Tom Pepinsky

Category: Politics

  • Condoleezza Rice

    Condoleezza Rice is in Jakarta, she arrived here yesterday and she’s staying through today and perhaps tomorrow.  She’s here to meet with SBY and some ministers.  Funny story–I didn’t know she was going to be here until I watched BBC last night and they discussed it.  She arrived at 1:00.  At 11:30 I was meeting with a current Minister in SBY’s Cabinet, and he had to cut short our discussion at 12:15 because he had an appointment at 1:00 ("ada janji pada jam satu").  Later on BBC I saw this same Minister welcoming Ms. Rice to Jakarta.

    Anyway, Ms. Rice is here playing up America’s cooperation with Indonesia in anti-terrorism and anti-piracy measures.  (Right now the American and Indonesian navies are conducting joint exercises.)  She also went on at length about the natural kinship between Indonesia and America, two multi-cultural democracies with long histories of tolerance and acceptance of diversity.  I couldn’t agree with her more on this.  She also visited an Islamic day school (madrasah) here, and related to reporters how wonderful she thought the students were and how positive the atmosphere was.  I certainly did enjoy seeing pictures of little girls in jilbabs waving both the Indonesian and American flag as Ms. Rice walked into their school.  In Indonesia, a madrasah is a state-run Islamic day school that follows the government’s curriculum.  A pesantren is a private Islamic boarding school that does not necessarily follow the government’s curriculum.  This may be a bit confusing, for a madrasah in Pakistan is what corresponds to a pesantren here.

    It turns out that the American government gives funding for these madrasahs.  What a great policy!  JM and I have been advocating this since we arrived in Indonesia in 2004–to create strong moderate Islamic societies, you must start with the kids.  I also think that the US should help to fund the construction of mosques in poor neighborhoods.  Now, I’ve had very liberal Indonesian Muslim friends tell me that these policies are counterproductive because they run the risk of "shaming" Muslims, but I disagree.

    In other news, the American government has a plan to start an Indonesian version of Sesame Street.  I am not making this up.  They have allocated a bunch of money towards this, and they are looking for employees.  So if you or someone you know has experience with mass media, Bahasa Indonesia, and English, I know who to contact to hook you up.

  • Personal Defenses

    James remarked during our nightly political argument that I have a very fundamental tendency to tread very carefully around the issue of Islam and terrorism.  This raises a couple interesting questions, as I do indeed tend to jump to the defense of Islam as a religion when I hear criticisms that it causes terrorism, that it breeds hatred, that Muslims have certain characteristics that make them more likely to do certain things, or whatever.  Why do I do this?  Is it, as some might argue, a form of radical political correctness or moral relativism?

    I’d argue not.  The reason why I find myself urging caution with statements about Islam and violence–or Islam and whatever–is that Islam happens to be the topic of conversation these days.  If, for instance, we were talking about Kurdish terrorism in the 1990s, I’d be defending the majority of Kurds.  If we were talking about Tamil terrorism in Tamil Nadu, I’d be defending the majority of Tamils/Hindus.

    The problem that I see lies in moving from self-evidently true statements to more nuanced statements with implications for politics.  It is self-evidently true that Muslims are the ones committing suicide attacks in Israel…no Palestinian Christians are participating in this.  Similarly, the people who launched the terrorist attacks in the United States, Britain, Spain, and Bali are Muslims.  This is important information.  But then you need to think further.  How much does knowing that these individuals follow Islam tell you?  Surprisingly not much.  A very tiny minority of Muslims commit terrorist acts.  So Muslim is not a sufficient condition for terrorism.  Most suicide bombings are actually committed by non-Muslims (mostly Tamils, actually), and most terrorism in general comes at the hands of non-Muslims.  So Muslims is not a necessary condition for terrorism.  And notice: these are not just a couple exceptions, but huge evidence to the contrary regarding any simple relationship between Islam and terrorism and/or violence.

    My point in terms of drawing conclusions is not that we should ignore the fact that suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel follow Islam.  This is important information, and it is clear that Islamic millennialism has an influence of the actions of these individuals.  The point is that the sort of precise statements that the right-wing commentariat make are simply wrong.  Not because I don’t want them to be true, but because they are actually incorrect statements.  Another point regards prejudice, as I also believe that many Americans are suspicious of Muslims and claims of Muslim peace.  I cannot accept any suspicion of Muslims greater than any other religious group.  If the actions of the few are to represent the views of the masses, then that must apply towards Christianity, Judaism, Republicans, Democrats, vegans, football players, trench coat mafiosi, and every other group that contains bad apples among its membership.