Banning scholars from entering the country undemocratic

Banning scholars from entering the country undemocratic

By Benny Subianto

JAKARTA (JP): No clear reason has been provided as to why
Yoshihara Kunio, an historian at the Southeast Asian Studies
Center at Kyoto University, was refused entry at Soekarno-Hatta
International Airport on March 14.

Banning of foreign scholars and journalists was common during
former president Soeharto's New Order regime. The most recent ban
maintains New Order politics and calls into question President
B.J. Habibie's reform administration as an emerging democratic
government.

Early this month, leading Indonesianist, Benedict Anderson of
Cornell University was allowed to visit Indonesia after being
barred for 26 years.

Anderson was banished from Indonesia, after he and colleagues
Ruth McVey and Frederick Bunnel from Cornell University published
a paper disputing the New Order's claim that the Sept. 30, 1965
Movement was the work of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI)
with support from Beijing.

The Cornell paper argued that events on Sept. 30, 1965 were
the result of the culmination of internal conflicts within The
Army. The paper suggested a conspiracy involving the United
States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Anderson visited Indonesia in 1967, 1968 and 1972. His last
visit was interrupted and he was forced to leave the country.

Anderson testified before the United States House of
Representatives' Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs,
and the United Nations on human rights in Indonesia.

His constant advocacy for human rights in East Timor, after
the former Portuguese colony was integrated into Indonesia, was
perceived by the Soeharto regime as a deliberate effort to
undermine Indonesia. Accordingly, the New Order government
justified the banning of Anderson for "national security
reasons", reasons which are yet to be explained.

Anderson's banishment until the collapse of the New Order
regime, provides an example of the relationship between scholars
and regimes.

His political courage was not only evident in the tension he
aroused in the Indonesian government. Ever since his first
Congressional testimony in 1976, Washington State Department
officials have been challenged by Anderson's unrelenting
protests.

His activism was directed toward U.S. involvement in Vietnam,
the U.S. administration's justification for "resuming" weapon
deliveries to Indonesia during the East Timor civil war, and the
unwillingness of U.S. Ambassador Edward Masters to report the
enormous death toll in East Timor from September 1978.

The New Order regime and some Indonesian scholars and
politicians described Anderson as a national political enemy, who
deserved to be treated with contempt.

In 1981, Anderson obtained a visa to enter Indonesia for the
purpose of attending a conference. At Soekarno-Hatta
International Airport's immigration check desk, a group of
plainclothes officers ushered him into a room. Immigration
informed Anderson that his arrival had been anticipated for two
weeks but that his visa was now invalid.

The harassment was clear but the explanations were unclear.
Anderson, armed with a visa was forcibly and impolitely requested
to immediately leave the country.

Kunio's ban is more puzzling. He is not known as a staunch
critic of either the Soeharto or Habibie governments. He has
never issued statements that damaged Indonesia's reputation.

The only "sin" was his 1988 book, The Rise of Ersatz
Capitalism in Southeast Asia, which provided a wealth of data on
the business networks of the Soeharto family and their cronies.
The New Order government said the book undermined Soeharto's
credibility. It was not surprising that the Indonesian
translation of his book was banned by the attorney general soon
after it's release. Despite the ban, Kunio was allowed to enter
Indonesia a couple of times in the early 1990s.

Habibie's government is yet to openly and transparently revoke
its predecessor's book banning rule. However, many critical
books, studies, papers and pamphlets, taboo during the Soeharto
regime, are now legally available in bookstores or news-stands.
Kunio's data on the Soehartos' and their cronies' business
networks is unremarkable in comparison to many recent
publications on the same subject, which are widely distributed.

Soon after the fall of Soeharto, Indonesian people openly and
legally accessed information concerning these business networks.
These contradictions make it difficult to understand why the new
government, which is desperately seeking support from the
international community for its democratization process,
maintains its predecessor's irresponsible politics.

The director general of immigration's official statement that
Kunio was banned from entering Indonesia at the request of Armed
Forces (ABRI) Commander Gen. Wiranto, for national security
reasons, is not viable for, at least, two reasons.

First, in tracing Kunio's past activities, there is no
indication that he might endanger Indonesia's interests, either
at home or overseas.

Second, he is not a member of any international conspiracy
group, who may plan subversive activities in Indonesia.

His banning will most likely convey an image that substantial
political change in Indonesia is yet to occur. Such a perception
will make the international community doubtful about the process
of democratization and the sincerity of Habibie's political
commitment to reform. At the same time, it will discourage
investment in Indonesia by the Japanese business community.

The New Order regime's habit of labeling and stigmatizing its
critics as "communist", "anti-Pancasila", "subversive against the
state" and "undermining the President and government officials"
is no longer a viable strategy. The labeling and stigmatization
of critics only created a "political specter".

The methodology was effective during the Soeharto regime to
legitimize its repressive authoritarianism. However, the practice
was not watertight: some scholars continued to criticize the
regime's politics.

Foreign scholars barred from entering the country kept on
researching Indonesian politics and the economy, and
disseminating research findings through the print or cyber media.

In point of fact, the government should not be concerned with
criticisms: no scholar or scholarly work can topple a regime.

Scholars are neither saints nor angels. They are only human
beings following their own interests and pretensions.

Some scholars and scholarly works may cause a regime to feel
uneasy, simply because they debunk realities which the regime
wants to keep hidden. Or they provide information and analysis
that invoke guilt or embarrassment for the regime. Think how an
authoritarian ruler responds to scholars who disclose his or her
political crimes or scandalous corruption practices.

Conversely, some scholars and scholarly works can be essential
for a government. One classic example is the role of George Kahin
and his scholarly work, Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia
during the Indonesian revolution (1945-1949).

Kahin, the first Indonesianist outside the circle of Dutch
Indologists, conducted research in Java during the revolution and
became a staunch defender of Indonesian aspirations. In addition,
he played an important role in promoting Indonesia by setting up
an Indonesian lobby in the United States during the revolution.

Since Habibie has loudly claimed participation in the
democratization process, it is not necessary for his government
to bar foreign scholars. The Indonesian people and the government
should be prepared to counter incorrect information and analyses
produced by foreign scholars, without refusing them entry to the
country.

The writer is a researcher based in Jakarta.