Finding 'goodness' from the Bali bombing tragedy

By Ross Taylor

This Sunday Australia will pause and reflect upon the lives of 88 of our citizens who lost their lives in a shocking act of terrorism 12 years ago on the streets of Bali.

We should also remember that in this attack on innocent people, 38 Indonesia citizens lost their lives, and a further 76 people from all over the World also died in an event that shattered Bali’s image as a friendly, easy-going holiday playground for so many of us.

For some people 12 October is a time when they need to grieve and to reflect. For others it is a time they would rather forget; the pain is simply too great.

In any ‘event’ where tragedy occurs or we are confronted with death, inevitably grief, anger, hurt and resentment will follow. This also happens when people are suddenly diagnosed with a ‘terminal’ illness as can happen with cancer for example. It happened to me in 1993.

The question I had to face as a result of my own journey with a life-threatening illness, and also for my wife Katherine who lost her mother, cousin, aunty and father to cancer, is can we possibly find any goodness that we can take from an experience that was unquestionably ‘terrible’. 

Here is the paradox: had it not been for our respective cancer journeys, my wife and I would never have met many people who are now our closest friends; people who have inspired us - including some who have since passed away – and have come into our lives solely because of a terrible event. And our lives would not be so meaningful with an enormous sense of purpose.

So perhaps there is a common link between a life-threatening experience such as cancer, and the tragedy that has left families and friends to confront the impact of the Bali bombings, and is it indeed possible to find something ‘good’ from what happened on that terrible night in Bali 12 years ago?

Peter, a colleague of mine watched helplessly as his close friend suffered terribly from burns received in the 2002 blast. Peter desperately wanted to extract some ‘goodness’ from this evil act, so for the past few years he has worked at remote Balinese schools who accept children with disabilities. Peter will now spend his time building new wooden legs for some of the desks; legs that make the desks higher and able to accommodate wheel chairs, thus allowing disabled children to carry-out their studies alongside other children. Peter did not need any publicity, any awards, and no recognition was needed. He is just an ‘ordinary’ Aussie making a difference to disadvantaged children; a direct result of the Bali bombings.

I have numerous Indonesian friends who also carry out acts of charity as a result of experiences that have left them deeply affected. These people not only help others, but also help themselves through ‘healing with kindness’.

Ironically, at a government-to-government level, relations between Indonesia and Australia should have collapsed as a result of what happened in 2002. Yet in their commitment to find the perpetrators of these bombings, the Indonesian National Police (Polri) and Australia’s Federal Police formed an unusual alliance that resulted in most of the Bali bombers being apprehended and convicted by Indonesian Courts.

This ‘odd’ partnership only happened due to an act of terrorism, yet it has endured, and resulted in a number of subsequent planned attacks in Bali and Java being thwarted in time to undoubtedly save the lives of many more Australian tourists and locals alike.

The Bali bombings have also brought the Balinese people and Australians closer together rather than force us away as the terrorists would have hoped. We see that today, as millions of young Indonesians take to twittersphere to say how they detest the Islamic State and want nothing to do with people who wish to inflict harm upon their own community or visitors to their beautiful country. Bali in 2002 showed us the very worst of what can happen when fanatics take control, and today both our countries are better and safer because of the lessons learned from that experience.

On a personal level, as happens with people who lose loved-ones to cancer, or even in a road accident for example, they are often encouraged to ‘move on’. That’s not as easy as people would like to think. The pain and grief is very real and ‘raw’.

Rather than seek to ‘move-on’ from grief, maybe we should open ourselves to ‘allow-in’ kindness and goodness? That we make a commitment to, in future, live a little better for having known the ones we have lost. 

So as we pause to commemorate this event that devastated our nation 12 years ago, let us all make a commitment as a community to live a little better, to show respect and good nature in our daily lives, and to be more loving towards those who are important to us.

To do this gives some purpose and meaning to our lives, and truly honours the spirit of those who we lost 12 year ago.

Ross Taylor AM is President of the Indonesia Institute: ross.taylor@indonesia-institute.org.au.

Why dialogue matters for Papua

By Mangadar Situmorang

In his presidential election campaign, president-elect Joko “Jokowi” Widodo deemed the problems in Papua to be rooted in the misperceptions of the central government.

It is clear, therefore, that dialogue is the most appropriate way to correct them and to build a common perception to find a solution.

There are convincing arguments to justify the need for dialogue on Papua, including the tradition of musyawarah, or deliberation, one of the five principles of the Pancasila state ideology.

However, the central government is inconsistent in implementing it when it comes to the Papua issue, leaving the problem to protract.

While the government needs to be continuously reminded about its responsibility to address the issue of Papua, there are at least three reasons to encourage Jokowi to convene a dialogue about the region.

First, Jokowi is personally committed to resolving any problem with dignity. Known to have succeeded in dealing with complex social and economic quagmires when leading the city of Surakarta and the capital, Jokowi’s personal strategy was to ask disputing parties to talk and find a common solution.

This is a strategic approach proposed also by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), which said “the process is not just about sitting around a table, but changing the way people talk, think and communicate with one another”. Recognition of differences and empathy toward one another are essential elements to generate a productive and constructive dialogue.

Adding to Jokowi’s commitment is his partner Jusuf Kalla, who has proven he was capable of bringing peace and reconciliation to the conflict zones of Poso, Central Sulawesi and Aceh. Apart from his personal political assets and access, Kalla has shown creativity in seeking a way out in the face of deadlock. He is known to offer rational choices for disputing parties to continue dialogue and produce agreements.

Second, Jokowi’s and Kalla’s victory in the last presidential election was officially confirmed by both the General Elections Commission (KPU) and the Constitutional Court (MK), which confirmed the victory of people who support democratic consolidation in Indonesia.

Although some voters were still influenced by money politics, mobilization or even intimidation, many more cast their votes for freedom, fairness and integrity.

Shortly, the Jokowi-Kalla victory must be perceived as indicative of a growing number of democratic constituencies.

This clearly means that, according to democratic principles, all kinds of disputes and difficulties should be better dealt with peacefully and with dignity.

Third, the problems in Papua also include historical questions and human rights violations in the past that could not be overcome merely by economic development.

To a large part of Papuans who show resistance and continuously rebel against the government, the historical problem is of primary and great importance.

The process of integrating the region into the unitary state was seen not only as unjust and unfair according to internationally accepted principles, but was also followed by a series of violent acts undertaken by Indonesian governments and security agencies against those who questioned and rejected the 1969 polling result (Pepera).

 Besides economic programs, successive governments applied the security approach by deploying huge numbers of military forces that were beyond the control of the civilian government in Jakarta and Jayapura, or of other civil society organizations, including the press.

Challenges to dialogue in Papua may come from different corners. First, inner circles within successive governments have perceived that the historical question of Papuan integration has been settled and is thus unquestionable.

As such, any kind of dialogue is seen as useless or would be even viewed as jeopardizing Indonesia’s long-standing position and territorial integration. Such a view is totally incorrect and groundless. In contrast, a dialogue has to be seen as a way to strengthen the legality and legitimacy of Papuan integration.

Another more technical argument in questioning the significance of dialogue is due to the problem of representation within Papua’s widely diverse tribal, cultural and political associations that don’t have any single hierarchical leadership.

As shown in the case of Aceh, this adds to the reluctance and to a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of a dialogue on the part of the government.

But, the second and apparently most stiff resistance comes from the military. To many scholars the Indonesian Military (TNI), after having concluded military and security operations in Aceh, are now seeing Papua as their main battlefield — a region very rich with natural resources, but one that is claimed as presenting the most serious threat to national integration.

The TNI, to a certain degree, has been successful in keeping Aceh as an integral part of Indonesia. Their role in maintaining Papua is not in question, but it is very clear that their positive role should be included in the dialogue process.

In many parts of the world, like in Lebanon, Indonesia’s military has played a role in keeping, making and building peace by winning the hearts and minds of conflicting parties.

Dialogue in Papua is meant to win the hearts and minds of Papuans and the TNI is an indispensable party to the process and is necessary to make it fruitful.

Pak Mangadar is the dean of the faculty of social and political sciences at the Parahyangan Catholic University in Bandung, and the coordinator for the Academic Forum for Peaceful Papua (Forum Akademisi untuk Papua Damai). This article originally appeared 7 October in the Jakarta Post.