INDO-PAKISTAN PEACE PROCESS

INDO-PAKISTAN PEACE PROCESS
(Views for the better relation between both countries)

Over the past year, India and Pakistan have been taking tentative steps towards improving their bilateral relations. The foreign ministers of both countries met to review the progress made on the Indo-Pakistani roadmap to peace. A hope for peaceful life is revived in South Asia region when several signals and attempts have been proposed to settle the Indo-Pak conflict. Despite the fact that reveals inaccuracy of prior attempts of settlement, many would still believe the possibility of peace process of the region. It seems that the most exacerbating part to have hampered this process is the nuclear capability which each of India and Pakistan operated. All would have considered the direct consequence of nuclear warfare as a result of Indo-Pak conflictual relation which would be deliberately destructive. Therefore global community of international world was very attentive and cautious to the region’s conflicting situation.

Currently, most analysts would state the availability of better chances towards this peace process. Each of India and Pakistan which largely dominate strategic affairs within the region for their bit of superiority looks more aware of ineffective gains they might attain from their tension. They begin then to conceive ineffectiveness of such rivalry, and shift their attention to establish a better relation of peaceful life which ultimately allows them to acquire much more mutual gains. Thus, this perspective deserves great attention and impression of external power like US since the form of relations between India and Pakistan would shape or at least give significant influence to the regional circumstances. While still deeply divided over issue of Kashmir and in agreement that the tangible outcomes have been minimal to date, both reaffirmed their commitment to the ongoing process. The emerging development merits attention for several reasons. First, South Asia is the only region in the world where two nuclear-armed neighbors are in active conflict. Second, Pakistan is a critical partner in the global war in terror, particularly US which wants to ensure Pakistan’s active support to counter terrorism activities along the Pakistan-Afghanistan borders and within Pakistan. Third, one of the few means that Pakistan has developed to coerce concessions from India has been the use of militants. Given the complexities and challenges facing both states, there should be joint initiative and cooperation of the two. It is agreed that India and Pakistan were confronting several internal political changes during the initial period of rapprochement. For India’s side, the past sustained dissonance with Islamabad has strained its ability to continue an internal dialogue with the various groups in Kashmir. Pakistan although has endured its standoff with India, it has also confronted with numerous threats along its border with Afghanistan, and its internal security environment continues to deteriorate.

India and Pakistan presumably disagree over the centrality of the Kashmir dispute in their historically bitter relations। For the Pakistan, Kashmir is a pivotal dispute that precludes normalization with India. Pakistan thus, seeks to engage India to find some means of altering, in various ways, the status quo and publicly rejects the possibility of transforming Line of Control (LON) into the international borders as a viable means of dispute resolution. For Pakistan the status quo is the problem, not the solution of the problem. New Delhi on the other hand, is loath to concede that there is even a valid dispute over Kashmir, claiming that that the 1947 accession of Kashmir to India during partition is as an indisputable fact. It then seeks to engage Pakistan to legitimize the territorial status quo by finding some means to formalize the Line of Control as the legal international border. Thus for India, status quo is a basis for a solution to the ongoing dispute over the disposition of Kashmir. There is no doubt that progress towards the settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute along with improved environment through interaction among Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control will greatly help the process of normalization of relations between Pakistan and India. Eventually the peace process must lead to the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, which would usher in an era of good neighborly relations between the two countries. That environment would also be conducive to the conclusion of a treaty of friendship. Here, my recommendation towards peace process within the region and better relation between India and Pakistan would cover several numbers of opinions including the ideas regarding self-governance, demilitarization and joint management which have found resonance among Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control.

This proposal needs further consideration;
ü First, there should be a consistent attitude performed by the both India and Pakistan to retain any proposal and idea of peace process. Such agreement should be irreversible in a sense that no party would make any intention or action which would break and violate the agreed proposal. This could be further developed through cross-border transportation, managing inter-community contact such as sport and art as well as disarmament alongside borders and Siachen area.

ü Second, no toleration should be given to any terrorist actions which might devastate mutual relation between India and Pakistan. The issue of terrorism should have been one of the major rifts which both parties have to solve. This statement would reveal that each of India and Pakistan would guarantee its non-involvement to any terrorist attack confronted by other. Each party would assure not to let such terrorism to use their territory as its central bases. Any terrorist attack therefore needs to be solved through a more persuasive way by comprising mutual cooperation and effort. They should not provide any chance, however little for terrorism to break the establishment of peaceful relation of the region.

ü Third, a commitment is a must to further analyze and implement a long term direction of normalization including the issue of military prisoners and the settlement of Jammu and Kashmir as well as diplomatic relation which should be undertaken soon after.

ü The fourth step would point out the necessity of extending a wider sphere of mutual interaction and cooperation along the borders including partly bus transportation and inter-border trading system in Kashmir as well as assurance of final settlement over existing disputes. This would also include attempts to expand larger range where population contacts within India and Pakistan could be provided.

ü Fifth, a joint statement would result in any commitment to continually accelerate export-import activities of certain products and underline the need of larger business interaction. It seems that Indo-Pak attention might be gradually converted into economically more beneficial focuses or other strategic directions.

ü Sixth, the increased demand of public towards natural energy of gas and oil would have its effect in stimulating the creation of comprehensive dialogue undertaken by both parties. Many would greatly expect the benefits of a natural gas pipeline through Iran, Pakistan and India in fostering confidence between the two states. Thus the cooperation is believed to be apparently acquired through the aid or auspices of the World Bank. The dialogue would mediate any initiative relied upon to solve their mutual problem. The accessibility of this energy of gas and oil from Iran and middle Asia would finally require communal solution and aid. What I am going to say is that India and Pakistan could be brought into unity when they perceived collective threat or global enemy which could resist and undermine their internal economic and political stability. The issue of oil and gas, since then would comprehensively merit this consideration.

Above all, Kashmir region would not only retain its privileges of sovereignty but also ability to attain their own united territory. It should have been proposed that Kashmir be thoroughly integrated into the South Asia Free Trade Agreement, bringing economic benefits to all three parties, while leaving the status quo intact. Such economic integration would require massive infrastructure project, for example roads, transportation, communication, electricity management, and possibly even a reworking of the Indus Water Treaty.
As the foregoing proposal suggests, without creativity and commitment to dispute resolution, it is difficult to imagine normalization of Indo-Pakistan relations in the future. What should be done then is to implement such proposal into practical activities and hand to hand accept external aids to the extent that it would not dictate nor underestimate our sovereignty.

KEJUTAN KEBAHAGIAAN
Oleh: zhyntativ


Adalah diriku pulang dengan langkah gontai setelah seharian bergelut dengan tugas kantor dan bermacam kesibukan yang sangat melelahkan. Malam itu kudapati rumah yang sepi, tak ada istri yang seperti biasa menyambut dengan senyuman, tak ada juga canda dan tawa anak-anak yang berebut ingin memberikan salam dan cium tangan. Sungguh hari sangat melelahkan.
Perlahan kubuka pintu, namun tak seorangpun terlihat di ruang tamu. Hanya gelap dan semuanya gelap. “Aah...entah kemana mereka, barangkali mereka pergi keluar untuk sekedar jalan-jalan…”pikirku. Dengan malas, kulemparkan tubuh ini keatas sofa, namun…
Tiba-tiba terdengar suara “…Selamat Ulang Tahun Ayah!!!...”. kulihat dari ruang keluarga muncullah istri dan anak-anakku membawa sebuah kue tar yang dibentuk sedemikian rupa serta hiasan lilin ditengah-tengahnya. Sungguh betapa mereka sangat mengejutkanku. “Ahaa…hari ini adalah hari ulang tahunku” teriakku sembari menghampiri mereka dan memeluk mereka satu persatu. Lihatlah senyum dan tawa itu, lihatlah kebahagiaan yang dilimpahkan kepada kami. Betapa beruntung diri ini. Betapa mereka telah memberikan kejutan yang begitu membahagiakan.
Artinya, bahwa hidup manusia adalah kebahagian, dan kebahagiaan itu salah satunya adalah dengan memberikan kejutan terhadap orang yang berada disamping kita, orang-orang yang setiap hari bergaul dengan kita, sahabat-sahabat dan keluarga kita.
Renungkanlah ketika anda diletakkan dalam sebuah keadaan untuk menyikapi dua kemungkinan berikut ini. Antara seseorang yang mengharapkan sesuatu dari anda, misalkan sebuah jeruk dan kemudian anda memberikannya. Yang terjadi kemudian hanyalah “sekedar” ucapan terima kasih bahkan kadang basa-basi dan begitu seterusnya. Kemudian pada kesempatan kedua, anda lihat seorang teman menginginkan hal yang sama, namun hanya memendam keinginan tersebut. Maka berikanlah jeruk itu untuknya, dan lihatlah betapa dia akan mengatakan “dua kali terima kasih”. Sebuah pemberian yang tidak disangka-sangka, dan inilah kejutan untuknya.
Lihatlah kekuatan kejutan itu. Kejutan untuk ungkapan dua kali terima kasih, yang terucapkan oleh mulut dan tergerakkan oleh hati yang tulus. Bahwa untuk menumbuhkan dan memelihara ketulusan hati dan kasih sayang, kita memerlukan banyak kejutan kebahagiaan. Maka sebarkanlah kebahagiaan itu kepada siapa saja dan dimana saja.
Jika anda adalah seorang suami maka persembahkanlah sebuah kejutan untuk istri anda. Jika anda adalah seorang ayah, maka berikanlah kejutan itu untuk anak-anak anda. Jika anda adalah seorang atasan, maka berbagilah kebahagiaan dengan memberikan kejutan untuk bawahan anda. Dan jika anda adalah seorang teman, maka berikanlah kejutan itu untuk orang lain dan kepada siapa saja.
Lihatlah hari ini, betapa keluargaku telah mewujudkan kasih sayang mereka dengan sebuah perayaan kecil untuk ulang tahunku dan itulah kejutan kebahagiaan.

Persembahkanlah kejutan kebahagiaan untuk mereka, karena itu merupakan pernyataan yang cukup bahwa anda menyayangi mereka.
zhyntativ@yahoo.com





Sering kita merasa kehilangan terhadap sesuatu yang bukan milik kita
Dan ternyata semuanya hanyalah pinjaman dan titipan Tuhan kepada kita.
Maka jagalah pinjaman atau titipan itu, karena Tuhan akan segera menagihnya.
Tuhan setiap saat akan datang untuk mengambilnya dari kita.
Kewajiban setiap peminjam adalah mengembalikan.

Opini dan Analisa; OBAMA & USA 2009 ?

Opini dan Analisa

OBAMA & USA 2009 ?

Barack Obama adalah calon kuat presiden AS dalam pemilu presiden 2009 dari partai Demokrat. Ia adalah salah satu simbol perubahan perpolitikan AS pada khususnya dan dunia secara global. Perubahan itu bisa kita lihat dari setiap statement yang ia jual disetiap kampanye dihadapan ribuan pendukungnya. Kebijakan politik AS selama ini merupakan refleksi dari sebuah Ideology Oppressive Imperialistic yang selalu menekankan kekuatan militer sebagai determinant terhadap keamanan Negara serta kepentingan-kepentingannya. Situasi percaturan politik dunia menurut AS, adalah sebuah konsekwensi dari setiap kompetisi tanpa henti dan endurable clash of interests dimana setiap individu adalah musuh bagi individu yang lain.

Apa yang Obama coba tawarkan kepada warga AS dan dunia adalah sebuah Persuasive Diplomacy yang menekankan pada kerja sama dan mutual co-existence antar Negara, multikulturisme, pemanfaatan energy alternative, menghentikan pendudukan tentara AS di Iraq, pelarangan pemanfaatan energi nuklir serta pengembangannya dan lain-lain. Platform ini merupakan implementasi dari Ideologi Liberalist yang dianut Partai Demokrat. Ideology ini menekankan kerjasama antar negara, kebebasan individu, hak-hak warga Negara baik yang positif maupun negative, pembebasan politik dari nilai-nilai agama yang dogmatis, progessivitas ethics/ penisbian nilai-nilai dari setiap tradisi, penghapusan dominasi sebuah kelompok atas kelompok yang lain, kebijakan preventive terhadap segala kemungkinan timbulnya revolusi di masyarakat (mixed economy) dan lain sebagainya. Itu semua parallel dengan isu-isu yang diusung oleh para tokoh Socialist liberalism dan Socialist Progressivism. Tiga ideology ini nampaknya telah menjadi landasan berpikir dan pengambilan kebijakan seluruh presiden AS dari partai Demokrat.

Obama mengkritik kegagalan administrasi president Bush dalam pengiriman tentara AS ke Iraq. Kebijakan tersebut, menurutnya adalah naïf dan kesalahan konyol karena AS harus menghadapi masalah persiapan yang sulit, masalah pendudukan yang kompleks serta biaya dan konsekwensi yang tidak terbayangkan. AS terlanjur terlibat dalam sebuah perang sipil Negara lain yang telah merenggut korban kurang lebih 3.200 personel mati. Pengembangan teknologi nuklir oleh sebuah otoritas teokrasi menurut AS, meskipun untuk tujuan sipil, berpotensi menghancurkan perdamaian dunia. Namun, usaha untuk menyalahkan Iraq atas tuduhan kepemilikan senjata nuklir tersebut hingga saat ini belum terbukti. Akibatnya, AS harus kehilangan sejumlah besar dukungan rakyatnya dan malahan mendapatkan image yang jelek dari Negara-negara lain, khusunya Negara-negara Islam. Situasi dalam dan luar negeri yang kurang preferrable tersebut menjadi semakin kompleks apabila kita menunjuk dampak yang timbul kemudian, yaitu munculnya embrio-embrio terrorisme. Maka semua orang akan mengatakan hal yang sama, bahwa AS telah menciptakan musuhnya sendiri.

Dalam hal ini, Obama menyatakan kebijakannya tentang troops redeployment, yaitu penarikan mundur tentara AS dari Iraq secara bertahap selama 16 bulan. Masa depan Iraq menurutnya adalah hak dan tanggung jawab penuh bagi tiga kelompok besar di Iraq yaitu Sunni, Shiiet dan Kurds. Proses ini dimaksudkan sebagai sebuah usaha keluar yang bertanggung jawab (responsible exit) dari Iraq.

Tentang Iran, Obama memilih Aggressive Personal Diplomacy yang mengagendakan pertemuan dengan Ahmedinnajad (dan pemimpin-pemimpin Negara lain) dalam sebuah meja diplomasi yang diselenggarakan dalam sebuah framework of Mutual Understanding yang bersahabat dengan tanpa syarat. Obama nampaknya mencoba untuk tidak mengadakan pergantian kepemimpinan di Iran.

Dari sedikit ulasan diatas, nampaknya perubahan kebijakan politik dalam dan luar negeri AS akan mengalami perubahan yang sangat significant. Perhatian terhadap permasalahan humanitarian dalam negeri AS, akan mendapatkan prioritas paling tinggi dan kerja sama luar negeri akan terformat dalam sebuah agenda Beneficial Cooperation bukan occupation-based gains. Dunia islampun nampaknya cenderung menyambut baik perubahan sikap ini. Intervensi AS terhadap urusan dalam negeri Negara-negara Islam, seperti Iraq, Iran dan Afghanistan akan berkurang atau bahkan lenyap sama sekali.

Namun, itu adalah sebuah ketergesa-gesaan apabila kita menjadikan paragraph terakhir diatas sebagai conclusi dari tulisan ini. Saya ingin memaparkan sedikit analisa yang mungkin akan membuat kesimpulan kita sedikit berbeda.

Perang terhadap terrorisme nampaknya akan selalu menjadi top agenda bagi pemerintahan Obama. Proses penarikan pasukan dari Iraq tidak berarti meninggalkan wilayah itu tanpa menempatkan sejumlah personel militer untuk tetap mengakomodir dan menjaga beberapa kepentingan-kepentingan AS di dalamnya. Penempatan personel tersebut ditujukan untuk melatih personel militer Iraq, tentunya setelah diadakan rekonsiliasi politik antar kelompok-kelompok dominan, dan counterterrorisme yang berbasis di luar wilayah Iraq dengan tanpa melakukan aktivitas-aktivitas yang mungkin dianggap merupakan sinyal peperangan terhadap Iran.
Menempatkan sejumlah personel militer, meskipun dalam jumlah yang relative terbatas, membuktikan keengganan AS untuk meninggalkan Iran. Terlepas dari alasan-alasan kuno diatas, usaha penempatan personel tersebut bertujuan untuk mengamankan kepentingan eksploitasi minyak dan melakukan tindakan serta propaganda untuk mengendalikan wilayah tersebut tetap dalam kondisi yang tidak aman. Mengurangi jumlah tentara di Iraq secara gradual hanyalah sebuah skenario untuk mengalihkan focus dan target militer AS kedepan, yaitu untuk memerangi gerakan terrorisme yang berbasis di Afghanistan dan Iran. Hal ini diimbuhi dengan sebuah tuduhan tanpa bukti yang menyatakan keterlibatan Iran terhadap ketidakstabilan situasi sosial dan perpolitikan di Iraq dengan mempersenjatai Shiite.
Ternyata War against Terrorisme sekali lagi diekspoitasi oleh AS untuk menjadikan Iran sebagai target imperialis-nya. Padahal skenario ini sengaja dibuat sebagai kilah atas kesalahan dan kegagalan strategi AS di Iraq tersebut.

Hal lain yang perlu diungkap adalah bahwa Obama telah mendiskreditkan Islam sebagai sebuah komunitas besar (dengan jumlah pengikut kurang lebih 1,3 milyar) yang memiliki sumber-sumber terrorisme meskipun hanya sebuah entitas yang teramat kecil. Untuk itu, Obama akan menganggarkan 2 Milyar Dollar guna memerangi pengaruh sekolah Islam atau Madrasah yang telah menanamkan kebencian pada setiap pemuda terhadap AS. Islam, menurut Obama adalah sumber terrorisme yang nyata dan harus segera dimusnahkan. Obama menyatakan, AS akan melakukan setiap tindakan unilateral-nya untuk memberantas entitas terrorisme tersebut. Terkait masalah ini, AS akan segera mengirimkan kekuatan militernya untuk memerangi basi-basis terrorisme di Pakistan, apabila Presiden Musharraf tidak bersedia untuk mengambil tindakan tersebut.

Sekali lagi tentang Iran, kecurigaan AS terhadap program pengayakan Uranium di Iran sepertinya tidak akan pernah hilang. Kekuatan nuklir Iran berpotensi menimbulkan sense of insecurity di Timur Tengah. Iran adalah ancaman bagi keamanan dan stabilitas Timur Tengah. Sehingga dengan demikian Mesir, Turky atau Saudi Arabia dan Negara-negara lain harus mengcounter kekhawatiran tersebut dengan mengadopsi konsep Balance of Power. Konsep ini mendasari kebijakan untuk mengimbangi kekuatan nuklir musuh dengan mengembangkan kekuatan yang sama. Sehingga musuh akan berpikir seribu kali untuk menyerang lawan yang memiliki kekuatan seimbang dengan kekuatannya sendiri. Lebih mengkhawatirkan lagi, tambah AS, Iran memiliki jaringan yang luas untuk menyebarkan teknologi nuklirnya kepada jaringan-jaringan terrorisme transnegara. Kecurigaan ini paling tidak telah melatarbelakangi sikap AS untuk turun tangan dan mencampuri urusan Nuklir Iran.

Apa yang Obama ingin tawarkan kepada dunia terhadap Iran berupa Strategy of Aggressive Personal Approach dan kerja sama yang menguntungkan ternyata adalah konsep kerja sama yang lagi-lagi menunjukkan sikap arogan dan imperialist AS. Kampanye retorik Obama tentang perubahan kebijakan AS terhadap Iran nampaknya tidak akan membawa perubahan yang berarti terhadap masa depan Iran. Strategi stick and carrot memang tidak ada sangkut pautnya dengan penggunaan kekuataan militer untuk memperoleh suatu tujuan, sebaliknya strategi tersebut merupakan landasan terhadap pengaplikasian sanksi ekonomi terhadap sebuah Negara. Artinya, Iran menurut AS adalah Negara yang bandel dan sulit diatur. Oleh karenanya, Iran layak mendapatkan punishment. Ketika sanksi kasar yang berarti operasi militer tidak mendapatkan cukup dukungan dan relevansinya disangsikan, maka sanksi halus yaitu saksi ekonomi baik itu berupa embargo, kartel dan monopoli perdagangan menjadi pilihan AS untuk memberikan punishment-nya tersebut terhadap Iran.

Satu hal yang nampaknya relevan untuk kita bahas. Yaitu relevansi Aggressive Personal Approach tanpa syarat yang akan diaplikasikan oleh Obama terhadap rezim Ahmedinnajad, terhadap kepemimpinan Mahmoud Abbas dalam rangka perdamaian Palestina-Israel. Obama bersikeras bahwa perdamaian Timur Tengah tidak akan pernah tercapai sehingga Palestina mengakui eksistensi Israel sebagai Negara berdaulat dan menghentikan aktivitas-aktivitas terror-nya terhadap Israel. Ia menambahkan bahwa AS tidak akan pernah mengakui kemenangan HAMAS dalam setiap pemilu kecuali apabila kelompok tersebut menghapus program fundamentalnya untuk mengeliminasi Israel dari dunia. Lebih lajut Obama menegaskan konsistensi AS untuk terus bekerjasama dan melindungi Israel apabila Negara tersebut mendapatkan ancaman dari HAMAS. Kesimpulan implisit disini berusaha menunjukkan dominasi yahudi yang semakin kuat atas pemerintahan AS. Hegemoni Yahudi dalam pengambilan kebijakan dan keputusan dalam pemerintahan AS menginginkan konflik berkepanjangan di Palestina dan pada akhirnya memberikan ruangan bagi Israel untuk berdiri menjadi sebuah Negara yang merdeka.

Political Action committees (PACs) merupakan badan politik buatan Israel yang memiliki akses langsung maupun tidak langsung terhadap kekuatan dan propaganda AS. Richard Cohen dari Washington Post mengungkapkan fakta yang menunjukkan bahwa PACs merupakan penyumbang terbesar baik untuk partai Republik maupun Demokrat. Angka yang ditunjukkan berkisar 70 persen untuk partai Demokrat dan 35 untuk partai Republik. Fakta lain juga menunjukkan bahwa 20-30 persen milyarder AS adalah orang Yahudi. Bukan tidak mungkin bila kekuatan dana monetary yang besar mampu mengendalikan Negara besar seperti AS.

Hal ini berimplikasi bahwa siapapun presiden AS dan dari partai mana, tidak akan merubah sikap AS terhadap perdamaian di Timur Tengah. Karena konflik Timur Tengah merupakan agenda utama AS dan Israel, dan karenanya instabilitas serta konflik internal harus tetap dimunculkan dalam setiap pemerintahan di Palestina. Nampaknya pemerintahan AS pasca pemilu 2009, akan membawa sedikit perubahan yang kondusif terhadap pengembangan kerja-sama terkait masalah-masalah humanitarian, energi alternative, environtmental protection dan lain-lain. Namun tidak demikian dengan kebijakan luar negerinya terhadap Negara-negara Islam. Issu terrorisme, konflik berkepanjangan di Negara-negara Muslim terutama Israel-Palestina dan program nuklir Iran akan tetap menjadi top priority. Ironisnya agenda tersebut hanyalah refleksi kekuatan dan pengaruh lobby Israel yang tetap mendapatkan ruang dalam pemerintahan AS.



Referensi:

The New York Times, "A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith" By Jodi Kantor, Published: April 30, 2007
Salon.com, "A new face for American diplomacy" By Hooman Majd Feb. 21, 2008.
The New York Times, "Obama Envisions New Iran Approach" By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JEFF ZELENY, Published: November 2, 2007.
The New York Times, "Obama Calls for Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism" By JEFF ZELENY, Published: August 2, 2007.
Jawa Pos dotcom, "Fakta Diplomasi Munafik Yahudi-AS", Resensi Buku : "The Power of Israel in USA", Penulis : James Petras, Moh Yasin, pustakawan, tinggal di Ciputat, alumnus Filsafat UIN Sunan Kalijaga Jogjakarta, Minggu, 24 Feb 2008,
Wikipedia Encyclopedia
Internazionale, "Lobi Israel" oleh Azyumardi Azra, Friday, February 1, 2008

Ulama-Military relation of the third world countries

Ulama-Military relation of the third world countries
By zhyntativ

Here, I would like to contribute a bit of theoretical thinking which is likely to invite further elaborate and suggestion. This will suggest that the current problems of multifaceted tragedy experienced by many of the third world countries are not necessarily result of internal stagnancies, rather vast interests and dictates of external world-shaping powers have been significantly accentuating the scene. What I want to promote is that all Muslim individuals, be they rulers, Ulama, military or and civil, should best realize the above defiance while offering an expected solution that may theoretically and practically be reached out and finally help us attain a desirable future of Islamic society। This short note challenges a bit of popular perception that Ulama (religious scholars) and military are not inseparable to shaping the governed society of, with the special reference to, the third world countries and argues that both Ulama and military are and have been, not to mention other significant components, playing their determining role to fashion their country including its ups and downs. These two elements have much to do with their societies.

There have been many obvious reasons for our discomfort about the legacy of imperialism and unilateralism that the United State has been managing into such a condition where all events of the world, partly its socio-economic and political formations, are to be compromised to its endurable interests. And the US seems to keep it that way so far that no other power is constantly able to compete against its contested authority. What the US has done to assist the others was merely pretense or camouflage through which they pledged to counter its challenging enemy, The USSR, and other perceived threats that undoubtedly might be posed by any transnational terrorist movement.
All of America’s handiwork therefore, has been conducted under the guise of freedom and democracy। And it is its self-perception which reveals that the US acts as a unique post-colonial free nation that is charged with the responsibility of leading the way for others in their quest for freedom। This presumably has created a felling of common hatred and anonymous perspective that are globally in full flourish। From the US’s way of looking at these challenges however, Bolshevism, Socialism, Communism and currently ongoing religious extremism have been suggesting its policy of waging wars, whether they were proxies, pre-emptive or preventive, that might result, as it always claimed, in ending all wars and unity of mankind. This seemingly acceptable project proved how selfishly powerful and determinant the US’s role is. As the Soviet Union collapsed, Fukuyama’s end of the History seemed to be apparently proven.

The US, however perceived that it could no longer sustain its long-span and grave superiority unless if it could annihilate a long-perceived threat of Islamic extremism. Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilization seemed to be among those theses contributed by intellectuals to this climate of ill-opinion and misgiving. Among what is implicit here is that Ummah, a conception that suggested an Islamic unity-in-diversity, is to be discouraged and if possible totally abolished from the soil. It is this “crime” that has made especially Muslims and other communities of the third world countries suffered a multidimensional burden that remained inescapably sophisticated.
This is to note that there has been a popular stereotype in these countries which tends to reveal, among other assumptions, the failure of colonialism to draw guiding line that might help them adopt all scientific and technological advancements West had acquired। Apparently, men of the third worlds have been stuck much in such perpetual backwardness whilst the range of which they were determined to chase after the superpowers, has been becoming wider, thus making both parties separable and differences more obvious। These characterizations and statements have, for obvious reason, significantly worsened by the era of Cold War. There was when the Third World countries had been victims of wars which The United State and Union of State Socialist Russia fought and of global tensions they might have caused.

The Third World Countries
It is necessary then to put forward how the ground realities of the third world countries are, and what severe realities they have been confronted with as results of the all-encompassing US’s imperialist role. Terminology of the third world countries is often given different interpretations. Among those interpretations is one that reveals the third world as meant not to be associated with the degree of socio-economic development in those particular countries. There are some quarters in the second world countries that are actually poorer than the third ones. This terminology was originally promoted by Alfred Sauvy of French in 1952 to distinguish numbers of countries impartial to neither the West (the US and its allies) nor the East (the Soviet and its allies), among whom the Cold War emerged. The former may be called the first world countries whereas the later the second world ones.
Apart from that, this would be worthwhile to point out that among the legacies of imperialism is military dictatorship that almost the third world countries experienced (even in today’s general occurrences)। Some sorts of socio-political and economic instability, in addition to other post-imperialist chaotic causes, drove those (military) rulers to avail their utmost strength and power of imposing or forcing so as to retain their throne by managing all ways available. Meanwhile, this very intend of the rulers collided with the necessity of better life which the masses always demanded, thus leading to formation of opposing powers that might address a challenge against the former’s authority. Such scenario of perpetual uncertainty and severe contention among the rulers and masses of the third world countries has been taking place whereby (Islamic) unity could hardly find its space of manifestation. That is the way it is now. That is just the fact the US likes it.

Military regime
Meanwhile, relation of civil-military role in the third world countries differs from that in the West. It shows more of complexity. While the West shared communal acceptance that military is subordinate to civil power, the relation of both sides in the third world countries tended to be developed and framed according to how historical processes and political culture occurred. Centralistic function of the third world countries’ military role bears on its expertise, cooperation and a firmed bureaucracy. Military therefore, has every integrative function to state’s creation. It is cohesive, integral and relatively committed not to a class or culture-based conflicts which most of the third world countries faced. This is true to substantial extent, although not entirely. Among motives that force the military involvement in state fashioning is the fading dignity of the present government in administering its function. It since then looses credibility and direction of winning the masses’ support. Bureaucratic disagreement among the organic institutions of the state apparently exacerbated by internal or external threats has stimulated the military role of counterinsurgency to take over the authority of the country. This, it upholds, is the way out as it is supposed to be. It is now the military reign wherein such conflict and instability are all but unthinkable.

Political involvement of Ulama
Ulama are guardians of the past and present, as assessors of the tradition and innovation, mediators between the Islamic ruler and the masses. They, by their learning, are to safeguard the principles upon which the religious institutions are grounded, and by their manner of life they are to win the respect and affection of the people. They defined the limits to which law and custom could accommodate all innovations. As in case of political toleration, the Ulama have exercised their role of mediation between (military) political power and its civil society. They have tolerated and even worked with oppressive (military) rulers. Some instances may be noteworthy like the issuance of fatwas in 1960’s to justify Nasser’s socialism and fifteen years later fatwas justifying Sadat’s capitalism.
This seemingly contradictory attitude of the Ulama might be traced back to what Al-Gazhali called Doctrine of Necessity revealing that life under tyrant ruler will amount to a lesser suffer and burden compared to that under a chaotic and anarchic condition। The Ulama has considerable power in many muslim countries, but their influence on the society is dependent upon how the strength of the secular authorities is. The Ulama, therefore cooperate with the rulers and play defending role or silently accepting the political decision of the authorities.

The Ulama has great influence on most Muslims, but this influence is easily destroyed when the Ulama loses its credibility. The credibility of the Ulama depends very much on their level of independence; if there is too much cooperation with the rulers; people will turn away from the ulama to find their religious guidance somewhere else, resulting in Ulama without power. Ulama which do not cooperate at all with the governments will face suppression and economic difficulties. There are cases where the Ulama have overthrown the governments, as it happened in 1979 in Iran.
In some cases, the relationship between the Ulama and the military, the holder of the power had common people puzzled। Some Ulama, in one hand, used to provide religious legitimation for the de-facto power holder, while in other hand, they share a general awareness that power corrupts and that proximity to those in power impairs the Ulama’s moral authority and integrity of their learning. The government’s efforts to involve the ulama in certain development programmes in order to lend them religious legitimation have at times caused these ulama some moral discomfort although this was no doubt attenuated by various forms of compensation. The Ulama since then find it difficult to define their positions, especially when confronted with the attitude of many government authorities.

Conclusion
Democracy, good governance or whatever pretext and excuse, for which the military regime imposed its forcing power is a natural process. I urge that it will not be any good forcing democracy to people. They need to come and acquire it very slowly. The military can not go out and impose democracy with a gun, for it would be like waging war for its sake. Undoubtedly, Retaining military-led authoritarian regime under the cover of the democracy and quoting religious justification on it is inevitably unjustified and fallible.
I would like to point out here, that Ulama, instead of being fooled by the corrupt (military) government, should better act as means of mobilizing Muslim support for the government’s development policies। They are to translate its policies into languages that the Ummah understands. It is about a discourse conceding the significance to which Ulama should better stand above all political processes and keep themselves not trying to gain any political power or control of the state. Their role is to offer advice and guidance to all those who are part of the political system. They should direct their criticism to both the ruling power as well as the opposition. Their moral and ethical guidance is accordingly not to be deleted; instead it should entirely frame the state’s running. That way they would be truly impartial and they would be free from the constraints of politics.

Military and Ulama are then side-by-side to function integrally as part of the state’s formation. Each should respect other’s very existence and work professionally to contribute to progress and development. All are committed to working together within a mutual understanding. Righteous leader presumably need to come up to accommodate this necessity and successfully fuse these two elements into a single and mutual readiness to run the government.



Reference:

1. Davis, Eric,"Ideology, Social Class and Islamic Radicalism in Modern Egypt, in from Nationalism to Revolutionary Islam", ed. By Said Amir Arjomand, Albany, N.Y:State University of Ner York Press, 1984.
2. Emareh, Mohamed "Islam as a moral and Political Ideal, in Thought reflections of Iqbal", Lahore, N.P, 1964.
3. http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki./
4. Looklex Encyclopaedia.
5. "Tayrat El-Faker El-Islami", Cairo, Dare-l-Shouroug, 1991.
6. The News, February 3, 2008.
7. Van Bruinessen, Martin “Indonesia’s Ulama and Politics; caught between legitimizing the status quo and searching for alternatives”, Prisma-the Indonesian indicator (Jakarta), No. 49, 1990.