Unrests linked to foreign interference

Unrests linked to foreign interference

By M.M.I. Ahyani

BANDUNG (JP): Historian Ahmad Mansur Suryanegara, who lectures
in the School of Letters at Padjadjaran University here, sees
links between recent outbreaks of unrest in Indonesia with the
reform movement and the meddling of other countries, specifically
the United States.

Mansur, 65, who also teaches at the Sunan Gunung Djati State
Institute for Islamic Studies, admits his commentaries may differ
from the standard political assessment but says they are based on
his studies of geopolitics.

"One thing is clear in politics. There's no eternal friend or
foe. The only thing that lasts is the interests of the political
animals," he said.

In his analysis Mansur said he wanted to make the public aware
that there were "external parties" playing with the nation's
destiny. "Whether it realizes or not, this nation is trapped and
being carried away in the political game of others," he said.

He also said he believed the current reform movement has the
potential to degenerate into a religious war similar to that in
15th century Europe. Mansur spoke with The Jakarta Post earlier
this week at his house.

Question: What do you think of the reform movement? How do you
view Indonesia's situation now?

Answer: Historically speaking, I think the term is
misunderstood. The campaign is called reformasi but in reality it
is leading to a war of religions.

(The original "reformation" campaign) started at the time of
Marthin Luther in 1517 ... (who was) endeavoring ... to oppose
the power of the Catholic church under Pope Leo X which sold
absolutions.

The term "reformation" originated in the church and would
later lead to a counter-reform movement by the Catholic church.
As a result of the opposition, the war of religions started. In
Germany it lasted 25 years, in France 31 years and in Britain it
has been going on for 398 years until now.

So, if we see that "reformation" had such an impact, why do we
choose the term? I would opt for "restoration" with a view to
realizing a civilized society.

Many people's analyses of the present national condition (have
failed) to link it with external conditions affecting Indonesia.
In fact, Indonesia's current chaotic situation is the result of
external groups who do not want to see the nation progress.

Why and how have those external parties operated?

Indonesia is not the only country (to be affected). In
general, there are three things that these external parties,
namely the United States, dislike. First, Indonesia is a country
with a growing Muslim population. The understanding and the
practice of the religion here is good.

To be honest, the (later years) of former president Soeharto's
era were marked with a tremendous increase in the understanding
and practice of Islamic teaching. Mosques were established
everywhere, the number of haj pilgrims to Mecca grew to 200,000
per year. There are many more examples.

Second, (the United States) does not like countries with a
large amount of military power able to dominate the region. So
questions were raised concerning democratization, and calls for
the military to return to the barracks.

Third, the U.S. does not like at all any country that is able
to develop high technology, especially nuclear weapons
technology. All these three aspects are present here, so
Indonesia became the target of their game. There are many other
(targets), such as Pakistan and Iran.

What is the basis of your analysis?

What we are seeing now is actually a repetition of history.
There are similarities in the patterns, (though) with new figures
being created and discarded as soon as their usefulness ends.
Soeharto himself is perhaps a good example.

The involvement of the CIA in the toppling of Indonesia's
first president, Sukarno, was disclosed by his wife, Dewi
Sukarno. Currently there are signs of U.S. involvement, covert or
otherwise. I am not saying that the student movement, which
helped topple Soeharto, was not pure. But they were not (free
from the influence of external parties).

Soeharto's resignation was an intermediary target. The main
goal is the nation's disintegration, and this can be brought
about by a religious war.

We can also see history repeating itself in the fact that the
crisis started with economic chaos. In 1966, that also happened.
There were the same problems of West Irian and Aceh.

Then (in the 1960s) we bought arms from the Soviet Union. Now
the Air Force is trying to obtain Sukhoi aircraft from Russia
after canceling orders of F-16 planes from the U.S.

Then, General A.H. Nasution was discharged, now, it is
(Soeharto's son-in-law Lt. Gen.) Prabowo (Subianto).

Is it not possible that the similarities are mere
coincidences?

I do not think so. They are repetitions of a pattern.

We can see it in other countries being treated (by the U.S.)
in the same way. Actually the method used by the U.S. is one that
is socialistic in nature ... (which) is very effective indeed.
There is a theory that says hungry people have empty heads and
souls. Therefore, the crisis of getting basic food was created.
It was not a coincidence.

Is there also a connection between the timing of these events?

There are periods of time that are sensitive. I worry terribly
about Sept. 9, 1999 (which reads 9-9-99), but I hope nothing will
happen on that day. Apart from the problems of days commemorating
great historical events, the month of September is in fact highly
crucial. The momentum in September is apt to foil the appointment
of a new leader in November 1999 (when the new People's
Consultative Assembly is scheduled to elect a new president).

What are your suggestions for reform campaigners at the
moment?

First of all, beware of and do not be carried away by other
people's games. Politics is something that is full of cover-ups.
Because the real political motives must be modified or covered.

The next leader must be close to the people and take their
side. Trust that whoever helps U.S. interests will end up
suffering. Historical examples abound.