Why Indonesia, Malaysia matter to us
Bloody, murderous terrorist attacks in Indonesia in mid-May have provided the Islamic State with another opportunity to claim victory. Two families including young children carried out suicide bombings in Surabaya, the second largest city in the nation.
Meanwhile, May elections in Malaysia have brought an important transition in national government and a benchmark on the road to stable representative democracy. Naturally, the first news topic has received vastly more media attention.
In Indonesia, there is no meaningful victory for terrorists, whatever the current state of their collective self-delusion. Victims are added to others injured and murdered by terrorists.
Indonesia has suffered other terrorist acts. In a 2016 attack, four people died, including an Algerian-Canadian along with Indonesians. In 2002, the worst attack killed 202 people on Bali, including many foreign tourists who were targets. These crimes have only reinforced the Indonesian people’s hatred of terrorism.
Malaysia parliamentary elections May 9 have resulted in a stunning upset. The governing party was defeated and an opposition coalition was successful. The Barisan Nasional and predecessor governed Malaysia from independence.
The opposition Pakatan Harapan secured 113 seats in the Dewan Rakyat, the lower house of the national parliament. This constitutes a narrow majority. In addition, the Sabah Heritage won another eight seats. This small party is aligned with Dewan Rakyat, and the two groups together have a solid majority to form a government.
New Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is 92 years old, making him the oldest head of government in the world. Mohamad plans to secure a pardon for jailed opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, and then turn the office over to him.
The Indonesia attack was carried out in the world’s largest nation with a Muslim majority. Geography including trade routes provides Indonesia with strategic significance. The international and foreign policy implications are self-evident, for the United States and other nations.
Washington has an opportunity to highlight Indonesia as a success story of stability, modernization and the rule of law. Since former general and long-time autocratic President Muhammad Suharto was forced from power in 1998, Indonesia has moved to representative government.
Indonesia’s international conflicts today are largely technical and legal, notably the maritime disputes which generally involve the nations of East and Southeast Asia. Dictatorship has ended, but corruption remains a problem.
The situation used to be quite different. During the height of the Cold War, Indonesia was regarded as a major pivotal leader among Third World nations. Flamboyant nationalist President Sukarno played the Soviet Union and U.S. off against one another. CIA efforts to bring Sukarno down were frustrated, a sobering experience quickly overshadowed by Vietnam.
By the mid-1960's, cooperation between Indonesia and the Soviet Union was moving forward. This development was extremely important in the decision for large-scale U.S. military intervention in Vietnam in 1965. We largely have forgotten these experiences today.
British forces, with Australian and New Zealand allies, did defeat Indonesia attacks on Malaysia. Earlier, Britain defeated a virulent, aggressive Communist insurgency in Malaya, which today is part of Malaysia.
Among other factors, Britain’s military avoided introduction of massive firepower, in contrast to the U.S. military strategy in Vietnam especially from 1965.
The Indonesia attack will boomerang in strong public sentiment against terror groups. Malaysia has joined other nations enjoying peaceful government transitions. The U.S. government has opportunities to strengthen ties in both nations. All we need is the will, and the skill. Arthur I. Cyr is Director of the Clausen Center for World Business at Carthage College and author of “After the Cold War.” Contact acyr@carthage.edu.