Munir is an Indonesian human rights and anti-corruption activist who was assassinated in September of 2004 when travelling overseas to pursue doctorate studies in law. Munir was poisoned with arsenic when on a Garuda flight. In December President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono set up a presidential commission to probe the death, as Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN) involvement was widely suspected. By March of 2005, Indonesia police arrested Garuda pilot, Pollycarpus Budihari Priyatno and more recently, the commission has uncovered proof directly linking BIN to the murder suspect.

Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN)

Badan Intelijen Negara roughly translates to state intelligence agency, with the nearest Australian equivalent being ASIO. The Suharto regime mixed civil and military power into one. The Indonesian military and intelligence services were used for civil control. Since Indonesia over-threw Suharto in 1999, the country has been working hard to introduce reforms which remove this mix of civil and military - as too often the military and intelligence believe in their own impunity, as if they are above the law.

The killing of Munir, is within the vigilante tradition of the intelligence services and military of ensuring civil control through violence. President Yudhoyono's commission into this death, can be viewed as breaking BIN, so that it comes under the civil control of government, and adheres to the rule of law. This is part of the on-going battle against the corrupt and polluted remnants of Suharto's regime.

The former head of BIN has impeded the commission, the Jakarta Post reports ;

With just two weeks left of its mandate, a government-sanctioned fact-finding team remains unable to speak with former National Intelligence Body (BIN) chief A.M. Hendropriyono over possible links between the body and the poisoning death of rights activist Munir last September.

Hendropriyono was not alone in no co-operating, other BIN officials refused as well;

Several other former and current BIN officials have refused to respond to summons from the team for questioning, despite the protocol agreement signed by the team and current BIN chief Syamsir Siregar, which should allow the team to summon officials and access important documents.

Yudhoyono responded by extending the commission to June 23rd and encouraged BIN to co-operate. Munir was poisoned on a Garuda flight, and the airline, unlike BIN was quick to co-operate .

BIN Involvement in Munir's Murder

The Washington Post reports that the commission has uncovered evidence which links the suspects of the murder to the deputy director of BIN, Muchdi Purwopranjono.

Police Brig. Gen. Marsudhi Hanafi, who heads the commission, said last week that investigators had obtained a document detailing plans at Indonesia's State Intelligence Agency (BIN) to kill Munir and uncovered telephone records showing calls between numbers of a suspect in the murder and an official at the agency.

Muchdi Purwopranjono has stated in previous interviews that he did not know the suspect in the case, however Pollycarpus' cell phone contained an untraceable number. This was the office of the deputy director. In addition the commission has a document which describes the poisoning as one of four plots by BIN to kill Munir. The evidence and results of the commission will be turned over to prosecutors once the commission is finished.

Civil Control of Government

This commission is the on-going eradication of military and intelligence involvement in civil order - and the atrocities that stemmed from this mixing of military and civil responsibility. Hanafi's statement points this out;

"We believe this is an abuse of power in BIN. These people used BIN's power, authority and facilities to carry out this operation."

Hanafi is clearly stating that BIN has no authority to murder any Indonesia again. No longer is the committing of violence, or atrocity by the BIN or TNI against the Indonesian people, going to be tolerated. The military no longer has a place in maintaining civil order, that is for the police now. Under Suharto, BIN was a law unto itself, now it faces the President, Parliament, People, and rule of law.

Indonesia has been making remarkable strides forward; creating a civil police force, stripping the TNI of their guaranteed parliament seats, bringing the treasury and policy back to parliament; and ultimately making government accountable to the people again.

cam

In Muslim nations that go to the ballot box, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, extremist political parties get crushed by voters. Those extremists are not able to earn more than a few percent of the vote. Most people want good government, the electricity to work, the trains to run on time, low crime and so forth. The people are wise, and with a proper outlet to let that wisdom flow to government, superior outcomes prevail. Voters choose secular political parties over religious ones, and moderate parties over extremists.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two best examples of failed states which breed extremist views. Both use the state to advocate an intolerant religious monoculture that is the basis for their authority. To reject the state, dissenters also reject the monoculture by choosing extremism. Lately Australia is establishing the "National Security State" and expanding the "Shadow State". In addition the Australian conservative commenteriat are seeking to establish a monoculture. These place us closer to the conditions that make Saudi Arabia such a problem. Only the principles of Australian Republicanism can save us now.

Got Secularism?

Much attention has been focused on Muslims as the perpetrators of terrorism. This assumes that Muslims are a homogeneous group, dominated by violent fundamental beliefs. This is incorrect, and a lazy stereotype. It is only on the fringes of Islam that there is a conflict with modernism, but this is not unique to Islam, witness the Christian reaction to stem cell research in the United States . Democratic nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have overwhelmingly adopted secular governments when given the power to vote.

Indonesia contains the world's largest Muslim population in a nation-state. Nearly eighty percent of its 220 million population identify themselves as Muslim. In the 2004 Indonesian elections the Islamic party, Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP), was only able to gain 8% of the vote in Parliament and 3.1% in the Presidential race. In both cases losing out in majorities to secular candidates and parties. The Islamic Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) managed 10% of the parliamentary vote.

Bangladesh has a population of 144 million. Approximately eighty three percent of the population view themselves as Muslim, with Hindu being the next largest religion. In the 2001 elections , the Islamic political parties were not able to gain a majority, with the conservative Bangladesh Jatiyabadi Dal and social-democratic Bangladesh Awami League earning 87% of the vote combined.

Malaysia has a population of 23 million with approximately sixty three percent In the Dewan Rekyat (House of Representatives) election of 2004 the main secular party, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu, collected 64% of the vote. The Islamic Party, Parti Islam se Malaysia, managed 15% and the democratic party, Parti Tindakan Demokratik, got 9%.

As the election results in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia show, the people are wise and choose secular government over religious government. The will of the people is translating to the form of government in these democracies. The major problem is many nations that mix religion and state, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran is that they are either monarchies, autocracies or non-functioning democracies where voters are given no choice other than the existing ruling party.

Salafism and Saudi Arabia

Salafism or Wahabism is an Islamic movement traces its origins with the theologian, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in the 16thC. Salafism seeks to purify Islam by returning Muslims to the original principles of Islam. Salafism seeks to remove innovations in religious practice and idolatry (polytheism). Muhammad bin Saud established the House of Saud, which today rules over Saudi Arabia. Saud married bin Abdul's daughter, and combined his rule with Salafism to establish wider legitimacy for the Sauds. Salafism was not a widely popular religious movement in Islam until it was propagated by the House of Saud, especially in the latter half of the 20thC with Saudi Arabia's immense oil wealth.

The 1970s saw a different dynamic enter the Middle East, many of the secular regimes, such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq failed in their promise, and became single party states designed to maintain the power of the present leaders. The autocratic governments also stifled all dissent. Opposition was either forced out of the country, driven underground into silence, or into violent extremism. Iran took the third path and a Shia theocracy came to power through revolution. Iran used the wealth and power of the state to expand the influence of their religious doctrine through the Middle East.

Salafism is based on Sunni beliefs. The Shia and Sunni denomination's of Islam are the two largest and represent a sectarian split based on who the successor was to the Prophet Muhammad. In the 1980, Saudi Arabia used the wealth of the state to expand Salafist teachings. From the 911 Commission ;

In the 1980s, awash in sudden oil wealth, Saudi Arabia competed with Shia Iran to promote its Sunni fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism. The Saudi government, always conscious of its duties as the custodian of Islam's holiest places, joined with wealthy Arabs from the Kingdom and other states bordering the Persian Gulf in donating money to build mosques and religious schools that could preach and teach their interpretation of Islamic doctrine.

The 1980s saw the expansion of madrassa . These are Islamic schools, most of which teach a non-violent purist Islamic tradition. A significant number, however, act as recruiting agents for violent extremism. Many of the worst madrassa were in Pakistan where mujahideen where trained for the Afghan war against the Soviets.

It is obvious that the rise of violent extremism arises from several sources. These are;

• State sponsorship
• Governments which derive their legitimacy and authority from religion
• Non-democratic regimes that do not tolerate dissent

It should be noted that the first issue, state sponsorship of violent extremism is not limited to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. During the Afghan war the United States funded and trained many mujahideen's in Pakistan. This is a classic example of "Blowback" .

Violent Extremism and Saudi Arabia

Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national until Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship. He came from the wealthy and large bin Laden family which has also disowned him due to his involvement in Al Qaeda and terrorism. Al Qaeda came from the mujahideen operations in Soviet invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden established the ideologically driven group to create conflict between Islam and the West. Al Qaeda used terrorism for this purpose.

Bin Laden set up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where it was believed that in the mid-1990s, seventy percent of recruits in the camps were from Saudi Arabia. This may have been related to Bin Laden's offer of mujahideen to protect Saudi Arabia being rejected in 1991 and Bin Laden soon after issuing a self-styled fatwa condemning the House of Saud and demanding Muslims drive American forces out of Saudi Arabia. The high number of Saudi nationals being involved in Al Queda translated into the September 11th attacks with fifteen of the nineteen hijackers being Said Arabian.

The recent Brookings Institute Iraq Index publication has another interesting statistic. Of foreign insurgents killed in Iraq, Saudi Arabians account for sixty eight percent with ninety-four having been killed.

It is estimated that the Iraqi insurgents number approximately 20,000. Of these around 1,000 of them are foreign fighters. In comparison to other nations, Saudi Arabia is over-represented when it comes to violent extremism.

Secular Liberalism

The Saudi Arabian example shows the secular liberalism is not the problem, it is state supported religion and autocratic secularism that is the cause of disruption and disturbance in the world. Saudi Arabia is one of the more extreme samples. Disaffected Saudi's are unable to change the state through voting, their monarchy being totally opposed to any form of popular merit. The Saudi schools teach a non-tolerant form of Salafism, and that is exported by Saudi money to madrassa internationally.

Since the state and Salafism are entwined, those that reject the state must also reject the Saudi form of Sunnism, and often do so by embracing a more radical, extreme and violent interpretation of Salafism. This added to the problem of sixty percent of the Middle East being under the age of twenty-four leads to a massive problem that is having global repercussions.

Once again Indonesia is the great modern hope, through the people voting their will, Indonesia has established a secular democracy that is embracing secular liberal and liberal democratic traditions. It is important to note, that it was the wisdom of the people that led Indonesia to the position. In 1999 the Indonesia people overthrew the Suharto dictatorship through a popular uprising, and then voted in secular, rather than religious parties.

Indonesia wanted good government, and gave themselves the environment to avoid the problems that Saudi Arabia, Iran and other parts of the Middle East face. When Indonesia was wracked by terrorism, it was quickly squashed through civil trials that were conducted openly and publicly. Terrorism was quickly deemed criminal and not tolerated by the justice system. But rather than military trials which are done privately and in secret, the civil judicial system has popular legitimacy and the involvement of jurors. It is far more legitimate than any military tribunal.

The Anti-Reformation

Labor and Liberalism won in the 20thC. The major parties in Australia are social-democratic. Both left and right continue to expand the state and social services. Under the supposedly conservative Liberal government in Australia the percent of GDP collected by the government in tax has increased from twenty-six percent to nearly thirty-five. Liberalism also won. Multi-culturalism, which is a logical outcome of maximum liberty was accepted, as was economic liberty through economic rationalism.

After September 11th, the United States decided to pursue terrorism as a military problem. The United Kingdom and Australia were quick to follow. All three nations realigned their domestic focus to what appears to a permanent "National Security State". No longer are cities, or nations defined by their society, their culture, their economy or their liberty; they are now defined by how secure they are. Advocates of the National Security State go as far to claim that a city or nation that is insecure is a failed one.

Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have expanded the private space of government by giving new powers to the "shadow state". A Republic comes from the Latin term publis . This means that government occupies the public space, not the private space of the despot, the tyrant or the autocrat. Western nations have used terrorism and the "National Security State" to collapse the public actions of government and hide them from public view.

In the United States, the Transport Security Agency has laws that the public must follow, but cannot read. Laws are now becoming secret . This makes them impossible to follow. The PATRIOT Act allows the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to act without civil oversight, or the knowledge of the suspect. The Act also enables the mixing of domestic and foreign intelligence; a result of the United States deciding on a military solution to terrorism.

Attacking Speech and Liberty

The United States has not acted to outlaw free speech, but the United Kingdom which has recently faced home-grown terrorism, now is. Foreigners that engage in hateful speech can be deported. From a BBC article ;

New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record. Consultation on the plans will finish this month.

Implied in many of the measures is that multi-culturalism has failed, and that the "National Security State" must be a unitary nation-state with one culture, one central government; and one purpose - security. Australian commentators have lead the attack on multi-culturalism, seeing secular liberalism as the feeding and breeding ground for terrorism. This rabid rhetoric is used as an excuse to establish the unitary "National Security State", Devine writes ;

Kowtowing to the unreasonable demands of intolerant minorities trying to impose their will on the majority is not going to safeguard Australia from "fanatical religious hate, exclusion, death and terror", as Parker seems to think. Quite the opposite.

Concepts of tolerance, freedom and loving one's neighbour as oneself don't exist in a vacuum, any more than "ethics" exist without a moral framework.

Trying to erase the long-established culture of Australia, permanently rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and replacing it with vapid, secularist nothingness is not going to help. It simply creates a vacuum for radical Islam to rush in and fill.

This is the authoritarian anti-liberal nonsense at its absolute worst. Devine's advocacy for one culture and one nation fail, simply because her vision of what constitutes a viable society, culture and nation cannot be achieved without government intervention. Lack of liberty is an unnatural state for a society and requires high energy and cost by the government to enforce. This is why autocracies are always doomed to failure, the more liberties that are taken, the higher the cost to the society and the more energy that is dissipated in maintain authoritarianism.

In the United States, the devoutly Christian Senator, Rick Santorum, was on radio recently discussing his book . Santorum rails against the Libertarian wing of the American Republican party. Like Devine he claims the Judeo-Christian tradition is the only way the United States can remain a viable society and culture. This requires government policy to follow religious doctrine. Like Devine, Santorum fails it, their vision of society is not possible without government's monopoly on violence and coercion to prop it up and sustain it.

Conclusion

Terrorism has been a foreign policy issue for Australia, with Indonesia taking the hits for us. We are fortunate we have such a wise and effective nation as Indonesia as our neighbour. Given the current environment of hysteria from the government and media, I would not be surprised if we bungled the prosecution of a terrorist attack. Creating political outcomes where only the justice inherent in our civil system was necessary.

The more civil liberties that are removed, the harder the state attempts to enforce monoculturalism, the greater the expansion of government into the private space of the "shadow state"; all place us closer to components that make failed states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran such hotbeds for extremist ideology.

The answer to terrorism in Australia is the secular liberalism of Australian Republicanism. Maximum liberty, tempered by individual rights and bound by inclusive and responsive minimal government is the best means to defeat terrorism and the environment that breeds and amplifies it.

cam

The cheapest oil on the planet is in Indonesia. The government subsidies it heavily, to the tune of about 3% Indonesia GDP, and approximately 30% of the Indonesia government budget. By comparison, Australia spends about 2% GDP on its military. This is a pretty massive and expensive subsidy for the Indonesia government. They have tried to remove it in the past, Suharto tried so in 1999 at the IMF's urging, but coupled with contagion, this contributed toward the Indonesian's throwing Suharto out. President Yudhoyono is going to remove the subsidy, Indonesians can expect to see petrol price rises of nearly 90%.

From the ABC Asia Pacific article;

Indonesia is the biggest oil producer in South East Asia but, due to ageing oil fields and underinvestment in exploration, domestic production has been unable to keep up with growing demand. In 2004, Indonesia became a net importer of oil for the first time. But the products are being sold to consumers at much cheaper prices than Pertamina is forced to pay on the world market.

...

Subsidies are also blamed for the black market trade in cheap petroleum products bought in Indonesia and smuggled out to be sold at higher prices in countries such as Singapore. Eighteen Pertamina officials were implicated in a smuggling ring uncovered this month.

The fight for a secular liberal democracy and a market economy in Indonesia goes on. From some of the interviews of Indonesians I heard on NPR, it sounds like Indonesians accept that the removal of subsidies is necessary, though many qualified this by wanting the money saved to be spent on other services and infrastructure for the people. Others worried that this money might disappear to corruption.

The eyes of politicians and economists around the world will be on Indonesia as it removes the subsidy and Indonesians get used to higher gas prices.

The common political cry in the national security state is that civilisation is an angels breath away from toppling over due to a terrorist attack. This fear, uncertainty and doubt is untrue. Once again, and despite another attack on Bali, the Indonesian people are showing their great strength and integrity. They over-threw a tyrant and dictator on their own, a few terrorists are mosquito bites in comparison. However, Indonesians want to eradicate it from their lives. Ahmad Dhani is releasing his own "smart ideological bombs in return.

From the article;

One of the people watching this tragedy unfold was a brilliant young musician named Ahmad Dhani. Leader of the immensely popular rock band Dewa, Dhani began to use his musical platform to influence millions of fans in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia to resist the tide of religious extremism.

In response to Laskar Jihad's atrocities, and to discredit the appeal of fundamentalist ideology, Dhani composed the best-selling album "Laskar Cinta" ("Warriors of Love"). Released in November 2004, it quickly rose to the top of the charts as millions of young Indonesians embraced its message of love, peace and tolerance.

...

Yet rather than be intimidated, Dhani recently announced to the Indonesian press his plan to launch another "ideological smart bomb" -- in the form of a song that uses the revelatory tone of the Koran to declare: "Truth dwells in the hearts of those who love and are free of hatred; the hearts of those who hate . . . are possessed by Satan."

Dhani and his group are on the front lines of a global conflict, defending Islam from its fanatical hijackers. In a world all too often marred by hatred and violence committed in the name of religion, they seek to rescue an entire generation from Wahhabi-financed extremists whose goal is to transform Muslim youth into holy warriors and suicide bombers. For every young Indonesian seduced by the ideology of hatred and fanaticism -- including those responsible for the recent, awful attacks in Bali -- countless others see through the extremists' web of lies and hatred, in no small part thanks to the visionary courage of people like Ahmad Dhani.

I am continually amazed by the Indonesian people, we are fortunate to have such an invigorating people as our neighbours.

The US is restoring military ties with Indonesia after breaking them off over East Timor. Since then Indonesia has been working to remove the military from being the police of the country and entwined in the policy and budget. This is another step in the right direction for Indonesia. Australia is facing the real possibility of having a new China on its front doorstep - but in the case of Indonesia, it will be democratic.

From the article;

"The Administration considers the relationship between the United States and Indonesia, the world's third largest democracy, to be of the utmost importance," Mr McCormack said.

He said Indonesia played a unique strategic role in South-East Asia and was a voice of moderation in the Islamic world. "Indonesia has made significant progress in advancing its democratic institutions and practices in a relatively short time."

Very, very true; and very, very impressive in my opinion. Prior coverage of Indonesia on South Sea Republic;

• Munir Said Thalib
• Indonesia Oil Subsidy
• The Strength of the Indonesia People

I remain a fan of Indonesia's progress and convinced that Australian greater prosperity will come through Indonesian prosperity.

cam

but Greg Sheridan is so reflexively political , that he wastes it. It is contempt for his subject matter and the dignity of the person he was interviewing.

Indonesia is blossoming as a secular liberal democratic trading nation, something that Australia should be celebrating as it will ultimately give us a benign military region, and a massive economy to trade with on our front doorstep - and he peppers his article with this;

Take next week's summit. Some rather hysterical Australian regionalists see this as a great historical moment, the creation of a new East Asian community that excludes the US . The view from Jakarta is much more sceptical, cautious and down-to-earth.

and this;

In other words, unlike the reflexive Bush-bashers and Howard-haters in Australia, Wirajuda recognises the importance of the democratic process in Iraq and supports it. Implicit in that position is the assumption that the US-led coalition, now operating under UN mandate, needs to continue providing security for the political process to mature.

Dumb-arse.

So when does this cease to be journalism and become a writing style? This is more suited to a blog than a newspaper. It is as reflexive and cliched as the Bush-bashing and Howard-hating Sheridan rails against.

Back in November 2004 Avocadia asked, " Where is the gain in refusing to sign up to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation?"

It remains Alexander Downer's turn to answer that question .

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has signed a non-aggression treaty with Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Signing the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South-East Asia was the condition for Australia's admission to the East Asia Summit.

Heh. From the World Today; Amity treaty spells an end to Australia's pre-emption policy

The treaty specifically calls for signatories to renounce the threat of the use of force, emphasising respect for territorial integrity, free from external interference or coercion.

Indonesia was the first to say it meant the end of John Howard's pre-emptive strike policy in Asia. Malaysia's Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar was less explicit, but said Canberra understood the implications of what it was signing up to.

Which suggests the pre-emption was just talking tough prior to an election. But in November 2004, Downer raised a good point in how the Treaty limited Australia. Downer said;

"(This) has been interpreted by successive Australian governments as making it impossible for any Australian government for example to criticise Burma on human rights issues," Mr Downer told ABC TV.

Yet at the pre-ASEAN conference in Kuala Lumpar Malaysia has been strident in criticising Burma, with Downer joining in . So has this issue with the Treaty been resolved? Was this the only sticking point? Journalists can feel free to ask Alexander Downer these questions.

Anything that brings us toward Indonesia is a good thing in my opinion. South Pacific prosperity is going to come through Australia and Indonesia having a tight political, diplomatic, economic and trading relationship. Our prosperity will come through Indonesia, just as their prosperity will come through us.

cam

I have long contended that Australian prosperity will come through Indonesia and vice versa. I was glad to see that QANTAS is buying a twenty percent stake in Indonesia's AdamAir . Though it may be prompted in part by Singapore's unruly airline regulation schemes, it is recognition that Indonesia's market is not only growing, but that Australian business has confidence in its economy and legal systems. Indonesia has come a long way since the corruption of the Suharto regime.

Market economies tend to max out GDP per capita as it consumes the entire population into the economic effort. Indonesia has a population of approximately 220 Billion. It is highly likely, if Indonesia continues on the path of a free-market democracy, that in fifty years time it will rival Japan for GDP and economic activity. This will place it somewhere between seven and ten times the size of the Australian economy.

One of the benefits is that we will have a multi-trillion dollar economy right on our northern doorstep to trade with. There is the added advantage of not only regional interests in economic, political and martial stability, but also in both nations prospering. If Australia is going to pursue bi-lateral trade agreements, it should create a genuine free trade agreement with Indonesia.

Not managed trade, but free trade.

Currently Australia and Indonesia are largely complementary economies, and a free trade agreement without any barrier to trade would help both nations on the path to increasing prosperity.

There are other benefits to Indonesia prosperity. A wealthy Indonesia with its political stability predicated on trading and democracy will seek regional stability in its foreign affairs. A far cry from the sabre-rattling, nationalist and arbitrary policies of Sukarno and Suharto.

Indonesia will most likely pass us in defence capability, but if it is a democratic nation that we have strong economic ties this is not a cause for concern. Especially if both our large economies are entwined. Stability will be demanded between the two nations by business leaders and consumers.

Canada and New Zealand also have benefits of being in a benign region. Canada spends approximately 1.2% GDP on its military. This is barely enough to cover salary inflation for its service men and women. Canada's vulnerabilities are protected by the American military behemoth, why should Canada over-fund?

New Zealand is in a similar situation. Australia has a regionally dominant military which covers both Australia's and New Zealand's vulnerabilities. Why should New Zealand maintain an air force with long range strike aircraft when Australia has the capability to cover that possibility.

It will be the same with a prosperous Indonesia for Australia. All our geographic vulnerabilities involve the air-sea gap between us and Indonesia. As the Suharto era Indonesia military retire, or are kicked out, a new generation of Indonesians will rise through the ranks. Rationality will replace dictatorship corruption and involvement in civil affairs. Strong defence ties between Australia and Indonesia will ensure the South Pacific is an area of political, economic and martial stability.

Hardt and Negri comment on nation-building;

Nothing could be more post-modern and anti-essentialist than this notion of nation building. It reveals, on the one hand, that the nation has become something purely contingent, fortuitous, or, as philosophers would say, accidental. That is why nations can be destroyed and fabricated as part of a political program.

The experience of Indonesia suggest that the forging of a nation has to come from a desire within, rather than an external imposition.

I am not a philosopher, so am not so familiar that I can throw terms like post-modern and anti-essentialist around with confidence. What does Wikipedia have to say on post-modernism;

Although a difficult term to pin down, "post-modern" generally refers to the criticism of absolute truths or identities and "grand narratives."

Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for anti-essentialism, but does have one for essentialism;

Essentialism is the belief and practice centered on a philosophical claim that for any specific kind of entity it is at least theoretically possible to specify a finite list of characteristics, all of which any entity must have to belong to the group defined.

Presumably anti-essentialism is the belief that an entity has no defining characteristics.

Hardt and Negri note that most of the international system of power, politics and trade rely on the nation-state as part of its hierarchy and maintenance of order. In the modern world of globalism, the nation-state remains indispensable. They also note that the strongest nations were forged internally, through many centuries of social development that ultimately led to the stability of the nation in a liberalistic and democratic organisation.

Hardt and Negri continue;

The contemporary projects of nation building are by contrast imposed by force from the outside through a process that now goes by the name regime change. Such nation building resembles less the modern revolutionary birth of nations than it does the process of colonial powers dividing up the globe and drawing the maps of their subject territories.

Conservatives like to cast the world since September 11th as being a cultural war, of global concern between the West and Islam. But this absolutist and doctrinaire view of the world gets knocked on the head when Iraq and Indonesia are compared.

The modern nation-state of Indonesia came out of the over-throw of the dictator Suharto. Since then the Indonesia government has flushed the military from its political system; removing their parliamentary seats, removing them from being responsible for civil order, removing them from the budgetary process. As a result the social turbulence in Aceh, Irian Jira and East Timor are quieting down as the military's role in aggravating tensions are stifled by civil political control.

For Indonesia, freedom came from within, not from without. It was not the result of imposition by an external power who then "nation-built" them. It was Indonesians doing it for themselves; seemingly the only way a nation-state can be constructed.

One of Indonesia's achievements in the last eight years has been to re-civilise their political institutions after Suharto militarised them to the point of permanent corruption. Many of the ills in the Indonesian system, and future challenges involve flushing the mix of military and civil responsibilities in the Indonesian political system.

Indonesia's military under Suharto had seats in their main legislative body, the Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat ; occupying twenty percent of the seats. The Indonesian democrats, those committed to good governance and civil control of government, finally flushed the military from their unicameral legislative body in October 2004 . If anything they managed to speed up the democratic reform process as the initial agreement was for no military parliamentary seats by 2007.

The TNI also maintains a regional and local structure which is a left over from their days when they controlled civil order. At the TNI's height it comprised four hundred thousand soldiers, of which two hundred thousand were military police devoted to civil order.

It is hard to imagine that Indonesia did not have a police force until recently. In 1964 the police force was subsumed into the military at Sukarno's demand. It remained under military control until 1999 when it was separated from the TNI, even though it remains under the defence minister's control it is now part of the Executive, rather than the military.

The TNI is well known, even now, for abusing its power by trying to control separatist groups; East Timor, Aceh and West Papua are examples of this. While this may have been par for the course under Suharto, it is no longer acceptable under a civil government.

The Aceh treaty was an under-reported success. It was an incident where the civil government asserted their control over the TNI, wresting political power from them, in an area where they were allowed open-slather under Suharto.

The Munir Said Thalib trial is another under-reported example of the civil government asserting control, this time over the BIN and Indonesian intelligence community.

The Indonesian government was stamping their foot down over what was nothing more than the BIN acting as mavericks and executing a civilian.

The recent nationalist stance by Yudhoyono over the West Papua refugees was discouraging. The disturbances are undoubtedly being caused by the TNI acting outside of parliamentary and presidential control.

I don't consider nationalism a valid ideology. It is a political device, designed to reflexively collapse popular support to the central government.

That Yudhoyono used nationalism and Konfrontasi politics, such as recalling an ambassador, suggests that he is politically weak at home and the TNI have the upper hand in West Papua.

This is not good for Indonesia, Indonesian democracy and Australia. Both countries are dependant on stable and secure relations for not on their own, but their neighbours, prosperity.

Focusing on the ills of the Suharto regime are informative on how not to run a government. I read this morning that President Bush is considering expanding the National Guard's (state militia) presence in border control activities.

Apart from them not being the President's to command, they have to be requested from the states, the existing National Guard are deployed on emergency powers in Arizona and New Mexico.

But the national security state is another permutation of the state of exception going from exception to permanence. If the National Guard is being deployed then it is likely that a once civil responsibility will become militarised.

Like Indonesia's police were.

The American CIA is a civil agency that is part of the executive. Recently President Bush nominated a uniformed officer to head the civil agency. This is another example of the militarising of the civil government structures.

As Indonesian history shows us, as does their recent struggles to re-establish liberal democracy, mixing the military and civil has negative effects.

For liberty's sake, they are best kept entirely separate.