Common stance needed to fight terrorism

Common stance needed to fight terrorism

Following the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks in the United States,
what has become of the relations between Indonesia and the U.S.?
Kornelius Purba of The Jakarta Post talked to former foreign
affairs minister Ali Alatas. The following are excerpts of the
interview.

Question: What is your comment on Indonesia's position in dealing
with the attacks?

Answer: Indonesia, from the very beginning, had stated its position
with regards to international terrorism quite clearly. We cannot
accept the Sept. 11 attacks. We condemn terrorism. And based on
the attacks, we must, together with the rest of the world, combat
terrorism. Because terrorism is a threat not only to one country,
to one people, but it is against humanity; whether we be Muslims,
Christians or from other religions. Terrorism per definition must
be completely condemned, because it kills people
indiscriminately, people who are not guilty -- women, children,
older people, not soldiers...

However... we have our own view that may be different from
the U.S. But that's OK. We conveyed that as a friend. We think
that in combating international terrorism, bombing is not the
best way, not the most effective way. And it can be
counterproductive in the end. The more innocent people die, the
more there will be a backlash, especially in countries with a
majority of Muslims. And we cannot avoid that in bombing, no
matter how smart the bombs are...

This is the message that we have conveyed. I think we remain
quite consistent with our view. We have... urged the U.S. to do
the operation as short as possible, in terms of time, deployment.
We already stated that it was better to go to the UN.

Q: How should the government explain this to those who demand
severance of ties with the U.S.?

A: This is obviously an emotional, rather disproportionate
demand. I have a feeling that even the people who are proposing
it know deep in their hearts that is it not realistic because it
is disproportionate. I think the government must explain much
more intensively to our own people about terrorism: first, on our
very firm and principled stance on terrorism and why. Because we
are certainly victims of terrorism.

There are moral and political reasons, reasons of principal
why we have to deal with terrorism. Because it is against the
principles of our religion, our morals, because it kills innocent
people indiscriminately. But then we must also explain that this
is not, and should not be interpreted as a war of the West
against Islam because it is not.

Objectively speaking the U.S. government has tried very hard
to make that very clear. Because there are a lot of Muslims in
the U.S. Yes there are excesses like in other countries, but
immediately there were messages to stop these excesses.

It has to be explained, that it is not against Islam and it
should not be seen as against Islam and even not against the
Afghan people. But (the campaign) is against terrorism, against
Osama bin Laden who the U.S. and most countries agree has been
behind this terror. Of course there are people who will not
accept this explanation; who in a political or emotional way will
continue to link this with a fight against Islam.

But we should point out the fact that the U.S. has supported
Islam. In Kosovo it was America who fought for the Islamic people
against Yugoslavia. In Bosnia Herzegovina the slaughter of the
Muslims of Bosnia was finally overcome, thanks to very drastic
American intervention in Bosnia.

So I don't think that it is correct now to assume that
suddenly the U.S. is against Islam. Why should they be? However
there are factors which unfortunately have made it sometimes very
difficult to explain this ... Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda have
been accused, and they are Muslims. For some it is a war against
Islam.

This has to be explained in a rational and calm way because
emotions are running very high. People can get very angry when
they think there is an unfair attack on Islam, on Muslims.

Indonesia could be more proactive in lobbying and getting
other friendly countries ... to stop the bombardments and to let
UN to find the solution. I believe the government ... knows this.
I wish it could move faster, but they are in the right direction.

Q: How do you see the controversy that resulted from the
President's speech on the Ascension Day of Prophet Muhammad?

A: The appeal was made in a general, religious, and moral way. It
is not true that in the very beginning we were very much in favor
of U.S., and that we are suddenly now regressing. It is not true.
There is a logical continuity in our statements.

When (the attacks on the U.S.) occurred we sent a very strong
statement of principle during President Megawati's meeting with
President Bush. We promised that we would combat terrorism. But
then came the attacks (on Afghanistan). Then we started to look
at the methods of combating terrorism. We expressed our deep
concern about the Afghan attack. This is not the right way. Pak
Hassan (Wirayuda, foreign minister) has said clearly that it
should be stopped before Ramadhan.

Q: Bush's administration and U.S. businessmen were reportedly
disappointed with the President's criticism...

A: They asked questions but they were not disappointed. But I
just read a very clear statement by the new U.S. Ambassador Ralph
L. Boyce that the U.S. understands Indonesia's position and
appreciates Indonesia's position. Because we are not regressing.
We will also continue efforts to prevent terrorism across the
board.

Q: Does the U.S. also understand Megawati's domestic political
problems?

A: Yes, they do. They realize that being a country with the
largest majority of Muslims in the world, she cannot just ignore
the general views. How can any government do that? Indonesia,
Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt, all the countries with a majority of
Muslims, have to be cautious. On one hand they must be firm
against terrorism, but they must also take into account the
views, the sensitivity, the possible misunderstanding that may
occur within the majority of their populace and find ways to
overcome that ...

Q: How would you convince people that ties with U.S. are
important for Indonesia?

A: Of course we cannot put an argument such as: "Look at the size
of America, they have large banks. We need their market, we need
their foreign aid etc.". This would not be the only argument,
because... it seems as if you do not have any principles. There
is only weakness in that position.

The remark of "Don't do this because we are weak", I think, is
not a good idea. Of course we are still vulnerable. But we are
not weak. We have our own principles. We are in difficult
circumstances. But we are a big country... We have a strategic
place in the world. We have the potential to move other countries
in the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic
Conference. I'm not saying that economically we are strong, no,
we are vulnerable.

Q: And what about our own huge problems, and domestic terrorism?

A: Yes, we have our own terrorist problem in Indonesia and in
Southeast Asia. That is why we need now in Southeast Asia, also
in East Asia, to get together, so we can define our common
response to this transnational threat of terrorism, because there
are indications that terrorists are cooperating with each other.

Abu Sayyaf has support from al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf also has some
contacts with our rebels. I think one of the themes in the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations and East Asia is to
realize the danger of this transnational threats of terrorism.

They must also address issues such as how to deal with other
threats like money laundering, drug smuggling, piracy and people
smuggling in the waters of Southeast Asia. People smuggling has
now become our problem, look at the Iraqis and Afghan people
here. These are all problems of transnational security.