http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol01b.ASP
January 12, 2007
Two big events happened in 2006 that changed developments in the world. The first was the bombing at the holiest place for Shia Muslims, namely the mosque in Samarra, Iraq, in March. This turned the Iraq War into a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shia, and made it almost impossible for the Americans to win the war and to stay in Iraq for much longer, with all the strategic consequences thereof. Related to that were the results of the mid-term elections in the U.S. for all the members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate. Because of the anti-Iraq War mood, the Democrats won convincingly and President George W. Bush has had to adjust his policies of staying the course and winning the war in Iraq. In line with the results of the mid-term elections the respectable and bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) under James Baker and Lee Hamilton has also proposed policy changes. These changes consist of a gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq starting in 2008, in tandem with more intensive training for Iraqi troops. For that to be realized, the Iraq government and their leaders must get their act together. Abargain" type of a solution is to be concocted, where all the parties involved, including Iran and Syria, should participate, also in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict and the problems in southern Lebanon. Those points were not completely taken in stride by the Bush administration, and they were trying to find other ways and means to overcome their dilemma. But following the mess in Iraq, it is clear to many people that the report from the ISG might be the only realistic ways toward resolving the problem. A precipitated U.S. withdrawal will be a blow to its credibility as the only global superpower, with the consequence of a malaise in the U.S. body politic. And because of that a U.S. withdrawal from global affairs and the international order, which so far are being maintained because of its leadership and commitment, could be a possibility. This will open possibilities for rogue states to start actions against the global order. The regional order in the Middle East could be changed dramatically, and Iran's ascendancy as a regional power with the possibility of having nuclear weapons in the future does not augur well for the region's peace and stability. And the Sunni-Shia divide and competition could become more acute since the mix consists in many societies in the Middle East. The other important development was in East Asia, where two events could be a harbinger for change and development in the region and could have an impact on 2007 and beyond. One was the visit of Prime Minister Abe of Japan to Beijing and Seoul, which started a new dialog among the leaders of Northeast Asia toward improving their bilateral relations and the peace and stability of the whole East Asian region. This is the first time in East Asian history that both China and Japan are big powers. It will not be easy to find a modus vivendi in their relationship because there are no precedents in history. It was either China or Japan that was powerful. The problem not only concerns history but is perhaps mainly about future leadership of the region, in addition to some unresolved territorial issues. Although difficult, it should not be impossible for them to peacefully coexist, and even to develop common interests and a certain co-leadership in the East Asian region. The elites on both sides know that there is a need for a modus vivendi in their relations in order to maintain peace and stability in the future. They both agree that the creation of an East Asian community is the way to go if they want to see the region prosper and to preserve peace and stability. While the Abe visit has been a positive step in the relationship between the two great powers, the other event, namely the explosion of a nuclear device by North Korea (DPRK) on Oct. 9, exactly on the day PM Abe left China and arrived in Seoul, is a major setback for the region. The East Asian region must live with an unstable DPRK having nuclear bombs. This could also open the region for further nuclear proliferation that could have a highly destabilizing effect strategically. That is why efforts by the region and the international community, especially the five powers in the six-party talks, have to be strengthened despite the difficulties, because this is vital for peace, stability and economic progress in East Asia. For that to happen the other five powers have to agree that the most important issue is the de-nuclearization of the DPRK and they have to agree on the same strategy for achieving this. That includes the U.S., which has experienced a split among itself, where some would like to see regime change through the collapse of the Kim Jong-il regime, which China and South Korea resist strongly because the impact on them would be dramatic. They should propose drawing a red line not to be trespassed by the DPRK or sanctions will be applied that will be supported by all five of the powers and the international community. Furthermore, the U.S. has to be willing to deal with the DPRK bilaterally on the sidelines as part of efforts to assure North Korea of its security as well as the economic aid it can get. This is more difficult now because the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, but finding a solution is also important for other parts of the world, especially in the Iran case. There are other important issues in Southeast Asia that could have an impact on 2007. One is the coup in Thailand. The other is the report of the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) on the ASEAN Charter that was to be submitted to the ASEAN Leaders at the summit in Cebu, the Philippines, in December which was abruptly postponed. The report is critical for ASEAN's future and for its role in the East Asian region. The ASEAN Leaders should strongly support the report and oversee the work of the Government Task Force that will be established to translate the report into a legal instrument, to be completed at the end of 2007. There was a real setback in Thailand following the military coup on Sept. 9. There has never been a "good" coup, although there are enough reasons for this one, namely to get rid of Thaksin, who exploited the system by using money politics and the weaknesses of the other political parties. It also prevented a physical clash from happening. However, giving power to the military is always full of risk and uncertainty. In the end, as everywhere, the military is a "machine" that can do certain things but cannot do other things. In the first month after the coup they refused to talk to the opposition forces, but instead allowed a Thaksin ally to be speaker of the appointed provisional Parliament. This has resulted in a jittery, confusing and uncertain political situation. The question now is how to ensure that within one year power will be returned to the people through a credible Constitutional Commission and a referendum on its results. The above events will have an impact on developments in 2007. That is why they should be understood and closely followed. Some were positive developments, some less so, but all were important developments in 2006 with the possibility of having a major impact on events in 2007. The writer is vice chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta. ===================================================================================
http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol02b.asp
January 12, 2007
The answer is no, and it is a big NO. The reasons are twofold; one concerns the issue of power, the other the issue of civility. Let's begin with the former. The term "civil society" has a long pedigree and it was initially a term of ancient jurisprudence. The classical notion of "civil society" is more or less a direct translation of what Aristotle, that Greek philosopher, referred to as koin“nia politik‚, or political community. It was Cicero, the great Roman orator, who appropriated the term and subsequently called it societas civilis, the Latin term for civil society. Civil society was coterminous with political community in the sense that social life organized in a polity is in sharp contrast to the uncivilized state under the law of the jungle. So, political community characterized by civility was set in contrast to the uncivilized life and barbarous condition under nature. In the seventeenth century, for instance, Thomas Hobbes, the author of Leviathan, used the term precisely to refer to a state of social order that is the opposite of "the state of nature". Civil society is a condition in which human persons live in a state of social contract, of which a polity and government form an integral part. Why in contrast to nature? The answer is plain. It's because the whim of nature was seen as the greatest threat to life, both in terms of physical hazards and of the capricious working of the law of the jungle in moral life. In this condition, writes Hobbes, there is "no arts, no letters, no society", and human life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". In sum, the blind menace of nature and the law of the jungle were seen as dangerous forces that had to be mitigated. Civil society is a way of controlling them. In the words of Adam Ferguson, the author of The History of Civil Society, it is a society of less barbarous manners, a society which practiced the cultivation of the mind by arts and letters. The human mind is blessed with a capacity to create and recreate ideas, and the shifting historical context has served as an impetus to the ensuing notions of civil society. It was within the context of the struggle against the whim of monarchical powers that the antithetical notion of civil society vis-…-vis the state began to develop. What used to be the menace of nature was merely replaced by the caprice of political rulers. This is not the place to trace the genealogy of the term. What is relevant is that the meaning of civil society as widely used today is derived from the historic events surrounding the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe. I still remember that before 1989, the term "civil society" was rarely used. Thereafter, it became the sweetest word. The problem is, the currency of "civil society" also involves amnesia of its genesis. That is, its popular use goes hand in hand with obliviousness as to its meaning. In Eastern European societies, the term was used as the antithesis of politburo -- that is, government -- precisely because the politburo was seen as the most capricious power in these societies. Between the politburo's state apparatus and individual families, there were hardly any free organizations with independent voices, be they media, religious or other organizations. It was out of this contextual necessity that the struggle of so-called civil society was then directed against the politburo apparatus. Of course, the trajectory of the term is not as neat as presented in this sketch. It is clear, however, that civil society is viewed in terms of its opposition to the state, not because it is logically so, but because in Eastern Europe prior to the 1989 upheavals, the politburo state was seen as the ultimate power holder, the concentration of which had posed the greatest threat to the civility of social life. What seems fundamental is that civil society is a societal network of democratic energies intended to make the exercise of power accountable, be it state or business power, or religious or media power. If such power takes the form of business power -- like that of Lapindo Brantas, which has brought colossal misery to the East Java town of Sidoarjo -- civil society cannot but be directed to making that company publicly accountable. From the point of view of the civil society movement, the reason for making the company publicly accountable is not simply because it has caused misery, but because the colossal misery brought about by the company's unaccountable exercise of power has destroyed civilized life in Sidoarjo. The issue of civility is of paramount importance to the idea of civil society. From the moment of its inception, civil society has been at its core concerned with the creation of civility rather than with the power-balance game in democracy. Even the adjective "civil" in civil society has nothing to do with the notion of its antithesis to the term "military", as widely understood in Indonesia (cf. sipil vs militer). Rather, at the heart of the word "civil" is a contrast with the barbarous manners and conditions of life under the law of the jungle. If it is the military that makes our lives uncivilized, civil society cannot but be against the misconduct of military forces. If it is corporate powers that make our lives uncivilized, civil society cannot but fight against such corporate powers. The same is also true when it is religious powers that make our lives uncivilized. But, what is civility? It means respect for others, moderation, self-restraint, courtesy, public politeness, good manners, well-spokenness and "gentlemanliness". Civility is about treating others as fellow citizens of equal dignity in their rights and obligations, about regarding other persons, including one's adversaries, as members of the same society, even though they belong to different parties or to different religious or ethnic groups. The rule of law is central, but in the end it is in the service of civility, and not of some barbarous manners of imposing sectarian purposes on the pluralistic character of Indonesian society. A dictatorship of the majority that runs counter to civility has nothing to do with either democracy or civil society. It is sheer barbarity. This vista is highly relevant to the tidal wave of religious extremism currently tearing down the social fabric of Indonesian society. These religious extremists always claim that what they do is part of the civil society movement. But if indeed they are part of civil society, surely they will not, at their whim, break into the houses of worship that belong to different religious groups and proscribe religious services. The fact that they do so is anathema to the civility that is the goal of every civil society movement. Again, in shattering the social fabric of Indonesian society, these religious bigots have recently used many regional legislative councils to impose their will upon us through religion-based ordinances. This alarming trend is likely to continue next year. This example can be extended further, and we should be alert to the tidal wave of religious bigotry that looms like a raging monster devouring the possibility of building a civilized life. It is troubling to see that these religious bigots are insistent on using the name "civil society" to justify their vicious causes. Of course, this could simply be part of their ruthless tactics to dignify their exploits. But in many respects, it is also due to the poverty of the existing notion of civil society widely prevailing in this country, a notion that is so easily hijacked by religious zealots. Once the issue of civility is taken into account, it is plain to be seen that what these religious extremist groups do has never been, is not and will never be part of the civil society movement. Indeed, the term was once used as a conceptual weapon against the caprices of the Soeharto regime, quite like the way it was used against the politburo regimes in Eastern Europe. In short, it was the "civil society-versus-the state" meaning that has since then become frozen as a fixed notion. It is this notion of civil society that is now so deficient in dealing with the vicious exploits of these religious zealots, who, by strict definition, are not part of the state institutions. It is also this notion that is so easily hijacked by these bigots. The tidal wave of religious extremism in this country shows that democracy is not only endangered by the unaccountable exercise of state power, but also by the vicious exploits of religious powers as much as by the gross malpractice of business powers, such as in the case of Lapindo Brantas. Indeed, far from being part of civil society, these religious extremists are the enemies of civil society. It is the duty of any movement worthy of the name "civil society" to confront this form of religious tribalism. To conceive civil society as a societal network of democratic energies vis-…-vis any form of power abuse and incivility is more fruitful than the notion currently in widespread use in this country. For, in the end, the purpose of civil society is not only to make the exercise of power publicly accountable, but, more fundamentally, to nurture the growth of a shared life that is civil, civic, non-sectarian, tolerant and compassionate. Surely religious bigots are the nemesis of such a civilized society. The writer, a lecturer in the Postgraduate Program at the Driyarkara School of Philosophy, Jakarta, holds a PhD from the London School of Economics. http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol03b.asp
=====================================================================================
January 12, 2007
Indonesia arguably owes its existence to two crucial decisions. In both, a majority waived any claim to a special position in the new Indonesia for the sake of unity. In 1928, at the so-called "oath of the youth", the Javanese agreed that Malay, spoken by less than 5 percent of all Indonesians, and not their beautiful ancient Javanese, would become the national language. And this although the Javanese account for 40 percent of the Indonesian population. It is now generally agreed that, had they chosen Javanese, Indonesia would never have taken off since she would have been regarded by all the others as merely a Javanese project. They would have opted out. The second crucial decision was, of course, Pancasila. On June 1, 1945, Sukarno proposed Pancasila to overcome serious dissent about the philosophical basis of the future Indonesia (a secular-nationalistic or an Islamic state?). Pancasila could finally be inserted into the Indonesian Constitution when the assembly unanimously dropped the demand that Muslims be obliged to follow sharia, thereby agreeing implicitly that the majority religion, Islam, would not get any special position in the new state. This generous, far-sighted recognition of Indonesian pluralism has been the cornerstone of the "improbable" unity of the island nationSabang to Merauke" (a popular nationalistic song), with its hundreds of different languages and its religious pluriformity. That this pluralism had limits became terribly visible in the aftermath of the coup attempt by the 30 September Movement on Oct. 1, 1965, in which hundreds of thousands of "communists" were slaughtered. If we leave the (extremely important) political ramifications out, we can maybe say that this genocide happened because non-communists felt so threatened by communist positioning that, after the bloody coup (and remembering communist mass killings in 1948), they shutout of the community. Since then, such exclusion has happened several times on a local, but never again on a national level. But it is a stark reminder that under the sometimes tranquil surface of Indonesia terrible monsters lurk, ready to break out if the fundamental cosmic unity of the community breaks down. Thus pluralism, the ability to accept cultural-religious diversity insurroundings and live with it in a relaxed way, is absolutely crucial for Indonesia. But now pluralism is under attack. During the last years hundreds of places of worship have been burned down and religious communities forced to stopworship. Since the fall of Soeharto, religious zealots openly fight for the introduction of religious law, threatening the traditional freedom of Indonesians to determine themselves how to practice their religions, thereby threatening their social identity. These attempts have been rebuffed at the national level, but religious legislation is now entering from the back door - utilizing the astonishing indolence of the present government. In more than 40 municipalities and regions religiously stipulated codes of behavior have been made obligatory, often particularly discrimi-nating against women. Typical for this creeping attack on the pluralistic culture of the country was the proposed law againstand porno-action". This law would have cold-bloodedly declared century old traditions of indigenous behavior as pornographic. At the same time traditional pluralism seems to be eroding. The number of people favoring hard-line attitudes, and sympathetic to terrorism, is growing. Although direct communal conflicts have not occurred during the last four years, the alienation between culturally and religiously defined communities is increasing. It is said, for instance, that the big markets in Jakarta like Pramuka, Senen or Tanah Abang have been taken over by specific ethnic groups (Betawi, Madurese, Bataks, East Timorese and others), which at least makes open warfare less likely. Although inter-religious dialog occurs, suspicions between religious communities are strong. This has been acerbated by religious teachers instructing children to avoid contact with children from other religions. At certain departments of famous state universities students are placed by other students according to their respective religion in order to easier control their fasting. The old tradition of wishing each other happy Christmas or happy Idul Fitri has almost died out since a fatwa (edict), forbidding precisely this, has been revived. Last year's fatwa by the Indonesian Ulemas Council (MUI) condemning- MUI later publicly stated that the fatwa was not directed at other religious communities - nevertheless has tainted the wordwith the insinuation of something sinful. The outgoing year 2006 gave mixed signals. The infamous "Ordinance on the building of places of worship" of 1969 was replaced by aOrdinance" by the Religious Affairs Ministry and of the Home Ministry which brings some improvements, although it still does not refer to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of worship. Forced closures of "unofficial" churches still happen, although on a smaller scale. Last October a Rosary-group in Jakarta was forcefully stopped in mid-prayer by neighbors with backing of militia members from the Islamic Defenders Front. Attacks on the Ahmadiyah community still occur. And should Lia Amminuddin, whose about 300 followers believe her to be both Mary the Mother of Jesus and the angel Gabriel, really be put in prison? The shameful execution of "the Poso three" (Tibo, Dominggus, Riwu) last September did, as predicted, nothing to lower the tensions in the region. But there are some hopeful signs. Both in Ambon and in Poso attempts to provoke the communities into renewed fighting have not succeeded. Local people now understand that they have been played against each other by outside parties and are no longer willing to do their bidding. The year 2006 could also be called the year Indonesian nationalism began to reassert itself. On June 1, 2006, the long neglectedDay", President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made a strong plea for re-actualization of Pancasila. Since then Pancasila talk is back in Indonesia. Indonesians are remembering that they have their own philosophy of the unity of their nation which is, at the same time, a strong beacon of fundamental ethical orientation for all Indonesian politics. Representatives of all religions have welcomed this development. In the face of extremist ideological threats Pancasila is the obvious moral and humanistic resource Indonesians can fall back upon. How will things go on? This depends, obviously, on all the relevant actors. I can only make a few suggestions. First of all, intellectuals, moderate religious leaders (the big majority of them) and nationalists should finally acknowledge that Indonesia is in real danger of being subverted by extremists and fundamentalists. The time for complacency is over. If we want an open, democratic, plural, peaceful, free, dynamic Indonesia, now is the time to state this openly. Religious leaders particularly should no longer leave religious discourse to the extremists. Thus intellectuals and religious moderate mainstream leaders should loudly and clearly announce their commitment to the "just and civilized humanism" of Pancasila. They should take a clear stance against violence and attempts to impose exclusivistic regulations on society. They should not stay silent in front of extremist challenges. This has to be accompanied by ongoing inter-religious dialog, down to the grassroot level. Pluralism and tolerance have to be entered into the curriculum at schools, possibly in the framework of a renewed Pancasila course. There should be a general campaign against all violent behavior and for a commitment to civilized behavior under all circumstances, which would mean nothing else than a sustained attempt to help people to grow out of narrow communalism into an ethics of responsibility. It is clear that the government of President Yudhoyono is in the dock. At least three things are demanded: First that the government continues to make Pancasila the central moral reference for all politics in Indonesia. Second, violence should no longer be condoned under any pretext, and the government has to make this clear. The government has to give the police full backing for taking the necessary measures against fanatical mobs. Third, freedoms and rights guaranteed in our Constitution - the amended Constitution of 1945 - have to be unequivocally protected and safeguarded. For the inroads hard-line attitudes have made into the generally still moderate and tolerant majority of the Indonesian people the timid attitude of the government is partly to blame. People standing up to extremist pressures are not seldom left out in the rain. Only when the rule of law is re-established without compromise can Indonesian democracy begin to flourish. The year 2006 has brought some progress. It depends to a big part on the government of President Yudhoyono whether this trend is continued for the benefit of the whole of Indonesia. The author, a Jesuit priest, is a professor at Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta. ====================================================================================== http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol05b.asp
January 12, 2007
Since 1957, when the Constituent Assembly voted for a nationalist state, the Indonesian Pancasila State has been secular. The so-called "seven words", "with the obligation to implement sharia by its adherents", were deleted from the first principle, "Belief in the One Almighty God", in the original draft of the Indonesian Constitution. From then until 1998, when President Soeharto resigned, launching an era of constitutional reform, there were efforts to bring back the old "seven words". There was a revival of Islam during Soeharto's rule, and Muslims who had previously resorted to rebellions now used the opportunity to fight for the return of Islam in politics. If they could not do it openly, they would do it by guile. After all, Indonesians are good at wordplay. The opportunity they used was the direct election of regional heads of governments. That set the stage for clashes between the Pancasila backers and the proponents of sharia. Without firm leadership it is difficult see how the problem will be solved. The country is headed for turmoil. And that is frightening. As of May 1, 2005, governments in provinces, regencies, cities and sub-regencies have issued about 13,520 regional bylaws. Dozens are based on sharia. For example, Tasikmalaya regency has declared that female students of all ages at Muslim institutions must cover their heads and dress in accordance with Islamic standards. Sumenep regency requires female government employees to wear a jilbab (headscarf) and men a baju koko (collarless, long-sleeved shirt) and kopiah (hat) on Fridays, and close their eyes during the call to prayer. Padang requires Muslim women to wear headscarves. The regencies of Gowa and Maros have declared that every student from elementary to high school must be able to read the Koran to graduate to the next level. Every civil servant in Maros must be able to read the Koran to be promoted, and Maros also requires regency employees to wear Muslim attire. Instead of opposing such unconstitutional regulations, politicians and religious leaders are backing them, and getting away with it. At their convention in Jakarta on May 30, the Ulema Council's Edict Commissions across the country decided to throw their full support behind these bylaws and regulations, as well as the implementation of sharia in a number of regions. They also asked the ulemas to suggest that the Indonesian Ulema Council encourage other provinces, regencies and cities in Indonesia to follow suit (Republika, June 1). Muslim scholar Prof. Azyumardi Azra, former rector of the Islamic University of Jakarta, said if the regional regulations contradicted national law, they should be withdrawn (detikcom news portal, May 31). Former Muhammadiyah chairman Syafii Maarif was firm in his opinion that sharia bylaws that disturbed harmony in society must be reviewed (Suara Pembaruan, June 14). Nahdlatul Ulama chairman Hasyim Muzadi said many sharia bylaws were not necessary because such problems as prostitution and gambling were already addressed by criminal laws (Media Indonesia Online, June 16). On June 13, 56 members of the House of Representatives from various factions, minus the United Development Party (PPP) and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), presented a petition to House leaders asking them to urge the President to seek the withdrawal of such bylaws because they were unconstitutional. But there was no reaction from the President. Deputy Speaker of the House Soetardjo Soerjogoeritno said he backed the petition. He thought bylaws should be in accordance with the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila (Suara Pembaruan, June 14). Thus, with regional legislatures tolerating the bylaws, even the House protest went unheeded. The Constitutional Court and Supreme Court remained silent. Officials from the Minister of Home Affairs to the indecisive Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono all turned a blind eye to the fact that these bylaws violated the Constitution. They sacrificed the result of many years of national struggle. They are sacrificing the unity of the nation for what will inevitably be upcoming disputes and the end of pluralism and diversity. It is ironic that even nations that are far apart are urged to speak plainly to improve the dialog between Islam and the West. Here within one nation there is hardly any dialog, even among different strains of the same religion, if only for mutual understanding and for practical purposes such as agreeing on the end date of Ramadhan. Each lays claim to absolute rightness. In this country differences are often solved not by dialog, but by majority rule, or in other words, by dictatorship. Decisions are often made without a vote, which is in effect a form of tyranny by the majority. That is what happens when democracy is applied in terms of pure numbers, without taking into account the value of the individual and his or her rights as a human being. In countries like Indonesia, the majority of the people are too busy with the tasks of day-to-day life, such as standing in line for hours to obtain five liters of kerosene, to worry about things like this. People in East Java are more concerned about the hot mud flood than about democracy. Politicians are busy collecting their money; their President is busy in his foreign trips and their vice President is busy with his maneuvering. The educational elite are frustrated by the behavior of the politicians. Who cares about Pancasila? Who cares about the Pancasila state? Who cares about democracy? Who cares about sharia? Everybody is busy with their own lives. And everybody is taking care of themselves. The writer, a political analyst, holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science. ===================================================================================== http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol07b.asp
January 12, 2007
Indonesia's history tells us that we live in a constant state of war. Historians can easily identify seven periods of continuous warfare: the War of Independence 1945-1949, the War against Separatism 1950-1957, the War of Confrontation 1960-1965, the Communist Purge 1965-1967, the State of the Repressive Regime 1971-1997, the Communal/Separatist Wars 1997-2001 and the State of Terror 2001-2006. There are no reasons to believe that our security outlook for 2007 will be any different. We are still going to see more violence; we are going to see more conflicts; and heaven forbid, we may even find ourselves trapped in a new state of war. To deal with security predicaments, the country has initiated military reform. From 1999-2006, most of the government's energy was spent dealing with the political baggage of reform. The country tried to change the character of a derogative, authoritarian and militarized regime into a more democratic and less restrictive national security system. Authorities formulated the State Defense Law (2002) and the TNI Law (2004) to guarantee that the military would be transformed into a professional armed forces in a democratic political system. In 2007, the struggle between a derogative and less restrictive security regime will represent a heightened realism-liberalism contestation between the issue of state capacity building against the issue of safeguarding civil liberties and human rights. This contestation will converge on five strategic issues; i.e. military business, military justice system, the voting right of soldiers, state secrecy, state intelligence and the national security system. Most of these issues were intensely discussed in 2006 and will continue to spark public debate in 2007. The odd juxtaposition between President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Indonesian Military Commander Air Chief Marshall Djoko Suyanto's liberal political stances, compared to Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono's more conservative political position on the issue of the military justice system indicates that in 2007 the military will be more likely to surrender its conservative-realist standpoint and gradually accept a more liberal conception. Accordingly, it can be predicted that moving toward 2009, we will find ourselves looking at the elimination of military businesses, soldiers' involvement in national and local elections, a more open and transparent security system and even more legitimate intelligence and military operations. The political nexus of military reform is also accompanied by systematic attempts to strengthen our military capability. In 2004, TNI Headquarters published its strategic plan known as "Military Posture 2000-2014". This strategic plan was formulated based on the Defense Strategic Planning System issued by the Defense Ministry on Dec. 30, 2003. This planning system introduced the concept of "Minimal Essential Forces". According to the strategic plan, from 2004-2009 the government will try to close the gap between current force level and the requirements laid out for the Minimal Essential Forces. From 2009 to 2014, the country's force structure will meet the Minimal Essential Force requirements. And only after 2014 will the government try to move beyond the Minimal Essential Force architecture and design a new defense architecture to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This strategic plan indicates that until 2014, Indonesia will not have sufficient power projection capabilities to exercise its military influence beyond its own territory. This reality gives rise to one strategic option: diplomacy as the first line of defense. There is no doubt that Indonesia cannot sustain large-scale conflict against major countries in the region. Thus, in order to cope with external threats, Indonesia will continue to optimize existing multilateral security arrangements such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Security Community and UN Collective Security Mechanism. This reliable multilateral approach will give Indonesia sufficient time to gradually modernize its defense capabilities. The concept of the Minimal Essential Force basically tries to combine the capability-based model with the military tasks-oriented model. The capability-based model dictates the future development of our defense posture and weapon systems. This model can be best understood by evaluating the trend of military procurements. And in 2007, we will see the arrival of several new weapons systems from the Netherlands, Russia and maybe India. However, the new weapons procurement can be interpreted as our attempt to have more diversified weapons systems. For Indonesia, the tendency to have more diversified weapons systems will have one operational consequence: our future military operations will not be based on the employment of integrated military operations. The diversification of our weapons systems will force our military planners to develop a more reliable single service military operation, or at the most the creation of a joint command that will provide directives to launch military operations. The military tasks-oriented model determines our strategy of military deployment. According to the 2004 TNI Law, our military must be ready to launch war operations as well as military operations other than war. TNI must develop its capability to fight enemy armed forces, separatist movements and terrorist groups. TNI must also develop its capability so it can be used for civic missions, humanitarian operations and disaster relief. Our basic strategy for military deployment relies on the utilization of a deployable army. Since our military cannot be evenly located to protect our vast territorial span, we depend on troop rotations to fill in the unprotected territory. In this context, we are not going to see major changes in military deployments. The TNI force structure will still be designed for low-intensity conflict operations to address Indonesia's internal security predicaments. The establishment of the 3rd Kostrad Division in Sorong, Papua, will still be postponed. Our territorial command will be gradually strengthened to reach the minimal requirements for each defense compartment. Our territorial command will also be slightly modified to find a new military architecture for inter-services (not an integrated) deployment. The transformation of a military force takes time; the TNI will not change overnight. A force transformation must start now if the TNI is to be in a position to effectively address emerging and future threats in a timely manner. The writer, who holds MSc degree from London School of Economics and Political Science, is a lecturer the Department of International Relations at the University of Indonesia, Jakarta, and researcher at the Center for East Asian Cooperation Studies (CEACoS). =================================================================================== http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol10b.asp
January 12, 2007
The long struggle of Indonesian women to improve their status reached its peak when, as part of the global community, Indonesia pledged to implement the Beijing Declaration and its Platform for Action. This Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, committed to advance the goals of equality, development and peace for all women everywhere in the interest of all humanity. The term "gender" and the approach of "gender equality and equity" were adopted to further the previous method of women in development (WID) or women and development (WAD). This new approach addresses not only women but also men in an equal and balanced relationship between the two genders. Thus, male involvement is a required condition in pursuing justice and equality for both women and men. To materialize the goal, 12 critical areas for the empowerment and advancement of women were identified in the Platform for Action (PFA). These include women and poverty, education, health, violence against women, women in armed conflict, economy, power and decision making, women's human rights, environment, media, the girl child, and mechanism for women's advancement. Prior to this, Indonesia had signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1980 and ratified it in 1984. This convention ensures Indonesia's commitment to ending all forms of discrimination against women, under whatever grounds and reasons. It is encouraging to witness concerted efforts and the relentless struggle by various parties to pursue this goal of gender equality. Civil society organizations, mass-based and advocacy groups, government agencies and the international community have worked hand in hand in different fronts: policy formulation and education for society at large and policy makers. After long negotiations pioneered by dedicated NGOs, Indonesian women were rewarded with a legal foundation to criminalize acts of violence perpetrated against them in the domestic sphere. In November 2002, coinciding with the International Day on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the Anti-Domestic Violence Law was passed. It was a groundbreaking achievement, particularly if we look into several "controversial" issues like criminalizing marital rape. For Indonesians, whose family law is largely based on sharia, this law is indeed a quantum leap. Success in getting the legal frameworks passed is a significant achievement. However, getting them respected and enforced is yet another big challenge. The Anti-Domestic Violence Law, for example, is very elaborate in defining the four types of violence and women's right to be free from these acts. But in reality, women continue to suffer from violent acts physically, economically, psychologically or sexually. These acts are entrenched because of unbalanced power relations resulting from patriarchy, which specifies men are superior to women and women are subjugated under men. One of the contributing factors to such conditions is a reading of religious texts which lacks sensitivity to women and is biased to the male perspective. In the case of Islam, the most often cited Koranic verse to support male "superiority" over woman and his "permission" to beat his wife is Q.S. al-Nisa'/4:34. Others verses include al-Nisa'/4:4 on polygamy, al-Nur/24:31 on hijab (veil), or al-Baqarah/2:282 on witness. The verses have been interpreted textually, in isolation and with an already biased mind-set, disregarding the reason of revelation (asbab al-nuzul) and the Koran's basic message on equality, justice and liberation for oppressed groups, including women. An ambitious agenda adopted in Indonesia's transition toward democracy is the decentralization of political and economic decisions toward regional autonomy. While this means a redistribution of power closer to the people, a condition reflecting democracy, it also had serious repercussions on women. Local authorities, as a backlash against the centralized system during the Soeharto regime, apparently saw this moment as a chance to immediately "go back into local cultures". After decades of uniformed standards dictated by Jakarta, now they wanted to revive the richness of their own cultural heritage. Again, there is nothing wrong with this policy. After all, Indonesia is a multicultural and multiethnic country. The national motto Bhineka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity) is to be lived and materialized. However, it is apparent that going back to local cultures means reviving patriarchy, an age-old phenomenon in many societies. Traditional values regarding women's domestic role, restrictions on women's mobility in the public sphere, and the stereotyped image that women are a source of fitnah (temptation or chaos) and, hence, should be veiled and segregated, have obviously been revived. A lack of gender-sensitive policy makers at the local level and an uncritical mass on gender justice have opened the door for such gender biased thinking to enter into policies. Conservative leaders and policy makers, who deliberately or otherwise use religious texts for political purposes, have worsened the situation. The result is disheartening: Numerous sharia-nuanced bylaws seeking to enforce social order and morality, at the cost of women. Starting with Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD), which was fully authorized to impose sharia as a political deal to end over two decades of conflict, now many districts and cities are following suit. The issues addressed are typical such as prostitution, gambling, alcoholic drinks, women's clothes and in some areas the ability to read the Koran. What about the "true issue" of sharia, as sanctioned in its goal, i.e. social well-being? What about the fundamental principle of sharia, i.e. justice and protection of the oppressed? Partial and selective sharia as it is imposed in many regions in Indonesia now is certainly not capable of answering these questions. In Jakarta's satellite city Tangerang, an industrial area with countless factories working in shifts around the clock, sharia-nuanced bylaws have victimized women. Decent women, going home from work as laborers on the evening shift, have been mistakenly arrested and charged with being prostitutes. The allegations are made based on suspicions of their behavior, which may lead to a conclusion that they are prostitutes. These women, exercising their economic rights, have become objects of human rights violations by the state apparatus which is supposed to protect them. The right to work, to live decently and not to be humiliated are basic rights guaranteed by both secular and sharia laws. Associating decent women with prostitution is unacceptable by any standard of law or social ethics. Sharia is very strict in not allowing false accusations of fornication. Where is the beauty of sharia in the hands of these abusive authorities; sharia which views human beings as both God's most noble creatures and God's representation on earth? Women in Indonesia are currently pressed between two fundamentalisms. On the one hand is religious fundamentalism, signified among others by its thrust to impose partial and selective sharia. On the other is economic fundamentalism, with its free market global capitalism and all its discontents. This regime has caused misery in the lives of the millions of poor, especially women. Indonesia, with its fragile economy, multiple crises and poor human resources, obviously is unprepared for such free competition. However, like it or not, it has to become engaged in it. Removal of subsidies and privatization, part and parcel of capitalism, has deprived the poor, women and children from access to basic services, including health and education. Social well-being, the dream and right of every Indonesian citizen, seems to lie farther from the reach of millions of Indonesians. The culture of consumerism has eroded the traditional values of simple living and sincerity (ikhlas), while new values of materialism and hedonism are increasingly on the rise. This social ill has infected almost all layers of our society, including those who claim to be devoutly religious. In this process, women are both the victim and the agent, with their bodies and sexuality being a locus of exploitation and commercialization, with or without their consent. There are still other major women's issues today. Trafficking of women and children is probably the most serious one. Young women or teenagers, promised to be employed as factory or restaurant workers end up being forced into prostitution. Women migrant workers, in spite of significant improvements in this area, are still far from being fortunate compared to their fellows from other countries. The issue of contract marriages (mut'ah), similar to disguised prostitution, is another form of exploitation of women's sexuality. This is not to mention the high incidence of violence against women in the public sphere, at the workplace or within the family. The year 2007 is approaching; a year that has been declared as the UN Year for Prevention of Violence. The UN Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution on "the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health". This is a good moment for us to reaffirm our commitment to pursue gender justice and eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. Comprising more than half of humankind, women deserve to enjoy equality, development and peace as pledged in Beijing in 1995. We can do it, provided that we have the will to change. What kind of change? It's the change in viewing women; not as creatures secondary to men, but equal to them. And the change should start from ourselves. Let's make 2007 a year of peace for women and for all humanity. The writer is the director of the Center for Pesantren and Democracy Studies. ==================================================================================== http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol13b.asp
January 12, 2007
As is apparently the case with corruption eradication, the government is intensifying its campaign to uphold human rights. These days it is unusual not to hear officials talking about human rights -- they have helped make the subject part of the nation's daily vocabulary. In the past, human rights were a bread-and-butter topic for civil society activists and almost no one else; today the nation's leaders have turned this discourse into an official language, which has been formalized in different legal products. These laws and regulations are an achievement because in established and exact terms the country has introduced constitutionally guaranteed human rights. These rights are also in line with the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This puts Indonesia in the category of nations that recognize and guarantee human rights like the United States, Canada, European Union nations, India and the Philippines. Joining this association of pro-rights countries is a big leap forward compared to the nation's stance during the Soeharto era, when the government rejected universal rights in the name of "Indonesian orientation" and "Asian values". Institutionally, Indonesia has not disappointed either. The Cabinet includes a justice and human rights minister heading a directorate-general of human rights. Its Attorney General's Office has a director of human rights in charge of the office's policy formulation. And there are also the National Commission on Human Rights and the National Commission on Women's Rights in Indonesia. Internationally, the country has also become a member of the UN Human Rights Council, which replaced the old UN Human Rights Commission. Therefore, a remarkable change has undeniably taken place in Indonesia's human rights sphere. Rights advocacy has supposedly moved from a small circle of civil society groups to become the property of the state. But here an important question arises: does this movement indicate adoption, hijacking or a mere digestion of human rights issues by a carnivorous state? Which leads one to another question: What is the impact of state-adopted human rights on people's daily lives? Here there seems to be a yawning gap between rhetoric and reality. Rights violations continue to occur in many places where the state is incapable of ending them, or commits them itself, as reported by many rights institutes and the media. If we examine the numerous email messages these organizations receive, we will be aware that large numbers of people in Riau, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Papua are losing their homes or jobs. Their economic rights are being violated by firms carrying out mass layoffs. Victims of the hot mudflow in Sidoarjo, East Java, are also being deprived of their social, economic and cultural rights. The increasing population of poor citizens in Indonesia indicates that the state is unable to fulfill the basic economic rights of its people. This is not only a sign of incapacity but perhaps even the beginning of a failed state. A different example of state failure is when the government was unable to protect the followers of the Ahmadiyah faith from eviction from their places of worship. They were driven away and beaten up in various villages and told to abandon their alleged heretical beliefs. Those taking the law in their own hands denied others the right to choose and embrace another belief. The choice and conversion to a religion constitutes a basic human right everyone is entitled to. If any problem arises, it should be settled according to the law rather than by violence. Discrimination in various forms has occurred without the state being capable of checking it, or even with the state sometimes sponsoring such treatment. The controversial legislation on pornography is an example where the state could also violate the social and cultural rights of many that it has so far respected. Schools of mysticism, which have survived for centuries, are also feeling the weight of state discrimination. This is an important issue because if this discrimination is left unchecked, it will endanger pluralism as a recognized element of human rights. Therefore, the rejection of sharia bylaws should be seen as a reminder that human rights, particularly the rights of minorities, are being threatened. Without checks, the tyranny of majority will finally oppress human rights, especially those of minority groups. Another reality is the state's failure to settle past rights violations. The many rights infringements committed during the separation of East Timor province from Indonesia ironically led to the conviction of a single man named Eurico Guiteres. All the other actors were eventually acquitted by a rights tribunal. Then there is the case of rights activist Munir's murder. The only person punished in connection with this crime was a Garuda pilot, Pollycarpus, who ended up being jailed by the Supreme Court for falsifying duty-shift papers, not conspiracy to murder as a lower court found. The country is indeed peculiar -- it has rights abuses but no criminals. Documented cases of human rights violations have been recorded in Aceh, East Timor, Papua and Jakarta (Semanggi and Trisakti) but no perpetrators have ever been found. The powerful prove to be capable of controlling the police, prosecutors and judges. On many occasions, these same suspects have started talking themselves about human rights with all the associated jargon. How tragic! This "hijacking" of human rights by the state has made justice stagnate and increased the level of rhetoric to make the statements of many officials absolutely meaningless. The talk goes on, but the reality of rights infringements has never ceased. This is the split in 2006, between rhetoric and reality. If this tendency continues, human rights will be buried by state formalities, with leaders who no longer can be moved to do anything about them. Victims of rights violations, now driven to despair, are indeed to be pitied. The writer is a lawyer and human rights activist. ==================================================================================== http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook/pol15b.asp
January 12, 2007
The start of the new millennium has been filled with calamities that affected the health of the whole world, including Indonesia. It is as if nature is against us and wants to remind us to take better care of the world we live in. As each new year approaches, we stop and think, full of hope and intending that the new year will bring a new and better life. Last year Indonesia and the world were challenged by disasters that were too large to handle. A tsunami, floods, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, air, land and water accidents, the spread of avian influenza, AIDS and tuberculosis, the rise of drug addiction and the diseases that come with poverty and war. Poor education levels and a lack of public health awareness contributed to the country's obesity levels, food-related illnesses and preventable deaths. While for part of the population, being rich provides an opportunity to live a healthy and prolonged life, the opposite is also true for those who subscribe to the "carpe diem" theory of living. It is as if War, Famine, Pestilence and Death are still riding in Indonesia in the manner they did in Europe 1,000 years ago. Medical science and technology have created improvements in health standards in Indonesia. Better diagnostics and modes of treatment, such as the development of newer, more efficient drugs have been made available in Indonesia over the last 15 years. The treatment required to lessen human suffering and prolong the lives of those suffering from hypertension, strokes, heart disease, diabetes, heart attacks and tumors now exists. But there are still the diseases that are referred to as "orphaned" -- humans infected with the H5N1 virus, drug addiction, psychiatric illnesses and many forms of cancer. The health of the majority of the Indonesian population is very poor. The main reason for this is because of the immense poverty much of the country lives in. In this state, it is difficult to follow a healthy life-style. For many, even the most basic health clinic is too expensive. The state insurance company, ASKES, has worked to survive for 25 years, and has provided around 65 million people with money and health care -- government employees, for instance, who need heart operations are covered by the scheme. The very poor, who live well bellow the poverty line, are also covered by the Department of Health's fund. But there are others who are neither poor enough to qualify, nor rich enough to afford private health care. Another marginalized group is the forgotten older generation, who are regarded as too cost-ineffective for health insurance -- they're going to die anyway, is the rational. Health insurance companies do not accept them as clients; there are age limits set for the over-55s. There are, of course, positive sides to health provisions, although they still need to be improved in the coming years. Public health services are still inadequate in Jakarta, and there has been too much in the way of commercialization. I once lost my scalpel and had to refer a patient to the hospital for a small incision on a 2 centimeter abscess. The surgeon decided it had to be done in an operating room and inserted a rubber drain, resulting in full narcosis and a stay in hospital. The functions of the Puskesmas (the government's primary health care centers) and the general practitioner should be returned to their original purposes. They should be the first place of referral for the sick patient. These days we bypass them, preferring to go straight to a hospital and be attended to by a specialist. But while specialists will know a great deal on something specific, they have less general knowledge of other disease groups. A general practitioner will not be an expert in one thing, but knows a little of almost everything. Both should know their competencies and refer patients to each other. Speaking of competence, it is a must that this be tested and improved from time to time, not orchestrated by the drug industry -- but who should do it? Collegiums have been formed to do just that, but often they are non-functional education organizations that may only run a congress once a year. General practitioners must be able to manage professionally the common diseases of mass destruction. At my promotional "un-ad" (a term used to counter drug advertising) seminars across the country, which inform doctors on rational drug use levels, I have noticed that many have not even been able to identify the right treatments for hypertension and diabetes and do not know of the simple, but effective treatment for acute heart failure -- take away superfluous body fluid by giving the patient an effective diuretic. Avian flu is still an orphan disease, waiting for an effective drug to be developed. Amantadine, rimantadine and oseltamivir are the basic influenza drugs currently available, but they have been infective against bird flu. Doubling the dose of oseltamivir (commonly known as Tamiflu, the name it is sold under by manufacturer Roche) is apparently futile and possibly dangerous, because the drug is absorbed through the blood-brain barrier. In November this year Roche issued a warning that the drug could give rise to neuro-psychiatric events such as confusion or unusual behavior, particularly in children. This is not surprising and had in fact been predicted. Three years ago, the American Food and Drug Administration's medical products reporting program, MedWatch, published a statement announcing that Roche had made public an animal study that showed that a single dose of 1,000 milligram oseltamivir phosphate (a very large dose) in seven-day old rats had resulted in death rates associated with very high oseltamivir concentrations that were 1,500 times those seen in adult animals. This showed that oseltamivir can pass through young blood-brain barriers more easily than it can through adult ones. The findings can be extrapolated into the human brain, and therefore the small number of side effects observed in Japan to date is a reflection of the unsafe status of oseltamivir when given in larger doses and especially in infants. This does not mean, however, that it is totally safe for adults either, because the blood-brain barrier may be influenced by some other factors, such as a concomitant infection of the brain and its membranes. The whole world is waiting for an effective vaccine against human avian flu. In light of the benefit-risk assessment, I would disagree with using a double dose of Tamiful in treatment or prophylactically. Early human case identification and hygienic chicken farming sites remain the best and basic principles of human avian flu prevention. The precarious drug situation in Indonesia is in need of reformation. Every party blames everyone else for contributing to the problem. Why can't we regard the drug problem as a national corporate ailment that is in the interests of everybody to solve? We need a sound drug policy. It should not be looked upon as an opportunity for profits but as in everybody's need and interest. Everyone gets sick at some point, sometimes seriously. Reformation means rules and restrictions, possibly even a law. This could be a difficult task given the deregulations of the past. Cutting-edge practices have at times destroyed the long-term goal of becoming a healthy country. The common use of "food supplements" that have no scientific backing by the general population is odds with efforts to regulate the drugs sold on the Indonesian market. The original laws for selling food supplements that originate in the United States Dietary Supplement Heath and Education Act of 1993 stated that users should be protected against mislabeling, so that supplements may not claim to cure or prevent diseases. The education aspect of the above American act is completely lacking in Indonesia, leaving people asking silly questions in the media (and on my blog). Traditional medicines that are generally devoid of any evidence of a formal clinical trial are regarded as a class of food supplement, and advertise themselves as being cure-alls for ailments from A to Z. But I have conducted two clinical trials to test such claims, and found both "drugs" to be placebos. Political pressure, however, may support local products, resulting in false statements being made to the media, such as that honey is good for diabetics. Honey is substantially fructose, which is converted to glucose in the body. A teaspoon would perhaps not cause any harm, but a fanatic could take honey in large quantities, raising a diabetic's blood sugar level dangerously. This is true for many supplements that claim to be safe for diabetics, but which actually contain a substantial concentration of pure sugar. These are deceptive evaluations and statements that the government should watch and act upon to protect the public. Producers should use healthy marketing techniques instead. The ultimate concern about the drug situation is related in a recent article in the Nov. 23 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, titled Dangerous Deception -- Hiding the Evidence of Adverse Drug Effects, in which the respected author describes how "ethical" drug companies are becoming more and more engaged in the deliberate hiding of data, which could lead to fatalities in the treatment of critically ill patients. Many other medical parties and journals have commented on the same subject, and the FDA is in the hot spot. It has reacted by asking the industry to provide more money (under the User's Fee Act) to be able to evaluate the drugs in a more accountable way. I have responded to the USFDA that it is not fitting for a regulatory authority to receive extra money for the evaluation of pre-marketed drugs because it would indicate a conflict of interest. The year 2007 should be a year of introspection, remorse and real reformation for Indonesia. It is time that we walk hand-in-and, all parties communicating intelligently with each other for the sake of a nation in disorder. The writer is professor emeritus of pharmacology at the University of Indonesia.
No comments:
Post a Comment