The provocative comments prompted the U.S. delegation to walk out of Ahmadinejad’s U.N. speech, where he also blamed the U.S. as the power behind U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used as fuel for electricity generation or to build nuclear weapons.

Delegations from all 27 European Union nations followed the Americans out along with representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica, an EU diplomat said.

Ahmadinejad said the U.S. has allocated $80 billion to upgrade its nuclear arsenal and is not a fair judge to sit as a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council to punish Iran for its nuclear activities. Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear weapon.

The Iranian leader — who has in the past cast doubt over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — also called for setting up an independent fact-finding U.N. team to probe the attacks. That, he said, would keep the terror assault from turning into what he has called a sacred issue like the Holocaust where “expressing opinion about it won’t be banned”.

Ahmadinejad did not explain the logic behind blaming the U.S. for the terror attacks but said there were three theories:

_That a “powerful and complex terrorist group” penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses, which is advocated “by American statesmen.”

_”That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.”

After Ahmadinejad uttered those words, two American diplomats stood and walked out without listening to the third theory: That the attack was the work of “a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation.”

Ahmadinejad said the U.S. used the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people. He argued that the U.S., instead, should have “designed a logical plan” to punish the perpetrators and not occupy two independent states and shed so much blood.

He boasted of the capture in February of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of an armed Sunni group whose insurgency in the southeast of Iran has destabilized the border region with Pakistan. He praised Iranian security forces for capturing him in an overseas operation without resorting to violence. Rigi was later hanged.

Ahmadinejad’s attacks on the United States and the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program dominated the opening of the General Assembly’s annual ministerial meeting.

Ahmadinejad, speaking in the afternoon session, stressed that Iran will never submit “to illegally imposed pressures” from the U.N. nuclear agency which has been demanding that Tehran halt enrichment, a key Security Council demand as well.

“Iran has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice,” he said.

But the Iranian leader said sanctions imposed by the Security Council were illegal and disrespectful.

U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee, listening carefully, some snapping photos with cell phone cameras. Obama was interrupted twice by applause and received a prolonged and warm response at the end of his remarks.

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorin sharply criticized the United States, saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that the “blind faith in intelligence reports tailored to justify political goals must be rejected.”

“We must ban once and for all the use of force inconsistent with international law,” Amorin told the General Assembly, adding that all international disputes should be peacefully resolved through dialogue.

Qatar’s Emir Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani declared that terrorism “should not be treated by waging wars.”

He blamed wars fought to combat terrorism for spreading destruction, causing the death and displacement of millions of people “as well as economic and financial crises that shook the stability of the world and undermined the efforts made in dialogue among cultures.

“What we fear is for the war on terrorism to turn into commercial transactions, financial contracts and armies of mercenaries who kill outside of any international and human legitimacy,” the emir said. “These are all very dangerous things.”

source:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100924/ap_on_re_us/un_un_world_summit_ahmadinejad

According to Outlook newsmagazine editor-in-chief Vinod Mehta, the involvement of the Pakistani Army officers proves their “direct link” with the terror carnage in India’s commercial and financial capital in 2008 that left 166 people dead, including foreigners.

“David Headley has confessed to the involvement of serving Pakistani Army officers in 26/11,” Mehta told CNN-IBN news channel.

“Of them, three are serving and one is retired,” he said, adding it showed the “direct link” of the Pakistani Army with the terror strike that shook the country.

“Col. Shah (Pakistani Army officer) was on the other side of the telephone line (keeping in touch with the 26/11 terrorists),” Mehta told the television channel.

According to Outlook, the Pakistani-American terror suspect Headley has reportedly identified Major Sayeed, Major Iqbal, Major Sameer and Colonel Shah as the officers involved in the 26/11 attacks.

Meanwhile, India has decided to send a magistrate to the US to record Headley’s statement. Besides the magistrate, other members of the team to quiz Headley will include lawyers and officials of Mumbai Police and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The 49-year-old Pakistani-American has admitted in a Chicago court to his involvement in plotting the Mumbai terror attack.

The magistrate will be sent when the US grants permission for direct access to Headley to record his statement, which would be admissible in an Indian court of law.

A request letter for access to Headley is to be sent by the home ministry next week to the US Department of Justice, official sources said on Friday.

The letter is being finalised by Home Minister P Chidambaram and top officials.

The NIA, probing the case, will file the charge sheet against Headley only after having direct access to him.

Headley has confessed to his involvement in the 26/11 attack in a plea bargain with US authorities under which he will not be extradited to India or Denmark, where he is wanted for plotting terror acts, or be given the death sentence.

Under the plea bargain, India can have access to the LeT operative by deposition, video conferencing or through Letters Rogatory.

source:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/523635.aspx

An American student entering Israel from Egypt via the border crossing at Taba two weeks ago stood stunned as Israeli Border Police officers determined her laptop computer was a security threat and shot it three times. Lily Sussman, 21, wrote on her blog that the police officers subjected her to two hours of questioning and searches, before firing three bullets into her Apple Macbook. “They had pressed every sock and scarf with a security device, ripped open soap and had me strip extra layers. They asked me tons of questions,” Sussman wrote, describing the experience. “Who do you know? Do you have a boyfriend? Is he Arab, Egyptian, Palestinian? Why do you live in Egypt? Why not Israel? What do you know about the ‘conflict’ here? What do you think? They quizzed me on Judaism, which I know nothing about,” she continued. Sussman blogged that she then heard an announcement on the loudspeaker that “was something along the lines of, ‘Do not to be alarmed by gunshots because the Israeli security needs to blow up suspicious passenger luggage.’” Moments later, Sussman wrote, a man came to her and introduced himself as the duty manager, who told her: “I’m sorry but we had to blow up your laptop.” “The security officers did not ask about my laptop prior to shooting it,” Sussman told Daily News Egypt. “They used the term ‘blew up’ when they told me they destroyed my laptop. I don’t know why they shot it.” Sussman said the guards also looked through the photos on her camera, flipped through her journal and asked her about a map a friend had drawn for her that depicted a main street, central bus station and the hostel where she was planning on staying in Jerusalem. She said that she had also been carrying an Arabic phrasebook, stamps from Syria, Qatar and the UAE and a Palestinians in Palestine guidebook. The Israel Airports Authority said in response that, “A [security] check performed on the lady’s luggage signalled the need for security personnel to follow procedure. The police who carried out the operation in question were called to the scene. We suggest you approach the Israel Police for any additional information.” Sussman managed to salvage the hard drive and security officials at the crossing gave her an address where she would be reimbursed for her mangled laptop, she told Daily News Egypt. “I’m going through the process of compensation,” she said. “It supposedly will take about one month to receive the money.”

source:

http://bit.ly/5amU59

page 11
… the first modern government propaganda operation … was under the Woodrow Wilson Administration. Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1916 on the platform “Peace Without Victory.” That was right in the middle of the World War I. The population was extremely pacifistic and saw no reason to become involved in a European war. The Wilson administration was actually committed to war and had to do something about it. They established a government propaganda commission, called the Creel Commission, which succeeded, within six months, in turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population which wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb from limb, go to war and save the world. That was a major achievement, and it led to a further achievement. Right at that time and after the war the same techniques were used to whip up a hysterical Red Scare, as it was called, which succeeded pretty much in destroying unions and eliminating such dangerous problems as freedom of the press and freedom of political thought. There was very strong support from the media, from the business establishment, which in fact organized, pushed much of this work, and it was, in general, a great success.
Among those who participated actively and enthusiastically in Wilson’s war were the progressive intellectuals, people of the John Dewey circle, who took great pride, as you can see from their own writings at the time, in having shown that what they called the “more intelligent members of the community,” namely, themselves, were able to drive a reluctant population into a war by terrifying them and eliciting jingoist fanaticism. The means that were used were extensive. For example, there was a good deal of fabrication of atrocities by the Huns, Belgian babies with their arms torn off, all sorts of awful things that you still read in history books. Much of it was invented by the British propaganda ministry, whose own commitment at the time, as they put it in their secret deliberations, was “to direct the thought of most of the world.” But more crucially they wanted to control the thought of the more intelligent members of the community in the United States, who would then disseminate the propaganda that they were concocting and convert the pacifistic country to wartime hysteria. That worked. It worked very well. And it taught a lesson: State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day.

page 14
… liberal democratic theorists and leading media figures, like, for example, Walter Lippmann, who was the dean of American journalists, a major foreign and domestic policy critic and also a major theorist of liberal democracy. If you take a look at his collected essays, you’ll see that they’re subtitled something like “A Progressive Theory of Liberal Democratic Thought. ” Lippmann was involved in these propaganda commissions and recognized their achievements. He argued that what he called a “revolution in the art of democracy,” could be used to “manufacture consent, ” that is, to bring about agreement on the part of the public for things that they didn’t want by the new techniques of propaganda. He also thought that this was a good idea, in fact, necessary. It was necessary because, as he put it, “the common interests elude public opinion entirely” and can only be understood and managed by a “specialized class “of “responsible men” who are smart enough to figure things out. This theory asserts that only a small elite, the intellectual community that the Deweyites were talking about, can understand the common interests, what all of us care about, and that these things “elude the general public.” This is a view that goes back hundreds of years. It’s also a typical Leninist view. In fact, it has very close resemblance to the Leninist conception that a vanguard of revolutionary intellectuals take state power, using popular revolutions as the force that brings them to state power, and then drive the stupid masses toward a future that they’re too dumb and incompetent to envision for themselves. The liberal democratic theory and Marxism-Leninism are very close in their common ideological assumptions. I think that’s one reason why people have found it so easy over the years to drift from one position to another without any particular sense of change. It’s just a matter of assessing where power is. Maybe there will be a popular revolution, and that will put us into state power; or maybe there won’t be, in which case we’ll just work for the people with real power: the business community. But we’ll do the same thing. We’ll drive the stupid masses toward a world that they’re too dumb to understand for themselves.
Lippmann backed this up by a pretty elaborated theory of progressive democracy. He argued that in a properly functioning democracy there are classes of citizens. There is first of all the class of citizens who have to take some active role in running general affairs. That’s the specialized class. They are the people who analyze, execute, make decisions, and run things in the political, economic, and ideological systems. That’s a small percentage of the population. Naturally, anyone who puts these ideas forth is always part of that small group, and they’re talking about what to do about those others. Those others, who are out of the small group, the big majority of the population, they are what Lippmann called “the bewildered herd.” We have to protect ourselves from “the trampling and roar of a bewildered herd”. Now there are two “functions” in a democracy: The specialized class, the responsible men, carry out the executive function, which means they do the thinking and planning and understand the common interests. Then, there is the bewildered herd, and they have a function in democracy too. Their function in a democracy, he said, is to be “spectators,” not participants in action. But they have more of a function r than that, because it’s a democracy. Occasionally they are allowed to lend their weight to one or another member of the specialized class. In other words, they’re allowed to say, “We want you to be our leader” or “We want you to be our leader.” That’s because it’s a democracy and not a totalitarian state. That’s called an election. But once they’ve lent their weight to one or another member of the specialized class they’re supposed to sink back and become spectators of action, but not participants. That’s in a properly functioning democracy.
And there’s a logic behind it. There’s even a kind of compelling moral principle behind it. The compelling moral principle is that the mass of the public are just too stupid to be able to understand things. If they try to participate in managing their own affairs, they’re just going to cause trouble. Therefore, it would be immoral and improper to permit them to do this. We have to tame the bewildered herd, not allow the bewildered herd to rage and trample and destroy things. It’s pretty much the same logic that says that it would be improper to let a three-year-old run across the street. You don’t give a three-year-old that kind of freedom because the three-year-old doesn’t know how to handle that freedom. Correspondingly, you don’t allow the bewildered herd to become participants in action. They’ll just cause trouble.
So we need something to tame the bewildered herd, and that something is this new revolution in the art of democracy: the manufacture of consent. The media, the schools, and popular culture have to be divided. For the political class and the decision makers they have to provide them some tolerable sense of reality, although they also have to instill the proper beliefs. Just remember, there is an unstated premise here. The unstated premise-and even the responsible men have to disguise this from themselves-has to do with the question of how they get into the position where they have the authority to make decisions. The way they do that, of course, is by serving people with real power. The people with real power are the ones who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group. If the specialized class can come along and say, I can serve your interests, then they’ll be part of the executive group. You’ve got to keep that quiet. That means they have to have instilled in them the beliefs and doctrines that will serve the interests of private power. Unless they can master that skill, they’re not part of the specialized class. So we have one kind of educational system directed to the responsible men, the specialized class. They have to be deeply indoctrinated in the values and interests of private power and the state-corporate nexus that represents it. If they can achieve that, then they can be part of the specialized class. The rest of the bewildered herd basically just have to be distracted. Turn their attention to something else. Keep them out of trouble. Make sure that they remain at most spectators of action, occasionally lending their weight to one or another of the real leaders, who they may select among.
This point of view has been developed by lots of other people. In fact, it’s pretty conventional. For example, the leading theologian and foreign policy critic Reinhold Niebuhr, sometimes called “the theologian of the establishment,” the guru of George Kennan and the Kennedy intellectuals, put it that rationality is a very narrowly restricted skill. Only a small number of people have it. Most people are guided by just emotion and impulse. Those of us who have rationality have to create “necessary illusions” and emotionally potent “oversimplifications” to keep the naive simpletons more or less on course. This became a substantial part of contemporary political science. In the 1920s and early 1930s, Harold Lasswell, the founder of the modern field of communications and one of the leading American political scientists, explained that we should not succumb to “democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interests.” Because they’re not. We’re the best judges of the public interests. Therefore, just out of ordinary morality, we have to make sure that they don’t have an opportunity to act on the basis of their misjudgments. In what is nowadays called a totalitarian state, or a military state, it’s easy. You just hold a bludgeon over their heads, and if they get out of line you smash them over the head. But as society has become more free and democratic, you lose that capacity. Therefore you have to turn to the techniques of propaganda. The logic is clear. Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. That’s wise and good because, again, the common interests elude the bewildered herd. They can’t figure them out.

page 22
Public Relations
The United States pioneered the public relations industry. Its commitment was “to control the public mind,” as its leaders put it. They learned a lot from the successes of the Creel Commission and the successes in creating the Red Scare and its aftermath. The public relations industry underwent a huge expansion at that time. It succeeded for some time in creating almost total subordination of the public to business rule through the 1920s. This was so extreme that Congressional committees began to investigate it as we moved into the 1930s. That’s where a lot of our information about it comes from.
Public relations is a huge industry. They’re spending by now something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along its commitment was to controlling the public mind. In the 1930s, big problems arose again, as they had during the First World War. There was a huge depression and substantial labor organizing. In fact, in 1935 labor won its first major legislative victory, namely, the right to organize, with the Wagner Act. That raised two serious problems. For one thing, democracy was misfunctioning. The bewildered herd was actually winning legislative victories, and it’s not supposed to work that way. The other problem was that it was becoming possible for people to organize. People have to be atomized and segregated and alone. They’re not supposed to organize, because then they might be something beyond spectators of action. They might actually be participants if many people with limited resources could get together to enter the political arena. That’s really threatening. A major response was taken on the part of business to ensure that this would be the last legislative victory for labor and that it would be the beginning of the end of this democratic deviation of popular organization. It worked. That was the last legislative victory for labor. From that point on-although the number of people in the unions increased for a while during the World War II, after which it started dropping-the capacity to act through the unions began to steadily drop. It wasn’t by accident. We’re now talking about the business community, which spends lots and lots of money, attention, and thought into how to deal with these problems through the public relations industry and other organizations, like the National Association of Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable, and so on. They immediately set to work to try to find a way to counter these democratic deviations.
The first trial was one year later, in 1937. There was a major strike, the Steel strike in western Pennsylvania at Johnstown. Business tried out a new technique of labor destruction, which worked very well. Not through goon squads and breaking knees. That wasn’t working very well any more, but through the more subtle and effective means of propaganda. The idea was to figure out ways to turn the public against the strikers, to present the strikers as disruptive, harmful to the public and against the common interests. The common interests are those of “us,” the businessman, the worker, the housewife. That’s all “us.” We want to be together and have things like harmony and Americanism and working together. Then there’s those bad strikers out there who are disruptive and causing trouble and breaking harmony and violating Americanism. We’ve got to stop them so we can all live together. The corporate executive and the guy who cleans the floors all have the same interests. We can all work together and work for Americanism in harmony, liking each other. That was essentially the message. A huge amount of effort was put into presenting it. This is, after all, the business community, so they control the media and have massive resources. And it worked, very effectively. It was later called the “Mohawk Valley formula” and applied over and over again to break strikes. They were called “scientific methods of strike-breaking,” and worked very effectively by mobilizing community opinion in favor of vapid, empty concepts like Americanism. Who can be against that? Or harmony. Who can be against that? Or, as in the Persian Gulf War, “Support our troops.” Who can be against that? Or yellow ribbons. Who can be against that? Anything that’s totally vacuous.
In fact, what does it mean if somebody asks you, Do you support the people in Iowa? Can you say, Yes, I support them, or No, I don’t support them? It’s not even a question. It doesn’t mean anything.
That’s the point. The point of public relations slogans like “Support our troops” is that they don’t mean anything. They mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa. Of course, there was an issue. The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don’t want people to think about that issue. That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything. Its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something: Do you support our policy? That’s the one you’re not allowed to talk about. So you have people arguing about support for the troops? “Of course I don’t not support them. ” Then you’ve won. That’s like Americanism and harmony. We’re all together, empty slogans, let’s join in, let’s make sure we don’t have these bad people around to disrupt our harmony with their talk about class struggle, rights and that sort of business.
That’s all very effective. It runs right up to today. And of course it is carefully thought out. The people in the public relations industry aren’t there for the fun of it. They’re doing work. They’re trying to instill the right values. In fact, they have a conception of what democracy ought to be: It ought to be a system in which the specialized class is trained to work in the service of the masters, the people who own the society. The rest of the population ought to be deprived of any form of organization, because organization just causes trouble. They ought to be sitting alone in front of the TV and having drilled into their heads the message, which says, the only value in life is to have more commodities or live like that rich middle class family you’re watching and to have nice values like harmony and Americanism. That’s all there is in life. You may think in your own head that there’s got to be something more in life than this, but since you’re watching the tube alone you assume, I must be crazy, because that’s all that’s going on over there. And since there is no organization permitted- that’s absolutely crucial-you never have a way of finding out whether you are crazy, and you just assume it, because it’s the natural thing to assume.
So that’s the ideal. Great efforts are made in trying to achieve that ideal. Obviously, there is a certain conception behind it. The conception of democracy is the one that I mentioned. The bewildered herd is a problem. We’ve got to prevent their roar and trampling. We’ve got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like “Support our troops.” You’ve got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they’re properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they’re not competent to think. Therefore it’s important to distract them and marginalize them.
That’s one conception of democracy. In fact, going back to the business community, the last legal victory for labor really was 1935, the Wagner Act. After the war came, the unions declined as did a very rich working class culture that was associated with the unions. That was destroyed. We moved to a business-run society at a remarkable level. This is the only state-capitalist industrial society which doesn’t have even the normal social contract that you find in comparable societies. Outside of South Africa, I guess, this is the only industrial society that doesn’t have national health care. There’s no general commitment to even minimal standards of survival for the parts of the population who can’t follow those rules and gain things for themselves individually. Unions are virtually nonexistent. Other forms of popular structure are virtually nonexistent. There are no political parties or organizations. It’s a long way toward the ideal, at least structurally. The media are a corporate monopoly. They have the same point of view. The two parties are two factions of the business party. Most of the population doesn’t even bother voting because it looks meaningless. They’re marginalized and properly distracted. At least that’s the goal. The leading figure in the public relations industry, Edward Bernays, actually came out of the Creel Commission. He was part of it, learned his lessons there and went on to develop what he called the “engineering of consent,” which he described as “the essence of democracy. ” The people who are able to engineer consent are the ones who have the resources and the power to do it-the business community-and that’s who you work for.

page 30
ENGINEERING OPINION
It is also necessary to whip up the population in support of foreign adventures. Usually the population is pacifist, just like they were during the First World War. The public sees no reason to get involved in foreign adventures, killing, and torture. So you have to whip them up. And to whip them up you have to frighten them. Bernays himself had an important achievement in this respect. He was the person who ran the public relations campaign for the United Fruit Company in 1954, when the United States moved in to overthrow the capitalist-democratic government of Guatemala and installed a murderous death-squad society, which remains that way to the present day with constant infusions of U.S. aid to prevent in more than empty form democratic deviations. It’s necessary to constantly ram through domestic programs which the public is opposed to, because there is no reason for the public to be in favor of domestic programs that are harmful to them. This, too, takes extensive propaganda. We’ve seen a lot of this in the last ten years. The Reagan programs were overwhelmingly unpopular. Voters in the 1984 “Reagan landslide,” by about three to two, hoped that his policies would not be enacted. If you take particular programs, like armaments, cutting back on social spending, etc., almost every one of them was overwhelmingly opposed by the public. But as long as people are marginalized and distracted and have no way to organize or articulate their sentiments, or even know that others have these sentiments, people who said that they prefer social spending to military spending, who gave that answer on polls, as people overwhelmingly did, assumed that they were the only people with that crazy idea in their heads. They never heard it from anywhere else. Nobody’s supposed to think that. Therefore, if you do think it and you answer it in a poll, you just assume that you’re sort of weird. Since there’s no way to get together with other people who share or reinforce that view and help you articulate it, you feel like an oddity, an oddball. So you just stay on the side and you don’t pay any attention to what’s going on. You look at something else, like the Superbowl.
To a certain extent, then, that ideal was achieved, but never completely. There are institutions which it has as yet been impossible to destroy. The churches, for example, still exist. A large part of the dissident activity in the United States comes out of the churches, for the simple reason that they’re there. So when you go to a European country and give a political talk, it may very likely be in the union hall. Here that won’t happen, because unions first of all barely exist, and if they do exist they’re not political organizations. But the churches do exist, and therefore you often give a talk in a church. Central American solidarity work mostly grew out of the churches, mainly because they exist.
The bewildered herd never gets properly tamed, so this is a constant battle. In the 1930s they arose again and were put down. In the 1960s there was another wave of dissidence. There was a name for that. It was called by the specialized class “the crisis of democracy. ” Democracy was regarded as entering into a crisis in the 1960s. The crisis was that large segments of the population were becoming organized and active and trying to participate in the political arena. Here we come back to these two conceptions of democracy. By the dictionary definition, that’s an advance in democracy. By the prevailing conception that’s a problem, a crisis that has to be overcome. The population has to be driven back to the apathy, obedience and passivity that is their proper state. We therefore have to do something to overcome the crisis. Efforts were made to achieve that. It hasn’t worked. The crisis of democracy is still alive and well, fortunately, but not very effective in changing policy. But it is effective in changing opinion, contrary to what a lot of people believe. Great efforts were made after the 1960s to try to reverse and overcome this malady. One aspect of the malady actually got a technical name. It was called the “Vietnam Syndrome.” The Vietnam Syndrome, a term that began to come up around 1970, has actually been defined on occasion. The Reaganite intellectual Norman Podhoretz defined it as “the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force. ” There were these sickly inhibitions against violence on the part of a large part of the public. People just didn’t understand why we should go around torturing people and killing people and carpet bombing them. It’s very dangerous for a population to be overcome by these sickly inhibitions, as Goebbels understood, because then there’s a limit on foreign adventures. It’s necessary, as the Washington Post put it rather proudly during the Gulf War hysteria, to instill in people respect for “martial value.” That’s important. If you want to have a violent society that uses force around the world to achieve the ends of its own domestic elite, it’s necessary to have a proper appreciation of the martial virtues and none of these sickly inhibitions about using violence. So that’s the Vietnam Syndrome. It’s necessary to overcome that one.

page 35
REPRESENTATION AS REALITY
It’s also necessary to completely falsify history. That’s another way to overcome these sickly inhibitions, to make it look as if when we attack and destroy somebody we’re really protecting and defending ourselves against major aggressors and monsters and so on. There has been a huge effort since the Vietnam war to reconstruct the history of that. Too many people began to understand what was really going on. Including plenty of soldiers and a lot of young people who were involved with the peace movement and others. That was bad. It was necessary to rearrange those bad thoughts and to restore some form of sanity, namely, a recognition that whatever we do is noble and right. If we’re bombing South
Vietnam, that’s because we’re defending South Vietnam against somebody, namely, the South Vietnamese, since nobody else was there. It’s what the Kennedy intellectuals called defense against “internal aggression” in South Vietnam. That was the phrase used by Adlai Stevenson and others. It was necessary to make that the official and well understood picture. That’s worked pretty well. When you have total control over the media and the educational system and scholarship is conformist, you can get that across. One indication of it was revealed in a study done at the University of Massachusetts on attitudes toward the current Gulf crisis-a study of beliefs and attitudes in television watching. One of the questions asked in that study was, How many Vietnamese casualties would you estimate that there were during the Vietnam war? The average response on the part of Americans today is about 100,000. The official figure is about two million. The actual figure is probably three to four million. The people who conducted the study raised an appropriate question: What would we think about German political culture if, when you asked people today how many Jews died in the Holocaust, they estimated about 300,000? What would that tell us about German political culture? They leave the question unanswered, but you can pursue it. What does it tell us about our culture? It tells us quite a bit. It is necessary to overcome the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force and other democratic deviations. In this particular case it worked. This is true on every topic. Pick the topic you like: the Middle East, international terrorism, Central America, whatever it is-the picture of the world that’s presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies upon lies. It’s all been a marvelous success from the point of view in deterring the threat of democracy, achieved under conditions of freedom, which is extremely interesting. It’s not like a totalitarian state, where it’s done by force. These achievements are under conditions of freedom. If we want to understand our own society, we’ll have to think about these facts. They are important facts, important for those who care about what kind of society they live in.

page 38
DISSIDENT CULTURE
Despite all of this, the dissident culture survived. It’s grown quite a lot since the 1960s. In the 1960s the dissident culture first of all was extremely slow in developing. There was no protest against the Indochina war until years after the United States had started bombing South Vietnam. When it did grow it was a very narrow dissident movement, mostly students and young people. By the 1970s that had changed considerably. Major popular movements had developed: the environmental movement, the feminist movement, the anti-nuclear movement, and others. In the 1980s there was an even greater expansion to the solidarity movements, which is something very new and important in the history of at least American, and maybe even world dissidence. These were movements that not only protested but actually involved themselves, often intimately, in the lives of suffering people elsewhere. They learned a great deal from it and had quite a civilizing effect on mainstream America. All of this has made a very large difference. Anyone who has been involved in this kind of activity for many years must be aware of this. I know myself that the kind of talks I give today in the most reactionary parts of the country-central Georgia, rural Kentucky, etc.-are talks of the kind that I couldn’t have given at the peak of the peace movement to the most active peace movement audience. Now you can give them anywhere. People may agree or not agree, but at least they understand what you’re talking about and there’s some sort of common ground that you can pursue.
These are all signs of the civilizing effect, despite all the propaganda, despite all the efforts to control thought and manufacture consent. Nevertheless, people are acquiring an ability and a willingness to think things through. Skepticism about power has grown, and attitudes have changed on many, many issues. It’s kind of slow, maybe even glacial, but perceptible and important. Whether it’s fast enough to make a significant difference in what happens in the world is another question. Just to take one familiar example of it: The famous gender gap. In the 1960s attitudes of men and women were approximately the same on such matters as the “martial virtues” and the sickly inhibitions against the use of military force. Nobody, neither men nor women, were suffering from those sickly inhibitions in the early 1960s. The responses were the same. Everybody thought that the use of violence to suppress people out there was just right. Over the years it’s changed. The sickly inhibitions have increased all across the board. But meanwhile a gap has been growing, and by now it’s a very substantial gap. According to polls, it’s something like twenty-five percent. What has happened? What has happened is that there is some form of at least semiorganized popular movement that women are involved in-the feminist movement. Organization has its effects. It means that you discover that you’re not alone. Others have the same thoughts that you do. You can reinforce your thoughts and learn more about what you think and believe. These are very informal movements, not like a membership organizations, just a mood that involves interactions among people. It has a very noticeable effect. That’s the danger of democracy: If organizations can develop, if people are no longer just glued to the tube, you may have all these funny thoughts arising in their heads, like sickly inhibitions against the use of military force. That has to be overcome, but it hasn’t been overcome.

page 42
PARADE OF ENEMIES
Instead of talking about the last war, let me talk about the next war, because sometimes it’s useful to be prepared instead of just reacting. There is a very characteristic development going on in the United States now. It’s not the first country in the world that’s done this. There are growing domestic social and economic problems, in fact, maybe catastrophes. Nobody in power has any intention of doing anything about them. If you look at the domestic programs of the administrations of the past ten years-I include here the Democratic opposition-there’s really no serious proposal about what to do about the severe problems of health, education, homelessness, joblessness, crime, soaring criminal populations, jails, deterioration in the inner cities – the whole raft of problems. You all know about them, and they’re all getting worse. Just in the two years that George Bush has been in office three million more children crossed the poverty line, the debt is zooming, educational standards are declining, real wages are now back to the level of about the late 1950s for much of the population, and nobody’s doing anything about it. In such circumstances you’ve got to divert the bewildered herd, because if they start noticing this they may not like it, since they’re the ones suffering from it. Just having them watch the Superbowl and the sitcoms may not be enough. You have to whip them up into fear of enemies. In the 1930s Hitler whipped them into fear of the Jews and gypsies. You had to crush them to defend yourselves. We have our ways, too. Over the last ten years, every year or two, some major monster is constructed that we have to defend ourselves against. There used to be one that was always readily available: The Russians. You could always defend yourself against the Russians. But they’re losing their attractiveness as an enemy, and it’s getting harder and harder to use that one, so some new ones have to be conjured up. In fact, people have quite unfairly criticized George Bush for being unable to express or articulate what’s really driving us now. That’s very unfair. Prior to about the mid-1980s, when you were asleep you would just play the record: the Russians are coming. But he lost that one and he’s got to make up new ones, just like the Reaganite public relations apparatus did in the 1980s. So it was international terrorists and narcotraffickers and crazed Arabs and Saddam Hussein, the new Hitler, was going to conquer the world. They’ve got to keep coming up one after another. You frighten the population, terrorize them, intimidate them so that they’re too afraid to travel and cower in fear. Then you have a magnificent victory over Grenada, Panama, or some other defenseless third-world army that you can pulverize before you ever bother to look at them-which is just what happened. That gives relief. We were saved at the last minute. That’s one of the ways in which you can keep the bewildered herd from paying attention to what’s really going on around them, keep them diverted and controlled. The next one that’s coming along, most likely, will be Cuba. That’s going to require a continuation of the illegal economic warfare, possibly a revival of the extraordinary international terrorism. The most major international terrorism organized yet has been the Kennedy administration’s Operation Mongoose, then the things that followed along, against Cuba. There’s been nothing remotely comparable to it except perhaps the war against Nicaragua, if you call that terrorism. The World Court classified it as something more like aggression. There’s always an ideological offensive that builds up a chimerical monster, then campaigns to have it crushed. You can’t go in if they can fight back. That’s much too dangerous. But if you are sure that they will be crushed, maybe we’ll knock that one off and heave another sigh of relief.

page 46
SELECTIVE PERCEPTION
This has been going on for quite a while. In May 1986, the memoirs of the released Cuban prisoner, Armando Valladares, came out. They quickly became a media sensation. I’ll give you a couple of quotes. The media described his revelations as “the definitive account of the vast system of torture and prison by which Castro punishes and obliterates political opposition.” It was “an inspiring and unforgettable account” of the “bestial prisons,” inhuman torture, [and] record of state violence [under] yet another of this century’s mass murderers, who we learn, at last, from this book “has created a new despotism that has institutionalized torture as a mechanism of social control” in “the hell that was the Cuba that [Valladares] lived in.” That’s the Washington Post and New York Times in repeated reviews. Castro was described as “a dictatorial goon.” His atrocities were revealed in this book so conclusively that “only the most light-headed and cold-blooded Western intellectual will come to the tyrant’s defense, ” said the Washington Post. Remember, this is the account of what happened to one man. Let’s say it’s all true. Let’s raise no questions about what happened to the one man who says he was tortured. At a White House ceremony marking Human Rights Day, he was singled out by Ronald Reagan for his courage in enduring the horrors and sadism of this bloody Cuban tyrant. He was then appointed the U.S. representative at the U.N. Human Rights Commission, where he has been able to perform signal services defending the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments against charges that they conduct atrocities so massive that they make anything he suffered look pretty minor. That’s the way things stand.
That was May 1986. It was interesting, and it tells you something about the manufacture of consent. The same month, the surviving members of the Human Rights Group of El Salvador-the leaders had been killed-were arrested and tortured, including Herbert Anaya, who was the director. They were sent to a prison-La Esperanza (hope) Prison. While they were in prison they continued their human rights work. They were lawyers, they continued taking affidavits. There were 432 prisoners in that prison. They got signed affidavits from 430 of them in which they described, under oath, the torture that they had received: electrical torture and other atrocities, including, in one case, torture by a North American U.S. major in uniform, who is described in some detail. This is an unusually explicit and comprehensive testimony, probably unique in its detail about what’s going on in a torture chamber. This 160-page report of the prisoners’ sworn testimony was sneaked out of prison, along with a videotape which was taken showing people testifying in prison about their torture. It was distributed by the Marin County Interfaith Task Force. The national press refused to cover it. The TV stations refused to run it. There was an article in the local Marin County newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner, and I think that’s all. No one else would touch it. This was a time when there was more than a few “lightheaded and cold-blooded Western intellectuals” who were singing the praises of Jose Napoleon Duarte and of Ronald Reagan. Anaya was not the subject of any tributes. He didn’t get on Human Rights Day. He wasn’t appointed to anything. He was released in a prisoner exchange and then assassinated, apparently by the U.S.-backed security forces. Very little information about that ever appeared. The media never asked whether exposure of the atrocities-instead of sitting on them and silencing them-might have saved his life.
This tells you something about the way a well-functioning system of consent manufacturing works. In comparison with the revelations of Herbert Anaya in E1 Salvador, Valladares’s memoirs are not even a pea next to the mountain. But you’ve got your job to do. That takes us toward the next war. I expect, we’re going to hear more and more of this, until the next operation takes place.
A few remarks about the last one. Let’s turn finally to that. Let me begin with this University of Massachusetts study that I mentioned before. It has some interesting conclusions. In the study people were asked whether they thought that the United States should intervene with force to reverse illegal occupation or serious human rights abuses. By about two to one, people in the United States thought we should. We should use force in the case of illegal occupation of land and severe human rights abuses. If the United States was to follow that advice, we would bomb El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Damascus, Tel Aviv, Capetown, Turkey, Washington, and a whole list of other states. These are all cases of illegal occupation and aggression and severe human rights abuses. If you know the facts about that range of examples, you’ll know very well that Saddam Hussein’s aggression and atrocities fall well within the range. They’re not the most extreme. Why doesn’t anybody come to that conclusion? The reason is that nobody knows. In a well-functioning propaganda system, nobody would know what I’m talking about when I list that range of examples. If you bother to look, you find that those examples are quite appropriate.
Take one that was ominously close to being perceived during the Gulf War. In February, right in the middle of the bombing campaign, the government of Lebanon requested Israel to observe U.N. Security Council Resolution 425, which called on it to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Lebanon. That resolution dates from March 1978. There have since been two subsequent resolutions calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon. Of course it doesn’t observe them because the United States backs it in maintaining that occupation. Meanwhile southern Lebanon is terrorized. There are big torture-chambers with horrifying things going on. It’s used as a base for attacking other parts of Lebanon. Since 1978, Lebanon was invaded, the city of Beirut was bombed, about 20,000 people were killed, about 80 percent of them civilians, hospitals were destroyed, and more terror, looting, and robbery was inflicted. All fine, the United States backed it. That’s just one case. You didn’t see anything in the media about it or any discussion about whether Israel and the United States should observe U.N. Security Council Resolution 425 or any of the other resolutions, nor did anyone call for the bombing of Tel Aviv, although by the principles upheld by two-thirds of the population, we should. After all, that’s illegal occupation and severe human rights abuses. That’s just one case. There are much worse ones. The Indonesian invasion of East Timor knocked off about 200,000 people. They all look minor by that one. That was strongly backed by the United States and is still going on with major United States diplomatic and military support. We can go on and on.

page 57
In the years of the Reagan-Bush administration alone, about 1.5 million people were killed by South Africa just in the surrounding countries. Forget what was happening in South Africa and Namibia.

page 65
The issue is … whether we want to live in a free society or whether we want to live under what amounts to a form of self-imposed totalitarianism, with the bewildered herd marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified, screaming patriotic slogans, fearing for their lives and admiring with awe the leader who saved them from destruction, while the educated masses goose-step on command and repeat the slogans they’re supposed to repeat and the society deteriorates at home. We end up serving as a mercenary enforcer state, hoping that others are going to pay us to smash up the world. Those are the choices That’s the choice that you have to face. The answer to those questions is very much in the hands of people like you and me.

George J. Aditjondro

Pengantar:

Selama tiga tahun terakhir, kawasan Indonesia Timur, telah dilanda berbagai kerusuhan sosial yang sepintas lalu bercorak inter-etnis, bahkan inter-religius. Secara khusus dapat disebutkah Kepulauan Maluku, yang kini sudah dipecah menjadi dua propinsi, dan di Kabupaten Poso, Sulawesi Tengah, di mana kerusuhan sosial telah berkecamuk selama tiga tahun.

Secara garis besar, ada tiga kecenderungan dalam menafsirkan latar belakang kerusuhan sosial di Ambon dan Poso. Kecenderungan pertama adalah menyalahkan kekuatan-kekuatan luar negeri sebagai ‘dalang’ kerusuhan-kerusuhan itu, baik gerakan Republik Maluku Selatan (RMS) yang berbasis di Negeri Belanda, dan gerakan al-Qayda, yang tadinya berbasis di Afghanistan. Ini yang sering dilakukan oleh Lasykar Jihad dan para pendukungnya, yang menuduh ‘RMS’-lah yang mendalangi kerusuhan di Maluku, dengan memelestkan singkatan Republik Maluku Selatan menjadi ‘Republik Maluku Serani’.

Sebaliknya, kelompok-kelompok Maluku yang beragama Kristen, sudah lama mencurigai tangan-tangan Usamah bin Laden di balik Lasykar Jihad. Belakangan ini, kedua kelompok yang tidak berbasis di Indonesia itu dituduh oleh Kepala Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN), Letjen AM Hendropriyono, sebagai dalang kerusuhan Poso babak terbaru (Detikcom, 12 Desember 2001). Kecenderungan pertama itu dilawan oleh kecenderungan yang kedua, yakni bahwa kerusuhan di Ambon – dan mungkin juga di Poso – terutama berakar dalam konflik-konflik etnis yang berlatar-belakang sosial-ekonomis di daerah itu (lihat misalnya, van Klinken 2001).

Sementara itu, interpretasi ketiga (misalnya dalam Aditjondro 2001a, 2001c), adalah bahwa ketegangan sosio-ekonomis yang memang ada di berbagai daerah di Indonesia — baik yang potensial bercorak konflik kelas, konflik antar-etnik, atau bahkan konflik rasial –, sengaja dipicu oleh berbagai faksi militer – dengan bantuan kelompok-kelompok paramiliter binaan mereka – menjadi konflik terbuka yang bersifat massal dan berdarah, guna memungkinkan intervensi militer di daerah-daerah itu. Dalam konteks yang lebih bercakup nasional, intervensi militer ini dimaksudkan sebagai dalih untuk pembukaan kembali Kodam-Kodam yang telah ditutup oleh Panglima ABRI Jenderal Benny Murdani , antara 1983 s/d 1986.

Rencana pemekaran kembali jumlah Kodam dari 10 menjadi 17 dimulai oleh Menhankam/Panglima ABRI Jenderal Wiranto di masa pemerintahan Presiden BJ Habibie (Forum Keadilan, 29 Maret-4 April 1999: 18). Belum tiga bulan konflik di Ambon berlangsung, Korem 174 Pattimura – yang waktu itu masih berkedudukan di bawah Kodam VIII Trikora – sudah dimekarkan menjadi Kodam (Aditjondro 2001a: 114-115).

Berdasarkan preseden itu, kerusuhan-kerusuhan sosial di daerah-daerah lain, misalnya di Kalimantan Barat dan Aceh, dapat dilihat sebagai bagian dari skenario militer untuk menghidupkan kembali Kodam-Kodam lain yang sudah ditutup satu dasawarsa sebelumnya (lihat Munir 2001: 18). Skenario itu kini sudah terlihat pula di Aceh. Walaupun sudah diprotes keras oleh berbagai aktivis dan kelompok hak-hak asasi manusia (lihat misalnya, Ishak 2002: 75-78), toh Kodam Iskandar Muda telah dibuka kembali.

Kaitan antara Pemekaran Kodam dengan Konsollidasi Bisnis Militer:

Pemekaran jumlah Kodam, Korem dan Kodim punya dampak penting bagi kehidupan sosial-ekonomi rakyat di daerah. Unit-unit teritorial militer di daerah itu adalah tulang punggung bisnis militer di sana. Hubungan antara struktur teritorial militer – khususnya struktur teritorial TNI/AD – dengan berbagai kegiatan bisnis militer, tergambar di skema sebagai berikut (dikutip dari Aditjondro 2002b):

———————————–
BISNIS
INSTITUSIONAL
———————————–
STRUKTUR KERUSUHAN/TERITORIAL ABRI GEJOLAK SOSIAL
———————————–
BISNIS BISNIS
NON-INSTITUSIONAL KELABU
———————————–<

Dalam skema ini, istilah “bisnis militer” sudah tersirat bisnis Polisi (yang punya struktur teritorial yang paralel dengan struktur teritorial TNI/AD), serta bisnis kelompok paramiliter yang ikut didukung oleh fraksi-fraksi tentara. Bisnis militer ini, bukan hanya berbentuk perusahaan-perusahaan di bawah payung yayasan dan koperasi tentara dan polisi, atau mengandung saham yayasan dan koperasi tersebut.

Selanjutnya, dalam skema di atas bisnis militer digambarkan punya tiga kaki. Kaki pertama adalah apa yang dinamakan oleh Indria Samego dkk “bisnis institusional ABRI”. Sedangkan kaki kedua adalah apa yang mereka namakan “bisnis non-institusional ABRI”, yakni bisnis milik purnawirawan ABRI dan keluarga mereka, yang sudah berkembang menjadi konglomerat-konglomerat (lihat Samego dkk 1998).

Contoh bisnis non-institusional ABRI di Sulawesi Tengah, adalah perkebunan kelapa sawit PT Hardaya Inti Plantations seluas 51 ribu hektar di Kabupaten Buol Toli-Toli. Salah seorang pemegang saham dan komisarisnya adalah Rony Narpatisuta Hendropiyono (CIC 1997: 224-225), yang kemungkinan besar adalah putra Letjen (Purn.) AM Hendropiyono, Kepala Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN).

Contoh lain adalah kilang kayu hitam PT Sulawesi Ebony Sentra (SES) di Palu, yang merupakan kongsi antara 21 perusahaan, termasuk PT Rante Mario dan PT Zedsko Indonesia (PDBI 1994: B-270 – B-271). Perusahaan pertama milik Tommy Suharto, putra bungsi Jenderal (Purn.) Suharto, sedangkan yang kedua milik Ilham Mattalatta, putera tertua Jenderal (Purn.) Andi Mattalatta. Anggota kongsi itu yang lain a.l. PT Fendi Indah, yang sepertiga sahamnya milik PT Nusamba yang 90& milik keluarga Suharto. Sedangkan anggota kongsi itu yang cukup terkenal di Sulawesi Tengah dan Papua Barat, adalah PT Kebun Sari milik Abdul Rasyid, pengusaha asal Sulawesi Selatan, yang punya konsesi kayu eboni di kaki Gunung Nokilalaki, Sulawesi Tengah, serta konsesi kayu damar di Papua Barat, berkongsi dengan satu perusahaan Korea Selatan.

Yang penting untuk dicatat, adalah bahwa wilayah konsesi bersama PT SES itu terentang di kawasan pegunungan di perbatasan Kabupaten Donggala dan Kabupaten Poso. Sebagian hutan eboni itu, merupakan wilayah ulayat suku-suku pegunungan (orang Lore) di Kabupaten Poso, warga Gereja Kristen Sulawesi Tengah (GKST), yang kehidupan dan tempat tinggalnya kini terobrak-abrik oleh kerusuhan sosial di dataran rendah Poso, yang membujur dari Tentena s/d kota Poso.

Hubungan antara bisnis institusional dan non-institusional, juga sudah cukup terkenal. Sebagian besaryayasan militer yang ikut memperlicin jalan bagi ekspansi bisnis keluarga Suharto (lihat Aditjondro 1998: 32-36, 2002a: 36-38). Salah satu contoh di Sulawesi Selatan adalah kongsi PT Yamabri Dwibhakti Utama milik Yayasan Markas Besar ABRI (Yamabri) bagi PT Makarti Trimitra, perkebunan kelapa sawit berpola PIR-Transmigrasi milik Ari Haryo Wibowo (Ari Sigit) di Kabupaten Luwu (Hamid 1998).

Bisnis keluarga besar Soeharto, memang cukup menonjol di Sulawesi Selatan, berkat relasi-relasi yang dibuat Soeharto ketika menjabat sebagai Panglima Mandala di awal 1960-an. Tommy, pertama kali mendapat konsesi hutan di sana, yang dinamainya PT Rante Mario. Sedangkan pamannya, Probosutedjo, ketika pertama kali mendirikan perusahaan otomotif, di Makassar yang dinamakannya PT Garmak Motor, kependekan dari Garuda Makassar. Dalam perjalanannya, perusahaan itu pernah diambilalih oleh Menperdag (waktu itu), M. Jusuf (Warta Ekonomi, 21 Oktober 1996: 24), tapi kemudian telah diperolehnya kembali. Sedangkan generasi ketiga keluarga Soeharto, juga telah membangun berbagai aliansi bisnis dengan generasi kedua dari kroni-kroni Soeharto, seperti Ari Sigit yang membangun Arha Groupnya dengan Emir Baramuli, putra bekas ketua DPA, A.A. Baramuli. Makanya tidak mengherankan bahwa Sulawesi Selatan merupakan salah satu dari empat propinsi di mana Arha Group mendapat lisensi stiker alkohol yang kontroversial di awal 1995 (Warta Ekonomi, 30 Januari 1995: 12-14).

Para mitra aliansi bisnis keluarga Soeharto di Makassar, memang seringkali mengundang kontroversi, karena kedekatan mereka dengan unsur-unsur kekuasaan, baik sipil maupun militer. Aliansi bisnis antara keluarga Soeharto dengan keluarga Habibie sendiri (lihat Aditjondro 1998), ikut menghambat cita-cita BJ Habibie untuk melegitimasi mandat kepresidenannya, yang hanya diperolehnya berkat kedekatannya dengan Soeharto. Lalu, bekas ketua Puskud Sulsel, Nurdin Halid, yang pernah diajukan ke pengadilan karena tidak dapat mempertanggungjawabkan hilangnya dana Rp 100 milyar milik para petani cengkeh, justru diangkat oleh Tommy Suharto untuk menjadi direktur PT Goro Batara Sakti, yang terlibat dalam kasus ‘tukar guling’ (ruilslag ) tanah Bulog dengan perusahaan bisnis ritel itu. Belakangan ini, para aktivis pro-demokrasi di Makassar menengarai, bahwa Nurdin Halid berada di balik berbagai demonstrasi yang berbau sektarian di Makassar, untuk membelokkan konflik-konflik vertikal menjadi konflik horisontal (lihat Aditjondro 2001b: 13).

Adapun kaki ketiga, sesuai dengan namanya, yakni “bisnis kelabu”, belum banyak diteliti, karena tidak terekam dengan jelas dalam statistik perdagangan, dan karena sebagian (besar?) sifatnya ilegal dan merupakan penyalahgunaan sarana publik. Kadang-kadang, bisnis kelabu ini dijalankan oleh perusahaan yang legal, artinya, punya badan hukum, bahkan berbentuk Perseroan Terbatas. Misalnya,Yapto Soerjosoemarno, SH, bekas ketua Pemuda Pancasila, memiliki sebuah perusahaan lain, PT Mahaphala Cakti, yang menumpang di kantor pengacaranya, Yapto & Associates.

Perusahaan itu memasok kebutuhan senjata bagi tentara dan polisi. Tapi bukan bisnis senjata yang paling banyak menghasilkan uang bagi perusahaan itu. Pemasokan ransum bagi tentara dan polisi yang bertugas di lapangan, serta pemasokan semen untuk pembangunan dan rehabilitasi asrama tentara dan polisi di seluruh Indonesia, yang ratusan jumlahnya, merupakan sumber pemasukan yang lebih besar bagi perusahaan itu. Makanya, setiap keputusan untuk mengirim ribuan tentara ke Maluku, Papua, Sulawesi, Kalimantan dan Aceh berpotensi menambah pemasukan perusahaan itu. Juga pembukaan kembali Kodam-Kodam lama, seperti Pattimura dan Iskandar Muda, berpotensi melahirkan order-order kakap untuk membangun dan meng-upgrade asrama prajurit serta kantor Kodam, Korem dan Kodim di Maluku dan Aceh (lihat Aditjondro 2002b).

Sesudah meledaknya kerusuhan di Kepulauan Maluku, muncul berbagai jenis bisnis kelabu ini. Mulai dari penjarahan toko-toko bersama massa perusuh, bisnis pengamanan (calon) penumpang kapal dan pesawat terbang dari dan ke pelabuhan dan bandara di Ambon, perampokan bank di Ambon, pencurian kelapa dan pengolahannya kopra untuk diantar-pulaukan dari Maluku Utara ke Manado, penjualan senjata dan peluru, sampai dengan penjualan jasa sebagai tentara bayaran bagi kelompok-kelompok sipil yang bertikai. Pasukan Yonif Linud 431 Kostrad Divisi I yang berkedudukan di Kariango, Kabupaten Maros, Sulawesi Selatan, kembali dari tugas di Ambon lengkap dengan barang-barang jarahan, yang paling umum berbentuk TV dan radio tape recorder (lihat Aditjondro 2001a: 121; D&R, 24-30 Januari 2000: 16; sumber-sumber lain).

Mirip seperti di Maluku, perdagangan senjata juga mulai merebak di Sulawesi Tengah, setelah meletusnya tiga gelombang kerusuhan di Kabupaten Poso. Akhir Mei 2000, Polda Sulteng menyita sejumlah senapan buatan PT Pindad, Bandung, yang dikirimkan melalui cargo yang ditujukan ke Kanwil Departemen Kehutanan Sulteng, dengan pengirim, Dirjen PKA Dephut di Jakarta. Ketika dikonfrontir oleh para wartawan di Palu, KaKanWil Dephut di sana menyatakan tidak tahu menahu sama sekali tentang kiriman senjata itu. Di samping itu, ada puluhan anggota TNI dan Polri juga melibatkan diri dalam kerusuhan di sana. Di antara tujuh orang yang teridentifikasi kuat terlibat dalam kerusuhan di Poso, yang telah menjalani pemeriksaan, dua orangmerupakan perwira TNI berpangkat Kapten (Sangaji 2001).

Simpul penghubung ketiga bentuk bisnis militer itu adalah struktur teritorial militer sebab struktur inilah basis pengorganisasian bisnis institusional militer, yang pada gilirannya berkaitan dengan bisnis non-institusional dan bisnis kelabu mereka. Di lingkungan Angkatan Darat, misalnya, di tiap Korem ada Primkopad, di tiap Kodam ada Puskopad, dan di tingkat Pusat ada Inkopad (Lowry 1996: 138). Beberapa Kodam dan Polda, punya yayasannya sendiri. Selanjutnya, berbagai yayasan militer dan poliri di tingkat nasional dan daerah, bersama Inkopad, Inkopal, Inkopau dan Inkoppol, menjadi pemegang saham puluhan perusahaan besar.

Sementara itu, para bekas panglima ketiga angkatan serta para bekas Kapolri dan bekas Kapolda, sering diangkat menjadi komisaris dari berbagai perusahaan milik keluarga para kapitalis birokrat dan purnawirawan ABRI, kalau tidak diangkat juga menjadi anggota pengurus berbagai yayasan militer dan polisi itu. Maka semakin solid-lah kaitan antara struktur teritorial militer dengan ketiga kaki bisnis militer itu.

Namun seiring dengan tuntutan penghapusan doktrin dwifungsi ABRI, pandangan di antara para perwira tinggi TNI/AD terhadap seberapa kuat dan merasuknya struktur teritorial TNI di tengah-tengah masyarakat juga mulai mengalami polarisasi. Pandangan bahwa seluruh struktur teritorial itu harus dihapus, seperti yang dianut oleh almarhum Letjen Agus Wirahadikusumah, merupakan pandangan yang paling tidak populer. Namun soal perlu tidaknya Kodam-Kodam yang sudah ditutup dibuka kembali, seperti yang dicetuskan oleh Jenderal Wiranto, cukup jelas polarisasinya. Belakangan ini, cita-cita Wiranto itu semakin tidak populer.

Di antara para perwira aktif dan purnawirawan TNI/AD, yang masih mendukung perluasan struktur teritorial TNI/AD, konon termasuk bekas KSAD Jenderal Tyasno Sudarto dan Letjen (Purn) AM Hendropryono. Konflik internal ini semakin menajam, sehubungan dengan pemilihan calon Panglima TNI yang akan datang, di mana Tyasno tampaknya merupakan calon pilihan Presiden Megawati Sukarnoputri, sementara KSAD Jenderal Endriartono Sutarto konon merupakan pilihan Panglima TNI, Laksamana Widodo AS (Adil, 24 Maret 2002: 16).

Makanya, gelombang kerusuhan akhir November 2001 di Kabupaten Poso, setelah ribuan orang anggota Lasykar Jihad diloloskan masuk ke sana, dan memimpin serangkaian serangan fatal terhadap penganut agama Kristen di sana (Sydney Morning Herald, 3, 7 & 10 Des. 2001; The Australian, 5 & 10 Des. 2001; Australian Financial Review, 7 Des. 2001; Time, 17 Des. 2001; berita-berita email), lebih merupakan refleksi konflik internal di pucuk pimpinan Angkatan Darat. Tidak mengherankan pula, bahwa yang segera melontarkan sinyalemen bahwa al Qaeda dan RMS merupakan dalang kerusuhan di Poso, tidak lain dan tidak bukan adalah Hendropriyono. Jenderal Purnawirawan itu juga yang tiga tahun lalu ikut menuduh RMS sebagai dalang kerusuhan di Ambon (Aditjondro 2001a: 115).

Peranan kelompok-kelompok paramiliter:

Berbeda dengan di era pemerintahan Soeharto, era pasca-Soeharto semakin menyolok ditandai oleh mobilisasi kelompok-kelompok paramiliter. Baik dalam ‘meramaikan’ konflik-konflik perebutan puncak kekuasaan Negara di Jakarta, maupun dalam ‘memelihara’ dinamika gejolak-gejolak politik di daerah-daerah di Jawa dan di luar Jawa (lihat Simanjuntak 2000; van Dijk 2001).

Kelompok-kelompok paramiliter itu juga ikut berperan dalam mengeksploitir ketegangan sosio-ekonomis di Kepulauan Maluku dan Sulawesi, menjadi konflik berdarah di antara kelompok-kelompok yang berbeda agama. Dalam kasus Ambon, yang berfungsi sebagai katalisator adalah kelompok-kelompok preman Maluku Kristen dan Islam di Jakarta (lihat Aditjondro 2001a). Sedangkan dalam kasus Poso, yang berfungsi mengekskalasi konflik antar-etnis di Poso menjadi semacam perang terbuka di antara kelompok Islam dan Kristen, adalah kelompok migran NTT di bawah pimpinan Fabianus Tibo, seorang recidivis yang pernah dihukum penjara karena membunuh transmigran Bali (Ecip & Waru 2001: 44).

Anehnya, setelah Tibo – bersama dua orang migran NTT yang lain – dijatuhi hukuman mati oleh Pengadilan Negeri Palu, awal April tahun lalu – mendadak ketenteraman masyarakat di Kabupaten Poso tergoncang lagi akibat kedatangan ribuan anggota Lasykar Jihad dari Maluku dan tempat-tempat lain. Hal ini kembali mengulangi sejarah kedatangan ribuan anggota Lasykar Jihad dari Jawa, Sumatra dan Sulawesi ke Ambon, mulai bulan Mei 2000, tanpa sedikitpun mengalami hambatan dari Angkatan Darat, Angkatan Laut, Angkatan Udara dan Polri dengan seluruh aparat teritorial mereka yang hadir sampai ke pelosok-pelosok Nusantara.

Kebetulan, berita terbongkarnya “Kamp Mujahidin”, 10 Km di luar kota Poso yang konon dipimpin oleh Omar Bandon dan Parlindungan Siregar (Time, 18 Maret 2002: 48), membuat perhatian pers kembali terpancang pada jaringan teroris internasional itu, sedangkan hubungan antara Lasykar Jihad dengan faksi tentara yang tetap ingin memperluas struktur teritorial mereka, luput dari sorotan.

Sementara itu, terpancing oleh kedatangan Lasykar Jihad ke Poso, satu kelompok paramiliter lain, Legiun Christum, mulai menyiapkan diri di kawasan pegunungan Minahasa, Sulawesi Utara, untuk melawan Lasykar Jihad. Malah mereka kabarnya juga menyiapkan diri untuk bersama suku-suku bangsa yang dominan Kristen di Minahasa, Poso, dan Toraja, melawan usaha-usaha mengubah Indonesia menjadi Negara Islam (Sydney Morning Herald, 15 Januari 2002).

Kebetulan pula, manuver-manuver partai-partai Islam di Jakarta, yang bersama gerakan militan Islam mengkampanyekan kembalinya NKRI ke Piagam Jakarta 1945, telah ikut membangkitkan kembali semangat rakyat Minahasa untuk menentukan nasibnya sendiri. Ini misalnya dapat dilihat dari pencetusan Kongres Minahasa Raya, tanggal 5 Agustus 2000, yang memutuskan bahwa rakyat Minahasa akan keluar dari NKRI, apabila Mukadimah UUD 1945 mengalami amandemen sesuai dengan inti Piagam Jakarta itu.

Seiring dengan hasil kongres itu, sebagian tokoh tua Minahasa telah membentuk Pasukan Brigade Manguni, konon untuk mengantisipasi masuknya Lasykar Jihad ke Minahasa. Malah sudah ada suara-suara yang mendorong pasukan paramiliter Kristen itu untuk masuk ke Ambon, untuk membela masyarakat Kristen yang kewalahan menghadapi gempuran Lasykar Jihad yang didukung oleh tentara itu.

Perkembangan ini, tidak bisa dipandang enteng, karena sarat dengan simbolisme perang di Minahasa. Burung manguni (burung hantu), adalah burung yang dianggap sebagai petunjuk untuk berperang bagi suku-suku di Minahasa, di masa pra-Kristen. Jadi tidaknya menyerang musuh, ditentukan dari interpretasi terhadap arah terbang burung itu.

Menuju Dua Kodam di Sulawesi?

Melihat perkembangan ini, TNI dan Polri (khususnya, Brimob) semakin punya dalih untuk menambah pasukan mereka di Sulawesi Tengah dan Utara. Kalau itu sampai terjadi, maka mengikuti skenario Ambon, peluang untuk menghidupkan kembali Kodam Merdeka, — yang meliputi Sulawesi Tengah , Sulawesi Utara, dan propinsi baru, Gorontalo – serta Kodam Hasanuddin – yang meliputi Sulawesi Selatan & Tenggara — akan semakin terbuka.

Pemekaran Kodam Wirabuana menjadi Kodam Merdeka dan Kodam Hasanuddin, akan mempermantap kuku dan cakar tentara untuk meredam dinamika gerakan pro-demokrasi di kelima propinsi di Sulawesi, sambil memperbanyak titik-titik temu antara bisnis militer dengan bisnis para konglomerat warisan Orde Baru di Sulawesi, yang lebih bisa menikmati proteksi dari militer, apabila harus berhadapan dengan aksi-aksi buruh serta rakyat setempat yang tergusur dari tempat tinggal dan lahan dan perairan adat mereka.

Newcastle, 5 April 2002.

Kepustakaan:

Aditjondro, George J. (1998). Dari Soeharto ke Habibie: Guru kencing berdiri, murid kencing berlari: Kedua puncak korupsi, kolusi, dan nepotisme rezim Orde Baru. Jakarta: MIK & Pijar Indonesia.

————— (2001a). “Guns, pamphlets and handie-talkies: How the military exploited local ethno-religious tensions in Maluku to preserve their political and economic privileges.” Dalam Ingrid Wessel & Geogrie Wimhoefer (eds). Violence in Indonesia. Hamburg: Abera, hal. 100-128.

————–(2001b). “Financing human rights violations. Part I.” Indonesia ALERT!, 3 (3), Spring, Washington, DC, hal. 1, 3-13.

————–(2001c). “Di balik asap mesiu, air mata dan anyir darah di Maluku.” Epilog dalam Zairin Salampessy & Thamrin Husain (eds). Ketika semerbak cengkeh tergusur asap mesiu: Tragedi kemanusiaan Maluku, di balik konspirasi militer, kapitalis birokrat, dan kepentingan elit politik. Jakarta: Tapak Ambon, hal. 131-170.

————–(2002a). “Suharto has gone, but the regime has not changed: Presidential corruption in the Orde Baru.” Dalam Richard Holloway (ed). Stealing from the People: 16 Studies on Corruption in Indonesia. Book 1: Corruption – From Top top Bottom. Jakarta: Aksara Foundation, hal. 1-66.

————–(2002b). Politik ekonomi kekerasan negara di Papua Barat.

Makalah untuk Konferensi ‘Kejahatan negara di Papua Barat: Penculikan dan Pembunuhan Theys Hiyo Eluay, Wajah Kekerasan Negara di Papua,’ yang diselenggarakan oleh Els-HAM Papua, LBH Papua dan Kontras Papua di Jakarta, 21-22 Maret.

CIC [PT Capricorn Indonesia Consult Inc.] (1997). Profile and directory of Indonesian plantation 1997/1998. Jakarta: PT Capricorn Indonesia Consult.

van Dijk, Kees (2001). “The privatization of the public order: Relying on the Satgas.” Dalam Wessel & Wimhoefer (eds), op.cit., hal. 152-167.

Ecip, S. Sinansari & Darwis Waru (2001). Kerusuhan Poso yang sebenarnya. Jakarta: PT Global Mahardika Netama.

Hamid, Hasanuddin (1998). “Perkara keluarga Cendana (1): Ari Sigit dan Yayasan Mabes ABRI mengganjal pengusaha Sulawesi Selatan.” SiaR News Service, 4 Januari.

Ishak, Otto Syamsuddin (2001). Dari maaf ke panik Aceh: Sebuah sketsa sosiologi politik. Jakarta & Banda Aceh: Yappika, LSPP & Cordova.

Iswandi (2000). Bisnis militer Orde Baru: Keterlibatan ABRI dalam bidang ekonomi dan pengaruhnya terhadap pembentukan rezim otoriter. Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya.

van Klinken, Gerry (2001). “The Maluku wars: Bringing society back in.” Indonesia, No. 71, April, hal. 1-26.

Lowry, Robert (1993). Indonesian Defense Policy and the Indonesian Armed Forces. Canberra: Strategic and Defense Studies Centre, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

——— (1996). The Armed Forces of Indonesia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Munir (2001). “Indonesia, violence and the integration problem.” Dalam Wessel & Wimhoefer (eds), op. cit., hal. 17-24.

PDBI [Pusat Data Business Indonesia] (1994). Forestry Indonesia. Jakarta: PDBI.

Ryter, Loren (2001). “Pemuda Pancasila: The last loyalist free men of Suharto’s Order?”, dalam Benedict R. O’G. Anderson (ed). Violence and the state in Suharto’s Indonesia. Ithaca: Southeast Asia Program Publications, Cornell University, hal. 124-155.

Samego, Indria dkk (1998). Bila ABRI berbisnis. Bandung: Mizan.

Sangaji, Anto (2000). Beberapa catatan mengenai kerusuhan di Poso. Makalah pada Pertemuan Mitra NOVIB di Jakarta, 26 Juli.

Simanjuntak, Togi (ed) (2000). Premanisme politik. Jakarta: Institut Studi Arus Informasi (ISAI).

original article:

http://www.geocities.com/kariu67/gja110402.htm

Oleh: Qosim Nursheha Dzulhadi*

hidayatullah.com–Akhir-akhir ini, banyak sorotan ditujukan pada Metodologi Studi Islam (MSI) yang diajarkan di beberapa perguruan tinggi Islam (PTI). Selama ini, MSI  disinyalir banyak “bermasalah”. Salah satunya adalah buku MSI  karangan Drs. Atang Abd. Hakim, MA dan Dr. Jaih Mubarak (Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya, cet. XI, 2009).

Sebagaimana diketahui, tak sedikit PTI yang menjadikan buku ini sebagai rujukan. Sayangnya, tak banyak orang tahu, buku ini sarat masalah. Setidaknya, ada dua titik penting yang penulis anggap bermasalah dalam buku ini; pertama, pluralisme agama, dan kedua, masalah absolusitas agama.

Pluralisme Agama

Dalam buku ini, disinggung  tentang Islam dan agama-agama. Dalam sub judul Islam dalam Wacana Agama-agama, penulisnya menyatakan bahwa kebenaran itu dapat diperoleh melalui dua cara: pertama, kebenaran filosofis. Dalam konteks ini, Islam dan agama-agama lain (seperti Yahudi, Kristen, Budha, termasuk aliran kepercayaan) sama-sama ingin mencapai Realitas Tertinggi (the Ultimate Reality). Kristen dan Islam menerjemahkan ‘Realitas Tertinggi’ sebagai Allah (dengan pelafalan yang sedikit berbeda), Yahudi sebagai Yehova, juga dengan keyakinan yang lain. Ini berarti yang dikejar sebagai Realitas Tertinggi sebenarnya adalah satu. Itulah yang menyebabkan Frithjof Schuon mengatakan bahwa semua agama itu sama pada alam transendental. Pada alam itu, semua mengejar Realitas Tertinggi (hlm. 4).

Ini jelas problem dan tidak jelas dalam memaparkan konsep ketuhanan, khususnya dalam Islam. Apalagi penulisnya mengutip pendapat Frithjof Schuon yang nota-bene seorang pluralis tulen dalam ranah kajian agama-agama. Dalam bukunya The Transcendent Unity of Religion Schuon memang mengatakan tidak ada perbedaan agama-agama dalam titik transcendent. Semuanya mengejar dan menuju titik yang sama. Dalam bahasa Schuon adalah ranah “batin” (esoteric). Tapi jelas ini adalah konsep yang rancu. Karena secara esoteric pun agama-agama itu berbeda secara diametral.

Karena jika dilihat secara kritis, Islam sangat berbeda secara fundamental dalam memandang –katakan—Realitas Tertinggi itu. Konsep Tuhan dalam Islam adalah “final”. Nama Tuhan umat Islam adalah “Allah”, sebagaimana dijelaskan oleh Allah sendiri di dalam Al-Qur’ān (lihat misalnya, Qs. 20: 14, lihat juga Qs. 2: 255). Allah sebagai “Rabb”, sudah dijelaskan oleh-Nya dalam wahyu perdana kepada Rasulullah di Gua Hira’ (Qs. 96: 1-5).

Sementara dalam Yahudi konsep tuhannya tidak jelas. Mereka menyebut tuhannya dengan Y-H-W-H, hanya boleh dieja tapi tak boleh dijelaskan secara detil. Akhirnya dalam bahasa Yunani diterjemahkan menjadi Adonai. Siapakah tuhan mereka? Sebut saja Yahweh. Siapa Yahweh? Tidak jelas.

Begitu juga dengan Kristen. Mereka punya dogma Trinitas (Arab: Tatslīts atau Tsālūts) untuk menjelaskan ‘misteri ketuhanan’ mereka. Maka tidak benar jika dikatakan hanya beda pelafalan dengan Islam dalam memandang Realitas Tertinggi itu. Bahkan, di dalam Al-Qur’ān konsep trinitas ini dikritik habis-habisan. Ini pula yang membuat mereka berang dan tak menyukai Al-Qur’ān. Konsep tauhīd Islam selamanya tidak bisa disatukan dengan konsep Trinitas yang penuh teka-teki tak berjawab itu. Lalu, apa dasarnya penulis buku MSI di atas menyatakan bahwa Islam dan Kristen tidak memiliki perbedaan.

Hanya pendapat Schuon?

Bagaimana pula dengan agama-agama lain, seperti Budha, Hindu dan aliran kepercayaan? Budha tidak memiliki konsep tuhan yang jelas. Kata Budha pun baru ada setelah Sidharta Gawtama (yang dijuluki sebagai Budha) wafat. Dan itu penisbatan kepada orang. Tuhan mereka adalah Trimurti (mirip dengan Trinitas, karena disinyalir sumber trinitas adalah trimurti ini). Begitu pula dengan Hindu yang mengenal trimurti juga: Brahma, Wisnu, dan Siwa. Di samping mereka mengenal manusia titisan Tuhan, yaitu Krishna. Menyamakan seluruhnya dengan konsep tuhan dalam Islam adalah keliru besar (lihat Qs. 112: 1-4). (Lihat pembahasan masalah ini dalam Anis Malik Thoha, Tren Pluralisme Agama: Tinjauan Kritis, (Jakarta: Gema Insani Press, cet. III, 2007: 168-171).

Masalah Absolusitas dan Profanitas

Sisi kedua dalam memperoleh kebenaran menurut mereka, adalah “sisi sosiologis”. Jika dalam sisi filosofis mereka mengklaim semua agama tidak berbeda dalam memandang Realitas Tertinggi, dalam tataran sosiologis klaim tentang Realitas Tertinggi menjadi berbeda. Maka, klaim kebenaran pun menjadi berbeda. Islam, menurut mereka, mengklaim agamanya yang paling benar. Begitu juga, Kristen, Yahudi, Hindu, Budha, dan aliran kepercayaan. Padahal, klaim mereka, perbedaan yang hakiki bukan terletak pada Realitas Tertinggi. Di sinilah timbul konflik kebenaran , baik ekstra agama maupun intra-agama.

Dalam Al-Qur’ān terdapat tuntunan yang banyak membicarakan Realitas Tertinggi yang menunjukkan bahwa Ia, secara filosofis, tidak menerima kebenaran selain-Nya. Namun di sisi lain (sosiologis), ia juga sangat toleran menerima kehadiran keyakinan lain (lakum dīnukum waliyadīn). Di samping itu, para pemikir Muslim cenderung moderat dan sangat toleran.

Atas dasar dua kebenaran tersebut, menurut mereka, sebaiknya Realitas Tertinggi dijadikan ugeran atau patokan. Jika Realitas Tertinggi pada hakikatnya satu, maka secara otomatis prinsip-prinsip filosofis yang digunakan semua agama juga satu. Yang sebaiknya dipertahankan bukan simbol agama, melainkan kebenaran yang sebenarnya dikejar oleh setiap agama (hlm. 4-5).

Jika diperhatikan, apa yang mereka tawarkan mengandung kekeliruan yang tidak kecil. Pertama, masalah klaim kebenaran (truth claim). Ini akan ada dalam setiap agama. Justru, dengan adanya truth claim itu agama-agama yang ada akan tetap lestari. Apakah fanatisme ini dilarang? Tentu tidak. Justru inilah konsep toleransi itu. Karena toleransi, menurut Muhammad Legenhausen, adalah: “menerima kehadiran agama lain yang menurut agama kita salah”. Bukan berarti menganggapnya benar. Legenhausen menulis, “…[T]rue religious tolerance will only be achieved when men learn to respect the religious beliefs of those they consider to be mistaken. The key to tolerance is not the removal or relativisation of disagreement, but the willingness to accept genuine disagreement.” (Anis Malik Thoha, ibid., hlm. 213).

Truth claim adalah wajar dan biasa terjadi. Tapi bukan itu yang menjadi sentral perhatian. Yang menjadi titik penting adalah, bagaimana agama-agama yang berbeda itu bisa saling menerima tradisi agama orang lain yang tidak sama dengan agamanya (yang diklaimnya paling benar). Klaim-klaim kebenaran itu, dalam Islam, tidak bisa dibiarkan. Ia harus didiskusikan agar klaimnya teruji dengan baik. Maka, akan ada kesimpulan bahwa agama tidaklah sama. Dengan diskusi pula, akan tampak bahwa agama Islam memiliki kelebihan. Dan semestinya, orang-orang yang mengetahui fakta itu memegang kebenaran dan kelebihan Islam (Qs. Al-Zumar [39]: 17-18). Allah pun sudah mengklaim agama-Nya yang paling benar, dan itu adalah Islam (Qs. 3: 19, 85). (Lihat kesaksian non-Muslim yang netral tentang keagungan dan kebenaran syari’at Islam dalam ‘Abd Allāh Nāshih ‘Ulwān, al-Islām Syarī’at al-Zamān wa al-Makān, (Mesir: Dār al-Salām), hlm. 42-43)

Kedua, kebenaran yang dikejar oleh setiap agama bisa saja diasumsikan “sama”. Tapi kesimpulan ini sangat tergesa-gesa. Jika konsep hidup dalam Islam adalah mempertahankan ‘aqidah dan jihad (al-hayatu ‘aqīdat wa jihād), maka dalam agama Budha berbeda. Begitu juga dengan agama-agama yang lain. Menurut agama Budha, dunia adalah ladang penderitaan, bagi Islam adalah ‘ladang amal’ (Qs. Al-Kahfi [18]: 110). Akhir kehidupan ini cuma satu di antara dua keputusan akhir: surga atau neraka. Konsepnya jelas dalam Al-Qur’ān.

Namun ada agama yang memandang bahwa akhir dari dunia ini adalah mencapai Nirwana (Nirvana). Dalam Islam, segala sesuatu akhirnya adalah menggapai ridha Allah (mardhātillāh), dalam agama lain bisa jadi berbeda. Oleh karenanya, ribā dalam Islam, tapi dalam agama Yahudi dibolehkan. Apalagi jika berinteraksi dengan agama non-Yahudi.

Simbol-simbol agama pun ternyata berbeda, tidak bisa disamakan. Meskipun dipaksakan bahwa pandangan filosofis terhadap Realitas Tertinggi ‘harus sama’, hal itu tidak bisa diterima. Karenanya, logika penulis MSI ini sulit untuk diterima. Apalagi jika harus memaksakan bahwa truth claim tidak boleh ada. Bahkan andai anjuran agar pandangan terhadap ‘Realitas Tertinggi’ itu harus sama, bahkan sebenarnya, kata ‘Realitas Tertinggi’ pun masih bermasalah. Dengan demikian, alih-alih menawarkan Islam yang dapat diajarkan secara metodologis, malah menawarkan Islam yang dipaksakan menerima pluralisme agama. Suatu kesimpulan yang tidak metodoglogis, bahkan amat tendensius. Wallāhu a’lamu bi al-shawāb.

*) Penulis adalah mahasiswa program pascasarjana Studi Islam (Dirāsāt Islāmiyyah) di Institut Studi Islam Darussalam (ISID), Gontor-Ponorogo.

Sosok lain yang agak menonjol dari ‘komunitas’ AKKBB adalah Anand Krishna,
yang bernama asli Krishna Kumar Tolaram. Ia selama ini dikenal sebagai
spiritualis yang berasal dari India, dan telah menerbitkan puluhan buku yang
selalu menjadi *bestseller* di pasaran. Selain menerbitkan buku, ia juga
mendirikan Padepokan Anand Krishna (Anand Ashram) yang terletak di Sunter, Jakarta Utara. Siswanya tersebar di beberapa daerah di Indonesia. Belum lama ini, ia mendirikan National Integration Movement (NIM).

Anand Krishna tidak sekedar sedang mengacaukan aqidah sejumlah orang yang tertarik dengan ajarannya, namun sebagaimana terbukti kemudian, ia melakukan sejumlah penipuan terhadap para muridnya itu. Salah seorang murid Anand, yaitu Krisna Wardhana (35 tahun) bercerita, Lima tahun menjadi siswa Anand, kami banyak diajarkan tentang kejujuran, kepercayaan, kesadaran, kepasrahan diri, dan bagaimana mengantar diri kepada kebaikan. Beliau selalu mengajarkan kami untuk bisnis yang jujur. Tapi, saya malah ditipu olehnya. Saya merasa kecewa dan tertipu (Tabloid NOVA edisi online 30 April 2006).

Ajaran Anand bukanlah sinkretis, tetapi lebih parah, meniadakan Tuhan. Hal
ini bisa dilihat dari salah satu bukunya berjudul *S**urah-surah Terakhir
Al-Quranul Karim Bagi Orang Modern, Sebuah Apresiasi*_, khususnya di halaman 8, Anand mengatakan: baik dan buruk, dua-duanya berada dalam pikiran kita. Lalu, kita pula yang menghubung-hubungka n kebaikan dengan apa yang kita sebut ‘Tuhan’ dan kejahatan dengan apa yang kita sebut ‘Setan’

Jadi, konsepsi ‘Tuhan’ menurut Anand tidak saja lebih rendah dari manusia,
karena ‘Tuhan’ dilahirkan melalui sistem kesadaran yang ada di dalam diri
manusia, bahkan lebih jauh dari itu, menurut Anand, ‘Tuhan’ itu sejenis atau
sederajat dengan ‘setan’ yang juga merupakan ciptaan manusia melalui sistem
kesadarannya.

Selain memiliki konsep ketuhanan yang kacau, Anand juga cenderung melecehkan syari’at Islam, misalnya tentang jilbab. Pada buku Telaga Pencerahan Di Tengah Gurun Kehidupan (hal. 20), Anand Krishna tidak saja melecehkan, tetapi menyebutkan bahwa sumber hukum tentang jilbab tidak jelas: saya bertanya pada seorang wanita, mengapa ia selalu menutup lehernya, padahal cuaca di Jakarta cukup panas dan saya melihat bahwa ia sendiri kegerahan ‘Mengapa kau tidak buka saja lehermu itu?’ Saya terkejut sekali mendengarkan jawabannya, ‘Cowok-cowok biasanya terangsang melihat leher cewek, itu sebabnya saya menutupinya. ‘ Ia membenarkan hal itu dengan menggunakan dalil Lucu, aneh! Ia diperbudak oleh peraturan-peraturan yang sumbernya pun tidak jelas.

Banyak yang terpukau dengan celoteh Anand Krishna, namun keterpukauan itu sirna seketika, manakala mereka sudah merasakan betapa pahitnya ditipu
Anand. Dan penyesalan biasanya datang terlambat.

Goenawan Mohamad

Taufiq Ismail (penyair terkemuka) pernah mempopulerkan istilah Gerakan
Syahwat Merdeka (GSM). Ada yang bilang, GSM itu kependekan dari nama
lengkap Goenawan Susatyo Mohamad, teman Gus Dur juga, yang identik dengan Tempo (majalah dan koran).

Goenawan Mohamad memang tidak hanya lekat dengan dunia jurnalistik, tetapi juga dunia sastra dan budaya. Bahkan namanya sangat senyawa dengan nama Utan Kayu. Di Utan Kayu tidak saja bermukim JIL (Jaringan Islam Liberal), tetapi juga komunitas seniman seperti aktivis Teater Utan Kayu, dan Sastrawan Utan Kayu lainnya.

Keprihatinan Taufiq Ismail terhadap lahirnya SMS (sastra mazhab
selangkang) yang bersumber dari Komunitas Utan Kayu tadi, melahirkan sebuah akronim GSM (Gerakan Syahwat Merdeka), atau Goenawan Susatyo Mohamad.

Nama Goenawan Mohamad juga menjadi bagian dari hampir tiga ratus nama yang mendukung petisi AKKBB. Dan GM –begitu namanya biasa disingkat– termasuk yang menonjol.

Keprihatinan Taufiq Ismail terhadap keberadaan Gerakan Syahwat Merdeka ini semakin menguat, karena biasanya di negara-negara lain, yang menjadi
produsen SMS (sastra mazhab selangkang) adalah sastrawan pria, namun di
Indonesia (khususnya di Utan Kayu), yang menonjol adalah sastrawatinya.

Selain mempopulerkan akronim GSM, Taufiq Ismail juga mempopulerkan FAK yang merupakan kependekan dari Fiksi Alat Kelamin. Menurut Taufiq, FAK bagian dari SMS (sastra mazhab selangkang) yang dipelopori oleh seniman asal Utan Kayu, yaitu Ayu Utami dan Jenar Mahesa Ayu. Keduanya punya kedekatan dengan Goenawan Mohamad.

Goenawan Mohamad juga lekat dengan Koran Tempo. Nah, pasca Insiden Monas 01 Juni 2008, keesokan harinya Koran Tempo memuat sebuah foto yang sangat tendensius. Sebuah foto yang menampilkan Munarman sedang mencekik pria kurus, yang oleh Koran Tempo disebut sebagai anggota AKKBB. Eh, ternyata yang dicekik Munarman adalah anggotanya sendiri, bukan anggota AKKBB sebagaimana hendak di-opini-kan Koran Tempo.

Munarman melakukan itu, dengan maksud mencegah yang bersangkutan dari
melakukan tindakan anarkis yang tidak perlu. Dengan demikian, yang ditempuh Koran Tempo itu adalah: Maksud hati mau membentuk opini yang negatif untuk Laskar Islam (dan laskar FPI), malahan muka sendiri yang tercoreng.

Media elektronik dan aktivis AKKB saat diwawancarai juga berusaha membentuk opini, bahwa kekerasan yang dilakukan Laskar Islam pimpinan Munarman telah menjadikan anak-anak sebagai korbannya. Karena, di lapangan terlihat ada seorang bocah yang tersudut di dinding sambil menangis, sebagaimana tertangkap sejumlah kamera teve. Ternyata bocah itu bukan korban, tetapi anak dari salah seorang Laskar Islam yang ikut bapaknya yaitu Ustadz Tubagus Sidik.
Goenawan Mohamad dan Tel Aviv Univercity

Sebelum terkuak kecerobohan- kecerobohan media massa dan kegiatan jurnalistik yang dipimpin Goenawan Mohammad atau yang pro dengannya, masih ada sedikit pengakuan dari aktivis Islam seperti Adian Husaini, ketika Goenawan Mohammad dihadiahi oleh Israel bidang jurnalistik. Kritik Adian bukan tertuju pada jurnalistik ala Goenawam Mohamad tetapi adalah tentang sekularisasi dengan aneka rekayasanya yang digencarkan Goenawan Mohammad. Ada baiknya sekarang Adian Husaini meralat semacam pengakuannya bidang jurnalistik, seni, dan sastra dari Goenawan Mohamad itu, setelah terkuak kasus kecerobohannya sekarang ini yang sampai pada tingkat menjijikkan.

Umat perlu dijelaskan, agar tidak samar lagi tentang kecerobohan- kecerobohannya, karena dalam tulisan Adian Husaini masih ada
kalimat (yang bernada positif terhadap jurnalistiknya Goenawan Mohamad): Kita perlu menghormati dan mencermatinya, mengambil sisi positif dari prestasi jurnalistiknya. Tetapi, pada saat yang sama, juga wajib meluruskan pendapat-pendapatnya yang keliru dan merusak Islam.
Untuk lebih transparannya tentang komentar Adian Husaini terhadap Goenawan Mohamad sebelum terkuak kecerobohannya dan mendapat hadiah dari Israel, berikut ini kami kutip tulisan Adian Husaini seperlunya, di bawah judul Dawam Rahardjo, Goenawan Mohammad, dan Israel:

Yang juga menarik untuk dicermati, Aliansi Kebangsaan untuk Kebebasan
Beragama dan Berkeyakinan mengadakan jumpa pers-nya di Utan Kayu 68 H, yang selama ini dikenal sebagai markas kelompok liberal, yang salah satu bos
besarnya adalah Goenawan Muhammad.

Dari tempat inilah, gerakan penolakan anti RUU-APP digalang, terutama
melalui Radio Utan Kayu. Dalam minggu ini, ada berita yang menarik bagi umat Islam berkaitan dengan Goenawan Mohammad. *Yaitu, diberikannya penghargaan ‘Dan David Prize’ oleh Tel Aviv University kepada Goenawan Mohammad.

Seperti dilaporkan sejumlah media massa di Jakarta, pemberian penghargaan
yang dilakukan oleh Universitas Tel Aviv (TAU) itu didasarkan kepada
aktivitas Goenawan selama 30 tahun terakhir yang memperjuangkan kebebasan pers dan jurnalisme yang independen di Indonesia, negara dengan populasi Muslim terbanyak di dunia. (http://www.dandavidprize.com/)

Seperti telah diberitakan harian lokal Israel, Haaretz, edisi 18 April
lalu, Goenawan Mohamad akan menerima hadiah uang senilai 250 ribu dolar AS (Rp 250 juta?). Dan David Prize mulai diberikan pada tahun 2002 kepada para individual dan institusi yang telah memberikan kontribusi unik dan besar dalam sektor kemanusiaan, termasuk di antaranya kontribusi di bidang ilmu pengetahuan alam, seni, dan bisnis dalam tiga dimensi waktu – lampau, kini, dan akan datang.

Penghargaan ini mengambil nama seorang pengusaha Yahudi yaitu Dan David. Penyelenggaraannya dilakukan oleh TAU secara rutin tiap tahun di Tel Aviv.

Goenawan telah beberapa kali menerima penghargaan. Setidaknya pada tahun 1992 ia sempat dianugerahi penghargaan Profesor Teeuw
dari Universitas Leiden, Belanda. Pada tahun 1998, ayah dari dua anak ini
menerima penghargaan internasional dalam hal Kebebasan Pers dari Komite
Pelindung Jurnalis. Setahun kemudian, ia menerima penghargaan dari World
Press Review, Amerika Serikat, untuk kategori Editor Internasional.

Popularitas GM dalam dunia pers tidaklah diragukan. Dia telah berjasa melahirkan mengkader banyak jurnalis di Indonesia. Tapi, terlepas dari soal itu, Goenawan juga sukses menggerakkan proses sekularisasi di Indonesia. Dia berperan besar ‘membesarkan’ Abdurrahman Wahid dan Nurcohlis Madjid, sebagai lokomotif liberalisasi Islam di Indonesia.

Seorang sahabat dekat Goenawan pernah bercerita kepada saya, bahwa apa yang Goenawan kerjakan terhadap Ulil Abshar Abdalla saat ini sama dengan apa yang dulu dia kerjakan terhadap Abdurrahman Wahid dan Nurcholish Madjid pada awal-awal 1970-an. Akhir-akhir ini, Goenawan sering menulis tentang Islam.

Tulisannya tentang RUU APP, yang berjudul ‘RUU Porno: Arab atau Indonesia’, menjadi salah satu inspirasi penting kaum Hindu di Bali dan para penentang RUU APP lainnya dalam menolak keras RUU tersebut.

Dalam perspektif ini, bisa dipahami, bahwa pihak Israel memilih Goenawan
sebagai sosok yang layak diberi penghargaan. Liberalisasi Islam di Indonesia
berhasil menggerus keimanan kaum Muslim dan dalam jangka panjang, memuluskan pembukaan hubungan Indonesia-Israel. Terlepas dari kualitas teknik jurnalistiknya, bisa dikatakan, Goenawan Mohammad merupakan sosok tokoh pers yang konsisten dalam meliberalkan Islam di Indonesia. Itulah pilihan hidup Goenawan.

Kita perlu menghormati dan mencermatinya, mengambil sisi positif dari
prestasi jurnalistiknya. Tetapi, pada saat yang sama, juga wajib meluruskan pendapat-pendapatnya yang keliru dan merusak Islam.

Bagi kita, amal kita, dan bagi Goenawan amal dia sendiri. Di dunia, Goenawan
telah mendapatkan balasannya. Kita sama-sama menunggu balasan di Akhirat
nanti. Wallahu a’lam. (Jakarta, 28 April 2006/hidayatullah. com).

Catatan Akhir Pekan (CAP) Adian Husaini merupakan hasil kerjasama antara
Radio Dakta 107 FM dan http://www.hidayatullah.com/

Peringatan Alloh Ta’ala dan kisah durjana sekelompok manusia

Setelah kita menyimak kecerobohan manusia-manusia yang sampai tingkat
menjijikkan bahkan merusak kehidupan, maka marilah kita simak peringatan
Alloh Ta’ala, kemudian kita simak pula kisah segerombolan orang durjana yang sampai mendatangkan adzab dari Alloh Ta’ala.

أَوَلَمْ يَسِيرُوا فِي الأَرْضِ فَيَنْظُرُوا كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ
الَّذِينَ كَانُوا مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ كَانُوا هُمْ أَشَدَّ مِنْهُمْ قُوَّةً
وَءَاثَارًا فِي الْأَرْضِ فَأَخَذَهُمُ اللَّهُ بِذُنُوبِهِمْ وَمَا كَانَ
لَهُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ مِنْ وَاقٍ(21)

Dan apakah mereka tidak mengadakan perjalanan di muka bumi, lalu
memperhatikan betapa kesudahan orang-orang yang sebelum mereka. Mereka itu adalah lebih hebat kekuatannya daripada mereka dan (lebih banyak) bekas-bekas mereka di muka bumi, maka Allah mengazab mereka disebabkan dosa-dosa mereka. Dan mereka tidak mempunyai seorang pelindung dari azab Allah. (QS Ghafir: 21).

Dalam hal dosa-dosa yang sengaja dibuat dan mengakibatkan adzab yang
dahsyat, berikut ini satu kisah yang pantas sekali jadi pelajaran.

Ibnu Jarir dan lain-lain dari ulama salaf (generasi Sahabat, Tabi’ien, dan
Tabi’ut Tabi’ien) menyebutkan bahwa dua wanita dari kaum Tsamud, salah
satunya Shoduq putri Al-Mahya bin Zuhair bin Al-Mukhtar, dia adalah
bangsawan dan kaya. Sedang ia di bawah suami yang telah masuk Islam, lalu
wanita ini menceraikan suaminya itu. Lalu wanita ini mengundang anak
pamannya yang disebut Mashro’ bin Mahraj bin Al-Mahya, dan wanita ini
menyodorkan dirinya pada lelaki anak pamannya itu bila ia berani membunuh onta (Nabi Shalih ‘alaihis salam).

Wanita lainnya adalah `Unaizah binti Ghanim bin Majlaz dijuluki Ummu
‘Utsman. Dia ini tua dan kafir, punya anak 4 wanita dari suaminya, Dzu’ab
bin Amru, salah satu kepala kaum. Lalu si perempuan tua ini menyodorkan ke-4 putrinya kepada Qadar ibn Salif bila ia berani membunuh onta, maka ia akan kebagian putrinya mana saja yang ia ingini. Lalu 2 pemuda (Mashro’ dan
Qadar) bersegera untuk membunuh onta itu, dan berusaha mencari teman di
dalam kaumnya. Maka 7 orang lainnya merespon ajakannya itu, jadi jumlahnya 9 orang. Mereka inilah yang disebutkan dalam firman Allah subhanahu wata’ala:

وَكَانَ فِي الْمَدِينَةِ تِسْعَةُ رَهْطٍ يُفْسِدُونَ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَلَا
يُصْلِحُونَ(48)

Dan adalah di kota itu, sembilan orang laki-laki yang membuat kerusakan di
muka bumi, dan mereka tidak berbuat kebaikan. (QS. An-Naml/ 27:48)

Mereka berusaha pada seluruh kabilah itu dan mempropagandakan untuk membunuh onta, lalu mereka menyambutnya dan sepakat untuk membunuh onta itu. Lalu mereka berangkat mengintai onta. Ketika onta itu muncul dari kawanan yang mendatangi air, lalu Mashro’ bersembunyi untuk menyergapnya, lantas melemparkan panah padanya dan menancaplah di tulang kaki onta. Dan datanglah wanita-wanita membujuk kabilah itu untuk membunuh onta, sedang wanita-wanita itu membuka wajah-wajahnya (dari kerudungnya) untuk menyemangati kabilahnya. Lalu Qadar bin Salif mendahului mereka mengeraskan (hantaman) pedangnya atas onta
itu maka putuslah urat di atas tumitnya, lalu jatuh tersungkurlah onta itu
ke bumi. (Tafsir At-Thabari juz 8 / 227-228, Al-Bidayah wan Nihayah Ibnu
Katsir juz 1/ 127, Al-Kamil fit Taariekh Ibnul Atsier juz 1/ 51-52).

Wanita yang menyemangati Mashro’ adalah isteri pemimpin, sedang yang
menyemangati Qadar adalah isteri pejabat juga. Adapun Qadar bin Salif
sendiri termasuk pemimpin, jadi mereka itu orang elit semua.

Perempuan pertama telah menyodorkan dirinya kepada Mashro’, sedang perempuan kedua menyodorkan puteri-puterinya kepada Qadar. Dan perempuan-perempuan kabilah itu telah keluar dengan membujuk orang-orang agar membunuh onta dengan cara membuka wajah-wajah mereka. Sungguh telah terjadi fitnah wanita itu sebagai jalan masuknya Iblis kepada para pembesar, dan Iblis bersandar bersama mereka untuk membunuh onta yang menjadi ayat Allah subhanahu wata’ala yang disampaikan kepada nabi-Nya, Shalih ‘alaihis salam.

Demikian ini tampak bagi kita, para pembesar (kaum elit) bersepakat,
laki-laki maupun perempuan. (Lihat Buku Hartono Ahmad Jaiz, Wanita Antara Jodoh, Poligami, dan Perselingkuhan , Pustaka Al-Kautsar, Jakarta, 2007).

Akibat dari kejahatan secara bersekongkol yang ditokohi 9 orang dan
disemangati wanita-wanita elit itu maka Alloh Ta’ala menimpakan azab kepada mereka, malapetaka dahsyat berupa sambaran petir yang memusnahkan mereka:

وَمَكَرُوا مَكْرًا وَمَكَرْنَا مَكْرًا وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ(50)فَانْظُرْ
كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ مَكْرِهِمْ أَنَّا دَمَّرْنَاهُمْ وَقَوْمَهُمْ
أَجْمَعِينَ(51)فَتِلْكَ بُيُوتُهُمْ خَاوِيَةً بِمَا ظَلَمُوا إِنَّ فِي
ذَلِكَ لَآيَةً لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ(52) وَأَنْجَيْنَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا
وَكَانُوا يَتَّقُونَ(53)

Dan merekapun merencanakan makar dengan sungguh-sungguh dan Kami
merencanakan makar (pula), sedang mereka tidak menyadari.

(QS An-Naml/ 27:50).

Maka perhatikanlah betapa sesungguhnya akibat makar mereka itu, bahwasanya Kami membinasakan mereka dan kaum mereka semuanya.

(QS An-Naml/ 27: 51).

Maka itulah rumah-rumah mereka dalam keadaan runtuh disebabkan kezaliman mereka. Sesungguhnya pada yang demikian itu (terdapat) pelajaran bagi kaum yang mengetahui.

(QS An-Naml/ 27: 52).

Dan telah Kami selamatkan orang-orang yang beriman dan mereka itu selalu
bertakwa.

(QS An-Naml/ 27: 53).

Persekongkolan jahat dengan perbuatan ceroboh telah mengakibatkan adzab yang sangat dahsyat. Semestinya jadi pelajaran berharga bagi kita semua.
(haji/tede)

source:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=29594608648&topic=4960

Djony Edward
Wartawan Bisnis Indonesia

Suatu hari saya menelepon seorang mantan jenderal yang disegani dimasa Presiden Megawati Soekarno Putri. Dalam percakapan dengan jenderal tersebut sempat tercetus diskusi ringan, bagaimana pendapat Anda tentang Partai Keadilan Sejahtera (PKS)? Terutama kaitannya dengan pencalonan Gubernur DKI Jakarta.

Sang jenderal hanya menjawab singkat, “PKS common enemy (musuh bersama).” Tanpa hendak bermaksud menjelaskan lebih jauh apa yang dimaksud common enemy bagi PKS, sang jenderal mengalihkan pembicaraan dari A hingga Z tentang perkembangan di tanah air.

Bagi penulis, pernyataan common enemy cukup menyentakkan. Karena pernyataan itu seolah mengingatkan saya pada kemenangan Front Islamic Salvation (FIS) di Aljazair dan Refa di Turki dalam pemilu setempat yang kemudian kemenangan itu langsung dijegal oleh militer.

Indikasi serupa sempat muncul saat Nurmahmudi Ismail memenangkan pilkada di Depok setelah mengalahkan calon incumbent Badrul Kamal. Karuan saja setelah MA dan PN Jabar memenangkan kader PKS ini jegal melalui aksi-aksi tak konstitusional, mulai dari demostrasi tak berkesudahan, aksi tak simpatik anggota DPRD non PKS yang cenderung mendiskreditkan Nurmahmudi, hingga aksi pengempesan ban mobil sang walikota dan pelemparan bom molotov mobil kader PKS Depok.

Pernyataan itu juga mengingatkan ketika Zulkieflimansyah bersama pasangannya Marissa Haque saat mencalonkan diri sebagai Gubernur dan Wagub Banten. Dimana tiga parpol besar: PPP, PDIP dan Partai Golkar bersatu untuk melawan kader dari PKS.

Tak kalah pentingnya saat pilkada bupati Bekasi dimana pasangan Sa’aduddin dan M. Darip Mulyana yang sempat dinyatakan kalah, namun akhirnya dimenangkan oleh PN Jabar.

Puncak gunung es relasi antara pernyataan sang jenderal tentang PKS adalah common enemy saat calon PKS: Adang Daradjatun dan Dani Anwar harus berhadapan dengan Fauzi ‘Foke’ Bowo dan Prijanto yang juga adalah sang jenderal militer. Tak tanggung-tanggung Foke-Prijanto didukung 20 parpol yang tergabung dalam Koalisi Jakarta.

Sintesa bahwa PKS adalah common enemy seolah menemukan justifikasi paling nyata di pilkada DKI Jakarta. Ini juga yang mengonfirmasi mengapa pilkada DKI Jakarta begitu gegap gempita, riuh rendah dan seolah memanas, padahal kedua calon belum lagi memaparkan visi dan misi serta program kerja mereka.

Pilkada DKI Jakarta begitu serius menyusul ada unsur PKS yang pada Pemilu 2004 menguasai pangsa suara sebanyak 1.057.246 suara atau jika dipresentir menguasai pangsa suara warga DKI sebesar 22,32%, vis a vis dengan Koalisi Jakarta yang merepresentasikan lebih dari 70% pemilih yang terhimpun di 20 parpol pendukung.

Praktis di atas kertas Foke harusnya menang, karena didukung oleh 20 parpol dengan menguasai pangsa suara melebihi syarat untuk menang. Berikut al. parpol pendukung Foke: Partai Demokrat (20,23%), PDIP (14,02%), Golkar (9,16%), PPP (8,16%), PAN (7,03%), PDS (5,34%), PBR (2,90%), PBB (1,45%), maupun PKPB (1,83%).

Maksimalkan kemenangan

Jika mengamati besarnya dukungan atas Foke, maka praktis kemenangan putra Betawi itu sudah di atas kertas. Tapi pertanyaannya, mengapa sebegitu besar suara yang dibutuhkan Foke untuk menguasai Jakarta 1? Padahal untuk sahnya seorang kandidat cuma membutuhkan dukungan suara 15% dari parpol peserta pemilu 2004.

Tentu ada hidden story yang membuat Foke tak terlalu memedulikan aspek pendidikan politik untuk provinsi tertinggi tingkat rasialnya sekaligus ibukota negara. Foke ingin memaksimalkan kemenangan setelah sebelumnya sempat ditolak oleh Ustad Hilmi Aminuddin.

Suatu hari, Ketua DPD RI Ginandjar Kartasasmita bertandang ke kediaman Ustad Hilmi di bilangan Kali Malang. Setelah diterima dan ngobrol ngalor ngidul, setengah jam kemudian Ginandjar mohon izin.

“Ustad, mohon maaf. Sebenarnya saya datang ke rumah Ustad dengan adik saya,” demikian papar mantan Mentamben dan Kepala Bappenas di masa Presiden Soeharto.

“Siapa? Kok tak disuruh masuk?” ungkap Ustad Hilmi.

“Foke, Ustad,” tambah Ginandjar.

Pendek kata, akhirnya Foke yang berkeliling setengah jam di gang-gang sekitar Kali Malang meluncur ke rumah Ustad Hilmi. Singkat kata, dalam obrolan itu Ginandjar dan Foke minta dukungan dari orang yang paling disegani di PKS itu.

Apa jawaban Ustad Hilmi? Tentu jauh panggang dari api. Berikut petikannya, “Wah permintaan dukungan ini telat. PKS sudah memiliki calon, yakni Adang Daradjatun. Kalau begitu silakan saja berkompetisi secara sehat.”

Itulah sekelumit kisah dimana Foke sempat juga meminta dukungan kepada PKS, dimana Golkar sebagai inisiator bersama PPP cukup mendapat dukungan PKS dan PDIP maka sudah mengusai pangsa suara lebih dari 51%. Artinya tingkat konsolidasi akan lebih sederhana dan lebih mudah.

Namun dengan penolakan yang dilakukan Ustad Hilmi, yang juga merepresentasikan penolakan PKS, maka hal ini membuat gelisah kubu pendukung Foke. Maka untuk memastikan ketenangan dan memuluskan kemenangan digalanglah Koalisi Jakarta yang melibatkan 20 parpol. Peduli setan dengan aspek pendidikan politik, yang penting bagaimana memaksimalkan kemenangan. Jadilah PKS sebagai common enemy bagi, paling tidak, elit politik di DKI. Tapi belum tentu bagi rakyat DKI Jakarta.

Menurut hemat penulis, dinamika yang terjadi dalam proses pencalonan Gubernur dan Wagub DKI ini, tak lepas dari sikap Koalisi Jakarta yang menganggap PKS sebagai common enemy. Apalagi jejak rekam PKS yang telah mengikuti hampir 250 pilkada di Indonesia (dari 297 pilkada yang pernah digelar), kader PKS berhasil memenangkan di 77 titik pilkada atau lebih dari 30%.

Kemenangan pilkada yang diikuti kader PKS ada yang dilakukan sendiri, ada yang berkoalisi dengan elit politik lokal, maupun dengan birokrat dan pengusaha setempat. Lepas dari semua itu, kiprah parpol yang memasuki tahun ke-10 berpolitik di tanah air (maklum sebelumnya cuma sibuk berdakwah), sudah mampu tampil dengan daya pikat 30% di daerah pemilihan.

Itu sebabnya, bisa difahami jika terbentuk Koalisi Jakarta yang tak mau menganggap enteng calon yang diusulkan PKS. Bukan semata-mata siapa calonnya, tapi justru cara kerja mesin politik PKS yang mampu menembus jantung hati rakyat.

Ada atau tidak ada pilkada ataupun pemilu, kader PKS terbilang rajin menyapa atau bahkan berjibaku ikut larut dalam penderitaan yang dialami rakyat. Fenomena banjir Jakarta, cuma PKS yang dengan sigap membangun 60 titik posko yang melibatkan ratusan, bahkan ribuan kadernya, serta bantuan sukarela warga, untuk menolong mereka yang terendam banjir. Posko itu dibentuk dari awal Jakarta terendam banjir hingga tetes banjir yang terakhir.

Berbeda dengan parpol lain, yang mungkin ada juga yang turun ke lokasi banjir, namun staminanya tidak selama PKS. Bahkan ada parpol besar yang cuma memasang spanduk mengucapkan turut berduka atas banjir yang melanda warga Jakarta.

Bahkan Pemda DKI Jakarta saja, baru meinggu kedua pasca banjir menurunkan bantuan bertruk-truk sembako dan pakaian serta selimut. Suatu sikap yang tidak buruk. Tapi jika dilihat dari aspek berlomba-lomba dalam kebajikan, maka kader PKS lah yang maju dimuka.

Kedekatan PKS dengan warga inilah yang menggelisahkan lawan politik, karena itu dibuatlah strategi common enemy dengan membentuk Koalisi Jakarta. Penulis menduga, dinamika politik menjelang penentuan calon seperti fenomena yang melanda para jenderal: Slamet Kirbiyanto, Djasri Marin, maupun Agum Gumelar, belum lagi fenomena Rano Karno, Sarwono Kusumaatmaja, tak lebih dari bagian dinamika yang memperkaya dan mengarahkan PKS sebagai common enemy.

Plus minus

Oleh karena itu, pilkada DKI cuma memiliki dua calon, yakni pasangan Foke-Prijanto dan Adang-Dani. Pasangan mana yang oleh banyak pengamat dan mantan pejabat sebagai pasangan yang memiliki plus minus.

Karena itu muncul ide-ide calon independen guna menampung aspirasi kelemahan dua kandidat tersebut. Namun kandidat PKS merasa tak keberatan kalau memang dinginkan, namun kandidat Koalisi Jakarta menolak lantaran tidak memenuhi kaidah dan ketentuan perundangan yang berlaku.

Foke sebagai calon incumbet, tentu sangat potensial memenangkan pilkada DKI Jakarta. Karena selain didukung oleh 20 parpol, juga didukung birokrasi yang saat ini dipimpinnnya. Tambahan pula Foke cuti setelaha da kepastian Daftar Pemilih Tetap, hasil kerja Dukcapil yang nota bene masih dikomandaninya.

Pada saat yang sama kader PKS, LSM, pengamat, mahasiswa, dan sejumlah tokoh mencaci cara kerja penjaringan calon pemilih karena ditengarai adanya ghost vooter lebi dari 1 juta. Tingkat diskusi pun menemui jalan buntu, KPUD tetap jalan terus dengan data yang dimilikinya dari hasil proses yang lemah sekali, kendati mendapat cap penyelenggara pilkada paling buruk di Indonesia.

PKS tetap ngotot bahwa proses itu tidak aspiratif, arogan, dan menghalangi kader-kadernya yang belum terdaftar. Kendati KPUD merasa sudah membuka perpanjangan masa pendaftaran yang juga sebenarnya serba dibatasi oleh waktu dan tempat pendaftaran.

Apa boleh buat, DKI ke depan harus dipimpin oleh kedua pasangan yang telah ada, yang dilahirkan dari proses demokrasi yang rendah, bahkan mengarah pada kartel kekuasaan.

Foke yang juga seorang doktor tata kota memiliki justifikasi akademis yang memadai, selain kaya raya, dia juga dikenal penderma. Sejumlah organisasi parpol, organisasi sosial dan olah raga diketuainya, atau setidaknya menjadi penasihat, menunjukkan supelnya sang calon.

Kelihaiannya dalam melakukan lobby sangat mumpuni, terbukti 20 parpol dengan sedikitnya didukung 70% pemilih pada 2004, dengan warna-warni ideologi serta anutan, mampu disatukannya dalam upaya mendukung pencalonannya.

Namun Foke bukanlah manusia super. Sebab pada saat dia menjadi Wakil Gubernur dengan segala ilmu dan kepandaian, serta lobbynya, toh tak mampu mencegah banjir, padahal dia ahli tata kota. Juga tak mampu membendung meningkatnya angka kemiskinan dan pengangguran di DKI Jakarta, padahal tekadnya menyejahterakan warga.

Paling tidak itulah hasil polling Lembaga Survei Indonesia (LSI) pimpinan Saiful Muzani. Dimana dalam surveinya 70% kecewa kepada pasangan Sutiyoso-Foke atas banjir yang melanda Jakarta, 90% kecewa karena kemiskinan meningkat, dan 80% kecewa karena pengangguran naik.

Meskipun dalam dialog di Metro TV, Foke berapologi banjir yang melanda semata-mata karena fenomena alam. Dia tak menjelaskan kenapa kemiskinan dan pengangguran bertambah di Jakarta.

Sementara Adang Daradjatun tidak terlalu dikenal prestasinya saat menjabat Wakapolri, ia berpendapat sebagian besarnya bertugas dibidang intelijen Polri sehingga memang tak terlalu dikenal.

Namun ada yang bertanya, mengapa PKS mencalonkan mantan Wakapolri itu, sementara sudah menjadi pengetahuan umum mulai dari polisi jalanan hingga jenderal polisi sulit mencari orang yang bersih. Berbagai predikat buruk tentang polisi, tiba-tiba saja harus berbaur dengan citra PKS yang bersih?

PKS sempat memberi penjelasan memang tidak ada orang yang suci, no body perfect. Dengan merekrut Adang dari kepolisian diharapkan ke depan, itupun kalau terpilih, paling tidak bisa melakukan reformasi kepolisian dari dalam. Sebuah spekulasi yang memang harus diuji.

Sementara Prijanto yang merupakan pasangan Foke diketahui sebagai militer aktif, namun prestasinya pun tak terlalu menonjol. Sedangkan Dani Anwar adalah mantan ketua fraksi PKS di DPRD, paling tidak perjuangan sekolah gratis yang diusungnya berhasil menjadi kenyataan, walaupun pelaksananya Sutiyoso dan Foke.

Kekhawatiran sebagaian warga Jakarta bahwa jika kader PKS menang maka perjudian dan bisnis hiburan akan diberangus, karena akan diterapkan syariat Islam. Tuduhan itu dijawab oleh Dani, bahwa di 77 kabupaten, pemkot dan pemprov dimana kader PKS memenangkan pilkada, tak satupun yang otomatis diterapkan syariat Islam. Syariat Islam dengan sendirinya akan terlaksana jika akidah warga dibenahi, dan proses pembenahan akidah memerlukan waktu.

Lepas dari plus minus sang kandidat, berikut plus dan minus pelaksanaan pilkada DKI Jakarta oleh KPUD, tanggal 8 Agustus warga harus tetap memilih. Termasuk memilih golput merupakan satu pilihan, kendati maknanya hampa sama sekali. Siapakah Gubernur DKI Jakarta ke depan, jawabnya ada pada nurani Anda!!!

original page screenshot:

http://rapidshare.com/files/205512369/CommonEnemy.png

http://www.ziddu.com/downloadlink/3738513/CommonEnemy.png

http://www.filefactory.com/file/af34h5b/n/CommonEnemy_png