Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

This article certainly does raise some good points. I note particularly the assertion that lack of education and poverty are causes of terrorism. Not lack of work, as some would posit. While it is true that lack of work leads to poverty, creating underpaid work with poor working conditions will not make us immune to 'terrorism'.

The reason why the idea of participating in a riot such as in France, is alien to us is because for the main part we do live fairly comfortable lifestyles. If the opposite were true however, it may be an entirely different story altogether.

The editorial also poses the question "What would Australia prefer? A democratic Indonesia with its inability and instability to combat terrorism or back to the future with the New Order type repressive regime that guarantees 'stability' so the Aussies can reclaim Kuta once again"

I know what Howard would want. He cares little about social justice.

The thing is I personally do not want to live in a police state despite the threat of an attack.

We were told that the terrorist hate our freedom by George Bush, a view shared by Howard.

Isn't it appeasing the terrorists to remove our freedoms, and thus give them what Bush and Howard say they want?

Where pray tell is the logic in that?

Or maybe their is some truth in the arguement that their is more to the "War on Terror" than the facile reasons given by this troika of warmongers.

And maybe the 'terrorists' Howard wants to protect us from *are* us...after his socially irresponsible IR reforms do their work.

Like Bush in the US, with each passing day more and more Australians become aware of just how deep the deceit of this Government goes.

Regime change in Australia can't be too far away...

So what is less worse - terror by the state or terror by the malevolent few?

PF Journey, I thought that Suharto came to power after the 1965 counter-coup. Would that not make the 1963 Anti-Subversion Law the responsibility of Sukarno?

PF, does the phrase "corrupt business people" conceal a reference to ethnicity?

Is there a sentiment that could be subheaded "Penthouse billionaires take revenge for PP 10/1959"?

I would have thought, in terms of 'governability', Singapore and Indonesia are at opposite ends of the scale. Otherwise, they have a lot in common. Is there any possibility of a shared concept of regionality, between Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, such that all three could agree on ways to minimise the risks of creating conditions that allow terrorists to thrive in the region?

Anne Brookes, re your TerroristsAreUs observation:

In those idle moments when one tries to put all the pieces together, one awful scenario that pops up, is what level of chaos control would be needed after a significant biological or dirty bomb attack?

Governments that are perceived to have created or exacerbated the situation and ethnic groups that are perceived to have been involved would both need some serious protection.

While this article from our delphinine PF alludes to poverty as cause to be subject to terrorism, Webdiary readers interested on the idea of poverty causing terrorism - or not, as it apparently turns out - might be interested in this
article by Ralf Dahrendorf. The article is part of the fabulous Project Syndicate organised by Margo.

In short, it says the greater cause for terrorism is not poverty as such when brought upon people, but the thwarting of ambition. It's an interesting distinction, and one of relevance to several debates currently in Webdiary.

That is to say, terrorists are created when the state thwarts an achievement or attainmnent the people otherwise expected or wished for. Poverty, instead, tends not to have this wish or expectation for achievement or attainment. Hence, terrorists can be created from a non-poor people.

Hi Greg, yes, you are partially correct. The original was a Presidential Decree No: 11 issued by Pres Sukarno in 1963. It was amended to be more draconian and made into law by Pres. Suharto in 1969. It became Law No:5, 1969 and used as a great repressive tool during the 32 years of Suharto regime.

Sukarno did use it but was not for long. As you pointed out, he was kicked out in the still very mysterious 30th September 1965 event/coup. So it has always been referred to as the 1963 Anti-subversion Law and associated with the Suharto regime.

There is a lesson to be learned here too in the current Australian context. What guarantee is there that the current Anti-Terrorism (No. 2) Bill 2005 will not be used by future regime as a basis for a more draconian law?

From the Financial Times: Prominent Indonesia terror expert barred again
By Shawn Donnan in Jakarta
Published: November 25 2005 04:27

[extract]

Indonesia has withdrawn the visa of a prominent American terrorism expert, barring her from the country just days after the US lifted a six-year-old arms embargo in part because of Jakarta's progress in its fight against terrorism.

Sidney Jones, a high-profile Jakarta-based analyst for the International Crisis Group think-tank, is widely considered to be the world's leading expert on Jemaah Islamiyah. The al-Qaeda affiliate has been blamed for the Bali bombings both in 2002 and last month and other major attacks in Indonesia in the past three years.

Ms Jones was expelled from Indonesia last year by the government of President Megawati Sukarnoputri after some of her writings reportedly upset senior officials in Jakarta. A long-term watcher of Indonesia and fluent speaker of Indonesian, she was allowed to return this past July by the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and granted both work and residence permits.

But she told the Financial Times on Friday that she had been barred from entering the country on Thursday as she returned from a Time magazine awards dinner in Taipei, where the ICG was honored for its work in Asia. The reason for the ban, she said, remained unclear.

US, UK, Spain, Jordan and now Australia. Odd how those waging the "War On Terror" are losing the battle yet being rewarded politically. How convenient that restrictive new laws should be enacted that will completely control the flow of information.