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.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Friday, October 06, 2006
Revisiting Political Pluralism: India and Indonesia
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
My Response to Askanazi
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.
(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.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Cowboy Vs Tyrant: Iran or the US?
"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.
(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.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Unjust Racial Profiling
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.
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.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Building Democracy in Myanmar
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)