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.