THE POSITION OF INDONESIA IN THE US
"WAR ON TERRORISM"
Oleh : Imam Nur Azis and Jason Meade

There has been a lot of talk about the anti-Muslim bias of the US-led war on terrorism. This was even clearly stated when the US Ambassador Ralph Boyce has visited Indonesia's most popular preacher KH Abdullah Gymnastiar in Bandung last Ramadhan. Despite Administration's statements to the contrary, the "war on terrorism" clearly IS a war against Muslims. Perhaps, that is why the US government actively campaigns in shifting the image through the net on www.opendialogue.com.

To illustrate, the US has allied with Russia against the Chechens, with China against the Uighurs, with the Philippines against the Moros. The US has even singled out its own Muslim population for special scrutiny and harassment based solely on religious grounds, since the persecuted have been of representatives of a wide variety of ethnic and socioeconomic groups [1].

This is in addition to America's longstanding support for Israel against the predominantly Muslim Palestinians, and "the infinite justice" operation against Taliban in Afghanistan. Moreover, the government's openly stated to desire to launch a new war against Iraq, and a variety of other indicators which all point to the fact that Muslims are currently the main target of the US government.
Is this "Clash of Civilization"?

However, it is not accurate to regard this as a "clash of civilizations." In reality this clash is actually between the United States government and all who dare to oppose it.

At the present time virtually the only open opposition to US hegemony is coming from the Muslim world, and this is why Muslims have come under attack from the US. To demonstrate that the problem is opposition to the US government, rather than a clash of civilizations consider the case of Yugoslavia/Serbia. The Yugoslavian federal government refused to cooperate with the US and its Western allies in the dismemberment of that country, and as a result the mainly Serb remnant of Yugoslavia came under repeated attack from both military and propaganda sources in the US. As in the case of Iraq, the Serb-led government was placed under a sanctions regime, its leader was demonized, and the industrial infrastructure was targeted for destruction by an intense campaign of aerial bombardment.

Also as in Iraq, the war crimes perpetrated by the Serbs were highlighted and exaggerated by the US, while similar war crimes carried out by its own allies in the region were either downplayed or denied entirely [2].

Further evidence for this line of argument can be found in the US government's own "National Security Statement" which was released in September, and which reveals the broad outlines of US security policy. This document clearly states that the US plans to use its military power to prevent any "potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. "[3]

Since the US is now, without dispute, the most powerful country in the world, there can be no other interpretation of this plan than that the US is attempting to install itself as the permanent center of the world. Rather than a clash of civilizations, it might be more accurate to view this as a clash between the US and the rest of the world. [4].

For example, even mild criticism of President Bush during the recent German elections led to calls from within the US Administration and Congress for "retaliation" against Germany. This was hardly an example of civilizational solidarity. However, it was a very good example of US anger over any challenge to US authority. Frankly, the danger to the Muslim world does not come from the possibility that it will meet or surpass the strength of the US. Virtually no one in or out of the Muslim world seriously expects that the happen in the foreseeable future.

The threat to the Muslim world stems from another section of the same National Security Statement in which the US famously stated that it was willing to launch pre-emptive attacks against perceived threats before those threats became real.

Less well known is the fact that the US now perceives "failing states" as the most dangerous to its security. Somalia has already been characterized by the US as a failed state. Several other Muslim countries could quickly be labeled as failed states if it were to suit the interests of the American government, leaving them particularly vulnerable to American attack.

Is Indonesia a "Failing State"?
Is Indonesia one of these countries? Not yet. At the moment the US government regards Indonesia as one of the "good" Muslim countries. In spite of the various insurgencies, the US has maintained a quite positive line on Indonesia. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of the Defense Department who was stationed as US Ambassador in Indonesia, has repeatedly expressed admiration and even affection for Indonesia [5]. Wolfowitz regards Indonesia in the same category with Turkey, as a potential role model for the rest of the Muslim world.

Since Wolfowitz is believed to be very influential within the Bush administration, it is unlikely that Indonesia will come under a threat from Bush under the present circumstances. Furthermore, the Indonesian government has pledged to support the US "war on terrorism", and therefore is protected from the attacks which open defiance might bring.

The are four main directions from which danger could approach Indonesia. In one scenario Indonesia could come to be viewed as a failing state, which might prompt the US to intervene in one form or another, even if the government remained friendly. If the US believed that Indonesia was collapsing in a way that might aid the spread of terrorism it would most likely step in to support a new dictator or junta which could restore order. This is the most dangerous scenario because there are so many ways that Indonesia could be made to look like it was failing. Too much government activity and too little could both be taken as signs of a failed state (Zimbabwe v. Somalia). Interests both inside and outside the country have a variety of methods at their disposal for making Indonesia appear weak and unsustainable, such as staged riots, grossly corrupt activities, bombings, etc. [6]

The bombing in Bali and recently in Makasar may very well have been an attempt by foreign terrorists to either make Indonesia fail or make it appear to be failing. There has been some suspicion that the US or some other Western actor perpetrated that bombing. This is unlikely and a kind of snap-judged, however. The West's preferred method for demonizing a country is to indict it for past acts, which have suddenly become relevant. For an example, look at the case of the gas attacks in Iraq in the 1980's which are now used as an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein, but which were virtually ignored at the time.

In a second scenario, a US ally could take advantage of the US protective first strike doctrine to attack Indonesia for reasons which might or might not be related to "terrorism". Russia has already latched on this idea to further justify its brutal anti-secessionist activities in Chechnya. It is not impossible that others might do something similar.

According to a recent BBC report, Australia's Prime Minister recently "said he is ready to launch pre-emptive action against terrorists in neighboring Asian countries [7]." It is not likely that Mr. Howard was thinking of East Timor or Papua New Guinea when he announced this policy. Such an attack, whether justified or not, would label Indonesia as a terrorist supporting state, and could also destabilize the country, making it appear to be a failing state. In that case the country could be pushed into the first scenario, inviting direct US intervention.

In a third scenario Indonesia could openly break with the US government and cease co-operation with the "war on terrorism." Since Indonesia has previously pledged to support the US, this could be viewed as a kind of betrayal of the US. It would most likely be viewed as a case of Indonesia changing sides rather than becoming neutral, since as President Bush said, "you are either with us, or with the terrorists." Under such circumstances the US might not attack immediately, but it would be reasonable to expect either overt or covert retaliation at some point.

In the final scenario Indonesia might be subject to a campaign by terrorists organizations seeking to force the country into the anti-US camp. This could be done either by appealing to anti-US sentiments already present (especially in the event of a war in Iraq or a further escalation in Palestine), or by provoking the US into a threatening posture against Indonesia which would then lead to a defensive reaction against America. The danger here comes both from the terrorist provocation, which would likely involve a high level of violence, and from the US response that of course could rise to the highest levels of violence possible.

For both Indonesia and the US, the biggest problem with all of these scenarios is that any one of them could ultimately bring the US into conflict with Indonesia. This causes people to view the US as a threat no matter what it does, and it leaves little room for error in Indonesia. Therefore, under the present circumstances, the US seems to be more a plausible enemy than international terrorism. []

Reference:
1. John Walker Lindh of white American Thaliban/ middle class, Jose' Padilla Hispanic lower middle class apparently, lots of Arabs from every class, black American Muslims, John Allen Muhammad of the accused sniper, etc.
2. "To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia" by Michael Parenti, has a lot references on this. For comparison to Iraq, the book "Iraq Under Siege" edited by Anthony Arnove.
3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
4. "American power and the empire of capitalist democracy" by G. John Ikenberry, Review of International Studies (2001) p.191-212. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine observed, "The USA today predominates on the economic level, the monetary level, on the technological level, and in the cultural area in the broadest sense of the word". In New York Times (15/2/1999), Craig R Whitney in "NATO at 50: With Nations at odds, Is it Misalliance?" said" It (the USA) is not comparable, in terms of power and influence, to anything known in modern history".
5. http://usembassy.state.gov/posts/ja1/wwwhse1410.html
6. To mention some indicators; the GAM (Free Aceh Movement) who wants their independence is still long problem to resolved, Ambon and Poso 's communal clash, attacks on Freeport of Papua, etc might turn to be a complex political emergency case.
7. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2532443.stm

(Jason Meade, Alumni Postgraduates "International Political Economy" of Leeds University, UK, who conduct research on "Post Cold War Conflict and Complex Political Emergency")