Syariat Islam di Aceh, Siasat Budaya Neo-Snouckis? [1]

Oleh: Otto Syamsuddin Ishak

Apakah agama diperuntukkan bagi penciptaan manusia yang bercitra sebagaimana yang dikehendaki oleh Tuhan? Namun, bukankah agama juga bisa diperuntukkan bagi penciptaan manusia yang bercitra sebagaimana yang dikehendaki oleh manusia.

Bahkan, negara pun bisa menggunakan agama untuk mencitra manusia sesuai dengan yang dikendaki ideologinya (nasionalisme).

Persoalan pertama, agama masih berada dalam wilayah teologis. Sedangkan persoalan berikutnya, agama sudah berada di wilayah ideologis. Dalam perspektif pascakolonial, agama sudah menjadi instrumen dalam proyek kolonialisme. Perbedaannya, jika persoalan yang kedua aktornya adalah individu atau komunitas ulama, maka persoalan yang ketiga aktornya adalah negara (institusi politik). Celakanya, bahkan kerap, aktor individu jumbuh dengan aktor negara jika kita melihat pada konteks kehidupan orang Aceh.

Dalam survei Lembaga Survei Indonesia (LSI), agama sebagai instrumen kolonial, tercermin dalam pertanyaan yang diajukan kepada responden di Aceh: “Apakah ibu/bapak lebih merasa sebagai orang dari suku-bangsa asal seperti Jawa, Sunda, Batak, Minang, dll., lebih sebagai orang dari agama tertentu (Islam, Kristen, dll.), atau lebih merasa sebagai orang Indonesia?” Perumus pertanyaan tersebut membandingkan antara identitas etnik, religius dan ideologis. Hasilnya, menurut LSI bahwa orang Aceh lebih bangga menjadi orang Indonesia daripada seorang muslim. Dengan lain kata, keindonesiaan (identitas ideologis) telah melampaui keislaman (identitas religiusitas) dan keacehan (identitas etnis).

Untuk mendapatkan konteks historis dan kekinian agama dalam perspektif pascakolonial, Aceh memang merupakan wilayah—dalam artian teritori dan waktu—di mana agama telah menjadi prototipe ideal instrumen kolonialisasi. Meskipun hal ini sering berada di luar kesadaran sosiologis orang Aceh. Bahkan ulama Aceh itu sendiri, serta cendekiawan muslim nusantara serta komunitasnya tidak sadar jika mereka telah berubah dari aktor teologis menjadi aktor ideologis yang mana mereka telah menggunakan agama sebagai instrumen kolonialisasi— teristimewa dalam periode bernegara pascakolonial (selepas 1945, red).

Dalam teori pascakolonial, negara pusat bukan saja mengambil alih secara paksa sebuah wilayah dan populasi manusia, tetapi juga menciptakan sistem ekonomi, politik dan budaya kolonial di wilayah itu yang memberikan keuntungan semaksimal mungkin pada negara pusat. Negara pusat terus berpikir untuk menciptakan siasat militer, dan siasat kebudayaan agar wilayah dan populasi yang dikuasainya menjelma menjadi sebuah koloni yang kompleks.

Pada intinya, siasat kebudayaan adalah penghilangan keaslian karakter budaya di koloni (dekonstruktif) sehingga terbentuk mental “kompleks inferioritas”, serta membentuk budaya baru yang berkiblat ke pusat koloni (rekonstruktif).


Snouckis

Dalam kerangka berpikir siasat kebudayaan (kolonialisasi) itulah, Pemerintah Kolonial Belanda mengirim Snock Hurgronje. Apalagi, siasat militer tidak berhasil menjadikan Aceh sebagai sebuah koloni yang utuh. Perang Aceh berhasil mengulur waktu yang panjang (1873-1949), menyita energi yang melelahkan dan menguras dana yang sangat besar. Bahkan melampaui daya dukung keuangan serikat dagang dan negara itu sendiri.

Dampak negatif lainnya bagi negara pusat, siasat militer justru mengkristalkan spirit perlawanan yang manifes maupun laten di dalam diri orang Aceh. Di satu sisi, orang Aceh semakin mengidealkan dirinya menjadi gerilyawan, dan berakhir sebagai syuhada. Idealisasi orang Aceh bukan dalam artian sentimen terhadap nonmuslim, melainkan bertindak memerangi kemungkaran yang aktornya secara kebetulan jumbuh dengan individu non-muslim dan negara asing. Di sisi lain, serdadu mengalami stress dan menjadi bertindak brutal, juga para perwira tingginya.

Apakah siasat kebudayaan kolonial yang dijalankan Snouck di Aceh?

Target siasat itu langsung ke akar yang menghidupkan orang Aceh, yakni Islam. Karena itu, Snouck melakukan riset yang intensif untuk mengetahui pengaruh Islam terhadap kehidupan politik, ekonomi dan budaya orang Aceh. Meskipun hasil risetnya lebih tepat disebut sebagai studi kasus tentang eksistensi agama dalam kehidupan orang Aceh yang berada di wilayah dataran rendah, Aceh Besar. Meskipun demikian, studi ini memberikan inspirasi pada Snouck untuk merumuskan siasat budaya bagaimana ‘menjinakkan’ Islam di Aceh khususnya, dan wilayah koloni Hindia Belanda umumnya.

Siasat kebudayaan ini bukanlah kristenisasi, melainkan reislamisasi orang Aceh. Bukan pula, transformasi identitas dari keislaman menjadi kebelandaan. Islam yang berspirit melawan (kemungkaran) negara pusat harus direkonstruksi menjadi Islam yang loyal terhadap pusat kolonial, tanpa peduli terhadap kemungkaran. Islam harus dijadikan instrumen utama kolonialisasi.

Ada perbedaan yang tajam antara siasat militer dan siasat kebudayaan kolonial. Siasat militer, jika jenderal mati, maka mesjid di bakar. Ketika Kohler mati, maka Masjid Raya pun dibakar oleh serdadunya. Siasat kebudayaan justru sebaliknya, aktor kolonial harus menjadi imam mesjid, maka mesjid harus dibangun lebih megah lagi. Karena itu, proyek budaya yang utama adalah membangun kembali Masjid Raya dengan merujuk pada arsitektur Taj Mahal yang megah dan menyimbolkan kecintaan yang dalam.

Di sisi lain, Snouck mendekonstruksi identitas keacehan. Bahwa negara tradisional Aceh adalah negara perompak. Bahwa tingkat intelektualitas keagamaan ulama Aceh adalah rendah. Bahwa religiusitas orang Aceh adalah mistis dan takhayul. Padahal, di sisi lain, Snouck mengakui spirit keagamaan orang Aceh berbasis pada sufisme.

Selain merekonstruksi mesjid, Snouck mengintervensi manajemen masjid—bahkan ia berhasil menjadi imam besar—setelah bekerjasama dengan seorang kadi hulubalang Aceh. Tahap berikutnya, Snouck menata kembali institusi keagamaan agar lebih birokratis. Hal yang penting adalah pengangkatan H. Hasan Mustapa—kenalan utamanya sejak di Mekkah dan ulama yang berasal dari kalangan kelas menengah Sunda—sebagai Penghulu Besar di Aceh selama dua tahun. Lalu, ia diganti oleh Raden Haji Muhammad Rusydi—yang masih memiliki tali kekerabatan. Sejak itulah Islam menjadi instrumen politik kolonial yang terlembaga, yang kemudian dilanjutkan di dalam konteks Indonesia sebagai departemen agama.

Neo-Snouckis

Dari perspektif pascakolonial, apakah siasat budaya kolonial masih terus dilanjutkan di dalam negara modern Indonesia—dengan versi barunya, yakni kolonialisme modern—yang selaras dengan prinsip negara kesatuan?

Jika kita mengacu pada tesis Loomba, maka kemerdekaan tidak secara otomatis memusnahkan siasat budaya kolonial. Bahkan, kelangsungan siasat budaya kolonial bisa dimanipulasi sebagai bagian dari semangat nasionalisme yang terus-menerus dipompa oleh elite penguasa negara baru.

Dalam kolonialisme modern, wilayah politik terbagi dua, yakni pusat dan daerah dalam relasi yang sentralistik. Sistem demikian juga dipakai di Indonesia. Polanya, sistem politik harus memperkuat otoritas pusat dan memperlemah otoritas daerah. Sistem ekonominya, daerah adalah wilayah eksploitasi sumberdaya alam dan pusat adalah pengelola hasil sumberdaya alam itu.

Dalam sistem kolonial lama, daerah yang memberikan upeti ke pusat. Sekarang, bukan lagi upeti, tetapi semua alat produksi dimiliki dan dikelola oleh pusat. Pusat ‘menyedekahkan’ hasilnya kepada setiap daerah, sesuai dengan kemurahan hati pusat. Kemudian, daerah adalah pasar dan konsumen terhadap industri yang menumpuk di (wilayah) pusat kekuasaan.

Bagaimanakah dengan siasat yang berkenaan dengan identitas budaya daerah? Apakah setelah kemerdekaan, identitas budaya lokal yang telah dipunahkan oleh pemerintah kolonial mendapat kesempatan atau didorong kembali untuk hidup oleh penguasa pusat?

Rezim Soekarno

Fenomena gerakan pemberontakan daerah, khususnya DI/TII di Aceh dalam periode Soekarno, jika dilihat dari perspektif pascakolonial, adalah akibat dari masih dilanjutkannya sistem-sistem kolonial itu. Apa yang dilakukan oleh Tgk Daud Beureueh adalah perlawanan terhadap dominasi sistem kolonial modern yang dipraktekkan rezim Soekarno. Praktek kolonial modern ini sangat terasa di luar wilayah Indonesia Luar ketimbang di Indonesia Dalam (dalam pembagian Geertz).

Di wilayah Indonesia Luar, pihak kolonial relatif tidak memiliki waktu yang cukup untuk membangun sistem politik dan ekonomi yang kuat atau, wilayah ini tidak pernah menjadi pusat kolonial. Akibatnya, ada pola metamorfose yang berbeda dalam menyikapi kelanjutan sistem kolonial antar komunitas keagamaan di Indonesia. Di sana, komunitas keagamaan membangun perlawanan terhadap dominasi pusat, termasuk menjadi gerakan politik bersenjata. Apalagi sebagian dari tokohnya adalah pemimpin gerilya di masa kolonial.

Di Indonesia Dalam, komunitas keagamaan berupaya mengintegrasikan diri ke dalam struktur birokrasi pemerintahan. Karena itu terjadi kompetisi politik yang tajam, misalnya antara NU dan Muhammadiyah, dalam perebutan jabatan kementerian agama—yang merupakan proyek kolonial. Mereka berebut menjadi bagian dari rezim baru yang melanjutkan proyek kolonial.

Relasinya dengan kekuasaan, NU mengeluarkan fatwa bughat terhadap gerakan perlawanan muslim di wilayah Indonesia Luar. Fatwa ini merupakan bentuk awal komunitas keagamaan yang jumbuh dengan kekuasaan. Sebuah fatwa yang menghalalkan pembunuhan muslim di Indonesia. Berikutnya, adalah keterlibatan mereka dalam aksi pembasmian PKI yang dimobilisasi serdadu.

Sementara siasat budaya yang menyangkut identitas daerah, Pusat membangun versi baru. Jika dahulu kebanggaan identitas dikaitkan dengan Hindia Belanda, maka sekarang kebanggaan terhadap keindonesiaan (nasionalisme), mulai dari propaganda “ganyang Malaysia” hingga kebanggaan terhadap proyek-proyek mercusuar. Ganyang Malaysia menunjuk pada kebencian sesama etnik melayu akibat nasionalisme (hitam).

Di Aceh, orang mulai bangga menyebutkkan bahwa pabrik Gula Cot Girek adalah pabrik terbesar dan termodern di Indonesia. Orang Aceh merasa inferior atau tidak modern bila tidak berbahasa Indonesia. Sementara, konsesi politik pasca DI/TII yang berkenaan dengan tiga keistimewaan Aceh (dalam bidang agama, adat dan pendidikan)—yang sebenarnya dapat menjadi basis bagi siasat budaya perlawanan lokal terhadap budaya dominan—tidak berjalan.

Sumber: Acehkita

Full Article...

Aceh Forests Open for Exploitation

BANDA ACEH: Indonesian Ministry of Forestry MS Kaban has decided to restore forest concession (HPH) to 11 companies in Aceh to enable them supplies timbers needed for Aceh reconstruction.

The decision made after Kaban discuss the timber issues with Aceh and Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR) and Indonesian Forestry Company Association (APHI).

Head of Aceh Forestry Office, Mustafa Hasyibullah, revealed the ministry decision to Serambi Indonesian on Thursday. But he said the ministry decision didn’t infringe with Aceh government intention to make Aceh as a green province.

The ministry decision have to be made as so far timber supplier from other provinces, such as Riau and Kalimanta, hesitated to sent their timber due to higher cost. ‘’They are committed to supply timbers to Aceh but the cost of transportation is considered to high,’’ said Mustafa.

The ministry also agreed to increase timber quota for Aceh to 400,000 cubic meters for 2006. BRR estimated that in 2006 Aceh will need 850 cubic meters of timber.

The 11 companies that have forest concession have been invited to Jakarta to process their permit. But so far only one company has completed all the necessary requirements. The company is Koperasi Pondok Pesantren Najmussalam, a cooperative owned by an Islamic boarding school in Bireun district.

In 2000, Najmussalam used to have right to log 30,000 hectares of forest. Due to increasing conflict in the areas, the cooperative couldn’t execute its right. In August 2004 the cooperative extend its concession, but also couldn’t execute its right due to tsunami.

In its new proposal, Najmusallam asked for concession to log 11,000 hectares of forest in the coming years. But the ministry only agreed to provide 500 hectares to be logged each year. And the ministry so far only provides right to log the forest, while right to process the log into timbers has been agreed yet.

Another companies who already invited by the ministry are PT Lamuri timber, PT Alas Aceh Perkasa, PT Trijasa Mas Karya Inti, PT Aceh Inti Timber, PT Krueng SAkti, PT Wira Lanoa, PT Raja Garuda Mas, PT Gruti, and PT Hargas.

Courtesy: Serambi Indonesia

Full Article...

What Indonesians Think of Australia

The following is a transcript of an episode of Insight titled "Neighbours", recorded in Jakarta and broadcast October 4, 2005 on SBS TV Australia. Wimar was one of the panel to speak on what Indonesians think of Australia.

For some time Insight has been planning to produce a special edition of Insight from the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. We've had plenty to say about Indonesia but we wanted to know what Indonesians think about us. Insight planned to talk about Australia's foreign policies, Muslim extremism and the trials of young Australians on drug charges in Bali. A poll had shown nearly a third of Australians view Indonesia as a threat, a country where 90% of the population is Muslim. Insight planned the program to coincide with next week's anniversary of the terrorist attack in Bali in October 2002. Tragically, another massacre in Bali has now occurred. Insight recorded this program before the events of the weekend but what our guests have to say is still entirely relevant. Our forum was held at the studios of Metro TV in Jakarta. Insight invited community leaders, politicians, diplomats and journalists, many of whom have visited Australia. Our guests included Yenny Wahid, the daughter of the former Indonesian president - she once worked as a journalist for the 'Sydney Morning Herald' - also Desi Anwar, the senior newsreader for Metro TV where we recorded our program, Wimar Witoelar, a former presidential advisor and a well-known commentator and Angelina Sondakh, a former Miss Indonesia and a Member of Parliament.

JENNY BROCKIE: I'd like to welcome all of you to Insight tonight. Thank you very much for joining us. And I'd like to start with you, Alpha Amirrachman. You've just come back to Indonesia, I think, after studying at the University of Sydney. What do you think Australians don't understand about Indonesia?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN, JOURNALIST: Thank you, Jenny. But I don't want to get trapped in stereotyping, OK? But I was in Sydney when the Bali blast occurred. It was so tragic. Many Australians were killed. And people at the university were very diplomatic. They didn't want to show their anger to me, their cynicism. But, outside of the universities, I met one woman who was unable to hide her anger and she told me, "Bali should not belong to Indonesia." I said, "Why?" "Because Bali is so different from the rest of Indonesia." "What do you mean by 'the rest of Indonesia'?" "The rest of Indonesia means Muslim majority." So I don't want to get trapped in stereotyping, but I have strong -

JENNY BROCKIE: But do you think that stereotyping exists in Australia?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Yeah, yeah, I think so. But I had a strong impression that, that woman doesn't really understand the diversity of Indonesia, doesn't really understand the complexity of Indonesian society. That's my impression.

JENNY BROCKIE: And you - I know you also wrote about another incident in a bar, when you were in a bar in Sydney. Can you tell us that story?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Yeah, but I was with my Australian friends and some of my international friends verbally attacked me, they said, "Your country is so dangerous because most of them are Muslims." And I was so angry. And my Australian friend calmed me down and then he drove me home. But I didn't get drunk. I was drinking orange juice at the time. Those people were drinking beer and they were angry with me.

JENNY BROCKIE: But how did you feel, though, when you received that sort of message in Australia? How did you feel at that time? You were angry, yeah?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: I was so angry and I said, "You know, a small fight in Indonesia could result in headless body on the streets." I was so angry, I expressed myself like that. And my Australian friend calmed me down and, yeah.

JENNY BROCKIE: Desi, what do you think? You're a news anchor here at Metro TV where we're recording this program. Do you think Australians understand Indonesia?

DESI ANWAR, TV PRESENTER: Well, I wouldn't want to presume what Australians think of Indonesia. I mean, the - the one thing that we do get is through the media coverage of what - Australian media cover, what Australians think about Indonesia. And I don't know how true that is, whether it actually reflects the sentiment of Australians in general.

JENNY BROCKIE: So what do you think of that media coverage, though, when you see it? What sort of things are you talking about?

DESI ANWAR: Well, for example, the reaction to the Schapelle Corby case, for example, and of course the trial of Abu Bakar Bashir and that kind of emotions that we get to read on Australian media. And again, being in the media, I don't know how -

JENNY BROCKIE: Representative it is.

DESI ANWAR: How true, how representative that is. I mean, my personal experience with Australians, I mean, they're wonderful people. I know a lot of people in Australia and I know a lot of Australians in Indonesia.

JENNY BROCKIE: But what it is about that kind of coverage that worries you?

DESI ANWAR: Well, I think it doesn't worry me as much as - for example, it shows in a way that there is this gap of understanding about Indonesia but what actually worries me most is that the emotional reaction that that kind of - you know - generates a kind of ill feeling, which I think is unnecessary. Because, I mean, emotional responses I can perfectly understand because, you know, with emotional reactions, you can motivate people to do, sort of, good things, you know? It makes people generous for example. It makes people - it puts people together. But, in terms of emotional responses that create, for example, negative impact, I don't think it's very good -

JENNY BROCKIE: You mentioned a gap in understanding. Where's the gap?

DESI ANWAR: Well, I think basically - I mean, I wrote an article about the reaction to the Schapelle Corby case. One thing that I think Indonesians cannot understand is why was there such an emotional response from the Australians because, when Indonesian media, for example, covers issues about Australia, for example, the Bali bombing, we actually covered the - more of the victims, you know, the Australian victims of the bombings more than the Indonesians who actually died. So to get that kind of response is -

JENNY BROCKIE: So you think it's skewed the wrong way in a sense? It's sort of tipped the wrong way?

DESI ANWAR: Yeah, and I think it's, you know, I think that kind of reporting, I mean, if the media wants to focus on that kind of reporting, they're not actually doing themselves a service by focusing on the emotional side of the reactions.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yes, Wimar, yes.

PROFESSOR WIMAR WITOELAR,JOURNALIST: I don't think we can single out the Australian media as such but the media of any developed country which has an organised press backed by big business. I'm a Professor of Journalism at Deakin University and I've seen how people are channelled into the world of PR, world of journalism, and I know the individuals well, I know very many Australians. All of them are unbiased. All of them are enlightened. All of them are educated. But, when they band together, they have a posse mentality that says, "Lynch the image of the Indonesians." So I think it's a frenzy among the media, which is not specifically Australian.

JENNY BROCKIE: But I'm interested about the point you're making about when people get together they're - you said bossy?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Posse. American, P-O-S-S-E. You know, "Get the culprit, round up the citizens, get the black guy, the Chinese guy, the brown guy."

JENNY BROCKIE: Racist?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Yes.

JENNY BROCKIE: You think the Australian media is racist?

WIMAR WITOELAR: No, they're not racist, but the Australian media appeals to some part of Australia which somehow, you know, gets their feelings incited over that. But you don't see that when they are individuals.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yenny. Yes. Do you agree with that? I mean, you've worked as a journalist on the 'Sydney Morning Herald' and you've lived in Australia.

YENNY WAHID, DIRECTOR, WAHID INSTITUTE: To a certain degree, there is a stereotyping that journalists do to make the stories simple for the readers. And I think Indonesia is such a complex and diverse culture that, without the simplification and stereotyping, it would be very difficult for the, you know, the readers or for the - What do you call it? For TV. For the viewers, the audiences to understand what's really going on. So it's almost -

ANGELINA SONDAKH, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: I just want to jump in. You know, the perception, you know, because when I was meeting with the Member of the Parliament from Australia and some of the young members of the Parliament and they say, "Angelina, are you Indonesian?" and it's like, "Yes. Why?" "You don't look like Indonesian." I mean, that's one perception. But I'm purely Indonesian. My mum is Mindanaoese and my father is Indonesian. This is how the Australians see Indonesia and the Indonesian people. I mean, besides that, you know, people from Aceh, Minadano, Jakarta are different.

JENNY BROCKIE: So do you feel Indonesia gets simplified as a nation? Lots of nodding here.

YENNY WAHID: Any news in the world about other countries always gets simplified. It's just the nature of the media, in my opinion. And also, in my - I think that most people are very provincial, be it Indonesians, Australians, Americans, you know, any countries. I mean, they tend to look at things from their own perspective. So the media, in a way, has to follow that dictate, you know, otherwise, people won't really understand the story. So, in that process, the nuances get lost.

JENNY BROCKIE: And what are the nuances? Tell me about the nuances of Indonesia.

YENNY WAHID: Well, you know, the fact that -

MAN: Tell her about the Muslims being seen as troublemakers.

YENNY WAHID: Yes, the Muslim issue, you know, is very, is very simple case. I mean, Muslim in the world, not only Indonesia, is not a homogeneous entity. We have a spectrum, you know, a difference, of a brand of Islamism that people believe in. There are the so-called moderates, there are the people that believe that violence is the only means to channel their views and all sorts of things but not all Muslims are similar. And this gets lost of course in the translation or whatever, in the reporting.

JENNY BROCKIE: Chusnul, what do you think about that? Did you agree with that?

CHUSNUL MAR’IYAH, UNIVERSITY LECTURER: Well, I'm not expert on the media but I think my understanding about Australia and Indonesia relations is, you know, Australian society is also divided between the Canberra policies and the Jakarta policies and also between the people.

JENNY BROCKIE: Dita, yes?

DITA SARI, TRADE UNION LEADER: Yeah, I think we have to be quite clear in this case because we have to make sure that there is a differentiation between the Government of Australia and the people of Australia. We cannot just mix it up. Most of the time, I think the policy of the Government of Australia, the Howard Government right now, can shape the attitude and consciousness of the majority of the people of Australia. For instance, like the participation of the Howard Government in the war in Iraq, the Australians also accepting troops to Iraq, it helps creating the understanding and consciousness among the Australians that because this war is against terrorism and it - most of the time, it's portrayed as the war against the Muslims' community - so the sentiment, anti-Muslim sentiment, then raised in Australia but I think it's not originally owned by the Australians but I think it mostly caused by the policy of the Government.

JENNY BROCKIE: And Indonesians feel that? You feel that, that anti-Muslim sentiment? Is that something you feel coming from Australia?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Well, even in your opening you said that Australians thinking that Indonesia 90% Muslim means they are trouble. So it goes, you know, even without thinking that the stereotypes - I know, that if you think hard, you know - I mean, these are not terrorists you have here and we are probably 90% Muslim - but somehow again, when you get on to that podium, into that thing called the media, you tend to generalise, maybe because it's harder to differentiate.

JENNY BROCKIE: But that is a fact too. I mean, that's just a fact.

WIMAR WITOELAR: That 90% are terrorists?

JENNY BROCKIE: Yeah, yeah - no. That's not what I said. That's not what I said!

WIMAR WITOELAR: What is a fact?

JENNY BROCKIE: That 90% are Muslim.

WIMAR WITOELAR: Sure. But that has no linearity with troublemaking. I mean, in New Orleans, there was a lot of looting, they're not Muslims. Bush dropped a lot of bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan and he's not Muslim. So a lot of non-Muslims cause trouble - Northern Ireland, everywhere.

JENNY BROCKIE: I guess it's interesting because, when I think about the reason that we said that, one of the reasons we said that was because of the fear. It feeds on itself, doesn't it, in a sense?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Well, fear, of course, is psychological. It's your problem. I mean, Australians ask me, "Is it safe in Indonesia?" I don't know. It's not safe anywhere. It's not safe at my dentist, right? I mean, you can get AIDS or something. So it's very psychological.

JENNY BROCKIE: It's a good point. It's a very good point. Yes.

THANG NGUYEN, JOURNALIST: I'd like to go back to what Wimar and Yenny and other media leaders here have said so far about the gap between the understanding of Indonesia in Australia and vice versa. It's not just how the media portrays Indonesia in Australia and the rest of the world - what they portray, what they choose to show of Indonesia really matters. You sit in Canberra or Washington DC and you turn on your camera - your TV, I'm sorry - all you see is coverage of terrorist bombings. You don't see much of diverse Indonesia. You don't see coverage of the third largest democracy in the largest Muslim world on TV.

JENNY BROCKIE: But that's the nature of news, isn't it? Isn't news about problems?

THANG NGUYEN: Bad news sells. Bad news sells. Intelligent people will think for themselves, they will not rely on the TV to tell them what to think but unfortunately how many Australians or Americans for that matter... ..have that capacity to distinguish what is bad news from good news.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yes. Mr Sadjanan, yes, you. Former ambassador to Australia. What do you have to say about this?

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA: Well, being somebody who really has to gather all the opinion and try to articulate these opinions into strengthening relations between countries - that is my profession - I think when people oversimplify, simplify overly a certain issue, and react on this very simple mind of opinion, of reason, then that creates problems to people like us. Say, for instance, at the time when you remember probably in 2001 when hundreds of illegal migrants, they was transported by Indonesian ship. The reaction that is being made by the Australian Government at the time was that the Indonesian Government have to be held responsible for this. And then this, I think it is oversimplification of a response by somebody at the very high level of government official. I think this kind of attitude in many cases creates difficulty for people like us.

JENNY BROCKIE: Do you feel that's patronising sometimes?

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Oh, well, unfortunately that's the fact. So saying that the Indonesian Government have to be held responsible for this case - I think this for the ordinary people in Indonesia is kind of accusations, baseless accusations. Because those people are not even Indonesian nationals and we do not know where they come from but why should we be held accountable for this while the fact is that those people are trying to get into Australia and we are the victim of the situations. Being the victim at the time when we feel we are the victim and at the time we are feeling as the victim, we are accused as being irresponsible and then it's hard for people like us to, you know, to redress the situations.

JENNY BROCKIE: Mmm. Hermawan, you wanted to say something. Now, you're a marketing consultant here. I'm interested from a marketing point of view what you think about all of this.

HERMAWAN KARTAJAYA, MARKETING CONSULTANT: Yeah, OK, in marketing, we believe that it is very often that perception is much more important than reality. But, you know, it is not fair actually. Sorry - Australia with 16 million to 20 million population, they are called continent and Indonesia with 220 million population, we are archipelago with 17,000 islands in the low tide and maybe 15,000 islands in the high tide, but we are called only country. So there is a simplification about us, right? So maybe Australians, they have the perception that Indonesia is very simple because we are called 'country' so everywhere is the same, that's why they simplify the thing.

JENNY BROCKIE: Endi, you wanted to say something. Editor of the 'Jakarta Post'. What do you think?

ENDI BAYUNI, EDITOR, JAKARTA POST: I feel this is turning into bashing the Australian media or it sounds like it. But I think that Hermawan was right that perception is formed by the media and in that way I think the media is responsible for forming public opinions. You know, trying to play the devil's advocate, I think the reverse is also true - that Indonesian media is not helping to, is not giving a true picture of Australia nowadays. Australia is now a very multiethnic society but yet I think in the public's perception, Australia is still very much white man's country, you know, European traditions, values and prejudices and this is the way in which we see - I'm not talking about us here because we know better - but the public in general, they see Australia -

JENNY BROCKIE: You're saying it cuts both ways.

ENDI BAYUNI: Especially in the wake of 9/11, the Bali bombing, the war on terrorism, and Indonesians see Australia as, you know, very much a white man's nation with all its, you know, so-called hidden agenda.

DESI ANWAR: Sorry, Jenny, if I can go back to the poll that you mentioned and if this poll is pretty accurate and if most Australians think that Indonesia is full of extremist terrorists about to blow up Australians and that, you know, Bali should be part of Australia and not part of Indonesia, then I think it's really sad in a way because, I mean, if the polling is accurate -

JENNY BROCKIE: It's a small poll. It's a small poll.

DESI ANWAR: If that is true, then I think Australians are missing out on, you know - just Indonesia is so much bigger than Bali, it's so much more. There's so many things that they can actually - you know, if they like surfing, it's not just in Bali, you can go to Nias, you can go to Mentawai and you can go to Banda. And so, in a way, I think it's the Australian media, you know, they are - I want to go back to the media. The media is actually doing the Australians a disservice because focusing on or basically pandering to sort of emotional outbursts, for example, or just focusing on the hopefully the vocal minorities that are sort of out to bash Indonesia is actually not doing Australians themselves any good because they are projecting themselves in a negative way, not just to Indonesia, but to the rest of the world. And I think it's a pity.

JENNY BROCKIE: Well, for many Australians, one of the strongest images to come out of your country recently was of Schapelle Corby, that Schapelle Corby drug trial, the woman who was convicted on drug charges and there've also been others since, other Australians, the Bali Nine, now facing possible death sentences, and Australian model Michelle Leslie, who is now also facing drug charges. Alpha, what do you think of the way Australia has reacted to those drug cases?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Corby?

JENNY BROCKIE: All of them, but Corby in particular, because it was the strongest.

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Yeah, I think it's - I could say excessive. I think, um, it was overreaction and it was also, again, situated by the media. And in Corby's case, you know, it was so excessive. It was focusing only on that and then emphasising the difference between Abu Bakar Bashir's treatment and Corby's treatment. That is legal matters, legal matters.

JENNY BROCKIE: And you think that was OK? I mean, Australians did think that was an extraordinary difference between the sentence that Abu Bakar Bashir got and that Schapelle Corby got. You did not think that was unusual?

WIMAR WITOELAR: They're apples and oranges. You cannot compare them. First of all, as a parent, I would be greatly distressed if my daughter, if I had a daughter, be in a spot like that and it's a personal tragedy. You should not link that, I think, to a case of bilateral relations or a judgment of the Indonesian judicial system but, if you do so, you should compare the Corby case to other people involved in drugs.

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Can I pick up your point? I tend to see that this is a matter of law enforcement that is being judged by emotions, a matter of implementations of law that is being judged by the perceptions of somebody who is young and innocent and things and that this influenced the articulations of the very strong judgment into our judicial system as if we did not do anything good in terms of implementing our own law. This is, I think, once again, oversimplification of things, of matters. That placing an issue of law enforcement in the context of defending somebody who is young, innocent, pretty and things like that and then is being cooked up by the media and this is gone wrong. Once again, this is a matter of implementations of law enforcement.

JENNY BROCKIE: There was some extreme reaction in Australia to the Schapelle Corby case in particular and especially on talkback radio in Australia. I'd like to play you something that was broadcast on a popular Sydney radio station in May this year about that case.

MALCOLM T ELLIOTT, 2GB: The judges don’t even speak English, mate, they’re straight out of the trees if you excuse my expression.

CALLER: Don’t you think that disrespects the whole of our neighbouring nation?

MALCOLM: I have total disrespect for our neighbouring nation my friend. Total disrespect. And then we get this joke of a trial, and it’s nothing more than a joke. An absolute joke the way they sit there. And they do look like the three wise monkeys, I’ll say it. They don’t speak English, they read books, they don’t listen to her. They show us absolutely no respect those judges.

JENNY BROCKIE: Angelina, you wanted to say something.

ANGELINA SONDAKH: Yes. This is actually what we have talked about in the young leaders' discussion - you know, me and Nursanita - about how the media comparing our judges to the monkey and that it comes to our sensitivities. I mean, I believe that it's not the majority of the people in Australia think or voice but, in a matter of this case, I think media plays an important role in making the relationship to the betterment, not to damage the relationship to more worse.

JENNY BROCKIE: I should point out a lot of Australians were very offended by that as well when it was broadcast. Thang, you described in an online column, I think, about this case, you described the Australian reaction as being 'xenophobic'.

THANG NGUYEN: Yeah, right. And it reflects a certain attitude of racism which still remains in Australian society today. I think it's one thing to portray - for the media to pick on this image of a true-blue, beautiful woman to gain the sympathy from the Australian public, that's one thing. But I think it's beyond that, it's beyond the media playing that beautiful-woman-true-blue card. What I looked at in that article was why is it that there are 54 Australian criminals who face drug charges, including death penalty - death, not 20 years - why don't they get the same - why didn't they get the same attention from the public as well as the Australian Government that Corby did? For your information, she wrote a letter to Prime Minister Howard, who responded that, "Rest assured that I will take a personal interest in your case." Right?

JENNY BROCKIE: So why aren't the others getting attention? Why don't you think the others are getting any attention?

THANG NGUYEN: Because, guess what? Their last names are like mine - N-G-U-Y-E-N-, T-R-A-N, L-E-E, not Schapelle, not Corby.

JENNY BROCKIE: Do other people agree with what Thang is saying?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Well, the burden is on disproving his impression because it's a fact that so many dozens of Australians are facing death penalty and severe penalties in other South-East Asian cities and they are not of European origin so there has to be, you know, something disproved.

JENNY BROCKIE: So do you think Australia is racist?

DESI ANWAR: Jenny, if we read the articles in the newspapers, if we watch the programs or if we listen to that kind of radio broadcast, of course then we will think that Australians don't like us, they're racist and basically, you know, they don't like to be neighbours with us. But how true is that in real life? I mean, because we mustn't fall into that trap of stereotyping like all Australians are like that. Like you said, a lot of Australians were offended by statements that came out of that interview. So, I mean, let's be careful here -

JENNY BROCKIE: Not to generalise too much.

DESI ANWAR: Not to generalise or throwing petrol into the fire.

THANG NGUYEN: Don't get me wrong. I did not say in the article that the whole Australian society is racist. I'm saying through the reaction from the Australian public and the support from the Government, there is a reflection of certain racist attitudes that still maintain or remain in the society. I'm not saying the rest of Australia is racist, alright?

DESI ANWAR: No, but that kind of news coverage, or that kind of attitude will portray Australia as racist.

THANG NGUYEN: Excuse me. Have you heard of a former minister by the name Arthur Calwell? And you know what he said? "Two Wongs don't make a white." Here is a minister who said that.

DESI ANWAR: Well, I think that's more of a reflection on the minister.

THANG NGUYEN: Have you heard of a magazine called the 'Bulletin' in Australia? Only a few dozen years ago, the masthead of it still said "Australia for the white man". Now, if that is not racism, then tell me what it is.

JENNY BROCKIE: So that still bites for people in Indonesia?

DITA SARI: The policy, the immigrant policy of the Australian Government. I went to Australia in the year of 2002 and we had a picket line in front of the Villawood Detention Centre. It's an immigrant detention centre. And we saw that they were being treated very badly, children and mothers and old people. They're coming from Vietnam, they're coming from Bangladesh. They are poor people. They're not white. They're brown, they're yellow, but they're not white. And I saw how many of the Aborigines, for instance, in Australia are also very poor and how the policy of the Government treating them. I think this kind of public policy made by the Government affects the people, affects how the people look at the non-white Australians or the non-white people who live in Australia. So I don't say that Australians are racist, but the policy -

THANG NGUYEN: Sure, that's the reason why they see Corby as an innocent victim and they don't see other Australian citizens of Asian or Latin American descent as innocent. Maybe, maybe. We don't know, alright? They are saying the Indonesian judges are not being fair, the legal system here sucks. Now, let me tell you, the Indonesian judges gave Corby a very fair go. First, there was not enough witnesses. The High Court of Bali then decided to give her a second chance to bring witnesses to Bali to testify in her defence. Guess who showed up? One Indonesian law professor who defended her. Where were the Australian witnesses? If that's not fair, what is? You tell me that the first trial was unfair. I give you another one. Prove it.

CHUSNUL MAR’IYAH: Jenny?

JENNY BROCKIE: Yes.

CHUSNUL MAR’IYAH: I think we have to go back again. There are some differences between the people-to-people relations because I know there's still a lot of Australians that have, like, empathy to Indonesia, they love Indonesia, they teach Indonesian language there. So going back again to item of racism, I don't want Indonesia also to become racist to Australia but again we don't know much also about the Australian society. You know, we don't have lot of, like, Indonesian people who study in Australia, they don't study Australian, they study Indonesian, something like that. But in Australia we have so many Indonesianists there that learn about Indonesia. But at the same time I think we have to portray the whole of the issue on the table and we have to discuss. For example, the policy of the Government in Canberra. They have good intention to help eastern Indonesia for the development. They give lot of aids there. But if there is no communication between Canberra and Jakarta, what happens? The good intention of Australia, we don't receive as good intention. This is the idea - that Australia would like to disintegrate Indonesia. So there is a lot of thing from the policy point of view coming from Jakarta, Canberra and also the people to people. And I think also because I'm teaching Australian in the University of Indonesia, I feel so sad when Australian Government close their library in Jakarta, in Indonesian Embassy. You want Indonesia to understand about Australia but there is no access to information about Australia in Jakarta. So it's the whole lot of things that we have to learn each other.

JENNY BROCKIE: And I know we have a lot of students here in your yellow uniforms from the University of Indonesia and you all study Australia, don't you? You all study Australian politics, yeah? What are you learning about our country?

STUDENT: Desert. Large continent. Empty. 19 million people living there.

STUDENT 2: About the kind of state, about the political system in Australia, about the habits of Australians and a lot of more we study about Australia. But we have no access to know Australia more because the reason that the library in the embassy is closed since the Bali bombing.

STUDENT 3: The first impression I get from Australia is Australia is an arrogant country. Why? Because they try to bully Asia Pacific region.

JENNY BROCKIE: They try to bully Asian Pacific nations?

STUDENT 3: They claim themself as a representative of a Western country in the Asia Pacific. So there is two policies of Howard I think is so arrogant. The first - he claims himself as the deputy sheriff of United States in 1999 and, in 2002, he...he made a policy about the pre-emptive strike as a legal right to self-defence.

PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD, “SUNDAY” 2002: I mean, it stands to reason that if you believed that somebody was going to launch an attack against your country - either of the conventional kind or of the terrorist kind - and you had the capacity to stop it, and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use it.

JENNY BROCKIE: So that had a big impact on you? That comment about a pre-emptive strike had a big impact on you? And others here? Yes?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Yeah, of course. We were scared stiff, yeah.

JENNY BROCKIE: You are scared stiff?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Yeah. Because we could get struck any moment just because somebody is suspicious. It's just like the guy on the London subway who got shot because he was carrying a rucksack.

JENNY BROCKIE: Well, those -

MAN: The Australian support of the Iraq war also counts as a defining -

JENNY BROCKIE: Well, let's get on to that. We'll get on to that in a minute. Because the pre-emptive strike issue is an interesting one and this issue of extremism comes up again and again. And the other very strong images, I think, that have had a big effect on Australians in recent times have been of the Bali bombingsWHERE 88 Australians lost their lives three years ago as well as obviously very many Indonesians and the Australian Embassy bombing here in Jakarta just a year ago. Do you understand Australia's fears of extremism? Can you understand that fear?

WIMAR WITOELAR: We are just as afraid of those extremists as Australians are. I wrote an article. I said, "When your dog has fleas, don't think that the dog is enjoying those fleas." Don't think we like having terrorists. We are scared stiff. We've had to deal with them since I was 10 years old, which means 50 years ago for your information. We've always been bothered by terrorism and we cannot get rid of them. So we know what terror is, we know what fear is and we hate them, we despise them. The Muslim majority is against terrorism. And to be thought of that we are comfortable with these lies, these fleas, these terrorists - I feel sympathy for the Australian people because they are good people, they're kind people, educated, but how come some of them are just so simplistic?

JENNY BROCKIE: Yenny, you were nodding your head then.

YENNY WAHID: Yeah. Like Wimar just said - Wimar put it succinctly - but we are as fearful of the threat of terrorism here in our own backyards as any other countries, I guess. And the fact that, like Dita said, us being a victim but also seen as being the aggressor really puts us off, you know? You know, instead of giving us any help in dealing with terrorism, we're getting all this flak about having them here. I mean, we don't choose to have these people here. They're just, they're here.

JENNY BROCKIE: Nursanita, is it a legitimate fear to have, do you think?

NURSANITA NASUTION, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Yes, you are afraid about the terrorism and I think that all the people in the world are against that. But I am very sad if terrorism is tied to the Muslims. You know, this is not true because, you know, in Indonesia, we are...most of us are Muslims but we are moderates. But I think that Islam is not the same is terrorism. If there is terrorism, I think that's because they act as the result of the international policy - maybe international policy to the Muslims so they don't like that so they act like that. But my party, the Prosperity and Justice Party, sometimes we act and make demonstrations and demonstration I think is part of the democracy. So I think that - I heard that this evening that the Prime Minister of the Australia said he wants revisions about the regulation of terrorism. I hope that Australia not be panic and change the regulations and don't obey about the human rights and also the democracy.

WIMAR WITOELAR: Sorry, sorry, my son asked me specifically to say this to the forum. Yesterday we went to this book store, a great big bookstore, I won't say the name. Now, it's almost fasting time so there's a big section of Muslim books. About 50% to 60% of the Muslim books all had a theme of how to fight terror, how to curtail terror, we are against terror. So the Muslim community is fighting very hard against terrorism. Yenny's institute, the Wahid Institute, also is doing that. So we are doing our best but it's an uphill battle. It's no help if we are accused of helping the terrorists.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yeah and it's interesting too because I mean Islamic extremists may be a minority but when they speak out they certainly have a big impact. And I'd like you to have a look at this report from SBS in Australia recently which includes an interview with one of the men who was convicted of the Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta. Have a look at this.

SBS NEWSREEL:

Amidst the gangsters, corruptors and drug dealers, the terrorism trials attract very little interest. Iwan Darmawan, alias Rois, is said to be the one who selected the suicide bomber for the embassy attack.

REPORTER, (Translation): I read that you said that you regret there were no Australian victims.

ROIS, (Translation): That’s not what I regret, I regret that the victims were Muslim and Indonesian. That’s what I regret.

REPORTER, (Translation): But as I asked, do you hate Australians?

ROIS, (Translation): I don’t hate Australians. I hate people anywhere who oppress Islamic people. I don’t hate Australians, but anyone who oppresses Muslims.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ahmad Syafi'i Ma'arif, what do you think of those views when you see those views?

AHMAD SYAFI’I MA’ARIF, MUSLIM LEADER: I think if we talk about terrorisms, we have to make a clear distinction. There are at least three types of terrorism - individual, groups and state-structured terrorism. I think what Mr Bush and also Israel have made is some kind of state terrorism. Therefore -

JENNY BROCKIE: Do you understand those views? I mean, do you support those views?

AHMAD SYAFI’I MA’ARIF: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think, if you talk about terror, we are on the same boat - we have to hunt the terrorists, all kind of terrorism, to the end of the journey. So I have made a very strong statement about this many times - terrorism is the real enemy of humanity.

DESI ANWAR: Jenny, the man behind the bars is not representative of Muslims. He is a criminal. That's why he's behind bars. For the rest of us, when the Bali bombing happened, when the Australian Embassy bombing happened, when 9/11 happened, we were devastated, we were very, very - I mean, the whole thing was very, very tragic and we were extremely sorry and more so because of it happening to our guests, you know, these are the guests of Indonesia. And if it happens, say for example - we've seen so many tragedies in Indonesia, so many conflicts, so many bombings that they hardly make headlines any more but when it happened to the Australians in Bali and also the attempt at the Embassy, we in the media made it very sure that we showed our sympathy and we were extremely sorry. And that's all in sincerity because we are as disgusted, you know, when we see violence, when we see murders, when we see senseless killings. I mean, we are just as terrified of terrorism as anybody else.

JENNY BROCKIE: Do you think Muslim leaders in Indonesia have been strong enough in their condemnation of those acts of violence? Syafi'i, yes.

AHMAD SYAFI’I MA’ARIF: This is the problem. OK, we have made very strong statement many times to condemn strongly all kinds of terrorism.

JENNY BROCKIE: You don't hear a lot of that in Australia.

CHUSNUL MAR’IYAH: Because the media is never interested in the moderate people. They just like to have the radical, very few unspoken. That's the problem, the problem I think is why.

DITA SARI: Why the perception is built that way? Why the opinion is built that way by the media and also by the authority? I think because the foreign policy, the Australian foreign policy needs some good ground...

JENNY BROCKIE: Just let her finish.

DITA SARI: ..needs some strong justification so that the kind of foreign policy that is chosen by Howard, by the authority of the Australians, is justified by the people. So they -

JENNY BROCKIE: Are you talking about Iraq and Afghanistan? What are you talking about?

DITA SARI; Foreign policy. And also local policy. So this kind of perception is built so the Australian people can be convinced that we need less immigrants, we need more troops sending to Iraq, we need more military budget so that more troops will be sending to Iraq.

JENNY BROCKIE: Very quickly. We are going to have to wrap up.

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR: You Australian got used to Suharto. When Suharto here, Australian is very polite to Indonesia because Suharto is strong. And you need people like that in Indonesia now. It's impossible.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ah. You need Suharto now?

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR: No, no, no. What you expect - like what you said.

JENNY BROCKIE: We need Suharto?

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR: You expect condemnation, strong condemnation. You need Suharto. We haven't got Suharto anymore.

JENNY BROCKIE: A diplomat here. Yes, A diplomat's voice.

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Let's pick up a few points being made by my colleague, Dita. I think she pointed out very rightly in saying that the foreign policy that is being made by the Australian Government should be formulated in such a way that it's also sensitive to its neighbours, like us, like Indonesia, for instance. It's not only for the purpose of satisfying their constituents, that government like Prime Minister Howard that have to say something -

JENNY BROCKIE: And you don't think it is? You don't think that policy is formulated that way?

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Well, rather than considering the relations between the two countries, I think they consider giving more emphasis on how to satisfy their constituents and -

JENNY BROCKIE: Harry, you have to stop. You have to stop! Just let him finish.

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: But I have seen so far, within this last few years, I thought there had been an improvement in the relations between the two countries, at least in the government-to-government level. And where in almost every issues that cropped up in the context of relations between the countries being communicated behind the bar, behind the scene, rather than being said, as we qualify it, as megaphone diplomacy.

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR: I remember in Suharto times - Let me speak. The intelligence of Australia always coming down with our boat. There is our fishermen always come to Australia but they never take action. They just put some intelligence there, they take a note. But now, they just burn our boats!

JENNY BROCKIE: Woah! Woah! Woah!

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Something about future relations between us and them.

JENNY BROCKIE: I'd like to wrap up on that note. Reni, you teach Australian politics and I'm interested in knowing what you think could be done to improve the situation.

RENI SUWARSO, UNIVERSITY LECTURER: Yeah, good question. First, I want to give a comment. I want to be more fair, you know. I agree with all the previous speakers about terrorism. Islam against terrorism, yes. But we should fair to express that all religions right now tend to be more militant - it is also for Islam and also other religions. It is the first point. And the second point is I want to raise issue, the basic issue whether - we are talking about stereotyping, about Australian perceive Indonesia, and how about Indonesia perceive Australia? How many people in Indonesia realise that we have neighbour, Australia is our neighbour. We didn't talk about the extremists, no, no. We just realise whether - do we realise that Australia is our neighbour? How many people? Is it up to 50% of the Indonesian people? I don't think so.

JENNY BROCKIE: OK, so there's not an awareness of that. How can we improve the understanding between the two countries?

WIMAR WITOELAR: More people-to-people contact. When you have people-to-people contact, it's all right. I lived in Geelong for three months, never an unfriendly face. I travel in Melbourne, friendly. Never. I get my nasty moments on radio talkback shows and I get my uncomfortable moments in shows like this but, if you have people-to-people contact, everything's peachy. Australians are great.

JENNY BROCKIE: Final comment, yes.

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: We should have more opportunity. This is to show how we Indonesians do not really understand Australians. We might ask like, "Are you Westerner from the east or easterner from the West?" That expresses that we actually don't really know Australians and we need as Wimar said, people-to-people contact.

DESI ANWAR: Sorry, Jenny, to answer your question, maybe you should have more Australian journalists here in Indonesia. I mean, the fact that Australia is so close, you have so few journalists and mostly if they come here it's because of a particular trial. You know, Indonesia is so huge. There's so many stories to cover and I think Australians, the Australian public is missing out on a lot of great stories. And, trust me, Bali is not the only place for Australians to go on holiday to. You know? So I think it is important for more informed programs about Indonesia. Likewise, I mean, we should have more kind of exchanges, people-to-people. But definitely, I think the media does play a huge role and if the Australian media is only interested in focusing on sensationalist stories and in generating audience or readers' response by printing out emotional and sensationalism story, I think, you know, it's doing a great disservice to the Australian public that is now portrayed as, I wouldn't say arrogant, but simply sort of, in a way, well... ..unsophisticated, I'm sorry to say, with all the kind of, you know, emotional outbursts we're seeing. It's, you know, quite embarrassing.

JENNY BROCKIE: It's a very interesting note to end on. We do have to end, I'm sorry. We are going to have to finish because we are out of time. I would like to thank you all very much for joining me tonight. It's been really interesting to hear your views here in Jakarta. Thank you very, very much for being here. And that is Insight for this special edition from Jakarta.

Taken from Insight Transcripts

Full Article...

Gus Dur calls for clarity on Aceh pact

National figures -- Taufik Kiemas, Akbar Tandjung, Try Sutrisno, Megawati Soekarnoputri, Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid, Wiranto, Hariman Siregar and Wimar Witoelar -- pose for a photograph after a meeting at Gus Dur's residence in Ciganjur, South Jakarta.

The two-hour meeting, also attended by top politicians from a number of political parties, was held after Friday prayers to discuss national issues.

The forum was the third between the top national figures, with the first and second being hosted by former vice president Try Sutrisno and former military chief Gen. (ret.) Wiranto respectively.

Former president Gus Dur said the Friday meeting urged the government to be more transparent in its peace accord with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) that would end nearly 30 years of conflict in the province.

The government should publicly explain everything contained within the agreement before it is signed with GAM on Monday, he added.

"So, the conclusion of our meeting is that the government should be more open about the settlement of the Aceh issue. There should be nothing concealed," Gus Dur told journalists.

"We don't know yet what the memorandum of understanding precisely consists of, while the government will sign it with GAM on Aug. 15."

Gus Dur said the government should again invite lawmakers to explain to them the details of the Aceh truce, before it was signed in Helsinki, Finland.

Earlier this week, House of Representatives leaders gave a major boost to the Aceh peace process during a consultation meeting with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, although they had initially opposed the deal due to the 'internationalization' of the issue.

According to Gus Dur, the figures attending the Friday forum said that during the recent meeting with House leaders, the government had been reluctant to detail the precise contents of the MOU, even though lawmakers had their lent support to the peace deal.

The group also criticized the government in its attempts to resolve issues in troubled Papua province, which they claim has in fact worsened the situation.

The government's handling of the issue had caused the Papuan people to revive their demands for independence from Indonesia, Gus Dur said.

Thousands of people in Papua held rallies on Friday to oppose the implementation of the special autonomy law for the province, in response to the break up of their territory into three provinces.

Courtesy: Jakarta Post

Full Article...

Letter from Banda Aceh

By Laurence Ronan

THIS CITY of 400,000 is in shambles, a third of it completely wiped off the earth, another third under water and mud. Imagine if a wave took out Dorchester, South Boston, Back Bay, and the South End, leaving only a few sticks that were trees and no buildings, just foundations. Well over 100,000 people died here and along the nearby coast.

At the University Hospital all 300 patients and most of the staff drowned or were buried in the mud when the tsunami came. The hospital lost everything -- people, equipment, and buildings. They are still pulling bodies out of the mud.

The hospital director lost his wife and children but showed up the next day to dig out his hospital. Heroic.

We're taking the sickest patients on board our hospital ship Mercy. One of our newest patients is a little boy who was found floating on a board by fisherman two days after the tsunami. He was sent first to a refugee camp, where an uncle found him and told him that his mother and father were dead.

The boy has developed a serious case of ''mud pneumonia" from all the water he swallowed and is now on a respirator fighting for his life.

He is a favorite of the ship's medical team because he represents the struggles and courage of so many of the people here hit by the tsunami. Every person I meet has a similar story. To put this in perspective, our medical team visited a small school in the nearby town of Lamnos yesterday where only 20 of the 120 kids are left.

If I could dream, I'd fix the hospital's pediatric building, truly one of the saddest places I've encountered. It smells of urine, incense, mud, and human excrement. It's dirty and filled with flies and mosquitoes. There are no toys for the children.

It, too, went under the giant wave and the mud that came next. Nearly all of its patients were lost in the tsunami. A few survivors are here, huddled in cribs or cots in corners throughout the building with their parents or siblings camped beside them. Many of the kids are suffering from ''mud pneumonia," having been overwhelmed by the tsunami; they swallowed and aspirated seawater and mud. These children are slowly dying, daily growing thinner and breathing more heavily.

One child sits outside with the cats and dogs, his 12-year-old sister beside him. They lost their parents and four brothers in the flood. Terribly devoted to one another, they share one plate of food between them and make sure each carefully has his or her proper share.

Most of the parents are in shock. Many live in the displaced persons camps. All have lost someone and hope for their return. The great horror of the tsunami is not knowing what happened to a loved one.

Stressed, a mother delivers prematurely, a 30-week-old preemie, 4 pounds. We likely would save this child in Boston; here, she dies slowly, quietly, in front of our eyes.

The children are listless and won't play. They don't cry. And they don't respond to our offers of beanie babies.

Our psychiatrist says the kids and their parents are depressed and suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome. We had the children do crayon drawings -- unbelievable what they remember: the massive wave, lifeless bodies.

I had brought my camera but really can't bear to photograph them because what is in front of me is so awesome, sad, and overwhelming. Indeed, at times I can't even muster my professional skills in the face of this.

Our nurses staff the hospital during the day to give the on-site nurses -- local and international -- a break. The Belgian nurse volunteers are real heroes, but they, too, look and act exhausted and defeated; they've been here as volunteers for weeks now, working without a break.

When we go back to Boston we'll begin to think how we can help to rebuild the medical center. We'll start with one small wing of the hospital for TB and pulmonary patients because rebuilding the pulmonary disease ward is a doable project with huge consequences for people's immediate and long-term health. And the Indonesian medical leadership gave this to us as their priority. They'll need an X-ray machine, TB equipment, beds, air conditioners, and a laboratory.

Most of all they'll need the aid the world promised them back in January before the spotlight of attention turned away.

(*) Dr. Laurence Ronan is aboard the hospital ship USNS Mercy off Banda Aceh with a 42-person medical team from the Massachusetts General Hospital organized by Project Hope.

Courtesy: Boston News

Full Article...

GAM, the Indonesian Military and Mobil Oil in Present History of Aceh

By Saifullah Hayati Nur *

REGARDLESS of the 1998 discovery, many Acehnese associate the Mobil Oil's presence in Aceh with the beginning of tension between the central government and Acehnese rebels. Indonesian President Suharto's emphasis on economic development entailed attracting foreign direct investment to Aceh, a task simplified by Mobil Oil Indonesia (MOI)'s discovery of vast quantities of oil and natural gas in the province in 1971. This discovery led to the construction of a vast industrial enclave near the town of Lhok Seumawe in North Aceh.

By 1977, the Lhok Seumawe Industrial Zone (ZILS) not only housed Mobil Oil operations, but also accommodated PT Arun, a liquefied natural gas (LNG) refinery jointly owned by Mobil Oil, the Indonesian national gas company Pertamina, and Japanese investors. Several Indonesian fertilizer companies also joined Mobil Oil and PT Arun in the ZILS.

While the development of the ZILS should have translated into profit for the Acehnese people, the opposite proved to be true. Under the deal struck between the Suharto government and MOI, only 5% of the revenue from the ZILS went to the Acehnese provincial government. Consequently, the Acehnese received almost nothing from the ZILS except considerable environmental degradation and disruptions in their traditional ways of earning income.

Environmental Problem

The formation of the Lhok Seumawe Industrial Zone (ZILS) has brought the Acehnese people more harm than good. A key detriment of the ZILS has been large-scale pollution of both land and water. For example, in mid-1991, 60 percent of Acehnese fishermen were discovered to be living below the poverty line. Further investigation revealed that these conditions were attributable to the decreasing size of fish catches due to the dumping of the ZILS' industrial pollution into the local waters. One case documenting this pollution involved an underground pipeline carrying waste from the PT. Iskandar Muda fertilizer factory to the sea. The pipeline "fractured at its seaward end, discharging viscous yellow liquid onto the shore and into the surrounding waters". Before the fracture, local residents had no idea that the pipeline ran so close to their homes. In 1991, Mobil Oil Indonesia (MOI)'s chemical waste was also deemed responsible for water pollution: MOI had been discovered discharging industrial waste into public drainage channels, an act that led to the destruction of dozens of hectares of shrimp and fish ponds owned by 240 Acehnese farmers.

Acehnese have also suffered as a result of airborne pollution produced in the ZILS. The fertilizer factories located in the ZILS were known to regularly leak noxious ammonia gas into the atmosphere, causing hundreds of Acehnese villagers to seek treatment for respiratory ailments. The head of the ASEAN Aceh Fertilizer Clinic, located within the ZILS, reported in 1992 that 68 percent of children treated at the facility had contracted respiratory diseases-an alarming figure. The Indonesian Legal Aid Institute and the Indonesian Environmental Forum attempted to sue the ZILS companies on behalf of the afflicted Acehnese families; however, New Order repression and the corrupt Indonesian legal system precluded any meaningful actions from being taken. Indonesian environmental NGOs, while noble in intent, have unfortunately had neither the material and human resources nor the power base to affect real change.

Forced Land Appropriation and Migration/Overpopulation Difficulties The development of the ZILS necessitated the forced appropriation of land, which in turn demanded the forced relocation of Acehnese families. Many of the relocated families have had considerable difficulty adjusting to their new environments and finding meaningful employment in their new areas. For example, when the ASEAN Aceh Fertilizer plant was constructed within the ZILS, over 400 families had to be resettled in another part of Aceh. This resettlement site ultimately ended up deserted: either the villagers could not adjust to a new lifestyle, or they realized that new land promised to them by the government was not to be delivered.

Some resettled Acehnese denied their traditional ways of earning a living attempted to find work with the newly installed companies located within the ZILS. However, these jobs have tended to be low-skill temporary positions. Jobs requiring greater skills and training have often been filled by migrants from outside of Aceh, primarily from the island of Java. In the first years of ZILS development, the lure of employment brought thousands of migrants to North Aceh, straining the area's ability to accommodate the population increase. Population figures from the 1970s and 1980s demonstrate the magnitude of this increase: between 1974 and 1987, the population of North Aceh (where the ZILS is located) increased by almost 50 percent. In the three subdistricts at the center of the ZILS, population increased by 300 percent during the same period. This massive inflow of migrants has not only taxed the provinces already-deficient village infrastructure (water supply, power supply, sanitation, etc.), but has also encouraged inter-ethnic tension between native Acehnese and the "outside" ethnic groups competing for jobs within the zone.

GAM: The Aceh Free Movement

This inequitable distribution of wealth played a key role in instigating the formation of the GAM in 1976. The GAM envisions an Aceh free to become an independent, oil-rich Muslim sultanate like Brunei Darussalam and interprets the actions of the Indonesian government to be "neo-colonialist". These ideas were initially propagated by Hasan Di Tiro, an Acehnese exile living in Sweden. Hasan's mandate to lead GAM stems from his direct descent from Teuku Cik Di Tiro, a renowned hero of Aceh's fight against the Dutch in the Aceh War (1873-1913) (Jakarta Post, 2001). While Hasan had previously belonged to Darul Islam, an insurgency movement devoted to transforming Indonesia into a Muslim state, the Free Aceh Movement seemed primarily motivated by the desire to divert oil profits away from the central government and towards the Acehnese people.

GAM's first attempts at subverting the New Order regime were quickly suppressed by the Indonesian military in the late 1970s; however, the guerrillas gained confidence and professionalism following their covert training by Libyan paramilitaries in the mid-1980s. In the late-1980s GAM launched several effective maneuvers against Indonesian military installations in Aceh. Though GAM blamed many problems in Aceh on the strong presence of Mobil Oil Indonesia (MOI) in the ZILS, the corporation's operations were not targeted. (This may be attributed to MOI's hiring of Indonesian military as security guards at the plant's perimeter).

The GAM attacks simultaneously infuriated the New Order regime in Jakarta and worried Mobil Oil representatives in Aceh. As a result, the Indonesian government essentially declared martial law in Aceh, labeling the province a Military Operations Area (Daerah Operasi Militer, or DOM) and launching Operation Red Net; a brutal military campaign aimed at eradicating GAM separatists from Aceh. The declaration of martial law ushered an unprecedented wave of terror into Aceh: Acehnese citizens were intimidated and arbitrarily arrested, tortured, raped, and murdered as the Indonesian army carried out its strategy of "shock therapy" to rid the province of insurgents. Houses were systematically burned to the ground and indigenous Acehnese were forced to form counter-militias to the GAM; joining a counter-militia often entailed beating and torturing members of one's own family. The military's human rights abuses under the DOM trickled off around 1993; however, international human rights and democracy groups regularly reported abuses from 1993 onwards.

In 1998, then-Chief of the Indonesian Armed Forces General Wiranto visited Aceh to officially declare martial law (DOM) over in the province. The euphoria surrounding this announcement was short-lived, as fighting between the GAM and the TNI appeared to increase, rather than decrease, following the announcement. Many have speculated that this increase in fighting did not come from GAM rebels, but from rogue elements hired by the TNI to instigate trouble. The province's appearing unsafe provided the justification for continued TNI presence in the area.

The democratic election of Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid, or "Gus Dur" as he is familiarly called, promised reform for the central government's Aceh policy. Laws aimed at decentralizing greater political, economic, and cultural powers to the provinces led some to believe that the conflict between GAM and the central government would eventually be resolved in a peaceful manner. However, these laws have proven particularly difficult to implement and the majority of Acehnese have no faith in the central government that has fed them so many lies in the past. Consequently, the majority of Acehnese people favor independence and have demanded an East Timor-style referendum be conducted in the province. These demands have further exacerbated tensions between GAM and the central government.

Indonesian Economy or Acehnese Freedom?

Exxon Mobil's halt in production has, by default, crippled the operations of PT. Arun, and four Indonesian fertilizer firms who were reliant on Exxon Mobil's fuel. This has spelled out even more trouble for Indonesia's already ailing economy. PT. Arun has supplied liquefied natural gas (LNG) to nations like South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan uninterrupted since 1971; however, the political strife in Aceh has led the East Asian nations to seek LNG supplies from alternative sources in Malaysia, Australia, and Qatar. Concerned with this development, Indonesian Foreign Minister Alwi Shihab met with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in Washington. Shihab seemed confident after the meeting that the US would support the efforts of the Indonesian police (through reinstated IMET training?) to protect American business interests and maintain the territorial integrity of Indonesia. Nothing more has been forthcoming on US involvement in this issue.

Meanwhile, Pertamina's attempts to convince Exxon Mobil to return to Aceh have been consistently undermined by outbreaks of violence around the oil fields. On March 20, a helicopter carrying Indonesian Minister of Mines and Energy Purnomo Yusgiantoro was shot at during a visit to the PT. Arun site. Two days later, more gunfire was again reported near the field. GAM denied responsibility for both incidents, blaming "rogue elements" in the province. In response to these incidents, representatives of the Indonesian central government and GAM met briefly in Banda Aceh, agreeing to establish two "peace zones" within the province from March 22-April 3. The peace zones were Bireuen and North Aceh, where Exxon Mobil's operations happen to be located.

On March 23, Exxon Mobil hinted that the company might declare force majeure on its oil and natural gas contracts, a declaration PT. Arun had already toyed with the week before. Pertamina received this news with considerable annoyance, inferring that if Exxon Mobil did not resume operations in Aceh, Pertamina would place their own employees in charge. Exxon Mobil retracted their force majeure statement the next day, but gave no indication as to when they would resume operations at Lhokseumawe. President Wahid, with his usual tact and political savvy, publicly intimated that Exxon Mobil had not ceased production because of security concerns, but rather to negotiate a more lucrative contract with the Indonesian government. Wahid's statement left Pertamina head Baihaki Hakim scrambling for damage control. Baihaki told members of the press that President Wahid had clearly been "misled".

On March 24, Indonesian Vice President Megawati Sukarnoputri met with several high-ranking TNI generals to confer about a "limited military operation" in Aceh. This initial meeting was followed by a second, unscheduled meeting held between Megawati and the generals on April 3. At this meeting, the TNI encouraged Megawati to persuade President Wahid to sign a presidential decree (Inpres 4/2001) declaring that "comprehensive measures" should be used to stop the violence in Aceh.

With the "peace zone" agreement rendered ineffective April 4, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Robert Gelbard arrived in Banda Aceh on April 7 to meet with members of GAM. At the meeting, GAM offered to protect Exxon Mobil's operations for the same amount that the corporation pays yearly to Brimob: 5 billion rupiah. The talks ended inconclusively, rendered even more ineffective when a grenade exploded in PT Arun's gas field two days later. The grenade sparked a huge blaze in the field that took over ten hours to extinguish. After a cursory investigation, an Exxon Mobil team determined that the fire was not started by the grenade, but rather by a "mechanical event" that followed a power interruption at the refinery.

Meanwhile, President Wahid waffled on signing Inpres 4/2001, claiming that Aceh-Jakarta relations would be better served by involving an international third-party mediator. However, on April 12 Defense Minister Mahfud MD announced that Wahid had indeed signed the decree, allowing the military and police to restore law and order to Aceh. Wahid assured the general public that "we will not target the wrong people". Nevertheless, several Acehnese protestors gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta demanding that the Inpres be rescinded. These sentiments were echoed by H. Abdullah Puteh, Aceh's governor.

On April 17, Pertamina was finally obliged to declare force majeure on their liquefied natural gas contracts from the PT Arun plant, a move that could not have helped the rupiah's precipitous decline against the dollar. Coincidentally, Exxon Mobil President K.T. Koonce made an official visit to Indonesia the same day. Koonce's "diplomatic visit" hoped to show the world that Exxon Mobil still considers Indonesia a country with great growth potential and a "great place to do business". While this visit may have been informed by the troubles in Aceh, more likely Exxon Mobil was more concerned with finalizing some contentious negotiations on building a new refinery in Cepu, on the island of Java. As of this writing, the Exxon Mobil refineries in North Aceh remain closed, and the Indonesian military is poised to re-enter the province to restore the requisite "law and order" to convince Exxon Mobil to resume operations. Hopefully, the new military operations will not hearken back to the last time Mobil Oil expressed concern: in 1989, shortly before the implementation of the DOM.

While elements in Acehnese society have previously demanded independence from Jakarta based on religious and/or cultural issues, the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) appears to have directly sprung from the inequitable economic, social, and environmental conditions engendered by the development of the ZILS-an endeavor spearheaded by the Indonesian central government and Mobil Oil corporation.

Several attempts have been made to breach a peace between the Indonesian central government and the Free Aceh Movement. Several "humanitarian pauses" have been brokered through the Henri Dunant Mediation Centre in Geneva, Switzerland, but these agreements have seldom been maintained in Aceh. Unfortunately, pinpointing the instigators of violence in Aceh often proves problematic. As was mentioned earlier, the TNI has often been accused of instigating trouble in Aceh and blaming it on GAM rebels; this tactic justifies continued TNI presence (and repression) in the province. Sometimes GAM rebels are, in fact, to blame. Yet other violent instances can be traced to rogue criminal elements within Acehnese society who have exploited the tension between GAM and TNI as a "front" for their own mercenary operations.

Whatever the case, the situation in Aceh has remained volatile enough to convince Mobil Oil Indonesia (now Exxon Mobil) to shut down their operations in the ZILS until "security" is restored to the province. The Exxon Mobil shutdown has proven disastrous for the ailing Indonesian economy, and has implications not only for the Wahid government, but also for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan-countries that all rely on Indonesian LNG to make up their energy supplies.

*) Aceh Student of Annamalai University, India.

Full Article...