Only traditional Islam can do it

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/06/opinion/edblond.php

By Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst

Friday, July 6, 2007

<A HREF="http://ad.fr.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/3588/3/0/%2a/k%3B34953186%3B1-0%3B0%3B4942963%3B933-120/600%3B16756730/16774625/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.iht.com/pages/properties/index.php" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC="http://m.fr.2mdn.net/518758/2183_Prop_Com_SKY_Final.gif" WIDTH="120" HEIGHT="600" ALT="Click here..." BORDER="0"></a>

LONDON:

The attempted bombings in London and the attack on Glasgow Airport last week underscore the continued and long-term Islamic terror threat that Britain and the world is facing. To date, all of those detained are highly educated foreign-born medical staff.

Far from being affronted by this incursion, young British Muslims are increasingly likely to support domestic jihad. The radicalization of British Muslim youth proceeds apace. According to a recent poll by Populus, growing numbers of Muslims aged 16-30 subscribe to extreme versions of Islam, and almost 40 percent want to live under Shariah law. Britain faces the prospect of a whole new generation of young people embracing extremism and religious fanaticism.

So far, the government has refrained from introducing more Draconian legislation. Instead, Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his ministerial colleagues have promised to reinforce the government's campaign "to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim community."

However, like Tony Blair's sterile appeal to moderate, mainstream Islam, this strategy is bound to fail because of two fatal assumptions. First, that every culture and every religion wants to become like the secular West. Second, resistance to Western secularization is fueled by false grievances and as such can be legitimately ignored.

In practice, this sort of approach marginalizes traditional Islam in favor of an ersatz "progressive" version that robs it of all its distinctive character and vision. The litmus test for integration is whether Muslims are willing to be like "us." Unsurprisingly, many young Muslims are increasingly alienated by an aggressively secular culture that enforces liberal transgression of moral norms and taboos.

Crucially, current policies are not working because they fail to address the real cause of radicalization and fanaticism. Contemporary Islamic violence is religious in nature. Its origin lies in Islamic scripture and the destruction of the traditional medieval schools that dictated its interpretation.

The Koran contains clear and lethal injunctions against apostates, idolaters and those who challenge Muslim territorial ascendancy. While the sacred texts do sanctify violence - they also codify it, limiting its range and application.

Thus, there is no legitimation in classical Islam for suicide bombing or the wanton slaughter of innocents. That said, warfare and a consequent defense and extension of Islam was both a religious duty and a scriptural requirement, albeit one framed by chivalry and relative restraint.

Moreover, unlike the claims of contemporary fundamentalists, there never really was a unified political/religious authority in Islam. On the contrary, the role of religious scholars (the ulama) was to limit the power of the caliphs.

And since there were four traditional schools of religious interpretation, which themselves varied according to time and location, what constituted a proper Islamic practice varied according to local norms and customs. As such traditional Islam prohibits the very totalitarian state Al Qaeda seeks to impose.

For example, if Islam recovers the traditional practice of ijtihad, a process of textual reinterpretation that replaces the scriptural literalism of the fundamentalists with a more medieval allegorical reading of the Koran, this would enable the Muslim faithful to distinguish between immutable God-given laws and mutable human interpretations.

It is worth stating all of this because the only force that can challenge Islamic terrorism is not liberal progressivism but Islam itself. Those who have abandoned terrorism did so not as a result of secular injunctions or indeed horror at what they were doing. Rather, it was the realization that the variant of Islam they were killing for was itself Western, modern and secular.

The great innovators of Islamic fundamentalism - Sayyid Qutb and Maulana Maududi - were deeply influenced by pagan Nazi literature and its supremacist critiques of modern life and culture. Demonstration of the essentially blasphemous nature of contemporary fundamentalism is crucial for the deprogramming of its adherents.

However, the mere rebirth of classical Islam is not enough. Islam in both its Sunni and Shiite derivations suffers from an absolutist unmediated relation to God. Since faith is separated from reason and nature it becomes a self-authenticating phenomenon that invalidates all other perspectives.

What is really required is the revival of Sufism - a practice previously common to all forms of the faith and one that stresses the mystical unknowable nature of God and His transcendence of all forms of human knowledge.

Such a recognition deprives Islamic fundamentalism of its primary motivating principle - that it knows the will of God and is therefore justified in enforcing it upon the earth.

A renewal of Sufism could help Islam to broaden its understanding of authority beyond rulers and the ulama to include civil society. This would also restore the consensus of the community (ijma). And thereby empower Muslim society to challenge the fundamentalist assertions of its heretical preachers with reasoned belief.

Given that we are losing the battle of hearts and minds, we would be well advised to chart a different path. By encouraging an Islamic renaissance and reviving traditions that the fundamentalists have so violently suppressed, Muslim youth might be diverted from their present course.

Phillip Blond is a senior lecturer in philosophy and religion at the University of Cumbria, Adrian Pabst is a lecturer in theology at the University of Nottingham.

Satisfy China’s Demand for Money

June 2007

http://www.feer.com/articles1/2007/0706/free/p016.html

by Hugo Restall

As the audience at the Asia Society’s May gala dinner in Hong Kong sips their coffee, the moderator allows one more question from the audience for Nobel economics laureate Robert Mundell. A Chinese gentleman stands to ask how much longer the U.S. dollar would remain the world’s reserve currency. The query seems like the perfect set-up for the world’s foremost expert on monetary policy and a well-known “friend of China” to predict the rise to preeminence of China’s currency.

Robert Mundell
But Prof. Mundell bats the question away without hesitation. China, he explains, is still far behind the U.S. in terms of economic strength and stability. “I think the dollar era is going to last a long time … perhaps another hundred years.”

The answer is a fitting end to an evening in which the conventional wisdom has been set on its ear. The high U.S. trade deficit, widely supposed to be unsustainable, is not only sustainable, Prof. Mundell argues, it is necessary to the functioning of the global economy. China’s high balance of payments surplus and pressure on the yuan could be resolved quite easily by ending the central bank’s sterilization—the practice of following up its interventions in the foreign-currency market by issuing bonds, thereby preventing the money supply from increasing too fast. And no, this wouldn’t lead to a big jump in inflation.

On this last score, Prof. Mundell has a few economists in the audience scratching their heads. Is the economist known as the “father of the euro” for his work on optimal currency areas just being provocative? After all, he has a bit of a reputation as what the Chinese would call a lao wan tong, a playful old child. The 74-year-old Columbia University economics professor has appeared on the television show Late Night With David Letterman to tell “Yo Mama” jokes and recite hip-hop lyrics. He owns a 12th-century castle in Siena, Italy, once occupied by Pandolfo the Magnificent, and his nine-year-old son attends international school in Florence.

So the next day I meet with Prof. Mundell in the coffee shop of his hotel to try to get to the bottom of this last point. The standard economic theory tells you that if the money supply rises, so should inflation. And the professor had a big hand in writing that theory, so what gives?

First a brief explanation. Without sterilization, China would essentially be running a currency board system, much like in Hong Kong. When people want to convert more foreign currency into Hong Kong dollars than the other way around, the government stands ready to make the trade, creating new Hong Kong dollars and depositing the foreign currency into reserves. The money supply increases, and if this outstrips the growth in the economy, the usual outcome is too much money chasing too few goods—inflation. For instance, in the mid-1990s inflation in Hong Kong ran much higher than in the U.S.

Prof. Mundell himself pioneered the explanation for this, the “impossible trinity.” In its simplest form, no economy can have free capital flows, a fixed exchange rate and control over its own monetary policy, i.e. stable interest rates or stable prices, all at the same time. Economies with a currency board like Hong Kong enjoy the first two, but can’t regulate the local economy separately from the one they have pegged to, and so may suffer bouts of inflation and deflation through the business cycle.

But, he poses, what if extra yuan did not send consumption of Chinese goods into overdrive, but merely satisfied the desire to hold yuan and yuan-denominated assets? China’s domestic economy is becoming wealthier and its citizens are saving in record amounts, wealth that cannot easily go abroad because of capital controls and so is invested in production capacity far beyond the needs of domestic consumption. Meanwhile, the largest portion of the increase in reserves is driven not by the trade surplus but by inward investment. The upward pressure on yuan has become self-perpetuating, especially since the shift to a slowly appreciating peg in 2005. Holding the yuan has become a one-way bet.

In other words, look at the yuan as a commodity, and China’s balance of payments surplus as a case of demand outstripping supply: “If you create money in an equilibrium situation, the additional money makes disequilibrium, and people spend more and that involves more imports, and potentially inflation. But if you print money to fill an excess demand for money, there is no inflation that comes from that.”
By sterilizing, the central bank prevents the supply from rising fast enough to satisfy the demand, perpetuating the imbalance. Raising the required reserve ratio of the banks has the same effect. Ease off the sterilization and monetary tightening, Prof. Mundell predicts, and the demand for yuan will soon be sated.
As in an equilibrium, one result would be increased domestic demand and imports, reducing the trade deficit. But with no shortage of problems on the horizon, it’s unlikely that domestic prices would rise across the board, and prices of some goods might actually decrease as companies achieve greater economies of scale. Since the trade surplus will decline, political tension with the U.S. will also ease.

There is precedent to justify such optimism, Prof. Mundell explains. In the early 1980s, after Paul Volker’s Federal Reserve tightened interest rates and vanquished the runaway inflation of the 1970s, the U.S. economy passed through a sharp recession and then began to recover. When confidence in growth prospects and the value of the dollar was restored, the desire of Americans and foreigners to hold the currency increased. The money supply began to grow at a phenomenal rate, and some, including Milton Friedman, predicted on this basis that inflation would reappear. But Prof. Mundell diagnosed it differently: “What was happening was the expectation of disinflation was increasing the demand for money.” And in fact not only did inflation fail to re-emerge, but disinflation continued through the 1980s.

So is China in the same boat today? Consider that the People’s Bank of China is already not doing a very good job of sterilization. One standard measure of money supply, M2, is growing at 17%, compared to GDP growth of about 11%. And yet inflation remains very low. In fact, in recent periods when growth has slowed, deflationary pressures have emerged.

This fact is obscured by a lot of blather about the Chinese economy “overheating.” Yet the hallmark of overheating, as Prof. Mundell observes, is an excess of demand leading to bottlenecks in many markets. If anything, China still suffers from weak domestic demand. And while there are a few isolated bottlenecks in the economy, in general there are plenty of inputs available to increase production.

This confused terminology is not the only way in which the experience of developed countries is misapplied to China. In the U.S., for example, the Federal Reserve usually regulates the economy largely by setting the interest rate at which banks lend to each other and through the buying and selling of bonds, and practically never by administrative means or intervening in the foreign-currency markets. In China, it is the opposite; the management of the exchange rate is the central bank’s chief impact on the economy. Setting interest rates is mostly for show, and has little meaning.

So what about China’s stock-market bubble, should the People’s Bank try to pop it? China could include asset prices in its index of prices if it wanted to target price stability. But the problems with the market require deeper reform. As long as the international monetary environment is stable, pegging the yuan to the dollar offers the opportunity to target the broadest possible index of prices, effectively the goods of the whole world. It’s difficult to improve on that, even if China had its own Alan Greenspan.

Full convertibility is not on the cards as long as the primary objective of the Communist Party is maintaining power, not the welfare of China’s citizens, Prof. Mundell admits. But he advises the Party bosses to progressively relax the controls to help take the pressure off the balance of payments.

However, in the unlikely event that the yuan were suddenly made fully convertible, Prof. Mundell predicts that the value of the currency would fall, not rise. That’s because many Chinese savers would naturally like to have the security of keeping at least some portion of their wealth in foreign currency. The incentive would be to move this money quickly, in case the government slammed the door shut. As with the experience of the United Kingdom in 1947, when the Bank of England saw its reserves evaporate in a matter of weeks, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and capital controls have to be reinstated. The movement to full convertibility is fraught with danger and must be approached cautiously.

Even the abandonment of sterilization would have to be undertaken gradually, Prof. Mundell advises, in order to avoid scaring the markets: “I wouldn’t suddenly change what they are doing, just slow it down and phase it out over a year or so period.” Policy makers don’t have to be transparent in their thinking. “Even if you have gotten on to the wrong theory, you can’t just reverse course, you have to find another reason for changing.”
Given Prof. Mundell’s many trips to China, and the fact that he is on the same wavelength as the leadership on keeping the value of the yuan stable, it would appear that he has some influence within the leadership. He was given a “green card” by the government two years ago which gives him the permanent right to live and work in the country. And he says he is considering buying an apartment in Beijing and shifting his son to a school there.

But at the same time he remains skeptical of the quality of China’s top economists, choosing to focus more on the next generation. He has lent his name to a business school in the capital, as well as a financial magazine. And he’s working on getting a screenplay set in China produced. One senses that, even though he helped found the supply-side school that informed the policies of Ronald Reagan, Prof. Mundell is too much of an independent mind to ever become a government’s go-to economist. He’s having too much fun as a lao wan tong.

Mr. Restall is the editor of the REVIEW.

Indonesia's legal scapegoats go bumping along the bottom

Julia Suryakusuma, Jakarta

Last week I saw an uplifting and inspiring film called Les Chorists (The Choir, 2004). Set in 1949 in a rural French correctional boarding school for orphaned and troubled boys, called Fond d'Etang (literally, Bottom of the Pond), it showed how one passionate teacher could transform lives through music.

In their struggle for independence and self-expression, the boys defied authority -- especially their brutally unfair and abusive headmaster, Rachin. He ruled his school with an "action-reaction" principle: if the boys broke his rules, he would punish them -- harshly. Normal enough perhaps, but Clement Mathieu, a new teacher, adopted a gentler, more compassionate
approach. When boys misbehaved, he responded in unpredictable, unusual and funny ways, protecting the boys from Rachin as much as he could.

The magic comes when Mathieu introduced music into the boys' lives, forming a choir, with transformative effect. The boys calmed down and he discovers that the school rebel, Morhange, is a child prodigy with an exquisitely beautiful voice. Through song he can express himself, earning the love and attention for which he yearned, and his rebelliousness is tamed.

Then Mondain arrives, transferred from the local detention center. His blatant disobedience causes the boys to slip back into old ways, so when money is stolen from Rachin's office, it's immediately pinned on Mondain. The police arrest him, but the school janitor finds the money stashed away with a mouth organ belonging to Corbain, another pupil. He stole it, Corbain said, because he dreamed of buying a hot-air balloon and flying away ...

Mondain was innocent, but had been presumed guilty and he eventually takes a terrible revenge for this injustice, setting fire to the school. Rachin fires Mathieu for negligence, but the whole debacle causes other teachers to testify to the school foundation against Rachin, who is fired. Morhange wins a scholarship to the Lyon School of Music, eventually becoming a world-famous conductor. And Mathieu? Well, he continues doing what he always did, teaching music, inspiring students and keeping his achievements to himself.

As I watched this moving film, it struck me that Indonesia was Fond d'Etang, the bottom of the pond. We have many prodigies like Morhange (mostly undiscovered) and no shortage of dreamers like Corbain. And while we also have (pitifully) few selfless inspirers like Mathieu, we have a surplus of tyrants like Rachin, and a legal system that is based on his "the action-reaction" principle -- and reflects its injustice.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono once made the statement "we can only say that someone is guilty if the law says so". But can we be sure even then? Take wrongful convictions, for example, which are common all over the world. The Innocence Project in the U.S. claims that around 15-20 percent of all convictions in that country are mistakes. Imagine what the figure must be in Indonesia, where the legal system is notoriously dysfunctional. It's like a cobweb, catching the trifling and powerless, while heavy, "connected" criminals cause the flimsy threads to break and they fall through. You all know who I mean ...

I saw this firsthand when one of my cousins was convicted of corruption and incarcerated on the prison island of Nusakambangan. A minor player at the end of a banking food chain, he was the fall guy, just the sort of kambing hitam (scapegoat) the government needed to prove it's serious about eradicating corruption. Never mind that big shots with political backing get away clean, as they usually do.

Since then, whenever I hear that so-and-so is accused of this-and-that, I always reserve judgment. Who knows what the real story is, given that the decision as to who gets punished is so often based on political exigency, rather than facts. My cousin, for example, was acquitted by the district court, only to find himself declared guilty by the Supreme Court four years later ... and one day before the 2004 general elections.

Getting it wrong may be standard judicial practice but, as the Innocence Project people say, it is a far more serious matter when the death penalty is involved -- like in the U.S. and Indonesia and most of our ASEAN neighbors. It's bad enough to send an innocent person to jail, but if they're executed, there's no one left to apologize to.

Perhaps as part of post-Soeharto reformasi hukum (legal reform) we should consider abolishing capital punishment. After all, it is fast becoming a global trend. In 1977, 16 countries had abolished executions but by 2005, the figure had soared to 122. Worldwide, now only 35 percent retain the death penalty. The death penalty has long been popular with undemocratic and
authoritarian states, where it is often a tool of political oppression. Today, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the U.S. remain the only developed democratic nations that still kill judicially. So which group do we want Indonesia to be in?

All the evidence shows that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent anyway: serious crimes keep happening even if offenders risk death. So why execute at all? Rachin has the answer: action and reaction. It seems that capital punishment is mainly an eye for an eye thing, a public "feel good" exercise in revenge, brutalizing the brutal. Yep, execution is a violent,
barbaric practice -- and surely it breaches the guaranteed "right to life" we borrowed from the Universal Declaration of Rights and inserted in Chapter XA of our new Constitution just a few years ago?

And given that our legal system is still internationally famous for being dodgy, political and corrupt, we have an additional -- and compelling -- reason to take the power of life and death out of the hands of our unreliable judges. Until we do, we'll keep bumping along the bottom, with
all the other pond life.

The writer is the author of Sex, Power and Nation. She can be reached on
jsuryakusuma@mac.com and jskusuma@dnet.net.id.

Mixed perceptions of CSR prevail in Indonesia

Article by Yanti Koestoer posted : 23-05-07

From The Jakarta Post, Wednesday May 23, 2007

Four years ago, understanding of CSR among companies was still poor and patchy, let alone among the public at large. Since then, the situation has improved some, along with the increasing availability of information and roles of civil society organizations in Indonesia. Only recently, corporate social responsibility (CSR) started emerging as a popular topic in Indonesia while in fact it is not a new concept in the international arena. Many companies operating in Indonesia find it exciting to include CSR in their business strategies, but often overuse and poorly define the concept.

Some CEOs believe there is a connection, albeit vague or tenuous, between charitable contribution and business. Still, many other CEOs say that most of their corporate donor programs have nothing at all to do with business strategy, although they admit the programs could generate positive publicity and boost employee morale.

In many instances, CSR is seen as a "cause-related marketing" or "strategic philanthropy", an effort where a company concentrates on a single cause or an admired organization. This definition is far short of true CSR practices with strategic value, because it emphasizes publicity rather than social impact. It enhances goodwill, but does not improve a company's ability to compete.

True CSR practices address economic, social and environmental issues simultaneously, targeting areas of competitive context where a company and society both benefit because of the company's unique assets and expertise. CSR goes beyond charitable activity and includes issues with a direct impact on society. It does not replace/overlap the roles of government in providing public services or infrastructure, but is an add-on to those not actively managed by government.

A good and responsible company is a good citizen in the country in which it is operating. Unfortunately, beyond mending their own backyard, companies need to stay abreast of the public's evolving opinion about corporate roles and responsibilities. It is the scene we often see today, where companies (with a genuine responsible attitude) are struggling between "to do better" and "responding to criticism". This appears to be dilemmatic. We must think "out of the box" and imagine we are in such a position. Imagine that we are a CEO of a company. What would we do?

CSR brings about direct and indirect benefits to companies' triple bottom lines, i.e. commercial, social and environmental benefits, including better productivity, efficiency as well as reduced security risks and good corporate image. By caring for their surrounding community, companies gain a better reputation, improved relations with stakeholders (government and NGOs) and minimize social unrest/conflict/ sabotage, as well as greater business opportunity. CSR also embraces environmental advantages such as operational efficiency, cleaner production, raw material conservation and reduced pollution.

Typically, multinational companies (MNC) in Indonesia are largely guided by their respective headquarters when implementing CSR programs. However, their local programs usually consider local needs and context. MNCs are usually geared toward making a real impact on their target beneficiaries, while adopting international methods such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Down Jones Sustainability Index and SA8000. The upcoming ISO26000 will also provide guidelines (not standards) in terms of measurable implementation of CSR.

As far as local companies are concerned, for many years there has been a government policy for all state-owned enterprises to contribute a certain percentage of their profits for community empowerment. Other private Indonesian companies have started taking part in various charitable activities, mostly in the case of disasters, some with a long-term view. Large "conglomerates" have been taking initiatives to establish their own foundations.

Unlike other emerging new paradigms that attract pros and cons, CSR appeals to all elements of the community. Those with positive thinking would hope the business sector can contribute to the development of the country, adding to what the government does for people's welfare. However, differences of perception adopted by different elements (business, government, NGOs), if not well "bridged", will potentially lead to confusion and misunderstanding between/among the development actors. On one hand, CSR is seen as a "compulsory" requirement imposed on a company. On the other hand, there is skepticism about CSR as a way of "washing away the sins" of companies.

The word "responsibility" should not merely be interpreted as "obligatory" or "compulsory". In fact, CSR is purely voluntary where companies opt to implement any business case suitable for their market and products. By adopting socially and environmentally responsible practices, companies would enjoy their "competitive advantages" and win a market share. It is not the role of corporations to take over the responsibility of the government in providing welfare to the people. Many corporations are more than willing to assist and help, but this can only be feasible if their businesses are sustainable. Moreover, it is neither the NGOs nor the government that must take a position as a "judge" or "accuser", let alone "executor". The market determines whether a business is sustainable or goes bankrupt. Research reported earlier this year by a major consulting firm showed that the majority of consumers in Indonesia would support corporations that are recognized as socially and environmentally responsible.

No doubt, good companies must abide by regulations in any country they operate, regardless of whether a certain country has a good regulatory framework or not. Challenges in implementing CSR do not come from the lack of a specific law for CSR, but are related to effective implementation of existing laws and regulations. Legal uncertainty has exacerbated more problems rather than solutions for many companies, resulting in disputes with local communities. If a company pollutes the environment and causes suffering to its surrounding community, this falls within a "legal compliance" framework. Trying to relate CSR practices with "legal compliance" is misleading and counterproductive. Paying a penalty for non-compliance to regulations (in the form of compensation to the victims) is not CSR.

We know all too well that weak law enforcement of regulations induces conflict, bribery and corruption. Regulatory inconsistencies and conflicting pieces of legislation add to this problem. An attempt to address CSR in the draft of a private enterprise law should not lead to the creation of a highly regulatory framework for CSR. Instead, it would be more effective if the government were to provide incentives such as tax incentives, government sponsorships and support to companies with high concerns on social, environment and local economic development.

Is India ready to be part of Southeast Asia again?

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20070618.B07&irec=6
Headline News June 18, 2007

Meidyatama Suryodiningrat, The Jakarta Post, New Delhi

The evolving geo-strategic framework inexorably impels countries in Southeast Asia to accept China and India as major regional powers.

In the first case it is a question of accommodating the inevitable. In the latter, it is a necessary consequence of the former.

China and India are not only the great powers of tomorrow but of yesteryear. Each represents ancestral cradles of Asian civilization.

China in recent years has been an example of diplomatic transformation in turning regional perceptions. Not long ago the rhetoric on China was one of "containment" and "threat".

Now, everyone in Southeast Asia can think of nothing but a full-blown engagement.

Beijing has also shown an unequaled zest in its economic diplomacy with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN.

Delhi on the other hand has been a late bloomer.

More than just friends, India and Indonesia are actually fraternal allies beyond the two following each other in country lists in the almanac or encyclopedia. The kinship sinks deep into the psyche -- China dominated our culinary regime, India underpins the customs which define our culture.

For Indonesia, culture plays an important role, particular in bilateral ties with India.

The Indian sub-continent is home of the bajaj, the rhythmic source of dangdut music, the land where Rama lost and regained Sinta, the plains of the great Mahabharata wars.

Our laymen are obsessed with Bollywood, as children learn of Gandhi and Nehru as they would Sukarno. India is the great, imperfect democracy Indonesia aspires to be.

Modernity may have sharpened distinctiveness between India and Indonesia, but the similarities more important than the differences.

Hence it is extraordinary that with its comparative softpower advantages India has not projected a stronger preponderance in this region.

Despite the initial activism of the Nehru era, India became self-preoccupied leading to a latent detachment from Southeast Asia.

It was not until the introduction of the "Look East" policy in 1992 that Delhi again began giving this region due importance in foreign policy.

While the policy suggests a strategy of global power, decades of disconnection from Southeast Asia has made alternating India's own self-perception from an Indian Ocean power to a regional one difficult.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the Look East policy as "a strategic shift in India's vision of the world".

However Indians themselves seem hesitant as to their place in ASEAN's security architecture.

Rarely displayed is the enthusiasm within India towards this role the way Indonesia, for example, perceives its leadership of ASEAN as providence.

One reason seems to be the fear that an assertive India would be misconstrued by its neighbors, particularly China and Pakistan.

"If India takes the lead it will be seen as an Indian hegemony again," Sujit Dutta, Senior Fellow at India's Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis, told The Jakarta Post recently in New Delhi.

"So it has to be done indirectly," he added.

With India-Pakistan relations entering a period of positivism and India-Sino ties also on an upward trend, perhaps there is now more room for Delhi to maneuver.

Dutta also points out that China was more prepared for engagement with Asia given its hastier and stronger economic rise, while India has only recently acquired the necessary economic clout.

Then there is the domestic debate within India that is common in many fast growing developing nations: That of the growing disparity between the prospering few and marginalized many.

In the words of one Indian politician, perhaps it is more important to address the inequities between "shining India" and "suffering India" before exerting itself beyond established frontiers.

Since becoming a full dialog partner to ASEAN in 1995 and joining the ASEAN Regional Forum in 1996, cooperation between India and the grouping has hastened, albeit with very moderate influence.

In 2003 India acceded to Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. It has also inked several arrangements to underscore its commitment with ASEAN. Among them is an economic cooperation agreement to establish an FTA and a Partnership for Peace, Progress and Shared Prosperity.

Nevertheless there is still lingering uncertainty on whether India truly acknowledges and accepts the kind of role Indonesia and ASEAN hopes it to play in the strategic environment.

Indian officials and analysts are reluctant to openly talk about "balance of power", cognizant that such rhetoric could pit them in adversarial terms with China. But in private, they acknowledge China has some ways to go before it proves to be a responsible regional power.

ASEAN's logic has been to strategically include major powers in regional security arrangements which then offset any single power from dominating. This in turn allows ASEAN to remain independent as the primary driving force in its own region.

India needs to be active here in a peaceful and productive manner to become a psychological deterrent to China's increasing influence and gradual domination of this region.

That is why Indonesia was so adamant three years ago about including India in the East Asia Summit process.

"Chindia" corresponds to the two wings of ASEAN's future flight into peace and prosperity.

Today's talk here between the foreign ministers of India and Indonesia, capping off a series of senior official meetings, is another opportunity for India to enhance bilateral relations and raise its comfort level in engaging ASEAN.

ASEAN wants India's presence as much as India needs to be active in the region.

To realize its role as a global power India requires the economic access points provided by ASEAN's network to the world's fastest growing region of East and Southeast Asia.

Furthermore ASEAN makes available a strategic framework and regulated forum with which India can bluntly interact with economic powers Japan and South Korea along with fellow regional power China.

This is an opportunity in which Delhi must not be hesitant. It cannot afford to miss the boat again.

Malaysian scientist: Look to Indonesia

General News June 18, 2007

KUALA LUMPUR (The Star\ANN): Malaysia and the rest of the Muslim world have much to learn from Indonesia's progressive approach in Islamic education, said political scientist Farish Ahmad-Noor.

Indonesia had a big number of moderate scholars that even if a few radical groups emerged, the mainstream groups would quickly silence them, said Farish, an Institute of Strategic and International Studies consultant.

During the Soeharto era, the Muslims expanded on cultural Islam rather than dogmatic politics-based Islam, he said. After that, it was taught in a scientific way.

In comparison, Islam in Malaysia is politicized and there is no independent space for it to be in the public domain, he said when interviewed at the ISIS International Affairs forum on revisited Shifting dynamics of radical movements in Indonesia, Wednesday.

While banning militant groups worked, he said he was concerned that if there was no deep understanding of religion at the public level, the state would continue to be the brother."

"What if one day the state is replaced by a fanatic prime minister? There will be no mode of civil defense underneath. This is where Indonesia is different from us.

"The rejection of terrorism in Indonesia did not come from the state but from the people. They didn't want to see mosques or churches or Bali or Jakarta bombed," he said.

Farish said Malaysia, in the 1920s, was more open, with people discussing the applicability of syariah law in the modern world and the role of Islam in politics.

Syed Sheikh Al-hadi, for instance, wrote Hikayat Faridah Hanum, the first modern Malay literature about women's rights.

Farish, a visiting professor at the Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University in Jogyakarta, said he is often asked: "is the interpretation of Islam so narrow in Malaysia when historically and culturally we (Malaysia and Indonesia) are similar?" (**)

Does Google know too much about you?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/security/does-google-know-too-much-about-you/2007/06/18/1182018977067.html

June 18, 2007 - 10:13AM

Most people missed the announcement about how Google wants to burrow inside your brain and capture your most intimate thoughts.

That's because it never happened.

But Google, the world leader in web search services, is the focus of mounting paranoia over the scope of its powers as it expands into new advertising formats from online video to radio and TV, while creating dozens of new internet services.

True, the Silicon Valley company has millions of people telling it daily what's apparently on their minds via simple Web searches, generating mountains of information about consumer behaviour.

The company uses this information to make money by selling advertisements, but people who are used to browsing anonymously around stores or channel-hopping on TV find it unnerving to realise that in a digital world, their every move is recorded.

As people spend more time online and realise just how much information Google is collecting about their habits and interests, the fear develops that true or false revelations of the most personal, embarrassing or even intrusive kind are no more than a web search away.

The company mission statement reads: "Organise the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" and, famously, "You can make money without doing evil."

With Google search a fact of life, some suggest our notions of privacy need to move with the times.

"We are in transition in our idea of privacy and we are still discovering ways to make sense of the implicit traces people leave behind," writes David Weinberger in a new book, Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder.

Nicole Wong, the Google attorney who oversees a team of lawyers who consider privacy and other policy issues that go into the making of each product, says she isn't surprised people are anxious or concerned about these innovations.

"The pace of change in technology is so much faster now," Wong said. "Instead of a generation, or even years, we are seeing breakthrough technologies emerging in the space of months." Social norms have a hard time keeping pace.

Privacy policy activists complain Google's $US3.1 billion plan to acquire DoubleClick, which connects buyers and sellers of online advertising, would double the number of internet users on which Google keeps tabs to upward of 1 billion.

For several years now, friends, enemies and first-time daters have had to face up to the inconvenient truths that turn up with a little web snooping - dubbed Google-stalking.

Just by searching on Google for the names of ex-lovers, schoolmates, or people they have just met, they can find out more about them than they bargained for.

Other services which stir concerns Google may know too much about us: its email service, Gmail, which puts advertisements up alongside mails people receive based on a scan of their contents; Google Desktop, which helps users search the local contents of computers; and Google Earth -- satellite maps which go down to street level. Another map feature has produced random surveillance-like shots of individuals going about their days.

Also last month, Google took a big step to unify its different categories of Internet search - for images, news, books, websites, local information, video - in one service.

Unified Search offers no information not already available on Google, but by putting it all in one place, it is turning up sometimes disconcerting links between previously unconnected types of data.

And Google is testing various forms of personalised Web search, including Web History, a feature that allows individual users to look back at a chronological history of their search activity over several years.

Users learn what predictable creatures they are - what good and bad habits they have - when their entire Web search record is revealed, stretching back days, months, even years.

By offering a digital record of users' daily interests, Google is giving those who choose the service an unprecedented level of insight into their own thinking.

Computers have begun to play the confessional role once reserved for the local priest, or psychotherapist.

Modern privacy fears, and legal thinking on the topic, date back to the invention of aggressive flashbulb photography and the electronic distribution of tabloid news more than 100 years ago, historians say.

Every major privacy panic since then has occurred against a similar backdrop of rapid technology change, and the psychological dislocations that inevitably follow until a new period of social adaptation and understanding evolves.

"A lot of these things are not about Google in particular but we've become the focus of that debate and as a leading company that's an appropriate role for us to play," says Peter Fleischer, Google's global privacy counsel.

Google has responded by calling for comprehensive legislation to harmonise laws of various governments, all of which want their say over the World Wide Web. Self-regulation by the internet industry has not worked, the company says.

"Patchwork regulation is confusing for consumers because they don't know which privacy regulations should apply in different situations," Google attorney Wong says of US privacy laws.

New rules are needed to fend off governments which might try to force companies to divulge customer data, Google argues. It fought off just such a court request by U.S. authorities last year and argues that for the limited purposes it keeps customers' data, it is a reliable custodian.

"Google is working with companies across an array of industries to get baseline privacy legislation that would be much closer to the comprehensive protections in Europe and some other countries," says Wong, whose title is associate general counsel. She also is working on laws with Asian countries.

Google has initiated a plan to limit the amount of time the company stores personal data to no more than two years across its massive collection of hundreds of thousands of computers.

The proposal spurred debate with privacy regulators in the European Union. Google last week agreed to scale back its data retention plans to 18 months.

It argues that everything from spell-checking on its web search service to anti-fraud protections to government data retention laws won't work over any shorter timeframe.

Rivals have not set time limits on storing personal data.

Reuters