EDITORIAL Western economic policies behind Indonesian
violence
Headlines declare that the recent
massacres on Indonesias Maluku Islands are the result of religious
battles. In scenes distressingly reminiscent of the bloody anarchy that broke
out during East Timors drive for independence last year, an estimated
3,000 have died in the sectarian fighting that has raged in the Maluku Islands
since January 1999.
The sectarian violence is real, a part of Indonesias
history, and apparently is growing in magnitude and intensity as extreme
Islamic factions gain adherents throughout the country.
At the moment, President Abdurrahman Wahid, a moderate Muslim, is
determined to keep religion and politics separate. But the growing extremism in
the Muslim community and the spread of the machete-wielding defenders of
Islam, who roam the capital of Jakarta, threaten to divide all Indonesian
society and undermine its secular institutions.
There is a perception among some Muslims that the international
communitys support last year for the independence of overwhelmingly
Catholic East Timor was evidence of a conspiracy to Christianize Indonesia. For
those who hold this view, the growing sense of Wahids moderation sets up
explosive possibilities.
Only attention and great pressure from the outside can help Wahid
maintain balance. That is the inescapable reality. It also could be, however, a
dangerous prescription. In recent years Western nations have contributed in a
significant way to Indonesias troubles. The problem is only partly due to
sectarian differences. Economics and Indonesias growing poverty play a
key role.
What happened in Asia in 1997-98 began in Mexico. The United
States bailed out U.S. investors (mainly banks and big financial institutions)
by giving a $40 billion loan to Mexico when the peso went into a free fall.
Speculators presumed the U.S. government would continue bailing out countries
where U.S. investment was heavy, and fixed on Thailand.
The collapse of Thailands baht triggered the Asia crisis
that crippled the arrogant, overborrowed, booming Asian economies. All
countries were badly damaged. Indonesia, in what proved to be the last days of
dictator Suharto, was driven into ruin.
The current violence in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in
the world, can be traced in large measure to Indonesias financial ruin,
the result of First World speculation and First World economic policy.
After three years of hunger and economic devastation, Indonesians
thrown out of work and out of hope have given the countrys radical
Islamic elements the support they need to lash out wherever they find victims
on whom to vent their wrath.
When a nation plunges overnight into poverty, turmoil follows.
Sending in the International Monetary Fund to exacerbate that poverty
guarantees social upheaval and violence. The statistics tell the tale. In 1995
the Indonesian economy -- corrupt and inefficient though it was -- was growing
by 8.2 percent a year. In 1998 it shrank by 13.7 percent. And it is still
sliding. Wahids ascendancy and the nations tender experiment in
democracy have yet to yield benefits for the countrys poor.
True, the West doesnt carry all the blame -- the Asian
financial crisis of 1997-98 highlighted the structural weaknesses of many Asian
Tigers. But that cannot disguise the fact that major blunders were committed by
the United States.
It may seem at times that those recently protesting at meetings of
the World Trade Organization and World Bank were striking out at any
globalization ideas that moved. And that may have been the case.
At the same time, a wish for a more discerning or sophisticated
discussion of world economics is hardly advanced by ignoring the immense ills
that have been visited on the likes of the poor of Indonesia and the social
upheaval that is left in the wake of international finance decisions that have
their beginnings continents away.
Indonesias immediate crisis deserves the attention of the
rest of the world right away. If the worlds attention stops at emergency
treatment, however, the simmering hatreds will boil over, and the societal
divisions will become deeper and wider.
National Catholic Reporter, July 28,
2000
|