Wednesday, September 28, 2011

REACTION ON INDONESIAN CHURCH BOMBING 

IBRAHIM ISA'S – FOCUS
WEDNESDAY, 28  September, 2011
------------------------------


REACTION ON INDONESIAN CHURCH BOMBING


--- Terror threat is real
--- Suicide bombing, lip service and the public discourse
--- Police link Solo bomber with Ba'asyir
--- Church bomb shows Indonesian extremism


* * *

TERROR THREAT IS REAL

Editorial:The Jakarta Post | Tue, 09/27/2011

The suicide bomb attack on the Sepenuh Injil Bethel Church (GBIS) in
Surakarta, Central Java, on Sunday shocked the nation. It was the fourth
bomb explosion in Indonesia this year.
The bombing, as in the previous instances, was relatively small in
extent if we observe its impact on the church building and the number of
victims. One person — believed to be the bomber — was killed and 22
others were injured.

. . . . . .

The bombing incidents apparently shows that Indonesia is still
vulnerable to terrorist threats.
Based on past experience, it is reasonable to assume that the explosion
in Surakarta might not be the last. It is extremely urgent for all of
us, not only for the National Police and security agencies, to
anticipate and prevent more attacks in the future.
Should the four incidents turn out to be a prelude for future attacks,
it is not impossible for the next incident(s) to be greater in extent
and scope.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and preliminary investigation by the
Police have indicated a possible connection between Sunday’s suicide
attack and the suicide bomber who attacked the police compound in
Cirebon, West Java, in April this year.
“We have found in the preliminary results of our investigation that the
suicide bomber was a member of the Cirebon terrorist network that
carried out a similar terrorist act in Cirebon,” the President said
after a Cabinet meeting at the Presidential Office in Jakarta on Sunday.
. . . . . . .
Hayat was also on the police’s most-wanted list for his alleged
involvement in the Cirebon bombing and the shooting of police officers
in Palu, Central Sulawesi, earlier this year.
It is good to see that the police have worked fast to identify a
possible connection between the perpetrators of previous attacks and the
violence in Surakarta. Still all those measures have yet to prevent such
attacks from happening — a key success indicator for security
institutions, here and elsewhere.
It is true that preventing terrorist attacks is not an easy task to
perform. It requires close cooperation among all elements of the nation
— not just for the forces of law and order.
All energy and resources, including the House’s deliberation on the
intelligence bill — the legal umbrella needed to prevent terror attacks
— must be focused on creating stability and order in the country.
Otherwise, all the upcoming international events here – and the
country’s security image — will be at stake.

---------------------------------------------------


    Wednesday, September 28, 2011

*SUICIDE BOMBING, LIP SERVICE AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE*

Khairil Azhar, Jakarta | Tue, 09/27/2011

As sympathies and blame are expressed after the suicide bombing at the
GBIS church in Surakarta, Central Java, on Sunday, we are convinced that
the incident will not be the last.
However bitter the experience might be, our minds should now be
accustomed to knowing that both sanity and insanity can still be seen in
front of us.
The bombing must be understood in its proper context, beyond accusations
of cowardice and the lip-service response given by the President.

The people need real guarantees of security instead of promises. The
value of the National Police’s Detachment 88 and other counterterrorism
units are questionable, as they are running behind most of the bombings.
We cannot directly accuse or scapegoat any religious group, since that
might prejudiced. Other cases — in Europe, for instance — have shown us
that violent radicalism is ubiquitous. It is not simply Islamists versus
the world. The existence of hard-liners or opportunist groups must be
taken into account in three steps.

First, campaigns against terrorism have never been a massive thing
culturally. Religious leaders appear on TV screens immediately after
bombings, as do politicians and governmental functionaries. However, one
week later, as the situation calms down, there is another topic under
discussion in the news.
Our present culture is overwhelmed by image. Appearing before a
gathering is more important than doing something great behind the
scenes. Following words with action is not a part of the culture.

Meanwhile, there is no cultural traditional that can penetrate the
zeitgeist, other than intellectuals who espouse anti-terrorist values.
Couldn’t we watch, for instance, a soap opera that makes an effort to
depict a harmonious Indonesian system of values in the name of religious
diversity? Is there an anti-terrorism curriculum at schools? Can an
Indonesian play depicting religious-cultural tragedy be staged for the
public with a guarantee that the playwright and actors not be imprisoned?

Second, political expediency has made real freedom a luxury in
Indonesia. Conflicts are inevitable.
The central government, for example, which has made numerous concessions
for political gain, has allowed some regencies and provinces to enact
religious laws that contradict the Constitution, universal human rights
and other adherents of Islam who follow different schools of thought.

We don’t even know which ministers are anti-radical or anti-terrorist.
The Religious Affairs Minister, for example, has conveyed support for
radicalism and the unfair treatment of non-Muslims or non-mainstream
Muslims since he took office. Just do a Google search and see for yourself.
Expediency has created uncertainty, a fragile situation that gives
terrorists exactly what they are actually looking for. Large numbers can
be mobilized for protests or, more importantly, to secure support.
Opportunist politicians can persuade listeners to vote for them without
realizing the impact of their fiery rhetoric on society as a whole.

And there is a domino effect. A region dominated by a majority can be
misled into creating a tyranny of majority after seeing the success of
another region. The despondent minority will choose to remain calm or
might resist in their own way.
Most obviously, political expediency has constructed or cemented a
principle: Terrorist radicalism survives despite continued efforts to
abolish it. Through careful planning, bombing perpetrators can avoid any
detection of their activities.

Third, the rhetoric and policies of state officials, supported by
pro-government pundits, have confused the public. Instead of making an
official apology for being unable to assure public security, for
instance, they continually search for scapegoats.
The public has been taught to remain silent and act as if there were
nothing to worry about.
It is time for public officials to stop their old approaches to
terrorism. They have to stop the violence soon or chaos will take place
again and again.

For us, the common people let’s tell our children or spouse, if they are
in front of a TV, that killing somebody or destroying something is never
religious. Let’s tell our colleagues at a cafe or work that ruining a
house is much easier than building it.
At least it’s better than the empty rhetoric voiced by political clowns
in the months before the general election.


POLICE LINK SOLO BOMBER WITH BA'ASYIR

The Jakarta Post | Wed, 09/28/2011

National Police spokesman Brig. Gen. I Ketut Yoga Ana on Tuesday said
the suspected suicide bomber at Sepenuh Injil Bethel Church in
Surakarta, Central Java, was linked to hardline cleric Abu Bakar
Ba'asyir of the Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) extremist group.

"The perpetrator was indoctrinated directly by ABB [Abu Bakar
Ba'asyir]," Ketut said Tuesday.

He added that the group that the bomber, Pino Damayanto (aka "Achmad
Yosepa Hayat"), belonged to had grown stronger since they gave their
oath of allegiance to Ba'asyir, who currently serving a prison sentence
for terrorism.

JAT spokesman Abdurrochim Ba'asyir confirmed that Pino had taken part in
prayers held by JAT's Cirebon branch, although the branch has not been
active for the past year.

Meanwhile, a source close to Ba'asyir, Hasyim Abdullah, denied that
Ba'asyir knew Pino.

"Information from the National Police headquarters saying that
[Ba'asyir] knew Syarif is not true," he said Tuesday as reported by
tempointeraktif.com.

"It is not true that [Ba'asyir] swore in Hayat," he added.

----------------------------

Sep 28, 2011

CHURCCH BOMB SHOWS INDONESIAN EXTREMISM
By Gary LaMoshi

BALI - Indonesia was shocked and shamed on Sunday when a suicide bomber
struck a Christian church in Solo, killing at least one congregant and
injuring at least 27 others. But the reaction from President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono has been even more shameful.


On Sunday morning, a still unidentified bomber detonated explosives at
the entrance of Gereja Bethel Injil Sepenuh (Bethel Whole Gospel Church,
GBIS) at the conclusion of the church's second service. Police say it
was a low explosive device spiked with nails and bolts that aimed to
harm people rather than destroy property.


Solo, also known as Surakarta, is considered a wellspring of Javanese
culture and more recently a hub for Islamic extremism. Militant preacher
Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, the jailed spiritual leader of the terrorist Jemaah
Islamiyah movement, and his Ngruki Islamic boarding school, a hub for
planning the 2002 Bali bombing, are based in the town. Solo has also
served as a hideout for a number of radical Islamist fugitives,
including master bomber Noordin Mohammad Top. Several churches were
burned in Central Java earlier this year.


In the face of the latest evidence of growing religious intolerance, in
his elevised speech on Sunday night Yudhoyono used the incident to lobby
for  passage of controversial amendments to Indonesia's anti-terrorism
act. The new provisions would allow police and intelligence authorities
to begi sveillance operations against anyone without evidence, measures
that critics say hearken back to former General Suharto's authoritarian
rule. In

the wake of the Solo bombing, legislators reported a breakthrough on the
bill late Monday night. "There are fears that it is excessive, but we
have to learn from our past,"Yudhoyono said, referring to the
legislation. "I hope that in future life can return to normal and people
won't be afraid or overly worried, as long as we can pull together in
facing down violence."


Not a hate crime

He asserted that the church bombing was linked, not to a wave of
sectarian strife that has intensified in recent months, but to a
national terrorist network. That network was supposedly behind the April
suicide bombing in Cirebon, West Java, of a police station mosque that
injured 30, all but two of them police officers. Yudhoyono declared,
"Crime is crime and terrorism is terrorism. It does not relate to
ethnicity or religion."


Instead of looking away from Indonesia's growing sectarian violence, the
once-popular president would have been better advised to meet it head
on. Even in the highly unlikely event that the Solo bombings have
nothing to do with religious extremism, Yudhoyono nevertheless could
have used the occasion to fight it. Within an hour of hearing of the
bombing, Yudhoyono could have been on a plane to Solo with leaders of
Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, the country's two largest mainstream
mass Muslim organizations, other religious leaders and heads of
political parties to visit the victims of the bombing in the hospital.


After commiserating with the victims, comforting their families, and
encouraging the police to get to the bottom of the crime, these national
leaders could have presented a united front condemning the attack.
Moreover, they could have reiterated they stand by Indonesia's
constitutional protection of religious freedom and assured the public
that the state will take all necessary steps to guarantee it for all
Indonesians regardless of their faith. While Yudhoyono seems content to
ignore the accelerating erosion of that freedom, Indonesia's recent
history shows that religious strife can also serve as a convenient
smokescreen for forces that threaten freedom for all.


Democracy breeds contempt

Since the end of former dictator Suharto's New Order regime, democracy
has provided an opening for greater Islamization of Indonesia, the
country with the world's largest Muslim population. An estimated 88% of
Indonesia's 233 million people follow Islam. That leaves 28 million
Indonesians of other faiths, or as many people as the total populations
of Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, or Australia and New Zealand combined.
Minorities are being arginalized by a combination of violent extremism
and politicians that play

the Muslim card to pander to religious hardliners. As part of the 2005
agreement that ended a decades long civil war in Aceh, Indonesia's
easternmost province was permitted to adopt sharia (Islamic) law.
Indonesia's parliament approved this exception to the national
constitution. However, since 2001, government decentralization measures
have led to some 150 local laws and regulations based on religious
teachings, according to the national newsweekly Tempo. All but a handful
are based on Islamic law, including dress codes, deductions for
charitable donations, and

Koran proficiency requirements for civil service promotion or marriage.


The magazine also reported research by Northern Illinois University
academic Michael Buehler showing that the overwhelming majority of these
religion-based ordinances are proposed by politicians from secular
parties, rather than the Islamic parties. That suggests the regulations
are more about electoral politics than piety.


Church is out

Recently, religious intolerance has been on display in several
high-profile incidents. In Bogor, outside Jakarta, Mayor Diani Budiarto
revoked the building permit for the Yasmin Indonesian Christian Church
and has, since January, defied a Supreme Court order to reinstate it.


Instead, Budiarto ordered the building sealed since April, forcing the
congregation to hold services on the sidewalk outside. That's become a
weekly circus featuring hundreds of worshippers, members of the
extremist Islamic Defenders Front (FPI by its Indonesian acronym)
taunting and threatening the Christians, and dozens of police in riot
gear with water cannons separating FPI demonstrators and worshippers.


Last week, the case completed the final phase of its legal enforcement
process, and the mayor's refusal to comply with the Supreme Court ruling
is due to be handed to Yudhoyono for resolution. Budiarto's Democratic
Party of Struggle (PDI-P) has revoked its support for him due to his
defiance of the law, but he retains support from two parties in
Yudhoyono's ruling
coalition, the Islamist Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and Golkar.


Religious extremism doesn't just threaten violence, and Christians
aren't the only victims. When extremism ratchets up in Indonesia, the
Ahmadiyah
Muslim splinter sect is a favored target. In western Java's Cikeusik
district, local Muslim preachers and political leaders spent a year
stirring hatred against a community of about two dozen Ahmadis, members
of a local family that converted during the 1990s.


On February 6, a mob of thousands from nearby mosques, pesantren (Islamic

boarding schools), and the surrounding area descended on the Ahmadis to
drive them out of the area. As a token contingent of police and military
stood by, the Ahmadis were beaten, their homes ransacked, and three of
them killed. Last month, a local court sentenced 12 people to three to
six month sentences in the attack, including one Ahmadiyah member.


Blame the victims

Indonesia's National Human Right Commission condemned the police for
allowing, if not condoning, the attack. The commission also cited
prosecutors for presenting laughably weak cases against the attackers
and blaming Ahmadiyah followers for provoking the attack by refusing to
leave their homes. Human-rights observers believe the light punishment-
with time already served in pre-trial detention, the longest sentences
amounted to a few days - will encourage more religious extremism.


Earlier this month, seven people died in fighting between Muslims and
Christians in Ambon in Maluku province, provoked by text messages
falsely implicating a Christian in the death of a Muslim in a traffic
accident. The incident evoked the extreme sectarian strife that begin in
late 1999 in the area once known as the Spice Islands.


Over the next two years, about 10,000 people died in sectarian clashes.
Indonesia's military helped fuel the conflict, supplying weapons to both
sides and transporting jihadis from Java to join the fighting.


The military stoked the religious conflict in Ambon and similar fighting
in Central Sulawesi as part of its effort to undermine then President
Abdurrahman Wahid's reformist regime. Wahid sought to curb the power of
the military that had been at the center of Suharto's 32 years of
iron-fisted rule and operated with impunity. After a dozen years of
democracy, the military has moved to the sidelines but still operates
largely without meaningful civilian oversight.


With a current presidential leadership vacuum and a successor not due
until 2014, sectarian strife presents an opportunity for extremists from
all sides to fill the void and manipulate the public. It's up to the
champions of freedom and tolerance, and its primary beneficiaries
including Yudhoyono and than chaos and death, as seen most recently in
Solo on Sunday.


<>

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings)

Posted by at No comments:

ON INDONESIAN CHURCH BOMBING

IBRAHIM ISA'S – FOCUS

Thirsday, September 29, 2011


REACTION ON INDONESIAN CHURCH BOMBING

SUICIDE BOMBING, LIP SERVICE AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE

Khairil Azhar, Jakarta | Tue, 09/27/2011

As sympathies and blame are expressed after the suicide bombing at the GBIS church in Surakarta, Central Java, on Sunday, we are convinced that the incident will not be the last.
However bitter the experience might be, our minds should now be accustomed to knowing that both sanity and insanity can still be seen in front of us.
The bombing must be understood in its proper context, beyond accusations of cowardice and the lip-service response given by the President.

The people need real guarantees of security instead of promises. The value of the National Police’s Detachment 88 and other counterterrorism units are questionable, as they are running behind most of the bombings.
We cannot directly accuse or scapegoat any religious group, since that might prejudiced. Other cases — in Europe, for instance — have shown us that violent radicalism is ubiquitous. It is not simply Islamists versus the world. The existence of hard-liners or opportunist groups must be taken into account in three steps.

First, campaigns against terrorism have never been a massive thing culturally. Religious leaders appear on TV screens immediately after bombings, as do politicians and governmental functionaries. However, one week later, as the situation calms down, there is another topic under discussion in the news.
Our present culture is overwhelmed by image. Appearing before a gathering is more important than doing something great behind the scenes. Following words with action is not a part of the culture.

Meanwhile, there is no cultural traditional that can penetrate the zeitgeist, other than intellectuals who espouse anti-terrorist values.
Couldn’t we watch, for instance, a soap opera that makes an effort to depict a harmonious Indonesian system of values in the name of religious diversity? Is there an anti-terrorism curriculum at schools? Can an Indonesian play depicting religious-cultural tragedy be staged for the public with a guarantee that the playwright and actors not be imprisoned?

Second, political expediency has made real freedom a luxury in Indonesia. Conflicts are inevitable.
The central government, for example, which has made numerous concessions for political gain, has allowed some regencies and provinces to enact religious laws that contradict the Constitution, universal human rights and other adherents of Islam who follow different schools of thought.

We don’t even know which ministers are anti-radical or anti-terrorist. The Religious Affairs Minister, for example, has conveyed support for radicalism and the unfair treatment of non-Muslims or non-mainstream Muslims since he took office. Just do a Google search and see for yourself.
Expediency has created uncertainty, a fragile situation that gives terrorists exactly what they are actually looking for. Large numbers can be mobilized for protests or, more importantly, to secure support. Opportunist politicians can persuade listeners to vote for them without realizing the impact of their fiery rhetoric on society as a whole.

And there is a domino effect. A region dominated by a majority can be misled into creating a tyranny of majority after seeing the success of another region. The despondent minority will choose to remain calm or might resist in their own way.
Most obviously, political expediency has constructed or cemented a principle: Terrorist radicalism survives despite continued efforts to abolish it. Through careful planning, bombing perpetrators can avoid any detection of their activities.

Third, the rhetoric and policies of state officials, supported by pro-government pundits, have confused the public. Instead of making an official apology for being unable to assure public security, for instance, they continually search for scapegoats.
The public has been taught to remain silent and act as if there were nothing to worry about.
It is time for public officials to stop their old approaches to terrorism. They have to stop the violence soon or chaos will take place again and again.

For us, the common people let’s tell our children or spouse, if they are in front of a TV, that killing somebody or destroying something is never religious. Let’s tell our colleagues at a cafe or work that ruining a house is much easier than building it.
At least it’s better than the empty rhetoric voiced by political clowns in the months before the general election.

POLICE LINK SOLO BOMBER WITH BA'ASYIR

The Jakarta Post | Wed, 09/28/2011

National Police spokesman Brig. Gen. I Ketut Yoga Ana on Tuesday said the suspected suicide bomber at Sepenuh Injil Bethel Church in Surakarta, Central Java, was linked to hardline cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir of the Jamaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT) extremist group.

"The perpetrator was indoctrinated directly by ABB [Abu Bakar Ba'asyir]," Ketut said Tuesday.

He added that the group that the bomber, Pino Damayanto (aka "Achmad Yosepa Hayat"), belonged to had grown stronger since they gave their oath of allegiance to Ba'asyir, who currently serving a prison sentence for terrorism.

JAT spokesman Abdurrochim Ba'asyir confirmed that Pino had taken part in prayers held by JAT's Cirebon branch, although the branch has not been active for the past year.

Meanwhile, a source close to Ba'asyir, Hasyim Abdullah, denied that Ba'asyir knew Pino.

"Information from the National Police headquarters saying that [Ba'asyir] knew Syarif is not true," he said Tuesday as reported by tempointeraktif.com.

"It is not true that [Ba'asyir] swore in Hayat," he added.

----------------------------

Sep 28, 2011

CHURCCH BOMB SHOWS INDONESIAN EXTREMISM

By Gary LaMoshi

BALI - Indonesia was shocked and shamed on Sunday when a suicide bomber

struck a Christian church in Solo, killing at least one congregant and

injuring at least 27 others. But the reaction from President Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono has been even more shameful.


On Sunday morning, a still unidentified bomber detonated explosives at the

entrance of Gereja Bethel Injil Sepenuh (Bethel Whole Gospel Church, GBIS)

at the conclusion of the church's second service. Police say it was a low

explosive device spiked with nails and bolts that aimed to harm people

rather than destroy property.


Solo, also known as Surakarta, is considered a wellspring of Javanese

culture and more recently a hub for Islamic extremism. Militant preacher Abu

Bakar Ba'asyir, the jailed spiritual leader of the terrorist Jemaah

Islamiyah movement, and his Ngruki Islamic boarding school, a hub for

planning the 2002 Bali bombing, are based in the town. Solo has also served

as a hideout for a number of radical Islamist fugitives, including master

bomber Noordin Mohammad Top. Several churches were burned in Central Java

earlier this year.


In the face of the latest evidence of growing religious intolerance, in his

elevised speech on Sunday night Yudhoyono used the incident to lobby for

passage of controversial amendments to Indonesia's anti-terrorism act. The

new provisions would allow police and intelligence authorities to begi sveillance operations against anyone without evidence, measures that critics say hearken back to former General Suharto's authoritarian rule. In

the wake of the Solo bombing, legislators reported a breakthrough on the

bill late Monday night.


"There are fears that it is excessive, but we have to learn from our past,"

Yudhoyono said, referring to the legislation. "I hope that in future life

can return to normal and people won't be afraid or overly worried, as long

as we can pull together in facing down violence."


Not a hate crime

He asserted that the church bombing was linked, not to a wave of sectarian

strife that has intensified in recent months, but to a national terrorist

network. That network was supposedly behind the April suicide bombing in

Cirebon, West Java, of a police station mosque that injured 30, all but two

of them police officers. Yudhoyono declared, "Crime is crime and terrorism

is terrorism. It does not relate to ethnicity or religion."


Instead of looking away from Indonesia's growing sectarian violence, the

once-popular president would have been better advised to meet it head on.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the Solo bombings have nothing to do

with religious extremism, Yudhoyono nevertheless could have used the

occasion to fight it. Within an hour of hearing of the bombing, Yudhoyono

could have been on a plane to Solo with leaders of Nahdlatul Ulama and

Muhammadiyah, the country's two largest mainstream mass Muslim

organizations, other religious leaders and heads of political parties to

visit the victims of the bombing in the hospital.


After commiserating with the victims, comforting their families, and

encouraging the police to get to the bottom of the crime, these national

leaders could have presented a united front condemning the attack. Moreover,

they could have reiterated they stand by Indonesia's constitutional

protection of religious freedom and assured the public that the state will

take all necessary steps to guarantee it for all Indonesians regardless of

their faith. While Yudhoyono seems content to ignore the accelerating

erosion of that freedom, Indonesia's recent history shows that religious

strife can also serve as a convenient smokescreen for forces that threaten

freedom for all.


Democracy breeds contempt

Since the end of former dictator Suharto's New Order regime, democracy has

provided an opening for greater Islamization of Indonesia, the country with

the world's largest Muslim population. An estimated 88% of Indonesia's 233

million people follow Islam. That leaves 28 million Indonesians of other

faiths, or as many people as the total populations of Malaysia, Saudi

Arabia, or Australia and New Zealand combined. Minorities are being

marginalized by a combination of violent extremism and politicians that play

the Muslim card to pander to religious hardliners.


As part of the 2005 agreement that ended a decades long civil war in Aceh,

Indonesia's easternmost province was permitted to adopt sharia (Islamic)

law. Indonesia's parliament approved this exception to the national

constitution. However, since 2001, government decentralization measures have

led to some 150 local laws and regulations based on religious teachings,

according to the national newsweekly Tempo. All but a handful are based on

Islamic law, including dress codes, deductions for charitable donations, and

Koran proficiency requirements for civil service promotion or marriage.


The magazine also reported research by Northern Illinois University academic

Michael Buehler showing that the overwhelming majority of these

religion-based ordinances are proposed by politicians from secular parties,

rather than the Islamic parties. That suggests the regulations are more

about electoral politics than piety.


Church is out

Recently, religious intolerance has been on display in several high-profile

incidents. In Bogor, outside Jakarta, Mayor Diani Budiarto revoked the

building permit for the Yasmin Indonesian Christian Church and has, since

January, defied a Supreme Court order to reinstate it.


Instead, Budiarto ordered the building sealed since April, forcing the

congregation to hold services on the sidewalk outside. That's become a

weekly circus featuring hundreds of worshippers, members of the extremist

Islamic Defenders Front (FPI by its Indonesian acronym) taunting and

threatening the Christians, and dozens of police in riot gear with water

cannons separating FPI demonstrators and worshippers.


Last week, the case completed the final phase of its legal enforcement

process, and the mayor's refusal to comply with the Supreme Court ruling is

due to be handed to Yudhoyono for resolution. Budiarto's Democratic Party of

Struggle (PDI-P) has revoked its support for him due to his defiance of the

law, but he retains support from two parties in Yudhoyono's ruling

coalition, the Islamist Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) and Golkar.


Religious extremism doesn't just threaten violence, and Christians aren't

the only victims. When extremism ratchets up in Indonesia, the Ahmadiyah

Muslim splinter sect is a favored target. In western Java's Cikeusik

district, local Muslim preachers and political leaders spent a year stirring

hatred against a community of about two dozen Ahmadis, members of a local

family that converted during the 1990s.


On February 6, a mob of thousands from nearby mosques, pesantren (Islamic

boarding schools), and the surrounding area descended on the Ahmadis to

drive them out of the area. As a token contingent of police and military

stood by, the Ahmadis were beaten, their homes ransacked, and three of them

killed. Last month, a local court sentenced 12 people to three to six month

sentences in the attack, including one Ahmadiyah member.


Blame the victims

Indonesia's National Human Right Commission condemned the police for

allowing, if not condoning, the attack. The commission also cited

prosecutors for presenting laughably weak cases against the attackers and

blaming Ahmadiyah followers for provoking the attack by refusing to leave

their homes. Human-rights observers believe the light punishment- with time

already served in pre-trial detention, the longest sentences amounted to a

few days - will encourage more religious extremism.


Earlier this month, seven people died in fighting between Muslims and

Christians in Ambon in Maluku province, provoked by text messages falsely

implicating a Christian in the death of a Muslim in a traffic accident. The

incident evoked the extreme sectarian strife that begin in late 1999 in the

area once known as the Spice Islands.


Over the next two years, about 10,000 people died in sectarian clashes.

Indonesia's military helped fuel the conflict, supplying weapons to both

sides and transporting jihadis from Java to join the fighting.


The military stoked the religious conflict in Ambon and similar fighting in

Central Sulawesi as part of its effort to undermine then President

Abdurrahman Wahid's reformist regime. Wahid sought to curb the power of the

military that had been at the center of Suharto's 32 years of iron-fisted

rule and operated with impunity. After a dozen years of democracy, the

military has moved to the sidelines but still operates largely without

meaningful civilian oversight.


With a current presidential leadership vacuum and a successor not due until

2014, sectarian strife presents an opportunity for extremists from all sides

to fill the void and manipulate the public. It's up to the champions of

freedom and tolerance, and its primary beneficiaries including Yudhoyono and

than chaos and death, as seen most recently in Solo on Sunday.


<

LaMoshihas written for Slate and Salon.com, and works an adviser to Writing

Camp. He first visited Indonesia in 1994 and hatracking its progress ever since.>>


(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings)



Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Dokumentasi SEKITAR “G30S” - , AMSTERDAM

Kolom IBRAHIM ISA

Selasa, 27 September 2011

---------------------------------


Dokumentasi SEKITAR “G30S” - , AMSTERDAM

Di Bawah Asuhan SARMAJI


Bulan September, sebagaimana biasa, sudah sejak 1965, saat ketika di Indonesia rezim Orde Baru Jendral Suharto, mulai ditegakkan di bumi Indonesia, --- di mancanegara, teristimewa di media internetnya, bermunculan banyak tulisan sekitar “G30S”. Lebih-lebih lagi sekitar pembantaian masal terhadap orang-orang PKI, dituduh PKI, dan para para pendukung setia Presiden Sukarno dan orang-orang Kiri lainnya.


Yang disoroti ialah berlangsungnya kampanye pemusnahan terhadap golongan Kiri, yang dimulai pada tahun-tahun 1965, 1966 dan 1967. Kasus itu menjadi topik dan fokus perhatian dunia. Tidak sedikit para pemeduli Indonesia di dunia internasional, membuat analisis dan mencanangkan, bahwa suatu 'kudeta merangkak' sedang berlangsung di Indonesia. Pelakunya adalah Jendral Suharto. Korbannya adalah Presiden Sukarno. Dunia Barat menyambut riang perkembangan di Indonesia itu, bahkan memberikan dukungan politik, ekonomi, finsiil dan persenjataan pada Orde Baru yang lahir dari pertumpahan darah terbesar di sepanjang sejarah perubahan kekuasaan di dunia ini.


Tidak sedikit tulisan dan analisis mengungkapkan bahwa 'kudeta merangkak Jendral Suharto' tsb adalah suatu 'proyek' yang sudah lama dirancangkan. Sesuai “strategi perang dingin”mereka.


* * *


Dengan turun-panggungnya Presiden Suharto,--- sebagai salah satu hasil penting gerakan Reformasi dan Demokrasi, -- di Indonesia diberlakukan sementara hak-hak demokrasi, seperti: -- kebebasan menyatakan pendapat dan menyiarkannya. Sejak itu terbit ratusan, bahkan ribuan tulisan, makalah dan buku, tentang “G30S” dan pelanggaran HAM terbesar dalam sejarah Indonesia, yang terjadi setelah Jendral Suharto berhasil menumpas “G30S”.


Selama berkuasanya rezim Orba, Indonesia ditutup rapat dari semua informasi independen sekitar “G30S”. Publik melulu dijejali penulisan dan propaganda Penerangan AD dan media lainnya yang dibolehkan oleh rezim, mengenai “G30S”menurut versi pemerintah.


Sejak jatuhnya Suharto, Indonesia menjadi terbuka bagi semua informasi dan penulisan sekitar Peristiwa 1965 dan “G30S” yang bebas dari pengontrolan dan pelarangan penguasa. Sesuatu yang disambut oleh publik yang berhasrat menciptakan suatu masyarakat madani di Indonesia.


* * *


Suatu kenyataan --- Tidak banyak yang tahu, --- bahwa selagi Presiden Suharto masih berkuasa dan Orba berjaya, di saat Indonesia merupakan daerah terlarang bagi setiap literatur mengenai “G30S”, selain versi rekayasa pemerintah, --- seorang warga Indonesia, di Amsterdam, yang terhalang pulang, bernama SARMAJI, MULAI MENGHIMPUN SUATU DOKUMENTASI, meliputi siaran, penerbitan, buku dan makalah sekitar Peristiwa 1965, khususnya sekitar “G30S”.


Sarmaji melakukannya sebagai perlawanan terhadap politik penerangan Orba yang menutup warga Indonesia dari semua informasi independen. Dokumentasi yang dikelola Sarmaji menerobos Orba yang memasung informasi terhadap warganegara Indonesia dan dunia. Tetapi di Belanda, siapa saja yang berkunjung ke Dokumentasi Indonesia Amsterdam, bisa mengakses berbagai informasi tertulis mengenai Indonesia, khususnya mengenai “G30S”.


Sarmaji membangun DOKUMENTASI Indonesia di Belanda adalah sesuatu yang tidak pernah terjadi sebelumnya di Holland. Suatu himpunan dokumentasi mengenai “G30S” yang lain, bahkan, bertentangan dengan versi pemerintah Orba. Di Indonesia, umumnya, masyarakat hanya boleh tahu versi Orba yang direkayaa mengenai “G30S”. Di Amsterdam dengan tekun Sarmaji menyusun sebuah dokumentasi mengenai G30S. Dengan demikian pembaca memperoleh bahan informasi dan dokumentasi yang berimbang mengenai G30S. Di Amsterdam, Sarmaji, menembus 'pembreidelan informasi' yang dikenakan Orba terhadap warga Indonesia.


Di Belanda tidak sedikit berdatangan dosen dan gurubesar Indonesia, siswa dan mahasiswa Indonesia yang berkunjung atau melakukan studi dan penelitian ilmiah. Mereka-mereka itu berdatangan ke negeri Belanda, dari pelbagai perguruan tinggi Indonesia, seperti Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Gajah Mada, pelbagai universitas Islam, Universitas Diponegoro, Unpad dll. Tiba di Belanda mereka segera memperoleh informasi yang tersebar dari mulut ke mulut, tentang keberadaan Dokumentasi Indonesia di Amsterdam yang dikelola oleh Sarmaji.


Bagi sarjana-sarjana Indonesia seperti Dr. Asvi Warman Adam, Prof Dr. Bambang Purwanto, sejarawan muda Bonnie Triyana, dan Dr Muridan, -- Perhimpunan Dokumentasi Indonesia, Amsterdam, tidak asing lagi. Mereka biasa berkunjung ke sana.


Juga para pakar, peneliti, dosen dan profesor asing yang melakukan studi dan penulisan mengenai Indonesia, yang berkunjung ke KITLV, IISG dan lembaga pengetahuan lainnya di Belanda, banyak yang memerlukan berkunjung ke Perhimpungan Dokumentasi Indonesia, PRDOI. Termasuk diantaranya Dr. Cribb, Dr Max Lane, Prof David Hill, Prof Dr Michael Bodden, dan Prof Dr Kate McGregor. dll.


* * *


Satu-satunya DOKUMENTASI INDONESIA DI AMSTERDAM Dengan Fokus “PERISTIWA G30S” Dan Kelanjutannya.


Kemis pekan lalu, kuperlukan benar mengunjungi PERDOI, Perhimpunan Dokumentasi Indonesia, Amsterdam. Ini adalah kunjungan yang kesekian kalinya. Nama lengkapnya, adalah Stichting Perhimpunan Dokumentasi Indonesia, alamat: NAALDWIJKSTRAAT 36, 1059 GH Amsterdam, Nederland.


Pada permulaannya lembaga ini didirikan untuk menghimpun dokumentasi mengenai kasus “G30S”. Kutanyakan Sarmaji, pemrakarsa dan pengelola PERDOI: Mengapa Bung memulai prakarsa ini?


Ya, jawab Sarmaji: “Saya ada di Belanda disebabkan oleh terjadinya peristiwa “G30S”. Sebagai mahasiswa di Beijing, saya menolak menandatangani dokumen yang disodorkan KBRI Beijing, untuk mengutuk Presiden Sukarno. Akibatnya paspor saya dicabut oleh penguasa INDONESIA.


“Bagaimana tokh? Saya ini pendukung Bung Karno. Saya Sukarnois! Ketika minta suaka di Holland. Saya tegaskan bahwa saya lakukan ini karena saya SUKARNOIS.


“Jadi saya di sini, di Belanda, bukan karena saya TKI, Tenaga Kerja Indonesia. Ketika itu, saya adalah mahasiswa yang sedang studi di Perguruan Tinggi Ilmu Keguruan, Beijing. Terjadi peristiwa “G30S”. Kemudian Suharto memulai kampanye pembunuhan masal terhadap warga yang tidak bersalah, terhadap PKI, dituduh PKI, dan terhadap pendukung Presiden Sukarno.


“Kehidupan saya berubah drastis. Rakyat amat menderita akibat persekusi Jendral Suharto. Saya sendiri, kehilangan segala-galanya. Menjadi “stateless”. Kehilangan masa muda. Tentu saya merasa sedih sekali. Tetapi. saya tidak boleh menyerah! Saya harus mengubah kesedihan menjadi kekuatan.


“Dan sekarang ini kekuatan itu adalah buku-buku ini. Dihimpun mula-mula dengan fokus peristiwa “G30S”. Kemudian dengan sumbangan sahabat dan kenalan, baik yang di luarnegeri maupun dari Indonesia, sudah berkembang menjadi dokumentasi berjumlah kurang lebih 3000 buah, meliputi masalah lainnya menyangkut Indonesia. Sejarah, ekonomi, politik dan kebudayaan. Bisa memberikan informasi yang diperlukan oleh generasi muda kita, yang melakukan studi dan penelitian mengenai perjuangan rakyat Indonesia untuk keadilan dan kebenaran, adalah sumbangan kecil yang dapat saya berikan. Dapat berbuat demikian saya merasa lega, puas dan nyaman!


* * *

“Bung Sarmaji telah menghimpun cukup banyak bahan informasi mengenai “G30S”, kataku. “Saya ingin bertanya kepada Bung: Siapa dalang G30S?”.Demikian pertanyaan yang kuajukan kepada Sarmaji hari itu.


Dia menjawab dengan mantap dan pasti: “Saya setuju dengan kesimpulan yang dibuat oleh mantan Panglima AURI, Marsekal Udara Omar Dani. Dalang “G30S' adalah Amerika Serikat.”

CIA. Operasi militer “G30S”, menurut Sarmaji adalah suatu aksi yang dirancang untuk berakhir dengan kegagalan. CIA-Amerika merancangkannya, sebagai jebakan untuk menggulingkan Presiden Sukarno. Dan untuk menggulingkan Presiden Sukarno, mereka harus menghancurkan PKI. PKI dalam hal ini terprovokasi dan terjebak. CIA melakukannya antara lain melalui “orang dalamnya” -- SYAM KAMARUZZAMAN.


“Sedangkan Jendral Suharto adalah PION Amerika yang secara lihay menarik keuntungan paling besar dari peristiwa “G30S”, penggulingan Presiden Sukarno dan penghancuran PKI.


“Namun sasaran utama AS adalah kekyaan bumi dan laut Indonesia. Mereka sejak lama bermaksud untuk menggeser Belanda dan Inggris dari Indonesia dan mengusainya untuk kepentingannya sendiri. Untuk itulah AS menggulingkan Presiden Sukarno dan menghancurkan PKI, dan kekuatan demokratis lainnya di Indonesioa. Demikian Sarmaji!



* * *


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, September 23, 2011

Tentang Orang-Orang KIRI

Kolom IBRAHIM ISA

Jum'at, 23 September 2011

----------------------------------


Tentang Orang-Orang KIRI – Korban “MASAKER” Jendral SUHARTO


Sasaran persekusi dan pembantaian masal 1965-66, yang dilancarkan oleh Jendral Suharto dan kekuatan politik religius pendukungnya, adalah kaum Kiri. Namun, MAYORITAS korban pelanggaran HAM terbesar di Indonesia, adalah warga biasa, rakyat, individu-individu, wong cilik yang anggota PKI, dituduh PKI, berindikasi PKI, yang non-partai, --- termasuk kaum Kiri pendukung dan pembela Presiden Sukarno. Mereka-mereka itu tidak tahu dan tidak mengerti mengapa mereka diperlakukan sedemikian kejam, biadab dan tidak adil oleh penguasa. Seumur hidup, mereka setia pada Republik Indonesia. Tidak pernah melanggar hukum dan amat mencintai Presiden Sukarno.


Dengan sendirinya timbul pertanyaan: Apakah kesewenang-wenangan penguasa itu, semata-mata disebabkan karena mereka dianggap Kiri?Memang benar, banyak darwi korabn adalah tergolong kekuatan Kiri. Lama kelamaan menjadi jelas bagi semua fihak, bahwa yang bertindak sewenang-wenang itu, yang melanggar hak azsasi, hak hidup mereka, adalah kekuatan Kanan! Pengertian dan pemahaman umum memang tidak salah !


Sampai sekarang, sampai detik inipun, --- perlakuan tidak adil tsb, terutama di kalangan para keluarga dan handai taulan, merupakan trauma dan beban yang amat berat yang mereka pikul sudah setengah abad lamanya. Mereka memperjuangkan dan mendambakan keadilan dan rehabilitasi hak-hak manusia mereka, tetapi sedikitpun belum ada tanda-tanda keadilan itu bisa tercapai. Sehingga tidak sedikit yang berpendapat bahwa keadilan tidak kunjung tiba pada para korban, karena mereka itu adalah Kiri atau dianggap Kiri. Penguasa dan pemerintah tidak menggubris kasus 1965, karena sampai sekarang penguasa Indonesia adalah penguasa Kanan.


Sampai dewasa ini, pemerintah yang adalah hasil pemilu dan hasil pilpres, yang menjanjikan demokrasi dan reformasi, menjamahpun tidak kasus 'peresekusi dan pembantai masal' yang terjadi pada tahun-tahun 1965-66-67.


Begitu banyak ulisan dan buku yang terbit selama dasawara ini mengenai 'Peristiwa G30S' , dan pembunuhan yang terjadi segera setelah itu, menyebut jumlah korban persekusi dan 'masaker' Jendral Suharto tsb bekisar antara 500.000 sampai 3 juta. Salah seorang pelaku penting, yaitu Jendral Sarwo Edhi, menyatakan bahwa jumlah yang dibunuh pada masa itu ada sekitar 3.000.000 orang. Suatu jumlah korban yang kolosal, yang tidak pernah terjadi sebelumnya dalam sejarah bangsa ini.


* * *


Dewasa ini, – – – – kita mengikuti media Indonesia, terutama di Holland dan macanegara yang ramai memberitakan dan mengomentari kasus 'masaker RAWAGEDE'. Ramainya media tentang kasus tsb, penyebabnya adalah keputusan Pengadilan Den Haag, di Belanda, 14 September 2011, yang membenarkan gugatan dan tuntutan janda-janda para korban pembunuhan masal yang dilakukan oleh tentara Belanda (Desember 1947)di desa Rawagede, sekarang BALONGSARI, Jabar.


Pengadilan Den Haag memutuskan bahwa kasus tsb tidak bisa menjadi KADULAWARSA. Bahwa pemerintah Belanda bertanggungjawab atas kejahatan perang tsb dan harus membayar ganti rugi kepada para janda dan keturunannya. Keadilan bagi para janda Rawagede telah dimenangkan dalam tahap pertama perjuangan mereka.Yang dicari Belanda di desa Rawagede adalah kesatuan gerilya Indonesia yang sering menghadang konvoi tentara Belanda dan menyerang pos-pos militer mereka pada malam hari. Karena mereka tidak menemukan seorang gerilyapun, maka sebanyak 431 penduduk laki-laki dibantai punah tanpa proses apapun.


Mengomentari keputusan Pengadilan Den Haag, Indonesianis Belanda, Prof. Dr Jan Breman, mengingatkan bahwa pemerintah Indonesia paling tidak juga harus berbuat serupa, yaitu memberikan keadilan pada para korban kejahatan pembantaian, seperti yang terjadi dalam tahun-tahum 1965-66. Lebih-lebih karena korban-korban dan pelakunya adalah bangsa sendiri, Adalah aparat negara sendiri yang terlibat dalam kejahatan kemanusiaan itu.


* * *


Dari sudut pandangan revolusioner, --- Revolusi Indonesia adalah Revolusi anti-kolonial dan anti-imperialis. Revolusi semacam itu disebut REVOLUSI KIRI. Demikianlah tangganggapan umum.; Pendirian, pandangan dan politik anti-kolonial dan anti-imperialis, --- itu adalah KIRI.


Dalam arti tertentu, kekuatan militer Belanda yang bertindak mempertahankan kolonialisme Belanda, adalah kekuatan Kanan. Yang menentang kekuatan Kanan ini , pejuang-pejuang Republik Indonesia, rakyat Indonesia yang membela dan melindungi gerilyawan Indonesia, adalah kekuatan Kiri.


Secara umum, cakap-cakap santai (tapi juga serius – tidak ngalor ngidul), bicara mengenai orang Kiri, kesamaan pengertian yang umum, ialah, bahwa orang-orang Kiri adalah orang yang berfaham sosialis atau faham komunis. Bisa jadi mereka itu anggota partai bersangkutan. Bisa jadi juga non-partai. Banyak sekali memeluk agama Islam. Tidak sedikit pula yang beragama Kristen, Hindu, Budha atau Konghucu. Atau bahkan atheis, tak beragama.


Dalam suatu percakapn dengan keluarga Prof. Dr. Wertheim, yang berlangsung ketika beliau-beliau itu masih segar-bugar, pembicaraan kami sering menyebut nama-nama tokoh-tokoh tertentu masyarakat atau politik di Indonesia. Selalu Ibu Hetty Wertheim nyeletuk: “Orang yang disebut namanya tadi itu, apakah ORANG KIRI?” Aku tanya pada Ibu Hetty Wertheim, kenapa beliau selalu menanyakan apakah, orang yang disebut namanya tadi itu, apakah dia ORANG KIRI?”. “Ya”, kata Ibu Hetty. “Kalau orang itu orang Kiri, maka dia pasti orang baik. Pasti politiknya membela kepentingan rakyat”. Begitulah pemahaman Ibu Hetty Wertheim, yang kebetulan juga seorang intelektuil, mengenai apa itu 'orang Kiri”. Pokoknya jika itu orang Kiri ,maka bisa dipastikan itu orang baik.


* * *


Bung Karno juga punya pengertian dan definisi sendiri, mengenai apa itu Kiri. Di dalam bukunya “BUNG KARNO PENYAMBUNG LIDAH RAKYAT – seperti dicatat oleh Cindy Adams, (Edisi Revisi, Agustus 2007), menyatakan a.l demikian:


“Di dalam bidang politik Bung Karno adalah seorang nasionalis. Dalam bidang keagamaan Bung Karno seorang yang percaya pada Tuhan. Tetapi Bung Karno menjadi seorang penganut dari tiga pemikiran. Di bidang ideologi, dia sekarang seorang sosialis. Kuulangi, bahwa aku seorang sosialis. Bukan komunis. . . . . Aku seorang sosialis. Aku seorang yang beraliran Kiri.


“Orang Kiri adalah mereka yang menghendaki perubahan kekuasaan kapitalis yang ada, orde imperialistis. Keinginan untuk menyebarkan faham keadilan sosial adalah Kiri. Dia tidak perlu komunistis. Seorang yang memiliki idealisme seperti itu adalah seorang Kiri . . . .


“Nasionalisme tanpa keadilan sosial adalah nihilisme. Bagaimana suatu negeri yang miskin dan sangat buruk seperti negeri kami dapat menganut suatu aliran lain selain sosialisme?


Demikian, antara lain Bung Karno mengenai faham Kiri dan orang Kiri.


* * *



Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, September 17, 2011

THE “RAWAGEDE” MASSACRE

IBRAHIM ISA'S – FOCUS :

THE “RAWAGEDE” MASSACRE

Amsterdam, September 17, 2011

----------------------------------------------------------------------



In my regular “Kolom IBRAHIM ISA”, of September 15, 2011, I a.o. wrote:

“The decision of the The Hague Court on the “RAWAGEDE CASE”, September 14, 2011, marks the beginning of a new page in the relation between Holland and Indonesia.

Yesterday, September 14, 2011, suggest a most important and significant historical development in the Netherlands – Indonesia relation, since the overthrow of Suharto and the presidency of Habibie (May 1998). It is not exaggerated to record this fact as the opening of a new page in the Dutch-Indonesian relation. For a long time this relation has been through an atmosphere of 'love and hate relation'.



It is not the (Dutch-Indonesian) “Linggardjati Agreement” (1946), not the “Renville Agreement (1947), nor is it the “Round Table Conference (RTC) Agreement, that build 'a bridge' between Indonesia and Holland. Because, those agreements were a product of a situation in which both sides were in a position of compulsion. The Netherlands, turned out to win time for a repeated war of annihilation against the Republic of Indonesia. As for the Round Table Conference Agreement, it is clear that it was a 'one sided' compromise. Hence it was short lived and abrogated by the Republic of Indonesia.

But the decision of The District Court in The Hague on the RAWAGEDE CASE, constitutes THE REAL BRIDGE in the Dutch-Indonesian relation. A normal relation based upon equality. Because of the fact that the decision was made after a long process of deliberations.

. . . . We gratefully welcome this development and feel relieved that (at last) justice won, . . . Nevertheless, still further development of the case will have to prove that the decision of the The Hague Court (taken in the interest of the Indonesian side), is materialized. Because the Court has allowed the Dutch side to accept the decision , or to appeal to a higher court. Meaning apposing the The Hague Court decision.

. . . . . .

http://ibrahimisa.blogspot.com>

* * *

Below is a summary of news items on THE RAWAGEDE CASE by Radio Nederland Wereldomproep, RNW, Hilversum, The Netherlands:



RNW, Hilversum, Holland.

A court in The Hague has held the Netherlands accountable for damage caused by war crimes in the Java village of Rawagede in 1947. The court said on Wednesday that the case is not subject to any statute of limitations. Relatives of the victims had claimed damages for the suffering caused by the Dutch army.

The war crimes were committed by Dutch troops in a retaliatory exercise in the village. In the massacre 431 villagers were killed. The Dutch government has never acknowledged guilt or responsibility for the crimes.

At the time the Dutch army was attempting to counter revolutionary forces which were striving for Indonesian independence from the Netherlands.

© Radio Netherlands Worldwide

Recently, Dutch judges have held veterans accountable for grave misconduct during two different military operations. Former Dutch soldiers who countered Indonesian independence fighters in 1947 and those who were stationed in Bosnia around 1995 are hurt by the recent verdicts. But some say: “It should never have happened.”

“One didn’t speak about Rawagede,” says Elbert Pereboom (84), who was sent to Indonesia in a military operation to suppress the Indonesian War of Independence. On 9 September 1947, Dutch soldiers are said to have murdered hundreds of men and boys in Rawagede, a village east of the capital Jakarta.

For years, the Dutch veterans were haunted by the bloodshed in Rawagede. Mr Pereboom was often seen as a murderer. And yet he had nothing to do with the massacre.

Dutch responsibility
The exact death toll has never been established. According to relatives, 431 innocent citizens were killed. But for a long time the Netherlands insisted there were no more than 150 victims.

Mr Pereboom thinks it makes sense that the Dutch court has now awarded damages to the widows in Rawagede. He regrets that the case dragged on for decades.

“The Netherlands could have paid damages as early as 30 or 40 years ago. They should have given the village compensation then. If that had happened, the case wouldn’t have dragged on so long. From a military point of view, it should never have happened. It was wrong. There’s no discussion about that.”

Retaliation
Like the Srebrenica massacre half a century later, the massacre in Rawagede is considered a black page in Dutch history. Mr Pereboom says it was retaliation.

“What happened in Rawagede is terrible. It should never have happened. A Dutch battalion went to the village, while not long before their comrades had been murdered. Feelings of retaliation and grief led to those excesses. The commander in charge should have kept them away from there.”


They weren't allowed to call it reparation money or a compensation payment and it had nothing to do with the 1947 massacre in Rawagede, but at the beginning of 2009, the then Development Cooperation Minister Bert Koenders earmarked €850,000 for Balongsari, a small county in Java, Indonesia. It was development aid money and ostensibly had nothing to do with the fact that the village of Rawagede is also in Balongsari County.

On 9 December 1947, Dutch troops rounded up and killed an estimated 431 men in the Javanese village of Rawagede. It was one of the worst massacres during the ‘Dutch police action’ in the Dutch East Indies just after the Second World War.

. . . . . . . .

Apology
Several attempts to get compensation for the victims’ relatives were dismissed on the grounds that the events took place so long ago that the charges had lapsed. On Wednesday, judges will issue a ruling on a case brought by four relatives of Rawagede victims; they are demanding an apology and compensation.

Their lawyer, Liesbeth Zegveld, does not believe that the case has expired, saying that the Netherlands still handles cases dating from World War Two. If the judges rule in favour of the plaintiffs, it could have huge consequences for the victims - and their relatives - of other Dutch ‘police actions’ as they could also claim compensation.

. . . . . .



Former Dutch soldiers who served in the Indonesian War of Independence between 1945 and 1949 reflect on what they saw and what they did and in some cases were forced to do.

* * *


On 17 August 1945, just as the brutal war in the Pacific was coming to an end, Sukarno, the nationalist leader of what was then the Dutch East Indies, declared his country's independence and severed the connections of four centuries of Dutch rule.

The Dutch had ruled Indonesia since the 16th century when the powerful East India Company controlled almost all trade in the region. Generations of Dutch planter and mining families lived lives of luxury and oversaw the transfer of a wealth of natural resources to the Netherlands.

Tea, coffee, spices, textiles, petroleum and minerals were just some of the bounty that the Netherlands drew off from its Asian colony. With the Japanese surrender, Sukarno seized his chance and declared the days of Dutch dominance over.

Harsh response
The Dutch government responded by sending troops to the Indies in what would become known as "the Police Actions". The words "colonial war" were avoided because the Dutch refused to acknowledge that it was a conflict between two states, regarding it as an internal problem. There were two major Police Actions spread over a three year period during which 120,000 young Dutch men were sent on a mission to bring "order and peace" to the Indies. What actually happened under that mandate would come out only decades later, and would haunt the conscience of the Netherlands for years to come.

Gus Blok was conscripted into the army and shipped off to a land unlike anything he'd ever seen before. He's a big man, with a handshake that can pulverise those of less hearty individuals: "We were there, admiring the beautiful nature, the beautiful women, but we were not thinking about morality ... that happened when we were back."

And then this big man dissolves in floods of tears. It soon becomes clear that any discussion of his time in Indonesia pulls him out to an emotional ledge. He sips water with trembling hands, his voice breaking often or slipping into a horrified whisper as he talks of the things he saw and did while he was there.

"I didn't shoot them, but I tortured them and I beat them up. I put them in the sun till they fell down. I was never told to do it - you just grow into it. Isn't it terrible? They didn't tell me to torture people, that was my own doing. I wanted to do my job well."

Modern resonance
Men such as Gus Blok have lived with their deeds for more than 50 years. Initially when the Dutch soldiers returned home, they couldn't speak of their actions to anyone.

"People in Holland would have been very shocked [if we had revealed] what happened over there," says another former veteran, Maarten Schaafsma. He was 19 and idealistic when he volunteered for action in Indonesia. He went in search of adventure, but ended up doing and seeing things that have tormented him in the years since. He says that when he and his comrades came back, their priority was to work to rebuild their country and its war-shattered economy "so we put it away in our thoughts, our time in Indonesia - but you can't put it away. I do think of that time every day."

The Dutch were finally forced by the US-led international community to the negotiating table and had to concede Indonesian independence. Stef Scagliola has extensively researched the Police Actions. According to her, unlike the war against the Nazis, the conflict in Indonesia "brought no elements of heroism and pride. This was a lost war; a lot of people thought it as a senseless war, so the best way was to be silent about it."

And that silence lasted for a good two decades. Until a former conscript called Joop Hueting went on a national current affairs programme and told his story. "They beat a freedom fighter to pieces... they bound his ankles and hung him head-down and let his head beat on the tiles of the cement floor until blood came out of his mouth, his nose, his ears."

Out of the bag
It was a story that was all too familiar to the veterans of the Police Actions, but its effect on mainstream society in the Netherlands was explosive. Finally the long blackout on truth was ended. While some veterans condemned Hueting's testimony and even threatened his life for speaking out, for many others the dam had been broken.

Stories of guilt and shame began to leak into the public forum. However, while many soldiers agreed that the Police Actions had been a brutal war of colonialization, and apologised for their role in it, there were others who denied any wrongdoing. They angrily defended their actions, saying they were following orders and fighting for their country.

Even as recently as the 80s when historian Lou de Jong wrote about this period in Dutch history using the words misdaden and misdrijven - war crimes and wrong doings - there was such a public outcry that he was forced to replace them with the officially sanctioned term excessen (excesses).

According to military historian Dr Petra Groen, the term "war crime" has too many connections to the acts of the Nazis and therefore too emotionally loaded to use in the context of the Dutch in Indonesia.

"After the interview of Joop Hueting, there was a parliamentary inquiry into Dutch war crimes in Indonesia, and they concluded - and that's the official army point of view till now - that there were war crimes committed by ordinary soldiers, but they were incidents, there was no structural excessive violence."

No apology
Since then, Indonesia has continued to be the blind spot of a nation that has a reputation for being blunt and straight speaking. The Netherlands has never issued an official apology to Indonesia for the violence. However on an individual level, there has been an effort at atonement. Gus Blok has gone back to Indonesia to visit the place where he was stationed and made a public apology to the assembled villagers.

He breaks down as he talks of their applause after his speech. Maarten Schaafsma gathered the signatures of other veterans and officially offered them to the Indonesian Embassy. However, according to Joop Hueting, the government itself should have been more forthcoming about its past war guilt.

Many believe - and this is a belief shared by Mr Hueting - that an ideal opportunity would have been the official visit of Queen Beatrix to Indonesia on the 50th anniversary of the country's independence. The visit was the topic of a heated public debate for months beforehand and finally it was decided that the Queen wouldn't attend the ceremonies on the day itself, but would make an appearance a few days after the event. That gesture and her carefully worded speech made it quite clear that no official apology would be forthcoming.

Joop Hueting is still almost apoplectic when he recalls the event nine years ago: "I wrote [to the newspapers] that we should give a big present to show our sorrow and regret to the Indonesian people - give The Nightwatch, give a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh." In fact, the Queen presented the Indonesian people with a Friesian cow. "A cow," splutters Mr Hueting. "Very rude. That's part of the Dutch soul, this rudeness."

This story was taken from the latest edition of The State We're In – Spilling Secrets



* * *


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)