RI forged a position of moderation after 9/11

Hassan Wirajuda was Indonesia’s foreign minister on Sept. 11, 2001. The Jakarta Post’s Yohanna Ririhena and Tyler Gniewotta talked to him in Jakarta on Thursday about the impact of the attacks on Indonesia’s diplomacy. Below are excerpts from the interview:

What was your reaction to the 9/11 attacks?

The attacks in New York and Washington, DC, occurred one month after the new Cabinet Gotong Royong was established by president Megawati Soekarnoputri. In terms of scale, it was a world disaster and had immediate effects on Indonesia. It was quite a policy challenge for Indonesia.

We made our position very clear: We strongly condemned the terrorist attacks as there was no doubt that the attack was indiscriminate, killing innocent civilians, women, children and leaving huge destruction. Second, we underlined that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

For that matter, we stressed that we should not mix Islam, violence, extremism and terrorism. Third, terrorism was a threat to international peace and security. It was not only an attack on the US and its interests but also a threat to international peace and security.

How did Indonesia change its diplomacy after 9/11?

We underlined the need to promote understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions. Our
position was clear: We were against the [Iraq] war. We connected with others who rejected the Iraq war. The war might have been perceived as a war against Islam, the West against Islam or Christianity against Islam.

Through my foreign policy breakfast with inter-religious leaders, we discussed that this was not the government’s problem.

So, not only the government, but also civil society had a responsibility to do their part by linking with others in other parts of the world. They could also say that the war was not against Islam. This is important. We were able to forge a common position involving the government and the people.

Our strategy was to empower the moderates and strengthen the voice of moderation. We talked to our counterparts in Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, and worked with them.

Dialogue is a social value to address misunderstanding among cultures and religions. For me a forum for inter-religious dialogue is proof that difference is something we can discuss; it should not prevent us from developing understanding.

In other words, from certain incidents in history and looking back at our own experience, a possible clash or misunderstanding can be transformed into a positive force.

Was it the first time that Indonesia’s foreign policy engaged in matters of religion?

Yes it was. I also participated in a huge gathering in Surabaya. I was asked to speak about the world after 9/11 in front of hundreds of clerics in Surabaya. Perhaps, that was the first time a foreign minister had come to a religious gathering. It was a matter of necessity at a time of confusion and misunderstanding about Islam. But at the same time, it sent a signal that the majority of our people was moderate.

Has Indonesia’s importance increased since?

Indonesia has asked to be the head speaker in inter-religious dialogues in various forums since then. In 2006, then British prime minister Tony Blair paid a visit to Indonesia and admitted they had problems in managing diversity.

It sounds elementary, but that’s the case. Germany’s Foreign Minister Steinmeyer also visited Indonesia to learn from our experience. I said that here in Indonesia, dialogue was part of our daily life. We can create something positive from difficulties.

What was the most challenging diplomatic aspect post 9/11?

In particular, how in an open democratic Indonesia we could deal with the threat of terrorism. When Lee Kuan Yew said Indonesia had not done enough to combat terrorism, I said that totalitarian Singapore could not understand how we in open democratic Indonesia dealt with terrorism.

Certainly, in democratic Indonesia we cannot and do not intend
to use anti-subversive laws, comparable to those of Singapore’s ISA, which can detain suspects indefinitely.

We have to work with various systematic channels, we need grounds to make an arrest.