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.