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.