http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1976&Itemid=202
To Purge Terror, Indonesia Has to Get Tough
Written by James Van Zorge
Friday, 24 July 2009
Radical preachers in Indonesia still operate with impunity and hide under
the cloak of religious tolerance. That has to stop.
We have heard it numerous times: Indonesia is a model for moderation and
religious tolerance in the Islamic world. Indonesians want democracy and they
support a modern, outward-looking secular government. The July 17 terrorist
attacks on two Jakarta hotels were an outrage, but the business community and
average Indonesians will move forward.
Foreign investors will pause in the aftermath of the bombings, but with
Indonesia now being trumpeted as a rising power in Asia, seemingly there is
little reason to hold them back from putting their capital into the country.
Yet, is everything as it should be? When it comes to combating terrorism
and extremist groups, should we be content with government policy? Is this, as
the saying goes, as good as it gets?
For example, Islamic preachers in some boarding schools can spread a
gospel of hatred with impunity, and yet Indonesians who lodge harmless opinions
in public spaces such as Facebook face the prospect of going to jail for
defamation. Why does Islamic garb trump the law while innocents' civil rights
are trampled upon?
Criminal figures such as Abu Bakar Bashir are sought after by the media
and hence given a forum to spread bald-faced lies with little opprobrium, and
yet when the president shows emotion in public in the aftermath of terror, he
is widely criticized. Isn't there something wrong with that picture?
The Indonesian elite talk incessantly about how they are opposed to
extremist ideologies and movements. Yet, dangerous characters inside Jemaah
Islamiyah are treated with kid gloves, often with light jail sentences, and
therefore given more opportunities to commit inhumane acts.
At the same time, foreign nationals caught in minor violations of drug
trafficking are left to rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Is vice a
more heinous crime than cold-blooded murder?
Fundamentalist Islamic parties, despite their poor showing in the
elections, jockey and position themselves to share power in national office,
saying that they are wildly misunderstood, that in fact they are moderates.
When Islamic terrorists strike, they remain conspicuously silent. Where is
their conscience? Should they not be at the forefront in denouncing the likes
of JI if, in fact, they are as moderate as they claim? Or, perhaps, would they
prefer to join Bashir in his incessant lying that JI is a figment of our
collective imaginations and that the CIA is behind the attacks?
What explains such gross hypocrisy?
Sometimes I tend to believe that, in part, the problem is not just
hypocrisy alone, but the hypnotic power of religion in politics. Too many
Indonesian politicians have been duped into thinking that they court voters'
favor by donning Muslim garb and going light on extremism. As they display such
a holier-than-thou attitude and sanctimonious behavior, have they ever wondered
if there is the possibility that they have actually misread their constituency?
Would Indonesians vote them out of office if they cracked down harder on
extremism and dismantled unconstitutional laws that smack of Shariah?
Who would complain if some of the more hate-mongering boarding schools
were forced to close their doors? Who, in fact, would protest if the keys to
the jail cells of extremist figures were thrown away for good? Would many
Indonesians brood and stand up for the civil rights of abominable figures such
as Bashir if they were placed back behind bars and never allowed to see the
light of day again?
In a word, why shouldn't President Yudhoyono and his government get a lot
tougher - not just with the terrorists, but with the entire corps of extremists
who blatantly abuse religion for their cause?
Sure, if Yudhoyono does decide to deal more harshly with extremism, there
will be complaints, and not just from those who practice its art.
In their attempts to weaken the president, political opportunists -
primarily coming from opposition parties - are more than willing to wave the
flag of religion and defend the sacred rights of anybody who dons Muslim cloth.
That they would prefer to dismiss national security concerns in deference to a
dangerous minority is hardly surprising, especially since many of these same
politicians lack any moral fiber of their own. In defense of the radicals, they
will protest that a crackdown would portend the return of Suharto-esque
policies and signal a step backwards for human rights. Their audiences would be
wise to keep in mind, however, that many of these advocates for human rights
are the same personalities who started their political careers under Suharto
and became fabulously wealthy at the same time.
Then there are the moral purists and academics. In their dispassionate
policy analyses, these innocents argue that harsher tactics are
counterproductive. They look at the abhorrences committed behind the walls of
Guantanamo Bay, and easily conclude that softer techniques are a wiser option.
Without a doubt, the types of policies that were carried out by the Bush
administration should be condemned, not just on grounds of moral turpitude, but
efficacy as well. But does that mean that swinging toward the other end of the
spectrum makes for good policy?
Pragmatism, not knee-jerk moral protest, should guide policies in the
future. It is true that state torture doesn't work very well. But why should
Indonesia place itself at the other extreme and tolerate preachers of hate
inside boarding schools, as one example? Just as former US government officials
such as Dick Cheney should have their feet put to the fire when it comes to how
torture bought the United States very little in terms of valuable intelligence,
so should advocates of soft policies be taken to task. How have these policies
benefited Indonesia, and where have they failed? Is there perhaps not a middle
way that could be more effective?
Part of the problem in any policy discourse on extremism in Indonesia is
that the majority - the same people who abhor extremism in private quarters and
wish the government would deal a stricter hand - are predominantly silent.
Out of fear of retribution from groups such as the Islamic Defenders
Front or other half-baked moral policemen that remain above the law, the
majority who could make a real difference remain, sadly, stunningly docile in
public.
If there is any lesson to be drawn from last week's attacks, it is that
the time has come for Yudhoyono to reassess how he should treat extremists.
Finding the perpetrators is a necessary, but not sufficient measure if he is to
destroy the seeds of terrorism.
The president should lead a policy debate with a zero-tolerance attitude
not just with terrorists, but all types of extremist organizations,
personalities and behavior. It is virtually guaranteed that if he does display
the sort of toughness that most Indonesians are craving for, the opportunists
and apologists will complain loudly.
Never mind. After all, Indonesia truly is a country that is dominated by
people of moderation and tolerance. Now is the time for the president to speak
out and act on their behalf.
James Van Zorge is a partner in Van Zorge, Heffernan & Associates, a
business strategy and government relations consulting firm based in Jakarta. He
can be reached at [email protected]. This e-mail address is being protected
from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
