History: Where are the good guys?

By Terry Russell

JAKARTA (JP): If we know why two groups fight each other, we can decide whether or not they deserve our support. But do our history books and newspapers give us the real reasons for fighting in Indonesia and elsewhere in the world?

Western history tells us that, from the 11th to the 13th centuries AD, European "crusaders" fought to rescue "Christian" towns from advancing Muslims. Those crusaders had very idealistic, unselfish reasons for war.

They must have been good. Until we note that the call for Jerusalem to be rescued came 21 years after the Muslims captured it. Until we note that the call was made by Pope Urban II and came as King Henry IV of Germany was fighting to weaken the power of the Church.

The king had seized Rome and forced the Pope to flee just 11 years earlier. The Pope's call to take Jerusalem and other lands in the Middle East was made amid demands for land reform in Germany and Europe by a growing number of landless peasants.

Many of these rallied to the Pope's call, thus boosting his power and providing the peasants with an opportunity for new land. Could it be that the peasants and the Pope had selfish as well as idealistic aims?

When the first Christian crusaders finally reached Jerusalem in 1099 AD, they massacred thousands of unarmed people, both Muslims and Jews. The second and third crusades failed due largely to infighting and the fourth crusade, in 1204, ended up sacking the Christian town of Constantinople. On closer inspection, were these crusaders worthy of the support of other Christians?

Western history books tell us that the Americans fought the British in 1776 for patriotic reasons, fought their native American Indians for four centuries to spread Christianity and civilization, fought their own brothers in 1861 to free slaves, and fought the Vietnamese in 1964 to defend democracy against the spread of communism. A very idealistic bunch, those Americans. They must have been worthy of support.

Again closer inspection reveals that defeating the British freed the Americans from British taxes, from laws forbidding westward expansion over the Appalachian Mountains and from British controls and tariffs on trade.

The behavior of American Indian fighters was, in general, neither civilized nor in line with Christian teachings. Many promises were broken, many unarmed American Indians were slaughtered and whiskey, firearms and new diseases were brought unchecked into Indian communities.

The winners of the American Civil War, the northern states, freed slaves throughout the U.S. in 1865, but was this their main reason for the war? The northern states had a rapidly industrializing economy that required protective trade barriers for newly-established industries and greater government spending on roads and communications.

The southern states had a plantation-based economy with an effective river transport system, a desperate reliance on slave labor and no need for protection against cheaper imported goods.

The southern states' completely different economy required completely different government policies. Their wealth and their dominance of American politics would be destroyed if their slave laborers were freed.

The American Civil War began in 1861, less than a year after the election of the first northerner to ever become president. Could it be that the northerners were fighting to finally install pro-north government policies more than fighting against slavery?

To what extent was the American incursion into Vietnam in 1964 a defense of democracy? The South Vietnamese government it defended favored trade links with the U.S rather than with communist countries but it was widely regarded as corrupt and undemocratic.

So too were the governments of Soeharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, Mobutu in the Congo, the Duvaliers in Haiti and many others who received U.S support in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. If U.S. soldiers and policy makers were defending dictators like these, were they really worthy of our support ?

The conflict in the Philippines between the Abu Sayyaf and the Manila government is between a Muslim group and a predominantly Catholic group. Does this mean they are fighting in defense of religious ideals?

The Manila government encouraged transmigration from the Catholic north to the mixed-religion islands of the south throughout the late 1940s, the 1950s and the 1960s. Government road construction and other services tended to favor the Catholic settlements and Catholics came to dominate numerically and politically in many southern islands.

Were these pro-Catholic policies for idealistic reasons?

The Abu Sayyaf has demanded and received millions of U.S. dollars to release its kidnap victims. Its resort to kidnapping has been condemned by the two larger (but similarly anti-Manila) Muslim groups in the southern Philippines. Should Muslims support the Abu Sayyaf and Catholics support the Manila government in this conflict?

Western history books tell us that massacres in Jerusalem, four centuries of war in the U.S., and defense of dictators were all for unselfish, idealistic reasons. But clearly we should investigate before supporting such violence.

So why do so many Indonesian newspapers and Indonesians support militia leaders in East Timor just because they say they are nationalistic? Why do so many Muslims support the jihad warriors in Ambon and so many Christians support the pro- Christian butcherers in Poso just because they say they are serving their religion?

Indonesians like to believe that they and their media are now free. If so, why is there so little public debate over whether the actions of Eurico Guterres in Dili and in West Timor were good for Indonesia? Why are one-sided attacks in Ambon and Poso non-judgementally referred to as "ethnic and religious conflict" and the offending groups rarely named?

Westerners like to believe that they and their media are free. If so, why has there been so little debate over whether the United Nations was, in fact, neutral in the East Timor referendum process and whether the Indonesian government might be justified in feeling betrayed by the turn-around in western policy on East Timor?

Why is there so little public questioning of the motives of international institutions in the less visible conflicts that happen in boardrooms and international donors' meetings ?

Indonesians. like westerners, need to stop simplifying and idealizing groups' motivations. No matter what our nationality, political leaning, religion or culture is, somebody may be deceiving us. Somebody may be calling themselves idealists to gain our silence or support.

The writer has a BA (Honors) in World History. He taught English in East Timor in 1997, 1998 and 2000 and is now teaching in Jakarta.