Fighting terrorism: Between idealism and realism

Fighting terrorism: Between idealism and realism

Mochtar Buchori, Educator, legislator, Jakarta

Osama bin Laden said that the world is divided into two camps,
that of the faithful and that of the infidel. The present war is
one between the faithful, represented by Islam, and the infidel,
represented by the West. In this war every Muslim has a duty to
defend Islam and fight side-by-side with his fellow Muslims. This
is how Osama bin Laden wants us to think about this chaos.

On the other hand, George W. Bush and Tony Blair have told us
that the present war is one between civility and terrorism. Every
man or woman who has chosen to live by the rules of civility has
the duty of defending civility to resist the encroachment of
terrorism into our cherished way of life. Everyone must either
stand on the side of civility or on the side of evil. This is how
Bush and Blair want us to think.

Indonesians are divided. There are people who have immediately
decided to take sides, either advocating jihad in defense of
Islam, or condemning any violent reaction to the present
situation, such as "sweeps" or noisy rallies.

But there are also people who seem to have been paralyzed by
the debates. They have been wavering between the two stances.
Worse, some seem afraid to express their opinions about this big
controversy. They fear they could be attacked, verbally or
physically, by those who happen to hold a different view.

I see three dangerous tendencies among politicians and the
public alike in the entire affair. First, many tend to overlook
our national interests in our efforts to deal with the issue.
Second, there is the tendency to be intolerant toward those who
happen to have a different stance on the issue. And third, a
great number among us clearly tend to oversimplify matters.

So far the rhetoric has been over the interests of Islam and
Muslims, that of the West, of humanity, and so on. But what about
our real interests as a nation? What will and what might happen
if we take hostage all Westerners in this country, if we
nationalize Western assets and sever diplomatic relations with
all Western countries?

What will happen if all these things happen? Can we really
afford to carry out such drastic measures?

No single political leader has ever pondered seriously such
questions. Now that the tourists have begun to leave, that our
hotels are almost empty, that some Western companies are at least
temporarily closed down, that exports have been stalled, and so
many have been out of a job, are we only beginning to realize
that we have to pay dearly for our fiery rhetoric.

Still, I'm afraid that there are still too many among us who
refuse to look at this grand ideological and political
controversy from our national standpoint and in a realistic way.
Our nation could therefore be heading to an even more perilous
existence, both economically and politically.

The tendency to be intolerant is a social trait that has been
in our pluralistic society for quite some now -- which shows we
do not fully realize yet what it actually means to be a
pluralistic society.

When this emotionally charged controversy broke out the
immediate tendency among many was to react according to their
primordial feelings. Yet not one among our political leaders has
seriously tried to restore calm and inject some kind of
rationality and clarity into the public mind.

Intolerance means that we have failed in managing our various
biases. The violence that has ravaged certain parts of our
societies has been caused by our intolerance, be it ethnic,
religious, or political. And as long as we are still a
pluralistic society, various kinds of prejudice will always
reside within each of us. And it is our obligation to manage or
"domesticate" these prejudices.

Failure to do so will lead us toward a societal existence
characterized by jealousy. If trivial disputes have been capable
of sparking physical and psychological conflicts that have
divided our nation, a highly emotional issue like the current one
could eventually tear our nation apart.

Do our political leaders realize this?

The third tendency, that of oversimplifying an issue also has
dangerous consequences. An issue like the one we are facing now
can never be simplified, let alone oversimplified. If we want a
genuine and lasting solution to a problem, there is no choice but
to face the problem in its full complexity.

Even if this issue really does involve the entire Western
world versus the entire Islamic world it cannot be considered
simple.

When we talk about Islam, we actually talk about two things:
Faith and civilization. Islam as a faith is relatively quite
uniform, quite homogeneous. But Islam as a civilization is quite
diverse. The reason, writes professor Bassam Tibi, is that when
Islam manifests itself as a revelation, it is quite universal.

But when it touches ground the teaching of the faith cannot
possibly ignore the impact of local cultures. This is why Islamic
civilization in the Middle East is not quite the same of that in
any other part of the world. Islamic civilization in Central Asia
is not quite identical to Islamic civilizations in Southeast Asia
or in Central Europe.

Thus, while Indonesian Muslims sympathize with their Arab
brethren in Palestine, their emotional immersion into this Middle
Eastern conflict is not quite the same as that of the
Palestinians.

In this "West versus Islam" issue, the emotional intensity of
this problem for Muslims throughout the world is not the same,
and never can be the same.

If all Indonesia's syuhada -- those willing and ready to
fight to the death for the holy cause of defending Islam -- were
successfully mobilized and sent to Afghanistan, would we be able
to remove those lifestyles that separate Islam and the West, and
find reconciliation between the two? I sincerely doubt it.

I sympathize with the idea of lending support -- at least
moral support -- to the weak and the suppressed. But it would be
wise to look for a balance between idealism and realism. To what
extent can we lend support that will really be effective? Is it
really wise to assist others in their search for justice, and in
the process weakening or even destroying ourselves?

I do not think so. I may sound selfish. But I just want to be
realistic. A realistic idealist, if you wish.