The new text here is being posted to a blog I did while speaking in 2008. This new data is actually not connected to that trip -- and to be more confusing -- it is related to a trip I took in 2009. The 2009 and 2010 (this trip) are both funded by a US State Department grant we call "Democracy and Tolerance: A Two Nation Exchange.
I did not keep a record of the 2009 trip on line.
The reason for attaching this to my 2008 trip is that many of my 2008 observations may be interesting in light of newer comments.
The following posts have the quality of a "We did this and then we did that" but I wanted to at least post events before I forgot them. Internet access is limited and it you can't ignore how tired you are after a day of meetings and talks in the midst of adjusting to jet lag -- your energy level does not always match the availability of technology.
The program “Democracy and Tolerance; A Two Nation Exchange” involves four separate trips.
The first was in February of 2009 and involved Newton teacher Michael Kozuch; Amherst teachers Samantha Camera, Tom Fricke and Kristen Iverson; and myself.
During that trip we traveled to Jakarta, Balikpapan, Makassar, and Jogyakarta. We learned as we went, made contacts in schools, and recruited teachers for the second trip when 15 Indonesian would come to the US for one month. Our fifteen friends arrived in June of 2010 and returned from Washington DC shortly after the Fourth of July.
Our 2010 trip, for which this blog is a record, is designed as a follow up to deepen partnerships and examine the use of curricula developed earlier, I am accompanied by Samantha Camera (again) and newcomer Julienne Webster. Both Sam and Julienne have lived in Indonesia and speak some Indonesian; both come from schools that are interested in building long term relationships with Indonesian schools; and both are committed to making western Massachusetts a center for the study of Indonesia.
For more information on our grant and past exchanges go to our Indonesian program website
My colleague Samantha Camera (Sam) is also keeping a blog for her students – she both is and has a camera – so for visuals both still and moving go see her site.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Monday, March 3, 2008
Islamic World
I was frequently asked about whether the election will improve America's relations with the Islamic world. This is an impossible questions to answer -- of the opaque crystal ball variety -- but I tried to dissect it and by the end had at least put a finger on why it was hard to answer (aside from the fact it was a prediction)
1) Yes, at first. People all over the world, including in America, will feel like President Bush leaving will be like opening the windows after a long winter. Here, at least, it is a function of his being unpopular but also we just get tired of President's after eight years. To the extent that "problems with the Islamic world" is a reference to not looking President Bush the issue will be solved by his leaving.
2) But, maybe the question is difficult. indonesians really do feel a part of something called "Islam" in a way that very few (some, but not many) Americans, and even fewer Europeans feel they belong to something called "the Christian world". This sounds like a small thing but it is a major gap in conversation. I don't personally, think of policy toward the "Islamic world".
I think of North African policy or policy toward the Israeli's and Palestinians -- the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know we have a policy toward Kosovo and Chechnya and Kashmir. We have a Southeast Asian policy that encompasses Muslim Malaysia, Buddhist Thailand, Communist Vietnam, Catholic Philippines, Muslim Indonesia, and the hard drinkers in Australia. Our policy is situational, or regional, or nation specific -- not directed at pan-religious affiliations.
This isn't to say we aren't aware that people view "Islam" as a sort of unity nor that we are unaware of the effects our policies have on public perceptions. It isn't even to say that some efforts are made to craft initiatives that do address the Islamic world -- it is only to say that viewing the world as great religious blocks isn't or first instinct or the driver of our foreign policy.
There are, of course, Americans who argue that we are a "Christian" nation and, I'm sure, people who view our battles as blessed by God but these people are a minority (plus viewing yourself as a member of a "christian" nation is very different from feeling a deep sense of unity with the rest of the "christian" world).
I tried to state that the best I could and then gave what many of you will no doubt feel is a weak answer and that is, whoever is elected will have a chance to do things differently. They won't be trapped under eight years of decisions and promises and the rest of the world's views won't be hardened toward them. But, having said that, the world will be the same world. All of the candidates will support the existence of Israel -- all of them will work to negotiate a peace between Palestine and Israel. Much is made of the differences between McCain and Obama/Clinton on Iraq but I am hard pressed to see if there will be a genuine difference after the election -- maybe a matter of some months or weeks on troop removal, possibly McCain is more likely to establish a permanent base (like in Germany, Japan, Iceland, etc.) but all of them will still aggressively pursue the fighting in Afghanistan and the war on terror.
There is a possibility that Obama and Clinton may change the rhetoric of terrorism and give a more narrow definition to the term. I think Bush was trapped politically when he lumped all sorts of movements into the term "terrorist".
Finally, I stated that on economic issues McCain was a little more likely to support free trade agreements (the Indonesians favor them) so in terms of foreign policy -- they would like Obama or Clinton more - marginally and on economic issues they might like McCain more (even more marginally).
1) Yes, at first. People all over the world, including in America, will feel like President Bush leaving will be like opening the windows after a long winter. Here, at least, it is a function of his being unpopular but also we just get tired of President's after eight years. To the extent that "problems with the Islamic world" is a reference to not looking President Bush the issue will be solved by his leaving.
2) But, maybe the question is difficult. indonesians really do feel a part of something called "Islam" in a way that very few (some, but not many) Americans, and even fewer Europeans feel they belong to something called "the Christian world". This sounds like a small thing but it is a major gap in conversation. I don't personally, think of policy toward the "Islamic world".
I think of North African policy or policy toward the Israeli's and Palestinians -- the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know we have a policy toward Kosovo and Chechnya and Kashmir. We have a Southeast Asian policy that encompasses Muslim Malaysia, Buddhist Thailand, Communist Vietnam, Catholic Philippines, Muslim Indonesia, and the hard drinkers in Australia. Our policy is situational, or regional, or nation specific -- not directed at pan-religious affiliations.
This isn't to say we aren't aware that people view "Islam" as a sort of unity nor that we are unaware of the effects our policies have on public perceptions. It isn't even to say that some efforts are made to craft initiatives that do address the Islamic world -- it is only to say that viewing the world as great religious blocks isn't or first instinct or the driver of our foreign policy.
There are, of course, Americans who argue that we are a "Christian" nation and, I'm sure, people who view our battles as blessed by God but these people are a minority (plus viewing yourself as a member of a "christian" nation is very different from feeling a deep sense of unity with the rest of the "christian" world).
I tried to state that the best I could and then gave what many of you will no doubt feel is a weak answer and that is, whoever is elected will have a chance to do things differently. They won't be trapped under eight years of decisions and promises and the rest of the world's views won't be hardened toward them. But, having said that, the world will be the same world. All of the candidates will support the existence of Israel -- all of them will work to negotiate a peace between Palestine and Israel. Much is made of the differences between McCain and Obama/Clinton on Iraq but I am hard pressed to see if there will be a genuine difference after the election -- maybe a matter of some months or weeks on troop removal, possibly McCain is more likely to establish a permanent base (like in Germany, Japan, Iceland, etc.) but all of them will still aggressively pursue the fighting in Afghanistan and the war on terror.
There is a possibility that Obama and Clinton may change the rhetoric of terrorism and give a more narrow definition to the term. I think Bush was trapped politically when he lumped all sorts of movements into the term "terrorist".
Finally, I stated that on economic issues McCain was a little more likely to support free trade agreements (the Indonesians favor them) so in terms of foreign policy -- they would like Obama or Clinton more - marginally and on economic issues they might like McCain more (even more marginally).
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Israel and the "jewish lobby"
This was by far the most difficult set of issues mainly because I wouldn’t give the same answers at home – because the context is different. When an American complains about Israel she is nervous about another nation influencing our foreign policy. When an Indonesian asks the question she means that we are paying Israel to stay in the Middle East instead of leaving and giving the land back to the Palestineans (to Germany or Austria per the suggestion of the Iranian President – a popular figure in Indonesia). I may be wrong, but I don’t think most Americans would want to stand by to see Israel destroyed.
Indonesians were not particularly open about what they would want to happen so when asked the “Israeli Lobby” or “Jewish Lobby” and its influence on the campaign I answered as follows.
There are a lot of lobbies in America that argue their point of view to the president, congress, and bureaucracy. Money is important and often wins the day. This isn’t fair and the power of some lobby groups, in my opinion, is one of the biggest failings of democracy. However, groups and interests organizing to put their point of view across is a vital feature of democracy and how one balances the power of money and the ability to argue is a major issue.
Jewish Americans and Israel have a potent and well organized lobby. However, they are probably more effective at public relations work and at lobbying congress on specific issues than affecting a race for the U.S. President. Jewish Americans themselves, although big supporters of Israel, will almost certainly vote heavily democratic, no matter who the democrats nominate.
It is easy to confuse cause and effect. American presidents have supported Israel since Truman not because there is a Jewish lobby but because they think it is the right (for whatever reason) thing to do.
Imagine this, if we stopped giving money to Israel, Palestine, and Egypt tomorrow there would still be a crisis in the Middle East – people aren’t fighting over trade barriers or tariffs – they are fighting over the very existence of their nation. I think the US could exert pressure on Indonesia to change a policy on, say, the price of sugar, but it could hardly persuade Indonesia to surrender territory to Malaysia. Israel and Palestine have to work it out themselves.
None of our candidates for president has a particularly unique policy toward Israel. In fact, they are very similar. I think a new president, any new president, will have the chance to start the peace process over but the issue is survival, the territory is tiny, and extremists on both sides, although small in number, exert influence through violence.
In a situation like this, the U.S. has less power than much of the world thinks. There is a feeling in Indonesia, and I’m sure in much the rest of the world, the US can do anything. This creates the odd situation of them wanting us to both stop breaking things and to do all of the fixing. At the heart of this is what I think is an over exaggeration of our power and an underestimate of the extent to which we simply respond to events. Power may show itself in the ability to act but certainly not in the ability to predict the outcomes of those actions.
One man asked a laundry list question
1) Attitude toward Islamic world
2) F 16 fighters to Indonesia
3) Bird Flu Vaccine
4) 1965 Coup and the CIA
I didn’t have much to add to 2, 3, and 4 but the underlying belief is “if Indonsian policy isn’t going well, or the world situation is wrong, or my history didn’t turn out the way I thought it should, it must be the fault of the US”.
This attitude is convenient for corporations and the government. Instead of being good corporate citizens or an efficient government they can use the “American Card” and divert attention away from their own issues. In many ways, America and Israel function for governments in Islamic nations (and, I believe, some corporations) like the issue of “moral values” does for Republicans. It keeps people on their side without having to actually do anything.
I got to thinking that the Bush administration has been very good for Iran. He got rid of Saddam Hussin and the Taliban – both thorns in Iran’s two sides – and he has provided the perfect foil for “blame politics”.
I do happen to believe that the US is screwing up a lot and that moral values is a legitimate political issue (I’m personally against them but I respect their right to be in the political arena and their importance to people) but they are clearly deployed to keep people under control. What would happen to the Iranian president if the US and Israeli suddenly became an Iranian ally? He would have to deliver on social and economic issues.
What the Indonesians ought to be looking closer at isn’t Israel, which has no impact on their future, but multi-national corporations intersecting with political corruption (including US corporations) stripping them of their natural resources.
Indonesians were not particularly open about what they would want to happen so when asked the “Israeli Lobby” or “Jewish Lobby” and its influence on the campaign I answered as follows.
There are a lot of lobbies in America that argue their point of view to the president, congress, and bureaucracy. Money is important and often wins the day. This isn’t fair and the power of some lobby groups, in my opinion, is one of the biggest failings of democracy. However, groups and interests organizing to put their point of view across is a vital feature of democracy and how one balances the power of money and the ability to argue is a major issue.
Jewish Americans and Israel have a potent and well organized lobby. However, they are probably more effective at public relations work and at lobbying congress on specific issues than affecting a race for the U.S. President. Jewish Americans themselves, although big supporters of Israel, will almost certainly vote heavily democratic, no matter who the democrats nominate.
It is easy to confuse cause and effect. American presidents have supported Israel since Truman not because there is a Jewish lobby but because they think it is the right (for whatever reason) thing to do.
Imagine this, if we stopped giving money to Israel, Palestine, and Egypt tomorrow there would still be a crisis in the Middle East – people aren’t fighting over trade barriers or tariffs – they are fighting over the very existence of their nation. I think the US could exert pressure on Indonesia to change a policy on, say, the price of sugar, but it could hardly persuade Indonesia to surrender territory to Malaysia. Israel and Palestine have to work it out themselves.
None of our candidates for president has a particularly unique policy toward Israel. In fact, they are very similar. I think a new president, any new president, will have the chance to start the peace process over but the issue is survival, the territory is tiny, and extremists on both sides, although small in number, exert influence through violence.
In a situation like this, the U.S. has less power than much of the world thinks. There is a feeling in Indonesia, and I’m sure in much the rest of the world, the US can do anything. This creates the odd situation of them wanting us to both stop breaking things and to do all of the fixing. At the heart of this is what I think is an over exaggeration of our power and an underestimate of the extent to which we simply respond to events. Power may show itself in the ability to act but certainly not in the ability to predict the outcomes of those actions.
One man asked a laundry list question
1) Attitude toward Islamic world
2) F 16 fighters to Indonesia
3) Bird Flu Vaccine
4) 1965 Coup and the CIA
I didn’t have much to add to 2, 3, and 4 but the underlying belief is “if Indonsian policy isn’t going well, or the world situation is wrong, or my history didn’t turn out the way I thought it should, it must be the fault of the US”.
This attitude is convenient for corporations and the government. Instead of being good corporate citizens or an efficient government they can use the “American Card” and divert attention away from their own issues. In many ways, America and Israel function for governments in Islamic nations (and, I believe, some corporations) like the issue of “moral values” does for Republicans. It keeps people on their side without having to actually do anything.
I got to thinking that the Bush administration has been very good for Iran. He got rid of Saddam Hussin and the Taliban – both thorns in Iran’s two sides – and he has provided the perfect foil for “blame politics”.
I do happen to believe that the US is screwing up a lot and that moral values is a legitimate political issue (I’m personally against them but I respect their right to be in the political arena and their importance to people) but they are clearly deployed to keep people under control. What would happen to the Iranian president if the US and Israeli suddenly became an Iranian ally? He would have to deliver on social and economic issues.
What the Indonesians ought to be looking closer at isn’t Israel, which has no impact on their future, but multi-national corporations intersecting with political corruption (including US corporations) stripping them of their natural resources.
Race and The Election
Will being a black hurt Obama? Will being a woman hurt Hilary?
They meant this question in two ways – in terms of winning and in terms of governing. I told them that the presidency was an institution and that whoever took the office would be treated as president and I doubted that race or gender would effect their ability to govern and, in fact, might be an advantage in some situations. It is clear that Obama would have a real opening to Indonesia – they love him there – and might also make some real progress in Africa.
As far as getting elected I answered as follows – feel free to disagree
No, not a lot. In fact, I think that thus far race has been a positive for Obama. Imagine a white, four year senator from Illinois, named Bob Smith. Would he be running for president? No.
Of course there are people in our country who would not vote for an African American or a woman just like there are people in your country who might not vote for a woman or a catholic or someone from a province they didn’t respect and, of course, there is still racism and gender discrimination in the US but those people, mostly, already vote Republican (I hated to say that but I think it is true) so, in a two party system, the loss of their votes didn’t make any difference.
They may lose some votes from independents or democrats who were nervous about an African-American or a woman, but, in the two party calculus, they would probably pick up marginally more votes from independents and republicans who felt it was about time we did something different.
They meant this question in two ways – in terms of winning and in terms of governing. I told them that the presidency was an institution and that whoever took the office would be treated as president and I doubted that race or gender would effect their ability to govern and, in fact, might be an advantage in some situations. It is clear that Obama would have a real opening to Indonesia – they love him there – and might also make some real progress in Africa.
As far as getting elected I answered as follows – feel free to disagree
No, not a lot. In fact, I think that thus far race has been a positive for Obama. Imagine a white, four year senator from Illinois, named Bob Smith. Would he be running for president? No.
Of course there are people in our country who would not vote for an African American or a woman just like there are people in your country who might not vote for a woman or a catholic or someone from a province they didn’t respect and, of course, there is still racism and gender discrimination in the US but those people, mostly, already vote Republican (I hated to say that but I think it is true) so, in a two party system, the loss of their votes didn’t make any difference.
They may lose some votes from independents or democrats who were nervous about an African-American or a woman, but, in the two party calculus, they would probably pick up marginally more votes from independents and republicans who felt it was about time we did something different.
Name Cards
Indonesia is a big name card culture (it is not alone of course). People like to exchange cards – so do Americans really – it is an efficient assist to our failing memories – but they are more diligent in remembering. I ran out of cards in Jakarta – note to self – bring more damn cards next time. In my luggage I had hundreds of cards . I hope to send all of them an email thanking them for their hospitality.
Last Day in Indonesia
Friday, February 29th.
No meetings, up at 7:00, shopped in mall and walked around town, couldn’t even spend all of my own money. Went in bookstore again to look at anti American shit. Daydreamed about helping the poor and stopping illegal logging. Packed. God did I pack. One problem with this trip, maybe the only negative really, is the packing and unpacking. Hong Kong, Jakarta, Bali, Surabaya, Pakanbaru, Singapore – six hotels in two weeks. And everywhere you receive a gift == plus you buy some things for people – you get name cards, receipts, paper of indeterminate importance, books in Indonesian, and your luggage multiplies like naughty small mammals left alone. Every night empty your pockets, sort your clothes, organize, and go to bed. When time comes to go you pack it all up in newer and more innovative, space-saving combinations, and move to the next place. I packed too much, I kept too much, and I carried too much.
Left the hotel at 3:30. I was on my own at that point – no one from the Embassy was around – although Rachma had organized a car for me no one in the hotel could either a) remember that she had or b) tell me that I was taking the car she had organized. This illustrates a basic rule of the inexperienced traveler – you only vaguely know what is going on. The only way to approach it I guess it to be clear about your goal (must get to airport at this time) and smile a lot and be a dumbass. I was a serviceable insistent, polite, dumbass.
No meetings, up at 7:00, shopped in mall and walked around town, couldn’t even spend all of my own money. Went in bookstore again to look at anti American shit. Daydreamed about helping the poor and stopping illegal logging. Packed. God did I pack. One problem with this trip, maybe the only negative really, is the packing and unpacking. Hong Kong, Jakarta, Bali, Surabaya, Pakanbaru, Singapore – six hotels in two weeks. And everywhere you receive a gift == plus you buy some things for people – you get name cards, receipts, paper of indeterminate importance, books in Indonesian, and your luggage multiplies like naughty small mammals left alone. Every night empty your pockets, sort your clothes, organize, and go to bed. When time comes to go you pack it all up in newer and more innovative, space-saving combinations, and move to the next place. I packed too much, I kept too much, and I carried too much.
Left the hotel at 3:30. I was on my own at that point – no one from the Embassy was around – although Rachma had organized a car for me no one in the hotel could either a) remember that she had or b) tell me that I was taking the car she had organized. This illustrates a basic rule of the inexperienced traveler – you only vaguely know what is going on. The only way to approach it I guess it to be clear about your goal (must get to airport at this time) and smile a lot and be a dumbass. I was a serviceable insistent, polite, dumbass.
Checking Into Aston in Pekanbaru
Got to the Pekanbaru hotel and went thru the check in ritual. When you don’t speak the language, and are in another land, you really do rely on a combination of system, guesses, and ritualized kindness. Security and airport check in always has a rough family resemblance but the sequence of when things are done, their location, and their exact rituals vary. In Indonesia, before you check a bag they put a strap around it so there are little “strap counters” around. In the U.S. of course they want to get in your bag so you can’t even lock it. I think I put my carry on thru two metal detectors – once to get into the airport and the other to get into the gate area and once more to get into the gate itself – but the general attitude of the guards is more casual. You also have to pay a 3.00 airport tax and the location of payment seems to vary.
Let it be said here that the hardest country to get in and out of is the U.S. and this hurts our standing with visitors and potential students. Two people even asked about it during my talks. I never had to take off my shoes on this trip (I did see a woman take off her large boots in Singapore but you could have hidden a cannon in them) and the customs agents were always at least polite. I think I said earlier that in Hong Kong they give you candy. When they explain the rules for entering the US on the airplane (I’m typing this right after hearing it) people just start to laugh they are so complex. The best thing about the US is, well, the US.
People can disagree but, speaking from an Indonesian perspective – and I think a lot of other places as well – people that have visited the US have been amazed at how open and friendly the people are. Borat made fun of the US but can you imagine Cohen trying to even make the movie in France – no one would have talked to him – the movie would have been shorter than a commercial. I’m not saying the people are well informed or always sensitive but, generally, they do what they can to accommodate people’s religious and personal beliefs. I have seen this time and again in the programs run by the Civic Initiative and testified to universally by every visitor I met in Indonesia. There was no dissent on the issue. One man I met had lived in Dayton Ohio (I’m sorry if I’m repeating things I wrote earlier) for ten years. He said that he had never met the kind of open minded people like he did in Dayton. Now, my New England readers may snicker about the red necks in the heartland, but, in fact, people with strong religious beliefs connect BETTER with Indonesians, not a tolerant secular person. He said he met every week for coffee and cookies with an InterFaith council in Kettering, hosted by a local Protestant church, and attended by Catholics, protestants, Jews, and Muslims.
But when it comes to getting here – we look bad sometimes. This isn’t to deny that security isn’t critical nor to suggest that a threat doesn’t exist but everything exists in a balance.
Let it be said here that the hardest country to get in and out of is the U.S. and this hurts our standing with visitors and potential students. Two people even asked about it during my talks. I never had to take off my shoes on this trip (I did see a woman take off her large boots in Singapore but you could have hidden a cannon in them) and the customs agents were always at least polite. I think I said earlier that in Hong Kong they give you candy. When they explain the rules for entering the US on the airplane (I’m typing this right after hearing it) people just start to laugh they are so complex. The best thing about the US is, well, the US.
People can disagree but, speaking from an Indonesian perspective – and I think a lot of other places as well – people that have visited the US have been amazed at how open and friendly the people are. Borat made fun of the US but can you imagine Cohen trying to even make the movie in France – no one would have talked to him – the movie would have been shorter than a commercial. I’m not saying the people are well informed or always sensitive but, generally, they do what they can to accommodate people’s religious and personal beliefs. I have seen this time and again in the programs run by the Civic Initiative and testified to universally by every visitor I met in Indonesia. There was no dissent on the issue. One man I met had lived in Dayton Ohio (I’m sorry if I’m repeating things I wrote earlier) for ten years. He said that he had never met the kind of open minded people like he did in Dayton. Now, my New England readers may snicker about the red necks in the heartland, but, in fact, people with strong religious beliefs connect BETTER with Indonesians, not a tolerant secular person. He said he met every week for coffee and cookies with an InterFaith council in Kettering, hosted by a local Protestant church, and attended by Catholics, protestants, Jews, and Muslims.
But when it comes to getting here – we look bad sometimes. This isn’t to deny that security isn’t critical nor to suggest that a threat doesn’t exist but everything exists in a balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)