Optimism for Indonesia amid global terrorism<\/p>\n
S.P. Seth, Sydney<\/p>\n
Is Indonesia turning the corner? It depends on: What is meant
\nby "turning the corner"? But, by any reckoning, the news about
\nAceh is optimistic. Under the peace accord, Aceh should be able
\nto participate in national affairs as an autonomous part of the
\ncountry. There will, of course, be problems on the way about
\ninterpreting and implementing the agreement. But with goodwill on
\nboth sides, it should be a turning point.<\/p>\n
Where East Timor failed, Aceh might be a different story. It
\nmight become a model for some other regions struggling to find
\ntheir own political, economic and socio-cultural space, like
\nPapua. It could become the basis for a successful federal
\npolitical system, with constituent units having a stake in its
\nfunctioning and perpetuity.<\/p>\n
It is too early though for the celebrations but the political
\nagreement on Aceh certainly is an important milestone.<\/p>\n
Another hopeful sign is the abatement of terrorist activity in
\nIndonesia. If true over a period of time, Indonesia might be able
\nto teach some lessons to the rest of the world in this regard.
\nThe most important lesson would be not to deal with Muslims as an
\nundifferentiated lot. Indonesia doesn't fit the image of militant
\nIslam, even though it has its militant fringe.<\/p>\n
Any attempt, therefore, to tar the global Muslim community as
\npotential terrorists, through racial profiling and so on, betrays
\npolitical naivety. Muslims, like people of any other community,
\nare individuals who respond differently to different situations.
\nThey don't necessarily follow religious or political edicts of
\ntheir real or supposed leaders.<\/p>\n
Where they are minorities (as in the West), they certainly
\nfeel insecure because their religion marks them out as terrorist
\nsuspects. Therefore, what they need most is a sense of security
\nand belonging when living in Western societies.<\/p>\n
This was illustrated the other day in an interview on the
\nAustralian television with a young Muslim couple, both born in
\nAustralia. They were proud of their Islamic identity and decried
\nterrorist violence. The young woman told the interviewer that she
\nvery much wished that, every time there was terrorist violence
\nanywhere in the world, we (as Muslims) should not be expected or
\nrequired to apologize or prove our loyalty to our country
\n(Australia in this case).<\/p>\n
They stressed that they, like any other Australian, were
\ntrying to make their way in life like pursuing a career, buying a
\nhouse, paying their mortgage and so on.<\/p>\n
However, because of this mass anti-Muslim hysteria, they and
\nothers in their community have to often face personal abuse and
\nhostility in their daily lives. Which, in turn, fosters and
\nreinforces ghettoization.<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, imperative to lessen the pressure on the
\nMuslim community to make statements and edicts of loyalty and
\nallegiance to their adopted countries. At the same time as the
\nlaw and order machinery gets into gear to nab the terrorists, the
\nauthorities might also start a process of acknowledging some of
\nthe failings of marginalizing their Muslim citizens and doing
\nsomething about it. It will be a slow process but then there is
\nno quick fix for terrorism.<\/p>\n
In the larger context, the United States believes that
\ndemocratization of the Islamic world is the answer. But there are
\nproblems here.<\/p>\n
First: It is the image problem. The United States is not known
\nfor its altruism. Therefore, its democratic protestations are not
\nentirely credible in that part of the world.<\/p>\n
Second: There is a strong view that Washington wants to secure
\nthe Middle East oil fields. So far it has done it through its
\ncompliant regimes. But they are now vulnerable to terrorism in
\nthe absence of popular legitimacy. Hence the pressure on them to
\nintroduce some sort of democracy, like holding elections. But
\nwhatever little is happening in this respect lacks credibility.<\/p>\n
The United States badly needs allies on the ground in the
\nMiddle East, other than the present discredited regimes. A
\ndemocracy based on the support of the moderate Muslim middle
\nclass might be the answer. Their popular appeal, though, is
\nlimited. As Martin Woollacott has pointed out in the Guardian
\nnewspaper in the context of recent Iranian elections, there is a
\nbigger "constituency of more ordinary folk, with conservative
\nIslamic leanings, a desire for clean government and not much
\ninterest in cultural freedom. It is a constituency visible
\neverywhere in the Middle East." This constituency is not terribly
\nreceptive to the American message of freedom and liberty.<\/p>\n
In any case, any middle class regime with U.S. blessings is
\nunlikely to be seen as authentic. They can, however, acquire a
\ngood measure of popular legitimacy by claiming success on the
\nPalestine sovereignty issue and the Iraq situation by nudging
\nWashington in that direction. The first would require Israeli
\ncooperation, which doesn't seem likely to the extent that might
\npacify the Middle East.<\/p>\n
The U.S. can't afford to alienate Israel because it is its
\nmost reliable strategic asset in the region. Israel also has a
\nstrong political constituency in the United States.<\/p>\n
The second-the Iraq situation- looks like a bottomless pit.<\/p>\n
The U.S. could still push democracy in the Middle East. But
\nthat might bring the extremist Islamic parties to power, and that
\nwill be a disaster. It is not easy to be a superpower.<\/p>\n
Indonesia, on the other hand, appears relatively calm and
\npromising, going by the Aceh peace accord and abatement of
\nterrorist activity.<\/p>\n
The author is a freelance writer. He can be reached at
\nSushilPSeth@aol.com.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/optimism-for-indonesia-amid-global-terrorism-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}