From My Point of View

Arisan di Simpang Jalan

2011-02-03T19:33:00.000-08:00

YUYUN Wahyuningrum akhirnya keluar dari ruang tunggu Ballroom Napalai, Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand. Yuyun-aktivis hak asasi manusia, kini manajer program di Forum Asia-seharusnya menjadi wakil Indonesia dalam forum dialog dengan sepuluh pemimpin negara anggota ASEAN, Jumat pekan lalu. Bersama wakil masyarakat sipil dari Malaysia dan Thailand, Yuyun memboikot pertemuan itu.

Mereka memprotes sikap pemerintah Filipina, Singapura, Burma, Kamboja, dan Laos. Departemen Luar Negeri kelima negara ASEAN itu berkeras menunjuk sendiri wakil lembaga swadaya masyarakat yang datang ke pertemuan. "Para pemimpin itu mengingkari sendiri isi Piagam ASEAN," kata Yuyun kepada Tempo pekan lalu. Piagam ASEAN, semacam konstitusi yang menjadi dasar lembaga multilateral ini, menegaskan pentingnya partisipasi masyarakat sipil dalam mekanisme ASEAN. "Tanpa partisipasi publik yang murni dari bawah, ASEAN hanya akan jadi arisan para elite, yang terancam kehilangan relevansinya," katanya.

Sebelumnya, pada awal pekan lalu, tak kurang dari 500 aktivis berkumpul di Hua Hin, Thailand. Tiga hari penuh mereka menggodok masukan dan usul yang akan disampaikan kepada para kepala negara ASEAN pada forum itu. Dan aksi walkout Yuyun dan kawan-kawan adalah puncak dari kekesalan aktivis masyarakat sipil di Asia Tenggara atas maju-mundurnya keberpihakan ASEAN pada nilai hak asasi manusia, demokrasi, dan tata kelola yang baik dan bersih.

Pada pembukaan KTT ASEAN, Perdana Menteri Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva masih berusaha optimistis. "Masyarakat ASEAN sudah mulai terbentuk," katanya. Dia menunjuk telah terbentuknya Komite Perwakilan Tetap ASEAN di Sekretariat ASEAN di Jakarta, juga telah dimulainya rapat-rapat Dewan Masyarakat Ekonomi, Masyarakat Sosial-Budaya, dan Masyarakat Politik Keamanan, sebagai sinyal positif.

Namun kenyataan tampaknya berkata lain. Untuk pertama kalinya, hanya separuh dari pemimpin ASEAN hadir dalam upacara pembukaan. Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono memilih memimpin sidang kabinet. Demikian juga Perdana Menteri Malaysia Najib Razak, Presiden Filipina Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Perdana Menteri Kamboja Hun Sen, dan Sultan Brunei Darussalam Hassanal Bolkiah. Semua mengaku punya agenda domestik yang lebih mendesak.

Harapan memang sempat tebersit dari pembentukan Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia ASEAN, yang resmi berdiri Jumat pekan lalu. Inilah jawaban ASEAN atas tuduhan komunitas internasional yang menilainya selalu bersikap mendua atas pelanggaran hak asasi manusia di kawasan ini. Namun kritik terus mengalir. Direktur Eksekutif Forum Asia-sebuah lembaga advokasi HAM berbasis di Bangkok-Yap Swee Seng tidak yakin lembaga ini bisa independen. "Komisi ini tidak punya gigi," katanya pedas.

Komisi HAM ASEAN ini tampaknya juga tak punya uang. ASEAN hanya mengalokasikan US$ 200 ribu untuk operasionalisasi komisi pada tahun pertama. Sekretaris Jenderal Departemen Luar Negeri Imron Cotan mengakui jumlah itu minim. "Tapi itu hanya untuk tahap awal," katanya. Pemerintah Indonesia siap menyediakan kekurangannya, asalkan kantor komisi itu ditetapkan di Jakarta.

Di sektor ekonomi, tantangan pun masih bejibun. Menteri Perdagangan Thailand, yang mengetuai Dewan ASEAN Economic Community tahun ini, Pornthiva Nakasai, menunjuk kegagalan ASEAN menerapkan single window policy sesuai dengan jadwal pada 2008 sebagai lampu kuning. Dari ratusan rencana aksi yang sudah disepakati, baru sedikit yang benar-benar terlaksana. Penurunan tarif impor komoditas yang seharusnya sudah 0-5 persen pada awal 2010 tampaknya bakal meleset. "Kita terpaksa membuat pengecualian untuk beberapa komoditas strategis, seperti beras," kata Imron Cotan.

Itu baru hambatan tarif. Penghalang nontarif lebih banyak lagi. Steve Cheah, salah satu Ketua Kamar Dagang Thailand-Malaysia, tak yakin pasar tunggal ASEAN bisa terbentuk sesuai dengan rencana pada 2015. "Masing-masing negara ASEAN punya kebijakan dan peraturan yang berbeda-beda," keluh pengusaha Malaysia ini.

Komunitas ASEAN memang heterogen. Perbedaan sistem politik, sosial, dan ekonomi pada kesepuluh negara anggota ASEAN terlalu besar. Ada Filipina dan Indonesia yang demokratis, ada juga Vietnam yang komunis dan ekonomi terpusat seperti di Burma, ekonomi liberal di Malaysia. Direktur Eksekutif Southeast Asian Press Alliance-lembaga advokasi kebebasan pers Asia Tenggara-Roby Alampay tak yakin proyek pembentukan komunitas tunggal ASEAN akan berhasil. "Kita terlalu berbeda," kata pria Filipina ini.

Wahyu Dhyatmika (Hua Hin)

http://202.158.52.214/id/arsip/2009/10/26/ITR/mbm.20091026.ITR131783.id.html

Mendayung di Antara Banyak Karang

2011-02-03T19:31:00.000-08:00

PROPOSAL itu datang dari Eropa. Sang pembawa: Presiden Prancis Nicolas Sarkozy. Inilah presiden yang, menurut The Economist, "Hobi menghadiri konferensi tingkat tinggi." Ia membawa usul tentang arsitektur sistem finansial global baru untuk menyelamatkan dunia dari krisis global. "Kami minta Asia mendukung," ujar Sarkozy, Jumat pekan lalu.

Di depan Sarkozy duduk lebih dari 20 pemimpin Asia, dengan tuan rumah Cina. Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono juga hadir. Selain itu, wakil dari Eropa yang tampak di Balai Agung Rakyat, Beijing, tersebut antara lain Perdana Menteri Spanyol Jose Louis Rodriguez Zapatero, Perdana Menteri Finlandia Tarja Halonen, plus Presiden Komisi Uni Eropa Jose Manuel Barosso. "Ini demi masa depan generasi mendatang," ucap Barosso.

Sepenting apakah Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Asia-Eropa ke-7 yang diselenggarakan pada Jumat-Sabtu pekan lalu sehingga Eropa perlu meminta dukungan Asia? Bukankah forum yang biasa disebut Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) ini sejak didirikan 12 tahun lalu hanya menjadi pelengkap penderita di pentas dunia?

Sebagai forum dialog informal, Asem selama ini memang tak banyak membuat keputusan konkret. Sebuah studi yang digagas Departemen Luar Negeri Jepang dan Finlandia menyimpulkan bahwa hasil-hasil pertemuan Asem "meskipun mencakup isu yang cukup luas, sama sekali tak mendalam".

Didirikan pada 1996 atas inisiatif Singapura dan Prancis, forum ini awalnya untuk memperkuat hubungan antara kawasan Asia dan Eropa, yang jelas tertinggal jauh dibanding kedekatan negara-negara Asia dengan Amerika Serikat atau relasi mesra poros Atlantik: Amerika Serikat-Eropa.

Sebastian Bersick, peneliti senior dari German Institute for International and Security Affairs, menandai "niat lain" di balik pendirian Asem. Saat itu, kata dia, sebagian pemimpin Asia khawatir Amerika Serikat akan meninggalkan kawasan ini. Karena itu, dibutuhkan kekuatan keamanan baru untuk mengantisipasi kemungkinan tersebut. "Ketertarikan Eropa awalnya hanya soal ekonomi," kata Bersick, yang ditemui Tempo di Beijing, Cina, pekan lalu.

Namun gagasan terselubung lain di balik Asem bukan hanya itu. Menurut Bersick, ada ketakutan di antara negara-negara Asia Tenggara terhadap kemungkinan makin dominannya kekuatan Cina di wilayah ini. Untuk mengurangi kemungkinan terjadinya konflik antara Cina yang makin kuat dan Jepang yang sudah mapan lebih dulu, ASEAN mengundang keduanya-plus Korea Selatan-menjadi anggota Asem.

"Dengan begitu, ketiga negara ini punya forum untuk berdialog satu sama lain," kata Bersick. Tiga tahun setelah berdiri, barulah pertemuan ASEAN + 3 mulai rutin digelar.

Meski begitu, mekanisme Asem masih belum memuaskan banyak pihak. Keanggotaannya yang amat luas dan hanya berdasarkan lokasi-ada Burma yang dipimpin rezim militer, Cina-Jepang yang bersaing, dan sekarang India juga bergabung-membuat pihak Asia dalam Asem amat sulit berdiri di posisi yang sama dalam banyak isu. Ini berbeda dengan Eropa yang mengikuti satu alur kebijakan luar negeri tunggal yang dirumuskan oleh Uni Eropa.

"Ini membuat banyak orang di Eropa frustrasi," kata Klaus Fritsche, Direktur Asienhaus, sebuah lembaga swadaya masyarakat di Jerman yang memfokuskan diri pada isu Asia. Padahal, kata dia, potensi pengaruh Asem amatlah besar. Jika digabungkan, kekuatan ekonomi anggota Asem mencapai separuh kekuatan dunia.

Ketiadaan kerangka kerja dan struktur organisasi yang baku di dalam Asem juga memperparah keadaan. "Sejak awal, Asem memang didesain cair seperti itu. This is the Asian way," kata Fritsche. Semua keputusan Asem bersifat rekomendasi. "Bahkan pernyataan bersama yang akan dibaca di akhir pertemuan biasanya siap dua-tiga minggu sebelumnya," ujar Fritsche.

Sudesh Maniar, Direktur Yayasan Asia-Eropa-satu-satunya organisasi yang didirikan di bawah naungan Asem-menjelaskan bahwa mekanisme dialog yang cair di dalam Asem justru merupakan desain yang tepat untuk mengatasi banyak isu panas di kawasan Asia dan Eropa. "Hasil akhirnya memang baru bisa dilihat dalam jangka panjang," katanya.

Jonas Staselis, Wakil Ketua Asosiasi Jurnalis Lituania, yang hadir dalam pertemuan Asem di Beijing, sepakat. "Ini seperti investasi untuk masa depan," katanya.

Xinning Song, peneliti di Pusat Studi Eropa, Universitas Renmin, Cina, tak sependapat. Ia menilai Asem bisa lebih berpengaruh jika Asia bisa mengorganisasikan diri lebih baik. Masalahnya, siapa yang bisa menjadi motor? "Jepang dan Cina tak akan membiarkan satu sama lain mengambil posisi di depan," katanya. India juga belum bisa berperan karena baru tahun ini menjadi peserta konferensi. "Karena itu, ASEAN harus ada di depan," kata Xinning.

Wahyu Dhyatmika (Beijing)
http://majalah.tempointeraktif.com/id/arsip/2008/10/27/ITR/mbm.20081027.ITR128576.id.html

My Articles on ASEAN Summit 2009 in Thailand

2011-02-03T19:29:00.000-08:00

Jakarta Ditunjuk Jadi Sekretariat Komisi HAM ASEAN
Minggu, 25 Oktober 2009 | 12:04 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin - Indonesia dipastikan akan menjadi tempat sekretariat Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia ASEAN, yang baru saja diresmikan pada KTT ASEAN akhir pekan ini.

“Kantornya menempel pada Sekretariat Asean di Jakarta,” kata Direktur Jenderal Departemen Luar Negeri untuk urusan ASEAN, Djauhari Oratmangun, kepada pers di sela KTT ASEAN, kemarin (24/10).

Sebelumnya, pemerintah Filipina juga menawarkan agar kantor Komisi HAM ASEAN berlokasi di Manila. Namun usulan tersebut tidak disetujui. KTT ASEAN menyepakati US$ 200 ribu (Rp 1,88 miliar) sebagai dana awal Komisi itu. “Sepuluh negara ASEAN membagi rata anggaran ini, jadi setiap negara menyediakan US$ 20 ribu (Rp 188,4 juta),” kata Djauhari.

Komisi HAM ASEAN kemarin menyelesaikan rapat pertamanya di Hotel JW Mariott, Hua Hin. Dalam rapat itu, disepakati bahwa komisi akan bertemu tiga kali dalam setahun.

“Pertemuan berikutnya akan diadakan Desember depan,” kata anggota Komisi HAM ASEAN dari Indonesia, Rafendi Djamin.
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/asia/2009/10/25/brk,20091025-204352,id.html

=======================================
Masyarakat Sipil Minta Isu Lingkungan Jadi Pilar ASEAN
Jum'at, 23 Oktober 2009 | 00:58 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin – Forum Masyarakat Sipil Asosiasi Negara-negara Asia Tenggara (ASEAN People’s Forum) menuntut pemimpin ASEAN untuk memasukkan isu lingkungan hidup sebagai pilar keempat ASEAN. Sampai saat ini, ASEAN baru memiliki tiga pilar utama: ekonomi, politik-keamanan dan sosial-budaya.
“Isu lingkungan hidup harus menjadi perhatian ASEAN, agar pembangunan di kawasan ini berkesinambungan dan tidak merusak alam,” kata Yuyun Wahyuningrum, aktivis LSM dari Forum Asia, kemarin. Sepuluh wakil masyarakat sipil dari negara anggota ASEAN dijadwalkan bertemu para kepala negara ASEAN, hari ini, di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand.

Selain isu lingkungan hidup, perwakilan masyarakat sipil ASEAN akan mengangkat isu pekerja migran, perlindungan pengungsi, pelibatan masyarakat sipil dalam mekanisme ASEAN, dan penghapusan impunitas. “Kami ingin mendapat respons langsung dari para kepala negara anggota ASEAN,” kata Yuyun, yang akan mewakili Indonesia dalam forum itu.

Wakil Indonesia dalam Komisi Hak Asasi Manusia ASEAN, Rafendi Djamin, menilai dialog antara pemimpin ASEAN dengan wakil masyarakat sipil adalah tradisi baru yang harus diberi apresiasi. Dialog serupa baru terjadi satu kali pada Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi ASEAN sebelumnya, di Hua Hin, awal tahun ini. “Memang kita belum bisa berharap ada output yang konkret,” katanya. “Namun sepuluh tahun lalu, hal seperti ini tidak terbayangkan.”

Sayangnya, masih ada perbedaan persepsi di antara negara anggota ASEAN soal siapa yang berhak mewakili masyarakat sipil dalam dialog hari ini. Indonesia dan Thailand menyerahkan seleksi wakil LSM dan masyarakat sipil pada mekanisme yang disepakati di ASEAN People’s Forum. Sementara delapan pemerintahan yang lain menunjuk sendiri LSM mana yang berhak mewakili masyarakat sipil dari negara mereka. “Proses penunjukkan ini sangat kami sesalkan,” kata Yuyun. “Masyarakat sipil punya mekanisme sendiri yang harus dihargai,” katanya.

Pada KTT ASEAN lalu, kepala negara dari Myanmar meninggalkan dialog karena tidak mau berada dalam satu forum dengan utusan masyarakat sipil dari negaranya sendiri. “Kami tidak tahu apa yang akan terjadi pada pertemuan besok (Jumat, hari ini),” kata Rafendi. “Kita lihat saja nanti.”
Wahyu Dhyatmika (Hua Hin)
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/asia/2009/10/23/brk,20091023-204054,id.html

=========================

Asean Akan Perbaiki Hubungan Dengan Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat
Senin, 26 Oktober 2009 | 10:31 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin - Asean berjanji akan memperbaiki pola hubungannya dengan masyarakat sipil menyusul kericuhan yang terjadi pada pertemuan dialog antara kepala negara Asean dan wakil masyarakat sipil dari 10 negara Asean, Jumat lalu. “Tidak ada organisasi regional yang bebas dari masalah,” kata PM Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva, dalam kapasitasnya sebagai Ketua Asean, dalam konferensi pers pada penutupan Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Asean di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand, Minggu (25/10) sore ini.

“Ini tahun pertama piagam Asean diterapkan, tentu tidak semua berjalan mulus,” kata Abhisit lagi. Para wakil masyarakat sipil menuding sejumlah kepala negara Asean telah mengkhianati isi piagam Asean yang berisi pernyataan pentingnya melibatkan masyarakat dalam mekanisme Asean. Pasalnya, dalam dialog Jumat lalu, lima kepala negara Asean menolak keikutsertaan wakil Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat dari negara mereka sendiri. Pemerintah Filipina, Singapura, Laos, Kamboja dan Myanmar beralasan mereka sudah menunjuk sendiri wakil masyarakat sipil dan tidak mengakui wakil Lembaga Swasadaya Masyarakat yang ditunjuk melalui Asean People’s Forum.

“Sebagian masalahnya disebabkan belum ada organisasi untuk mewadahi masyarakat sipil di tingkat Asean,” kata Abhisit. Dia menunjuk adanya Asean Inter-Parliamentary Assembly yang mewadahi wakil parlemen dari 10 negara Asean, sebagai perbandingan. “Jadi, komunikasinya susah.”

Namun, Abhisit berjanji mekanisme koordinasi dengan masyarakat sipil akan diperbaiki di masa depan. “Saya sudah bicara dengan Vietnam yang akan menjadi Ketua Asean 2010 dan Sekjen Asean, kami sepakat dibutuhkan pertemuan pendahuluan untuk forum serupa tahun depan,” katanya. Dia berjanji insiden tahun ini tidak akan membuat forum dialog Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat dan kepala negara Asean tahun depan dihilangkan.

WAHYU DHYATMIKA (Hua Hin)
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/politik/2009/10/26/brk,20091026-204469,id.html

===================
=======================================
Presiden Tegaskan Asean Tetap Fokus Indonesia
Senin, 26 Oktober 2009 | 10:13 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin - Meski Indonesia sudah bergabung dalam kelompok G-20, Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono menegaskan Asean tetap akan menjadi fokus dari politik luar negeri Indonesia. “Dalam forum G20, kita bisa membahas banyak persoalan karena semua terwakili di sana,” kata Presiden Yudhoyono dalam konferensi pers di Hotel Grand Pacific, Ahad (25/10) malam. “Namun, Asean sangat penting dan sentral,” katanya menegaskan.

Presiden mengakui tidak bisa mengikuti forum KTT Asean sejak hari pertama, karena harus memimpin sidang kabinet perdana di Jakarta. “Biasanya, saya sudah berdiskusi dengan para menteri soal isu yang akan dibahas dan ada preview setiap hari. Kali ini tidak bisa,” kata Yudhoyono.

Presiden mengakui masih ada persoalan dalam persepsi kolektif negara Asean mengenai hak asasi manusia dan pelibatan masyarakat sipil dalam mekanisme Asean. “Harus dibedakan proses domestik kita, dan perkembangan agenda regional,” katanya. Namun, dia menekankan apresiasi harus diberikan pada Asean, karena bisa menciptakan Komisi HAM Asean di kawasan. “Saya optimistis suatu saat komisi ini bisa akan lebih efektif, dan semua negara akan menghormati HAM pada saatnya,” kata Presiden.

Presiden menegaskan Indonesia ingin Komisi HAM Asean punya mandat perlindungan HAM. “Karena itu, atas usul Indonesia, disepakati ada review atas mandat Komisi setiap lima tahun,” katanya.

Soal gagasan blok Asia Timur dan Asia Pasifik, Presiden mengaku semua masih dalam proses. “Kita sepakat semua ini jangan dipaksa, gradual dan berdasarkan konsensus,” katanya. Selain itu, Indonesia ingin agar semua arsitektur regional itu dirumuskan dengan mempertimbangkan sentralitas Asean,” katanya.

WAHYU DHYATMIKA
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/asia/2009/10/26/brk,20091026-204465,id.html
=======================================
Jepang, Cina Kucurkan Dana untuk Integrasi Asean
Senin, 26 Oktober 2009 | 10:26 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin - Pemerintah Cina dan Jepang sepakat mengucurkan dana segar untuk mempercepat integrasi di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Jepang siap menyediakan US$ 90 juta untuk Dana Integrasi Jepang-Asean yang akan digunakan untuk membangun pusat Respon Darurat dan Manajemen Bencana Asean.
Komitmen kedua negara mitra dialog Asean ini disampaikan pada Konferen Tingkat Tinggi Asia Timur yang berakhir Minggu (25/10) ini, di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand.

Selain itu, Perdana Menteri Jepang Yukio Hatoyama, juga berjanji menyediakan US$ 20 miliar untuk dana infrastruktur Asean. Dana itu akan digunakan untuk membangun jalan, jembatan, rel kereta api dan pelabuhan untuk meningkatkan interkonektivitas antar negara di kawasan ini.

Pada saat bersamaan, Cina mengucurkan US$ 10 miliar untuk Dana Kerjasama dan Investasi Cina-Asean yang diluncurkan pada konferensi kali ini. Selain itu, Cina juga mengalokasikan US$ 15 miliar dalam bentuk kredit komersial, dengan US$ 1,7 miliar di antaranya merupakan pinjaman preferensial. Untuk menunjang implementasi pasar surat utang Asia (Asian Bonds Market Initiatives), pemerintah Cina juga siap menyumbang US$ 200 juta sebagai jaminan kredit dan penguatan mekanisme investasi.

Tak hanya dana segar, Cina juga menjamin pasokan beras sebesar 300 ribu ton untuk Stok Cadangan Beras darurat kawasan Asia Timur. Cadangan beras itu bisa dikirimkan ke negara-negara yang mengalami bencana dan kesulitan bahan makanan pokok. Filipina yang baru saja dilanda bencana angin topan sudah mendapat pasokan beras 620 ton dari stok cadangan ini.

Korea juga tidak ketinggalan. Dalam Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Asia Timur kemarin, Presiden Lee Myung Bak menyediakan dana US$ 100 juta untuk program Kemitraan Iklim Asia Timur yang mencakup kerjasama mitigasi perubahan iklim di kawasan. Sementara India menyediakan US$ 50 juta dalam Dana Kerjasama Asean-India dan dana pembangunan Asean.

“Semua bantuan ini menegaskan sentralnya peran Asean dalam kawasan ini,” kata Sekretaris Jendral Asean, Surin Pitsuwan dalam penutupan Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Asia Timur, kemarin.

WAHYU DHYATMIKA (Hua Hin)
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/bisnis/2009/10/26/brk,20091026-204468,id.html
=======================================
Indonesia Sesalkan Kericuhan di Pertemuan Masyarakat Sipil ASEAN
Minggu, 25 Oktober 2009 | 13:28 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin - Aksi walkout delegasi masyarakat sipil Indonesia, Malaysia dan Thailand dalam dialog tatap muka (interface dialogue) antara pemimpin Perhimpunan Bangsa-bangsa Asia Tenggara (ASEAN) dan wakil masyarakat sipil, disesalkan Departemen Luar Negeri Indonesia.

“ASEAN seharusnya berkembang semakin dekat dengan masyarakat dan menjadi people’s centered Asean,” kata Direktur Jenderal urusan ASEAN Departemen Luar Negeri, Djauhari Oratmangun, kepada jurnalis di sela KTT ASEAN di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand, kemarin.

Kericuhan semacam itu, kata dia, tidak seharusnya terjadi jika mekanisme penunjukan representasi masyarakat sipil dalam ASEAN People’s Forum disepakati. Untuk itu, Indonesia akan mengajukan mekanisme ini dibahas dalam sidang tingkat menteri berikutnya.

“Prosedur dan mekanisme interface dialogue dengan wakil masyarakat
sipil akan diperjelas,” kata Djauhari. Diharapkan, aksi boikot yang mewarnai dua kali forum pertemuan masyarakat sipil dan pemimpin ASEAN tidak terjadi lagi pada KTT ASEAN berikutnya di Hanoi, Vietnam, yang dijadwalkan pada April 2010 depan.

Dialog serupa di KTT ASEAN sebelumnya juga diwarnai aksi boikot. Saat itu, kepala negara Burma menolak hadir dalam satu ruangan dengan wakil masyarakat sipil dari negaranya.

Yuyun Wahyuningrum, aktivis HAM dari Forum Asia yang menjadi wakil Indonesia dalam dialog kemarin, menegaskan masyarakat sipil tidak akan berhenti berkomunikasi dengan pemimpin ASEAN. “Kalau kami menolak menghadiri pertemuan serupa tahun depan, bagaimana kami bisa mengubah paradigma dan pandangan para pemimpin ASEAN soal HAM dan demokrasi?” katanya.

WAHYU DHYATMIKA
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/asia/2009/10/25/brk,20091025-204365,id.html
=======================================
Asean Satukan Sikap Menjelang Pertemuan Kopenhagen
Sabtu, 24 Oktober 2009 | 22:33 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin -Sepuluh pemimpin Perhimpunan Negara-negara Asia Tenggara (Asean) bersepakat untuk menyatukan langkah dalam program mitigasi perubahan iklim, menjelang pertemuan Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa yang membahas isu ini di Kopenhagen,
Denmark, awal Desember depan. Sikap itu tampak dari pernyataan bersama mengenai perubahan iklim yang dirilis KTT Asean di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand, Sabtu (24/10) ini.

“Kami mendesak semua pihak yang meratifikasi Konvensi PBB mengenai perubahan iklim untuk melindungi iklim berdasarkan kesetaraan dan sesuai prinsip kebersamaan dengan perbedaan tanggungjawab (common but differentiated responsibilities),” kata PM Thailand Abhisit Vejjajiva dalam siaran persnya di akhir konferensi. “Kemampuan dan kondisi nasional masing-masing negara harus dihormati,” katanya lagi.

Pernyataan Bersama Asean mengenai Perubahan Iklim ini semula direncanakan menjadi Deklarasi KTT Asean. Namun di saat terakhir, deklarasi itu diturunkan levelnya menjadi pernyataan bersama, yang secara diplomatik, lebih kurang mengikat. Penurunan status ini disebabkan masih beragamnya posisi negara-negara anggota Asean dalam menyikapi Pertemuan Kopenhagen.

“Akan ada pertemuan lanjutan di Singapura, akhir Oktober ini, untuk menyepakati rencana aksi yang lebih konkret,” kata Djauhari Oratmangun, Direktur Jenderal untuk urusan Asean di Departemen Luar Negeri.

Meski begitu, lemahnya pernyataan bersama mengenai perubahan iklim disesalkan sejumlah wakil masyarakat sipil. Zelda Soriano, penasehat politik Greenpeace untuk Asia Tenggara, menilai komitmen Asean tidak tergambar dalam pernyataan itu. Seharusnya ada komitmen angka dan persentase yang jelas, untuk pengurangan emisi karbon di kawasan ini,” katanya.

Zelda menilai Asean seharusnya memiliki kerangka kerja penyelamatan iklim yang mengikat semua negara di kawasan. “Tanpa itu, upaya penyelamatan masing-masing negara tidak akan berhasil,” katanya, seraya menunjuk pembalakan hutan yang masih marak walau sudah ada upaya konservasi dan proteksi. Ketiadaan kerangka kerja regional, kata Zelda, membuat negara pembeli produk hutan tinggal mengalihkan permintaan ke negara lain yang peraturannya lebih lemah. “Muncul penyelundupan dan perusakan hutan terus terjadi,” katanya.

Dalam pertemuan Kopenhagen, kata Zelda, Asean harus punya posisi bersama dan menyuarakan sikap tunggal sebagai blok kawasan. “Itu akan lebih efektif untuk menekan kepentingan negara-negara industri,” katanya.
WAHYU DHYATMIKA (Hua Hin)
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/asia/2009/10/24/brk,20091024-204301,id.html
=======================================
Asean Selesaikan Negosiasi soal Pasar Bebas Regional
Sabtu, 24 Oktober 2009 | 22:21 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin - Pertemuan antar Menteri perdagangan Asean di sela Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Perhimpunan Bangsa-bangsa Asia Tenggara (Asean) berhasil menyelesaikan pembahasan aturan pasar bebas (Free Trade Area) antara Asean dan keenam mitra dialognya. “Sekarang sudah masuk tahap implementasi,” kata Menteri Perdagangan Mari Elka Pangestu, di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand, Sabtu siang lalu.

Keenam mitra dialog Asean adalah Jepang, Cina, Korea, India, Australia dan Selandia Baru. “Hanya negosiasi dengan India yang masih membahas soal aturan di bidang jasa dan investasi,” kata Mari lagi.

Selain membahas perjanjian pasar bebas, pertemuan Menteri Perdagangan Asean kemarin juga membahas perlunya membuat kartu penilaian (score cards) yang lebih spesifik untuk membantu pengusaha memantau perkembangan penurunan tarif dan bea masuk komoditas antar sesama negara Asean. “Banyak pengusaha kita, terutama di sektor usaha kecil dan menengah yang belum menyadari potensi pasar dari pembukaan kawasan ini,” katanya. Untuk itu, Departemen Perdagangan akan melakukan pendampingan dan sosialisasi terus menerus. “Ada banyak fasilitas Asean yang bisa dimanfaatkan pengusaha kita,” katanya.
WAHYU DHYATMIKA (Hua Hin)
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/politik/2009/10/24/brk,20091024-204299,id.html
=======================================
Menteri Perdagangan pastikan target ASEAN Tak Meleset
Sabtu, 24 Oktober 2009 | 22:12 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, Hua Hin - Menteri Perdagangan Mari Elka Pangestu memastikan semua target penurunan tarif dalam kerangka Asean Free Trade Agreement yang akan efektif 1 Januari 2010 depan, akan tercapai sesuai target. “Cetak biru menuju Asean Economic Community sudah on track,” katanya, Sabtu siang di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand, usai menghadiri pertemuan Menteri-menteri perdagangan Asean di sela Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Asean ke-15.

Menurut Mari, saat ini tingkat implementasi semua rencana aksi menuju pembentukan masyarakat ekonomi Asean sudah mencapai rata-rata masih 73, 79 persen. “Indonesia sendiri alhamdullilah sudah 80,9 persen,” katanya. Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, menurut Mari, sudah menegaskan pentingnya target-target cetak biru diimplementasikan sesuai rencana.

Indonesia saat ini, menurut Mari, masih mempunyai tunggakan implementasi rencana aksi di bidang infrastruktur dan kesehatan. “Ada satu dua isu di bidang investasi yang belum rampung, tapi saya yakin akan selesai dalam waktu dekat,” katanya.

Mari mengakui masih ada sengketa antara sejumlah negara soal target penurunan tarif, misalnya antara Filipina dan Thailand soal penurunan tarif masuk beras ke Filipina. Namun, dia menilai soal itu bisa diselesaikan secara bilateral. “Itu dimungkinkan alam kerangka Asean,” katanya.

Indonesia sendiri meminta penundaan penurunan tarif masuk untuk beras dan gula secara bertahap sampai 2018. “Itu sudah disetujui semua negara Asean lain, tahun lalu,” katanya. Sebagai imbal-balik, Indonesia setuju memprioritaskan pembelian beras dari Thailand, jika Indonesia membutuhkan import beras.

WAHYU DHYATMIKA (Hua Hin)
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/asia/2009/10/24/brk,20091024-204298,id.html

=======================================
ASEAN Diminta Percepat Penurunan Tarif Bersama
Jum'at, 23 Oktober 2009 | 00:46 WIB
TEMPO Interaktif, HUA HIN -– Dewan Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN (ASEAN Economic Community), yang bertemu kemarin di Hotel Dusit Thani, Hua Hin, Thailand, mendesak negara-negara di Asia Tenggara mempercepat ratifikasi sejumlah perjanjian bersama di bidang ekonomi. “Masih banyak pekerjaan rumah,” kata juru bicara Departemen Perdagangan Thailand, Krisda Piampongsant, kepada Tempo kemarin.

Agenda utama pertemuan Dewan Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN kemarin adalah mempersiapkan sejumlah deklarasi dan nota kesepahaman yang akan diteken sepuluh kepala negara ASEAN hari ini. Adapun Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi ASEAN akan dibuka pada pukul 09.45 waktu setempat.

Menteri Perdagangan Thailand, Pornthiva Nakasai, yang memimpin pertemuan kemarin, menuding tertundanya pemberlakuan single window policy di ASEAN sebagai indikator lambannya integrasi ekonomi negara-negara anggota asosiasi ini.

Penerapan single window policy, yang akan memudahkan investor dan meningkatkan volume perdagangan antarnegara di ASEAN, semula direncanakan selesai pada 2008. “Ada persoalan teknis menyangkut perbedaan sistem yang digunakan masing-masing negara,” katanya. Dewan Ekonomi sepakat membentuk tim khusus untuk menyelesaikan kendala tersebut.

Selain soal single window policy, rencana yang tertunda adalah penurunan tarif impor untuk komoditas tertentu. Filipina, misalnya, belum menurunkan tarif impor untuk beras. Tarif impor beras Thailand masih berkutat pada angka 40 persen. “Ada komitmen menurunkannya sampai 35 persen pada 2015,” kata Piampongsant. Komitmen itu jauh dari kesepakatan bersama ASEAN untuk menurunkan semua tarif impor komoditas sampai level 0-5 persen pada 2015.

“Memang ada area komoditas yang sensitif,” kata Piampongsant mengakui. Ia berharap persoalan-persoalan yang masih mengganjal bisa diselesaikan secara bilateral di sela penyelenggaraan KTT ASEAN pada akhir pekan ini.

Menteri Pornthiva mengaku optimistis ASEAN bisa menjadi satu kesatuan pasar dan basis produksi pada 2015. “Dari 103 rencana aksi yang kita sepakati, sudah 76 yang terlaksana,” katanya. Dia mencontohkan pemberlakuan standardisasi produksi kosmetik di ASEAN sebagai salah satu rencana aksi yang sukses diterapkan di kawasan ini.

Pertemuan Dewan Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN kemarin juga menyepakati penggunaan kartu penilaian (score cards) baru untuk menilai kemajuan penerapan kesepakatan ekonomi ASEAN. “Indikator yang dipakai akan lebih spesifik dan berorientasi pada hasil,” kata Pornthiva.

Wahyu Dhyatmika (Hua Hin)
http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/asia/2009/10/23/brk,20091023-204053,id.html

Menyoal Reaksi atas Video Seks Ariel-Luna-Cut Tari

2010-06-18T15:31:00.000-07:00

Sudah banyak yang ditulis orang soal video seks Ariel-Luna-Cut Tari, dan orang-orang pun, saya kira, mulai merasa jenuh membicarakannya. Ketiga selebritis ini sudah diperiksa di Mabes Polri, dan penyebar video ini pun kabarnya sudah ditangkap polisi.

Yang menjadi keprihatinan banyak orang adalah reaksi sebagian orang menanggapi video seks itu. "Para pelaku dalam video itu, Ariel-Luna-Tari, merusak moral masyarakat. Mereka harus dihukum," demikian komentar mereka. Tak akan jadi berita kalau tetangga sebelah rumah atau ketua RT yang berkomentar begitu. Tapi ini adalah tokoh-tokoh publik, macam Menkominfo Tifatul Sembiring dan Ketua MK Moh. Mahfud Md. Mereka punya power untuk melakukan sesuatu, merilis regulasi dan membentuk sistem nilai.

Dan benar saja. Menteri Tifatul langsung mendapat angin untuk membahas lagi Rancangan Peraturan Menteri soal konten multimedia. Padahal sebelumnya RPM Konten ini sudah mental setelah ditolak sana sini. Ketua MK, Mahfud, dalam sebuah wawancara di televisi, menyarankan publik menjatuhkan hukuman moral dan sanksi sosial --seperti melarang pentas, mencekal masuk ke satu daerah-- atas ketiga selebriti ini. "Karena aturan hukum positif tidak menjatuhkan sanksi apapun kepada pelaku video seks ini --dengan dalih video itu tidak sengaja tersebar dan awalnya dibuat untuk kepentingan pribadi-- maka masyarakatlah yang berhak mengambil tindakan, menjatuhkan sanksi sosial," katanya. Tindakan itu penting untuk menegaskan nilai dan norma sosial kita, katanya.

Dan tebaklah, siapa yang paling bersemangat menyambut ajakan Mahfud? Benar: FPI dan rekan-rekannya kaum fundamentalis. Mereka mendemo rumah Ariel, menyegel kafe Luna dan entah apa lagi yang mereka rencanakan.

Okelah, video seks itu 'terlalu panas' untuk kultur kita. Tapi saya kira Ariel-Luna-Tari sudah mendapat sanksi sosial dengan dipermalukan di muka publik seperti sekarang. Saya kira dalam waktu dekat ini, mereka akan berpikir 100 kali sebelum nongol di muka umum (kecuali terpaksa, ketika dipanggil polisi tempo hari). Tak usahlah, disegel-segel dan didemo-demo. Pelaku yang paling pantas mendapat sanksi, adalah yang menyebarkannya di internet.

Catatan dari Kursus Singkat AJI Jakarta di Belanda

2010-06-18T15:26:00.000-07:00

Seharusnya catatan ini dibuat lebih awal, karena rombongan 18 orang anggota AJI yang mengikuti kursus ‘using new media to promote freedom of the press’ sudah kembali ke Indonesia, sejak dua pekan lalu. Namun, berhubung kesibukan di kantor dan rutinitas pekerjaan kami masing-masing, langsung menyergap sesampainya kami di kota-kota asal kami, catatan ini pun jadi tertunda.

Catatan ini saya anggap penting sebagai bentuk ‘pertanggungjawaban’ kami kepada khalayak anggota AJI –wabil khusus AJI Jakarta, namun juga AJI di kota-kota lain—yang benderanya kami wakili dalam perjalanan tiga pekan kami di Eropa. Selain itu, catatan ini juga merupakan tahap pertama upaya diseminasi dari hasil training kami itu.

Sekadar mengingatkan, kursus singkat hasil kerjasama AJI Jakarta, Neso (lembaga penyedia beasiswa Belanda) dan Radio Nederland Training Center ini adalah hasil dari negosiasi panjang kami sejak pertengahan 2009 lalu. Idenya berawal dari keprihatinan kami mendengar dan menyaksikan bagaimana kawan-kawan di redaksi, seringkali terpaksa mengalah pada agenda-agenda tertentu ‘titipan’ dari pemilik media.

Independensi ruang redaksi, sesuatu yang kita sakralkan sebagai jurnalis, makin rapuh dan keropos akibat tuntutan komersialisasi alias tekanan mencari profit. Para pemilik media, rata-rata tidak memiliki background jurnalistik, cenderung menggunakan media sebagai bumper, untuk membela dan memperjuangkan kepentingan politik dan ekonomi mereka.

Keprihatinan itu makin mengemuka setelah pemilihan umum 2009 kemarin. Makin nyatalah bahwa jurnalis, tidak lagi memegang kekuasaan tunggal di ruang redaksi. Ada kekuasaan lain: para pemilik modal, yang makin nyata dan makin dominan.

Ini tren global sebenarnya. Lihat saja bagaimana Silvio Berlusconi menguasai media di Italia, atau Rupert Murdoch dengan kerajaan medianya di Eropa, Amerika dan Australia. Di dalam negeri, konglomerasi media grup Media Nusantara Citra (Harry Tanoesoedibjo), Trans (Chairul Tandjung), Bakrie (Aburizal dan Nirwan), untuk menyebut beberapa di antaranya, terus menggurita.

Situasinya tidak akan terlalu mengkhawatirkan jika saja redaksi dan publik punya posisi tawar yang kuat. Namun, melihat bagaimana serikat pekerja Indosiar dan Suara Pembaruan digilas baru-baru ini, sudah cukup untuk membuat kita mahfum bahwa pengorganisiran jurnalis masih butuh kerja keras dan waktu panjang. Publik juga masih lemah dan tidak punya alat untuk mempengaruhi kebijakan redaksi media massa.

Kami di AJI Jakarta kemudian terinspirasi untuk menggunakan media online sebagai ‘alat perlawanan’ baru. Sebuah website yang ter-update dengan informasi yang sahih, didukung data berbasis multimedia, dan dioperasikan sebagai media sosial dimana anggota jejaring AJI bisa berkomunikasi, bertukar data dan informasi, kami bayangkan bisa jadi sebuah alternatif.

Terlebih jika website ini khusus membahas isu-isu di media, membongkar praktek kongkalikong antara pemilik media dan penguasa, tekanan ke redaksi, berita-berita yang tidak bisa dimuat di media mainstream, kisah-kisah di balik berita dan informasi semacam itu.

Namun masalahnya, pemahaman dan keterampilan anggota AJI Jakarta soal ‘new media’ amatlah terbatas. Kami perlu meng-upgrade diri secara cepat. Berdasarkan kebutuhan inilah, kami kemudian menjajaki kerjasama dengan Belanda. Dan akhir Januari 2010 lalu, gayung pun bersambut.

Singkat cerita, lewat proses seleksi, terpilihlah 18 orang anggota AJI untuk berangkat ke Belanda. Wahyu Dhyatmika, Abdul Malik, Dian Yuliastuti, Ratna Ariyanti, Jakson Simanjuntak, Iman Dwianto Nugroho , Edi Can, Agustinus Jojo Raharjo, Anita Rahman, Anta Kusuma, Arfi Bambani Amri, Karaniya Dharmasaputra, dan Djumiati Partawidjaja dari AJI Jakarta. Sebagian besar di antaranya adalah pengurus (inti dan adhoc). Dari luar Jakarta, ada Anton Muhajir (AJI Denpasar), Rudi Hartono (AJI Surabaya), Imung Yuniardi (AJI Semarang), Dyah Pitaloka (AJI Malang), dan Dina Febriastuti (AJI Pekanbaru).

Pekan pertama kami di Belanda, berlalu dengan lambat. Kami masih jetlag (setelah sekitar 13 jam di pesawat –hanya transit sejam di Kuala Lumpur), dan harus menyesuaikan diri dengan makanan, tempat dan orang-orang baru. Kami menginap di Hotel Bastion, Bussum, setengah jam dari Amsterdam. Tempat kursus kami adalah Radio Nederland Training Center (RNTC), di Hilversum, 10 menit dengan bus dari hotel.

Separuh dari hotel Bastion-Bussum memang khusus dipergunakan oleh peserta kursus di RNTC. Lembaga ini menyediakan berbagai jenis kursus sepanjang tahun. Pesertanya dari seluruh dunia –kebanyakkan Asia, Afrika, Eropa Timur dan Amerika Latin. Ketika kami tiba di sana, peserta kursus ‘Reporting Good Governance’ baru saja merampungkan tiga bulan kursus mereka. Kami beruntung mendapat lungsuran sekantong besar sabun cuci bubuk dan sejumlah tips praktis hidup di sana.

Kami semua berbagi kamar standar dengan dua tempat tidur. Sarapan disediakan di hotel –menunya tidak pernah berubah: roti, croissant, telur, yoghurt, juice, irisan bacon dan salmon. Tidak ada nasi. Ada satu mesin cuci yang bisa dipakai bergiliran untuk mencuci pakaian, lengkap dengan pengeringnya. Begitu keluar dari mesin, baju sudah bisa langsung dipakai lagi.

Untuk makan siang dan makan malam, kami bebas mengusahakan sendiri, dengan uang saku yang disediakan. Sayangnya, kami tidak bisa memasak, karena tidak ada dapur di hotel. Pilihannya: makan di kantin Radio Nederland (yang cukup murah dan enak) atau mencari makanan Indonesia. Kami beruntung, karena tak jauh dari hotel, ada restoran Indonesia, Sinar Djaja, milik dua lelaki asal Malang, Jawa Timur: Hira dan Ali. Sebagian dari kami kemudian memesan katering dari kedai itu.

Setiap pagi, kami berangkat dengan bus (Pada pekan kedua, beberapa dari kami mencoba berjalan kaki. Pilihan yang lebih sehat, walau mereka sempat tersesat di hutan dan terlambat masuk kelas). Kelas dimulai pukul 9 pagi, dan berakhir pukul 5 sore. Ada break kopi di pukul 10, break makan siang pukul 1 siang dan break kopi lagi pukul 3 sore.

Agak tertekan juga harus terkurung sepanjang hari di kelas, karena cuaca spring di Belanda amat cerah, meski kadang suhu bisa merosot ke 5-10 derajat celcius. Kami agak terhibur karena matahari bersinar terik sampai pukul 9-10 malam.

Seluruh program training dipandu oleh dua fasilitator: Abi Daruvalla (mantan wartawan TIME yang sekarang mengelola situs berita http://dutchnews.nl ) dan Jeroen Westerbek (freelancer yang menekuni new media). Seluruh hasil workshop kami diupload di situs http://rntctraining2.wordpress.com.

Agenda rutin kami (hampir) setiap pagi adalah daily editorial meeting, dimana secara bergiliran kami akan mengusulkan item headline news untuk kategori berita internasional, berita Indonesia dan berita tentang new media. Setiap pilihan berita dan cara penyajiannya diperdebatkan dengan seru.
Seperti yang sudah saya sampaikan, pekan pertama berlangsung lambat. Ritme kursus juga masih pelan, dan beban kerjanya ringan. Kami mendapat ceramah soal net text –bagaimana menulis untuk media online, berdiskusi soal ancaman kebebasan pers di Indonesia dan apa peluang yang disediakan new media. Kami juga mendengar ceramah dari Peter Verweij (dosen Utrecht University) soal bagaimana menggunakan media sosial untuk mengorganisir jurnalis. Bahannya bisa diperoleh di sini: http://www.d3-media.nl/

Pekan kedua, kami mulai ngebut. Pekan ini diawali dengan perayaan Hari Kebebasan Pers sedunia di Amsterdam, dimana AJI diminta mengisi satu sessi soal peluang dan tantangan menggunakan new media untuk kebebasan pers. Tim AJI Jakarta dipanel dengan dua pembicara lain, seorang blogger dari NRC –koran terkemuka di sana—dan trainer kami, Jeroen. Sambutannya positif, banyak yang mengapresiasi AJI dan rencana-rencananya ke depan.

Selain itu, di kelas, kami juga ditugaskan membuat feature tentang sejumlah NGO di Belanda, yang menggunakan new media dalam kegiatan operasionalnya. Kami dibagi jadi enam tim, yang masing-masing mendapat tugas pergi ke enam lembaga berbeda. Kebetulan saya kebagian mewawancarai personel Free Voice –lembaga pendukung kebebasan pers berbasis di Belanda, yang aktif membantu AJI di awal pendiriannya. Situsnya di http://www.freevoice.nl/news/

Selain menuliskan hasil reporting kami, setiap tim diminta mem-publish sebuah tampilan multimedia –dengan foto, video, grafik, dan hyperlinks—mengenai lembaga yang kami kunjungi. Hasilnya bisa dibaca di situs workshop kami.

Pekan terakhir dipenuhi dengan agenda field trip. Kami berkunjung ke NVJ, alias serikat pekerja jurnalis Belanda di Amsterdam. Di sana, kami menemui redaksi http://villamedia.nl , media online yang khusus dikembangkan NVJ untuk mendukung kegiatannya.

Saya pribadi menilai kunjungan ini benar-benar menginspirasi , karena kami jadi tahu bagaimana media internal organisasi bisa dikembangkan untuk publik. Villa Media sendiri berawal dari majalah internal NVJ, dan baru berkembang sebagai online media, sekitar 10 tahun lalu. Isinya informasi soal lowongan pekerjaan, serba-serbi komunitas anggota NVJ dan media news –semua berita yang berkaitan dengan media.

Selain itu, kami juga berkesempatan mengunjungi lima redaksi media online berbeda. Namun, karena keterbatasan waktu, kami harus berpencar dan membentuk tim-tim terpisah. Ada yang mengunjungi NOS online di Hilversum, RTV di Utrecht, Radio Nederland online dan Financieele Dagblad online. Kami juga sempat mengunjungi http://www.nu.nl/ detik.com-nya Belanda, media online dengan pengunjung terbesar di Belanda.

Saya sendiri beruntung berkunjung ke http://www.unieuws.nl/ sebuah media online yang mengandalkan citizen journalism. Semua beritanya berasal dari warga sendiri. Di sana kami belajar bagaimana redaksi RTV Utrecht, media publik yang mengelola situs ini, berjibaku mengembangkan situs ini.
Hasil semua kunjungan itu dipresentasikan pada forum keesokan harinya. File powerpoint dari kunjungan2 itu bisa diperoleh di AJI Jakarta. Kami akan mengirimkannya ke rekan2 yang berminat dan membutuhkan.

Dua hari terakhir kursus, kami pakai untuk mematangkan rencana follow up training ini. Kami berencana membuat sebuah website khusus untuk penguatan kebebasan pers di Indonesia, berbasis di Jakarta. Namanya http://mediaindependen.com

Kami berharap website ini bisa jadi semacam oase, dimana semua yang tabu bisa dibicarakan secara terbuka, oleh awak media sendiri, para jurnalis. Identitas pengirimnya bisa disamarkan, untuk melindunginya dari ancaman, namun akan ada semacam tim redaksi yang melakukan verifikasi dan memberikan hak jawab pada pihak-pihak yang dituduh. Informasi-informasi yang ditutupi, bisa dibuka di sini, dibahas dan dicari solusinya.

Kami membayangkan website ini jadi semacam kombinasi antara wikileaks (dimana informasi, dokumen dan data rahasia dibocorkan), jejaring sosial macam facebook (dimana anggota AJI dan jurnalis bisa berinteraksi dan bertukar informasi) dan media watch (dimana kebijakan redaksi, dan segala tingkah polah media dibongkar dan dibahas). Publik yang ingin tahu jeroan media bisa mengakses situs ini dan memperoleh pemahaman soal struktur kepemilikan media-media, apa kebijakan redaksinya, apa biasnya dan ada apa di balik bias itu.

Rencana kerja pembuatan website ini adalah tugas akhir kami selama kursus di Radio Nederland. Kami ber-18 sudah sepakat akan menjadi punggawa awal website yang rencananya bakal kami luncurkan pada 7 Agustus nanti. Wish us luck.

Sebagai bagian dari komitmen kami dengan Neso, AJI Jakarta akan mengadakan training soal bagaimana menggunakan new media untuk penguatan kebebasan pers, di Jakarta, dalam 1-2 bulan ini. Semua hasil training kami akan dishare pada forum itu.

My Articles on Asia-Europe Meeting, last year in Beijing

2009-10-15T16:44:00.000-07:00

NEWSPAPERS
http://korantempo.com/korantempo/koran/2008/10/24/headline/krn.20081024.145879.id.html

ASIA-EUROPE MEETING
Yudhoyono Usulkan Dana Siaga

Indeks bursa di Asia kemarin jeblok lagi.

BEIJING --Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono kemarin meminta organisasi regional menyiapkan sistem pinjaman siaga. Dalam sistem ini, katanya, dana bisa digunakan negara-negara yang membutuhkan dalam situasi darurat.

Menurut Yudhoyono, organisasi regional--seperti ASEAN, ASEAN+3, ataupun Asia-Europe Meeting--perlu bekerja sama menyiapkan mekanisme dana pinjaman siaga itu.

"Semua organisasi menyiapkan pinjaman siaga ini di bawah pimpinan Bank Dunia," kata Yudhoyono saat berpidato pada Forum Bisnis Asia-Europe Meeting di Beijing kemarin.

Presiden juga mengusulkan mekanisme pengumpulan sumber keuangan mandiri yang dikelola negara-negara anggota ASEAN+3. Tiga negara tambahan dalam ASEAN adalah Cina, Korea Selatan, dan Jepang.
Untuk mengurangi dampak krisis di Asia, menurut Yudhoyono, setiap negara perlu tetap mendukung rezim pasar bebas. Kebijakan pasar yang tertutup justru akan memperparah krisis finansial saat ini.

Pertemuan kepala negara Asia-Eropa dibuka hari ini di Balai Agung Rakyat, pusat Kota Beijing. Sesi pertama Asia-Europe Meeting ke-7 ini akan didahului pertemuan kepala negara ASEAN+3.
ASEAN+3 akan menindaklanjuti Inisiatif Chiang Mai, yang dalam pertemuan sebelumnya menyepakati pertukaran mata uang di antara dua negara. Tujuannya, menghindari serangan spekulan terhadap mata uang di kawasan ini seperti yang terjadi pada waktu krisis ekonomi 1997.

Sementara pertemuan berlangsung, sebagian besar indeks bursa dan mata uang di Asia kemarin jeblok lagi, termasuk indeks harga saham gabungan (IHSG) di Bursa Efek Indonesia.

Akhirnya IHSG ditutup pada posisi 1.337,204 atau turun 42,539 poin (3,08 persen). Sedangkan rupiah juga merosot lagi ke level 9.950 per dolar AS atau turun 55 poin (0,56 persen) dari penutupan Rabu, yang berada di 9.895 per dolar AS.

Indeks bursa di Asia kemarin kembali turun tajam. Indeks Nikkei 225 ditutup turun 2,5 persen ke 8.460,98, level terendah selama lima tahun terakhir.

Di Wall Street, indeks Standard & Poor's 500 pada penutupan perdagangan Rabu turun 6,1 persen, terendah sejak April 2003. Sedangkan bursa-bursa di Eropa kemarin dibuka turun, mengikuti bursa Asia yang ditutup melemah.

Pada pertemuan Forum Bisnis Asia-Eropa ke-11 kemarin, kalangan bisnis Eropa mengajak mitra kerjanya di Asia bersama-sama membangun arsitektur sistem finansial global yang lebih baik.

"Krisis ini tidak datang dari Asia, tidak juga dari Eropa, tapi kita bersama-sama merasakan akibatnya," kata Jacques Gravereau, Presiden Institut Eurasia. Dia juga mewakili kalangan pengusaha Prancis.

Menurut dia, inilah kesempatan untuk mengubah arsitektur sistem finansial global yang sudah berusia enam dekade.

Presiden Amerika Serikat George Bush melakukan komunikasi pribadi dengan Presiden Yudhoyono, Selasa lalu. "Presiden Bush meminta pandangan Presiden Yudhoyono soal penanganan krisis keuangan global," kata juru bicara Presiden, Dino Pati Jalal, di Beijing kemarin.

Menurut Dino, dalam pembicaraan itu Yudhoyono menyampaikan tentang perlunya segera dilakukan pertemuan tingkat tinggi G-20 untuk membahas antisipasi krisis keuangan global. Dalam pembicaraan itu, Bush menyatakan sepakat. Pertemuan G-20 akan dilakukan pada 20 November di Amerika Serikat.Wahyu Dhyatmika | Setri Yasra (Beijing)
==================

http://korantempo.com/korantempo/koran/2008/10/23/Ekonomi_dan_Bisnis/krn.20081023.145750.id.html

THURSDAY
Ekonomi dan Bisnis

Forum Bisnis Asia-Eropa Bahas Krisis

"Perlu disiapkan bantuan finansial untuk negara yang dilanda krisis."

BEIJING -- Sebanyak 800 pengusaha dan perwakilan pemerintah dari 43 negara anggota Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) kemarin mulai membahas krisis keuangan global dan bagaimana mengantisipasi krisis itu.

Forum Bisnis Asia-Europe Meeting ini merupakan pertemuan ke-11, sebelum dimulainya konferensi tingkat tinggi ketujuh Asem yang akan dihadiri para kepala negara.

Wakil Presiden Republik Rakyat Cina Xi Jinping menegaskan, antisipasi terhadap krisis finansial global hanya bisa dilakukan dengan kerja sama semua elemen pemerintah dan masyarakat di kedua benua.

"Reformasi pada sistem finansial membutuhkan kerja sama internasional," kata Jinping saat membuka Forum Bisnis Asia-Europe Meeting di Beijing kemarin.

Sugihono Kadarisman, peserta forum dari Kamar Dagang dan Industri Indonesia, menjelaskan, rekomendasi yang dihasilkan pertemuan ini akan disampaikan kepada kepala negara yang akan menghadiri KTT ketujuh Asem pada 24-25 Oktober nanti.

Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dijadwalkan akan memberikan pidato hari ini. Selain Yudhoyono, Perdana Menteri Vietnam Nguyen Tan Dung; Duta Besar India untuk Cina, Nirupama Rao; dan Masahito Kawai, Dekan Institut Bank Pembangunan Asia; dijadwalkan berbicara dalam forum ini.

"Sebagai mitra dialog dari para pengambil kebijakan, kami berharap rekomendasi ini diperhatikan," kata Sugihono.

Ahdi Jumhari Luddin, Direktur Kepatuhan dan Manajemen Resiko PT Bank Negara Indonesia Tbk, menegaskan pentingnya mekanisme regional yang berfungsi sebagai sistem deteksi dini untuk setiap kemungkinan krisis.

"Saat ini setiap negara sudah punya sistemnya sendiri, tapi di tingkat regional Asia-Eropa, kita belum siap," kata Ahdi, panelis dalam salah satu kelompok kerja di forum bisnis ini.

Yang juga penting, dia menambahkan, adalah menyiapkan bantuan finansial untuk negara yang dilanda krisis moneter. Fasilitas semacam itu saat ini baru tersedia secara bilateral. Indonesia, misalnya, memiliki fasilitas pengaturan pertukaran mata uang model itu (bilateral swap arrangements) dengan Singapura.

"Di masa depan, sebagai antisipasi krisis, bantuan finansial seperti itu sebaiknya juga tersedia secara regional," kata Ahdi.

ASEM saat ini sudah memiliki fasilitas trust fund, tapi penggunaannya lebih ditujukan untuk memajukan usaha kecil dan menengah di negara-negara anggotanya.

Indonesia juga mengusulkan perlunya sebuah wadah berbagi pengalaman di antara negara-negara Asia-Eropa, soal bagaimana mengatasi krisis finansial. "Saya membayangkannya seperti Forum Stabilitas Sistem Keuangan yang ada di Indonesia," kata Ahdi.

Jika usul itu disetujui, krisis finansial global saat ini justru menyediakan kesempatan untuk mempererat mekanisme integrasi ekonomi negara-negara di kawasan Asia.
Chen Haosu, Ketua Asosiasi Cina-Uni Eropa, optimistis integrasi ekonomi Asia akan segera terealisasi. "Pada saatnya Asia akan menempuh jalan yang sudah dilalui negara-negara Eropa," katanya.

Asia-Europe Meeting, yang didirikan di Bangkok, Thailand, pada 1996, merupakan forum dialog Asia-Eropa. Sampai saat ini Asem adalah satu-satunya forum besar di dunia yang tidak melibatkan Amerika Serikat. Pendiriannya 12 tahun lalu memang untuk memperkuat hubungan Asia-Eropa, yang sempat tertinggal dibanding kedekatan Amerika Serikat-Eropa atau Amerika Serikat-Asia.

Pertemuan di tengah krisis global ini menjadi penting karena akan dihadiri semua pemain besar di kawasan Asia: Cina, Jepang, Korea Selatan, dan India serta negara-negara anggota ASEAN.

Presiden Yudhoyono dan rombongan bertolak ke Beijing kemarin pagi dari Pangkalan Udara Halim Perdanakusuma, Jakarta.

Presiden ditemani sejumlah pejabat negara, antara lain, Menteri Koordinator Politik, Hukum, dan Keamanan Widodo A.S., Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral Purnomo Yusgiantoro, Menteri Kesehatan Siti Fadilah Supari, Menteri Negara BUMN Sofyan Djalil, Kepala Badan Kebijakan Fiskal Departemen Keuangan Anggito Abimanyu, dan Ketua Kadin M.S. Hidayat.

Pertemuan para pemimpin negara Asia dan Eropa itu akan dimanfaatkan Presiden Yudhoyono untuk membahas sejumlah agenda penting. "Salah satunya larangan maskapai Indonesia terbang ke Eropa," kata Dino Patti Djalal, juru bicara kepresidenan.

Presiden, menurut juru bicara kepresidenan Andi Mallarangeng, juga akan bertemu pemimpin negara ASEAN plus Cina, Korea Selatan, dan Jepang untuk membahas soal krisis.WAHYU DHYATMIKA | SETRI YASRA (BEIJING)
==================

ONLINE EDITION

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/ekbis/2008/10/23/brk,20081023-141806,id.html

Hubungan Asia-Eropa Masih Sebatas Ekonomi
Kamis, 23 Oktober 2008 | 20:13 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Beijing: Sebagian besar warga Asia masih memandang Eropa sebagai kekuatan ekonomi belaka. Uni Eropa belum dinilai sebagai entitas politik regional yang berpengaruh.

Setidaknya begitulah hasil survei opini publik, analisa media dan wawancara dengan elite masyarakat di empat negara Asia: Cina –termasuk Hongkong, Jepang, Korea Selatan, Singapura, dan Thailand bertema “Eropa di mata Asia” yang hasilnya dirilis Asia-Europe Foundation, di News Plaza Hotel, Beijing, Cina, kemarin malam.

“Bahkan profil Uni Eropa sebagai kekuatan pendorong utama kegiatan konservasi lingkungan dalam isu pemanasan global atau perubahan iklim misalnya, juga tidak terlalu menonjol dalam persepsi masyarakat Asia,” kata Ketua Tim Peneliti, Martin Holland, yang juga Direktur Pusat Riset Nasional tentang Eropa di Universitas Canterbury, Inggris.

Martin menjelaskan kurang kompletnya persepsi Asia tentang Uni Eropa bisa jadi didorong oleh masih minimnya interaksi sosial dan politik antar kedua region. “Mekanisme yang ada, termasuk forum regional seperti Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) dinilai tidak relevan dan jarang sekali dilaporkan di media massa,” katanya.

Jika Eropa ingin memiliki peran yang lebih besar di Asia dengan tetap dinilai dari kacamata positif, Martin menyarankan Uni Eropa mulai memperkuat posisi tawarnya dengan Asia. “Uni Eropa harus bisa membuktikan dengan hasil nyata, semua komitmen dan prinsipnya,” katanya. “Europe has to deliver,” katanya lagi.

Riset yang dilakukan Asef ini adalah tahap pertama dari serangkaian penelitian mengenai hubungan Asia-Eropa. Tahun ini, riset yang sama dilakukan di Indonesia, Filipina dan Beijing. “Kami berharap pada akhirnya opini dari warga semua negara Asia anggota Asem, dapat terangkum dalam penelitian ini,” kata Martin.

Asia-Europe Foundation (Asef) adalah satu-satunya organisasi permanen yang bernaung di bawah Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem). Yayasan ini didirikan pada 1997, setahun setelah deklarasi pendirian Asem di Bangkok, Thailand, dan sampai sekarang memiliki sekretariat tetap di Singapura. Asef menyelenggarakan berbagai kegiatan sosial untuk mendekatkan hubungan antar-individu (people to people) di kawasan Asia dan Eropa.

Wahyu Dhyatmika (Beijing)

==================

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/perbankan_keuangan/2008/10/23/brk,20081023-141638,id.html

Lembaga Swadaya Asia-Eropa Bahas Krisis Finansial
Kamis, 23 Oktober 2008 | 09:05 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Beijing: Forum Masyarakat Sipil Asia-Eropa (Asia-Europe People’s Forum) mendesak Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Asia-Eropa untuk menerapkan kebijakan yang berpihak pada rakyat dalam mengatasi krisis finansial global. “Perhatian terbesar justru harus diberikan pada kaum miskin yang terpinggirkan,” kata Klaus Fritsche, salahsatu panitia pelaksana forum tersebut.
Klaus yang juga Direktur Asienhaus, sebuah lembaga swadaya masyarakat di Jerman yang memusatkan perhatiannya pada isu hak asasi manusia di Asia, menjelaskan forum sepakat krisis moneter tidak bisa dilepaskan dari rangkaian krisis sebelumnya seperti krisis pangan, krisis energi dan kerusakan lingkungan. “Ini semua akibat kebijakan pasar bebas yang tidak diregulasi ketat, atau sebuah paham yang kita kenal dengan nama ‘neoliberal’,” katanya.

Dia mendesak para kepala negara yang hadir dalam KTT Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) yang akan dibuka besok, Jumat (24/10), memanfaatkan kondisi ini sebagai landasan arah kebijakan baru menuju tatanan dunia yang lebih adil. “Kesempatan seperti ini mungkin tidak akan pernah terjadi lagi,” kata Klaus.

Selain membahas krisis finansial global, forum masyarakat sipil Asia-Eropa juga membahas isu Myanmaar, pendudukan Irak, isu perubahan iklim, dan masih belum dilindunginya hak buruh di kawasan Asia. Klaus Fritsche menjelaskan bahwa tuntutan kemerdekaan Tibet, masalah nuklir Korea Utara dan krisis Cina-Taiwan tidak dibahas dalam forum ini atas permintaan otoritas Cina. “Kami menghormati keinginan negara tuan rumah,” katanya. Meski begitu, kritik atas penegakan hukum dan hak asasi manusia di Cina tetap muncul dalam forum. “Bahkan kritik itu datang dari negara-negara Asia sendiri, terutama di Asia Tenggara,” katanya.

Wahyu Dhyatmika (Beijing)

==================

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/bisnis/2008/10/23/brk,20081023-141674,id.html

Untuk Atasi Krisis, Presiden Minta Dunia Bentuk Sistem Dana Pinjaman
Kamis, 23 Oktober 2008 | 11:58 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Beijing:Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono meminta sejumlah organisasi regional mulai memikirkan arsitektur sistem keuangan global yang baru, menyusul krisis keuangan yang melanda dunia, sejak dua pekan terakhir.

"Saya mengusulkan semua organisasi regional yang ada, di bawah pimpinan Bank Dunia, menyiapkan sebuah sistem dana pinjaman darurat (standby financing system) untuk negara yang membutuhkan," katanya saat memberikan pidato kunci pada pertemuan Forum Bisnis Asia-Eropa, di Beijing, Cina, Kamis (23/10) siang ini.

Yudhoyono menyebut sejumlah organisasi regional seperti ASEAN, ASEAN+3, ASEM, dan WTO untuk bekerjasama menyiapkan mekanisme dana pinjaman darurat itu. "Selain itu, kita juga perlu mengurangi overlaps, dan memperbaiki mekanisme follow up dari keputusan-keputusan yang sudah ada," katanya.

Mekanisme ini sendiri tengah dibicarakan di antara negara-negara anggota ASEAN+3 yang akan bertemu pada sessi pertama pembukaan Asian-Europe Meeting (ASEM) VII di Balai Agung Rakyat (The Great Hall of People), di pusat kota Beijing, Jumat (24/10) besok.

"Mekanisme yang kami siapkan adalah kelanjutan dari inisiatif Chiangmai, yang dulu sudah disepakati pasca krisis moneter yang melanda Asia Timur, pada 1997-1998 lalu," kata Yudhoyono lagi. Presiden mengusulkan ada pengumpulan sumber daya keuangan mandiri (self-managed resource pooling mechanism) yang dikelola sendiri oleh negara-negara anggota ASEAN+3.

Untuk mengurangi dampak krisis pada negara-negara di Asia, Yudhoyono meminta negara-negara di kawasan ini tetap mendukung rejim pasar bebas. "Perdagangan dan investasi harus terus mengalir," katanya. Yudhoyono menyebut pentingnya open regionalism yang tidak mengarah pada kebijakan pasar tertutup yang justru akan memperparah krisis finansial saat ini.

Wahyu Dhyatmika (Beijing)

==================

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/ekbis/2008/10/23/brk,20081023-141682,id.html

Eropa Ajak Asia Bangun Sistem Finansial Global Baru
Kamis, 23 Oktober 2008 | 12:16 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Beijing:Kalangan pelaku bisnis Eropa mengajak mitra kerjanya di Asia untuk bersama-sama membangun arsitektur sistem finansial global yang lebih baik, pasca krisis finansial global yang melanda dunia, sejak dua pekan terakhir. Permintaan itu disampaikan oleh Jacques Gravereau, Presiden Institut Eurasia yang juga wakil kalangan usaha Perancis.

“Krisis ini tidak datang dari Asia, tidak juga dari Eropa, tapi kita bersama-sama merasakan akibatnya,” kata Gravereau pada pertemuan Forum Bisnis Asia-Eropa ke-11 di Beijing, Cina, Kamis (23/10) siang ini. Dia lalu mengutip pepatah Cina yang menyebut bahwa dalam setiap krisis selalu ada kesempatan. “Inilah kesempatan untuk mengubah arsitektur sistem finansial global yang sudah berusia enam dekade,” katanya.

Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi dunia yang akan membahas krisis finansial global dijadwalkan akan berlangsung di Washington DC, Amerika Serikat, pada 15 November mendatang. Usul pertemuan itu datang dari Presiden Perancis Nicholas Sarkozi, dan disetujui Presiden Amerika Serikat George W Bush. Cina dan India, dua negara Asia yang perkembangan ekonominya paling cepat, juga diundang untuk hadir dalam pertemuan itu.

Untuk membangun kesamaan pandangan dalam mengatasi krisis ini, Gravereau juga mengusulkan pertemuan Forum Bisnis Asia-Eropa diadakan secara berkala sampai Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) berikutnya yang akan diadakan di Brussels, Belgia, dua tahun mendatang.

Selain itu, dia juga mengusulkan agar kerja sama perdagangan Asia dan Eropa ditingkatkan untuk mengatasi kemungkinan resesi meluas dari Amerika Serikat ke negara lainnya. Dia menyebut kekuatan produksi Asia yang mencapai 26 persen dari output dunia dan Eropa yang mencapai 31 persen output dunia, harus dikombinasikan. “Karena itulah, hambatan non-tarif yang selama ini ada harus dihilangkan,” katanya seraya menyebut defisit perdagangan Eropa dari Cina saja saat ini sudah 20 miliar US$ per tahun. Wahyu Dhyatmika (Beijing)

==================

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/ekbis/2008/10/23/brk,20081023-141780,id.html

Forum Bisnis Desak KTT Asem Bentuk Mekanisme Dana Talangan
Kamis, 23 Oktober 2008 | 19:00 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Beijing: Forum Bisnis Asia-Eropa hari ini menyepakati sejumlah rekomendasi yang akan disampaikan kepada para kepala negara anggota Asia-Europe Meeting (Asem) ke-7 yang akan dibuka besok.

Satu rekomendasi utama yang dihasilkan dari pertemuan 800 pengusaha dari dua benua ini adalah perlunya segera dibentuk mekanisme dana talangan darurat (emergency funding mechanism) untuk negara-negara yang menghadapi risiko sistemik dalam sistem keuangannya.

"Prosedur persetujuan untuk permintaan dana talangan ini sebaiknya dibuat singkat dan jelas," kata ketua kelompok kerja pembahasan isu keamanan finansial, Lyn Kok. Ketua Komite Keuangan Kamar Dagang dan Industri Eropa di Cina ini juga menekankan pentingnya kerja sama Asia-Eropa untuk mewujudkan mekanisme ini.

"Semua pembicaraan untuk membentuk kerangka aturan baru dalam sistem finansial global harus melibatkan India dan Cina sebagai dua kekuatan ekonomi baru di dunia," katanya.

Tak hanya itu, Forum juga meminta pemerintah di negara-negara Asia Eropa untuk melakukan intervensi secara proaktif menggunakan kebijakan fiskal dan moneter untuk mendorong sektor ekonomi riil.

Selain rekomendasi di bidang keamanan finansial, Forum juga menyepakati sejumlah rekomendasi di empat wilayah kerja lain, yakni kerja sama energi, pemberdayaan usaha kecil dan menengah, dukungan fasilitas untuk perdagangan dan investasi, serta isu lingkungan dan perubahan iklim.

Di bidang perdagangan dan investasi, Forum mendesak pemimpin 43 negara yang tergabung dalam Asem untuk segara merumuskan dan mengimplementasikan rencana kerja yang konkret untuk mendorong pasar bebas di antara dua kawasan ini.

Ketua Kelompok Kerja di bidang ini, Walter Koren, Direktur Jenderal Kamar Dagang dan Industri Austria, mendorong Asem meniru Asia Pacific Economy Cooperation (Apec) yang sudah memiliki rencana kerja serupa.

Apec sendiri adalah forum kerja sama ekonomi Asia Pasifik yang melibatkan negara-negara Asia dan Amerika Serikat sebagai jangkarnya. Sedangkan Asem adalah satu-satunya forum regional besar di kawasan Asia, yang tidak melibatkan Amerika Serikat. Pendirian Asem pada awalnya bertujuan untuk mengimbangi peran dan pengaruh Amerika Serikat di kawasan Asia.

Wahyu Dhyatmika (Beijing)

==================

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/ekbis/2008/10/23/brk,20081023-141789,id.html

Pelaku Usaha Asia Beda Pendapat Soal Dampak Krisis
Kamis, 23 Oktober 2008 | 19:06 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Beijing : Para pelaku usaha Asia punya pendapat berbeda soal dampak krisis finansial global di kawasan ini. Sebagian yakin resesi yang melanda Amerika Serikat dan mulai mempengaruhi Eropa, tak akan menulari Asia.

Sebagian lain berpandangan kecil kemungkinan Asia bisa lolos dari resesi berkepanjangan karena begitu bergantungnya ekonomi Asia pada pasar dan modal dari Amerika Serikat dan Eropa.

Thanakorn Seriburi, Wakil Komisaris Utama Charoen Pokphand Group, Thailand, menilai krisis finansial saat ini mengakibatkan terjadinya krisis likuiditas. Tak tersedianya dana segar yang amat dibutuhkan kalangan usaha untuk berekspansi dan berproduksi itulah yang pada akhirnya menyebabkan resesi.

“Artinya, pada dasarnya, fundamental ekonomi kita tidak terganggu. Yang terjadi hanyalah koreksi dari nilai-nilai produk yang sebelumnya menggelembung,” kata Thanakorn.

Dengan koreksi ini, kata dia, harga asli produk itulah yang kini muncul. “Justru di saat inilah, ada kepastian investasi dan kepastian pasar,” katanya. “Ini saatnya bagi pelaku bisnis Asia untuk berinvestasi,” kata Thanakorn lagi.

Dia bahkan menilai Cina bisa memainkan peran sentral dalam menyelesaikan krisis finansial ini. “Cina berbeda dengan Amerika Serikat. Di Cina, pemerintah mengawasi pasar modal, ekspor dan sektor properti dengan ketat,” katanya.

Pandangan berbeda muncul dari Zhu Min, Wakil Presiden Bank of China, bank komersial terbesar di Tiongkok. Menurutnya, Cina sebaiknya mengatasi masalahnya sendiri terlebih dahulu.
Dia mengungkapkan, pemerintah Cina baru saja mengumumkan sejumlah inisiatif untuk mengatasi krisis finansial seperti menurunkan suku bunga perbankan, memberikan fasilitas pengembalian pajak dan pengurangan pajak pertambahan nilai produk ekspor, menstabilisasi nilai yuan, dan melaksanakan proyek raksasa pembangunan infrastruktur pedesaan.

Zhu sendiri menilai Asia tidaklah kebal dari dampak krisis finansial global. “Ekonomi Asia amat tergantung pada modal asing di pasar saham dan investasi. Begitu terjadi capital flight dan mandegnya investasi, maka Asia akan menderita,” katanya.
Wahyu Dhyatmika (Beijing)

Lapindo Mudflow

2009-10-02T05:57:00.001-07:00

I was invited to speak in a discussion about Lapindo mudflow victims, a couple of weeks ago. It was held in Goethe Haus, Menteng, Central Jakarta. My colleague, Heru Margianto, the editor of Kompas.com was also invited to speak, along with Alif Nurlambang, former 68H Radio journalist and a victim of the mudflow, flew all the way from Sidoarjo, East Java.

The main topic was how media portray Lapindo mudflow case, three years after. I was given a chance to speak after the guy from Sidoarjo. He lambasted media for being ignorance of their plight and misery. The first thing I said was that I felt like a defendant in that forum. Everybody was there to grill and question the media role, and I felt like I was put under a spotlight. However, I then said that this is a good thing. "Press freedom, media freedom, is your freedom, the public freedom," I said. Forum like this should be held more often, so that the public can say what they think about press reporting, and complaint about things they dont like to read or watch in the media.

Many things have already been discussed about how Lapindo use strategic and sophisticated public relation to lull the media into their sides of the story. I did not discuss that issue. "If you want the media to publish your side of the story, you have to do something to grab the media attention, you have to create an issue, engage the media, connect with us, and fight for the newsroom's attention," I said.

During the Soeharto authoritarian regime, the state and the government were the only power in every newsroom in this country. Now, the case is completely different. No one own the newsroom, not even the media owners. Yes, they can try to influence us, but we can refuse and fight back. If they dont like it, and decide to fire us, so be it, lets bring the fight to the street, and see how the credibility of that media will evaporate once everybody know that a news item can be change and shape under the owner's command.

So, press freedom is your freedom. I remember AJI and a couple of donor organisation campaign this theme several years ago. We made posters and stickers and pins, but no one seems to really understand the meaning of that campaign. Now, after several years, it sunk in to people's mind. After they see how their beloved teve news program cover a presidential candidate more favourably compared to the other. After they see their newspapers miss to mention a specific angle of an important issue. After they see their radio hijacked by big companies to air useless commercial programs. Now, they realise that they are the one who will pay the prize if press freedom is used and manipulated by the wealthy and powerfull elites.

Better late than never.

A Journalist' Responsibility

2009-10-02T05:38:00.000-07:00

This question haunted me since several weeks ago: how far do we, journalist, are responsible for things happening around us?

It all begin last September. The Alliance of Independent Journalist (AJI) Jakarta, where I sit as the chairman since last February, was asked to host a discussion to commemorate the fifth year anniversary of Munir's murder. As everybody probably well aware, this prominent human rights campaigner was poisoned to death on a Garuda flight to Amsterdam, September 7th five year ago.

Many journalists attended the discussion. We watched a documentary made by a friend of mine, former RCTI producer, Dhandy Dwi Laksono, and felt closer to Cak Munir. The film was great, it explained why we need to keep asking the question: who was behind this murder and keep pushing the police and attorney general to prosecute the mastermind.

However, the thing that disturbed me came during the discussion. Although it was not openly spoken during the Q and A session, I sense that many human rights activist who were there feel that the media, the journalist, has abandoned them, has forget this cause. "Yes, we got a lot of help and support from you all, but the work is not done yet, please come aboard again, lets do this once more, and push a litle more, so that everybody involve behind the curtain will be brought to justice."

How did we forget about Munir?

Well, we have many things on our plate. If you havent forget, we had the election, we had terrorism, we had corruption, we had other cases, everyday. So we did forget Munir.

How can we forget about Munir?

We can't. We actually can not and should not forget Munir.

But we just had so many other newsworthy issues to cover. We cannot fill our pages, our airwaves, with reports about Munir, if nothing happened just yet, can we? Some of us may ask: do we, journalist, have to also care about shaping an agenda, or do we just go with the flow, report anything that came in our way? Do we have time to reflect and then deliberately steer our reporting to a cause, to an issue, we know is important to the public? Are we free enough to that? Are we smart enough to that?

Indonesia Post Election

2009-07-10T01:57:00.000-07:00

Its two days after the presidential election. The official result is not declared yet, but all quick counts shows the same result: the incumbent won. What does this mean to Indonesia? First of all, I think its an indication that Indonesia is eager to part with its dark past. All candidates that has a relation with the authoritarian regime a decade ago are lost. The winner is generally perceived as clean and untainted with Soeharto's sins.

Secondly, this result means Indonesians wants to continue this path: to become a secular democracy, consistently eradicating corruption, and build stronger economy through sound, smart and carefull pro market finance policies. Indonesia wants to be open to the global world, assert its influence and retain itself as a succesful mixture of Islam and democracy, an example of how clash of civilization should not and will not ever occured.

Off course, there are many existing problems that need to be addressed. beaucracy reform that is still far from finished, lack of transparency, weak law enforcement, corrupt judiciary and legislative system, chaotic desentralization, and so on and so forth. But, people sees and feels a sense of direction, that we are in a right path, that it needs time to get to where we want to be. Lets see where we are in five years time.

Election: Hope or Threat?

2009-04-29T01:31:00.000-07:00

Its almost two months before the presidential election, next July 8, and it is almost certain, we will have a three-horse race between SBY, JK and Megawati. All the polls suggest that SBY will win the race easily, but many still sees there's a possibility that a surprise may occured somehow.

One of the source of surprise is the emergence of Prabowo Subianto. A former three stars general, a former son in law of the late President Soeharto, and a convicted mastermind behind the student kidnappings in 1998. He is known to have great ambition to ascend to power and is willing to work hard and do everything needed to make sure he gets what he wants.

Is he the hope Indonesian is waiting, or the threat that will squash everything this country has so far gained in the last 10 years? Time will tell.

The emergence of Indonesia

2009-04-14T20:29:00.000-07:00

Tuesday April 14, 2009

By KARIM RASLAN

Indonesia’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono stands poised to lead Indonesia to the forefront of global players alongside Brazil, China and India.

THE global financial crisis is spawning – and exacerbating – an equivalent set of political shocks.

Over the next year or two there will be winners and there will be losers both globally and regionally, and the recent G20 meeting in London was as much about determining which nations would emerge on the right side of history.

For us in South-East Asia, with our trade-dependant economies, the impact has been near disastrous.

Moreover, nations such as Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, with their rigid and inflexible political systems, are suffering an added whiplash as their respective peoples’ question the wisdom of age-old social contracts.

At the same time, the economic slowdown has laid bare deep-rooted divisions of class, race and geography that haunt our societies.

That this should be happening to the more stable nations within Asean is testament to the extent to which this crisis is upending the verities of global business.

This in turn is shaking the confidence of their respective elites – especially in Malaysia and Singapore – who’ve long proclaimed the wisdom of their model, namely, a combination of top-down, economic growth and limited civil liberties: in short “work damn hard and don’t ask questions, bro”.

As South-East Asia undergoes this painful transition, the centres of power and influence within our region are also shifting. Singapore will decline and Indonesia will emerge as the next power-house – witness the invitation list to the G20.

The city state’s economy with its extreme dependence on its neighbours’ weaknesses – in terms of regulatory frameworks, law and order and corruption – is undergoing considerable stress especially now, as Indonesia with Sri Mulyani as economic czar struggles to improve its internal governance and tax collection.

Moreover the global mood against off-shore financial havens is biting deep into the republic’s raison d’etre.

Geo-politics and economics are stress-testing the internal resilience of our nations. Countries that change with the times will prosper; those that won’t will get left behind.

In Malaysia, we’ve experienced an underwhelming transition followed by a set of by-elections that have reinforced March 2008’s political equation and the Barisan Nasional’s reversals.

Our new Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, is a smart, well-read man.

Still we have to ask the following questions: Can he curb the mounting racial exclusivism within Umno long enough to start winning back the non-Malay heartlands?

Or have PAS and PKR already supplanted Umno as the preferred guardians of minority rights?

Can he continue to keep west and east Malaysia on separate political trajectories – especially given Sarawak’s impending state elections?

Will an enthusiastic media championing his “One Malaysia” concept make any difference given the rakyat’s deep distrust of established authority?

Has the Malay elite (my class), like its Thai equivalent (my good friend Abhisit’s class), become so obsessed with retaining power that they (we) no longer see the manifest injustice of what they (we) are doing?

In Singapore, too, a Cabinet reshuffle has taken place but, again, one has to question whether this will improve the flagging fortunes of the ruling PAP.

No one denies that its new ministers, like incoming Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Huan, are capable individuals. Nonetheless, we have to ask: have the resources and ingenuity of the Lee dynasty finally met its match?

Will the city-state’s investment banker-obsessed elite follow Lehman Brothers into perdition? Can they cope with the seething resentment of ordinary people who want to know what has happened to their nation’s wealth.

The situation across the Causeway calls for a radical remaking of the entire politico-economic model. Likewise, the events in Thailand last weekend should be instructive.

The storming of the East Asia Summit by pro-Thaksin “Red Shirt” demonstrators is a fatal blow to Abhisit Vejjajiva’s fledging Government and to Thailand, which once had aspirations of regional leadership.

It also shows how little Asean means to the average South-East Asian.

Abhisit failed to manage the disastrous rural-urban divide in Thai society. Instead he hid behind the fading power of the Thai monarchy and military rather than face the people and seek a legitimate popular mandate.

The one bright spark, on the other hand, is Indonesia, long-despised as a morass of instability. The recently-concluded legislative elections there have been a triumph of democracy.

The vast archipelagic republic is also showing signs of surprising economic resilience buoyed up by the sheer scale of its gargantuan domestic market.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), whose party, the Democrats, look set to win the legislative polls and who is now poised for re-election as President, will inevitably consolidate power and authority.

Genuinely popular, he will have a historic opportunity to lead Indonesia to the forefront of global players alongside Brazil, China and India.

Nonetheless, we need to take a reality check. SBY’s nation still has a long way to go in many regards. Corruption, while on the retreat, remains rife and the emerging scandal over alleged electoral improprieties means that countless issues remain unresolved.

Nevertheless, the freeing of the public sphere via open debate and a free press, as well as the decentralisation of power to the provinces and districts has thrown open a world of possibilities.

Democracy hasn’t destabilised Indonesia, it has made it strong.

SBY may well become a latter-day Suharto, a dominant sultan-like figure towering over the landscape. However, his authority is derived from his popular mandate, and that can quickly be eroded.

Hence these several case-studies. The nations that have been bold in reforming themselves by empowering the people (and dis-empowering the elites) are on the rise.

The ones that cling to the past now stagnate. Like it or not, Indonesia is back on the global map. Jakarta may well become South-East Asia’s dominant centre of power and influence.(*)

Managing Expectation

2009-03-20T00:26:00.001-07:00

I wrote several months ago, that most people in Indonesia do not look forward enthusiastically toward the election, next July. I assumed that the reason for this widespread apathy is the old faces'candidates offered to the public. Most of the contestants competing in this election are from old times, with old promises. People --understandably-- are tired.

But then, as the campaign geared up to its final days, I sense a different mood amongst the people. People are starting to pay attention. Gossips spread around the corner, about this candidate and that candidate. On my way to work, people on the train, in foodstalls just across the station, on buses, anywhere, started to compare their judgment about what our future will be, if this candidate or that candidate, win the election. More and more people start to register themselves as voters. In the last legislative election, many people were not eligible to vote because they failed to register themselves in advance at the village/sub-district offices. This time, they didnt repeat that mistake: they want to vote and they want their vote counted.

However, I still think that this election is not everything. Its not the moment where our fate as a nation is at stake. I have stop thinking that election is the answer for everything now. One elected leader cannot do everything, he or she is not superperson, who can singlehandedly change a nation of 220 million people. I simply dont believe it.

Well, people ussualy pointed out at the Obama phenomenon in the US. Obama change alot of things in America, I will not argue against that. But, people tend to forget that all of that didnot come from Obama alone. He's just a symbol of a greater change that is happening in US. A movement where millions of young people involve, and join hands together to change the old ways of how politics is managed there. Obama, smartly capture the essence of this movement's spirit, and place himself in the center of it. He successfuly ride it to the White House. But, once he make a mistake, or deliberately denied the aspiration of his supporters'base, he's finished. And that is what politics should be.

Politics should be a big system where the real power lies with the people. Where people's need and hope, and sometimes fear-- are channeled, negotiated, and find a common resolution, acceptable for all. Politics should be about how to make people's lives better, about how to find a common platform where everybody feels represented, respected and appreciated. Politics is never about election alone.

Thats why, I still find myself, sometime, pessimistic about this election next July. The foundation of Indonesian politics is not yet strong, is not yet accountable. Election can not guarantee everybody's needs, hopes, and fears, is taken into account and considered. Our system mainly depends on our politicians good faith. If they're good people, then the system will work just fine. But, if they're a bunch of yes man, corrupt, dirty people, then there's very little things we can do to prevent it. We dont have a strong check and balances system yet, we dont have a strong democratic institution yet. Everybody can still be bribed and seduced to follow one short term, pragmatic interest of certain parties.

We have to manage our expectation. Yes, election is important, but not that vital. Indonesia is a work in progress, and this is just one step in our long path to reach our end destination, that is a country where everybody can live together in harmony, in a prosperous, just, democratic society. We're still along way from that.

Indonesia re-enters the club of fast growing economies

2009-03-20T00:23:00.000-07:00

Riyadi Suparno , The Jakarta Post , Paris | Fri, 03/20/2009 1:10 PM | Headlines

After sinking deep during the financial crisis, Indonesia has now entered the club of the world's fastest growing economies, but it needs further economic reforms and liberalization to gain more from international trade.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in its latest report "Globalization and Emerging Economies" released in Geneva on Thursday, includes Indonesia among the world's best performing large developing economies.

Indonesia now sits alongside Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, in a group the OECD calls BRIICS.

"The inclusion of Indonesia into BRIICS is a recognition of the importance and size of the country, the situation relative to OECD member countries, and the desire of OECD countries to engage in it more closely," Douglas Lippoldt, acting head of the Development Division at the Trade and Agricultural Directorate of the OECD.

Des Alwi, an official at the Indonesian embassy in Paris, said the inclusion of Indonesia into BRIICS puts Indonesia back on the global radar as a future economic powerhouse following the financial crisis.

He also said the inclusion acts as recognition of Indonesia's relatively fast recovery from the severe financial crisis of the late 1990s.

The report said while Indonesia had not yet recovered to pre-crisis levels of growth, the national economy had done very admirably considering the sharp depreciation of the rupiah and the rise of oil prices.

The biggest drawback is Indonesia's international trade, which has been declining in proportion to its gross domestic product and global trade, as well as new constraints on business in the country. The increasing rigidity of the labor market, in particular, is of big concern.

Before the crisis, Indonesia's international trade had long been a key catalyst for growth, but since the crisis trade has played a much smaller role. The emergence of new competitors, or the fact the severity of the crisis affected the ability of firms to trade, could be two reasons for this change. Another factor is that Indonesia, which has the lowest tariff levels among the BRIICS nations, has become less open to international trade. The nation has been raising tariff barriers for agriculture, textiles and steel products. Since 2001, new non-tariff barriers have emerged and creeping protectionism has set in.

In addition, the recovery of the economy has not spread equally across sectors. Growth has been strongest in capital-intensive services, while labor intensive primary and manufacturing sectors are experiencing sluggish growth. This results in persistently higher unemployment.

High unemployment has also been attributed to the increasingly rigid labor market, where hiring and firing has become more expensive for businesses.

Indonesia, therefore, needs to continue deeply integrating into the world market and improve the investment climate to boost its attractiveness as a global production base. This way, with the momentum of high growth being sustained, it will remain relevant to the global economy.

As Indonesia becomes significantly more important economically on the world stage, the OECD has adopted an "enhanced engagement" process with the BRIICS countries, with the view being they will eventually become members.

OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said that engaging Indonesia and other BRIICS countries was important for the OECD to maintain its relevance.

OECD countries' share in global trade has declined for several decades to just 60 percent, while the BRIICS countries' shares has increased to 30 percent.

"If we are not engaging BRIICS nations, we run the danger of becoming less and less relevant," Gurria told journalists from BRIICS countries at his office Thursday.

"Whether you are going to be a member or not, we say we are representing 60 percent *of global trade* and working closely with the other 30 percent, and therefore, we remain a relevant organization."

Another Thought on The Election

2009-02-10T19:06:00.000-08:00

Well, we're advancing fast toward the election now. Almost everybody is ready by now. All parties have geared up their campaign machinery, and now seems like have exhausted everything possible on their effort to win. But, somehow, I dont think this election will really deliver a genuine chance for Indonesian to have a real, elected representatives to fight for their interests.

First of all, there is the question of money. Indonesian politics are expensive. If you want a shoot and try to join the big league --i.e. the national parliament-- you have at least have several hundred millions rupiah at your disposal. A friend of mine said he spent almost 200 million IDR within six months of campaigning. And thats small numbers, compared with what the others has spent.

Because of that, only rich people can compete in this election. To cover their lack of power-base, they hire local people to act as their liason officer in the field. They spread money, arrange public meeting, and mobilize voters to the polling booth. They are paid with good money.

Candidates with no ties to financial sources are left with no hope to win. Another friend, a former journalist, tries his luck competing for a local parliament seat, and he said he has no chance whatsoever. "My competitor is a local bussinesman, he owns a big property company in my city, and he's willing to spend a fortune to win," he said.

I think there is something wrong with this system. Real grass root politician, with good networking, clear vision and a call to serve its community does not stand a chance. Unless, he's good at fundraising, making contacts with bussines people and offer them something in return for financial backing. But, thats not easy either. My friend has tried and failed. "In one case, the bussinesman himself is also running, so obviously he cannot support me. In another case, the bussinesman ask for a big favor in return, which I cant accept because its againsts my constituents' interest," he said.

In the end, after the election, I'm almost certain we'll see a parliament packed of rich, well-connected people, that is out of touch with the real person that live nearby. Half of them will be people who already bought by another group of rich people --who prefer to use someone else and dont want to do the dirty work themselves. Off course, there will be some exception, but they are so small in numbers to hardly trigger something meaningful.

Am I sound too sceptic? Lets see if I'm right or wrong after the election.

Indonesia and The Election Year

2009-02-06T01:22:00.001-08:00

This year, Indonesia will face two election: the general election for legislative body's members --from local councillor in district level, to provincial and state parliaments-- and the presidential election. The first one will takes place next April 9th, whilst the second one on July 5th.

Unlike the previous election in 2004, the general mood this time is a little different. In 2004, everyone anticipated the coming election with excitement. Five years ago, we experienced our first ever direct presidential election. Before, our head of state always picked by a handfull members of the People's Representative Assembly, a sort of Indonesian version of the US Congress.

In 2004, we were also eager to end our political landscape's turmoil. We had a very fragmented coalition back then. At first, after the 1999 election, we had Central Axis Coalition, consists of Golkar and a few Islamic parties as the ruling coalition. That coalition collapse halfway, resulting an impeachment of the then presiden Abdurrahman Wahid. Golkar approached PDIP --the winner of 1999 election-- and together they backed Megawati, as the new president.

Maybe the public back then in 2004, was tired to watch all of those political gimmicks. Not to mention, the trial of Akbar Tandjung, that went nowhere, corruption everywhere, incompetence in all level of government. The election came and seen as a rescue, a way out, to break and end this political fiasco, and create a better one out of it.

Today, the mood is different. We're not that excited to welcome the election year. We want to see progress, we want to see improvement, we want to work, work, work, for the better of our country. We tend to see the election as an obstacle, in one way or another, especially when it got nothing to do --or at least so it seems-- to our big project in reinventing Indonesia, making it prosper and excell. The candidates are all old faces who wants to make a comeback to the center stage, and offer nothing new except in rhetoric. No wonder people are complaining, and wishing all of this will end soon.

When dreaming of BRICI is not enough

2009-02-06T01:20:00.000-08:00

Lin Che Wei, Jakarta

If everything goes well, in 2050 Indonesia will be the tenth largest
economy in the world in terms of gross domestic product (GDP). The top
10 largest economies will consist of five of the old G7 economic
powers -- the United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and France
-- while the other five will consist of newly emerging economies,
namely China, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia. The emerging five
will be cumulatively bigger than the old five (61 percent compared to
39 percent). This means that the emerging market countries will be
playing a much bigger role than the developed economic powers in 2050.

This forecast is, however, based on certain crucial assumptions
regarding macroeconomic, human resource and political conditions. If,
and only if, these assumptions turn out to be valid will this forecast
be realized. Thus, the road to prosperity will most assuredly not be
just a walk in the park. It is bound to be bumpy and hazardous.

Four out of the five emerging countries that are predicted to break
the G7's domination in 2050 are currently known as the BRIC countries.
"BRIC" is the term popularized by Goldman Sachs economist Jim O'Neill
in 2001 to represent Brazil, Russia, India and China -- the world's
four most prospective economies. The key features of these four are
their large populations, strong economic growth and political
stability. Most portfolio investors have a tendency to lump these
countries together and invest in these countries as one basket.

So, why is Indonesia not in the group, converting it into BRICI?
Indonesia actually has similar characteristics to the rest of these
countries, as shown in the table below.

We have a big enough population and high enough economic growth
compared to the countries making up BRIC, showing that we have the
same potential for growth as they do.

Based on these features, we should be in the group, making it a group
of five instead of four. So, why aren't we?

First, despite our economic recovery, Goldman Sachs believes that the
fulfillment of the conditions necessary for long-term continuous
growth in Indonesia would be an unrealistic assumption. In almost all
variables of the GES (Growth Environment Score) utilized in the model,
Indonesia scores favorably against the BRICs, but falls short in the
political stability necessary to foster long-term growth. Further
variables within the political stability component include "rule of
law" and "corruption", two measures on which Indonesia clearly needs
to improve.

A stable political regime promotes confidence entailing higher
investment and growth. This requires well-defined property rights,
generally well-functioning institutions and little corruption.
Nevertheless, the BRIC countries were determined during Indonesia's
political transition, when a stable Indonesia seemed uncertain.

Ever since, conditions have improved. Our Corruption Perception Index
shows progress has being made, with our score increasing to 2.4 in
2006 from 2.2 in 2005. Not only that, we have also made significant
improvements in terms of the Rule of Law Index. In 1998, our score was
only -0.97, but now in 2006 we have booked a score of -0.34.

With the holding of successful elections and the succession of
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono as Indonesia's first directly
elected President, we can only assume the best is yet to come. BRICs
came under the spotlight at a time when the world was still utterly
dismayed by the proliferation of terrorist attacks.

With the Bali bombings, it is natural that the threat of terrorism has
loomed large over the archipelago. Nonetheless, the results of the
antiterrorism measures taken by the government have been quite
positive. Hence, we should also take a positive view as regards the
terrorism issue in Indonesia.

Second, Southeast Asian countries have been excluded from the
grouping. The BRICs proposition was put forward during a time when the
region was recovering from the Asian economic crisis. This made the
region less attractive than the thriving economies of Latin America,
Eastern Europe, South Asia and North Asia, creating skepticism that
the region could host an economic powerhouse. Yet, ever since then,
the region has been proving that it is now back on track for competing
with other developing regions.

Third, compared to the other BRIC countries, Indonesia's capital
market is relatively small. Its market capitalization only comprises
29.5 percent of GDP, while in the BRIC countries, excluding Russia,
market capitalization is over 70 percent of their respective GDPs.
This fact has deterred some potential investors who might have
otherwise come our way.

Last, but not least, Indonesia suffers from a combination of negative
media exposure and lack of self-promotion, creating a negative
perception in the global world that Indonesia is a dangerous, unstable
country rife with insecurities and natural disasters. Needless to say,
the negative exposure has not helped promote the image of stability,
which the country if it wants to attract more investment.

Based on all of the above, why should Indonesia not be included in the
BRIC countries, and why should we worry? The main benefit that we
would reap from being a member of BRICI is increased investment. Since
the initial BRICs report, its impact on investment has been
substantial; more investment has been going to these countries due to
their expected growth potential. If we could attract investment like
that, a trickle down effect that would increase our prosperity is only
to be expected.

Second, with the potential to become the largest economic bloc in the
world, BRICI will have better leverage in global economic
policymaking, which is currently dominated by the G7, not to mention
the political power that comes with such leverage.

Third, Indonesia would also benefit from the ability to benchmark
ourselves against the most prospective countries -- i.e., the BRICs --
so as to attract more investment.

There are many major steps that need to be taken to turn this dream
into a reality. First of all, Indonesia needs to continue improving
its political stability, uphold the rule of law, reduce corruption
levels and display a commitment to long-term economic growth.

Second, we also need to show our commitment as a leader in Southeast
Asia, as the most obvious representative for the region in BRICI.

Third, the perpetual improvement and development of the capital market
is also required to foster more sustained investment.

Fourth, the quality of stock market governance needs to be improved,
as does the stock market's depth and breadth.

Fifth, the government needs to adopt a proactive role in promoting
Indonesia. A marketing campaign, not unlike Malaysia's "Truly Asia"
campaign, could help bridge the gap between global perceptions and
reality. All these endeavors have to be reinforced by a commitment
from the government and investment community.

Whilst wishing to get into the BRICs circle, we should not overlook
our other competitors that have significant chances of entering the
same group. In Southeast Asia, our most prominent competitor will be
Thailand. Yet, Thailand does not have a big enough population. Its
recent coup d'etat has torn apart its previous political stability.
Outside the Southeast Asia region, our potential competitors for BRICs
will be South Korea and Mexico. South Korea in reality has quite a
small population compared to Indonesia and the BRIC members.

However, its economy is one of the best among the Asian and the
emerging countries, making it an established country on its own.
Mexico, on the other hand, has around 110 million people, comparable
enough to the BRICs and us. However, Mexico is now in political
turmoil after its recent presidential election resulted in protracted
demonstrations that almost paralyzed its capital city.

Noting our own key features and our potential competitors, we believe
that Indonesia deserves to be let into BRICs and change the group to
BRICI. When, realistically, could we join the group? In our opinion, a
target of between two and three years would not be overly ambitious.
---------------------------------
The writer is the chief executive officer of PT Danareksa Sekuritas.

Asia — A Vision for 2015

2008-02-27T22:01:00.000-08:00

Asia is taking an ever bigger role on the global stage. However, income disparity between countries — or even within one country — is still on the rise. What specifically needs to be done to reduce poverty in the region? Matthew Hulbert provides his perspective

| | |

When Asian leaders gathered in London in early March 2006 to discuss regional development under the title “Asia 2015,” the famous dictum issued by Mao in 1958, which set China’s goal to “surpass Britain and catch up with America” — was ringing loud in many Western years.

As well it might, given that China’s economy is already overtaking the United Kingdom. And by 2040, will be larger than the United States, according to Goldman Sachs.

India, for its part is set to outstrip the Japanese economy by 2032. In total, Asia not only accounts for 40% of the world’s population, but garners a fifth of global production.

Poverty stricken

The exponential growth of the Asian economy is not the whole story, of course. For all its successes, Asia remains home to two-thirds of the world’s poor who live on less than a dollar a day.

The UK Department for International Development predicts that by 2015 some 309 million South Asians and Chinese will still live in poverty, which compares to 366 million in the whole of Africa.

Millennium Development Goals

Thus, if the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are to be realized, Asia would be a good place to start. To facilitate this, both the politics and economics of the region will have to be realigned in a "pro-poor" direction — rather than running along the contours of Beijing, Delhi and Tokyo politics.

Inequality levels are currently rising in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam — while poverty is rising sharply in China’s rural provinces.

The result has been to derail a number of income and non-income MDG targets for human development such as in hunger, Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) and sanitation.

Inequality and corruption

Such inequality is reinforced by gender, caste, religious, ethnic and social discrimination that reduces people’s ability to benefit from economic growth.

Governance is also a significant problem, with the Kaufman, Kraay & Mastruzzi (KKM) Index showing that corruption and political instability are never far removed from the Asian political landscape.

Increasing disparities

Even assuming a "Golden Era" for Asia — where growth rates continue to rise and political conflict is held in abeyance — disparities will increase between regions within the larger countries

Migration will increase rapidly to where the jobs are located. And South Asia would still have in excess of 268 million people in poverty by 2015. Should growth rates dip by a mere 1%, many countries would not even halve their income poverty.

Per capita incomes will thus remain low, and although aggregate spending power will be significant, the average consumer will not feel the benefits in a situation where the biggest economies do not translate into being the richest. Worse still, Asian growth is also starting to come without additional job creation.

Critical initiatives

Domestically, this suggests that redistributive policies, fiscal transfers and infrastructure provision are called for in countries across Asia. Enhancing participatory political structures in a stable manner will also be critical to Asia’s success.

Other policy imperatives include enhancing the role of the private sector, improving the effectiveness of the state through improved public spending and most crucially promoting internal and international trade.

Marginalizing economic shocks

It is only with such effective firewalls in place that climate change, natural resource depletion, the spread of diseases and the impact of economic shocks can be marginalized.

This is particularly true for states that, while crossing from Low Income Country (LIC) to Middle Income Country (MIC) status, remain precariously balanced at the bottom end of the middle income scale.

India and Vietnam will keep a sharp focus on this challenge around 2012-14 as they make the transition, as will Pakistan and Bangladesh around 2020.

Political paralysis

Despite such trends, the world is remarkably bad at taking out insurance policies when needed. As the former IMF Chief Economist Kenneth Rogoff remarks, “in the light of risks to the global economy, today’s policy climate seems marked by a discouraging level of political paralysis”.

“Paralysis” is perhaps not a fitting diagnosis of Asia, but cooperation is at a formative stage. And many have argued, the “noodle bowl” of regional trade agreements are at best suboptimal — at worst, counterproductive — to this crucial part of poverty reduction in Asia.

Important bilateral trade agreements

According to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), no less than 15 trade and investment initiatives have been sealed in Asia since 1998 — with a further 20 under negotiation and 16 more proposed. Much of the drive for such bilateral trade agreements has come from Japan in a bid to counter China’s regional influence.

Koizumi has plans to conclude a further 15 agreements by the end of the year, including one with ASEAN by 2010. South Korea already concluded such an agreement at the start of 2006.

The use of bilateral agreements undoubtedly creates new trade opportunities, but they can also often end up diverting trade from one country or region to another.

Economic powerhouses

The Asian Development Bank has already argued that the best way of bringing clarity to the situation would be through a trilateral deal between China, Japan and South Korea.

This could attract other Asian countries to join these three economic powerhouses. While this may be true in economies today, it perhaps overlooks the politics of the region.

Asia’s balancing act

Far more likely is that the process will work in the opposite direction whereby ASEAN becomes the common denominator to link up these major players, including that of India.

With this in mind, the creation of an ASEAN Economic Community by 2015 could be a distinct possibility rather than in 2020 — provided all the political pieces fall into place. This will be politically difficult, but economically required. Any pause in Asian growth would have global implications for commodity prices, inflation and productivity.

If the "grand vision" is enacted, redistributive policies, fiscal transfers and infrastructure provision across Asia will become all the more critical — if growth is to remain sustainable. This will be a major factor underlying Asia’s delicate social, political and economic balancing act.

Enabling ASEAN's Economic Vision

2008-02-27T21:57:00.000-08:00

January 29, 2008

by Walter Lohman and Anthony B. Kim

At 40 years of age, the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN)--which encompasses the five original member countries of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand and the newer member countries of Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, and Vietnam--is the oldest and largest organization of its kind in Asia. ASEAN countries have a combined population of more than 500 million people--larger than the population of the European Union. Their combined gross domestic product (GDP) exceeds $1 trillion, which is the 11th largest in the world, ahead of Russia and India.[1]

ASEAN has committed itself to making the most of its collective strength by achieving an integrated, liberal market. Ten years ago in Kuala Lumpur, ASEAN launched ASEAN Vision 2020, which calls for creating "a stable, prosperous and highly competitive ASEAN Economic Region in which there is a free flow of goods, services and investments, a freer flow of capital, equitable economic development and reduced poverty and socio-economic disparities."[2] This is ASEAN's guiding economic vision. It is echoed throughout ASEAN documents, including the new ASEAN Charter.

Despite its pledges, however, economic integration remains more aspiration than reality. Today, ASEAN is not a single integrated market. It is 10 separate markets that are no more economically integrated with each another than they are with economies outside of ASEAN. Intra-ASEAN trade accounts for only about 25 percent of its global trade.[3] Intra-ASEAN foreign direct investment (FDI) amounts to 11 percent of total FDI into ASEAN.[4]

Even these figures give an inflated picture of the current state of economic integration, because not all ASEAN countries contribute equally. For instance, Singapore, which has a world-class economy, contributes far more to intraregional trade and investment than less-developed Laos contributes.

The measure of ASEAN's integration is not only intraregional trade and investment flows, but also its attractiveness as an investment destination. From the 1992 launch of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) to the signing of its Economic Community Blueprint in November 2007, achieving economy of scale in ASEAN has always meant attracting greater levels of foreign investment. Yet even as it has sought ever new ways to stay competitive as a region, it has lagged behind market-leader China-- particularly since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. (A few years prior to the crisis, ASEAN actually led China as an investment destination.)

It has been famously said that what East Asian economic integration needs now is management, not vision.[5] While ASEAN's dizzying array of agreements, initiatives, and commitments clearly lacks adequate management, ASEAN's vision is also unresolved. The member countries' less-than-resolute commitment to free markets contributes directly to the management problem. It forces ASEAN to pursue a lowest-common-denominator path to integration that leaves it short of its ambitious economic goals. True commitment to economic freedom would ease integration by eliminating obstacles and feeding the market forces that are responsible for whatever real cross-border economic activity is taking place.

The ASEAN countries need to decide that ASEAN Vision 2020 is where they want to go, make the difficult choices at the national level that are required to achieve that vision, and exercise the necessary political will to follow through. With the right level of commitment, managing ASEAN economic integration will become easier, and an integrated, liberal East Asian market will become a reality.

Managing ASEAN Economic Integration

ASEAN's integration machinery is unique. Each year, official summits produce new initiatives aimed at furthering economic integration. Some initiatives are cursory and self-executing. Many are detailed and aimed at fulfilling previous commitments. Taken together, the scale of the planned restructuring of the regional economy is extraordinary, and the task of managing it is massive.

To ease implementation and provide a rationale commensurate with its challenges, in 2003, ASEAN brought all of these efforts under the one conceptual roof of ASEAN Economic Community.

ASEAN Economic Community. ASEAN has identified its effort to establish "a single market and production base" through the "free flow of goods, services, investment and a free flow of capital"[6] with the explicit goal of achieving an "economic community."

It has since accelerated the timetable for completion from 2020 to 2015 and developed detailed implementation plans. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is intended to strengthen existing agreements--principally the ASEAN Free Trade Area, the ASEAN Investment Area, and the ASEAN Framework on Services--and to accelerate integration in priority sectors.[7] ASEAN's progress in managing ASEAN economic integration must begin with an assessment of these agreements and their economic impact.

ASEAN Free Trade Area. By far ASEAN's most successful effort toward building a competitive economy of scale has been the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). AFTA was signed in 1992 and is largely on track. The ASEAN-6 include ASEAN's major national economies--Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand--as well as Brunei.

The ASEAN-6 have reduced tariffs to from 0 percent-5 percent on nearly 99 percent of the products covered under AFTA and are moving toward full tariff elimination by 2010. As of August 2007, the ASEAN-6 had eliminated tariffs on more than 70 percent of the products covered by the AFTA.[8] (For these economies, almost all of their trade in goods is covered.)[9] The lesser developed ASEAN countries are on a slower schedule but are also making respectable progress. Laos and Burma must reduce tariffs to the 0 percent-5 percent range by 2008, and Cambodia must do so by 2010. They and Vietnam are then obliged to eliminate tariffs completely by 2015.[10]

Coverage and compliance are good. However, when it comes to actual trade, AFTA is not fully utilized for a number of reasons. Its broad benefits are brought to bear on only 5 percent of intra-ASEAN trade. So while ASEAN can claim double-digit growth in intra-ASEAN trade,[11] it cannot claim that the increases are driven by AFTA. In fact, even without applying AFTA, the amount of trade among ASEAN countries is rising no faster than ASEAN's trade with the rest of the world.[12]

Underutilization of AFTA points to several key problems. The application procedure for AFTA is unclear and not well publicized. More important, the marginal savings over the standard most-favored-nation rate is often not sufficiently greater than the processing cost. It is simply not worth the trouble to apply.

This points to a fundamental problem: ASEAN's low-ball definition of free trade and slow schedule for tariff elimination. ASEAN's interim tariff level of 5 percent is above the tariff rates to which industrialized countries are committed under the Uruguay Round.[13] Where the tariff reductions under AFTA are significant, non-tariff barriers (NTBs) often remain. This makes NTBs a major obstacle on ASEAN's road to economic integration. The organization's efforts to remove them have been largely ineffectual.[14]

Finally, a clear, trusted, effective mechanism for addressing non-compliance is a necessary part of any trade agreement. ASEAN has a dispute settlement mechanism with application to AFTA commitments, but it has never been used.

ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services. In 1995, ASEAN launched the ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) to "eliminate substantially restrictions to trade in services" by going beyond General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments to achieve a "free trade area in services."[15] There have been six packages of commitments under the AFAS. To ease implementation, ASEAN has employed its ASEAN-X mechanism, which means that countries ready to move forward with new commitments may do so without the immediate participation of all ASEAN members.

AFAS implementation has been slow and uneven. On balance, more than 10 years since the agreement was signed in Bangkok, "member countries' commitments have not been significantly bolder and more far-reaching" than their commitments to liberalize under GATS.[16] While intra-ASEAN barriers to trade in services have fallen for every ASEAN country and are now 10 percent lower for intra-ASEAN trade than for countries outside ASEAN, Singapore and Malaysia, the two biggest providers of services in ASEAN, provide no substantial benefit to their ASEAN neighbors above their global GATS commitments.[17]

Beyond this structural problem, AFAS has been hampered by the poor quality of regulations, lack of proper governance, and unpredictability.[18] Transparency requires more than posting commitments on ASEAN's Web site, which it does to its credit. It means that commitments should not be subject to ongoing, unpredictable modification and that information on new policies, laws, and regulations should be made generally available for comment before they are enforced.[19] ASEAN is not meeting this standard.

The ASEAN Investment Area. In 1995, ASEAN endorsed investment liberalization as a basis for enhancing its collective "attractiveness and competitiveness" for investment. In 1998, it followed through on this mandate by creating the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA).[20] The AIA declared an "immediate opening up of all industries for investment, with some exceptions...to ASEAN investors by 2010 and to all investors by 2020." It also declared "immediate national treatment" on the same schedule.[21]

The agreement is in effect more modest. It covers five economic sectors--manufacturing, agriculture, fisheries, mining, and quarrying--and services incidental to these sectors. This excludes two-thirds of the most attractive areas for FDI from the outset.[22]

Still, the AIA is an important part of realizing ASEAN's economic vision. The devil is in the exceptions. The member countries drew up the lists of exceptions, some of which were to be phased out. For instance, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar (Burma), the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand had until January 1, 2003, to phase out their exceptions for manufacturing. As of 2006, three continuing exceptions remained on that list. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam have until 2010 to phase out their 28 exceptions for manufacturing.

Exceptions in "sensitive areas" are not required to be phased out but are to be reviewed and phased out if and when the governments are ready. As of 2006, the list of such sensitive sectors contained 148 measures in manufacturing.[23]

Over and above both of these categories, there is the General Exception List, which covers "industries and investment measures that cannot be opened up for investment or granted national treatment because of reasons of national security, public morals, public health or environmental protection."[24] For these sectors, not only is there no requirement that they ultimately be phased in, but there is no requirement that they be considered for inclusion in the AIA.

In 2004, a report by the well-respected Thailand Development Research Institute shed some light on how an agreement intended to open up intraregional investment has managed to fall so far short:

[S]ome member countries list all manufacturing industries in the negative list.... Other member countries, including Thailand, simply reproduce the list of restrictions under current laws or regulations and compile them into the sensitive list, which require occasional review but no phasing-out commitments.[25]

On the positive side, across the industries covered by the AIA, 14 exceptions on the original lists have been phased out, while another 51 have been transferred from the sensitive list to the phase-in list. However, if the purpose of the AIA is to create an open investment environment across ASEAN, the limited coverage, exceptions, and progress to date are major problems. As a result, after 10 years, the agreement "has not had a discernable effect on FDI inflows."[26]

Fast-Tracked Priority Sectors. In 2004, ASEAN singled out 11--later expanded to 12--sectors for integration.[27] They were fast-tracked in the context of full economic integration by 2015. The priority sectors are agro-based products, automotives, e-ASEAN, electronics, fisheries, health care, textiles and apparel, wood-based products, rubber-based products, tourism, air travel, and logistics. In 2004, these sectors accounted for more than 50 percent of intra-ASEAN trade. The ASEAN-6 (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) were to eliminate all import duties in these areas by 2007, and the other ASEAN members were to eliminate them by 2012. This constituted an acceleration of their AFTA commitments by three years. Beyond tariffs, a number of other impediments to trade were targeted for elimination including NTBs associated with product standards and regulations, testing certification, investment facilitation, and overlapping authorities at the products' points of entry.[28]

Progress in meeting these commitments has been broadly characterized as "far from complete and generally slower than anticipated."[29] One detailed study criticized compliance in removing NTBs in these sectors as follows: "[NTBs] continue to exist in all priority sectors in all ten countries, and there is no evidence that their height or incidence has declined."[30] The same study characterized liberalization in the priority service sectors as "extremely low" and the NTBs as "sizable."

ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. On November 20, 2007, ASEAN leaders signed the Declaration on the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint. Conceptually, the blueprint brings the constituent parts of the AEC, which includes the above-referenced agreements and other commitments, together with measures to deepen integration. It also features a master implementation plan. The blueprint is an admirable effort to compile and organize the AEC task list.

Among its positive details, the blueprint provides for a review of both the ASEAN Investment Area and a long-standing agreement that specifically provides investment protection.[31] It aims to bring the two together in a new stronger, inclusive agreement called the ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement. The blueprint places renewed focus on completely removing NTBs. It also initiates a regional discussion on competition policy--something that most ASEAN members lack.[32]

These are excellent initiatives. ASEAN's recommitment to its objectives is an encouraging demonstration that it recognizes its shortcomings. Better organizing them is some indication that it takes its commitments seriously. Yet until it actually implements these commitments, the blueprint is just another ASEAN document. The AEC's 2015 deadline offers a bright benchmark against which progress can be measured.

The ASEAN Charter. ASEAN leaders well know that a blueprint alone will not lead to economic integration and the economy of scale that they need to stay competitive. ASEAN needs to find a "new ASEAN way"[33] that is rule-based and governed by stronger institutions. Hadi Soesastro, executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Indonesia, has noted:

There is no point in pursuing an advanced and demanding notion as an AEC without deeper and testable commitment of the Member States and stronger institutions or a detailed treaty from the outset. Without endowed ASEAN institutions, without a treaty, without transfer of powers, and without any budget, one should not expect a credible ASEAN Economic Community to emerge.[34]

Hence, in 2005, ASEAN agreed to establish an organizational charter--something ASEAN had been without since it was founded in 1967. An Eminent Persons Group (EPG) was established with a mandate to make recommendations for the charter. The recommendations were made on schedule, and a charter was drafted and approved on schedule on November 20, 2007, in Singapore.

The Singapore summit was overshadowed in the international press by concern about repression in Burma and ASEAN's failure to address effectively what even its own members termed revolting[35] behavior by one of its member countries. Accordingly, criticism of the charter focused largely on ASEAN's impotence in dealing with repression in Burma and the irony that the historic charter required the signature of the miscreant regime.[36]

The focus on Burma was fair. The violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in September 2007 and the manner in which the ASEAN heads of state handled it two months later cast doubt on ASEAN's commitment to its own principles at the very time when it was enshrining those principles in the charter. One of the charter's purposes is "to strengthen democracy, to enhance good governance and the rule of law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms."[37] ASEAN's failure to deal effectively with such a glaring breach of its principles as the September events in Burma raises serious doubts about whether or not the ASEAN Charter can provide the basis for forging a regional community.

If ASEAN finds a way to address this concern, the charter does contain some of the seeds for an effective institution. ASEAN largely adopted the EPG's recommendations. The charter creates a streamlined structure that makes inherent good sense and should help ASEAN to monitor and implement its various plans and road maps. More frequent meetings of its leaders should help ASEAN to shoulder more responsibility for outcomes and process. The creation of a formal appeal process for non-compliance with agreements, enshrining the principle of ASEAN-X, and endorsement of dispute settlement and arbitration are all very positive signs.

On the downside, the charter does not allow appeal to majority vote as recommended by the EPG. Instead, the charter reinforces the principle of "consultation and consensus" in ASEAN decision making, which has historically prevented it from making the tough decisions. Disputes that cannot be worked out using current procedures can be referred to the ASEAN heads of state. However, referral to the heads-of-state level will likely be seen as a "nuclear option." There is the distinct risk that decisions will remain unresolved indefinitely out of respect for the offending parties' sensibilities and that the dispute settlement process will go unused. In the event that a decision does reach the heads of state, they will be sorely tempted to avoid an embarrassing confrontation by delegating the decision back down to a lower level without making a final determination.

The EPG also recommended enforcement mechanisms and penalties including "suspension of rights and privileges," but not expulsion. However, the current charter does not include these. As regards ASEAN's finances, the EPG recommended--and ASEAN accepted--continued application of "equal contribution" to the ASEAN budget. This means that the poorest and the richest make the same level of financial contribution, effectively capping contributions at the lowest level and handicapping an organization that is already woefully short of needed resources.[38]

At this point, the charter appears to lack at least two of the four criteria that Dr. Soesastro laid out in 2005: It does not provide for an adequate budget, and it does not transfer enforcement power. The charter is a living document, open to review and amendment. Time and the ratification process will tell whether the ASEAN Charter marks a watershed in ASEAN's history or is just another document that bestows legal personality on ASEAN and makes ASEAN a more efficient structure but does little else.

Ultimately, even with the charter, economic integration comes down to political will. Without the political will, ASEAN economic integration will not occur.

Economic Freedom in ASEAN

ASEAN may not have achieved the basis for effective management of its economic commitments, yet that is only half of the battle. Any review of ASEAN's ground-level economic environment points to the continuing need for vision.

Enhancing economic freedom is crucial to economic development and sustained prosperity in today's increasingly integrated global market. Economic growth and prosperity depend on maintaining and improving an environment in which entrepreneurial activities and innovation can flourish. Economies with higher degrees of openness and flexibility benefit from the free exchange of commerce and thereby enjoy sustainable economic growth and prosperity.

The Index of Economic Freedom, published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, systematically and empirically documents this relationship by evaluating countries' economic freedom based on such things as ease of doing business, tariff and non-tariff barriers, property rights, corruption, and investment regimes. Each year, it uses data from internationally authoritative sources--the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, Transparency International, and others--to calculate a economic freedom rating for each country.

The Index paints a disparate, disappointing picture of ASEAN's economy. Each ASEAN country's overall score and scores for each of the 10 economic freedoms are presented in Table 1. The scores range from 0 (completely repressed) to 100 (completely free).

Chart 2 compares the simple average economic freedom score of ASEAN over the past decade with the averages for the Asia-Pacific region and the world. ASEAN's economic freedom score has been stagnant and below both the world average and the Asia- Pacific average. ASEAN's 2008 average economic freedom score is 57.9, which is below both the world average score of 60.3 and the Asia- Pacific score of 58.7.

ASEAN performs considerably better than the world average only in fiscal freedom and government size. (See Chart 3.) The high scores in these two freedoms reflect that the ASEAN governments have more fiscal policy options at their disposal. However, ASEAN's overall economic freedom is severely hampered by lack of other freedoms, particularly business freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and property rights

Business Freedom. ASEAN's business freedom score is 58.3, or 4.5 percentage points below the world average of 62.8 percent. Business freedom is a measure of how free entrepreneurs are to start businesses, how easily they can obtain licenses, and how easily they can close a business. Impediments to any of these three components deter business activity and, therefore, job creation.

Trade Freedom. ASEAN'S trade freedom score is 70.7, lower than the world average score of 72. ASEAN's total trade with the world is more than $900 billion. Its weighted average tariff rate is around 7.2 percent, which is lower than the global average, but non-tariff barriers such as quotas, burdensome regulations and standards, and bureaucratic delays still significantly impede open commerce.

Fiscal Freedom. ASEAN's fiscal freedom score is 79.9, which is 5 points higher than the global average score of 74.9. The top tax rate on individual income averages around 32 percent, and the top tax rate on corporate income averages around 28 percent.

Government Size. ASEAN's score on government size, which measures government spending as a percentage of GDP, is 89.6. This is considerably higher than the global average score of 67.7. However, this high score does not mean that the ASEAN economies enjoy less government intervention. Government intervention in the economy is also reflected in investment and financial freedom scores and in other freedom scores.

Monetary Freedom. ASEAN enjoys a high level of monetary stability with a monetary freedom score of 72.7, which is slightly lower than the global average. The ASEAN economies' inflation rates have been moderate despite recent inflationary pressures from China. However, many ASEAN member economies maintain price controls on certain commodities through government intervention.

Investment Freedom. Capital flows are still severely restricted in ASEAN. ASEAN's average financial freedom score is 36.7, which is 13 points lower than the global average. Only Singapore, with a score of 80, enjoys high investment freedom. Most ASEAN countries are significantly deficient in investment freedom, with scores of less than 50, which means that their overall investment climates are dampened by government restrictions.

Financial Freedom. Openness of ASEAN's banking and financial system scores 37.8. Many financial institutions are still controlled by the governments despite measures to strengthen legal systems, promote more transparent regulatory systems, and improve effective governance in capital markets. Burdensome and inconsistent banking regulations also reduce opportunities and restrict financial freedom.

Property Rights. Strengthening property rights is still a work in progress. ASEAN scores lowest in property rights with a score of 34.4. This is more than 10 percentage points lower than the world average. Although Singapore strongly protects property rights, earning a score of 90, most ASEAN countries score less than 50.

Freedom from Corruption. ASEAN's score of 35.7 on freedom from corruption indicates that many ASEAN economies still suffer from persistent and systematic corruption. Regrettably, they have shown little progress. Singapore scores over 90, Malaysia scores 50, and the others have scores below 40. Freedom from corruption is ASEAN's second-lowest score among the 10 factors.

Labor Freedom. ASEAN enjoys a relatively high level of labor freedom of 63.1 percent, reflecting fewer restrictions on wages, hours, and hiring and firing workers. The world average score for labor freedom is 62.1.

Integrating Vision and Management

The record shows a few things very clearly. First, ASEAN is lagging in its effort to create an economic community. Without fundamental changes, it will likely not reach its goals by 2015. Second, to the extent that the economies have benefited from cross-border economic activity, it has been driven by market forces. No evidence suggests that the official ASEAN processes are significantly driving economic integration. Third, ASEAN as a whole has a long way to go on its road to economic freedom.

The management task of achieving an ASEAN Economic Community by 2015 is massive. However, the lack of resolve in ASEAN's vision is greatly complicating matters. The lack of progress in ASEAN's landmark economic agreements is a symptom of a bigger problem, and the ratings in the Index of Economic Freedom identify the causes. Governments, sectors, and businesses acting in their most narrowly defined interests have hampered ASEAN's development and pose the greatest threats to realizing an ASEAN Economic Community.

Better management and more resources are needed, but only a resolution of vision will lead ASEAN to its goals. In turn, commitment to reform at the country level will make the management task easier. When fewer areas of non-compliance need to be addressed, the exceptions list goes away, transparency is improved, and tariffs and NTBs are removed, fewer things will need to be managed. Managing commitments when they are being energetically met is much easier than uncovering non-compliance and enforcing or cajoling compliance. Addressing issues of economic freedom will enable market forces to work effectively and to support compliance with agreements intended to unleash them.

Why ASEAN's Economic Integration Matters to America

U.S. interests in Asia begin with a stable, secure geopolitical and economic order that is friendly to free commerce. Central to this is an ASEAN that can confidently hold its own, particularly in the face of China's incredible economic growth and rise as a global power. ASEAN needs an integrated, liberal economy of scale to meet the challenge.

Without energetic American engagement with ASEAN's integration effort, there are two possible scenarios.

Scenario #1: ASEAN integration is achieved but remains essentially incomplete and becomes a cover for closer political association with larger regional economic powers. China, by virtue of its large market, mesmerizing growth, and masterful, full-range diplomacy, becomes the preeminent power in ASEAN's economic calculations. Economic dynamics lead to political pressures and identification, and ASEAN gradually loses its historical global orientation. The Asia-Pacific region ultimately realigns in a way that squeezes the American presence.

Scenario # 2: ASEAN integration fails, and the members drift apart in pursuit of their individual interests. Without the economic rationale to hold it together, ASEAN's political purpose also fails. ASEAN has achieved its greatest success as a political organization, mitigating conflict among its diverse membership, serving as a united front in dealing with threats, and providing a neutral forum for the interaction of Pacific powers. Its demise would create a dangerous vacuum.

Neither scenario would be good for America. ASEAN is at a crossroads. Its best future lies in creating a compelling economic story that can stand up to the scrutiny of investors and encompass the disparate economies of the region in a competitive, liberal economy of scale. The U.S. has a major interest in helping ASEAN to reach this goal.

What the U.S. Should Do

The United States should:

* Stabilize the American diplomatic commitment to ASEAN. Despite the U.S. government's best efforts at publicizing its interests and assets in ASEAN, there is a widespread perception that America's commitment to the region is declining. The sporadic involvement of the U.S. Secretary of State in the ASEAN Regional Forum and the President's recent cancellation of a heads-of-state summit with the ASEAN leaders have reinforced this perception and set back two years of progress in U.S.-ASEAN relations. Without high-level demonstrations of U.S. interests in the region, America's initiatives and advice are less effective, and the credit for its assistance will remain unclaimed.
* Intensify U.S. Trade Representative involvement with the ASEAN economic ministers and associated forums. Ambassador Susan Schwab's resumption of dialogue with her ASEAN counterparts two years ago is an important part of U.S. engagement. USTR officials have worked extensively with their counterparts. The consistency of this commitment is critical.
* Expand the U.S.-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement (TIFA) work program to address non-tariff barriers, barriers in cross-border services trade, and investment issues. In 2006, the U.S. and ASEAN signed a TIFA that established a process for addressing ASEAN-wide trade issues. The initial work program focuses on harmonizing select industry standards and facilitating trade flows. Progress has been made in these areas. The agenda should be expanded to include new areas that are critical both to current ASEAN commitments on integration and to American trade and investment.
* Stay focused on an eventual U.S.-ASEAN free trade agreement (FTA). The TIFA is an excellent plan B, and it can also help to lay the groundwork for an FTA. Ultimately, however, no instrument will drive ASEAN integration along a gold standard track like an FTA with the United States. Reconciling and harmonizing regulations across ASEAN for negotiations with the U.S. and ultimately committing to liberalization in the context of a WTO-compliant, enforceable FTA would decisively lock in the economic reforms at the heart of ASEAN integration. The U.S. will not--and should not--negotiate an FTA that includes the Burmese junta, but it also should not allow Burma to block all forward progress on U.S.-ASEAN economic relations.
* Continue looking for bilateral FTA opportunities. Concluded broadly through the region, individual FTAs with the U.S. would commit the ASEAN countries to a common gold standard that can be applied on an intra-ASEAN basis. The U.S. should try to advance bilateral negotiations already opened (Thailand and Malaysia) and look for new opportunities, both bilateral and plurilateral.
* Fully fund the ASEAN Development Vision to Advance National Cooperation and Economic Integration (ADVANCE). ADVANCE is a five-year, $150 million project to strengthen ASEAN and support its integration. It contributes most of the nuts and bolts to the ASEAN-U.S. Enhanced Partnership inaugurated by President George W. Bush in 2005 to provide a comprehensive framework for the U.S.-ASEAN relationship. The current level of funding is a good start, but the U.S. could do much better at matching its vision with resources.

Conclusion

ASEAN's ambition is clear, its record in implementing agreements to facilitate economic integration is spotty, and its commitment to economic freedom is subpar. ASEAN requires a resolution of vision to get to ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. It also needs the tools and resources to manage the undertaking effectively.

The U.S. cannot give ASEAN the political will that it needs, but by being involved in ASEAN's economic life at every important level, the U.S. can ensure that its advice and concerns are taken into account. The U.S. can also engage at the technical level in a way that enables the group to meet its objectives.

Walter Lohman is Director of the Asian Studies Center and Anthony B. Kim is a Policy Analyst in the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]World Bank, "Total GDP 2006," World Development Indicators database, July 1, 2007, at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTIC
S/Resources/GDP.pdf (January 18, 2008).

[2]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "ASEAN Vision 2020," December 15, 1997, at www.aseansec.org/2357.htm (December 4, 2007).

[3]Michael G. Plummer, "The ASEAN Economic Community and the European Experience," Asian Development Bank, Office of Regional Economic Integration Working Paper on Regional Economic Integration No. 1, July 2006, at http://aric.adb.org/pdf/workingpaper/WP1%20Plummer%20230706.pdf (December 3, 2007). By contrast, intra-EU trade accounts for 66 percent of the EU's global trade.

[4]Michael G. Plummer and David Cheong, "FDI Effects of ASEAN Integration," paper for "Is Free Trade Still Relevant in the 21st Century?" conference at International Business School, Brandeis University, June 15, 2007, at http://people.brandeis.edu/~cbown/conferences/mccullo
ch/Plummer_Cheong.pdf (December 3, 2007).

[5]Richard E. Baldwin, "Managing the Noodle Bowl: The Fragility of East Asian Regionalism," Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, January 2006.

[6]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II)," October 7, 2003, at www.aseansec.org/15159.htm (December 5, 2007).

[7]Ibid. The priority sectors are agro-based products, automotives, e-ASEAN, electronics, fisheries, health care, textiles and apparel, wood-based products, rubber-based products, tourism, air travel, and logistics.

[8]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "Joint Media Statement," August 23, 2007, at www.aseansec.org/20857.htm (December 3, 2007).

[9]Ludo Cuyvers, Philippe DeLombaerde, and Stijn Verherstraeten, "From AFTA Towards an ASEAN Economic Community...and Beyond," Center for ASEAN Studies, January 2005.

[10]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint," November 20, 2007, at www.13thaseansummit.org.sg/asean/index.php/web/con
tent/download/819/6832/version/1/file/AEC.pdf (January 17, 2008). There are exceptions and "flexibilities" for sensitive products.

[11]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2006, p. 61, at www.aseansec.org/13100.htm (December 28, 2007).

[12]Denis Hew, ed., Brick by Brick: The Building of an ASEAN Economic Community (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2007), p. 211.

[13]John Ravenhill, "Fighting Irrelevance: An Economic Community 'with ASEAN Characteristics,'" Australian National University, Department of International Relations Working Paper No. 2007/3, July 2007, at http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/pubs/work_papers/07-3.pdf (December 12, 2007).

[14]Loreli C. de Dios, "Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade in the ASEAN Priority Goods Sectors," in Hew, ed., Brick by Brick, pp. 101-102.

[15]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services," December 15, 1995, at www.aseansec.org/6628.htm (December 11, 2007).

[16]Hew, ed., Brick by Brick, p. 211.

[17]Do Vo Tri Thanh and Paul Bartlett, "Ten Years of ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS): An Assessment," Regional Economic Policy Support Facility, Project No. 06/004, July 2006, at www.aadcp-repsf.org/docs/05-004-FinalReport.pdf (January 4, 2008), p. 34.

[18]Ibid.

[19]Ibid.

[20]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area," October 7, 1998, at www.aseansec.org/6466.htm (December 7, 2007).

[21]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "ASEAN Investment Area: An Update," at www.aseansec.org/8024.htm (December 4, 2007) (emphasis added).

[22]Plummer and Cheong, "FDI Effects of ASEAN Integration." Information available upon request from the authors.

[23]Ibid. Information available upon request from the authors.

[24]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "ASEAN Investment Area."

[25]Deuden Nikomborirak, "An Assessment of the Investment Regime: Thailand Country Report," International Institute for Sustainable Development, March 31, 2004, p. 11, at www.iisd.org/pdf/2004/investment_country_
report_thailand.pdf (December 12, 2007).

[26]Plummer and Cheong, "FDI Effects of ASEAN Integration." Information available upon request from the authors.

[27]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "ASEAN Framework Agreement for the Integration of Priority Sectors," November 29, 2004, at www.aseansec.org/16659.htm (December 26, 2007).

[28]Media release, "ASEAN Accelerates Integration of Priority Sectors," Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, November 29, 2004, at www.aseansec.org/16621.htm (December 12, 2007).

[29]Ravenhill, "Fighting Irrelevance."

[30]Christopher Findlay, "An Investigation into the Measures Affecting the Integration of ASEAN's Priority Sectors (Phase 2)," Regional Economic Policy Support Facility, Project No. 06/001a, April 2007, at www.aadcp-repsf.org/publications.html (January 17, 2008).

[31]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investment," December 15, 1987, at www.aseansec.org/12812.htm (January 17, 2008).

[32]Association of Southeast Asian Nations Secretariat, "ASEAN Economic Blueprint."

[33]Hadi Soesastro, "Accelerating ASEAN Economic Integration: Moving Beyond AFTA," Centre for Strategic and International Studies (Jakarta, Indonesia) Economics Working Paper, March 2005, at www.csis.or.id/working_paper_file/52/wpe091.pdf (December 27, 2007).

[34]Ibid.

[35]George Yeo, ASEAN Chair and Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs, statement, September 27, 2007, at www.aseansec.org/20974.htm (January 4, 2008).

[36]"Fifth from the Right Is the Party-Pooper," The Economist, November 24, 2007.

[37]"Charter of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations," November 20, 2007, at www.aseansec.org/ASEAN-Charter.pdf (January 17, 2008).

[38]"The [European] Community administrative apparatus is beyond comparison with that of ASEAN (21,000 European officials as opposed to 177 in ASEAN, of whom 135 are recruited locally and only 42 due to their professional capacity." Laurence Henry, "The ASEAN Way and Community Integration: Two Different Models of Regionalism," European Law Journal, Vol. 13, No. 6 (November 2007), p. 862.

Gates: U.S. will aid Indonesian military

2008-02-27T21:55:00.000-08:00

By Lolita C. Baldor, Associated Press Writer

JAKARTA, Indonesia — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates vowed Monday to help Indonesia reform its military, saying the U.S. was ready to help provide airlift and other maritime capabilities the country needs.

And in what appeared to be a response to previous Indonesian criticism that the United States can be overbearing in its foreign and military policies, Gates said the U.S. can play a supportive role as countries like Indonesia map out their own futures.

"From time to time, we have strayed from our ideals and we have been arrogant in dealing with others," Gates said in a speech to the Indonesian Council on World Affairs. "In the end, we have always realized that our own democracy's strength ultimately depends on the strength and independence of other democracies around the world — including new ones such as Indonesia."

He emphasized America's ongoing commitment to the region, but also said nations in the area must also work more together.

"Countries have sometimes found it hard to work with us, or with each other," Gates said. "But we believe that the nations of the region must move in a more multilateral direction in order to deal with the most pressing threats in this era."

Gates said that while the U.S. and Indonesian government have been through some rocky times, he knows that "the American and Indonesian peoples share the same principles of tolerance, pluralism, and religious freedom."

He also said that regional cooperation would be played out against a backdrop of the rise of India, the growth in China's military might and the ongoing threats from North Korea.

Those challenges, he said, are complicated by the rise of rogue nation states, terrorism threats, continued piracy problems on the high seas, and the emergence of deadly diseases — which could include avian flu.

Facing those challenges will require countries to work on a broad cooperative basis, not just with individual partners, he said.

After 13 years of estrangement, the United States has been trying to improve military relations with Indonesia, which can play a key role in a region dominated by worries about North Korea's nuclear ambitions and China's military buildup.

Senior defense officials traveling with Gates said that lingering suspicions of Indonesia's connections to terrorist networks do not reflect significant changes in recent years.

This is not, said one senior official, "your father's Indonesia" that was known primarily for its Jemaah Islamiyah terror network, military dominance in government affairs and human rights abuses.

Instead, there will be efforts to allay Jakarta's concerns that the U.S. could again pull back, risking future military sales.

And they said Gates is looking to acknowledge Indonesia's leadership role in the region, and discuss possible increased military sales to Jakarta. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of Gates' meetings with Indonesian Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Asked earlier about terror links, Gates acknowledged that Indonesia-based terrorists may continue to have contact with al-Qaeda.

"I assume that those contacts have been maintained but I don't have any sense from the last few weeks or months that there's been a significant increase in those contacts or a particular strengthening of the JI," he said, referring to the Jemaah Islamiyah network.

Just last week, an Indonesian terror suspect — a member of the JI — and two Filipinos were arrested during a raid on their hide-out in the southern Philippines.

The U.S. cut all military ties with Indonesia in 1992, after its army and militia proxies devastated East Timor during its break from Jakarta.

In 2005, the U.S. began to aggressively rebuild relations, but just a year later, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got a somewhat frosty welcome to Jakarta. During Rumsfeld's visit, Sudarsono lectured him, saying the U.S. needs to counter perceptions that it is overbearing and let other countries decide how best they should fight terrorism within their own borders.

One topic of Gates' talks will be Indonesia's efforts to modernize its military, including its desire to purchase military airplanes. Jakarta's fleet of 22 C-130 aircraft is aging and in need of refurbishment, and government officials have long sought to purchase replacement parts.

During the 13-year break between the two countries, the U.S. was prohibited from such sales, but those restrictions were lifted in late 2005.

Gates is visiting five countries during an eight-day tour, and will make stops later this week in India and Turkey.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Gates presses Indonesia to pursue abuse cases

2008-02-27T21:42:00.000-08:00

The Defense secretary says the U.S. is willing to sell weapons to the key Southeast Asian ally.

By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

February 26, 2008

JAKARTA, INDONESIA -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Monday that the U.S. was still willing to sell Indonesia new weaponry, particularly for its navy and air force. But he cautioned that democracies must have firm civilian control of their militaries, which must be disciplined for human rights abuses.

Gates praised Jakarta for moving to professionalize its military, which for decades under former President Suharto ruled the archipelago with an iron fist until the dictator was deposed a decade ago.

Although Gates did not criticize the Indonesian military's current conduct, he emphasized that democracies must investigate and prosecute allegations of corruption or abuse within their armed forces.

"In addition to the importance of civilian control of the military, there cannot be even a taint of corruption or a hint of tolerance for human rights abuses," Gates told the Indonesian Council on World Affairs.

During the last three years, the Bush administration has moved to lift restrictions on military ties between the two countries, which were first cut after the Indonesian military committed atrocities in East Timor in 1991. Congress has moved to withhold some of the aid until military abuses are accounted for, and human rights groups have argued that the armed forces still are not fully answerable to civilian authorities.

Gates' address followed meetings with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono. U.S. officials traveling with Gates said he pushed to deepen security ties with Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country and a key ally in the region and a model of the secular Muslim state the Bush administration hopes to replicate elsewhere.

Although Indonesia has become the second-largest recipient of U.S. military aid in the region, at about $15.7 million this year, officials have expressed frustration with the slow pace of U.S. military sales.

Indonesia has discussed acquiring weapons from China and Russia, with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin vowing during a visit here in September to sell Jakarta $1 billion of advanced weaponry.

The discussions with the Russians and Chinese were seen by analysts as a hedge, but Gates said all U.S. restrictions on arms sales to Indonesia were lifted by the Bush administration in November 2005. At a news conference with Gates after their talks, Indonesia's defense minister said his consideration of non-U.S. weaponry was sound acquisition policy.

peter.spiegel@latimes.com

Indonesian minister accuses West of 'exploiting' bird flu

2008-02-27T21:28:00.001-08:00

Mark Forbes, Jakarta
February 20, 2008

INDONESIAN Health Minister Siti Fadilah Supari claims the United States and World Health Organisation are part of a global conspiracy to profit from the spread of bird flu, and the US may use samples to produce biological weapons.

The views of Dr Supari, outlined in her new book, It's Time for the World to Change, threaten to undermine efforts to control the spread of avian influenza and prevent it becoming a global pandemic.

Indonesia is the new hot spot for the virus, with recent deaths raising the local toll to 104, nearly half the world's total.

Despite claims by Dr Supari — described on the book's cover as the "divine hand behind avian influenza" — that she has forged a new agreement to share virus samples and allow all nations access to resulting vaccines, Indonesia still blocks the sharing of samples from human victims.

Inquiries by The Age reveal the ban has been widened to include samples from chickens, which are infected across Indonesia. More than 200 have not received export permits to be sent to an Australian laboratory for analysis.

Tracking the spread of the virus and its mutations is essential to guard against it jumping into human communities on a larger scale, experts say.

In her book, Dr Supari says WHO laboratories forwarded influenza viruses to Western companies so they could profit by selling vaccines back to developing countries. "The system of world health management has been very exploitative," she says. "It has been controlled by inhumanly (sic) desires, based on the greediness to raise capital and to control the world."

Some Indonesian samples were sent to a US Defence Department laboratory, Dr Supari says. She says she had to act because "some of our seed viruses had been in a laboratory known as a facility developing biological weapons in a superpower country".

Privately, foreign experts and officials say Dr Supari's belief that she is engaged on a God-driven crusade against an evil and "neo-colonialist" world health system have caused her to lose touch with reality.

Compromise solutions to ensure vaccines are shared are being ignored, they say.

International officials are dismayed that Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono appears to have endorsed the book, writing its introduction.

Flying in the face of the facts, Dr Yudhoyono supports Dr Supari's claim that the spread of the virus is under control in Indonesia, stating that the "occurrence rate and the number of affected areas are decreasing".

WHO refused to comment on the book or the virus-sharing stand-off. A spokesman said: "This matter is a sensitive case at present."

No US officials were available for comment. They are believed to have protested, resulting in the book being withdrawn from sale almost as soon as it was released last week. Few copies were sold, but the publisher said the Government-funded book would be available again soon.

In it, Dr Supari says Indonesia's bird flu victims did not die in vain: "They all died as martyrs of humanity for the betterment of the world health management."

She also alleges WHO's virus-sharing system exploits the blood, cells and antibodies of the powerless. "And perhaps it would be more dangerous when in the end they would take our brain cell(s) as well, to be re-engineered and create a new generation of slaves."

Jakarta attacks Burma’s draft constitution

2008-02-27T21:27:00.001-08:00

By John Aglionby in Jakarta and Amy Kazmin in Bangkok

Published: February 21 2008 23:12 | Last updated: February 21 2008 23:12

Indonesia became the first big developing country on Thursday to criticise Burma’s draft constitution, which entrenches military rule by banning leading opposition activists from politics, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel prize-winning democracy advocate.

Hassan Wirajuda, Indonesia’s foreign minister, said the constitution should be revised before being put to a national referendum in May, to ensure that the interests of opposition and minority groups were protected.

His comments were made days after Burma’s military rulers publicly clarified that Ms Suu Kyi, now a widow, would be prohibited from contesting Burma’s planned 2010 elections because she had married a foreigner.

“We hope that in the period between now and May, a process of consultation will take in input from these groups so that the draft constitution which will be voted on will be comprehensive, meaning that it will accommodate their interests,” Mr Hassan told the Financial Times.

The Burmese junta insists its charter will lay the foundation for a “disciplined democracy” suitable for Burma’s multi-ethnic population.

But opposition groups have denounced it as an attempt to legalise military rule, while Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy has complained that the army’s “unilateral” referendum plans “did not support meaningful political dialogue or the national reconciliation process”.

Under the proposed constitution, 25 per cent of parliamentary seats will be reserved for the military, while the army chief can appoint key ministers, and declare a state of emergency, seizing widespread powers. Protection of basic rights and civil liberties will be highly conditional, and easily curbed by the military.

The constitutional provisions governing election eligibility also make it clear that political dissidents can easily be excluded from running for public office.

“It’s already rigged,” said Aung Naing Oo, a Burmese political analyst in exile. “Anyone who has been an active campaigner for democracy, or has been against the military at some point, or has the potential to do so, will be disqualified.”

The charter bars from office anyone married to a foreigner, or whose spouse or children have foreign citizenship, as well as Buddhist monks and other religious figures. It also bars political prisoners and civil servants, except for soldiers.

Parliamentary candidates must have lived in Burma for 10 consecutive years.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

Suu Kyi tops UN envoy’s agenda

2008-02-27T21:24:00.000-08:00

By John Aglionby in Jakarta

Published: February 23 2008 01:16 | Last updated: February 23 2008 01:16

A United Nations envoy will hold talks with Burma’s ruling junta over the country’s “road map to democracy”, including its plans to bar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi from taking part in elections.

Early this month the junta said it would hold a referendum in May on a new constitution, followed by elections in 2010. However, Ms Suu Kyi has been banned from the vote because she is the widow of a foreigner.

“This is one of the issues I intend to discuss with the authorities in Myanmar [Burma],” Ibrahim Gambari, the UN secretary-general’s special envoy on Burma, said on Friday in Jakarta, as part of his regional tour before going to the country early next month.

Burma, he said, should revise the proposed constitution to include the interest of opposition and minority groups before it is put to a referendum. Otherwise it would have no credibility, he said.

Mr Gambari said the military should immediately push talks with Ms Suu Kyi to a more substantive level, allow her National League for Democracy party to open offices across the country, and free the thousands of political prisoners so that they can take part in the constitutional debate.

“The proper thing to do is to give [the transition process] the credibility that not only meets our expectations but also internally,” he said. “It’s still possible to make changes before the referendum.”

Mr Gambari applauded Burma’s neighbours for increasing pressure on the junta to democratise the country, but urged them to do more. “Even at this late stage, south-east Asian nations, China and India should be sending the right signals,” he said.

Mr Gambari said Indonesia, which over the last decade has been transformed from a military-run autocracy to a fully fledged democracy, could be used as a template for Burma. Indonesia this week became the first big developing country to criticise Burma’s draft constitution.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

RI-Germany eye cooperation around renewable energy sources

2008-02-27T21:21:00.000-08:00

Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Indonesia and Germany said Wednesday they want to work together in the energy sector to generate renewable, cleaner sources of energy, in efforts to curtail climate change.

Germany's foreign minister and Vice-Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier is on a three-day visit to build relations with Indonesia and has met with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, his counterpart Hassan Wirayuda and the secretary-general of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Surin Pitsuwan.

Steinmeier should fly to Singapore on Thursday and then on to Vietnam.

Hassan said, "We discussed energy cooperation to provide electricity, whether from nuclear-fired power plants or other types of plants, especially looking at Germany's specialty in coal-fired plants".

"We hope we can produce cleaner energy," he said.

Indonesia is heavily dependent on its depleting fossil fuel reserves. It has become a net oil importer is now searching for suitable technology for renewable energy sources.

To help mitigate climate change, Hassan said Germany had offered some 24 million euros (about US$35.5 million) for reforestation programs in Indonesia.

Indonesia had the fastest pace of deforestation in the world between 2000-2005, with an area of forest equivalent to 300 soccer pitches destroyed every hour, Greenpeace said.

But Indonesia has said it wants industrialized countries to pay developing nations to preserve their forests under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism.

Germany and Indonesia have signed five debt swap deals, with Indonesia's debts totaling 143.57 million euros written-off for advanced educational programs, assistance to small and medium-sized firms and programs fighting AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Bilateral trade in 2006 reached $3.48 billion up from $2.49 billion in 2002, with German investment at $18.5 million in 2007.

International relation analyst Dewi Fortuna Anwar of the National Institute of Science (LIPI) said Germany was expanding its partnership toward growing markets in the region.

"Now that Germany's done with its reunification process and assisting Eastern European countries, it is seeking new fields," she said.

"Indonesia is in dire need of renewable energy and Germany is well-known for its technology."

Steinmeier also took note of the integration of ASEAN, to take place by 2015 with a combined population of 568 million, saying Germany had assured during its European Union presidency last year that an EU-ASEAN enhanced partnership was in place.

He and ASEAN's Pitsuwan concluded Wednesday a two-million-euro German-ASEAN cooperation project on capacity building for the ASEAN secretariat.

"I'm pleased to see the direction ASEAN is taking toward a free flow market of capital and trade," Steinmeier said.

"We are ready to support financially for that process," he said.

Indonesia Tackling Corruption, Conflict in 2009 Elections

2008-02-27T19:01:00.000-08:00

By Chad Bouchard

International agencies are helping Indonesia prepare for a massive country-wide election in 2009 that will include local offices in hundreds of districts. As Chad Bouchard reports from Jakarta, election officials hope to avoid past mistakes.
Indonesia is getting an early start as the country prepares for presidential and local elections next year.

It will be the second democratic presidential election since President Suharto stepped down in 1998.

The UN Development Program's country director in Indonesia, Haakan Bjorkman, says the international community wants Indonesia's elections to be clean and fair.

"Indonesia has emerged as the strongest and most healthy democracy in Southeast Asia, so we predict in 2009 that all eyes will be on Indonesia to see if the election assistance can work in a good way. And that this success story can continue," said Bjorkman. "The stakes are very high for this region."

Indonesia's parliament is considering a bill that would set up a system to certify political parties and schedule elections for April 5 next year. Election officials fear delays in passing the bill could postpone the elections.

The bill would cap campaign donations at $100,000 per person and $500,000 for companies.

Political analyst Wimar Witoelar says getting polling stations ready and distributing ballots are the least of Indonesia's election concerns.

"But how to get the influence of money out of the system, especially now that Suharto's money has been temporarily left unscathed and running around and that bodes very ill for the attempts we have," said Wimar. "So ours is a very big political problem, not a mechanical problem of elections."

Kevin Evans is an experienced election observer working on reconstruction in Indonesia's Aceh province. He says some voters wrongly accused Indonesia's election commission of graft in 2004 and attacked election staff. He says this time around officials are making it clear that the election commission oversees the election process, but does not carry out the polling.

Evans says confusion over the balance of power between the commission and the local government led to chaos during the last general election.

"And I think when you have an imbalance between those rights and responsibilities and authorities, then you are opening up an integrity trap," he said. "And so I think that one of the important findings of those earlier elections has been addressed."
Earlier this month, Transparency International, Corruption Watch, and other groups announced plans to issue a blacklist of politicians suspected of corruption to raise awareness among voters.

On Wednesday, the Indonesian Election Commission and the UN Development Program signed an agreement to formalize foreign help for the 2009 elections.

Indonesia: Journalists To Seek Judicial Reviews On Defamation

2008-02-27T18:59:00.001-08:00

JAKARTA, INDONESIA: Press organisations in Indonesia will request the Constitutional Court to review defamation articles in the Criminal Code, following the district court's conviction of senior journalist Bersihar Lubis.

The Depok District Court sentenced Bersihar to one month in prison Wednesday (20 Feb), before suspending his sentence and requiring three month's probation.

Bersihar was put on trial for insulting the Attorney General's Office (AGO) with his opinion article in Koran Tempo daily newspaper, titled Kisah Interogator yang Dungu (The Story of Stupid Interrogators).

The court found him guilty, saying he violated article 207 of the Criminal Code on insulting public institutions.

Presiding judge Suwidya said while Bersihar was an opinion writer, he should be accountable for the content of his work.

Press Legal Aid executive director Hendrayana said the organisation would ask for judicial reviews of the Criminal Code articles, including article 207, which had violated the freedom of the press.

"We will appeal for the review of some articles, including 207, 310 and 316 in mid March," he told The Jakarta Post.

Hendrayana said the organisation would coordinate the appeal for Bersihar and journalist Risang Bima Wijaya, the former general manager of Radar Yogyakarta daily, who was sentenced to six months in prison.

Sleman District Court, Yogyakarta, found Risang guilty of insulting Kedaulatan Rakyat daily owner Soemadi M Wonohito. Risang has been in prison since January this year.

Indonesian Press Council head Ichlasul Amal said the organisation had long planned to request judicial reviews of several articles.

"The problem is that appeals must be requested by those who are directly affected by the articles, not us," Amal told the Post.

He said the council would discuss the matters at a plenary session Feb 29.

"We will call on those who have been 'victimized' by the articles to request the reviews with us."

Alliance of Independent Journalists head Heru Hendratmoko said the organisation would support Bersihar in the judicial review.

"The articles are no longer relevant for a democratic country like Indonesia," he said.

Heru said he was hopeful the court would void those articles.

"There is a high possibility the articles will be annulled, because the Constitutional Court has already scrapped three other articles of defamation on the President and Vice President," he said.

In December 2006, the Constitutional Court made history by scrapping articles 134, 136 and 137 of the Criminal Code, which ruled that burning pictures of the President and Vice President and mocking them in public were insults.

The court reviewed the code as requested by lawyer Eggi Sudjana and activist Pandapotan Lubis.

Pandapotan was arrested after insulting the President at a rally, while Eggi was charged with defaming President Susilo Yudhoyono with his statement that Yudhoyono and his son had received Jaguar sedans from businessman Hary Tanoesudibjo. The report turned out to be fabricated.

The three articles made it difficult for people to criticise the President and his deputy, Court chief Jimly Asshiddiqie said during the hearing.

The articles undermined the country's process toward democracy by causing confusion as they were open to subjective interpretation, he said. (The Jakarta Post/ ANN)

Indonesia’s Constitutional Court annuls articles on insult against president

2008-02-27T18:57:00.001-08:00

The Alliance of Independent Journalist (AJI) Indonesia welcomes a Constitutional Court ruling stating that three articles of law prohibiting insult of the president - namely, Article 134, Article 136 bis, and Article 137 of the Criminal Code - are not legally binding because they violate the 1945 Constitution.

According to local news site “Tempo Interaktif”, in July 2006, lawyer Eggy Sudjana and political activist Pandapotan Lubis applied for a constitutional review of the articles, which they said violated Article 27 point (1), Article 28, Article 28E point (2) and point (3), Article 28F, and Article 28j point (1) and point (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In its ruling on the matter on 6 December 2006, the Constitutional Court stressed that the provisions were invalid because they were overridden by the principle of equality before the law. The provisions also curbed freedom of expression, freedom of information and the principle of legal certainties. The provisions created legal uncertainties because of its arbitrary interpretation of protests and statements of opinion as criticisms or insults against the president.

However, “Tempo Interaktif” reports that the verdict was not unanimous, with four out of nine judges on the panel dissenting. They viewed that Eggy and Pandapotan’s cases were about the legal implementation by investigators, not about the Constitution.

“Kompas Daily” quoted Eggy Sudjana’s attorney as saying that the ruling was a constitutional victory for a society that upholds democracy.

AJI Indonesia President Heru Hendratmoko said, ”We welcome the ruling of the Constitutional Court because so far, the provisions on insults against the president in KUHP have been used to protect government officials from criticisms expressed by the people.”

AJI’s records show that the articles prohibiting insult against the president did not only ensnare students and activists, but also journalists. Supratman, executive editor of “Rakyat Merdeka”, was charged with insulting the president for publishing a news report that was deemed to be insulting to former President Megawati. The South Jakarta District Court sentenced him to six months on probation. Supratman is appealing the verdict.

AJI Indonesia urges the Constitutional Court to be proactive in reviewing provisions in the Criminal Code which have the potential of violating freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and other human rights.

AJI Indonesia demands that efforts to revise the criminal law through the drafting of the new Criminal Code should reject provisions that control freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

AJI Indonesia wishes to remind the Indonesian government that since it accepted the need to protect human rights in the Constitution through the second amendment of the 1945 Constitution and the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through the Law No. 12 Year 2005, it is obliged to streamline the national legal system to respect and protect human rights.

Indonesia to build nuclear reactor

2007-12-17T06:36:00.001-08:00

Indonesian authorities have given the go-ahead to build the country's first nuclear power plant on the densely-populated island of Java, with the aim of producing electricity by 2016.

Atomic and Nuclear Energy Agency spokesman Deddy Harsono says the site of the project, the Muria peninsula on Central Java province's north-east coast, was chosen for its tectonic and volcanic stability - a major concern in a country that sees regular eruptions and earthquakes.

Mr Harsono says the project will be tendered in 2008, for start of construction in 2010 and production in 2016.

The project, which was shelved in 1997 due to mounting public opposition and the discovery and exploitation of the large Natuna gas field, involves the construction of four plants, each with a 1,000 megawatt capacity.

Under the original plans, 12 nuclear power plants were slated for the northern coast of Java, with a total capacity of 7,000 megawatts.

Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country with more than 214 million people, currently relies on hydro, coal and fuel-generated electricity.

The rapid growth in energy consumption has required Jakarta to double its electricity production over the past 25 years.

Critics of the nuclear project, including legislators, environmentalists and academics, say Indonesia has many alternative energy sources and that a decision on whether to build the plants should rest with the people.

- AFP

Indonesia Benefit From World Bank-UNODC Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative Report

2007-12-17T06:35:00.000-08:00

The Jakarta Post - September 26, 2007

Mas Achmad Santosa and Nenad Bago, Jakarta

During his visit to the U.S. to attend the UN General Assembly this week, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is slated to meet World Bank President Robert Zoellick to discuss the joint World Bank-UNODC Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative Report.

This report ranked former president Soeharto at the top of its list of the most corrupt political leaders. Soeharto's ill-gotten money is estimated at between US$15 billion and $35 billion, which he allegedly embezzled during his tenure from 1967 to 1998.

The essence of the StAR Initiative, prepared by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Bank (WB), is to introduce an action plan that emphasizes international and global cooperation to help victim countries (i.e., developing countries) recover assets stolen and hidden by former political leaders and their associates.

StAR also underlines the critical importance of cooperation between developed countries, especially the financial center jurisdictions (which often serve as havens for assets stolen by former political leaders), and the developing countries from where assets were stolen.

Learning from countries such as Nigeria, Peru and the Philippines, which have enjoyed some recent successes in the recovery of assets stolen by their former political leaders, Sani Abacha, Alberto Fujimori and Ferdinand Marcos, respectively, it is clear that the asset recovery process is time-consuming -- it took Nigeria 6-7 years, Peru 4 years and the Philippines 18 years -- and costly due to expensive legal and investigation fees.

There have been already been some attempts to recover assets allegedly stolen by Soeharto. They include a move by President BJ Habibie to send then attorney general Andi Ghalib and justice minister Muladi to Switzerland back in 1999. The pair returned home empty handed. The government has intervened in the case involving Soeharto's son Tommy and Paribas Bank in Guernsey, which is currently underway, and has filed a civil suit in the Jakarta District Court aimed at getting back the assets of foundations established by Soeharto.

The efforts of post-Soeharto governments to recover stolen assets needs to be translated into a clear national strategy with a clear action plan that includes international support.

Therefore, the result of the meeting between SBY and the World Bank and UN agencies this week will reveal the extent of the current government's political will.

There are two main reasons why SBY should show strong political will in recovering the assets allegedly stolen by Soeharto. First, it will be a burden on the nation that will have far-reaching moral and historical consequences if we don't overcome the obstacles that are impeding the process of returning the assets allegedly stolen by Soeharto. Second, two influential international reports (TI's Corruption Perception Index and the StAR Initiative report) that have named Indonesia as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and Soeharto as the most corrupt political leader in the world have implications for national pride and Indonesia's international standing.

Indonesia needs a clear strategy for asset recovery. Under the StAR initiative, Indonesia should contact the governments that have successfully recovered stolen assets, including Nigeria, Peru and the Philippines, to learn about their experiences.

Generally, as StAR points out, little can be achieved without the effective cooperation and good will of the countries where proceeds of corruption are hidden. Jurisdictions where stolen assets are hidden, often in developed countries, may not be responsive to requests for legal assistance.

While the entering into force of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) is a big step forward, it is important to realize that half of the G-8 countries have yet to ratify it. Even when the conditions are right for pursuing asset recovery, some developed countries may not cooperate as they do not trust the requesting country, lack confidence in their legal systems, or for political reasons.

Therefore, StAR is relevant to Indonesia in both the short and long terms. In the short term, StAR can put pressure on countries where assets are hidden to seriously engage in the asset recovery process. StAR can also provide support to Indonesia through financial and technical assistance for its own asset recovery efforts. In the longer term, StAR can assist Indonesia to strengthen its legal and public financial management systems by supporting initiatives that will lead to good governance in these areas.

Indonesia also needs to show everyone, at home and abroad, that it intends to use the recovered assets in a transparent and accountable manner so as to support domestic programs aimed at alleviating widespread poverty.

The writers are legal reform and anticorruption analysts.

Making democracy work, Islamically

2007-12-17T05:14:00.000-08:00

Indonesia’s Muslim educators support democracy, but grapple with how to make that commitment consistent with Islamic law.

*Robert W Hefner*

Ever since the Taliban rolled into Kabul, Afghanistan on 26 September 1996, many people have asked whether Islamic schools are the fount from which contemporary Islamist radicalism flows. In the weeks following the departure of Indonesia’s authoritarian President Suharto in May 1998, political observers expressed similar concerns about Indonesia’s Islamic schools. Just days after Suharto’s departure, dozens of Islamist paramilitaries, many with ties to Islamic boarding schools, sprang up in towns across the country. Many launched ‘sweeping’ campaigns, looking for alleged purveyors of drugs, alcohol, and sex, as well as young women unfortunate enough to be found out and about without a head scarf. In several locales, militias engaged in street-battles with Christians, democracy activists, and even the local police.

More than anything else, however, it was the October 2002 terrorist bombings of a beachfront pub in south Bali that pushed concerns about Indonesia’s Islamic schools to a new high. Students from an Islamic boarding school in Lamongan, East Java were eventually convicted of the crime. They and several of their teachers were shown to have ties to the al-Mukmin boarding school in Central Java. Al-Mukmin is the boarding school founded by Abu Bakar Ba`asyir, a senior Islamic scholar who is
widely thought to have served for several years as the spiritual leader of the terrorist organisation, Jemaah Islamiyah (JI). For some Indonesian observers, facts like these confirmed that at least some of Indonesia’s Islamic schools had been turned into training camps for terrorist militants.

The forward-looking mainstream

However, Islamic education in Indonesia is nothing if not varied, and its central streams look little like the radical fringe. With some 11,000 Islamic boarding schools (pesantren) and 36,000 Islamic day schools (madrasah), Indonesia has one of the largest Islamic educational sectors in the world. A full 13 per cent of the country’s elementary school population receives their primary education in Muslim day
schools. More than twice that number take evening or weekend religious classes at Islamic schools. About one per cent of Indonesia’s Islamic schools might be described as socially radical, and the number that seems inclined to support militant violence is no more than a few dozen.

Far more representative of the educational mainstream, then, is Indonesia’s system of State Islamic Universities (UIN, IAIN). Under the leadership of Mukti Ali – who was Minister of Religion from 1971-1978),Indonesia’s Ministry of Religion undertook an ambitious modernisation of the state Islamic colleges, which had been formally established in 1960.

Today, every student admitted to the state Islamic university system fulfills divisional studies requirements that begin with courses on Islamic history and contextualising methodologies for the study of Islam. With their undogmatic emphasis on alternative interpretations of key historical events, these courses use methods similar to those in comparative religion programs in the West, but rarely used in higher education in other Muslim countries.

Since the early 2000s, seven of the state Islamic universities have begun a far-reaching restructuring that includes establishing new faculties in non-religious fields like medicine, psychology, general education, and business. No less surprising, since 2004, all students entering the state Islamic system have been required to take a civics course which introduces students to the ideals of democracy, civil society, and human rights. No where else in the Muslim world do Muslim colleges provide comparable instruction on democratic values. One reason
this is so significant is that the state Islamic college system acts as a cultural broker for new ideas and programs to most of Indonesia’s 47,000 Islamic schools.

Democracy and God’s law

The question these broad-minded reforms raise is whether the democratic values being promoted in the state Islamic system are in fact representative of general cultural currents among Muslim educators. In an effort to examine Muslim educators’ views on Islam and democracy, in early 2006 I worked with staff at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University in Jakarta to carry out a survey of 940 Muslim educators in
100 madrasah and Islamic boarding schools in eight provinces in Indonesia. The survey had 184 questions, the aggregate results of which are too complex to present here. But even a summary overview of the educators’ views is revealing.

Indonesian Muslim educators’ ideas on democracy are neither
formalistic nor crudely majoritarian; they also extend to
subtle civil rights.

The most interesting of the survey’s findings concern educators’ views on democracy and syariah, or Islamic law. An impressive 85.9 per cent of Muslim educators agree that democracy is the best form of government for Indonesia. In surveys of Muslim public opinion in other countries, analysts have greeted results like these with scepticism, claiming that the concept of democracy respondents had in mind is just majority rule, with little concern for another of democracy’s key ingredients, civil
and minority rights. The Indonesian survey, however, had a battery of questions designed to get at these latter points. The results confirm that Indonesian Muslim educators’ ideas on democracy are neither formalistic nor crudely majoritarian. In fact, the educators’ views extend to subtle civil rights.

These rights include support for the idea of equality before the law (94.2 per cent of educators agree); freedom to join political organisations (82.5 per cent); protections for the media from arbitrary government action (92.8 per cent); and the notion that party competition improves government performance (80 per cent). These figures are as high as comparable data collected by the World Values Survey for Western Europe and the United States.

If this was all there was to educators’ attitudes on Islam and democracy, the results would be brightly optimistic indeed. However, educators’ views on democracy are not stand-alone. They co-exist with an almost equally strong commitment to syariah. For example, notwithstanding the strength of their commitment to democracy, 72.2 percent of the educators believe the state should be based on the Qur’an and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet Mohammed) and guided by religious experts. A full 82.8 per cent of educators think the state should work to implement syariah. Support for syariah wobbles on a few points. For example, it drops to 59.1 per cent when the regulation in question concerns the amputation of thieves’ hands, or government efforts to require performance of the Ramadan fast (only 49.9 per cent agree). On
these matters, at least, some educators seem to have second thoughts about a too-literalist implementation of the law.

Nonetheless, when asked whether inobservant Muslims should be allowed to serve in the National Assembly, 74.3 per cent of educators feel they should not. A full 64.4 per cent agree with ongoing campaigns in Indonesia to implement Islamic law. On matters of women and non-Muslim religious minorities, we see a similar tension between educators’ enthusiasm for democracy and their commitment to syariah. Some 93.5 per cent of the educators believe that a non-Muslim should not be allowed to serve as president. A full 55.8 per cent feel that women should not be allowed to run for the office. Some 51.3 per cent feel that women do not have the intellectual capacity to serve as judges. About 20 per cent would bar non-Muslims from teaching in public schools; a similar percentage want to ban non-Muslims from performing religious services near the neighborhood in which the interviewee resides. Twice that percentage would bar non-Muslims from erecting houses of worship in the same area. In short, on three matters – gender, non-Muslims, and the place of Islamic law in government itself – the educators’ do not appear to be particularly tolerant.

The sacred and the practical

We see in these survey data, then, the tip of a larger problem for Muslim politics and public ethics. The Muslim educators’ stated commitments to democracy, freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press are about as strong as anywhere in the democratic world. However, on religious matters, Indonesian Muslims are not secularist liberals.
Where a democratic principle runs up against an issue on which syariah is seen as having something to say, most educators feel that they must defer to syariah. At times this deference results in judgments that many observers, including most Muslim theorists who write on democracy, would regard as undemocratic.

However, in the complex circumstances of actual life, the tension between syariah and democracy does not appear to be as clear-cut as these survey data initially indicate. However strong educators’ support for syariah, most do not vote for parties dedicated to implementation of Islamic law. An additional battery of interviews that I carried out with 200 educators between 2004 and 2007 revealed that fewer than 30 per cent
said they had voted for an Islamist party advocating the implementation of syariah, and fewer than 10 per cent voted for parties advocating the law’s immediate implementation.

Does this mean that the data indicating broad support for syariah are inaccurate or, alternately, that Muslim educators are hypocrites? The discrepancy between the survey data and electoral choices can be interpreted in several ways, but, based on my interviews, I think it reflects two primary influences. First, the discrepancy shows that Indonesian Muslims do indeed believe that syariah is God’s direct and sacred guidance for humanity. Rejecting syariah amounts to rejecting God’s commands. That is something most educators are not prepared to do.

Most Muslim educators affirm the importance of syariah but
want its implementation to be consistent with justice and
fairness.

Second, and some might think paradoxically, this idealised commitment to syariah does not result in most Muslims making immediate implementation of the law their first political priority. Some interviewees pointed out that syariah can only be implemented in its entirety when a fully just social order is in place (which may be a very long time indeed). Until that time, stoning adulterers and amputating thieves’ hands is just not consistent with the broader conviction that syariah is supposed to be a blessing for humanity. Whereas conservative Islamists insist the meaning of the law is clear and unambiguous, some interviewees pointed that it is in fact neither, but requires continual contextualisation.

Rather than agreeing with the radical Islamist claim that syariah is the key to solving Indonesia’s problems, then, most Indonesian Muslim educators seem to engage in a subtle rational calculus as to the proper approach to the law’s enactment. They affirm the law’s importance, but are keen to make sure that its implementation is consistent with their general ideas on justice and fairness.

If this conclusion is correct, it means that the educators’ commitment to syariah is sincere, and a social fact that all political analysis must acknowledge. But the commitment coexists with an equally significant recognition that tackling the practical challenges of modern government and society requires effective empirical measures, not just vague invocations of the benefits of God’s law. Parties or actors that can demonstrate that implementing syariah can solve practical problems may yet be able to tap this otherwise amorphous reservoir of support for God’s law. But those that simply repeat that the law is a panacea for all society’s problems will not necessarily be rewarded for their views.

Inasmuch as attitudes like those of the educators are widespread in Indonesian society (and other surveys indicate that they are), these findings suggest that Muslim Indonesians are likely to continue to grapple for some time to come with the question of how to balance the ideals of syariah with those of democracy. At times the effort may give rise to ‘culture wars’ as intense as those that have taken place in the United States and other Western countries over the proper place of religion in public life. What is certain is that the results of this ongoing debate will have serious implications for the culture and practice of Indonesian democracy. *ii*

*Robert W. Hefner (rhefner@bu.edu )* is Professor of Anthropology and Associate Director of the Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs at Boston University. He is the author of several books on Indonesian Islam, including /Civil Islam: Muslims and Democratization in Indonesia/ (Princeton, 2000) and the recent volume (co-edited with Muhammad Qasim Zaman), /Schooling Islam:
The Culture and Politics of Modern Muslim Education/ (Princeton 2007).

Reforming jihadists

2007-12-17T05:13:00.000-08:00

Preachers to the converted

Dec 13th 2007 | JAKARTA
From /The Economist/ print edition

The persuasive powers of reformed jihadists are being used to “re-educate” terrorists.

MEETING Nasir Abas at one of Indonesia's trendiest hotels, it is hard to imagine that this polite man in casual Western clothes was once a leader of Jemaah Islamiah (JI), the region's most dangerous terrorist group. Now his job is to persuade his former comrades to give up the idea of perpetrating violence against the West in the name of Islam.

As he explains in his mild-mannered way, he uses two lines of argument.

One is theological: he points out the verses in the Koran that forbid aggressive warfare, and which insist that the lives of non-combatants, especially women and children, must be protected. The other line is more strategic: to convince his listeners that not all Westerners are anti-Muslim, he stresses the fact that many Americans opposed the war in Iraq. And he challenges them: have terrorist bombs made people respect Islam more? Some prisoners angrily reject his arguments, he says—but as long as they are still prepared to listen to them, he thinks it worth continuing to try.

Indonesia's anti-terrorism police, like their counterparts in many other countries, have set up a programme to “deradicalise” Islamist militants. Just as the internet now provides “courses” designed to persuade young Muslims that terrorist violence is legitimate—by arguing, for example, that killing civilians might be necessary in some
circumstances—governments and traditional theologians are working hard to develop and use arguments that guide people the other way.

In many countries, moderate Islamic clerics are expected to do most of the persuading—and they must run the risk of being viewed as government stooges. The Indonesian authorities have taken the risky step of using ex-militants, some of whom have only slightly moderated their views on when violence is acceptable.

Like many of the jihadists round the world who enjoy sufficient “street credibility” to sway younger hearts and minds, Mr Abas won his spurs as a fighter in the American-backed campaign against the Soviet occupation

of Afghanistan. While some Saudi veterans of that campaign began directing their energy against their homeland, Mr Abas—who was born in Singapore but grew up in Malaysia—returned to his own native region to spread the ultra-Islamist fire. He set up a JI network in the Philippines.

He had moved to Jakarta by the time the group bombed a nightclub in Bali in 2002, killing 202 people. He insists he was not involved in that operation and always disapproved of attacking civilians. But as a leading strategist in the organisation and the brother-in-law of one of the main conspirators, Mukhlas, he was arrested and given a short jail sentence.

The 2002 bombing, followed by others against foreign targets in Bali and Jakarta, forced an overhaul of Indonesia's police and intelligence services. As JI members were rounded up, two new police squads decided to see if they could get some of them to co-operate. Through kindnesses, such as arranging family visits, they hoped to dispel the jihadists' assumption that all policemen are /thoghut/ (un-Islamic), and thereby to encourage them to reconsider other deeply held views. The next step was to get those militants who still believed in the rightness of the bombings to listen to those, like Mr Abas, who had disapproved of them all along, or other co-operating but harder-line militants like Ali Imron, who had become convinced that the attacks were wrong only more recently.

Unlike many other Muslim countries that are experimenting with deradicalisation schemes—these include Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Algeria—Indonesia has a relatively open political system where the actions of the police must face public and parliamentary scrutiny. There was uproar when the police handlers of the scheme were seen treating Mr Imron, who was directly implicated in the Bali bombings, to coffee at a fancy Jakarta mall in 2004. Since then he has kept a lower profile, staying at the capital's police headquarters. In another sign of Indonesia's openness, the authorities gave an independent think-tank, the International Crisis Group (ICG), enough access to make a broad evaluation of their scheme.

The ICG's report, in late November, was fairly positive, though it expressed some serious worries. Its main one was that the extreme corruption and disorder found in Indonesia's prisons may be negating all the scheme's attempts to persuade jailed militants that the system they are fighting is not utterly /thoghut/. With some prisoners rejecting attempts to deradicalise them, the ICG says the scheme may be
succeeding only on those who are not particularly dangerous. The ICG's Sidney
Jones says JI has gone “dormant”, so it may no longer make sense to focus efforts on its members. Meanwhile, the unreformed radicals may be recruiting among the ranks of ordinary prisoners as fast as the police-run scheme is deradicalising. And, outside the prison walls, other influences such as the dozens of /pesantren /(boarding schools) run openly by JI men, may be turning out more young militants.

A policeman close to the project admits that probably, more radicals are being created than are being won over to moderation. But he insists that the project has at least got prisoners to divulge valuable intelligence.

The country now has some policemen with insight into the militants' thinking—before, they hadn't a clue. This has helped police round up many of JI's leaders including, in June, the group's presumed military chief, Abu Dujana, who went on trial this week. And there have been no more bombs since 2005.

Still, any crime-fighting strategy based on the idea of “taking a thief to catch a thief” can encounter ethical dilemmas. In Indonesia, some of the people the police hired to deradicalise prisoners are only marginally less militant than those being lectured to. Mr Imron apparently still argues that bombings could be legitimate in
Indonesia—if there were sufficient public support for them.

The police's rationale for letting him argue this is that his fairly extreme views give him more credibility among his “pupils” than someone more moderate and pro-establishment could ever have. As the ICG report notes, the whole project is based on the assumption that, by bolstering a somewhat more moderate Islamic view of the world, the most radical, violent variety is weakened. That is hard to disprove—but by lending credibility to some relatively fundamentalist views by paying someone to argue them, the authorities may be in danger of appearing to endorse them.

For all the doubts, Indonesia's deradicalisation programme does at least seem more likely to produce positive results than the methods being tried in Thailand's Muslim-majority southern provinces. The army (which seized power in a coup last year) has scooped up hundreds of young Muslims merely suspected of “links” to the region's separatist uprising, and sent them to camps for compulsory “job training”. Last month a group of almost 400 of them won a court order declaring their detention illegal. If any policy is likely to turn locals against the authorities and act as a recruiting-sergeant for militants, this is it.

In Bali, new incentive for developing nations to curb emissions

2007-12-17T05:09:00.000-08:00

Forest-preservation pledges of $166 million this week could entice them to take part in a post-Kyoto climate deal.

Nusa Dua, Indonesia - Efforts to map the way to a post-Kyoto climate treaty have sailed into rough water this week. But amid the turbulence, a key climate initiative is gathering momentum.

Dubbed REDD, it would reward nations for keeping chain saws out of threatened tropical forests, serving as a powerful magnet that could pull several developing countries with significant emissions into a new global-warming pact.

Deforestation accounts for roughly 20 percent of the greenhouse gases that human activities pump into the atmosphere. This means "REDD is going to be a critical element of a global deal" on climate for 2013 and beyond, says Andrew Deutz, senior policy adviser for the Nature Conservancy.

This week, the World Bank pledged $160 million for pilot projects to test the idea, with Norway chipping in an additional $5 million. In response, some 30 developing nations expressed strong interest in the idea, first proposed by Costa Rica and Papua-New Guinea at the 2005 UN climate talks in Montreal. Even the US-based Nature Conservancy – a group that typically finds itself asking others for cash – has ponied up $1 million toward the effort.

REDD, shorthand for "reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation," is a triple winner, explains the organization's Dr. Deutz. Developing countries would set targets for avoided deforestation and earn carbon credits for beating those targets, but would incur no penalty if they fall short of their goals. Those credits would be in demand among industrial countries as a relatively cheap way for them to meet more-stringent emissions reduction goals. And the move could protect biodiversity and preserve the critical services healthy forests provide.

The bottom line: Developing countries could pocket from $2.3 billion to $23 billion a year from avoiding deforestation under REDD, according to Frances Seymour, director general of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) in Jakarta, Indonesia. The range reflects different assumptions about the price of carbon on international markets and on the expanse of forest involved. And as talks on crafting a framework for negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol wind down
here, REDD looks as though it will be incorporated into that framework,analysts here say.

Tough negotiations in Bali

Efforts to craft such a post-Kyoto road map grew testy on Thursday after the European Union threatened to boycott a US summit of major emitters next month. The EU perceives the meeting, as well as US balking here in Bali, as efforts to dilute or derail the UN process. The highest-profile issue has been a reference that cites scientists' projection that to hold global warming to about 3.6 degrees F., global emissions must fall from 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels. EU leaders are baffled and angry that the wording, which the White House didn't object to in a pre-Bali agreement, suddenly has become an apparent deal breaker for the US.

Including the 25-to-40 percent range would signal that industrial countries remain serious about making further emissions cuts – a key factor in getting developing countries to agree to take part in a post-Kyoto deal.

While REDD has also been championed as a way to get developing nations on board, the idea has its critics. Groups championing indigenous people's rights say they doubt that many if any of the benefits from REDD would trickle down to the people who need it most. And it could trigger land grabs by individuals or companies who want to cash in on REDD's credits.

Others, such as Marina Silva, Brazil's environment minister, argue that the use of credits in conjunction with REDD would allow industrial countries to duck their responsibility for reducing their own emissions.

Still, what a difference seven years make. At the 2000 global climate talks in The Hague, environmental groups split on the issue of getting credit for the carbon reservoirs that forests build up protested each others' press conferences. Now, most environmental groups back the idea.

Several factors account for the change, says Claudia McMurray, US assistant secretary of State for Oceans, Environment, and Science. One is a recognition of what impact deforestation can have on a country's ranking as a greenhouse-gas emitter, she explains. Indonesia and Brazil are third- and fourth-worst globally, after China and the US, because of deforestation and the wildfires related to it, she says.

In addition, the science related to forests, their carbon content, and the processes that can boost or reduce emissions has improved.

And politically, tropical-forest countries are joining forces to press for help on the issue in ways they haven't been able to for other issues. They recognize that "rates of deforestation are really staggering, and if nothing is done – in the climate arena or anywhere –we're going to lose some very precious forests," says Ms. McMurray.

Earlier this week, the Woods Hole Research Center unveiled a study on the impact climate is having on tropical forests in the Amazon and on the impact deforestation there has on climate.

REDD a 'powerful proposal'

"If current trends continue, by 2030 ... 55 percent of the Amazon will have been cleared or impoverished by some combination of logging, drought, and fire," says Daniel Nepstad, the scientist who compiled the report. "In my 23 years working in the Amazon, I've never seen so may powerful forces coming together" to threaten the world's largest tropical forest.

He calls REDD a "very powerful proposal" that could play a significant role in holding back the tide of deforestation.

Over the past several years, researchers have been whittling away at some of the technical problems that made forest issues so contentious at past climate talks.

For instance, Sandra Brown, of Winrock International in Arlington, Va.,this week unveiled the results of work she and her colleagues have done to develop mapping techniques that highlight areas vulnerable to deforestation.

And satellite technology has been a major help in developing baseline estimates of the amount of carbon a forest holds, notes Doug Boucher, with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Within the next five to 10 years, he says, remote sensing technology will become still more precise – determining the species of trees, as well as their height and distribution over spaces as small as a few yards.

But enthusiasm for REDD is tempered by an acknowledged lack of experience with it. That's why pilot projects such as those the World Bank aims to underwrite are important.

Some argue that to halt deforestation, countries may need to restructure their ministries, bringing portfolios such as agriculture and energy into the environment ministry. Carlos Rodgriguez, former minister of environment and energy in Costa Rica, says that was crucial to his country's success at halting and in some areas reversing tropical deforestation.

These practical considerations may frustrate those developing countries who are eager to jump on the REDD bandwagon now, suggests CIFOR's Ms. Seymour. "We're going to be facing a tension between dealing with climate change as an emergency, reducing emissions as quickly as possible, but doing so at a pace that makes sure we don't make mistakes

by rushing forward too quickly and not having the institutions in place to make sure it's successful," she says.

S. Korea, Indonesia Join to Produce Armored Vehicles

2007-12-17T05:08:00.000-08:00

By JUNG SUNG-KI, SE

South Korea’s rolling stock maker Rotem will transfer technology to Indonesia to help the Southeast Asian nation develop wheeled armored fighting vehicles, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) announced Dec. 13.

Representatives from Rotem, a unit of Hyundai Motor, and Indonesia’s PT.PINDAD signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on the joint development and production of six-wheel-drive armored vehicles during aceremony at DAPA’s headquarters in central Seoul.

“We believe this MoU will pave the way for the future export of South Korea’s armored vehicle technology to foreign countries, particularly Asian and Middle Eastern nations,” said Cmdr. Park Sung-soo, a public affairs officer for DAPA.

Indonesia plans to equip its military with about 400 advanced armored combat Vehicles, Park said.

The MoU with Indonesia is Rotem’s second contract on the transfer of technology abroad, following a contract in June with Turkey over the XK2 Black Panther main battle tank.

Jakarta is considered Seoul’s key arms trade partner. South Korea sold seven KT-1 Woongbi basic trainers and spare parts to Indonesia in 2003 under a $60 million contract, which made the country one of the few aircraft exporters in the world.

In 2006, Indonesia purchased 12 more KT-1s. The country is also a potential buyer of South Korea’s indigenous submarines.

In a move to boost bilateral cooperation in the defense industry, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and his Indonesian counterpart, Susilo Bambang Yodhoyono, issued a joint declaration on “strategic partnership relationship” during a summit in December 2006.

The two leaders agreed to improve cooperation on defense-related technology transfer and joint development.

The Rotem-PT.PINDAD contract was reached during a joint defense committee between South Korea and Indonesia in Seoul in August, DAPA officials said.

The climate conference: What's in it for us?

2007-12-17T05:06:00.001-08:00

*Endy M. Bayuni*, The Jakarta Post, Nusa Dua, Bali

The ongoing climate conference in Bali is quite a show for a developing country like Indonesia to host. More than 10,000 delegates, observers and journalists, and five heads of state and dozens of dignitaries are gathered to bring the Dec. 3-14 conference to its climax this week as they discuss ways of saving our planet, which seems to be getting warmer at an ever-increasing rate.

Granted it is a United Nations conference, which is picking up the huge bill. Indonesia volunteered to host it when the world body canceled on Thailand following the military coup in Bangkok in September last year.

The gathering has already been billed as the largest ever on climate change, a testament to the importance of the issue at hand. Either that,or many people have come because it's being held in Bali.

Still, for this privilege, Indonesia is spending some of its own money, and deploying thousands of people to help with the protocol, security and many other arrangements, in order to make sure that the meetings proceed smoothly and safely.

Naturally, the most frequently asked question in the minds of people in this country is "what's in it for us?" Without intending to sound selfish, what do we, as a nation, get out of this to justify the huge expense and trouble that we must go through?

In terms of tangibles, there are not that many.

Bali tourism is obviously one of the beneficiaries, with all hotel rooms in the Nusa Dua and nearby Jimbaran resorts taken up. Restaurants, cafes, souvenir shops, car rentals and tourist sites are reporting brisk businesses, an added bonus ahead of the Christmas and New Year holiday.

Tourism in Indonesia's renowned holiday island has been clawing back its share of the international tourism market following the devastating impacts of two terrorist attacks in 2002 and 2005. This conference is important, not only for the presence of the 10,000 people, but more importantly for the big publicity that it attracts, and for providing a testament that Bali is safe now.

The government has also been at pains to explain to the Indonesian public that with the right strategy, Indonesia stands to gain billions of dollars from the growing global carbon trade, one of the substantial issues being discussed at the climate change conference.

To bolster its chances of securing that money, Indonesia and other countries that are home to large tropical rain forests are pushing the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) program into the carbon trading mechanism. As chairman of the conference, Indonesia inserted REDD, which essentially makes funds available for countries with large tropical forestry resources, on to the conference's main agenda.

What else is there for Indonesia?

Other benefits are less tangible and are difficult to quantify. The experience of hosting such a major international conference is in itself quite a feat. Those who are involved, directly or indirectly, have gained valuable skills and knowledge in organizing big events.

There is the knowledge to be gained just by sitting through the meetings and witnessing at close hand the process of negotiations and of lobbying behind the scenes.

The Foreign Ministry and Trade Ministry will have more people with greater insights into the complexities of negotiating deals after this. There is the massive publicity Indonesia gets from being in the international spotlight. This is a new Indonesia that is very different to what it was 10 years ago -- it is more democratic, more humane, more peaceful and more confident. This is a story that is probably not that
well known abroad. This is an opportunity for Indonesia to tell its story.

The conference serves to show the world that Indonesia is capable of not only hosting an international conference, but also of providing the necessary leadership in directing the conference to bridge the huge differences that remain on climate change issues.

The message we want to convey is that after going through economic and political turmoil and a series of devastating natural disasters, Indonesia today is very much back on its feet, ready to play its part in the search for solutions to international problems, including global warming.

Thanks to extensive media coverage, the Indonesian public has become much more aware about global warming and its consequences, as well as the need to act, than would be the case if the conference took place elsewhere, like in Thailand.

So the answer to the question, "what's in it for Indonesia?" is: a lot.

It has made Indonesia a better host, a better organizer, a better negotiator and better at environmental issues. After this conference, Indonesia will come out a much better country and a better nation. That is priceless.

UN climate conference expected to embrace forest protection as part of climate change plan

2007-12-17T05:01:00.000-08:00

BALI, Indonesia: Fighting illegal logging has for decades mostly been
marked by failure. There was never enough money or political will to
overcome the corruption and poverty that drove people in tropical
nations to cut down trees.

But with new evidence showing deforestation contributes about 20 percent
to global warming — emitting more heat-trapping gases than cars, ships
and jet planes do every year — delegates at the U.N. climate conference are taking a fresh look at the problem.And, for the first time, they are expected to include forest protection measures in negotiations on replacing the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. They also are likely to set up a mechanism that would resolve a problem that has been at the heart of the deforestation — how to make it more
valuable for governments to protect their trees than allow timber and
palm oil barons to cut them down.

"If we lose the world's forests, we lose the fight against climate change," Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister Michael Somber told conference delegates Wednesday. "Action to reduce emission from deforestation is too important to wait."

For nearly three decades, saving tropical rain forests, especially in
the Amazon, Indonesia and Congo basin in Africa, from chain saws has been marred by missteps and disappointments. Efforts to include protection schemes in the Kyoto agreement were rejected over concerns that credit for saving forests would take
pressure off the West to reduce emissions, but also because some nations were unconvinced it would be possible to verify reforestation efforts. Western governments, instead, rolled out programs aimed at getting villagers in Africa or Southeast Asia to shift to other businesses or ensuring logs being exported from, say Indonesia or Brazil, came from sustainable sources.

But few efforts have been able to slow the pace of deforestation, resulting in the loss of 13 million hectares (32 million acres) of forest each year or twice the size of Panama, according to The World Bank.

Brazil and Indonesia — where 80 percent of carbon dioxide emissions come from deforestation — are the hardest hit mostly because of rampant illegal logging and the growing demand for biofuels and other commodities like soybeans.

"Changing forest-use patterns in developing countries is at least as difficult as cutting industrial emissions in developed countries," Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told delegates. "Yet it is a task that must be confronted ... Positive incentives from the international community would greatly help that effort, especially in the case of the poorest countries."

Ten years since Kyoto's signing, donors, environmentalists and tropical countries say they hope results will be different. Dubbed Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Degradation or REDD, the tentative program will essentially pay countries who can show they are making efforts to reduce their levels of deforestation and, in the case of Indonesia, protect peat lands. The program is being hailed not only as a climate change solution, but also as a way of helping protect biodiversity and providing a cheap way to shield communities from the worsening floods and landslides that are so common in much of Southeast Asia.

"If you agree with Al Gore that we have a climate emergency, you can't afford to have 20 percent of the problem off the table. We have to do it," said Frances J. Seymour, the director general of the Center for International Forest Research in Indonesia, referring to the Nobel prize-winning former U.S. vice president.

"There are so many other reasons to conserve forest from sustainable development forest." Still with as much as US$23 billion (euro15.6 billion) expected to be available for forest protection, countries have been jockeying in Bali to include language that would make them eligible for REDD. Some like India and Costa Rica are pushing to be able to gain assistance for conserving their forest since they already have strong protection measures in place. African countries want to include the word
degradation — tree loss to such things as farming and small scale logging — since their deforestation levels are relatively low.

"Everybody is sure that reduce emissions from deforestation will be in there so they all want their little piece of it," said Douglas Boucher of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The form of assistance has also been an issue with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea leading an effort for countries to get carbon credits for conservation — which they could eventually trade on a commodities market for cash much as emissions are done in Europe. Brazil, on the other hand, supports creating a fund created through direct aid from Western countries, or taxes on such things as international air travel or the energy sector.

Other concerns are the methodology for verifying a country's reforestation efforts, the corruption that remains rife in forest departments and concerns that the bid to save forests will force indigenous people off their land or deprive them of their livelihoods.

That debate played out Tuesday outside a World Bank meeting, where seven Western governments were announcing plans to donate US$160 million (€109 million) to the agency's newly created Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Norway on Thursday agreed to contribute US$5 million (€3.4 million) to the fund, bring the total to US$165 million (€112 million). It is a forest protection program that will fund pilot projects in five developing countries to better understand what methods will best work for REDD. So far 30 countries from Africa, the Asia-Pacific and Latin
America have requested to participate in the program.

"We reject REDD," said Mina Susana Setra, a member of the Indigenous People's Alliance Archipelago and one of 60 people protesting the plans with chants of "Hands Off World Bank". "Who will take control? Who will benefit? When these projects happen, we are forced from our land."

World Bank President Robert Zoellick insisted the projects would consider the concerns of indigenous people while at the same time providing a global solution to climate change. Countries involved in REDD have 85 percent of tropical forests, and proponents of the scheme note that doing nothing to protect the trees — which release carbon dioxide into the air when they are cut or burned — would be like allowing the United States or China to continue to pollute unabated.

"This signals that the world cares about the global value of forests and is ready to pay for it," he said. "This can change economic options for many people who depend on the forests for their livelihoods. There is now a value for conserving, not just harvesting forests."

BBC

Canadian protesters upset with treatment at climate change summit in Bali

2007-12-17T04:46:00.000-08:00

By Mike De Souza, CanWest News Service

NUSA DUA, Indonesia — A youth delegation protesting the Harper government’s climate change policies say that a Canadian representative intimidated them on Wednesday with a warning about Indonesian prisons to get them away from a news conference held by Environment Minister John Baird.

“He said that we might have free speech in Canada, but we don’t know if we have it here, and we wouldn’t want to be arrested by the Indonesian police,” said Elizabeth McDowell, 24, who travelled to Bali from Vancouver.

McDowell was among a handful of Canadians who held up a sign questioning the government’s leadership at the climate change conference while Baird was arriving to speak with reporters.

But she said the federal government representative who is in charge of Canadian security at the summit quickly yelled out to Indonesian police asking them to question the youth.

“He called them over and he was quite aggressive,” said McDowell.

A spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Canadian representative was not part of the government, but defended his actions.

“My understanding is that he was watching out for them and ensuring their safety,” said Harper’s press secretary Dimitri Soudas. “He was trying to be helpful. That’s a shame that they took his kindness towards them and spun it.”

Soudas has urged Canadian reporters covering the climate change summit to be skeptical about the dozens of Canadian youth who are promoting action on global warming, since some of them are card-carrying members of the Liberal party.

But McDowell said the accusations suggest the government is scared of criticism, noting that Baird bailed out of a scheduled event the previous night to present his own climate change plan to the conference.

“I think they’re a little bit threatened by us,” she said. “They’re not ready to defend their plan because they don’t have one, and they’re not ready to defend their actions here.”

She stressed that she had no particular political affiliation, adding that the youth coalition is made up of people from all political stripes.

The Indonesian police officer who was called over by the Canadian representative asked the youth a few questions, but soon walked away after determining they were no threat to security.

The youth have complained that they have been excluded from the official Canadian government delegation — along with environmental groups and opposition parties — while industry representatives, including an oilpatch executive, were welcome. Baird has not responded to requests for a meeting with the youth, she said.

Stoking democracy in a Muslim giant

2007-12-06T11:45:00.000-08:00

Indonesian president battles pessimism amid realistic expectations

By *TOM PLATE*

BALI, Indonesia — Do you like big-time success stories? There may be a quiet one in the making here that almost no one knows about, aside from the neighbors. And it's an important story at this early stage, even if the political tale's ending cannot honestly be forecast.

The plot revolves around Indonesia, which many Western tourists know best as the country that houses Bali, one of the most gorgeous places anywhere. It also hous more Muslims than anywhere as well. But how does a fledgling democracy flower in the largest Islamic country on earth? Isn't Islam utterly incompatible with democracy? Interested observers can hardly get a better answer than the one provided by Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono, the elected president of what in fact is our third-largest democracy, after India and the United States.

"In Indonesia, democracy, Islam and modernity go hand in hand, effortlessly together," he insisted in a major speech. "Rather than becoming a bastion of radicalism, the heart and soul of Indonesia remains moderate and progressive."

A former general himself, Yudhoyono proffered that optimism in the course of accepting the "Democracy Award," which honors the country's 240-plus million citizens for pushing democracy forward. He told cheering delegates at the International Association of Political Consultants (celebrating the organization's 40th annual conference) that democracy was here to stay in Indonesia.

In 2004, when Indonesia offered national elections that included the first direct election of the president, approximately 80 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots. This was not just a high turnout, it was a political revolution.

"For many decades," the tall, solidly built president explained, "Indonesian politics gravitated around the elite. Indonesians have complained about feudalistic tendencies in our political culture. This elitism is unhealthy for our democracy."

The president admitted that democracy all by itself will not satisfy the people if it fails to deliver economic improvement: "When people cast their ballot, they do so with the intention of improving their lives. Democracy must be a process of fulfilling that hope."

For its plain-speaking and evident optimism, the president's address won over the convention's delegates and lifted them to a standing ovation. Yet, in this region, it has been the fast track of authoritarianism that has been more closely associated with prosperity.

Neighbors Singapore and Malaysia are two economically successful nations that cannot be described as classically democratic in the Western sense of the term.

At the same time, democracies in other parts of the world (U.S., Scandinavia, etc.) deemed to be world class have also been associated with good governance as well as economic achievement. There are not a whole lot of such democracies to be found in this neighborhood.

So, how will Muslim Indonesia ultimately turn out? Yudhoyono asks us to avoid pessimism while remaining grounded: "It is critical to remember that democracy cannot be taken for granted. There are many cases in the world where democracy falters, stagnates, decays, crumbles or reverses itself. And like all processes of change, [transition to] democracy is bound to be rife with endless criticism, occasional self-doubt, stubborn resistance, and numerous hurdles."

The truth is that doubt about democracy is not confined to Southeast Asia. People in the West can find their ideological faith tested. Turnout at elections is often low; campaigns are generally dreary; the quality of the debate generally hovers on the intellectual level of used-car advertisements. Prosperity defuses the irritation, but
economic downturn can bring old anxieties back to the surface.

The U.S., for its part, faces the certainty of a presidential election next year amid the distinct possibility of a significant economic downturn. To use Yudhoyono's terms, we may then face the prospect of political stagnation along with decay of the political spirit. It is then that U.S. democracy will be hard-tested. All democracies, as well as authoritarian regimes, look good when the economy is good. It is when things go sour that the resilience of a political system reveals itself.

"In the final analysis," said Yudhoyono, "democratic transition is not a linear process where you go in a straight line from A to Z. In many cases, it is a stop-go process rife with ups and downs, and shocks and jolts."

For decades after its independence from the Dutch, the political system of the giant archipelago known as Indonesia was an authoritarian one. Only in 1999 was the new electoral system was born. That's not much time to get democracy right, but it can't hurt to have a democratic leader with maturity and vision to fight against pessimism while keeping expectations realistic and hope alive. Right now, Indonesia would seem
to have that kind of leader.

---------------------
UCLA professor Tom Plate, a journalist and Burkle Center board member, participated at the the International Association of Political Consultants conference. Copyright 2007 Tom Plate

OECD invites five countries to membership talks, offers enhanced engagement to other big players

2007-12-06T11:43:00.000-08:00

16/05/2007 - OECD countries agreed to invite Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership of the Organisation and offered enhanced engagement, with a view to possible membership, to Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa.

*Extract from the Council Resolution on Enlargement and Enhanced Engagement*

(adopted by Council at Ministerial level on 16 May 2007):

THE COUNCIL

i) Invites the Secretary-General to strengthen OECD co-operation with Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa through enhanced engagement programs with a view to possible membership. The Council will determine whether to open discussions on membership in light of the willingness, preparedness and ability of these countries to adopt OECD practices, policies and standards.

ii) Decides to open discussions with Chile, Estonia, Israel, the Russian Federation and Slovenia and invites the Secretary-General to set out the terms, conditions and process for the accession of each of these countries to the OECD for subsequent consideration and adoption by Council. Separately, Council may raise issues of a political nature which the Secretary-General will convey to the countries concerned in the context of the discussions on accession.

iii) Invites the Secretary-General to inform other countries that have applied for membership that their applications for accession shall be further considered individually by Council as enlargement proceeds; future applications shall be similarly considered.

iv) Invites the Secretary-General to explore and develop recommendations to Council on how to expand the OECD's relations, including through enhanced engagement, with selected countries and regions of strategic interest to the OECD, identified by Council. In light of its growing importance in the world economy, priority will be given to South East Asia with a view to identifying countries for possible membership.

v) Invites the Secretary-General to report regularly to the Council on the progress of his discussions and consultations with the countries above and outline options for the OECD's further relationship with these countries. In outlining such options, due consideration will be given to the capacity of the Organisation to process potential candidates without affecting the regular programme of work.

Unease grows between Jakarta and Singapore

2007-11-28T19:02:00.001-08:00

By Eric Ellis (South-East Asia correspondent for Fortune magazine)

Resentment and envy still appear to underpin a testy relationship, writes Eric Ellis.

***

ASIDE from Bali and the brothels and business parks bordering Singapore, the city-state's investors, like Australians, have never felt particularly comfortable in Indonesia.

While its bankers shelter billions in Indonesian loot from prying Jakarta investigators, it is generally regarded as a country best avoided, a corrupt swamp of intrigues on Singapore's pristine doorstep.

And Indonesians return the suspicion with scorn. Former president B.J.Habibie once described Singapore as a Chinese "red dot" in an Islamic archipelago, a toy-town so insignificant that were it to suddenly vanish, Jakarta would not notice it missing.

That was 1998, and Indonesia was in no state to be patronising. The rupiah had lost 80% of its value, collapsing the economy. The post-Soeharto political vacuum was being exploited by religious extremists and - as Indonesian nationalists see it - by Singaporean Government funds in a $2 billion bottom-fishing trip accumulating
state assets on the cheap: major banks, marquee property and, most controversially, Indonesia's two leading mobile phone carriers.

Nine years and several presidents on, a nasty fight between Jakarta and Singapore over those telcos suggests resentment, or envy, still informs the relationship, while raising questions about how economies manage the investments of sovereign wealth funds.

Much bitterness bubbles around Telkomsel and Indosat, the carriers that control 80% of Indonesia's mobile phones market. Offshoots of Singapore's Temasek Holdings bought in soon after Megawati Soekarnoputri became president in mid-2001, when Indonesia was on its knees.

Temasek's state backing gave the deals a foreign policy hue, while Indonesia was consumed by terror, and the Bali-bombing terrorists threatening to absorb skittish Singapore into its Islamist caliphate. But Temasek's boldness has been rewarded. Its 56%-owned SingTel Optus owns a 35% share of Telkomsel, now worth an estimated four or five times its original investment, while its 100%-owned STT Telemedia controls 42% of Indosat, with a similar multiple. SingTel gets 20% of its profits from Indonesia.

But perhaps not for much longer. After a long probe into the mobiles market, measured per user as one of the world's biggest and, with margins approaching 60%, most lucrative, Indonesia's anti-monopoly agency this week demanded Temasek sell at least one of the two interests. It fined eight Singaporean affiliates and demanded tariffs
be slashed after accusing both operators of fixing prices.

It is the second time in a year that Temasek's deal making has upset a powerful neighbour, prompting a coup in Thailand last year after taking then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra out of his family business. The huge paper losses there stained the reputation of Temasek's technocratic chief executive Ho Ching, wife of Singapore
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

As in Bangkok, Temasek denies wrongdoing in Jakarta, and is challenging the ruling in court.

Singapore's official broadcaster described the ruling as a "foregone conclusion that had left political watchers, businessmen and international investors shaking their heads over the unpredictable nature of doing business in Indonesia".

Disagreeable though it is for Singapore Inc, tussles between business and regulators are inevitable. As Richard Pratt and Amcor doubtless rue, troubles are inescapable when governments decree functioning and consumer-friendly competitive markets.

Moreover, the very existence of "independent" institutions such as the KPPU, the Bahasa acronym for Jakarta's competition commission, was what investors demanded Indonesia create to rid itself of corruption and cronyism, and the policy-by-personal-fiat that marked Soeharto's 30-year kleptocracy. (Indeed, were the KPPU's rulings on cross-ownership applied in Singapore itself, state-owned Temasek might be in a pickle there, too. Temasek companies control Singapore's two leading mobile operators, and have a substantial stake in the third. But the same Government that owns Temasek only instituted a competition commission less than three years ago, after Indonesia, and insists it provides full and fair competition.)

But this being Indonesia, where few things are ever as they appear, there are intrigues and wrinkles.

The KPPU ruling was light on detail, and comes amid unresolved diplomatic dramas that have poisoned bilateral affairs. The most contentious has been Jakarta's desire to extradite errant businessmenfrom legal exile in Singapore.

Merrill Lynch found recently that 33% of Singapore's 55,000 millionaires were Indonesians controlling $US87 billion ($A98.78 billion) in assets on the island, fuelling a colossal property boom.

Jakarta sees an extradition treaty with a reluctant Singapore as essential to its anti-corruption effort, so it can go after corrupt officials and businessmen who have salted ill-gotten gains in Singapore banks.

Jakarta is also miffed that Singapore is extending its borders, demanding that traders stop shipping Indonesian sand for Singaporean reclamations. With the economy doing well, Indonesia is confidently reforming itself into one of Asia's most robust democracies. From environment policy to Middle East peace prospects, Jakarta is again
projecting authority as an Asian power.

There have been intrigues aplenty during the KPPU drama. This week I was handed a document that purports to be a working brief for a Russian oligarch's plan to buy Temasek's Indosat share, citing the connivance of two Indonesian cabinet ministers and their staff, known collegiately by the Russians as "teams". Parts of the "Project
Indosat" document seem a nod to Le Carre. It describes a stage-managed campaign of protests, financed by the Russians, against the Singaporean ownership of Indosat to force its divestment. Naturally, millions would be paid to named government officials whose lobbying and influence would nail the deal.

The document's veracity is impossible to establish, but there is a PhotoShop feel about it, which has not stopped the Temasek-friendly Singapore media reporting slabs of it.

The fact that it is being proferred by Singapore-friendly backroom "consultants" skilled in "the dark arts" suggests scepticism is the best policy. But the fact that it is being whizzed into Jakarta inboxes is eloquent testimony of the battle's nastiness.

Another intrigue concerns Indonesian Welfare Minister Aburizal Bakrie, a great survivor from the Soeharto era. He is not mentioned in the document, but lobbyists point out that a junior telco owned by his family has big expansion plans.

Indonesia has one-third the mobile penetration of Singapore, suggesting much room for new players, but the inference is clear. A lobbyist told me that some KPPU members are close to Indonesian Vice-President Jusuf Kalla, whose family business had a 10-year joint venture with SingTel in a struggling telco centred on Bali and
Indonesia's eastern islands. Kalla's group recently bought out SingTel, which lost money on the deal. Kalla is seen as the champion ridding Indonesian telcos of their Singapore partners. He is also contemplating a tilt at the presidency in 2009.

Alongside the legal campaign, Singapore has - untypically for the reclusive Temasek group - mounted a public relations blitz. Its lavish lunch briefings of the past year are famous among Jakarta's poorly paid local scribes.

But in arguing that Temasek's offshoots operate independently of the Government and the parent and that there is no conflicts of interest, the Singaporeans sometimes shoot themselves in the foot. A lawyer insisting on this independence is a director of another Temasek company and a member of Parliament representing the long-ruling party.

The Singaporean campaign claims the ruling will backfire on Indonesia's foreign investment aspirations, describing it as a politically inspired legal travesty. This may well be right - Indonesia's legal system is light years from perfect and rumours swirl around some KPPU commissioners.

But that is also a self-serving argument as Indonesia enjoys its highest foreign investment since the mid-'90s, mostly in the resources sector where the law is as quixotic as ever.

Still, the matter is shaping as a test case for Indonesia's evolving institutions, and a setback for Singapore's efforts to spread beyond its mature economy.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono pledged not to intervene, and underlined the KPPU's independence. But it is clear among the ruling elite that Singapore Inc is no longer so welcome in Indonesia - Temasek is also being pressured over two banks in which it has invested - and as the deadline nears, its exit from not-so-happy investments will probably come down to price.

The proceeds will end up in places such as Australia, where the welcome mat, and the legal system, are not so soiled.

Eric Ellis is South-East Asia correspondent for Fortune magazine

A Time to Kill, And a Time to Heal

2007-11-28T19:01:00.000-08:00

In his job as an Israeli pediatrician, Yuval saves the lives of Palestinian children. But the father of three also takes Palestinian lives as an attack helicopter pilot patrolling Gaza.

By Laura Blumenfeld

Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 25, 2007; Page A01

HOLON, Israel
-- The 2-year-old's flawed heart beat backward, pumping blue blood to his lips and inking rings around his eyes.

Ahmad edged across his hospital bed, toward his mother, Nasima Abu Hamed. Nasima, a Palestinian from Gaza had brought Ahmad to Israel for an operation. She moved uneasily through hospital halls decked with

Israeli flags -- but the Jewish doctors could save her son.

A pediatrician named Yuval walked in wearing a white coat. Nasima smiled. Yuval high-fived Ahmad, who was wearing toddler-size army fatigues. Yuval said in Arabic, "How's he doing?"

Nasima shrugged and asked, "When is the surgery?"

Nasima was eager to return to Gaza. There was trouble at home, clashes with Israeli soldiers. Fear had kept her family up all night, the chop of hostile helicopters. Two years ago, a missile fired from a helicopter had killed two cousins. If Nasima ever met an Israeli pilot, "I would faint and die from fear."

Yuval patted Ahmad on the head. The surgery would be soon. Later, Nasima called Yuval "our savior of the children."

Yuval is a savior of children. He is also an attack helicopter pilot. It was Yuval in his Cobra -- though Nasima didn't know it -- hovering over her town, as Israeli troops battled armed Palestinians. By day, Yuval works as a pediatrician. By night, he fires missiles for the air force.

One of Yuval's supervisors, physician Sion Houri, sees no contradiction between Yuval's two jobs. "There's reality A; there's reality B. It's not a dichotomy -- it's us," said Houri. "It's our life as Israelis."

After decades of war, what might be madness in another society passes for normal in Israel. As negotiators meet this week in Annapolis to try to resolve the Middle East conflict, Israelis find ways to resolve the conflict in their own lives. In the Bible, Ecclesiastes declares: "There is . . . a time to kill, and a time to heal." Yuval is doing both, at the same time.

*'It Sounds Like a Conflict'*

Yuval walked through the door, home from work. His little girl toddled over. "I missed you!" Yuval said, kissing his daughter as she peeled off his Velcro name patch and bit it. Yuval's mother-in-law, Nitzan, who was babysitting, said: "So, Yuval, are you a pilot or a doctor today?"

Yuval, a 40-year-old major in the air force, is prohibited by the military from giving his last name. He lives with his wife, two sons and a daughter on Palmachim air base, north of the Gaza Strip. The military has allowed Yuval to study medicine while he serves. When he isn't flying, Yuval treats children as a resident at a nearby civilian hospital.

"He's never home," his mother-in-law said. He's either on alert or on call. He's either dressed in a flight suit, carrying a ruler to calculate firing positions, or he's dressed in scrubs, carrying a measuring tape to gauge baby skulls.

"It sounds like a conflict, but he knows he's protecting us," Nitzan said. "You don't want to kill people, right, Yuval?"

Yuval didn't hear his mother-in-law because he was running his daughter's bath.

Nitzan said, "Look, our situation is intolerable."

"Situation" is Israeli shorthand for the country's relationship with Arabs. It wasn't always intolerable, Yuval said. He grew up on a farm, where on Saturdays at 7:30 a.m., his father revved up the tractor. All day, Yuval picked oranges with Palestinians from Gaza. For lunch, Yuval brought bread and cheese; Palestinians boiled Arabic coffee. They became, Yuval thought, friends.

"Now it seems like ancient history," Yuval said, splashing his daughter's curls, so immersed in memories he didn't notice she had her socks on in the tub.

Yuval's oldest son was born in the 1990s, after the Oslo accords. He dreamed that his son wouldn't be drafted. Then, in 2000, the second Palestinian intifada erupted. Suicide bombers blew up Israeli discos and cafes. Israelis responded with force. Palestinians from Gaza were banned, including the men who labored with Yuval. Yuval flew targeted assassination missions, killing some 15 intifada members, he said. After a strike, Yuval said, he would emerge from his cockpit successful, yet feeling bad, his hair wet with sweat, his neck reddened with tension.

Some pilots quit. They criticized the military. Yuval called them "unforgivable." As he snapped pink pajamas on his daughter, Yuval said,"If you think you're more moral, stay in and fight the battle the way you think it should be fought." Yuval's wife, Tamar, and their two sons came home. After dinner, the boys slid under Peter Rabbit sheets.

"Who's waiting for their 'kiss of protection'?" Yuval asked.

"Me!" said Imry, their 5-year-old. The kiss banishes bad dreams.

"About witches," the boy explained. "Dragons and ghosts."

Yuval started to smile, but then Imry added, "And the warriors, who
want
me to die."

***

At 2:30 a.m., air force sirens woke Yuval. Tamar didn't stir as Yuval leapt from their warm sheets, they recalled in interviews about that night in October.

"Is it the mission we briefed for?" Yuval whispered into his phone.

"Something else," a voice said from headquarters. "You're going south."

Yuval shot into the hallway in his underwear. He had 15 minutes until
takeoff.

Every movement, every zip and shiver, from Yuval's pillow to his Cobra had been timed. Two seconds to rinse with mouthwash. Forty-five seconds to pull on his flight suit and boots. Ten seconds to sprint to the car,parked nose-out. Six minutes to drive to the airfield, including swerves, in case a jackal crossed the road.

By the time Yuval reached his helicopter, four wire-guided missiles had been loaded. The crows roosting on the rotor blades had flown. Yuval strapped on his helmet and plugged into the cockpit radio. He recalled hearing:

"Your mission is to attack a group of terrorists. They launched a Qassam rocket at Israel and they're about to launch again."

In the past four months, the army says, more than 1,000 rockets and shells have been launched against Israel. On this night, the army said, four men from Islamic Jihad were attacking. Yuval entered the coordinates -- northeast Gaza, four miles from the Israeli town of Sderot -- into his electronic map.

The radio said: "All four are approved for targeting."

Yuval's heart, already beating fast, began to pound, he recalled. Usually, Yuval fired warning shots, or destroyed the launchers. Now Yuval and his wingman were supposed to take out a whole squad, he said.

Kill four men, or be a failure.

"Ready for takeoff," Yuval said. It had been 12 minutes, almost 13, since the sirens had woken him. As the light of the helicopter lifted through the humid air, it looked to Yuval like he was rising inside a pitcher of milk.

The flight to Gaza took five minutes. Sometimes when targeting a Palestinian, Yuval flew for hours without firing. Once, Yuval circled a building every day for a month -- in his helicopter with the white, open-jawed snake painted on the side -- waiting until civilians cleared.

One day, a boy sat on the roof. Another day, the target's secretary walked into his office. Finally, the Palestinian was alone. One, two, three missiles killed him.

On this night over Gaza though, there could be no delays. Yuval pictured an Israeli bedroom, exploding. He approached the launch zone tense and tenser, leaning toward the screen of his heat-sensitive targeting system. The rocket squad had crept into an orchard near a house. Yuval adjusted the contrast knobs, trying to coax four figures from the shadows, he recalled. Trees were gray. A house was white. The men were
black hot.

"It's a terrible thought," Yuval said later, but it had occurred to him many times: The children of the Palestinians he had picked oranges with in his father's orchard were now launching rockets. "I'm sure I know some of them. You can't recognize them from the air."

All Yuval could see now were small, dark movements. Two figures behind a tree. A person crouching.

"This is it," Yuval recalled thinking. Yuval placed his cross in the middle of a thin, black figure. "I'm looking at someone whose role in life is to kill, and I have to stop him," he thought. "Now, now, now." Yuval's adrenaline surged.

His thumb pressed the red button hard. Yuval held his breath, hoping that "nothing comes into the cross, like another person."

But instead of turning the Palestinian into a black-hot burst, the missile thudded into the sand. His ammunition had malfunctioned, a dud.

"No!" Yuval recalled thinking. He fired again. "Good hit," said ground troops, spotting for him. But by then, the two remaining rocket squad members had crawled close to the house.

Yuval had to decide: fly away and spare the civilians or fire again and fulfill his mission?

"Not good," Yuval said to his wingman, as they turned back.

***

After he landed, he tiptoed into his house and lay next to his wife. It was 5:30 a.m. Tamar rolled over: "Did you fly?"

Yuval said bitterly, "No, I went out with my buddies."

He lay there, he later recalled, so wrung out that he felt like he'd lost 20 pounds. He thought: "I have to wake up in two hours and go to the hospital."

*Brotherly Therapy at Week's End*

On Fridays, Yuval drives his family to his parents' farm on Tranquility Street.

"He hardly ate! You ate nothing," said Yuval's mother, also named Tamar, on a recent Friday evening.

Yuval's mother said having a doctor for a son was "the ultimate nachas." But a pilot? "Too much worry," she said. "I'd rather not know."

Yuval's two brothers are also pilots. Michael flies an F-16 fighter jet, and Ori, a reconnaissance plane.

"On Friday night, we debrief here," Yuval said.

"They talk among themselves," said Yuval's father, Ron. "We just eavesdrop."

For Michael, who had tried to kill Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah, their conversations were a form of brotherly therapy: "We talk about our failures, because the successes don't weigh on our hearts."

Yuval confided to Michael about his mission in Gaza. "You don't get so involved in what's happening on the ground," Yuval told him.

"My fight is more sterile," said Michael, who operates at 20,000 feet. Michael shoots autonomous "fire-and-forget missiles," which allow him to jet away.

"When you put the cross on someone running, it's more difficult," Yuval said later. And back at the squadron, he said, "you see the video again and again, and the black dot goes down, and he doesn't move anymore -- it's difficult. You think not as a pilot, but as a human being." In the cockpit, though, "I don't let my head go there. I don't allow myself to think about a target's mother."

At dinner, Yuval's mother said, "You try very hard not to hurt people, right, uv-ik?"

Yuval squeezed the stem of his wineglass. Efrat, Michael's girlfriend, teasingly called Yuval "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." They cleared away their dishes, the wineglasses last. They had clinked the glasses earlier, with a toast: "To life!"

*When All Seems Possible*

The baby's heart stopped. She lay on her hospital bed -- 10 pounds at 4 1/2 months -- her chest deathly still.Yuval was working in the emergency room when a nurse called out, "We need you, quick!"

Two brooding days had passed since Yuval's mission to kill four men. Now it was up to Yuval to save an Arab life.

The Arab baby, Tara, had four heart defects. Tara had come to Israel through Save a Child's Heart, a program that sponsors surgery for children from poor areas. Doctors had inserted a shunt in Tara's heart.

Eight stitches threaded down her chest. Tubes emerged from her ribs, from her clavicle, from her hand.

Through all the wires, Yuval could see that Tara was "innocent, untouched."

"When they come from Gaza at age 3 or 4, they have that look in their eyes," he later recalled. "That 'I know the dangers, don't get too close to me.' "

As Yuval bent over Tara, the monitors beeped alarms. Tara's lungs had filled with fluid. "It was horrible to think this little girl was going to go," recalled the nurse, Svetlana Kakazanov.

"Adrenaline," Yuval ordered. He felt for the center of Tara's chest with his thumbs, and pumped.

It was sad for Yuval, but he often thought that the Gaza children had "a 90 percent chance of becoming terrorists. But mainly it's not their fault, it's 'the situation's' fault. And I'm not treating 'the situation.' I'm treating the child."

In the ICU, "the situation" would disappear, if sometimes only for moments. Yuval had sat night after night with a father from Gaza whose son had a hole in his heart. They talked for hours, as the boy struggled, intubated, under a pale blue blanket. Yuval recalled: "I'm looking at this father, how normal it seems, like me and my friend. But he tells me his uncle was killed in Gaza, and I feel maybe I was even
involved. It's strange."

In the air, while flying at night, in serene, misleading moments, "the situation" would disappear as well. Usually Arab lights glowed pink, and Israeli lights burned white. But when Yuval wore night-vision goggles along the Syrian border, the lights of Damascus shone as green as Tel Aviv. "You don't think, 'Wow, there's my enemy.' " The differences disappeared.

Now in the ICU, as Yuval ordered a second shot of adrenaline for Tara, as her lungs were being puffed manually, Yuval felt the differences disappear again. So what if she was from Gaza? "All that mattered was that she's blue, and she has to be pink."

Yuval kept pumping the baby's heart. Five minutes passed. He stopped to listen for a beat, but every time he stopped, the blip of the monitor's green cardiac line went flat.

"Third dose of adrenaline," Yuval ordered. He wiped his brow. He thought, "She has no reason for dying. She's going to come back. She has got to come back."

Sometimes, Yuval said later, "I can see the children that died while I was trying to resuscitate them." The blond 9-year-old boy, crushed by a car. The green-black baby born at 23 weeks.

There were also the faces Yuval didn't see: "the small, dark image -- I don't visualize the face behind it -- of the terrorist I was ordered to fire on."

He couldn't let Tara's face join the others. He had to breathe her back into improbable existence. Things that seemed impossible, he said -- peace for Israelis, for Palestinians -- Yuval still believed could be true.

He pressed his stethoscope to Tara's ribs. The irregular blip of her heart steadied, and leveled, to 120 beats. He could hear the exquisite swish of her circulating blood.

Tara's chest was rising. He said, "We got her back."

*A Wish for a Change of Heart*

Yuval slumped into a chair. He was on the night shift in the neonatal unit. He felt sick. A fever and chills.

"This past week has been too much for me," Yuval said. The mission to kill the four-man rocket squad in Gaza. Tara's cardiac arrest. He could feel the pressure rising behind his eyes.

"My oath as a doctor is primo no nocere, do no harm," he said. Even as a pilot, when he's ordered to kill, "I try to think of it as -- I'm helping to save lives, and not hurting lives." In Gaza, flying over the orchard, he had killed two men, but let the other two go, he said. The risk of hitting civilians was too high, he said.

"We failed."

As an officer, he berated himself for failing his assignment. As a citizen, he doubted the efficacy of killing anyone. Yuval said: "Maybe because I killed those two, their brother and uncles will launch Qassams in revenge, and kill two Jewish children. So did I do a good thing? I don't know. I don't know if it served my country in the long run, but I know what I had to do that night. That's part of the problem: We need people on both sides to stand up and look 20 years ahead."

Yuval said he knows that Arabs and Jews can get along. "I know it's possible. I see it in the hospital."

When Yuval sees Nasima Abu Hamed, the mother from Gaza, holding Ahmad, her blue-lipped 2-year-old, waiting for his surgery, "my wish is his generation will have a change of heart. That something will change for Ahmad, that he will live differently. But I don't think doing a transposition of the great arteries will do it."

Yuval had visited the wards to check on baby Tara. The mothers were gathered, talking. Tara's mother, Huda Isstefou, greeted Yuval. Yuval hadn't known it when he saved Tara's life, but the tiny girl wasn't from Gaza. She was from Iraq.

"When I told friends I was going to Israel, they said, 'Be careful, Israelis are very dangerous humans,' " Huda said. "But I said, 'They save my child.' "

"An excellent doctor," Nasima said, cradling Ahmad.

"What a nice doctor," said another mother, Majdi Assassa.

Yuval bent over and felt Tara's tummy. "Shalom!" he said in a high-pitched voice. As Yuval listened to Tara's heart beat, she grasped his thumb, his missile-trigger finger, and stared up into his eyes. (*)

Commanding yet isolated, Suharto fades away

2007-11-27T11:11:00.000-08:00

By Seth Mydans
Published: October 31, 2007

Nearly 10 years after the tumult of his ouster, the old dictator spends his days alone in his sitting room, one friend says, inviting few visitors, making no public statements, eating carefully to avoid hurting his stomach.

As he did during his 32 years as Indonesia's president, Suharto, 86, often offers an enigmatic smile when asked a pointed question, the friend says, but now it is sometimes a smile of bafflement as his mind slips away.

These are the impressions of Retnowati Abdulgani-Knapp, the author of a recent sympathetic biography who continues to visit Suharto in the modest home to which he retreated in May 1998 and has rarely left since.

The crowds chanting, "Hang Suharto!" have long since disappeared, the nation has hurried ahead without him, and fewer people really care what happens to the man who once towered over them.

It is a strange, muted fate for a deposed strongman, neither fleeing nor being vigorously pursued, a quiet, defeated presence in a quiet neighborhood in the middle of the bustling city.

"To me, it's self-punishment because he's doing that of his own will," said Abdulgani-Knapp, though it was not clear what might be causing him remorse.

"Why does he stay in that house all the time?" she asked. "He just wants to be alone to punish himself to prepare himself for the next life, I really believe so."

But there is still the question of money.

In September the United Nations and the World Bank put Suharto at the top of a new list of the world's most audacious embezzlers. They quoted an estimate by Transparency International that he stole $15 billion to $35 billion in state assets while in power.

Whatever the actual sum, in a decade of legal fits and starts Indonesia has recovered none of it. In fact, bombarded by doctors' notes saying he is too sick to attend hearings, the courts seem almost relieved not to have to push too hard.

A criminal case against him was dropped in 2000, after doctors reported that his mind had been weakened by a series of strokes. (Commentators note that he becomes well again when there is a family wedding or birthday party to attend.)

Now he is facing a civil suit that charges him with embezzling $1.5 billion from a charitable foundation he created. That case is stumbling forward, but, to nobody's real surprise, crucial financial documents have disappeared from the attorney general's office and cannot be found, according to local news reports.

In what might seem an unexpected twist, the only legal victory so far involving Suharto's wealth went his way. In September he was awarded one trillion rupiah, or $109 million, in a libel suit against Time Asia magazine for a 1999 article that said he and his family had amassed a fortune of around $15 billion. The magazine is appealing the verdict.

The government's half-hearted pursuit of Suharto says a good deal about the aura he has maintained even as his political and financial power has disappeared.

Many of those who hold that power today were once beholden to him, the patron without whose blessing it was impossible to rise high in politics, business, the military or public life.

"Of course, he did a lot of great things for Indonesia and most of the people who are now in power basically grew up under him," said Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a political scientist. "There is still personally enormous respect toward Suharto, at least among the establishment, and still a strong resistance to see him hauled in front of a court."

Given that lingering stature, the weekly magazine Tempo said the attempts to put him on trial were "like a dog barking at an elephant."

Powerful figures still pay their respects at his residence on his birthday and at the end of the holy month of Ramadan - some perhaps out of curiosity, but others out of deference.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was a rising general in Suharto's military-dominated government, still refers to him as "my senior" and visited him in the hospital in 2005 when he had severe gastrointestinal bleeding.

Many of those who grew wealthy through their connections with him remain among the country's richest people. These include his six children, who still control major enterprises that were counted as part of the Suharto wealth.

One son, Hutomo Mandala Putra, known as Tommy, 44, has been convicted of a crime - arranging the murder of a judge who had ruled against him in a corruption case. What is notable about the 15-year sentence he received was that he served just one-third of it and was set free last year.

Suharto himself, on the other hand, seems to have placed himself under a sort of voluntary house arrest, said Abdulgani-Knapp, whose book is titled "Soeharto: The Life and Legacy of Indonesia's Second President."

"Can you imagine, it's like an internal prison," she said. "That's what he does the whole day. He just stays in one room, behind the room where he dines. He never eats with anybody except on Saturday, when I understand a few of his children visit him."

They watch his diet carefully, she said, "but sometimes, when he wants to eat something good, they let him."

If indeed Suharto is punishing himself, he has never voiced public remorse for the deeds that have darkened his legacy - the corruption, the repressive militarized rule or the deaths of at least half a million people in a mass bloodletting when he took power in 1965.

His regret, as Abdulgani-Knapp describes it, is that he misread the public mood and overstayed his welcome in office.

His surprise resignation followed an economic collapse, then huge riots in which hundreds of people were killed, then a student uprising, and finally rejection by the military and his own cabinet.

"I used to tell him, 'Bapak, you should have followed your instinct and stepped down earlier,' " she said, using an Indonesian term of respect. "And he smiled and said, 'You are right.' This is something he regretted."

Bowring: The invisible giant of Southeast Asia

2007-11-27T10:55:00.000-08:00

'We have to be brave enough to ask: What would the world do without Indonesia?" When she recently posed this question to her compatriots, Indonesia's trade minister, Mari Pangestu, had in mind the country's role as premier global supplier of various important commodities.

But the question could as well have been asked about Indonesia's wider relevance to the world. Boastful it might sound, but the remark offered a counterpoint to the nation's extremely low international visibility, a result of the mix of deference, inward looking politics and persistent lack of leaders willing to make an articulate stand on the world stage.

Indonesia is about to become the president of the UN Security Council. That is unlikely to alter its international profile, but it does provide occasion to look at why Indonesia is rather more important than it usually appears, and at why it fails to leave much of a mark.

Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous nation, the largest predominantly Muslim country, the third largest (after India and the United States) democratic country, a 3,000-mile-wide archipelago dominating key international waterways - the Malacca, Sunda Lombok and Makassar straits.

But Indonesia is not taken very seriously as a Muslim country. Though the Muslims of the Middle East and Arab world in particular have much to learn from the tradition of religious tolerance at the heart of the Indonesian state, the Muslims of west Asia, and the Arabs who claim some special status as source of the religion, have scant interest in learning from the East.

While the outside world gets excited over the economic rise of China and India, it seldom stops to notice the equally remarkable transformation of Indonesian politics in the 10 years since the downfall of the 30-year authoritarian rule of President Suharto.

It now has the most open, extensive, decentralized democratic system in all of Southeast Asia, achieved possibly at some cost to economic growth but with little localized disorder, and with settlements of the Aceh and Timor Leste issues to its credit.

It is also a remarkably plural society to which the position of Pangestu, a woman, and ethnic Chinese and a Christian attests, and a cultural vitality that puts much of a money-obsessed region to shame. It is of course not without communal tensions and occasional bloodshed. But it provides a salutary contrast to its small higher profile, wealthy neighbors, Malaysia, a country of growing religious intolerance and deepening racial divide and Singapore, a state whose social and political development lags far behind its foreign investment-driven economy.

Yet despite its attributes and size, Indonesia's influence is slight. Its efforts at being a player have been half-hearted, and even its national airline does not fly to Europe. It should be the natural leader of Jakarta-headquartered Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean), this year celebrating its 40th birthday. But Indonesia's diplomatic voice is almost silent.

If any Asean country has a chance of persuading the Burmese junta to change its ways, to democratize gradually without falling apart, it should be Indonesia. It has made such a transition, albeit from a very different and more successful type of authoritarian government.

Unlike Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia, it does not have local commercial interests dictating policy to Burma. But a reluctance to stand up, to divert from a Suharto-era doctrine of "non-interference," to seize Asean leadership rather than be player in a leaderless team, has left the running on Asean's approach to Burma to the likes of Singapore, home from home for the Burmese generals and their wives.

Likewise with its economy. Indonesia may never has been a "tiger" economy and suffered more than any country from the Asian crisis. It may still have more problems with corruption and bureaucracy than its major Asian competitors. It even has had the temerity not to succumb to every foreign investor demand by providing levels of employment protection unheard of in China. Nor does it enrich its politicians as does China's Communist party. On a longer view, the 40 years since China and Indonesia were both traumatized in the mid-1960s, it has done creditably.

Foreign eyes may be on China and India. But looking ahead natural resources are likely to be scarcer than the cheap labor of those two countries. It is also less dependent, at least than China, on Western demand for Asian manufactures. Indonesia's mix of resource, base, attractive demographics, vibrant culture and domestic demand potential have mostly gone unsung, not least by a government so focused on domestic issues and local politics.

In short, Indonesia and the rest of the world could benefit much from knowing each other better.

Delapan Peluru Makan Tuan

2007-04-29T05:43:00.000-07:00

Siaga satu polisi Inggris mengantisipasi serangan teroris susulan di London, berbuntut makan tuan. Akankah ada korban tak bersalah lain, buah perintah ‘tembak mati’ untuk tersangka pengebom bunuh diri?

LONDON-- Wajah Menteri Luar Negeri Inggris, Jack Straw, tampak muram. Senyum sedikit pun tak tersungging di wajahnya, ketika memasuki ruang konferensi pers Kementerian Luar Negeri dan Persemakmuran (Foreign and Commonwealth Office--) Inggris, di King Charles Street yang bersebelahan dengan Downing Street, kediaman resmi perdana menteri Britania. Raut muka koleganya, Menteri Luar Negeri Brazil, Celso Amorim, tak kalah sendu. Senin (25/7) malam itu, mereka berdua baru saja usai membicarakan kematian warga negara Brazil, Jean Charles de Menezes, di tangan agen polisi anti teroris unit SO19 Scotland Yard, dua hari sebelumnya. Delapan peluru menghabisi nyawa Jean Charles, Jumat (22/7) pagi, di stasiun kereta bawah tanah, Stockwell, London selatan. Tapi yang membuat pertemuan Straw dan Amorim jadi suram; kematian itu ternyata kecelakaan. Jean Charles bukan tersangka pengebom bunuh diri, seperti yang diduga polisi.

Semuanya berawal dari insiden pengeboman yang gagal, Kamis (21/7) silam. Modus operandinya nyaris serupa dengan tragedi 7/7 dua pekan sebelumnya; empat bom –tiga di kereta bawah tanah dan satu di bus double decker—, dirancang untuk menyebar maut di sarana transportasi umum London yang selalu sarat penumpang. Bedanya, yang ini gagal meledak. Polisi pun bersyukur berlipat: sudah tidak meledak, tas punggung berisi bom yang ditinggalkan pelaku, penuh dengan sidik jari dan bukti-bukti penting lainnya. Secarik kertas di salahsatu tas milik pengebom yang ditemukan di stasiun bawah tanah Oval --satu stasiun sebelum stasiun Stockwell, membawa polisi pada flat sempit di Scotia Road, dekat Tulse Hill, Brixton.

Maka ketika Jean Charles de Menezes (27 tahun) melenggang dari flat yang sedang diintai itu pada Jumat naas dua pekan lalu, agen polisi langsung menghubungi komandannya di ruang kendali Operasi Kratos –operasi investigasi bom London—di New Scotland Yard. Perintahnya; ikuti. Tak membuang waktu, sedikitnya 30 agen polisi ‘undercover’ lalu mengendap mengekor Jean Charles, yang ketika itu dalam perjalanan menuju Willesden Green, jauh di London Utara, untuk memperbaiki alarm rumah pelanggannya di sana. Sejak menetap di London tiga tahun silam, Jean memang berprofesi sebagai tukang listrik. Dari Tulse Hill, Jean Charles melompat naik bus nomor dua jurusan Baker Street.

Polisi sebenarnya setengah berharap Jean Charles akan membawa mereka pada anggota komplotan pengebom lainnya. Harapan menguap jadi kekhawatiran ketika yang dikuntit malah turun dari bus di perempatan Stockwell, lalu masuk ke stasiun kereta bawah tanah. Jaket tebal yang dikenakan Jean Charles menambah was-was polisi, karena meski berangin, London sebenarnya sudah masuk musim panas. Mereka takut Jean Charles menyembunyikan bahan peledak di balik jaket. Perintah lanjutan dari Scotland Yard –seperti dikutip koran The Times-- sejernih kristal, “Netralisir bahaya.” Tiga polisi berpakaian preman lalu mendekati Jean Charles yang sedang mengantri karcis.

Entah kenapa, Jean lari.

“Dalam situasi seperti ini, polisi dituntut mengambil keputusan dalam sepersekian detik, menakar bahaya untuk kepentingan umum dan menetralisir bahaya tersebut,” kata Kepala Kepolisian Metropolitan London, Sir Ian Blair, dalam wawancara dengan stasiun teve Channel 4, beberapa hari setelah penembakan.

Seorang saksi mata yang ada di lokasi insiden, mengaku melihat seseorang ‘berwajah Asia’ berlari dikejar tiga pria bersenjata api. Sambil mengejar, dua dari mereka buru-buru memasang topi baseball bertuliskan ‘Police’, sementara yang satu berteriak, “Tiarap” pada kerumunan orang yang sedang menanti kereta. Panik, Jean Charles menerobos masuk ke dalam kereta Northern Line yang memang sedang berhenti. Sekejap, dia berhenti, menoleh kiri kanan. Ketika itulah, dua pemburunya menyergap dari belakang dan menindih Jean Charles di lantai kereta. Polisi ketiga tanpa ba bi bu menodongkan pistol ke kepala Jean dan dor dor dor…. delapan kali. Satu peluru di bahu, tujuh peluru di otak kecil.

Semua itu –pengejaran sampai penembakan—terjadi dalam waktu kurang dari lima menit. Keputusan sepersekian detik yang diambil tiga agen polisi di belakang Jean Charles, berakibat fatal.

Sejak tiga tahun lalu, enam bulan paska peristiwa 9/11 di New York, Amerika, Scotland Yard memang mengadopsi kebijakan ‘tembak mati’ (shoot-to-kill policy) yang diterapkan aparat keamanan Israel untuk tersangka pengebom bunuh diri. “Menembak dada percuma karena justru bisa meledakkan bom yang biasanya dipasang di sana. Satu-satunya jalan melumpuhkan bom bunuh diri adalah menembak kepala,” kata Sir Ian Blair. “Kami minta maaf pada keluarga Jean Charles, tapi kita harus jalan terus dan melanjutkan investigasi ini,” katanya.

Meski Scotland Yard berjanji menelisik siapa yang salah lewat penyelidikan Komisi Kepolisian (Independent Police Complaints Comission--), amarah banyak orang tak terbendung. Apalagi, masih berbulan-bulan sebelum kasus ini rampung diusut. Di luar stasiun kereta Stockwell, bertumpuk karangan bunga dan poster menghujat polisi. “Bagaimana kami dari etnis minoritas bisa merasa aman tinggal di sini?” tanya Miriam Cozque, yang ditemui TEMPO tengah tersedu di sana.

Pemerintah Brazil –yang sejak awal anti perang di Irak—semula tak kalah berang. Namun usai bertemu koleganya Jack Straw, Menteri Amorim tampak berusaha mendinginkan suasana. “Saya bisa memahami situasi London setelah tragedi 7/7. Yang perlu ditekankan sekarang adalah perang melawan terorisme harus dilakukan dengan menghormati hak asasi manusia sepenuhnya,” katanya, diiringi anggukan Straw.

Mau tidak mau, menghormati hak asasi manusia memang jadi kunci. Perang melawan terorisme yang menghalalkan segala cara salah-salah bisa jadi teror baru. Dan itu yang persis diinginkan pengebom London, 7 Juli silam. l Wahyu Dhyatmika (London)

Trust

2007-04-03T04:20:00.000-07:00

For years, we trusted Soeharto, the smiling Javanese Army General who became Indonesia's second president in 1966. For 32 years to be exact, villagers, farmers, fishermen, people on the street, my family, even me myself, trusted that man, who in appearance looked humble, sincere and honest.

In front of his people, us, Soeharto always talk of serving his country without hoping for anything in return. He always talk about his call, his duty to this nation and its people, to bring prosperity, justice and transform Indonesia into a just and prosperous country: "Masyarakat Adil dan Makmur".

And 1998 came. And the riot happened, students killed. Activist kidnapped and also killed. Layer by layer, the truth surfaced. Human rights violation, corruption, ineficient government, immoral police, prosecutors and judges. And we suddenly cannot trust Soeharto anymore. We lost our trust to him. And with it, we also lost our trust to the system, to the authority, to the state, to whoever in charge. We felt betrayed and become frustrated.

That is, I believe, the current psychological atmosphere of people in this country after 1998. Thats explained why whatever the government proposed to do, we seems incapable to throw all of our weight behind it. We just cannot trust it. The worst thing is, political and economy events that happened after 1998, strengthened that sceptisism: that all of the people who sit in the parliament building in Senayan, Jakarta, or rule us from the Merdeka Palace, are not trustworthy. People then concluded that those MPs sit there because they cheat the game, and trick us to believe that they are the one who'll change the system. But, look at where we are now. Almost a decade has past since the reformation, no major change has happened. Everywhere people feel the same hollowness, the same emptyness, as if nothing could make us believe in ourselves again. Indonesia has fail to its knee in 1998 because of the wrongdoings in the past, but until today, no one pay the consequences. Soeharto still live happily with his wealthy family. We, the people --who are obviously the victim of that situation-- now have to bear all the consequences, while they, the elite, people from Soeharto's time, still sit up there, now with a changed face and a changed soundbite, now preaching about democracy and human rights.

Sometime I wonder; what will happen to this country.....

Two weeks ago, a group of bussinessmen came to the Merdeka Palace, and meet The President. They presented a document called Indonesian Vision for 2030. They said that if the current policy on free market and economy liberalisation stayed on course, it is very possible, in twentythree years time, Indonesia will be the fifth biggest economy in the world, after China, USA, India and European Union. It's a big dream.

I will not say that its unreachable. I will say the contrary: that vision is pretty much realistic and achievable, but only with one condition: Indonesian start to believe the system once more. If people can trust the state, and the government who run it, only then we have hopes.

How can you start building your infrastructure, if people wont sell their land at a reasonable price, just because they dont believe the people from the government who approach them to buy their land? How can you expect education and health sector will improve if nobody trust the people who make the plan to improve it? How can you do anything, if from the beginning, people just dont trust your ability to actually deliver your promises? And what makes it even more complicated is this: those sceptisism are actually justified!

In a number of occasion, the current government prove themselves incapable of handling the situation on the ground. Boy, that makes things even more worse.

Therefore, I think rebuilding people's trust in this country, in its ability to bounce back and excel-- should be a top priority for any government official in Indonesia. Without that, any wrongdoings committed today will have a broader, heavier and more lasting impact, simply because it already happened before. People will say, "Look, it happened again! How can we trust this people, this government, this police, this judge, this minister, this president! They're doing it exactly like in Soeharto time."

However, it is also our task to empower the society. Soeharto and his men can do whatever they want during the old days, because we let them did it. We knew there was something wrong, but we kept silent because we "trust" those guys. Now, we have to learn another kind of trust. Trusting our fellow countrymen in the government whilst also at the same time develop a mechanism where people can contribute ideas, monitor progress and evaluate the result of public service works. That way, public trust will grow, not from blind beliefs in someone's charismatic personality, but from accountability, from system that allows people to take part and respond if something goes wrong.

Developing this system will indeed takes time. And it also require people who understand the essence of democracy: a governing system that based on people's participation. Until we have that in place, we have to bear all this gruntles, and mourn for the lost of public trust in our society.

Loyality and Creativity Drive

2007-03-29T15:33:00.000-07:00

These last couple of weeks is quite a difficult time for me. I have to decide between keeping loyal to my promise and initial objectives, or... going with the flow to what circumstance has to offer. Between staying on course, or going to an unknown world for a completely new direction.

Confused? Here it is: a month ago, I got an offer from a friend to help him develop a new television station with a strong capital back ups and a large dream to accomplish. I was flattered. I consider his offer a compliment, to my professional skills and personal attitude at work. I convince myself that this is the time to move on, to expand my ability and try other areas of expertise. I hope in the end, this experience will enrich me and contribute to my own personal mission in the future.

But then I think again. After meeting with the will be employer, I'm afraid the new place will not be as ideal as I initially think it would be. I was alerted to read between the lines, and could detect a possibility of a different values in this new place, a different approach of journalism, a completely whole new array of ethicts, dicipline, workplace regulation, and merit system. I'm afraid these new values wont be inline with my personal ones. I am terrified by the possibility that someday in the new place, I cannot adapt myself and end up deppresed.

Rationally, I think this is the phase everyone must expect when one try to decide whether it is the right moment to jump to another ship and change course. I fully aware of that. That is why I try to fight my own feeling, by looking at the bright side of taking a new direction. There is a few actually. First of all: I am trained to be a broadcaster. I took a post-graduate degree in broadcast journalism, for God sake. This is the natural path for me and why not? I learnt it and this is the time to implement it, to work based on those theories I learnt in campus. And secondly, this is a new station who is still trying to develop its own organisational culture, its values and approaches. All of that are not settle yet and still up for negotiation. Do not afraid of something that have not happened yet, my guts tell me.

Finally, there is the future. Since about three years ago, I start to pay more attention to the development of local media. I think for a country as vast and diverse as this one, one local media for one district is a must, for it can provide much needed information about how the government run, how the public money being spent, how the environment and the society change and move forward or backward. I think the quality of information provided is one of the key elements for a society to change and develop. People cannot make a correct decision if the information about what options they have, what is the background for that decision, and what the cost for every option, is not there. But people here barely read newspapers. They watch TV. That is why, I am interested in this platform, since it offer a strong penetration into people's mind. If the substance is right, TV can change life and course of the whole society.

However, there is one thing that make my decision-making proccess even more complicated. This is not just about me, myself and I. I have family, a beautiful wife and a smart son. I have to think about them, what future I could offer, what kind of family life I would offer and live together. And I think that is not just a question of how much money I can provide for them, but also what kind of values, what kind of priority setting, what kind of husband and father, I want to be. I want to be a responsible and caring husband and father, but in doing that, I dont want to be seen compromising my believed values. Because that is an integral part of my self image, I cannot be responsible and compromistic at the same time. I repeatedly tell myself, this is not about money. its about how you want to raise your children, what opportunity you want to offer them, what future you prepare for them.

And the final answer came just a few days ago. I was in the middle of work when my phone rang. I was invited to see the manager of the station once again. I went there, and we discuss the whole range of possibilities about where this station could develop. Its all rossy. But then, I asked myself, what contribution I can offer to this man, to this place, to this proccess. Can my contribution be replace by others? Is there something that only I can provide, that can guarantee the future is bright for this place? The answer is an obvious no. If I move here, I will be the one who learn and experience new things. I cannot contribute more that what I expected to. I am still 'green' in this field. Heck, I'm still 'green' for my current post! So, I decide, its too early to move on. I still have tons of things to learn and grasp, and experience. If I change course someday, I have to be fully sure that my being there is expected to rock something up. If not, and I just needed to be just a bolt of a big machine, then sorry, this is not the right time.

We Have to Learn from India

2007-02-27T21:43:00.000-08:00

SOMETIME, as a nation, we have to learn from other nation’s experience. Quite often, we perceive learning from others will only denigrate our credibility as a proud and independent nation.

(I think, that attitude comes from different sources; maybe some of us believe it’s a sign of weakness to be humble and admit that others have experience that might be valuable for us. It is mere chauvinism and of course self-important feeling has no place in our world today. But, we can
also speculate that that kind of feeling comes from a deeper layer of consciousness: a feeling that was built after hundred years of colonialism-- that is: its always better not to believe in foreigners.)

But, learning from India, of course, is a different case. Indians are hardly considered as foreigners for this archipelago. They had come to the shores of Sumatra and Java islands even before the European arrived-- through trade and spiritual journeys. Dont forget, India was the one who introduced Hinduism to the people in this vast archipelago.

I want to stress out the importance of learning again from India today, not for its religious richness –which we already have learnt and internalized into our values—but from its experience in forging a strong and fair society it is today, out of many ethnict groups and interests-- with almost no blood spilled. I think its also will be a tremendous benefit for Indonesia, if we can also learn from its democracy, that have strive above all else and excel in the last six decades.

India has a --more or less-- similar post-colonial history compared to Indonesia, especially when both countries were struggling for its people's independence. When India was liberated from the British Empire in the late 40’s, their leaders tried very hard and with all means possible to unite their diverse country. Same here. The difference is Indian leaders did it with negotiation, offering concession whenever necessary and appropriate, and ended up creating a strong nation with the consent of its strongest and most representative, stakeholders.

In Indonesia, the story is slightly different. Indeed, as in India, our leaders fought genuinely for the people. The difference began, when they start thinking about how much power should be distributed to districts and provinces.

Back then, during those crucial moments, Indian’s leaders took a very bold step by giving autonomy to regions, which were very powerful under British rule. In return, they received the regions' leaders consent in defending and supporting the newly born nation. But, Indonesian leaders, hiding behind terms like 'unity in diversity' (bhineka tunggal ika--) and 'NKRI, Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia' (the unitarian state of Republic of Indonesia),choose to centralize its power and gave little to provinces and regencies. As the result, Indonesia have to went through a period of turmoil moments triggered by a couple of destructive rebellions. Its all boiling from the feeling of inequality between Jakarta and other provinces within Indonesia.

Judging from that, I think the power distribution mechanism in India is a valuable experience and lesson for Indonesia. Especially today, in the middle of the government's ambitious program to implement the 1999 regional autonomy law. However, the lesson hasn ’t been fully learnt. In Indonesia, autonomy created a bottleneck bureaucracy, regional corruption and shameless looting by government and member of local parliaments. Of course, we cannot only blame them for all this mess. The central government's action to abruptly change the system unilaterally, decentralize power and authority to districts, without setting up a proper check and balances system, is also partly to blame.

As the result, the local government formerly under tight control from their bosses in Jakarta, now have nobody to report to. The idea that mayors and governors have to be held accountable to their own people is totally new and strange for them. So when people try to question their wrongdoings, the official just hide behind legal procedures that already designed to block people from holding their representatives accountable.

The second very important lesson we can draw from India, is their committed beliefs in democracy. Although for a couple of years in the 70s, it seems like Indian economy would never developed into its form today, no Indian leaders ever playing with the idea of implementing totalitarianism, well at least in public. It seems like, Indians always firmly believe that to govern their diverse society fairly, democracy was, is and will always be, the only way. It might be hectic, crowded and sometimes tiring, but it’s better than having an effective government that wouldn’t listen and cannot be held accountable to its own people.

Indonesia today, I think, has come to the most difficult period in its transition toward democracy. We have succeeded in laying down the foundation of the system, by putting a proper rule of law in place and having a fair election. Now it’s time to start deliver something tangible to the people. "Democracy can not make a country better, but through democracy, a country can be better." I quoted that from an Indian too; Amartya Sen, the scholar who won Nobel Prize for economics in 1998. I believe, understanding this logic, is very important. Especially for leaders who nowadays start to complain about the ineffectiveness of democracy when it comes to delivering promises to people.

Last January, Vice President Jusuf Kalla said he often bewildered by the fact that foreign investment keep flowing to authoritarian China, instead of to democratic Indonesia. “If
we cant deliver prosperity for our people, they will start to question our decision to democratize,” that was what he --more or less-- said. Well, nothing new, actually. People on the street often said they felt better feed and took care, under Soeharto’s dictatorship.

It’s our challenge now to prove that to be wrong.

Maybe its true, under democracy, things sometime seems chaotic and inefficient. However, by listening to all perspectives before deciding something for the nation, I am convince, we will have a far better chance to come out with the correct decision for our people. That, I think, is the most important lesson we all have to learn from India. (*)

Ketika Media Ditunggangi Kepentingan

2007-02-27T21:24:00.000-08:00

SEJUMLAH wartawan yang bekerja di beberapa media terkemuka di Jakarta –baik cetak maupun elektronik—belakangan sedang gelisah tak karuan. Pasalnya sederhana, semakin hari semakin jelas ada indikasi kuat kalau pemilik media tempat mereka bekerja, mulai memanfaatkan medianya untuk kepentingan bisnis komersial dan pribadinya.

Simak kisah seorang wartawan Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia –sebut saja namanya Andi--. Saat heboh soal kasus NCD bodong PT Citra Marga Nusantara Persada menimpa pemilik stasiun teve RCTI, Harry Tanoe-- dia menyaksikan sendiri bagaimana manajemen RCTI menyiapkan program khusus untuk meng-counter apa yang mereka yakini sebagai ‘black campaign’ atas boss mereka. Program talkshow itu ditayangkan akhir Februari lalu. “Programnya didesain satu arah untuk membela Harry Tanoe, pembicaranya dipilih yang pro Harry Tanoe, dan program itu menggunakan blocking time. Tidak ada iklan sama sekali,” kata Andi.

Andi memang tak bisa berbuat apa-apa menyaksikan tingkah atasannya yang dengan semena-mena menunggangi medianya. “Saya belum siap melawan secara frontal. Kawan-kawan di redaksi belum satu suara menyikapi masalah ini,” katanya pasrah.

Ungkapan seperti itu terasa akrab di telinga, karena acapkali keluar dari mulut wartawan yang bekerja di media yang ditunggangi pemiliknya seperti itu. Vivin –dia meminta nama aslinya disamarkan-- salahseorang wartawan senior di stasiun Metro Teve misalnya berkisah dengan kesal bagaimana banyak topik liputan di medianya yang urung ditayangkan karena terkait kepentingan bisnis dan politik Surya Paloh, boss besar di grup Media Indonesia. “Bahkan kadang program yang sudah jadi, harus di-drop, kalau memang temanya sensitif untuk boss,” katanya.

Cengkeraman Surya tak hanya berhenti pada siaran Metro Teve. Jika ada berita yang tak disukainya –umumnya karena menyinggung kepentingan politik dan ekonominya-- muncul di halaman-halaman Media Indonesia, hampir pasti wartawan yang menulis dan editor yang menyuntingnya akan mendapat teguran keras. “Saya pernah sekali ‘tuh. Saya gak tahu boss ternyata ada main juga disana, redaktur saya juga sama tidak tahu. Begitu berita turun, kami berdua dipanggil,” kata Giyono—bukan nama sebenarnya-- wartawan Media Indonesia.

Yang membuat miris, ternyata tidak hanya media nasional yang punya masalah, media lokal dihinggapi kasus serupa. Pemilik media seringkali menganggap media miliknya sebagai outlet pribadi yang bisa disetirnya sesuka hati.

“Perilaku pemilik media yang seperti itu berdampak pada hilangnya idealisme media dan independensi ruang redaksi. Media seperti itu dengan mudah menyerah pada tekanan politik atau tekanan massa dari pihak yang tidak menghargai kebebasan pers,” kata wartawan senior yang juga bekas Ketua Dewan Pers, Atmakusumah Astraatmadja.

Dia lalu menunjuk beberapa kasus dimana media menyerah pada tekanan massa, yang sama juga artinya mengkompromikan indepedensi ruang redaksi. Kasus Radar Sulawesi Tenggara misalnya. Beberapa tahun lalu, media itu didemo oleh sekumpulan orang yang mengaku mewakili Komunitas Muslim Kota Palu. Mereka memprotes pemuatan opini oleh seorang dosen Universitas Muhammadiyah Palu berjudul ‘Islam, Agama yang Gagal’. Tulisan itu memotret kegagapan sejumlah ulama Islam menghadapi tudingan ekstremitas dan maraknya kekerasan atas nama agama. Buntut demonstrasi itu, Radar Sulteng memutuskan ‘membreidel’ diri sendiri dengan tidak terbit selama tiga hari. Buntut lainnya, si redaktur opini yang meloloskan artikel itu, dipecat.

Kasus lain lagi terjadi di Solo, 1999 silam. Sebuah radio lokal, Rasitania, menyiarkan sebuah dialog antara pendeta Kristen dan ulama Islam lokal. Temanya tentang perbandingan agama. Merasa dilecehkan, sekelompok orang yang menamakan dirinya Front Pemuda Islam Solo berunjukrasa, menuntut radio itu ditutup sebulan lamanya. Alih-alih menolak dan membela prinsip mereka tentang kemandirian ruang redaksi, si pemilik radio memutuskan menutup radionya selama sepekan.

“Kasus-kasus itu menunjukkan bagaimana sebagian media kita tumbuh tanpa kesadaran apa sebenarnya misi mereka untuk masyarakat,” kata Atmakusumah. Dia menekankan bahwa bisnis media pada dasarnya bukanlah bisnis biasa, seperti usaha jual beli meubel atau bisnis kacang goreng misalnya. “Media itu bukan sekadar berjualan kata-kata atau kalimat. Bisnis media adalah bisnis menjual pikiran-pikiran, untuk kemajuan peradaban masyarakatnya. Mengelola bisnis media tidak bisa disamakan dengan mengelola bisnis lainnya,” kata Atmakusumah panjang lebar. Dia mengusulkan dirumuskan sebuah kode etik bisnis media, disamping kode etik jurnalistik yang sudah ada. “Tradisi bahwa bisnis media itu harus menghormati independensi ruang redaksi, harus ditumbuhkan,” kata Atmakusumah.

Urgensi kode etik bisnis media semakin besar ketika kecenderungan konglomerasi media di tanah air semakin besar. Media Nusantara Corporation (MNC) kini sudah memiliki RCTI, Global TV dan Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia. Grup Indosiar, kini mendirikan teve lokal baru, El Shinta TV. Republika sudah bergabung dengan grup Mahaka dan berkolaborasi dengan Jak TV. Kompas Gramedia dan Jawa Pos Grup, selain berkuasa atas jaringan media di seantero Nusantara juga sudah memiliki masing-masing TV7 dan JTV. Dan jangan lupa ada Media Grup dengan Media Indonesia dan Metro TV-nya. Jika tak hati-hati, raja-raja media ini bisa dengan mudah memanfaatkan jaringan medianya untuk kepentingan komersial dan pribadi mereka.

Bagaimana melawannya? Kasus Timika Pos, sebuah koran lokal yang terbit di Papua, mungkin satu contoh yang baik ditiru. Sejak mengambil alihnya dari Grup Persda –anak perusahaan Kompas Gramedia-- pemilik baru media ini, Bupati Mimika Clemen Tinal, berusaha dengan segala cara untuk memaksa awak redaksi Timika Pos membela kepentingan politik dan ekonominya di kabupaten kaya mineral itu. Tak tahan dengan tindakan pemiliknya, belasan awak redaksi Timika Pos mogok kerja dan menerbitkan edisi khusus pada 6 Maret silam. Mereka menuntut pemodal menghormati indepedensi ruang redaksi Timika Pos dan berhenti mencampuradukkan kepentingan pribadi sang Bupati dengan kepentingan publik yang berusaha dilayani media massa.

Aksi itu cukup efektif. Pemimpin Umum dan Pemimpin Redaksi Timika Pos yang dikenal sebagai kaki tangan si pemilik media di ruang redaksi, diberhentikan. “Komisaris perusahaan berjanji pemimpin umum dan pemimpin redaksi akan diambil dari awak redaksi sendiri,” kata Tjahjono E.P, salah seorang jurnalis Timika Pos yang juga anggota AJI persiapan Timika.

Keberhasilan Timika Pos melawan dan mengalahkan kepentingan kotor pemilik medianya berpangkal dari keberhasilan mereka menggalang solidaritas antara pekerja media di koran itu. “Kuncinya adalah kompak,” kata Tjahjono.

Direktur Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Pers, Misbachuddin Gasma, mengamini. Menurutnya, jalan terbaik bagi jurnalis yang ingin mempertahankan independensi ruang redaksi adalah berserikat. “Jika melawan sendiri-sendiri, pasti kalah. Karena posisi tawar satu orang wartawan jelas kalah melawan kepentingan pemodal,” katanya.

Serikat Pekerja, yang menggalang seluruh pekerja media dalam satu wadah organisasi yang sevisi, punya kemampuan untuk meningkatkan posisi tawar wartawan di hadapan pemilik modal. Tanpa solidaritas pekerja media, independensi ruang redaksi dengan mudah diobrak-abrik. Kalau sudah begitu, bisnis media tak akan ada bedanya dengan bisnis kacang goreng. Semata meraup untung, dengan menghalalkan segala cara. (*)

--tulisan ini pernah dimuat di bulletin 'Reporter Jakarta', media resmi terbitan Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) Jakarta.

Good News and Bad News

2006-12-20T15:50:00.000-08:00

I read newspapers since I was eight or nine years old. I remember how exiting it was to wait hours and hours for the daily papers and read the newspapers while it still smell of newly printed ink. Yes, I have to wait hours because I spent my childhood in Bali, where the national morning media arrive at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. They only print in Jakarta, at the time.

Each time I receive the papers, I will lay down in the floor of my home veranda, spread the papers in front of me, and read item per item of the news section. My favorite section was the sports column. Kompas newspapers, the one that I read from early age-- had a unique style for sports reporting and writing. Sometime their writers just use the game as a metaphor to explain other things in life, the philosophy of the game, the strategy and those sort of things.

I also love to read the art section. Back in those days, Kompas always publish a novel before it went to print. They will run the story in the bottom row of the art page. The space was so limited, they have to continue publishing it the next day edition.

The continuous stories also serves as a pulling factor for readers like me. I remember waiting impatiently for the next morning papers, only because I was so desperate to know what will happen to the characters in the novel. These stories offer me a glimpse of adult lives.

Of course, I also read the headlines. But, as everyone well aware, you cannot expect anything from current affair news under the Soeharto regime. It was good news all round, no bad news at all. No critics, no demonstration, no anger. Indonesian that pictured in Kompas'reportage --and all other media under Soeharto-- is people who love to smile, to compromise, to work hard. Everything should be smooth, without a single dissent. All of the problems occurred under his administration was swept under the carpet, nobody ever realize it.

I remember the buzz word that day was "take off" period. That is a promise made by Soeharto, over and over again like a mantra. “Work hard, work harder, our nation plane will soon “tinggal landas” (take off –ed) and we'll become a modern and rich country.”

***

That is why when '98 reformation came along, a lot of people --especially those who live outside the capital and have no other source of information except national media-- shocked. They were unable to comprehend the events unfolded before their eyes. This is a proof that Indonesian media influence to people and their way of thinking-- were so powerful, and eventually made them unable to think critically.

The way media presented good news for more than three decades made people wondering: is this reformation a real thing? Is this whole allegation toward Soeharto and his family are true? How come the picture of our country suddenly change and now its different compared to the picture from the media all this time?

They got confuse and become apathetic. They want to involve and participae but unable to move their feet, let alone command their brain. They cant move because they themselves have not yet decide, which side they were in; what is their values; what is their ideal; what is their vision.

So, eventually, all they can do now is protesting, and criticizing. They enjoy it since they never got a chance to do so under Soeharto. They dream of living under Soeharto's regime again, but this time without the nepotism, and without Soeharto's children. They forgot that all of the success stories of Soeharto happened with consequences: no freedom of expression, no equality before the law, no justice for the poor, and above all: a system where a single person, a single political party can decide the faith of more than 200 million people.

***

Indonesia got into this crisis in the first place because of the media. Media owners, journalists and media professional association bowed under the power of Soeharto and Orde Baru. The journalists use their media to report false events, bogus allegation, empty appreciation to the government. By doing so, they have lied to their readers, and to themselves.

Nowadays, since we are all so used to read good news in the media-- we got depressed whenever we read bad news in newspapers' headlines. We cant escape because everything in the papers is bad news now, front page to back page.

However, unlike others, these bad news make me happy. Not that I enjoy my fellow Indonesian suffer, but because other reason. These kind of news will make government official eventually work harder. These will also help them to spot their weaknesses and hopefully able to improve it.

Anybody who are depressed when they read newspapers these days, is people with mind in the past. They miss the old days where the media full of good but fake-- news stories. They love to be deceived like that.(*)

Wisudo, Old Media and Public Interest

2006-12-19T17:50:00.000-08:00

The boundaries between what is and what is not considered as public interest in many media offices, blurred last week. I mourned for the death of rational journalism and the end of what in my opinion should be media's most sacred treasure, respect for what is right and what is wrong, and an ability to hold themselves from directly interfering the course of events in society.

***

It all start with the sacking of my friend and fellow activist, Bambang Wisudo, from his job as senior journalist at a leading media firm here in Jakarta. The unprecedented sacking prompted a lot of question marks, especially because he is a relentless advocate for workers' rights and currently still hold a position as secretary at his office's press workers union.

According to Indonesian workers' union law that protect the rights of union activists like Wisudo, this sacking is a plain simple violation. Two articles in that law clearly stated that a union activist cannot be sacked because of any activities s/he conducted under the name of demanding union members' rights. So this is an easy case.

But the big question is: how come a prominent media can so lightheartedly violate the law in the most vulgar way and now even thinking to escape from any of its action's consequences?

The top management at Wisudo's office is arranging a high profile attack on his personality, accusing Wisudo of unprofessional conducts during his 15 years working experience in that company. Imagine: 15 years without any wrongdoings and now they hit you back with series of allegations: I mean this is starting to be really dirty. The chief editor worked the phone, talking to almost all editors in leading media in this country, begging them not to make a huge fuss about this case, let things quieting down and ended without any public pressure on him and his management. Its an information black out in its most sophisticated form.

In my humble opinion as an inexperienced journalist working in another media firm, this case certainly has news values and I cannot see any reason why it has to be kept secret and hidden from public eyes.

This case demonstrate the ongoing conflict between union activists and companies' top management who often see union as a pebble in their shoes – party who just try to destabilize their companies and rob them from potential profit. The management cant find a common ground to start negotiation and now abuse their power as management by sacking their enemy's most fierce lieutenant. This case can be an example of how management sees workers union and how they “negotiate” with union. If widely publicize, this case can eventually get the attention it deserved and who knows-- trigger changes in the law to prevent it from happening again in other firms.

But, no, no, no. That is not what happening. Only a handful of media cover the events following Wisudo's sacking, mostly online media and radio. Several TVs did aired a three minutes package but only that –they don't want anything more than that. No live interviews, no talk shows, just a three minute package in a half an hour news bulletin.

In print media, it even worse. The top management including editors shivered at the possibilities of printing this case in their pages. They delay decision or refuse to be held responsible by handing over the bucket to their superiors. It ended up no where near the printed pages.

Many reasons were put forward to cover their cowardice: there is no space, there are many other things happening that has more news values, there was a late advertising so we have to drop the item, and so on and so forth. Whilst the real reason was plain simple: the management has committed the same crime as the management in Wisudo's media --or at least have the intention to act similarly if incidents like Wisudo's happens in their respective firms. Its as simple as that. They don't have the guts to expose other media sloppy mistake because they might trip on the same spot and when that happens, they don't want any coverage too. Its black solidarity and its dirty.

All of this circus and their inexcusable justification serves as a reminder that conventional media --whether its print or not-- have indeed become parts of the conglomerats, the dinosours, the old media. They are controlled by a group of people who have no interest in anything but profit making and other unjustifiable personal interest. Its time to build our own new media, that wholeheartedly serves to the public interest, with no bargain in whatever form. Until that happen, the hope to build a just and rational society triggered by media discourse-- is still far away in the horizon. (*)

Asian Journalists Protest on Bambang Wisudo's Case

2006-12-19T09:57:00.000-08:00

Dear Messrs Jacob Oetama
St Sularto
Suryopratomo :

1. We are writing in support of the Alliance of
Independent Journalists (AJI) in its dispute with the
KOMPAS Daily over the proposed transferred and then
dismissal of Bambang Wisudo on 8 December 2006.

2. Having read the AJI’s statement and studied its
case, we have concluded that the management had acted
arbitrary and without regard to the due process of
good labour-management relations and of Indonesian
law.

3. Indeed, as a professional organization of editors,
reporters and photo-journalists, we are disappointed
with the seemingly unprofessional attitude and action
of your management in dealing with Wisudo, a fellow
journalist with 15 years’ service to KOMPAS Daily.

4. It appeared to us that a case of victimization
could be made out against your management on the
grounds of Wisudo’s role as Secretary of KOMPAS Trade
Union, in particular in his efforts to “improve PKK’s
reportage standards and constructively address
policies instituted by KOMPAS Daily management which
are disruptive to workforce productivity and the
paper’s readers.”

5. As such, we stand firmly AJI in its protest against
the management’s high-handed and drastic action
against Wisudo and its lack of respect for the AJI as
union duly elected to represent KOMPAS Daily
member-journalists in their grievances with the
management.

6. At the same time, we would like to urge your
management to exercise the sacred duty and
responsibilities of a renowned national newspaper
group, with an international reputation to keep, to
sit down with the AJI leaders and negotiate a fair
settlement over the Wisudo case.
7. We further urge your management to help create a
conducive atmosphere for the two-party talks by first
rescinding the dismissal of Wisudo without immediate
effect.

8. We believe the talks, if convened, should address
the key concerns of AJI and its members, including a
transparent investigation of events leading to the
Wisudo lock-out and sacking.

9. In the name of justice and good labour practices,
Wisudo and any staff member of the newspaper should
enjoy the right of representation by his union in
their disciplinary disputes with the management,
including the appeal against ny unfair and unjustified
job re-assignment.

10. We believe that the case of Wisudo has
international repercussions. For to dismiss a
journalist without just cause is a threat Press
Freedom, not only in Indonesia but worldwide.

11. The alternative to negotiation and a
mutually-accepted settlement of the dispute will be
more incriminations and antagonistic AJI-KOMPAS Daily
industrial relations.

12. We in AJA would urge you to act professionally and
legally by sincerely making the effort to resolve the
Wisudo case fairly and equitably. This will
certainly turn a new chapter in your relations with
AJI.

For Press Freedom, Peace and Professionalism!

Lee sang-Ki

President
Asia Journalists Association

Cc: Heru Hendratmoko
Chairman
AJI

Papa, Mama dan Genta

2006-12-19T09:17:00.000-08:00

Papa, Mama dan Genta, originally uploaded by wahyu dhyatmika.

This is my beloved family. This picture was taken on my son's three months ceremony in my hometown, Bangli, Bali.

Pemilu Sela

2006-12-09T05:59:00.000-08:00

Sayang Indonesia tidak punya mekanisme pemilihan umum sela. Padahal, mekanisme itu amat membantu mempertahankan tingkat akuntabilitas wakil rakyat di mata pemilihnya. Lihat apa yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat. Pemilihan sela kongres yang berlangsung sebulan lalu, yang dimenangkan Partai Demokrat, berhasil menyampaikan pesan rakyat Amerika yang menolak Perang Irak.

Di Indonesia, pemilu dilakukan lima tahun sekali. Itu pemilu parlemen dan presiden. Sedangkan di daerah-daerah, setiap kabupaten dan provinsi mengadakan pemilihan kepala daerah masing-masing dalam waktu yang berbeda-beda. Tidak heran jika stabilitas politik di negeri ini selalu jadi urusan pelik. Karena partai politik tak habis-habisnya berpikir memenangkan kekuasaan dari satu pemilihan di satu daerah ke pemilihan lain di daerah lain. Begitu terus menerus sepanjang masa. Rantai ini sudah saatnya dihentikan.

Setahun lalu, dalam Rapat Pimpinan Nasionalnya di Hotel Arya Duta, Jakarta Pusat, Partai Golkar sebenarnya sudah pernah muncul dengan ide penyederhanaan pemilu. Pemilu legislatif, pemilihan presiden dan pilkada akan disatukan sehingga hanya ada dua sampai tiga kali pemilu dalam lima tahun. Sayangnya, alasan mereka salah. Ketua Umum Golkar Jusuf Kalla menyatakan perlunya pemilu disederhanakan untuk menghemat anggaran dan mencegah rakyat bosan mencoblos. “Kalau tiap tahun pemilu, capek kita. Tidak sempat membangun ekonomi. Pohon-pohon di jalan juga capek karena dipaku terus oleh poster dan selebaran kampanye,” kata Kalla.

Karena alasannya tak nyambung begitu, gagasan menarik Golkar pun jadi tidak punya gaung. Nyaris tidak ada media yang mengulasnya panjang dan ide itu gagal diangkat jadi wacana publik. Kalaupun sempat diperdebatkan, ya paling banter bertahan satu minggu dan menguap tanpa tindak lanjut apapun.

Padahal, penyederhanaan pemilu yang otomatis akan melahirkan pemilu sela untuk legislatif baik di pusat maupun daerah-- akan jadi mekanisme politik yang sungguh amat sehat dan bermanfaat bagi kepentingan publik. Inilah kegagalan komunikasi politik Partai Golkar. Partai terbesar di Indonesia ini ternyata tidak piawai menjual ide-ide politiknya.

The Pope's Challenge

2006-09-19T09:31:00.000-07:00

I just recovered from a chicken pox that made me stayed in bed for more than a week. Today, I was alarmed after reading Tempo --the newspapers that I've worked for in the last five years--. Its headline today is the picture of Pope Benedict XVI with capital headings 'Stop Anger'.

Interested, I read the story. My first reaction was that the Pope has nothing to blame of. I, instantly, relate the anger amongst many Moslems toward the Pope these days, to the Danish cartoon's incident last year and immediately made comparison. My initial thought was “Why moslems easily provoked by any remarks made by non-moslem about their religion? How can we start a productive dialogue if everything about Islam that comes from a non-Moslem thinking is always seen as provocative and denouncing Islam?”

Then after I read the actual sentence (not the whole remarks and the context), I started to understand why several Moslems feel angry and demand an apology from the Pope. I dont think its appropriate to labeled Islam as a religion of violence through a quote made by someone who live hundred of years ago (in this case; King Manuel II Paleologus). I thought the Pope has made a sloppy mistake, and I immediately related this sloppiness to his background as a staunch supporter of a purer catholic teachings as opposed to a more open minded Pope John Paul II.

But tonight, after reading several e-mails circulating among friends, blogs and online news websites on the subject, and after I got the chance to read the whole remarks by Pope Benedict and also the context where he said his controversial statement, I changed my mind again.

I now realise that the Pope has made a very smart move indeed. In fact, by his remarks, he theologically challenged any Moslem scholars to come up with an explanation that can really open a meaningful dialogue between faiths.

In my understanding, the Pope questioned something that has long been questioned by non-Moslem or westerners in general: (1) if Christian's God is limited within reason, is it true that Moslem believe that their God is completely and fully transendent?

(2) If Allah in Islam cant be explained within the frame of reason and completely beyon human capability to understand, then is it true that there is a possibility that an irrational act like a suicide bomb for instance-- has a chance of becoming an act that inline with God's wish and command?

(3) Then, if that is also true, can moslem accept that there must be a flaw in Islamic teachings, since it allowed an act that –from one perspective-- is an act that completely against humanity? After moslem accept it, do they have the ability to reform it?

I believe The Pope is trying to do something almost everybody else trying to do; find whether there is a gap of faith between Christianity and Islam that cannot be reconciled. If there is, then lets find the solution. If there is not, then lets stop this clash of faiths and move on to other practical issues of living together peacefully.

Based on that, I think Pope Benedict's remark opened a rare opportunity for Moslem all over the world to present itself and its beliefs properly, thus start a constructive dialogue between east and west.

By reacting with anger, violence and death threats, Moslem seems to show that Pope's allegedly derogatory remarks has a degree of truth. That kind of respond gives the Pope an upper hand since then he can show the world that Moslem are indeed unable to engage intelectually in a theological showdown. However, by answering smartly and addresing the basic question in Pope's remark, Moslems will somehow start a process of internal questioning and intropection since –needless to say-- many Moslem still believes that Allah cannot be questioned whatsoever and remarks such as the Pope's can be seen as a violation to one's faith.

Either way, the Pope win the day. That is why I believe the remarks was carefully crafted. Look at the place and date –its just one day after fifth anniversary of 9/11 and few days away from Pope's first visit to Turkey. This Pope knew what he's doing. Everything about the remark is designed to give ultimate impression and effects it expected.

My First

2006-01-30T09:43:00.000-08:00

This is my first posting in this blog. I've been thinking for a while of having my own weblog, so I can write down all my thoughts, ideas, reflection, jokes, worries, anything, at the end of the day. I have so many things in my head, sometime I worried it may explode if I dont -somehow, try to put it down by either writing it, or do something about it --act on it, not just thinking of it over and over again.

So this is it. My own blog. Actually, I already created one, about two years ago. But, at the time, I just did it for fun --not that this one will be too 'serious' or anything. I made the first one because then, almost everybody at my office had one. I know, its silly. But, I promise, this time its different. I created this blog, because I think I need a media. I want it to be my book, where I can trace down my thoughts, and how I change or not change, from this day forward. I felt like I experience too many things in one day --even in one event, there are so many point of views. I cant write it all down in my newspapers, so I need something else. Another media. My own media.

I'll try to write everyday, at the end of each working day. I'll reflect on things that happened during the day, and hopefully, that way, I can understand it more comprehensively.