Deadly Amateurs Arrested by Indonesia in Wake of Bali Bombing

By John Gee

After several false starts, Indonesian police investigating the Bali bombings finally came up with a credible suspect at the beginning of November. A mechanic known as Amrozi confessed to having been “field coordinator” of the bomb attacks, and named a number of other men as his associates. Police arrested Amrozi’s brother-in-law, whom they suspect of having driven the explosives-laden van that blew up outside the Sari Club in Kuta on Oct. 12. Nearly three weeks later, they apprehended Imam Samudra, said to have “masterminded” the bombings. Altogether, the police said they believed 10 men had taken part in carrying out the attacks.

As more information was released, however, the image of those responsible for the bombings seemed set to be challenged. The Bali attack was widely blamed upon the Jemaah Islamiah (JI), a group with strong links to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network. It was seen as a very well organized operation by a ruthless and efficient terrorist organization. Yet Amrozi, a car mechanic,was found to be the owner of the van in which the explosives were placed and still had parts of it around his workshop when he was arrested. Three of his relatives—two brothers, as well as his brother-in-law—were suspected of involvement in the bombing, as was a former forest ranger from his home village of Tenggulun, in eastern Java. Amrozi told interrogators that Americans were the target of the Bali bombings and that his group wanted to take revenge for U.S. actions against Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for Washington’s position toward the Palestinians—but half of the victims of the attack were Australian holiday makers, and there were few American casualties. The entire operation began to look amateurish and incompetent, if no less deadly.

Police had earlier detained Abu Bakar Bashir, said to be JI’s “spiritual leader.” Rather than linking him to the Bali blasts, however, they pointedly stated that it was to question him about a series of bombings in Indonesia in 2000-2001 and a plot to assassinate President Megawati Sukarnoputri. Amrozi had told police that he had studied under Bashir in Indonesia and in Malaysia, but did not implicate him in the planning of the Bali attacks. Bashir denied knowing Amrozi, although he was otherwise unforthcoming in response to police questioning.

Following his detention, Bashir set three conditions for answering the police: that they should apologize to his supporters for forcibly removing him from his hospital bed in the city of Solo, where he was resting after collapsing when originally due to be interrogated; that they should delay his arrest; and, lastly, that a key witness whose testimony had been used against him should be brought back to Indonesia from the U.S. The witness was Omar Al-Faruq, a Kuwaiti national arrested in Indonesia in June and handed over to the U.S. Al-Faruq appears to have “sung like a bird,” providing much information about his own role in developing relations between al-Qaeda’s base in Afghanistan and the JI, and incriminating Bashir.

Toward the end of October, the U.S. State Department designated JI a “foreign terrorist organization” and the United Nations placed JI on a list of organizations associated with al-Qaeda that are subject to sanctions, including the freezing of their assets. U.S. intelligence sources named its chief operational leader, Riduan Isamuddin, alias Hambali, as the only non-Arab among six men said to be currently managing al-Qaeda. Hambali, who disappeared from public view after fleeing from Malaysia with Bashir in 2001, was thought to be in hiding in Indonesia.

U.S. Ads Highlight Divergence of Views

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Washington has been considering how to improve America’s image in the Muslim world. Its concern is real, but some of its resulting efforts show just how much it has failed (or refused) to grasp the reasons for the anti-U.S. sentiments often voiced in predominantly Muslim countries.

This was obvious from a series of one-minute mini-documentaries recently broadcast on Malaysian television. They featured ordinary American Muslims talking about their lives in the U.S. They were generally filmed in a home or working environment that emphasized that the interviewees led reasonably happy, normal lives within a society that was diverse and relatively tolerant. The advertisements were paid for by the State Department and are said to be an initiative of the Council of American Muslims for Understanding, which also maintains a Web site geared to wooing Muslim public opinion outside the U.S. The series was also aired in Indonesia and it is intended to air in Pakistan and the Middle East.

In Malaysia, Muslims did not have a strong reaction one way or another to the content of the broadcasts, but were much more concerned about the thinking behind them. Not having very much information about Muslims in the U.S., most are quite prepared to accept that they do have fulfilling lives and regard themselves as good American citizens. This, however, they say very emphatically, has nothing to do with the main reasons why they are critical of the U.S. Time and time again, they come back to the issue of Washington’s policies in the Middle East, and in particular, to the question of Palestine. No assurance about the status of American Muslims can alter their opinion that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is iniquitous and that Washington is fundamentally wrong in backing Israel to the hilt. Some feel angered by the broadcasts, saying that the U.S. is trying to win sympathy without tackling any of the basic issues that have aroused hostility toward it over decades.

It is within America’s power to combat that sentiment. For example, a news report that Washington had told Israel it would suspend all aid and political support until Israel withdrew its army of occupation and settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be a thousand times more effective than these paid broadcasts in allaying hostility among Muslims in Southeast Asia and elsewhere.

Israeli Dance Group Impresses

Singapore’s new arts complex, built on reclaimed land near the city center, opened with a huge fireworks display in October. Officially called “The Esplanade—Theatres on the Bay,” the theater-concert hall-library-shopping and dining venue will no doubt acquire a more manageable name before long. Many Singaporeans have already dubbed it “The Durians,” as its two main halls have roofs that look like the prickly-coated local fruit of that name, the taste of which is loved by many in the island state, but whose odor has led to it being banned from public transport.

The new complex opened with a festival month during which many visiting performers appeared, including the New York Philharmonic Orchestra and the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra. One of the most highly acclaimed presentations was “Anaphaza,” a 90-minute piece by Israel’s Batsheva Dance Company, first staged in 1993. Reviewers focused upon the company’s performance, but some journalists had a surprise when they talked to artistic director Ohad Naharin.

While insisting that his artistic work did not carry a political message, Naharin made known his personal opinions on what has happened recently in the Middle East to TV and print journalists. Interviewed by The Straits Times’ Suhaila Sulaiman, Naharin told her,

“I think what the United States is calling ‘the fight against terrorism’ is just a sophisticated form of revenge.

“If anything, there are two groups of people I don’t listen to and neither should anyone else. One is the people who are looking for revenge and the other, people who want war.

“The suffering totally upsets me and I am in complete disagreement with my government. It is so unfortunate that instead of looking for new solutions, politicians and people prefer to stick to old ideas.

“Which is just the exact opposite of what we do in Batsheva.”

Naharin arranged for the company to perform in the Israeli-Palestinian town of Nazareth in December 2000, shortly after police had opened fire on Palestinian citizens of Israel at the start of the al-Aqsa intifada. The songs and dances performed by the company’s hosts in response provided inspiration for “Naharin’s Virus,” the choreographer’s latest work.

John Gee is a free-lance journalist based in Singapore and the author of Unequal Conflict: Israel and the Palestinians, available from the AET Book Club.