History: Where are the good guys?

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.