Responding to the Horror of Bali: a testing time for Australia


At the time of writing, Australia is coming to terms with what has undoubtedly been the most horrific attack upon its citizens since World War II. On the evening of October 12th, a massive bomb blast tore through the tourist hub of Bali, Indonesia, disintegrating the popular Sari club, and also Paddy’s Irish club: both centres of attraction for the (approx) 250,000 Australian tourists who have visited the picturesque island annually. There can be little doubt, given the choice of targets, that Australian tourists were the chosen victims of this cruel and calculated act of terror. Survivors have told stories of utter horror: the shock of the blast, flying glass and shrapnel, agonized screams, dismembered and charred bodies. For those who have survived, meanwhile, the struggle is only beginning, with many holding on to life by only a thread, and others confronting injuries so horrific that surely life will never be the same again. Over a hundred Australians are now confirmed dead, and it is certain that this will rise yet further as relatives and experts continue the ghastly task of identifying scores of burned and broken bodies, twisted and dismembered beyond recognition. A significant number of British tourists have also been reported dead, with lower casualty figures reported amongst tourists from other nations.

The Washington Post has described the Bali atrocity as ‘Australia’s September 11.’
Indeed, the psychic damage inflicted upon the Australian nation, whose people once thought themselves immune from such acts of terror, and whose shores have only briefly, during Japanese air raids in Darwin during World War Two, experienced the horror of war, cannot be understated. While September 11 exposed the weak underbelly of the world’s only remaining superpower, now Australians also are confronting the horror of an ill-defined ‘war’ which now has found its way to their doorstep.

Reactions to the Bali atrocity have been diverse. Many have responded angrily, condemning Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri for failing to act against the radical Islamic organisation, Jemaah Islamiah (JI), which is suspected of having ties with Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda, and which has been named by many as the ‘prime suspect’. Others have responded to the atrocity to strengthen the case for or against war with Iraq. In the days following the bombing several callers rang talkback radio to express their fear that Australia was ‘paying the price’ for its unswerving loyalty to the US, both in the ‘War on Terror’, and also on the issue of a potential Iraqi conflict. Some put the case more bluntly and, some would say, insensitively. Lyndon Plummer, writing to Melbourne’s daily broadsheet, ‘The Age’ (15/10/02), stated “To all those who support war on Iraq, look at Bali. That’s what bombs killing innocents looks like. If we as a nation support doing this to others, we can only expect it for ourselves.” Meanwhile, Des Moore, a councilor at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has responded to the horror of the bombing to argue in favour of an assault on Iraq. Specifically, Moore has argued that while some “suppose Iraq and terrorism pose quite different threats, [in fact] they do not.” Admitting that there is “no evidence that Saddam is deeply involved in directing international terrorism”, Moore has argued, nevertheless, that the Middle East is the “centre of international terrorism, and that this will not change until action is taken. (that is: war) (‘The Age’, 17/1002)

Understandably, in these dark times, emotions are flooding over, and Australians are thirsting for justice in much the same way as Americans have since the September 11 terrorist attacks. And yet now, even as Australian hearts are breaking with horror and anguish, the need for cool heads has never been clearer.

To begin with. there is the question of the Indonesian government, and of Jemaah Islamiah The radical Islamic network, formed in the mid 90s, has since mobilized, voicing its vision of establishing an Islamic state incorporating Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. ( http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/ji.cfm) The network is accused of having masterminded attempted terrorist attacks in Singapore, and of co-operating closely with Islamic insurgents and terrorists operating in the Philippines. Pressure has been mounting from the US, and from Australia, for the Indonesian government to take tough action to suppress its activities.

Indonesia, however, has changed significantly since the downfall of the Suharto government which, with the assistance of the Indonesian military, held Indonesia in a corrupt ‘iron grip’ from 1966 until 1998. The Suharto regime came to power in a coup which overthrew President Sukarno, the father of current Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri. This coup culminated in the massacre of between half a million and a million communists, leftists and labour movement activists, with the logistical support of the CIA. ( http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/McGehee_CIA_Indo.html) The overthrow of Suharto in 1998 was a time of joy for many Indonesians, who finally imagined a different future was possible, after decades of repression, phony elections, nepotism and blatant corruption. Since then, Megawati and her predecessor, Wahid, have both strove to reduce the influence of the Indonesian army (TNI) on political life, to introduce civil liberties including previously unprecedented press freedoms, and to clean up the networks of violence and corruption that remain from the decades of Suharto’s rule. And yet both leaders have depended upon the support of Indonesia’s powerful Muslim parties and movements in their drive for reform. Without this support, the task of rooting out remaining networks of corruption, and of furthering democratic reform, would be rendered all but impossible. Westerners may well be correct to identify the dangers posed by Jemaah Islamiah, but in the new Indonesia – an aspiring liberal democracy – the question of repression is not so straight forward as it might once have been. Radical Muslim cleric, and leader of the Jemaah Islamiah, Abu Bakar Bashir, has so far steadfastly denied any link between his organisation and recent terror attacks. Without categorical proof, moves to repress or proscribe the organisation would represent a retrograde step that could irretrievably stunt attempts to democratize the world’s fourth most populous nation. What is more, were Megawati to act without clear proof, this would no doubt alienate the moderate Islamic parties with which she has developed an alliance, in order to marginalize Golkar, the party of the old repressive and corrupt order. Clearly Megawati must act as decisively as possible within the bounds of the new democratic legal order she has sought to build, in rooting out terrorist cells and networks, providing full co-operation to the Australian authorities, including intelligence agencies and Federal Police. Nevertheless, despite our pain, and our thirst for justice, we ought remain sensitive to the difficult balancing act she confronts in holding together her coalition: responding to possible threats, without compromising the process of political liberalisation.


Attempts to link the Bali atrocity with the prospect of war with Iraq need also to be treated with caution. As recognized by Des Moore, there is no established connection between Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime and Al Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiah. While Iraq has fuelled the fires of terrorism in Israel, by providing cash payments to the families of suicide bombers, no evidence has yet been provided of his involvement with terror networks anywhere else throughout the globe. Furthermore, while there is no evidence of any advanced nuclear program in Iraq, it is also clear that Iraq’s conventional military capacity has disintegrated by two thirds since the 1991 Gulf War. It ought also be recognized that Saddam Hussein and the Baathist movement he heads are secular in their orientation, and while they may well seek to exploit radical Islam for their own ends, they certainly do not consider themselves part of it.


If Hussein poses a threat, then it is a long term threat to Israel. The nightmare scenario for Israel, undoubtedly, would be a nuclear armed Iraq neutralizing its own nuclear advantage, with Hussein rising to become something of a ‘modern Nasser’, uniting the Arab world against the Jewish State. For the part of the US, however, it is unclear whether the prospects of war are being talked up more because of the fear of some real and imminent threat, or more because of the strategic importance of the world’s most oil rich region, and its second most oil rich nation. The question ought also be posed of whether Saddam’s designs might better be thwarted by real progress towards a just resolution of the Palestinian question, thus removing the most significant impetus for rising Arab nationalism, and militant Islam.


Certainly, Australia should not refrain from a confrontation or war with Iraq on the basis of fear. Any democratic community can never afford to let Terror win under any circumstances if it wishes to retain its political autonomy. Furthermore, even those opposed to the excesses of US imperialism must rise to confront the despicable and unjustifiable spectre of Terror which has now claimed so many innocent lives. At the same time, however, we cannot afford to simply assume linkages between Iraq and the Bali atrocity as a rationale for a war in which tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, including many civilians, would perish. And while we should treat with disdain and disgust claims that Australian and American civilians have somehow ‘deserved’ the horrors which have been visited upon them, this does not necessarily mean we must turn a blind eye to the real link between US imperialism, and the rise and response of militant Islam. If Australia is to review its support for US foreign policy, though, in the Middle East and elsewhere, then it must do so as part of a genuine moral reappraisal, not as part of a fear induced retreat from the world stage.


At the time of writing, the mystery as to the perpetrators of the Bali massacre, and of their motivations, remains unsolved. Certainly, Jemaah Islamiah must figure amongst the list of suspects, but even still it ought be recognized that there are many who doubt the organization’s logistic capacity to mount such an attack. Some commentators suspect Al Qaeda, and point to the use of C-4 plastic explosive – an Al Qaeda hallmark. (‘The Age’ 17/10/2002) Paul Burton from ‘www.janes.com’ has speculated that, “Although not believed to possess the capability to undertake such an attack, it is feasible that the JI provided Al-Qaeda with local intelligence regarding the suitability of the venue, perhaps in exchange for logistical training.” ( http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/sentinel/sent021016_1_n.shtml)
Once again, though, while Al Qaeda certainly would possess the necessary knowledge to commit such an attack, as of yet there are still no firm, conclusive leads. Finally, some are not writing off the possible involvement of factions of the Indonesian military in the Bali atrocity, alleging a history of fostering bloodshed between Christians and Muslims in the country’s north. (‘The Age’, 17/10/2002) Indeed, there are those in the military who are disgruntled with the path taken by the current government, which has moved to reduce the military’s political role, uproot the corrupt networks of the old order, and which ceded East Timor under intense pressure from Australia on the international community. While Australia’s role in East Timor’s independence could well have provided the rationale for an attack upon Australians, there are some, no doubt, who would go so far as to drive their nation’s economy into the ground in order to destabilize a government they despise. For a nation already facing economic ruin, the collapse of the tourist industry in Bali, which has drawn up to 1.5 million vistors annually (The Age’, 15/10/2002), will be devastating.


Surely there are some Australians who are beginning to question whether or not a campaign of Terror which has come to our very doorstep, and claimed scores of innocent Australian civilians, might next visit upon us some horror within our own borders. At this awful and testing time, though, we need to remain level headed, and focused upon the task of tracing those responsible, and bringing them to justice. Australians are hurting. They are angry, and they feel truly vulnerable for the first time in decades. Beyond our pain and our fear, though, we need the clarity of vision to negotiate these painful times, and determine a course of action based upon established fact, and not presumption. One can only hope and pray that these facts will become apparent, for in the wake of this horror, a thirst for justice unfulfilled will become an unbearable and painful burden for those who have been left behind.


Tristan Ewins

18/10/2002

Tristan Ewins is an Australian Labor Party member, aspiring writer, and a former member of the Victorian branch of the ALP’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.