Optimism for Indonesia amid global terrorism

Optimism for Indonesia amid global terrorism

S.P. Seth, Sydney

Is Indonesia turning the corner? It depends on: What is meant
by "turning the corner"? But, by any reckoning, the news about
Aceh is optimistic. Under the peace accord, Aceh should be able
to participate in national affairs as an autonomous part of the
country. There will, of course, be problems on the way about
interpreting and implementing the agreement. But with goodwill on
both sides, it should be a turning point.

Where East Timor failed, Aceh might be a different story. It
might become a model for some other regions struggling to find
their own political, economic and socio-cultural space, like
Papua. It could become the basis for a successful federal
political system, with constituent units having a stake in its
functioning and perpetuity.

It is too early though for the celebrations but the political
agreement on Aceh certainly is an important milestone.

Another hopeful sign is the abatement of terrorist activity in
Indonesia. If true over a period of time, Indonesia might be able
to teach some lessons to the rest of the world in this regard.
The most important lesson would be not to deal with Muslims as an
undifferentiated lot. Indonesia doesn't fit the image of militant
Islam, even though it has its militant fringe.

Any attempt, therefore, to tar the global Muslim community as
potential terrorists, through racial profiling and so on, betrays
political naivety. Muslims, like people of any other community,
are individuals who respond differently to different situations.
They don't necessarily follow religious or political edicts of
their real or supposed leaders.

Where they are minorities (as in the West), they certainly
feel insecure because their religion marks them out as terrorist
suspects. Therefore, what they need most is a sense of security
and belonging when living in Western societies.

This was illustrated the other day in an interview on the
Australian television with a young Muslim couple, both born in
Australia. They were proud of their Islamic identity and decried
terrorist violence. The young woman told the interviewer that she
very much wished that, every time there was terrorist violence
anywhere in the world, we (as Muslims) should not be expected or
required to apologize or prove our loyalty to our country
(Australia in this case).

They stressed that they, like any other Australian, were
trying to make their way in life like pursuing a career, buying a
house, paying their mortgage and so on.

However, because of this mass anti-Muslim hysteria, they and
others in their community have to often face personal abuse and
hostility in their daily lives. Which, in turn, fosters and
reinforces ghettoization.

It is, therefore, imperative to lessen the pressure on the
Muslim community to make statements and edicts of loyalty and
allegiance to their adopted countries. At the same time as the
law and order machinery gets into gear to nab the terrorists, the
authorities might also start a process of acknowledging some of
the failings of marginalizing their Muslim citizens and doing
something about it. It will be a slow process but then there is
no quick fix for terrorism.

In the larger context, the United States believes that
democratization of the Islamic world is the answer. But there are
problems here.

First: It is the image problem. The United States is not known
for its altruism. Therefore, its democratic protestations are not
entirely credible in that part of the world.

Second: There is a strong view that Washington wants to secure
the Middle East oil fields. So far it has done it through its
compliant regimes. But they are now vulnerable to terrorism in
the absence of popular legitimacy. Hence the pressure on them to
introduce some sort of democracy, like holding elections. But
whatever little is happening in this respect lacks credibility.

The United States badly needs allies on the ground in the
Middle East, other than the present discredited regimes. A
democracy based on the support of the moderate Muslim middle
class might be the answer. Their popular appeal, though, is
limited. As Martin Woollacott has pointed out in the Guardian
newspaper in the context of recent Iranian elections, there is a
bigger "constituency of more ordinary folk, with conservative
Islamic leanings, a desire for clean government and not much
interest in cultural freedom. It is a constituency visible
everywhere in the Middle East." This constituency is not terribly
receptive to the American message of freedom and liberty.

In any case, any middle class regime with U.S. blessings is
unlikely to be seen as authentic. They can, however, acquire a
good measure of popular legitimacy by claiming success on the
Palestine sovereignty issue and the Iraq situation by nudging
Washington in that direction. The first would require Israeli
cooperation, which doesn't seem likely to the extent that might
pacify the Middle East.

The U.S. can't afford to alienate Israel because it is its
most reliable strategic asset in the region. Israel also has a
strong political constituency in the United States.

The second-the Iraq situation- looks like a bottomless pit.

The U.S. could still push democracy in the Middle East. But
that might bring the extremist Islamic parties to power, and that
will be a disaster. It is not easy to be a superpower.

Indonesia, on the other hand, appears relatively calm and
promising, going by the Aceh peace accord and abatement of
terrorist activity.

The author is a freelance writer. He can be reached at
SushilPSeth@aol.com.