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.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Abu Bakar Ba’asyir and the Threat of Terrorism in Indonesia
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.
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.
Monday, June 12, 2006
A Derailed Democracy?
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.
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.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Becoming An Ally or A Friend?
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..
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..
Monday, May 15, 2006
The Nuclear Turns into "Green"
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.
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.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Between Economy and Politics: A New Challenge for D-8
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)