Indonesia is, of course, the largest Moslem country. But Islam Politics in the archipelago is often perceived as monolithic. Traditional and modern outlooks are traditionally represented by Nadhlatul Ulama (NU) and Muhammadiyah but there are also others Islamic groups such as Ahmadiyah (this groups was attacked by Islamic Defender Front for deviating Islamic school). Fundamentalist groups, as Western media frequently referred to extremist, is not a typical characteristic of Islam in the country.

Militancy and radicalism in Islamic groups manifest in bombing and others violent acts emerged coincidentally in the period of democratisation.

I disagree with Pete assessment that Javanese military is culturally dominant. Javanisation was associated with Suharto vision of leadership and military was his authoritarian's backbone. But Suharto never intented to uplift Javanese people at large. Interestingly, after the downfall of Suharto and the introduction of regional autonomy law, ethnic and religious identity have been very crucial in local politics.

Is it really important for Australia to maintain a good relationship with Indonesia? It seems very important for Australia to have a good relationship with Indonesia, particularly on the basis of regional security.

I am presuming that the Indonesian foreign policy is coloured by the idea of mantaining national stability. Nasional integrity, therefore, is always voiced relentlessly. This is a paradox, i think. While the Indonesian politicians talk about the importance of national integrity, the project of nationalism, which has been shaped by colonial experience, is at peril. Perhaps, it is because nationalism itself was mantained during two period of authoritarian regimes.

Zapata

I don't know where you come from but I appreciate your comment.

I've yet to see an Indonesia commenter on OLO who is not a nationalist or, at least, an idealist. In that respect they have the same weaknesses/strengths? as we Australian commenters.

Given:

- Suharto has never been put on trial for his militay supported corruption and vast human rights abuses;
- his senior officers (many still serving) likewise never received real penalties.
- military corruption continues as a economic pillar;
- the military is seen as an elite career path
and
- SBY a former general owes much of his success to his extensive Indonesian military connections and US miltary ties while living there,

I can see why Indonesian commenters attempt to ignore this grim reality that the military is still the most powerful force in Indonesian politics. They write about what SHOULD be happening, rather than what IS. They are justifiably fearful of saying otherwise.

For Indonesia and Australia religious labels hardly stick due to:

- other dominating influences (in Australia its money)
- degree, or otherwise, of religious faith; and
- lack of international consensus about a given religion.

On Islam - I recognise that there are large and mild Islamic movements in Indonesia. Unfortunately the Islamic movements that make the biggest impression on Australians are the ones that do damage eg JI.

I don't see Australia as a Christian country - in the sense that relatively few attend Church or observe religious customs (pagan Christmas rituals and Easter bunnies don't count).

I and no doubt, Wahabist's, would not consider Indonesia a truly Muslim country. One reason is that positive tolerance of large non-Muslim minorities (Buddhists, Christians) owes much to efforts towards "national unity" and is not standard Muslim doctrine.

So our views differ.

Regards

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Pete,

Thanks for your response. I will write in response to your view on military. Indeed, i am not denying that the military is still an important faction in Indonesia's democratisation process. Yet its strenght and influence are not strong as it used to be. Looking at dynamic of local elections in the country, it appears that elite in Suharto's period who maintained to survive (not always military officers) when the regime collapsed, penetrated into new democratic institutions.

Regarding the Suharto trial. It is not merely about military group dominated the attempt of seeking justice in Indonesia. Political elite who survived from '1998 reform movement' still protect him not because they consider him as leader, i am afraid but its rather avoiding any possibilities of the trial which lead to the investigation of their involvements (human rights violations and corruption).

In this context, however, it is pertinent to reflect the relationship between Suharto and the Indonesian military. In the 1980s, political strain occurred between Suharto and the military which was soon dealt with by dismantling disobidient senior general from top positions. This period was rather interesting as this friction perhaps could move the pendulum toward moderate Islamic groups. Suharto then relied his support from Islamic groups which was harshly repressed by his military supporter in mid 1980s.

As you may have noticed, the trial of former president of authoritarian regime in the transition is never a smooth process. Chileans are still struggling to bring Pinochet to the court and Marcos fled overseas after his dirty trick of killing Aquino's husband led to his downfall.

Indeed, very sad that a radical group which does not represent society at large could have been perceived as a single representation. But i think this is not Australians fault. I believe that on the ground level, Indonesians who have been live peacefully with other aussies could have a completely different views. I was wondering how media represent the country and news or little coverage about jihad could/would have been used by right-wing for their political interests.

cheers
z

Zapata

You asked about Australian media representation of jihadist issues.

Most news sources are mainly typically sensational with a short attention spans.

The "National Security" section of the Australian (the only national newspaper) is probably the best readily available representation of this issue - as it relates to Australia.

Its at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex1/0,5745,natsecurity^^TEXT,00.html

You'll note its less about Indonesia and more about jihadists (often second generation Australians).

Pete

"There will always be tensions between principle and morality on the one hand and expediency and the constraints imposed by existing realities on the other. Often in foreign policy, decisions have to reflect an appropriate balance between conflicting interests".

Come on, Mr Woolcott this is pure sophistry. We know on which side - principle or expediency - you stood for 23 years over East Timor. You have always backed expediency as the guiding principle of Australian foreign policy - not balance.

Also you say we should embrace and learn more about Indonesia and Southeast Asia, but when we do learn about human rights abuses in the region you would be the first to condemn us as lacking in knowledge and balance. The knowledge you want is only limited knowledge in which human rights abuses and crimes against religious minorities are silenced as representing the views of racists and the uninformed.

Renewing Keating's 1995 Agreement on Mutual Security would serve no purpose whatsoever. Be honest, how much use was this Agreement when it was put to the test over East Timor in 1999? This suggestion above all else demonstrates how out of touch your thinking is. It seems you're still thinking it's 1974 and you're running round Jalan Thamrin in a batik shirt. Indonesia knowledge yes, but running around like Soeharto was the greatest thing since sliced bread no thanks.