Terrorism: Questions unasked
The Jakarta Post's story Intelligence set to counter terrorism (Aug. 15, 2001) was worrying. Not just for what was said, but because of questions left unasked.
You begin your story by quoting a "reliable military intelligence source" who detailed foiled bomb attacks on the U.S. Embassy and the American Club. Your source then goes on to imply that terrorists "also planned to kidnap some U.S. citizens here". This would clearly be some cause for concern and, therefore, understandable that the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta should warn its citizens here to be vigilant.
Why then did Golkar legislator Yusril Ananta Baharuddin dismiss the warning as a "tactic" by the U.S. Ambassador to draw attention to himself? "What is the point of targeting U.S. interests in Indonesia?", he asks. Well terrorist groups have, over the last few years, targeted U.S. interests in East Africa and the Middle East, so why not Indonesia? Indonesia would be a very easy target indeed.
After all, this is the country where Laskar Jihad (jihad army) with its terrorist agenda is allowed to openly collect money on the streets of Bandung, Yogyakarta and Cirebon. Baharuddin sarcastically hopes that the U.S. ambassador's successor "knows Indonesia better than he does".
Let's all hope that those responsible for security in Indonesia know the country better than Yusril does. He's displayed little understanding of the country that his party governed for so long, nor any understanding of the world at large.
And why was he allowed to get away with these statements in the first place? Were any of your journalists actually present when Yusril and Syamsul Rizal Panggabean of Gajah Mada university poured scorn on the warning?
Armed with the information from your "reliable military intelligence source", shouldn't these men's statements have been challenged? In this new democracy with its hard-won freedom of speech, to be able to make a challenge of this sort is not just a right of the press -- it's a duty.
VAUGHAN THOMAS
Cirebon, West Java