Why should we get mad about Belo?

Why should we get mad about Belo?

Bitter comments on the remarks reportedly made by East Timor
Bishop Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo to a German magazine, in which
he allegedly put Indonesia in a bad light, have continued
unabated. Y.B. Mangunwijaya argues that a general lack of
understanding of what he terms "the politics of morals" may be
among the reasons for this.

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Government officials and many other people
became enraged by East Timor Bishop Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo,
whom they accused of having acted beyond his sphere of
competence.

Spiritual leaders, they said, should deal with matters in the
spiritual domain only and should avoid meddling in politics.

At issue is the bishop's controversial alleged remarks in Der
Spiegel magazine, which were perceived by some as slandering the
Armed Forces.

A Moslem spiritual leader might perhaps face fewer
difficulties, as it is the common view that all kinds of
problems, whether mundane or heavenly, including politics, shall
be regulated by Islam.

In fact, however, Christian theology holds a similar view,
arguing that in fighting evil, nothing remains outside the
Kingdom of God.

Hence, the accusation that Bishop Belo had entangled himself
in political matters appears very strange to me.

Viewed in a different context, however, it might not be so
strange because Belo's struggle to defend human rights in East
Timor could have collided head-on with certain political
strategies.

As we know, there are two ways of viewing politics. The
popular view -- which is, alas, regarded too often as the only
one -- is related to power in its various aspects: the possession
of it, its execution, the fortification of the status quo, or the
overthrowing of power, and so forth. This also takes into
consideration the power of religions and ideologies. It deals
with the imposition of the will of the stronger on the weaker.
Thus, people disdainfully refer to power politics as dirty
politics.

It seems that in Indonesia, few people and officials have
heard of the other, more genuine and authentic meaning of
politics, namely the forging of all human endeavor for the sake
of the common good.

It concerns struggle, not on behalf of one's own faction or
political party, nor of one's own religion or business interests,
but in that of the community as a whole, that of society and the
universal brotherhood of nations.

Although this latter notion is more in accordance with the
nature of every modern and enlightened democratic state -- built
as it is on morality, ethics and fair play, enhancing justice and
peace, mutual help, development, etcetera -- it is rather
surprising that it is unrecognized in contemporary Indonesia.

It seems that the application of Darwin's principle of the
"survival of the fittest", or the "law of the jungle", has more
currency and is more widely adopted by society.

We understand the anger and the charges that have been leveled
against the first Indonesian winner of the Noble Peace Prize.
Some go as far as accusing him of overstepping his sphere of
competence and even committing treason against his nation by
revealing Indonesia's behavior towards the powerless people of
East Timor.

People of sound reason and morality, however, know that it is
precisely the duty and obligation of bishops and all spiritual
leaders to speak out and act on behalf of morality and humanity.

Isn't our state ideology, Pancasila, imbued with the principle
of a "civilized and just humanity"?

Of course, the Nobel Committee may not be free from political
motivations, but it never succumbs to the politics of power.

Its members argue on reasons for democracy, justice,
safeguards against all kinds of fascism, suppression and
repression of freedom, ethics, justice and peace. They are
neither corruptors, nor are they people who know only the art of
liking and disliking.

As an Indonesian proverb says: "Don't measure others by the
size of your own shirt." Besides, our Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Ali Alatas, has also asserted that the state recognizes
the right of people of the church to advocate on behalf of basic
human rights and humanity.

But was Bishop Belo right when he publicly proposed a
referendum or asked for autonomy for East Timor? Surely he may
have surpassed his sphere of competence as a spiritual leader.
But let us not forget that he is an ordinary citizen too. Isn't
he also expected to go to the polls on election day, which is
truly an act on power politics?

So why should we impose a double standard on our Nobel prize
winner?

Bishop Belo is known as a patient, low-profile and benevolent
spiritual man. He is not a political agitator. He surely has
strong reasons for expressing such a strong political statement,
20 years after East Timor became part of Indonesia.

The pros and the cons aside, when we seriously and actively
work in the domain of the politics of morals, it is not rare for
us to accidentally enter that of power politics.

Rev. Martin Niemoeller and Father Titus Brandsma were put in
jail and murdered by the Nazis for their advocacy against the
"Nazi morals".

One could enter power politics by accident while essentially
defending moral values.

As a shepherd of his flock, it is Belo's moral obligation to
stress that the East Timor human rights question is not only one
in the domain of power politics, but also one of morality,
justice and peace, with or without a referendum on autonomy.

The writer is a well-known social worker, novelist, prominent
intellectual and Catholic priest.