assert its influence on the Association. It is trying to regain its diminishing superior position in the region. At the same time giving the Indonesian transition from an authoritarian regime into a democratic system of governance as an example for the current regime in Myanmar is another indication by the Indonesian government for its "success" in the tranformation process.

It is understandable that the sheer size of Indonesia in the region has urged the nation to regain the diminishing influence it once enjoyed in the region. Moreover, the current state of Indonesian government supports this perception. The improvement of Indonesia's economic and socio-political condition in the past few years justifies the move. And if Indonesia can maintain this condition, it will not take a long period of time for Indonesia to regain its lost position. However, it should be noted here that the "success" claimed by the current government is far from satisfying. The current democratic practice of cheks and balances between the executive and the legislative body seems to be eroding.

By proudly declaring the success of Indonesia's transformation into a democratic system, the government seems not to realize that the current state of balance between the executive and the legislative body is tilting toward the executive. The domination of GOLKAR in the DPR while at the same it has the biggest share in the government has left the opposition role to the PDI-P. Other parties have either become the member of the government or distanced itself from the status as an opposition, like PAN. Slowly, it is started to control the functioning of the DPR and making it as a mere rubber stamp body. And if this situation continues, Indonesia will again experience a different kind of authoritarianism: political party authoritarianism. Thus, before claiming itself as a champion of democracy, the Indonesian government should realize the danger it is facing in its own backyard. At the same time, the Indonesian people have always to be vigil all the time in order to be able to guard the process of achieving the Indonesian dream as has been stated in the 1945 Constitution.

The printed version of this opinion can be accessed in the English daily newspaper The Jakarta Post of January 16, 2006.
( http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060116.F05 )

Urging Democracy in Myanmar

The comment by Hassan Wirayuda, Indonesia's Foreign Minister, on the need for Myanmar to move to a democratic setup needs to be scrutinized.

"Myanmar is disturbing the balance of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations", Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda told reporters in Jakarta, "And because of that we are asking it to show concrete steps toward democracy."

Furthermore, he said that Indonesia's experience of moving from an authoritarian regime to a democracy since the downfall of Gen. Soeharto in 1998 could be useful in helping to persuade Myanmar to introduce reforms.

Commenting on the internal matters of ASEAN members by other members has not been a practice since the beginning of the establishment of this group.

However, times seem to be changing and it is becoming common nowadays that members of ASEAN try to get more involved in the internal affairs of other members of the Association. It seems that Indonesia's Foreign Minister is getting used to this new practice.

By blatantly urging the military junta in Myanmar to show concrete steps toward democracy, Hassan has represented the official view of the Indonesian government on Myanmar's internal affairs. His statement can be understood as an effort by Indonesia to assert its influence on the Association. It is trying to regain its diminishing superior position in the region.

It is understandable that the sheer size of Indonesia in the region has urged it to attempt to regain the influence it once enjoyed in the region. Moreover, the current state of the Indonesian government supports this perception. The improvement in Indonesia's economic and socio-political condition in the past few years justifies the move.

And if Indonesia can maintain this condition, it will not take a long for it to regain its lost position. However, it should be noted here that the "success" claimed by the current government is far from satisfying. The current democratic practice of checks and balances between the executive and the legislative body seems to be eroding.

Meeting the Wrath of the Pharaoh?

2005-12-26T10:17:00.000-08:00

Having faced relentless angry responses from the community for their "comparative parliamentary study" to Egypt, the legislators (who went on this so-called study) have decided upon their arrival in Indonesia to ask for "forgiveness" from the people for their mistake.

However, because of the gravity of what they have done, forgiveness is not an option. Impeaching them from their positions would be the best option. It is now up to the Working Body of the House of Representatives (BK-DPR) to act.

Recently in India, a videotape of MPs taking bribes by some undercover TV journalists resulted in the expulsion of eleven of the MPs. The journalists, posing as rich individuals, had come to ask favors from the MPs to raise questions for them during the parliamentary session. Each question posed by the MPs was worth of some thousands of Indian rupees.

It was during the meeting between these MPs and the journalists that the bribe transactions were captured on a hidden camera. The videotaped transaction was broadcast on a prime-time TV show that later resulted in swift action by the Indian parliament to summon the MPs over their alleged involvement in the case. The video resulted in the immediate expulsion of the MPs from the House.

The question now is: Can the BK-DPR bring the same justice to the 15 of its members like the Indian Parliament did to its eleven members for their involvement in corruption? The fifteen members of the House of Representatives who visited Egypt on "official duty" have, in my opinion, crossed the line and should be charged with corruption. Public money spent during this visit should be returned and they should be held accountable for their actions. In other words, the guilty must be punished.

The failure of the BK-DPR to act will only degrade its position in the eyes of the Indonesian people and add to the woes and miseries of the people.

Published in The Jakarta Post Online on 26 December 2005
( http://www.thejakartapost.com/onlineletters.asp )

Consensual Sex: Is it OK?

2005-12-23T10:15:00.000-08:00

Today, the cold of the morning December winter is chilling my body, the same way I feel about the news I have been reading for the past week. Reading the news on Operation Majnu in the city of Meerut in Uttar Pradersh published in the Hindustan Times as well as watching the news of the same topic on NDTV and the similar situation in Indonesia as has been reflected in the news published in Kompas and Media Indonesia daily left me wondering, where are we going? What shall we do?

Operation Majnu, a moral police kind of operation that was designed to target eve-teasers in Meerut, has turned into an ugly incident when the police was recoded in a video camera to have beaten up two couples of young lovers in a park. They have been accused of doing ‘immoral activities’ by showing their affection to their partners. In Indonesia, as published by Kompas daily, a young couple of a reputed university in Bogor was roughed up by the locals for their ‘indecent behavior’ in a rented house in the locality. They were paraded half naked for their sin.

On the contrary of these two incidents, the Canadian Supreme Court has issued a decision to allow ‘consensual sexual acts between adults behind closed doors’. The Hindustan Times daily reported with a bold heading “Canada Okays Group Sex” that the Supreme Court of Canada has decided to give freedom to the ‘swingers’ to freely observe their practice of group sex in a private room behind locked doors. The decision says that “Consensual sexual conducts among adults behind code-locked doors can hardly supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society.”

The incidents above, I believe, must have been just a few cases of thousands of cases of similar situation in this complex world. To say the least, the incidents above reflected the different views and perceptions of different societies towards one thing: sexual act. In a society like India or Indonesia as an example, sexual act out of wedding bell, even though it is conducted in a closed doors is considered taboo or ‘immoral’ whereas in other society like Canada the same conduct is regarded to be normal as long as there is no money is changed between the adults having sex as this act of changing money is considered as prostitution which is illegal.

The judgment of immorality towards this act in societies like India or Indonesia, however, in my view is full of hypocrisy. Because when this act is conducted by high profile personalities, the society stays silent but they will be easily angry and aggressive when it is conducted by ‘commoners’. Why there should be any double standard in the society? Isn’t it a private choice for us to have this act? Because in my opinion, as an adult and leave alone religion, we have conscience towards things we do or decide to do. We realize that there must be consequences on everything we do. The society should have left this decision to the individuals and through the conscience of these individuals, I believe, that positive decisions will be chosen instead of negative ones.

It is true that we live in a society in which personal egos should be put aside if we still want to be a part of the society. But at the same time, the society has to understand the role it has to play for the individuals in the society. It should avoid being hijacked by individuals for their personal gains in the name of the society. And if we add religion to our thought in this matter, the conduct is regarded to be wrong in the sense that the decision by the individuals to conduct the activity have trespassed the boundary of what is allowed and what is not by the religions. As an adult, we must have realized who we are and what consequences we have to face for every decision we take. Behaving like a moral police while at the same time doing the same thing behind closed-doors is the most sinful act any individual can do. This kind of act is known as HYPOCRISY and is unpardonable in the society. So, in my opinion, finally it depends on any individual to act and decide what is best suitable for him/her. The consequences that come with the decision are then his/her own responsibility. He/she will be accountable for any decision he/she has taken, not others.

Useless Comparative Studies

2005-12-16T10:13:00.000-08:00

The insistence upon visiting Egypt to do a comparative study of gambling in a Muslim country shown by some members of House of Representatives after the rejection of the plan by the leader of the House proves the insensitiveness of the legislators toward the grave conditions of the Indonesian people.

Spending a whopping US$1.4 million for the seven days of useless visits reflects the mind set of the legislators currently running the legislative body, of "as long as I am a legislator, I will use this opportunity to satisfy my greed". Because, instead of going for these kinds of useless comparative studies, the legislators could have found other means of revenues for the country.

But expecting some huge benefit from legalized gambling in an economically struggling country like Indonesia is a shame. They should have thought of something more essential that can provide more job opportunities to the ever-increasing number of unemployed instead of efforts to legalize gambling. Are there no longer any more legal and better methods of increasing the national revenue apart from gambling?

Besides, it was a point worth considering when legislator Djoko Susilo said that those legislators selected for useful foreign trips should have an adequate understanding of the subject matter first, as well as the medium of communication.

Language barriers, as he plainly said, will only hinder the prospect of achieving benefits from the visits/international conferences attended. Many instances can easily be found when those legislators sent out to undergo comparative studies gained nothing from the visits due to his/her lack of understanding of the subject matter as well as a huge language barrier he/she faced during the visits.

The legislators should understand that they are running the country on public funds and they are accountable to the people. It is hoped that the legislators, as well as other holders of public offices understand their position and their responsibility to the people of Indonesia. Only through better understanding of the roles and position they have can Indonesia move forward to achieve its goals as the third largest democratic nation in the world.

Published in The Jakarta Post, 22 December 2005 (Useless Comparative Studies)
( http://www.thejakartapost.com/onlineletters.asp )

Ruling with an Iron Fist

2005-12-10T10:09:00.000-08:00

This is a comment on the Opinion Are Indonesians truly tolerant? by M. Tholchah on Dec. 9. (www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial. asp?fileid=20050920.F03&irec=2)

In spite of the impressive critical views presented by the writer in this article, he somehow missed the fact that the "tolerant society" created in Indonesia during the 32 years of Soeharto rule as he has pointed out, was, in my view, not because of the successful indoctrination of Pancasila as the writer has claimed. It was because of the iron-fist rule of the Soeharto regime that the sparks in the Indonesian society that erupted in the post Soeharto Indonesia were suppressed for more than three decades.

The regime's iron-fist approach created a calm surface with boiling lava below that was ready to erupt at anytime. The riots and violence in the post-Soeharto Indonesia prove my hypothesis.

With the absence of the strict control of the government over its populace as we witnessed during the Soeharto period there are now these sparks throughout Indonesia.

At the same time, claiming that the grim reality in Indonesia (the rampant corruption, violence, crime and other criminal acts), in the most populous Muslim country in the world, gave Islam a double face, is, in my view, a mistake. It is the individual, and not the religion, that needs to be blamed. It is not the Islamic teachings that produce these conditions but it is the understanding of the individuals about Islam that needs to be reviewed. I am pretty convinced considering the background of the writer that my opinion is wholly acceptable.

Published in The Jakarta Post Online Letter on 9 Dec 2005
(www.thejakartapost.com/onlineletters.asp)

Return of the Military

2005-11-10T10:04:00.000-08:00

The establishment of the 'anti-terror desk' by the Indonesian Military on the basis of UU No 34/2004 as a reaction to the slow response of the Indonesian police has marked the comeback of the TNI in the Indonesian politics. Whether we like it or not, this decision by the SBY government to rely on the TNI's intelligence service instead of improving the Indonesian police force sent a negative signal to the masses. The assurance given by the TNI that they will act only as the support for the Indonesian police in its fight against terror menace is not enough until it is proven in their action. The long history of the military's domination in the Indonesian politics during the Suharto period, and the fact that President SBY himself was a military officer, cannot rule out this possibility.

The fact that the Indonesian police has partly successful in solving the previous terror cases is a proof that they have the capability to do their works and duty to provide safety to the Indonesian people. Their inability to yet solve the mistery of the recent Bali bombing cannot be regarded as their failure to perform. And instead of establishing the terror desk in the TNI, the Government should have improve that capability of the Detachement 88 of the police force that is responsible for the anti terror actitivities. The resources in the Indonesian intelligence (the BIN) as well as those in the TNI should have been incorporated in this Detachement to increase their capability and not by establishing an anti terror desk within the TNI.

The establishment of the anti-terror desk in the TNI can dilute the responsibility of the TNI as the nation's core defensive force towards foreign threats and subsequently reduce the important role of the police force in their effort to guarante the safety and security of the people.

Thus if the SBY Government is really willing to take the responsibility to assure the safety and security of its people, it should not rely on the TNI but instead it must improve the police force as the vanguard in the fight against terror in Indonesia.

Qisa'i

New Delhi
Nov. 2005

This opinion was published in The Jakarta Post Online Letter on 08 November 2005 (http://www.thejakartapost.com/onlineletters.asp)

Engaging Political Pluralism: Lesson from India

2005-08-25T10:55:00.000-07:00

The great Indian nation under the British Raj was finally divided into two very distinct entities in 1947: a secular democratic and vibrant country of India and a religiously based, non-democratic and riot-ridden state of Pakistan.

The Two Nations theory that sparked the partition process in 1947 could be described as a fatal choice taken by the then impatient Indian national leaders in their efforts to achieve an independent India. The eventual break up of Pakistan into the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh further diminished the relevance of the Two Nations theory which was based on religion – Pakistan was meant for the Indian Muslims while India was for the Indian Hindus.

The failure of Pakistan to keep its unity as a country that is a home for the Indian Muslims and the eventual emergence of Bangladesh, formerly known as East Pakistan, into an independent, Muslim country in 1971 became a vivid proof of the failure of religion as an adhesive force that is capable of binding a homogenously religious community into one single nation. On the other hand, India, which was initially meant for the Indian Hindus, has been developing into a vibrant democratic country with a secularly based Constitution that guarantees the freedom of its citizens to profess and practice their own faiths without any disturbance or any slightest hindrance.

The remarkable experience of India in managing the pluralism of its citizens is of an example of the working of democratic values in a plural society.

Having Hindus as its majority constituents in a now more than one billion populations, India is experiencing the benefits of the age-old Hindu culture that respects the existence of others as an integral part of a society. Islamic traditions that dominated India for over four centuries before the British rule in India became an aspect of importance in building a tolerance in Indian society which is highly multicultural, multilingual as well as multireligious. The synergy of these two great civilizations in the world marked the strengthening of secular philosophy of Indian state in guaranteeing the freedom of its citizens of its rights.

Gandhi, Tilak, Maulana Azad, Nehru, Ambedkar are several prominent Indian leaders that have put a strong foundation for the functioning of a secular and democratic India. Despite several differences between them, they agreed that the tragedy of 1947 would never to ever happen again in the future. The differences of aspirations that exist in the society are being properly accommodated through the channels that enable the functioning of a democratic system. The Indian National Congress party as a congregation of different values, views, ideologies as well as political aspirations became the vehicle for the functioning of good governance. However, the combination of firmness and sensitivity that was attempted finally broke down. With the growing aspirations in the masses, the transformation from a single party dominance into a multi party and coalitional politics cannot be denied. Started with the split in the INC after the demise of Nehru and its failure to further play its role as a natural party of the government, the transformation into the present day India became natural. Several factors have come to support the process: the highhandedness of the new INC leadership, the new wave of Hindu nationalism, the caste politics as well as the increasing demands in several regions for more autonomy have resulted in the emergence of regionally based political parties that led into the multipartism in Indian politics.

Religion, Caste, Region and Coalition Politics

The failure of the new INC leadership to accept the new reality in Indian politics resulted in the disappointment and the formation of breakaway political parties. The secularly based INC met the challenge of the Siv Sena, the Jan Sangh party, later known as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that used religion as its driving force. The Janata Dal party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, the Samajwadi Party are several parties that emerged later as the vehicle of caste-based politicians to rise to power. The Telugu Desam Party, the DMK as well as the AIADMK are several regional parties that emerged as a result of regional dissatisfaction towards the Center. At the same time, the grand old party of the INC has split into several parties like the Trinamool Congress Party, the Congress (I) as well as the National Congress Party.

The complex Indian society faced a very difficult situation in which accommodating the various aspirations of different communities is a huge task. The INC failed in keeping up with the growing differences in the society when it was rejected from power and split into different factions. The 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the new political reality in Indian politics. Political opportunisms and political survival have brought the previously harmonious society into jitters. The implementation of the recommendation by the Mandal Commission on the rights of job reservation for the backward classes and lower caste groups by the Government and the exploitation of the sentiment of the majority by several major players to reap electoral harvest marked the departure of Indian politics into a more communal and caste-based politics. Riots and social disharmony was the phenomenon that cannot be avoided. The Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992 by the Hindu hardliners became the turning point of the political scene in India. The post 1992 Indian politics is more communal in nature as compared to the previous decades.

Riding on the wave of religious sentiment, the BJP defeated the secular forces led by the Congress Party to capture the power in the Center and led the formation of the first successful coalition government in New Delhi, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). With the success of this BJP-led coalition government in New Delhi and the absence of a single national party to be a majority power in the national politics, the compulsion of a coalitional politics to accommodate the increasing demands of the voters became unavoidable. The needs to make compromise between coalition partners became the key success of a coalition government. However, the growing maturity of the Indian society saw the setback of communally based politics in which the general elections held in early 2004 witnessed the emergence of the Congress-led government coalition in New Delhi. The return of the secularly based Congress-led coalition in New Delhi on the compulsion of coalition politics became the landmark of a new innings of a harmonious India in which a secular India is tightly uphold by its citizens.

Lessons Learned

Living in a complex and composite society is quite an experience. Building a nation that integrates the different constituents into a single, powerful entity needs special efforts and bond that work as an adhesive to unite the differing components without neglecting the diversity it possesses. A great nation like India found an integrating force in the form of secular belief based on its age-old tradition of respect and harmonious existence between differing components in a united society. The painful experience of 1947 partition of India based on religion was firmly rejected and forcefully to be avoided in the future chapter of Indian history. However, there are always players that use communal sentiments for personal gain of power and greed. The communalization of Indian politics after the failure of the grand old party to perform its duty as a binding organization have transformed the political compulsion between differing groups into making certain alliances that is benefiting. The changing scenario witnesses the transformation from a single party system into a multi party system. In the absence of any single majority power to occupy the Parliament, the compulsion of coalitional politics becomes abundance. This new phenomenon in Indian politics is necessary to be observed in the efforts of engaging the complex aspirations of a diverse community.

Indonesia is an immediate neighbor of India that shares a lot of aspects with India. Be it the religions, traditions as well as cultures. The influence of the Indian tradition in Indonesia is very much apparent that we cannot miss. As a plural society, Indonesia also needs a binding instrument that is capable of acting as an adhesive to bind the various and diverse components of Indonesian society. While India found the bond in the secular tradition of Indian society, Indonesia had decided to make Pancasila, derived from the diverse traditions of Indonesian society, as the binding instrument to hold the great nation together. Pancasila acts as a ‘social contract’ of a consensus by the Indonesian people to hold together as one nation. It has an integrative force for the idea of Indonesia as a nation-state. However, a question has come up as how far is the commitment of the Indonesian people to hold Pancasila as the binding instrument? Throughout the Indonesian history, we witnessed different groups that have mounted several challenges and oppositions towards Pancasila. But, the failure of these groups to drag the Indonesian society into their folds and chose to stay as a nation that respects the diversity of its constituents is a proof of the firmness in the society to uphold the values of diversity.

The initial accommodation of various political aspirations through a single party in India that proved to be a failure, led into the creation of multipartism in which the compulsion of coalition politics is the phenomenon. The Indonesian experience with a democratic exercise is relatively young to be compared to the Indian experience. But the tendency of living in diversity has also brought Indonesia into the experimentation of multipartism. With the legitimacy of the executive being derived from a direct presidential election, the compulsion of coalitional politics for the formation of a government is of a lesser degree to be compared to the parliamentary system of Indian politics. However, securing legitimacy without being able to create stability in the functioning of the government would only create problems. Hence coalition politics in Indonesia is a necessity stage before transforming itself into a dual party system that would guarantee more stability as well legitimacy to the government. The successful coalition politics of the NDA government in India based on Common Minimum Program, a practice being faithfully followed by the current Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, is something to be imitated to create a stable and working coalition. Learning from the functioning of Indian democracy is of an advantage for Indonesia as it shares a lot of similar aspects of a plural society. The successful experience of the Indian democracy in engaging the political pluralism within its diverse society could become an immitation for the future working of Indonesian democracy based on the Pancasila, a manifestation of diverse Indonesian traditions.

A Qisa'i
New Delhi - August 2005