SUMBER: http://media.kompasiana.com/buku/

Oleh Sultan Haidar Shamlan *

Hampir tiap hari kita mendengar analisis, ungkapan, kesimpulan, persepsi-persepsi dari ilmuwan, cendekiawan dan politikus Barat tentang Islam. Dari kacamata Barat, diingkari atau tidak, citra Islam terasosiasi tidak baik. Jarang, ada seseorang yang mampu menggambarkan dialektika dunia Barat dan dunia Islam, tanpa terjebak di lubang prasangka, curiga, sinisme, atau kebencian.

Dan puji Tuhan. Tidak seperti yang lain, seorang politikus dari partai CDU (Kristen-Demokrat) yang pernah 18 tahun duduk di parlemen Jerman, Jürgen Todenhöfer, telah membaca Quran. Juga tidak seperti yang lain, ia telah menghabiskan bertahun-tahun hidupnya pada banyak perjalanan di dunia islam: Irak, Iran, Libya, Sudan sampai Afghanistan.

Setelah membaca, mengamati dan berpikir, Todenhöfer menulis. Hasilnya: sebuah buku “Feinbild Islam – Zehn Thesen gegen Hass” (Potret Buruk Islam – Sepuluh Tesis Anti Kebencian”), yang terbit di akhir tahun 2011.

01. Barat Lebih „Brutal“ dari Dunia Islam

Todenhöfer, dalam tesis pertama, mengingatkan fakta sejarah yang sering terlupa di dua abad terakhir. Barat jauh lebih brutal daripada dunia Muslim. Jutaan warga sipil Arab tewas sejak kolonialisme dimulai. Atas nama kolonialisasi, Prancis pernah membunuh lebih dari dua juta penduduk sipil di Aljazair, dalam kurun waktu 130 tahun. Atas nama kolonialisasi, Italia pernah menggunakan phosphor dan gas mustard untuk menghabisi penduduk sipil di Libya. Atas nama kolonialisasi, Spanyol juga pernah menggunakan senajata kimia di Marokko.

Tidak berbeda di era setelah perang dunia kedua. Dalam invansi perang Teluk kedua, semenjak tahun 2003, UNICEF menyebutkan, 1,5 juta penduduk sipil Irak terbunuh. Sepertiganya anak-anak. Tidak sedikit dari korban terkontaminasi amunisi uranium. Di Baghdad, hampir setiap rumah kehilangan satu anggota keluarganya.

Sebaliknya, di dua abad terakhir, tidak satu pun negara islam menyerang, mengintervensi, mengkolonialisasi Barat. Perbandingan jumlah korban mati (dunia Islam: dunia Barat) adalah 10:1. Problema besar dunia, di dua abad belakangan ini, bukan kebrutalan Islam, tapi kebrutalan beberapa negara-negara Barat.

02. Mempromosikan Anti-Terorisme, Melahirkan Terorisme

Terorisme jelas tidak dibenarkan. Menilik secara objektiv, terorisme justru lahir dari politik anti-terorisme Barat yang keliru. “Seorang pemuda muslim,” tulis Todenhöfer, “yang secara rutin memantau berita di televisi, hari demi hari, tahun demi tahun, akan situasi di Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestina dan di tempat lain, di mana perempuan, anak-anak dan penduduk sipil, dihabisi oleh Barat dengan brutal, justru diprovokasi untuk menjadi seorang teroris.”

Beruntung saja, sebagian besar pemuda islam tidak terpancing. Mereka memilih jalan yang berbeda. Di Tunisia, Mesir, Libya, Marokko, dan negara-negara muslim lainnya, mereka menjawab ketidak-adilan yang menimpa mereka melalui jalan demokrasi dan teriakan kebebasan, bukan teror dan kekerasan.

03. Terorisme: Fenomena Dunia, Bukan Fenomena Islam

Pemeo favorit di setiap diskursi bertemakan terorisme: “Tidak setiap muslim teroris, tapi seluruh teroris adalah muslim.” Selain jauh dari benar, dengan data dan fakta, propaganda ini mudah dipatahkan.

Data resmi Badan Kepolisian Eropa, Europol, menyebutkan: Dari 249 aksi teror di tahun 2010, hanya tiga yang pelakunya berlatar belakang Islam. Bukan 200, bukan 100 – tapi tiga! Data di tahun-tahun sebelumnya, juga tidak kalah mengejutkan: Dari 294 aksi terror di tahun 2009, hanya satu yang berlatar belakang Islam. Hanya satu dari 515 aksi teror di tahun 2008. Hanya empat dari 583 di tahun 2007.

04. Hukum Internasional untuk Semua

Di hadapan hukum internasional, dunia Barat selalu mentematisir, dan merekam dengan baik, 3500 korban terorisme yang pernah jatuh atas nama „teror-Islam“ semenjak pertengahan 1990-an (termasuk korban WTC, pada 11/9). Tapi mengapa ratusan-ribu warga sipil yang terbunuh dalam intervensi di Irak tidak pernah ditematisir?

Lebih jauh, Todenhöfer bertanya kritis: “Mengapa elite Barat, tidak pernah sekalipun menimbang; membawa George W. Bush dan Tony Blair ke hadapan mahkamah internasional, atas serangan sepihaknya ke Irak? Apakah hukum internasional hanya berlaku untuk orang-orang non-Barat?“

Perang, bukan jawaban untuk aksi-aksi terorisme. Perang, hanya manis untuk mereka yang tidak mengenalnya. Teroris yang membunuh orang-orang tidak berdosa, bukanlah pejuang kebebasan, bukan pahlawan, bukan pula syuhada. Mereka mengkhianati agama mereka. Mereka adalah pembunuh.

05. Muslim, Toleransi dan „Perang Suci“

Bukan Muslim, yang atas nama kolonialisasi membunuh 50 juta nyawa di seantero Afrika dan Asia. Bukan Muslim, yang atas nama perang dunia pertama dan kedua menghabiskan 70 juta nyawa. Bukan pula Muslim, yang menggencarkan genosida terhadap 6 juta orang-orang Yahudi.

Islam tidak mengenal kata suci dalam kaitannya dengan perang. Jihad bermakna sungguh-sungguh di jalan Tuhan. Tidak ada satu tempat pun di Quran yang memaknakan jihad dengan perang suci. Karena perang tidak pernah suci, dan kesucian hanya ada di jalan perdamaian.

06. Kontekstual Quran dan Islam-Teroris

Permasalahan besar dalam perdebatan Quran di Barat, adalah setiap orang bernafsu membicarakannya, sangat-sangat sedikit yang pernah membacanya.

Sebagian besar mereka tidak lagi rasional dan ilmiah. Hanya mengutip beberapa tekstual yang mengesankan islam pro “perang” tanpa pernah mau tahu konteksnya. Padahal pesan-pesan Quran yang dikesankan seperti itu, spesifik diterima Muhammad, dalam konteks perlawanan antara penduduk Mekkah dan Madinah, waktu itu.

Seperti Musa dan Isa, Muhammad tidak dilahirkan pada situasi dunia yang sedang vakum, apalagi damai. Mereka hadir pada saat moralitas dunia bobrok, penuh perang, perjuangan dan perlawanan. Adalah sangat lumrah beberapa tekstual yang terkesan pro “perang” itu bisa ditemukan di Quran, semudah bisa ditemukan di kitab Perjanjian Lama dan kitab Perjanjian Baru.

Secara semantis, diksi “islam-teroris”, “kristen-teroris” atau “yahudi-teroris” adalah sebuah penyesatan bahasa. Terorisme, menurut Todenhöfer, berdiri di atas instrumen setan, tidak boleh dikaitkan dengan kesucian Tuhan dan keagamaan. Memang benar, di dalam Islam, Kristen, atau Yahudi ada ideologi yang mengajarkan teror – tapi bukan ajaran agamanya. Ideologi ini tidak mengantarkan mereka ke surga, tapi ke neraka.

07. Fakta atau fake ?

Kalimat andalan kritikus anti-Islam di barat: „siapa yang menginginkan panggilan azan terdengar di kota-kota kami, harus membiarkan juga lonceng gereja berbunyi di kota-kota mereka!” Padahal nyatanya: Di Teheran, semisal, berdiri banyak gereja. Loncengnya berbunyi tidak jarang, dan tidak pelan. Lebih jauh, anak-anak kristen memiliki pelajaran agamanya sendiri (sesuatu yang luxus untuk anak-anak muslim di Barat).

Barat megidentifikasi jilbab sebagai simbol pengekangan dan ketertindasan. Dari survey resmi di Barat, wanita-wanita  pemakai jilbab, yang begitu dipedulikan Barat itu, justru berkata lain (memakainya atas kesadaran pribadi). Sinisme jilbab, sebagian besar justru datang dari mereka yang tidak berjilbab dan anti-jilbab. Memaksa seseorang berjilbab, jelas menyalahi hak asasi. Tidak jauh berbeda, dari prosesi pemaksaan untuk melepasnya.

Barat menuduh perempuan-perempuan islam tidak berpendidikan. Fakta dari dunia islam menjawab lain. Secara statistis, perempuan di negara-negara mayoritas islam, justru lebih berpendidikan dibanding Barat: 30% Profesor di Mesir perempuan, padahal di Jerman jumlahnya hanya sekitar 20%. Lebih dari 60% mahasiswa di Iran adalah perempuan. Di Uni Emirat Arab, sudah semenjak tahun 2007, mahasiswa perempuan menginjak angka yang sulit dipercaya: 77%.

08. Seorang Muslim = Seorang Yahudi = Seorang Kristen

Tidak ada seorang bayi pun terlahir sebagai seorang teroris. Barat harus memperlakukan seorang Muslim, persis seperti seperti mereka memperlakukan seorang Kristen atau Yahudi.

Tidak jarang kita dengar politikus dan aktivis Barat, demonstratif, mengumbar kalimat penuh kebencian terhadap Islam. Frank Graham, penasehat George W. Bush, menyebut Islam sebagai „agama iblis dan sihir”. Politikus kanan Belanda, Geert Wilders, menyebut Islam sebagai “agama fasis”. Thilo Sarrazin, politikus Jerman memberikan thesis: „secara genetis, anak-anak dari keluarga Islam, dilahirkan di bawah tingkat kecerdasan rata-rata.”

Bayangkan sejenak, jika Frank Graham, Greet Wilders, dan Thilo Sarrazin mengganti objek tesis-nya bukan kepada “Islam”, tetapi menjadi “Yahudi” atau “Kristen”. Tidakkah ucapan seperti itu akan menjadi badai kemarahan yang dahsyat? Mengapa Barat boleh mengatakan hal-hal penuh fasistik dan rassist terhadap Islam, yang justru di kalangan orang-orang Kristen dan Yahudi sesuatu yang tabu? Barat harus mengakhiri demonisasi Islam dan Muslim.

09. Muslim Melawan Teror

Di tesis kesembilan, Todenhöfer mengajak umat Islam, melalui sebuah reformasi sosial, menjejak Nabi Muhammad yang berjuang untuk sebuah Islam yang beradab dan toleran. Untuk tatanan ekonomi dan politik yang dinamis, bukan statis – sambil mempertahankan identitas keagamaannya. Untuk persamaan yang penuh, pria dan wanita. Untuk kebebasan beragama yang nyata.

Tidak seperti politikus umumnya, Muhammad, bukan seorang reaksioner. Dia adalah seorang revolusioner, berani berpikir dan berani mematahkan belenggu tradisi. Islam di masa Muhammad bukanlah agama stagnan, apalagi regresif, tetapi pembaruan dan perubahan. Muhammad berjuang untuk perubahan sosial, ia pahlawan orang miskin dan orang lemah. Dia mengangkat hak-hak kaum perempuan, yang di periode sebelumnya nyaris tidak ada.

Muhammad bukan seorang fanatik atau seorang ekstrimis. Dia hanya ingin membawa orang-orang Arab, yang kala itu terjebak pada belenggu politeistik, untuk kembali ke sumber aslinya yang murni, agama Ibrahim, persis seperti yang disuarakan Musa dan Isa.

Terorisme, yang berada di sekelumit dunia Islam pada hari ini adalah distorsi ajaran Muhammad. Ini adalah kejahatan melawan Islam. Dunia Islam tidak boleh membiarkan citra baik Islam, yang dibangun Muhammad 14 abad yang lalu, dihancurkan seketika oleh ideologi kriminal ini. Dunia Islam perlu memerangi ideologi terorisme ini, persis seperti Muhammad memerangi berhala-berhala dari periode pra-Islam.

10. Politik Bukan Perang

Kalimat bijak pernah mengajarkan: “ketika kamu tidak bisa menaklukan musuhmu, peluk dia!”

Masalah kompleks di Timur tengah, hanya bisa diselesaikan dengan jalur politik, bukan dengan perang. Barat harus membuka pintu diskusi yang lebih lebar untuk dunia Islam. Barat harus membuka ruang bilateral dan unilateral lebih besar untuk negara-negara Arab. Kesatuan dan stabilitas yang perah terjadi di Uni Eropa, nyatanya, tidak berdiri di atas invansi senjata, tapi di atas politik diplomatisasi yang penuh visi.

Barat dan Dunia Islam perlu menjalin kesamaan visi: Sebuah dunia, yang setiap negara di dalamnya dihargai. Sebuah penghargaan, yang tanpa diskriminasi. Politik anti-diskriminasi, yang dibangun di atas keadilan dan kebebasan, bukan perang, apalagi penindasan.***

___________

*Sultan Haidar Shamlan
Mahasiswa (25) kelahiran Indonesia yang saat ini berdomisili di Jerman. Selain aktif di berbagai organisasi muslim dan kemahasiswaan di Jerman juga merupakan aktivis kemanusiaan bersama MER-C Jerman. Dunia menulis dan Jurnalistik telah menjadi bagian kehidupannya semenjak kecil. Timur tengah, politik, pendidikan, islam, kemanusiaan dan lingkungan adalah tema-tema besar yang terus menginspirasi dunia menulisnya.

SOURCE: http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com

It seems odd that President Obama is willing to apologize for American actions in so many instances, but not for the actual violation of an internationally-recognized border by the United States in the conduct of an espionage operation. An American drone touched down 140 miles inside Iranian territory, and the White House is refusing to apologize for our aerial invasion.

The drone crash is an open and shut case: there is nothing the RQ-170 could have been doing other than collecting intelligence. We have lots of good reasons to be collecting intelligence inside Iran; but our government committed an act of espionage, intruding clandestinely into another country, something that is illegal although widely practiced.

The president looks foolish calling for Iran to return the drone while petulantly refusing to explain our actions that resulted in being caught en flagrante delicto committing espionage. Especially given our outrage a few months ago when the U.S. traced to Iran’s Qu’uds force a bungled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

After China shot down an American spy plane near Hainan Island in 2001, the Bush Administration apologized, saying we were very sorry both for causing the death of a Chinese military pilot that had intercepted our plane, and for entering Chinese airspace. Technically, the letter was “an expression of regret,” while claiming we did nothing wrong, but for all practical purposes, we apologized to China.

By not apologizing for what is a clear infraction of an (often compromised) norm of international behavior, President Obama both justifies Iran’s attempts to conduct espionage inside the U.S., and makes us look like a brutish superpower that flaunts the rules. So much for a new era of respect for international law and cooperation under President Obama. Senator Obama would surely have cited such behavior by the previous administration as one more demonstration of the arrogance making the U.S. so unpopular in the world.

It may be the drone just wandered off course from Afghanistan or elsewhere and was not intended to be over Iranian airspace. It may be we were plotting grid coordinates to target Iran’s nuclear program, which it continues in violation of its commitment in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to pursue weapons and despite numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions condemning its actions. It may be the drone was collecting radiation emissions from recent activity at know Iranian centrifuge or testing sites in support of the International Atomic and Energy Agency.

The Iranians claim to have used cyberwarfare to down the drone, a claim that is unlikely and that our explanation should also put to rest. Iran ought to be very worried that we can operate with impunity in their airspace; fueling that concern is a useful deterrent given Iranian nuclear and missile programs.

Whatever the explanation is, the president or a senior figure in the administration should actually give the explanation, both to the American people and to the world. Thomas Jefferson was right that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them.”

The president should apologize. He should also use the explanation as an opportunity to review all the reasons we feel the need to collect intelligence inside Iran:

• Iran’s unrelenting march to build nuclear weapons;
• that Iran is the world’s most enthusiastic state sponsor of terrorism, including a recent effort to conduct political killings in America;
• support to Hezbollah destabilizing the government of Lebanon;
• funding and recruiting Shi’ia militia in Iraq;
• assistance to Hamas derailing progress toward peace in Palestine;
• the erratic international behavior of Iran’s leadership;
• degrading repression of its own people;
• widespread fraud in the 2009 elections — protests by Iranians were the first flowering of the so-called Arab Spring.

Why the president would be hesitant to do so in this instance, where we are clearly in the wrong, is mysterious. Perhaps the president doesn’t want to be seen apologizing to one of the world’s worst governments. Nor might he want to remind voters of his commitment to negotiate with that government, or his awkward tendency to blame both aggressor and victim by urging restraint on both sides during the election protests. Still, he should apologize… and continue conducting intelligence overflights of Iran.

SUMBER: Irib

Perang elektronik Iran dan Amerika Serikat dalam kasus perampasan pesawat pengintai tanpa awak Amerika Serikat,

berakhir dengan kemenangan Republik Islam Iran. Ini membuktikan bahwa peringatan para pejabat keamanan dan militer Iran kepada musuh, serius, faktual, dan tidak dapat dianggap remeh.

Pekan lalu, pesawat pengintai RQ170, atau Sentinel, atau yang disebut dengan Beast of Kandahar, terperangkap dalam jebakan sistem pertahanan elektronik udara Angkatan Bersenjata Republik Islam Iran. Kontrol pesawat tersebut berhasil direbut dari tangan militer Amerika Serikat dan sukses didaratkan dengan tingkat kerusakan minimum. Setelah tersebarnya berita perampasan pesawat itu, para pejabat Amerika Serikat langsung mengerahkan mesin-mesin propagandanya dalam rangka meremehkan keberhasilan Iran tersebut atau bahkan berusaha menafikannya. Namun, penayangan video pesawat RQ170 melalui televisi nasional Iran, mengakhiri seluruh propaganda Amerika Serikat dan Barat.

.

IranTelah Identifikasi Seluruh Pesawat Musuh Setahun Lalu

Mungkin ketika seorang pejabat urusan perang elektronik di Pangkalan Pertahanan Udara Khatamul Anbiya, dalam manuver Velayat 3, kepada para wartawan mengatakan bahwa hanya melalui hidupnya motor pesawat musuh, Iran mampu mengidentifikasi jenis pangkalan komando pesawat itu, para pejabat Kementerian Pertahanan Amerika dan Dinas Intelijen Amerika (CIA), tidak menganggap serius pernyataan tersebut.

.

Pejabat Pangkalan Pertahanan Udara Khatamul Anbiya itu menegaskan bahwa tugas divisi yang dipimpinnya adalah menguasai dan mengontrol gelombang-gelombang elektro-magnetik.

Pada hakikatnya, pengambil alihan pesawat pengintai moderen Amerika Serikat itu sendiri menunjukkan bahwa Republik Islam Iran tidak pernah sekedar mengklaim atau bluffing saja. Melainkan, seperti yang dikemukakan Kepala Staf Angkatan Bersenjata Republik Islam Iran, Brigjen Sayid Hasan Firuzabadi, Republik Islam Iran telah mencapai kemampuan teknis dan persenjataan yang bahkan tidak terbayangkan oleh musuh.

.

.

Sistem Pertahanan Udara Iran di Garis Depan

Kebiasaan Amerika Serikat untuk meremehkan peringatan Republik Islam Iran itu bukan hanya terbatas pada satu kasus saja.

Mereka tidak memperhatikan pernyataan Kepala Staf Angkatan Bersenjata Iran dalam sebuah pidatonya yang mengkonfirmasikan operasi pertahanan udara Republik Islam. Pada akhirnya keberhasilan Republik Islam dalam merampas RQ170, menjadi tragedi besar bagi militer Amerika Serikat. Bahkan menurut seorang pengamat di institut Brookings, menilai rampasan tersebut sebagai “harta karun” bagi Republik Islam.

Tahun lalu, para pejabat militer Iran juga mengkonfirmasikan bahwa Iran telah mengontrol zona udaranya hingga ketinggian 5.000 kilometer.

Sistem Pertahanan Udara Iran Dapat Menandingi Sistem Dunia

Para pejabat Amerika Serikat juga mungkin tidak terlalu menilai penting pernyataan Panglima Pangkalan Udara Khatamul Anbiya dua tahun lalu, Brigjen Miqati, bahwa “upgrade sistem pertahanan Republik Islam Iran, terus meningkat dan berada pada titik prima serta dapat menandingi sistem yang beredar di dunia saat ini.”

Operasi perampasan pesawat pengintai Sentinel itu sekaligus membuktikan bahwa militer Amerika Serikat dan Pasukan Pakta Pertahanan Atlantik Utara (NATO) tidak mampu mengukur kemampuan pertahanan Iran bahkan di tingkat rendah. Dan tidak jelas sampai kapan mereka akan mampu menjajaki kemampuan pertahanan Iran.

Kekhawatiran AS atas Penggandaan Teknologi RQ170

Pasca tragedi RQ170 itu, para pejabat Amerika Serikat kini mengkhawatirkan aksi penggandaan teknologi pesawat moderen itu.

Kekhawatiran itu pada hakikatnya hanya bagian kecil dari kekhawatiran utama mereka yaitu peningkatan kemampuan Republik Islam Iran dalam perang elektronik atau dalam memproduksi pesawat-pesawat pengintai yang hingga kini belum diproduksi.

USA Today dalam hal ini menulis bahwa pesawat pengintai yang dirampas Iran, karena beberapa faktor, tidak mungkin untuk dikopi.

Pengungkapan masalah tersebut secara otomatis merefleksikan kekhawatiran mendalam Amerika Serikat atas kemampuan penggandaan teknologi oleh Iran. Mantan menteri Pasdaran Iran, Mohsen Rafiqdust, pada masa Perang Pertahanan Suci dalam melawan agresi rezim Baats Irak, mampu membuktikan kemampuan penggandaan teknologi.

Poin berikutnya adalah para pejabat CIA mengetahui bahwa Iran telah membuktikan kemampuannya di bidang perang elektronik, maka sudah seharusnya Republik Islam memiliki kemampuan yang tak terbayangkan di bidang penggandaan. (IRIB Indonesia/MZ/SL)

SUMBER: Kompas

PANGKAL PINANG, KOMPAS.com- Yusril Ihza Mahendra secara terbuka menyindir Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Sindiran terutama pada laporan kekayaan Yudhoyono.

Yusril mengatakan, laporan zakat SBY hanya Rp 24 juta. Pembayaran zakat sejumlah itu menunjukkan SBY hanya punya sedikit kekayaan untuk ukuran Presiden.

“Kawan pernah memberi tahu saya, laporan kekayaan SBY hanya Rp 9 miliar,” ujarnya, Minggu (11/12/2011) di Pangkal Pinang, Provinsi Kepulauan Bangka Belitung.

Ia melanjutkan, hal kontradiktif adalah biaya pernikahan putra SBY, Edhie Baskoro Yudhoyono dengan putri Hatta Rajasa, Aliya menghabiskan Rp 12 miliar.

Jika biaya itu dibagi antara SBY dan Hatta masing-masing Rp 6 miliar, maka kekayaan SBY tinggal tersisa Rp 3 miliar. “Hartanya sedikit sekali untuk ukuran presiden,” ujarnya.

__________________

Dibawah ini saya sertakan juga laporan media tentang biaya pesta Pernikahan anak Presiden SBY Edhie Baskoro Yudhoyono dan Siti Rubi Aliya Rajasa. Dan laporan kekayaan Presiden SBYtahun 2010 menurut  Data KPK -Myartikel-

**************

5 Pesta Pernikahan Paling Mewah di Indonesia

SUMBER: Detik.Com

Jakarta – Pernikahan memang menjadi salah satu momen terpenting dalam hidup manusia. Tak heran, banyak orang ingin menggelar pernikahan yang wah dan mewah. Itu juga yang dilakukan sejumlah orang kaya di negeri ini, termasuk para pejabat.

Berikut lima pernikahan yang dianggap paling mewah di Indonesia seperti penelusuran detikcom, Rabu (23/11/2011).

1. Edhie Baskoro Yudhoyono dan Siti Rubi Aliya Rajasa

Saat ini, publik sedang hangat memperbincangkan mengenai pernikahan putra kedua Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY). Prosesi acara berlangsung kurang lebih sepekan. SBY menegaskan, dana untuk pernikahan Ibas adalah murni uang pribadi, tak ada uang negara. Konon biaya pernikahan mencapai Rp 40 miliar. Namun, isu lain menyebut, pernikahan itu ‘hanya’ menelan biaya Rp 12 miliar.

2. Ardhi Bakrie dan Nia Ramadhani

Pernikahan anak Aburizal Bakrie ini konon sangat mewah. Pernikahan yang digelar April 2010 itu disebut-sebut menghabiskan dana hingga Rp 100 miliar. Kemewahan pernikahan Ardhi dan artis cantik Nia Ramadhani itu terlihat mulai dari acara akad nikah hingga resepsi yang digelar hingga dua kali.

3. Adinda Bakrie dan Seng Hoo Ong

Tak kalah dari pernikahan Ardhi dan Nia, pernikahan sang sepupu, Adinda Bakrie, juga mewah. Resepsi pernikahan yang pada tahun 2008 menjadi perbincangan hangat itu digelar di Hotel Mulia. Adinda dan Ong juga menggelar pesta di Bali.

4. Danny Bimo Hendro Utomo dan Lulu Tobing

Pernikahan cucu mantan Presiden Soeharto ini juga cukup menghebohkan. Selain menggelar pesta serba wah yang menghabiskan dana sekitar Rp 5 miliar, pernikahan ini juga dikenal ‘memanjakan’ tamu-tamunya. Salah satunya dengan memberi souvenir uang Rp 70 ribu yang dibentuk menjadi bunga dan bunga untuk tamu pernikahan anak pasangan Indra Rukmana Kowara dan Siti Herdiyanti Rukmana itu.

5. Nancy dan Nicolas Tabardel

Pernikahan putri konglomerat Prajogo Pangestu ini mungkin tidak terlalu terdengar di telinga publik. Namun, kabarnya, pernikahan yang digelar di Ballroom Hotel The Ritz-Carlton Lillennia, Singapura ini menelan dana hingga puluhan miliaran rupiah. Selain gelaran pesta yang megah, para tamu juga dijamu dengan kesediaan tiket bisnis Jakarta-Singapura (PP) dengan pesawat Singapore Airlines. Selain tiket pesawat bisnis, juga menyediakan 300-an kamar hotel berbintang untuk undangan spesial tersebut.

***********

Rincian Harta Kekayaan Presiden SBY (Tahun 2010)

SUMBER: Detiknews.Com

Jakarta – Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY ) memiliki kekayaan senilai Rp 7,6 miliar dan US$ 269.730. Harta ini berupa tanah ribuan meter persegi yang diperoleh dari hibah maupun milik sendiri, barang antik, dan harta kekayaan lainnya.

Data harta kekayaan SBY ini diperoleh dari data laporan kekayaan pejabat negara yang diakses di kantor KPK, Jalan HR Rasuna Said, Kuningan, Jakarta Selatan, Jumat (5/3/2010).

Berikut rincian harta kekayaan SBY per 23 November 2009:

SBY memiliki sejumlah harta tidak bergerak. SBY memiliki tanah di Kabupaten Bogor dari hasil hibah tahun 2007 yang luasnya 9.465 meter persegi dengan nilai Rp 132,5 juta.

SBY punya tanah dan bangunan di Kabupaten Bogor seluas 3.186 meter persegi dan bangunan 900 meter yang diperoleh tahun 1996 dengan nilai Rp 2,2 miliar.

SBY juga punya tanah seluas 1.000 meter persegi di Kabupaten Bogor dari hasil sendiri yang dibeli tahun 1999 dengan nilai Rp 64 juta.

Selain tanah, SBY punya logam mulia tahun 2006 yang diperoleh dari hasil sendiri harganya Rp 47 juta.

Tahun 1995-1997, SBY mendapat warisan logam mulia senilai Rp 7 juta. SBY mendapat hibah logam mulia tahun 1995-1997 senilai Rp 2,1 juta. Batu mulia dari hasil sendiri tahun 2006 nilainya Rp 26 juta. Ada batu mulia hibah tahun 1995-1997 senilai Rp 10 juta.

Yang menarik, SBY punya barang seni dan barang antik perolehan hasil sendiri tahun 1995-1999 ( penambahan data baru). Pada bulan Mei 2009 nilainnya Rp 25 juta. Namun data November 2009, nilainya menjadi Rp 321 juta.

SBY memiliki sejumlah benda bergerak lainnya yang diperoleh dari hasil sendiri tahun 1976 sampai 2009 (ada penambahan data baru). Data Mei 2009 nilainya Rp 42.000.000. Sedangkan� November nilainya Rp 437.915.000.

SBY punya motor Suzuki Tornado tahun 1997 dari hibah nilainya Rp 2,5 juta. Mobil Range Rover buatan tahun 2002 yang diperoleh tahun 2006 senilai Rp 500 juta.

Selanjutnya, harta Giro dan stara kas lainnya yang dimiliki SBY dan berasal dari hasil sendiri senilai Rp 3.854.135.204 dan US$ 269 730. Total keseluruhan: Rp 7.616 270.204 dan US$ 269.730. Harta ini jumlahnya bertambah jika dibandingkan data bulan Mei 2009 yakni Rp 6.848.049.611 dan US$ 246.389.

_____________

Sementara Laporan kekayaan Presiden SBY tahun 2009 silahkan lihat DISINI

Dan bandingkan biaya pesta perkawinan anak SBY dengan anak Presiden Iran Ini

************

Lain Presiden Ahmadinejad, Lain Presiden SBY

SUMBER: Pelita Online

Ternyata ada presiden yang menikahkan anaknya dengan sangat sederhana dan bersahaja. Hal ini berbeda sekali dengan upacara pernikahan anak presiden SBY yang menghabiskan dana sebesar Rp 40 Miliar. Padahal Indonesia tidak lebih kaya dari Iran.

Suasana pernikahan anak presiden Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. (foto: paaduu)

Teheran, PelitaOnline– Siapa yang tidak mengenal Presiden Iran, Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Selain sebagai seorang pemimpin yang sangat berani, ia juga dikenal sebagai pemimpin yang sangat sederhana dan bersahaja.

Kesederhanaan dan kebersahajaannya itu tampak saat pertama kali menduduki kantor kepresidenan, ia menyumbangkan seluruh karpet istana Iran yang sangat tinggi nilainya kepada masjid di Teheran dan menggantikannya dengan karpet biasa yang mudah dibersihkan.

Kesederhanaan dan kebersahajaannya itu tampak  juga saat ia menikahkan putranya, Alireza Ahmadinejad tiga tahun yang lalu. Setelah ditelusuri, ternyata pernikahan tersebut hanya menelan biaya 3,5 juta Toman (setara dengan USD 3.500/ Rp 28 Juta). Meski terbilang sederhana, pernikahan ini berlangsung dengan khidmat dan syahdu.

Hal ini sangat berbeda sekali dengan upacara pernikahan anak presiden Indonesia Ibas-Aliyya yang diselenggarakan hari ini (24/11). LSM Bendera mencatat bahwa Biaya pernikahan Ibas-Aliya menghabiskan dana sebesar Rp 12 Miliar. Sementara itu, tabloid Cek dan Ricek melaporkan prosesi pernikahan ini menghabiskan dana sebesar Rp 40 Miliar.

Pernikahan Ibas-Aliya juga berdampak negatif terhadap masyarakat. Pernikahan ini telah merampas hak 300 siswa sekolah alam Cikeas dan SDN 1 Cipanas karena diliburkan, menghilangkan nafkah 1000 pedagang Pasar Cipanas dan 1000 angkutan umum Cipanas serta belasan ribu masyarakat yang akan berbelanja di Pasar Cipanas yang  menggunakan angkutan umum.

Hal berbeda akan kita temukan pada pernikahan putra Ahmadinejad sebagaimana dilukiskan oleh Seorang blogger, Javad Matin. Matin melukiskan prosesi pernikahan itu sebagai berikut:

“SAAT itu, pada Rabu malam ketika telepon saya berdering, Saya diundang ke upacara pernikahan sahabat baik saya, Alireza, yang akan berlangsung malam berikutnya.

Saya tahu setiap kali Idul Ghadir (Hari libur Islam di Iran) datang keluarga itu pergi ke beyt [Istana kepresidenan] dan dia akan dinikahkan dengan keponakan syahid Kaveh [tentara Iran, Garda Revolusi, dan anggota Basij yang tewas dalam perang Irak biasa disebut syahid].

Kamis malam pukul sembilan, saya pergi ke istana kepresidenan. Dari luar tempat itu, semua tampak biasa saja, sampai-sampai saya mengira bahwa saya telah datang ke tempat yang salah. Sepertinya pernikahan putra seorang presiden tidak diadakan di sana.

Saya memasuki taman dan sadar bahwa saya harus mematikan telepon. Sekelompok orang berbaris untuk salat. Kemudian saya memasuki aula. Sejumlah meja kosong karena tamu yang duduk sedang pergi untuk melaksanakan salat. Buah-buahan dan kue, sebotol air mineral, beberapa piring dan pisau telah ditata di meja untuk para tamu.

Saya menanyakan keberadaaan “doktor” [sebutan untuk Ahmadinejad dari para pendukungnya karena dia adalah doktor di bidang teknik sipil dan manajemen lalu lintas transportasi]. Saya diberi tahu bahwa dia sedang salat di halaman belakang.

Karena kurangnya ruangan, beberapa tamu pergi menuju halaman belakang. Saya salat bersama, seorang ajudan senior kepresidenan, Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi. Kemudian saya kembali ke aula.

Sang doktor sedang duduk di meja pertama di sebelah ayah pengantin wanita. Setelah bersalaman hangat dengannya dan beberapa pejabat lain, saya duduk di salah satu meja.

Kemudian sang  pengantin pria memasuki aula. Dia mengucapkan salam kepada setiap tamu dan duduk di samping doktor dan ayah mempelai wanita, Haj Agha Akbari.

Ketua panitia penyelenggara pernikahan, Mr. Kheirkhah, mengatakan betapa doktor begitu perhatian terhadap resepsi pernikahan ini sampai pada hal-hal yang detailnya. Dia mengatakan bahwa doktor hanya memesan satu jenis makanan dan membayar 3,5 juta toman [sekitar 3.500 dolar / Rp 28 juta] untuk biaya resepsi.

Dia menambahkan bahwa jumlah tamu pria sebanyak 180 orang. Saya hanya melihat sedikit pejabat negara. Saya pernah ke pernikahan pejabat publik sebelumnya dan di sana tidak hanya ada pengeluaran mewah tapi juga banyak menteri dan pejabat negara yang hadir.

Tapi apa yang saya lihat disini benar-benar penuh dengan kesederhanaan. Ini adalah resepsi rakyat, padahal ayah sang pengatin pria adalah orang nomor satu di negeri ini.

Dalam pesta tersebut, aura kesederhanaan sangat terasa di mana-mana. Hal tersebut terbukti dari cara tamu dijamu. Hal ini juga bisa dilihat dari mobil yang digunakan untuk mengantar pengantin dan perjamuan itu sendiri yang sederhana namun lezat dan harum.

Pembawa acara resepsi meledek Alireza tentang subsidi dan 1 juta toman yang akan diterima anaknya kelak, yang membuat doktor tersenyum.

Upacara telah berakhir, tetapi sang doktor dan ayahnya pengantin wanita berdiri di pintu gerbang untuk mengucapkan selamat tinggal kepada para tamu.

Menarik melihat bagaimana sang doktor melayani anak berumur 7-8 tahun yang berteriak “Paman! Paman!” kepadanya. Dia memeluk dan memperlakukannya dengan baik.

Semua orang telah pulang dan sang doktor menuju dapur untuk menyampaikan terima kasih kepada mereka yang bekerja untuk resepsi. Ketika semua orang telah pergi, pengantin pria dan wanita masuk ke mobil mereka tanpa ada formalitas tambahan dan pulang ke rumah dengan keluarga.

Saya menyampaikan selamat kepada sahabat saya, Alireza,sang doktor, keluarganya yang terhormat, dan juga keluarga syahid Mahmoud Kaveh. Semoga mereka memiliki kehidupan yang baik di bawah bayangan Imam Zaman.

Sudah menjadi hak setiap orang untuk melaksanakan pernikahan dengan kemewahan, terlebih lagi menggunakan uang pribadi. Namun, sebagaimana nasihat Ali bin Abi Thalib, seorang pemimpin memiliki kekhususannya tersendiri. Dengan tanggung jawab yang lebih besar, dia harus bisa menyesuaikan dan merasakan kehidupan rakyat terbawah yang dipimpinnya.”

Apakah anda setuju dengan nasihat Imam Ali bin Abi Thalib di atas wahai bapak SBY?

.

SUMBER: http://syafiqb.com

Kekalahan tim Garuda dari Malaysia pada SEA Games ke-26 mengingatkan kita pada berbagai persaingan antara Indonesia dan Negeri Jiran itu.

Belum lama berselang, masih hangat dalam ingatan kita, muncul isu soal bergesernya garis batas negara kita di Kalimantan. Kemudian juga masalah TKI, dan kasus Sipadan dan Ligitan tempo hari.

Bukan hanya itu. Lomba antar-tetangga itu berada dalam berbagai sektor. Dalam urusan seni dan budaya harus diakui Indonesia unggul, sehingga kita sewot saat Malaysia mengklaim hak cipta hasil karya orang Indonesia. Namun di bidang kesehatan, pariwisata dan pendidikan, jiran yang satu ini jauh meninggalkan kita. Mari kita jenguk.

Dalam bidang pendidikan, harus diakui sejak lama banyak orang Malaysia belajar di Indonesia. Hingga kini pun mahasiswa Malaysia mendominasi jumlah mahasiswa asing di Indonesia, yang jumlahnya mencapai 6000-an orang.

Lazimnya mengambil mata kuliah di bidang kedokteran, farmasi, agama Islam dan teknik, di antara perguruan tinggi yang banyak disasar mahasiswa asing itu adalah UI, IPB, ITB, Universitas Padjajaran, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah, dan ITS Sepuluh November.

Namun jumlah itu jauh di bawah angka mahasiswa Indonesia di Malaysia, yang hingga tahun 2010 lalu diperkirakan mencapai 9800-an, nomor dua terbanyak setelah mahasiswa asal Iran.

Data yang ada menunjukkan hingga 2007 saja, sekurang-kurangnya ada 45 ribu mahasiswa asing di Malaysia, hampir dua kali lipat dari jumlah pada tahun 2002 (sekitar 27 ribu). Bukan mustahil jumlahnya kini mendekati 80 ribuan.

Maka tidak heran bila saat ini berbagai universitas besar dan kecil dipadati muda-mudi dari berbagai negara di dunia – utamanya dari dunia ketiga. Sebutlah umpamanya Multimedia University (MMU), yang mulai beroperasi sekitar 12 tahun lalu.

Kini perguruan tinggi swasta pertama di Malaysia — yang dibangun oleh mantan Perdana Menteri Mahathir Mohammad — itu telah memiliki lebih dari 20 ribu mahasiswa , sekitar 4200-an di antaranya adalah mahasiswa asing dari 70-an negara seperti Iran, Indonesia, Arab Saudi, Kazakhstan, Sudan, China dan Thailand.

Di bidang kesehatan pun Malaysia juga piawai, mengikuti Thailand dan Singapura. Hingga tahun 2005 lalu jumlah pasien asing yang berobat ke Malaysia mencapai 400 ribuan orang.

Menurut data tahun 2007, sekitar 72% pasien asing di Malaysia berasal dari Indonesia. Diperkirakan tahun 2010lalu Malaysia menangguk tidak kurang dari RM 2 miliar (sekitar Rp.5,6 triliun) dari pasien asing yang berobat ke sana.

Bila angka itu benar, dan jumlah pasien asing asal Indonesia tetap di angka 70 prosen, maka artinya tahun lalu kita menyumbang sekitar Rp.3,9 triliun kepada sejumlah Rumah Sakit di Malaysia.

Brand dan promosi

Mengapa Malaysia begitu maju dalam bidang pendidikan dan wisata kesehatan?

Faktor bahasa Inggris, kata sebagian orang. Baiklah, memang bahasa Inggris menjadi bahasa kedua di sana, sehingga penting artinya dalam bidang pendidikan.

Tapi dari sisi kedokteran dan kesehatan, bukankah dokter kita tidak kalah pandai dari dokter Malaysia? Sementara mahasiswa Malaysia masih banyak yang belajar di sini.

Rupanya di antara penyebab utama adalah karena lembaga pemerintahan dan swasta Malaysia gencar berpromosi ke seluruh dunia. Selain itu, mereka secara serius memanfaatkan Internet efektif sehingga seolah ada satu Malaysian.Inc yang sangat kompak.

Tidak sia-sia usaha promosi ke dunia yang mereka lakukan selama ini. Bahkan sudah sejak 1990 Mahathir Muhammad meluncurkan Visi Malaysia 2020, yang bertujuan menjadikannya negara industri yang mandiri (self-sufficient industrialized nation). Di antara hasilnya, GDP perkapita Malaysia pada 2006 berhasil mencapai $12.155, jauh di atas Indonesia ($ 4.251).

Promosi melalui Internet juga sangat diandalkan. Berbagai universitas Malaysia, misalnya, mengembangkan situs universitymalaysia.net yang memberikan informasi mengenai apa dan bagaimana negeri dengan 13 negara bagian (federal) dan penduduk 28,5 juta itu, menampung sejumlah besar mahasiswa asing dari 100-an negara.

Sebaliknya, Indonesia masih tertinggal. Cobalah cari ’international students in Indonesia’ di Google, maka yang Anda peroleh justru lebih banyak promosi berbagai perguruan tinggi di luar negeri yang hendak menarik mahasiswa kita ke sana.

Dalam upaya promosi bagi pendatang, turis, investor dan expatriate, Malaysia juga melangkah beberapa tahap di depan kita. Cobalah berjalan-jalan di sekitar Bukit Bintang di Kuala Lumpur. Dari ujung ke ujung Anda akan mendapati ratusan turis asing, utamanya dari Timur Tengah.

Pemerintah kota juga menyulap suasana di tengah Kuala Lumpur sehingga menjadi seolah ‘Timur Tengah Kecil’.

Lalu perhatikan situs Alloexpat ini.  Sekali masuk laman itu, seseorang yang ‘asing’ dengan negeri itu secara mudah akan bisa mengeksplorasi apa pun yang dia ingin ketahui.

Situs itu juga memberi tautan kepada ‘Layanan Imigrasi Malaysia’ – suatu hal yang paling mendasar bagi seseorang yang hendak merantau atau berlibur ke Negara lain.

Lewat situs seperti itu juga, seorang ekspatriat bisa mendapat informasi seperti restoran, hotel dan perumahan, guide belanja, sekolah, olahraga, jasa relokasi, jasa keuangan, informasi kesehatan, dan rekreasi.

Promosi atau iklan yang gencar dan dikelola secara strategis dan terintegrasi menjadikan brand atau reputasi Malaysia di dunia terus meningkat. Boleh jadi, bahasa menjadi salah satu alasan orang kuliah di luar negeri.

Tapi reputasi negara itu juga amat berperan.Brandsebuah negeri itulah misalnya yang menyebabkan orangtua suka mengirim anaknya tidak saja berkuliah ke negara berbahasa Inggris seperti AS atau Australia, melainkan juga ke Jerman, Prancis atau Jepang – yang tidak berbahasa Inggris.

Negara-negara itu punya brand yang tertanam di benak audience di seluruh dunia. Itu pula sebabnya Thailand ramai dikunjungi turis dan pasien dari manca negara yang hendak berobat.

Sejatinya memang kita bisa menggunakan branding sebagai alat untuk menemukan, mendesain, dan mengkreasikan berbagai produk dan jasa; juga, sampai batas tertentu, bagi ’sebuah negara’. Lewat branding itulah sebuah negara dapat mempertajam dan memengaruhi audiensnya di tingkat global.

Ia dapat memperkuat persepsi audiens karena branding di dalam hati (benak) adalah mengenai penciptaan koneksi-koneksi dan asosiasi dengan orang dan berbagai benda

Ia menyebabkan orang pergi ke dunia lain, untuk menemukan sesuatu yang baru, dan pada gilirannya juga menjadi ’ditemukan’. Ia adalah sebuah perjalanan terus menerus.

Salah satu kebenaran emosional yang tersembunyi di belakang kekayaan dan dampak branding adalah bahwa orang ingin menjadi bagian dari ’sesuatu yang lebih besar’ dari dirinya.

Kita, misalnya, ingin bergabung dengan mendiang Steve Jobs, dan kita melakukannya dengan membeli produk Apple.

Demikian pula, kita ingin bergabung dengan negara yang dalam benak kita dipotret sebagai ’maju’ seperti Jepang dan Inggris, sehingga membeli produk mereka, mengirim anak sekolah atau berobat di sana. Ringkasnya, kita ingin masuk dalam bagian brand-brand itu.

Lewat strategi marketing dan PR modern, Malaysia berhasil menciptakan keinginan (desire), menjanjikan mimpi-mimpi dan identitas yang diharapkan audience global. Mereka tahu, reputasi yang dibangun dan diakselerasikan melalui promosi akan menjadikan audiens merasa senang, ’muda kembali’, segar, maju dan progresif.

Penulis adalah Konsultan Komunikasi, dosen di Program Pascasarjana UniversitasParamadina, dan alumnus MA in Journalism, UTS (Australia).

SUMBER: Indo Pos

Mahfud MD saat Deklarasi Birokrasi Bersih di UI

DEPOK-Ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Mahfud MD pesimis penuntasan pemberantasan korupsi di Indonesia. Menurut dia, hingga saat hal tersebut hanya menjadi wacana dan teori. Bahkan, setelah kepemimpinan lima presiden pun tak juga terbukti mampu menghapuskan korupsi di Indonesia. ’’Banyak orang berbicara hapus korupsi, dan itu hanya teorinya.

Sekarang itu kuncinya bertindak, bukan teori. Jujur saja, saya malu bicara masalah birokrasi dan korupsi seperti ini. Karena, lima Presiden saja tidak mampu menghapuskannya,’’ terang Mahfud di dalam acara Deklarasi Nasional Birokrasi Bersih dan Melayani di Balai Sidang Universitas Indonesia (UI), Depok, kemarin. Mahfud mengungkapkan, hingga saat ini juga banyak orang yang selalu aktif menyuarakan antikorupsi dan secara tegas memberikan opini dan solusi penghapusan korupsi.

Akan tetapi, lanjut Mahfud, itu hanya omong kosong. ’’Buktinya, orang-orang yang dulunya lantang dan tegas antikorupsi dan hapuskan korupsi, namun ketika diberi jabatan memimpin suatu lembaga ternyata korupsi juga. Masuk penjara juga. Maka itu, jangan hanya ngomong dan teori. Harus bertindak juga,’’ tegasnya. Ia sempat mengakui bahwa dirinya enggan untuk hadir di dalam acara Deklarasi ini.

Mahfud mengatakan, hal itu disebabkan sudah tidak ada teori lagi yang harus diungkapkan karena korupsi pun tetap berjalan. ’’Saya sudah tidak tahu harus berteori seperti apa lagi. Sekarang ini, tugas saya hanya mengetok pejabat atau siapapun yang melakukan korupsi,’’ imbuhnya. Namun begitu dengan adanya deklarasi ini, Mahfud berharap agar jalannya reformasi borokrasi di Indonesia menjadi lebih baik.

Masalahnya, kesalahan bukan pada penyuap, tetapi justru pada yang meminta suap. Para penyuap tidak akan menyuap jika tidak ada yang minta disuap. Di birokrasi kita saat ini, justru pejabat birokrasinya yang minta disuapin. Jika tidak disuapin, maka akan dipersulit. Kuncinya, harus ditindak saja,’’ jelas Mahfud. (cha/jpnn)

]]> http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/mahfud-md-lima-presiden-tak-mampu-berantas-korupsi/feed/ 0 myartikel Mahfud MD http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/un-iaea-imf-instruments-of-us-imperialism/ http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/un-iaea-imf-instruments-of-us-imperialism/#comments Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:40:49 +0000 myartikel http://myartikel.wordpress.com/?p=4066 ]]> UN, IAEA, IMF: instruments of US imperialism

SOURCE: Crescent Magazine

There are a host of organizations — the United Nations (UN) with its Security Council, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — that are touted as world bodies whose function is to maintain peace, security and stability — financial and nuclear — in the world. The UN and IMF were created around the time of World War II. The UN with the Security Council, was meant to preserve Western domination of global politics; the IMF is the financial arm while the IAEA, established in 1957 is supposed to provide safety and security, promote science and technology and provide safeguards and verification for nuclear material.

The UN, especially the Security Council with five veto-wielding members, is anything but democratic. It is outrageous to suggest that the five permanent members represent the collective wisdom of all humanity. The Security Council is little more than a blunt instrument for Western, primarily US imperialist designs. When the US cannot use the Council to advance its own militaristic agenda, as happened in 2003 vis-à-vis Iraq, then it contemptuously ignores it. And the IMF is used to rob the countries in Asia and Africa of their precious resources by offering financial and fiscal “advice” that is designed to impoverish the inidigenous peoples by having them pay for the resources that are plundered from their societies.

It is, however, to the IAEA workings that we need to turn our attention. In recent years, it has lost whatever little credibility it had by targeting Islamic Iran at the behest of the US and Israel. One need hardly look beyond the agency’s latest report released on November 8 to understand what is afoot. Under its director, Yukiya Amano, the agency has allowed itself to be used to rehash old discredited allegations against Iran to feed the war frenzy of US-Zionist imperialists. Consider this. Using evidence from 2003, the former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei said there was “no conclusive proof Iran had crossed the weapons threshold”. Yukiya Amano, the new head, says that there is “no conclusive proof that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful” and he “has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” without offering any proof. The IAEA report admits that it found no proof of diversion of nuclear material from known activities to non-authorized use but that there may be diversion of “undeclared nuclear materials”. This is not only speculative, it is scandalous. An agency whose mission is to provide nuclear safeguards and verifications should not indulge in this kind of political rhetoric. As Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s representative to the IAEA, said: “The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency is unbalanced, unprofessional and politically motivated.” It was “a repetition of old claims which were proven baseless by Iran in a precise 117-page response.”

Under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is entitled to enrich uranium and member states are obliged to help it in this quest. Instead, the IAEA report indulges in wild speculation, tarnishing the agency’s already failing reputation. In September, the 117 member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) expressed deep concern at Amano’s “departure from standard verification language.” There is also concern among agency staff that Amano is moving away from scientific-based work and turning the agency into a political tool of the West. The same concern was expressed by NAM members at how Amano had uncritically accepted unnamed Western intelligence information on Iran’s nuclear activities. The self-serving nature of such allegations is beyond dispute.

Amano stands exposed unlike any previous head of the agency, as a US puppet. Cables from the US mission in Vienna in July and October 2009 leaked by WikiLeaks also confirm the tight relationship between US diplomats and Amano. And 12 days before the agency released its report, Amano secretly visited the White House to meet National Security Council staff. Why an independent agency’s head would need to confer in secret with US officials when he has no mandate and not offer such courtesy to other members proves his subservience to the US.

Like the UN and IMF, the IAEA is merely a tool of American imperialism. In fact, it has shown itself to be even more obsequious than the other organizations. Amano shares a major part of the blame for this. Or should we say, he must be “credited” with exposing himself for what he is: an American lap dog?
There are a host of organizations — the United Nations (UN) with its Security Council, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — that are touted as world bodies whose function is to maintain peace, security and stability — financial and nuclear — in the world. The UN and IMF were created around the time of World War II. The UN with the Security Council, was meant to preserve Western domination of global politics; the IMF is the financial arm while the IAEA, established in 1957 is supposed to provide safety and security, promote science and technology and provide safeguards and verification for nuclear material.

The UN, especially the Security Council with five veto-wielding members, is anything but democratic. It is outrageous to suggest that the five permanent members represent the collective wisdom of all humanity. The Security Council is little more than a blunt instrument for Western, primarily US imperialist designs. When the US cannot use the Council to advance its own militaristic agenda, as happened in 2003 vis-à-vis Iraq, then it contemptuously ignores it. And the IMF is used to rob the countries in Asia and Africa of their precious resources by offering financial and fiscal “advice” that is designed to impoverish the inidigenous peoples by having them pay for the resources that are plundered from their societies.

It is, however, to the IAEA workings that we need to turn our attention. In recent years, it has lost whatever little credibility it had by targeting Islamic Iran at the behest of the US and Israel. One need hardly look beyond the agency’s latest report released on November 8 to understand what is afoot. Under its director, Yukiya Amano, the agency has allowed itself to be used to rehash old discredited allegations against Iran to feed the war frenzy of US-Zionist imperialists. Consider this. Using evidence from 2003, the former IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei said there was “no conclusive proof Iran had crossed the weapons threshold”. Yukiya Amano, the new head, says that there is “no conclusive proof that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful” and he “has serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program,” without offering any proof. The IAEA report admits that it found no proof of diversion of nuclear material from known activities to non-authorized use but that there may be diversion of “undeclared nuclear materials”. This is not only speculative, it is scandalous. An agency whose mission is to provide nuclear safeguards and verifications should not indulge in this kind of political rhetoric. As Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s representative to the IAEA, said: “The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency is unbalanced, unprofessional and politically motivated.” It was “a repetition of old claims which were proven baseless by Iran in a precise 117-page response.”

Under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is entitled to enrich uranium and member states are obliged to help it in this quest. Instead, the IAEA report indulges in wild speculation, tarnishing the agency’s already failing reputation. In September, the 117 member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) expressed deep concern at Amano’s “departure from standard verification language.” There is also concern among agency staff that Amano is moving away from scientific-based work and turning the agency into a political tool of the West. The same concern was expressed by NAM members at how Amano had uncritically accepted unnamed Western intelligence information on Iran’s nuclear activities. The self-serving nature of such allegations is beyond dispute.

Amano stands exposed unlike any previous head of the agency, as a US puppet. Cables from the US mission in Vienna in July and October 2009 leaked by WikiLeaks also confirm the tight relationship between US diplomats and Amano. And 12 days before the agency released its report, Amano secretly visited the White House to meet National Security Council staff. Why an independent agency’s head would need to confer in secret with US officials when he has no mandate and not offer such courtesy to other members proves his subservience to the US.

Like the UN and IMF, the IAEA is merely a tool of American imperialism. In fact, it has shown itself to be even more obsequious than the other organizations. Amano shares a major part of the blame for this. Or should we say, he must be “credited” with exposing himself for what he is: an American lap dog?

SOURCE: Crescent Magazine

By Zafar Bangash

Weeks before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report was released on November 8, Western media outlets had already worked themselves into frenzy, drum-beating about how Iran would be found in “violation” of its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations by secretly diverting material to make the bomb. Western journalists, further tarnishing their already jaded image, not to mention suffering from a huge credibility gap, tried to outdo each other by trotting out the most ludicrous claims about what Iran was doing and how the IAEA report would provide “convincing proof” that it was making the bomb.

When the report was finally released, it turned out to be little more than a re-hash of the tired old allegations against Iran that have been repeated ad nauseam over the past decade. IAEA report made such assertions as it “believes” or Iran’s activities “suggest” that its nuclear program may have a military component, etc. James Reynold, the BBC’s Iran correspondent wrote on the network’s website on November 8: “The 25-page IAEA report says that Iran has carried out activities ‘relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device’… The report lists in detail what it believes Iran has been doing in secret. These activities include conducting computer modelling, developing a detonator, and testing high explosives.” The BBC’s resident “expert” went on: “The IAEA suggests that some of Iran’s activities are only applicable to nuclear weapons research — in other words, there is no innocent explanation for what Iran is doing” (emphasis added). To convince skeptics, Reynold wrote: “The agency stresses that the evidence it presents in its report is credible and well-sourced.”

Assertions such as “believe”, “suggest” and that “its report is credible and well-sourced” are hardly proof. If Iran is conducting its nuclear activities “in secret”, how did the agency learn about it? Aware of its credibility problem and the legitimate questions that would be raised about the report’s authenticity, the agency tried to assure skeptics but what proof did it offer? It quoted unnamed intelligence sources.

While the agency did not divulge names, one can speculate who the culprits might be: the American CIA, Israeli Mossad, their Western allies, and the myriad Arabian mukhabarat (intelligence agencies) that do not even know what is going on in their own bedrooms. The emphasis on assertions about being “credible” and “well-sourced” clearly reflect the agency’s concern that its report would prompt comparisons with the equally fraudulent claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that were touted as the principal reason for going to war in March 2003. The allegations against Iran are even more far-fetched and strain credulity.

While the IAEA was grappling with its report’s credibility, it faced and continues to do so, an even more basic problem: the credibility of its director general Yukiya Amano elevated to the post two years ago. A former Japanese diplomat, Amano is an American puppet. This is not an allegation. As Julian Borger, correspondent for the British daily, The Guardian, noted in his report of November 30, 2010: “As Mohamed ElBaradei’s term as director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) headed towards a close last year, Washington looked forward to the new era under Yukiya Amano with relish.” Borger then quotes a July 2009 cable from Geoffrey Pyatt, chargé d’affaires at the US mission in Vienna, that was leaked by WikiLeaks. Pyatt wrote in his cable to the US State Department: “The IAEA transition that will come as DG [director general] ElBaradei’s term ends November 30 provides a once-a-decade opportunity to overcome bureaucratic inertia, modernize Agency operations, and position the new director general for strong leadership from the DG’s office.”

Borger also quotes from another leaked cable of October 2009, in which Pyatt describes Amano as “DG of all states, but in agreement with us [US].” Equally important from the US point of view, Amano would not see himself as a “political player” over Iran, a role the US and its allies frequently accused ElBaradei of coveting. The allegation that ElBaradei was a “political player” was made because he refused to toe the US-Zionist line on Iran’s nuclear program. For remaining true to his position as an impartial referee of the nuclear file and making recommendations based on clear evidence, ElBaradei was accused of being “political” while Amano’s toe-ing the American line is described as being “neutral.”

Borger noted that “there was satisfaction among the Americans… after their initial post-election meeting with Amano…” He then goes on to quote Pyatt from a July cable in which he noted: “This meeting, Amano’s first bilateral review since his election, illustrates the very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA. The coming transition period [between July and November 2009] provides a further window for us to shape Amano’s thinking before his agenda collides with the IAEA Secretariat bureaucracy.”

On the eve of release of the latest IAEA report, the New York Times reported (November 7) that Amano visited the White House on October 28 to meet with top officials of the National Security Council concerning the report. While White House officials declined to even confirm the meeting or Amano’s presence in the White House, the question is, why would the head of a supposedly independent body like the IAEA need to brief US officials on his upcoming report about Iran? Do some states, like the US, have special rights? Was Amano there to get instructions from the Americans?

No clearer proof of Amano as an American stooge could be provided. He was appointed to head the IAEA in order to carry out the US agenda vis-à-vis Iran. What credibility could the agency’s report have when its director general takes orders from the Americans and in the words of a high level diplomat, there is not only a “very high degree of convergence between his priorities and our own agenda at the IAEA,” but the transition period from July to December 1, 2009 before he took over as director general was seen as “a further window of opportunity to us [the Americans] to shape Amano’s thinking…” (emphasis added). The IAEA’s latest report is proof that the Americans have been highly successful in not only shaping Amano’s thinking but also dictating to him what to do vis-à-vis Iran.

With Amano as a proven American lap dog, what credibility could his organization’s report have? In any case, the latest report failed to produce the much-anticipated smoking gun or proof of wrongdoing by Tehran. There could not have been; Iranian officials at the highest level have consistently denied making the bomb. The Rahbar, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei has said that making nuclear weapons was forbidden in Islam because its use would result in the killing of innocent people. Even when Iran had chemical and biological weapons, it refused to use them despite its soldiers and revolutionary guards being subjected to repeated attacks by the Ba‘athist regime of Saddam Hussein. From 1983 to 1988, Saddam’s forces repeatedly used chemical and biological weapons supplied by the West — the US, Britain, Germany and France — despite international agreements against the use of such weapons. The UN Security Council sent missions to investigate the use of such weapons and while they confirmed their use, not once did they state categorically who the offender was despite only Iranians being the victims. Thus, if Iran did not use chemical or biological weapons despite being victimized, why would it want to acquire nuclear weapons now?

In response to the IAEA allegation, the Rahbar was quoted by Iranian television networks on November 10 as saying: “Our enemies, particularly the Zionist regime, America and its allies, should know that any kind of threat and attack will meet with a firm reciprocal response. Our country, the Revolutionary Guards and army will answer attacks with strong slaps and iron fists.” President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad a day earlier in a radio interview had said: “We will not build two bombs in the face of your [US] 20,000. We will develop something that you cannot respond to, which is ethics, humanity, solidarity and justice.” Addressing the US, he went on: “You should know that no enemy of the Iranian people has ever tasted victory.”

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s representative to the IAEA, was quoted by the Islamic Republic News Agency as saying: “The report of the International Atomic Energy Agency is unbalanced, unprofessional and politically motivated.” It was “a repetition of old claims which were proven baseless by Iran in a precise 117-page response,” he added.

That the agency has been politicized and has moved away from its mandate as an objective international organization is evident from the latest report. When ElBaradei headed the organization, its reports were based on scientific evidence, rather than speculation, conjecture or the self-serving assertions of unnamed intelligence agents. The latest report provides clear proof of how the agency has become a propaganda tool of US-Zionist policies. Consider this: the IAEA report mentions “undeclared nuclear materials” without providing any evidence for their existence. How did it come to such a conclusion? This is pure speculation, not scientific evidence, of the same order as Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous quote: “the absence of proof is not proof of absence” when referring to Iraq’s alleged WMD. Such nonsense should have no place in a scientific report unless the IAEA has gone into the business of writing science fiction.

Expressing his displeasure with the latest report, President Ahmadinejad said the IAEA should instead investigate America’s nuclear arsenal. “If the agency is after the truth, why has it not released any report on the US atomic bombs concealed in 1,000 of its military bases?” The Iranian president could have added that the nuclear arsenal of the Zionist entity — the only state in the region with nuclear weapons — ought to be investigated as well. In September 2009, the agency’s board of governors had demanded that the Zionist State should open its facilities for international inspection. While surprising in and of  itself as to how the IAEA had mustered the courage to make such a demand, it has not bothered to raise the subject again. Why not? Why is the agency chasing phantoms in Iran but ignoring the real bombs that are a threat to the whole world given the mindset of the crazy Zionists?

The fact is that the NPT member states should be assisting Iran in the peaceful pursuit of its nuclear program rather than chastising it or curtailing its efforts. Instead, the agency itself indulges in wild speculation that is then amplified by Zionist agents and other Iranophobes in the media. Typical of this was the report by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad in the New York Times (Nov. 8): “United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a ‘credible’ case that ‘Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,’ and that the project may still be under way.” But the facts are very different.

In the IAEA’s two-part report, the first deals with what it refers to as “[nuclear] facilities under Iran’s Safeguards Agreement.” In this part the agency has certified that no diversion from a peaceful to a non-peaceful nuclear program has taken place in such facilities. In other words, Iran is not in violation of its Safeguards Agreement. But in the same part, the report then goes on to make a demand that is not covered by the agreement. Why does it make such a demand unless it is following a political agenda at the behest of powers hostile to Iran, such as the US and the Zionist entity? On page 6, for instance, it states: “Since its visit to the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP) on 17 August 2011, the Agency, in a letter to Iran dated 20 October 2011, requested further access to HWPP. The Agency has yet to receive a reply to that letter, and is again relying on satellite imagery to monitor the status of HWPP. Based on recent images, the HWPP appears to be in operation. To date, Iran has not provided the Agency access to the heavy water stored at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in order to take samples.”

To the uninitiated and to the Iranophobic writers and reporters in the Western media, this would constitute “proof” of Iran’s violation of its NPT obligations. But the fact is the Safeguards Agreement does not extend to a heavy water production plant because heavy water is not considered nuclear material that falls under the purview of any IAEA agreements. To raise the issue of heavy water in its latest report is to merely create doubts about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. It would have been relevant if Iran had a heavy water nuclear reactor in operation. It does not although one is under construction and the IAEA itself admits in its report that it might become operational in late 2013. Most experts, however, doubt this assertion but regardless of the dates, raising the issue of heavy water in this manner clearly points to the IAEA’s dubious role at the behest of belligerent imperial powers.

Based on carefully placed leaks in the media and bellicose noises from rulers of the illegal Zionist entity, the drums of war grew louder leading to the release of the IAEA report. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergio Lavrov warned against military strikes on Iran saying it would not solve the problem. On the contrary, it would lead to major conflagration in the region whose consequences would be catastrophic for all concerned, he warned. When the war rhetoric did not gain traction, the Americans and their European allies started talking about additional sanctions. But China’s foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said sanctions “cannot fundamentally solve the Iran issue.” He stated: “Dialogue and negotiation are the right way out for the Iranian nuclear issue.” Hong even had harsh words for the IAEA saying it should clarify the report in a “just and objective” way through stronger cooperation with Iran.

Let us reverse the scenario. If Iran had threatened to attack Israel’s nuclear installations because it has amassed at least 200 — and perhaps as many as 500 — nuclear weapons, one can imagine the global uproar. American politicians of every stripe would have denounced Iran’s warmongering by endangering not only the region but also the entire humanity. When it comes to threats by the Zionists or the Americans against a country that has not attacked or invaded another country over the last 200 years, it is taken as normal. American, European and Israeli rulers have clearly lost their minds. Mired in deep financial problems from which they cannot find a way out, they are thrashing like wounded beasts in order to divert attention from problems at home. But the masses in Europe and North America have realized who their real enemies are. They do not appear willing to buy into more propaganda after experiencing the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have bankrupted their countries. Even American generals are warning against more wars. The former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had warned against launching other wars when the two the US was engaged in were not going as planned.

But aggression seems to be in the blood of American, European and Zionist elites. They cannot find peace and comfort without killing innocent people in other lands. It is such policies that have created so much hatred for them worldwide. If they make the mistake of launching another war, this time against Iran, there will perhaps be nothing left of the US as a country, much less one with pretensions to being a superpower.

One sincerely hopes there will be saner heads in Washington, London and Paris to warn against such a course but given their criminal nature, one cannot be too optimistic.

]]> http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/lies-and-innuendos-fill-iaea-report-on-iran/feed/ 0 myartikel zafar.bangash http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/censorship-at-the-national-press-club/ http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/censorship-at-the-national-press-club/#comments Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:10:26 +0000 myartikel http://myartikel.wordpress.com/?p=4059 ]]> Censorship at the National Press Club

SUMBER: www.jacksonprogressive.com

By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

June 22, 2001

Henry Kissinger came to the National Press Club here in Washington, D.C. last night to give a talk, sell his latest book, Does America Need a Foreign Policy? and take questions from an audience of about 300 people.

We weren’t as interested in the talk or the book as much as the question period. We figured, correctly as it turned out, that Henry hadn’t change over the years — his unspoken theory of foreign policy was still the same: the corporate state — including his client corporations — should dictate the country’s foreign policy. As usual, his words barely masked that reality.

But scattered throughout the ballroom at the Press Club were little white note cards for questions, and it appeared that perhaps 100 questions were scribbled and sent up to the moderator, Richard Koonce, a member of the Press Club’s book and author committee.

It was Koonce’s job to sift through the questions, pick out some interesting ones, and ask Henry some probing questions. This system seemed to work well at luncheon talks, where the past three presidents of the Press Club — Doug Harbrecht of Business Week, John Cushman of the New York Times and Dick Ryan of the Detroit News — would ask speakers some pretty tough and newsworthy questions. We never got the sense that Press Club moderators were pulling punches.

Last night, things changed.

Earlier this year, Harper’s magazine published a two-part series of articles by British journalist Christopher Hitchens, “The Case Against Henry Kissinger that has since been published as a book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger (Verso).

Hitchens has drawn up an indictment, charged Kissinger with war crimes, and is begging some government to go after the former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon for the killings of innocents in Laos, Cambodia, South America, East Timor and elsewhere.

Magistrates in three countries — Chile, Argentina, and France — have responded and summoned Kissinger to answer questions.

Le Monde reported earlier this month that when French Judge Roger Le Loire had a summons served on Kissinger on May 31 at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, Kissinger promptly left the hotel, and then left town. The judge wanted to ask Kissinger about his knowledge of Operation Condor, an effort by the dictators of South America to kill or “disappear” dissidents.

The fact that Kissinger was being sought for questioning didn’t make the mainstream media here in the United States, until yesterday’s New York Times reported that the Chilean judge wanted Kissinger to “testify about the disappearance of an American in Chile when the dictator Augusto Pinochet seized power in the 1970s.”

Kissinger began lashing back at Hitchens last week, not by answering the substance of Hitchen’s argument, but by smearing the journalist.

Kissinger told Detroit radio talk show host Mitch Albom that Hitchens had “denied the Holocaust ever took place.”

In response, Hitchens, who says both and he his wife are Jewish, told the New York Post: “Mr. Kissinger will be hearing from my attorney, who will tell him two things he already knows — what he said is false, malicious and defamatory, and if he says it again, we will proceed against him in court.”

So, you can imagine that the Press Club audience had questions. And so did we.

We wrote down six questions — about the report in the Times, Kissinger’s interview with Albom, the incident at the Ritz Hotel in Paris, Hitchen’s articles in Harper’s, about the three magistrates and simply this one: “If you are indicted for war crimes, will you defend yourself in court?”

We met a friend there who told us that in the 1970s, when Kissinger was asked about the bombing of Laos and Cambodia, he responded this way: “sometimes we have to operate outside the law.”

Her question to Kissinger: “How do you square that with our Constitutional values?”

Koonce had other ideas. He lofted six or seven puff balls about Kissinger in China, about Kissinger on Nixon, about his generic views of foreign policy. Nothing about war crimes, nothing about operating outside the law, nothing about Hitchens.

After the event, we sought out Koonce.

“Was there an agreement with Dr. Kissinger not to ask questions related to Christopher Hitchens and allegations of war crimes?”

To our surprise, Koonce did not deny it.

“There was a definite sensitivity to that,” Koonce said. “He [Kissinger] was afraid that if we got into a discussion of that, for the vast majority of people that, it would take so much time to explain all of the context, that you know, he preferred to avoid that, and so . . .”

And so Kissinger’s wishes were accommodated and the questions were avoided.

We asked Koonce how many written questions dealt with Hitchens or war crimes? Two or three, Koonce said.

We knew this not to be true. We handed up six ourselves. And we suspect that there were many more. (Only Kissinger knows for sure, since it’s Press Club policy to deliver the written questions to the guest after the event.)

According to Press Club standards, these book events must be held in accordance with the Club’s “Code of Ethics.”

So, we want to know — how can it be ethical to agree secretly with an author before hand not to ask a certain set of questions?

We’re tracking down the Code of Ethics. Stay tuned.

_______________

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999; http://www.corporatepredators.org)

SOURCE: http://husseini.posterous.com

On [Nov. 15] I went to a news conference at  the National Press Club, where I am a member, titled “His Royal Highness Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia.” I asked a tough question at the news conference — a question that dealt with the very legitimacy of the Saudi regime. Before the end of the day, I’d received a letter informing me that I was suspended from the National Press Club “due to your conduct at a news conference.” The letter, signed by the executive director of the Club, William McCarren, accused me of violating rules prohibiting “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.” After several days of efforts, I’ve been able to obtain video of the news conference. The video shows that I did not engage in any “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.”

Saudi Arabia has basically been a center of counter-revolution in Arab countries. The Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, as did the Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh for a time. The Saudi regime reportedly tried to prevent the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak from stepping down. Saudi Arabia moved into Bahrain to stop a democratic uprising there. And of course it oppresses its own people, maintaining control through a combination of intimidation and in effect buying off much of the population. When major protests were attempted earlier this year, they were quickly put down and garnished little attention from most media. The Saudi regime arguably represents one of the narrowest of elites — it is not the 1%, it is perhaps the global 0.001% — and with hardly a pretense of merit. The Saudi regime continues to get weapons from the U.S. — see: “U.S. announces $60 billion arms sale for Saudi Arabia,” further preventing the possibility of peaceful change.

Prior to the event, I skimmed some material from Human Rights Watch on Saudi Arabia: “Saudi Arabia: Stop Arbitrary Arrests of Shia,” “Saudi Arabia: Free Islamic Scholar Who Criticized Ministry,” “Saudi Arabia: Women to Vote, Join Shura Council — But Reforms Exclude Other Forms of Discrimination.”

Toby Jones (Rutgers University, author of Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia) recently wrote of Saudi Arabia: “the absence of public protest has little to do with the legitimacy of the ruling family, the uncertain popularity of an aged autocrat or the purported conservative nature of Saudi society. Many Saudis, whether pious or not, harbor deep frustrations with the country’s rulers. They share the same grievances about injustice, oppression and stifling corruption that have mobilized protesters elsewhere.” See also Madawi Al Rasheed “Yes, It Could Happen Here: Why Saudi Arabia is Ripe for Revolution” and Christopher M. Davidson “Lords of the Realm: The wealthy, unaccountable monarchs of the Persian Gulf have long thought themselves exempt from Middle East turmoil. No longer.”

In the course of his over 30 minutes of remarks, Turki took issue with the term the “Arab Spring” — not because he thought a term like “Arab Uprisings” would be more appropriate, as others I know have argued — rather, he said, he preferred the term “Arab Troubles.” I found it quite distressing that someone would openly say that moves toward democracy were “troubles.”

Peter Hickman, the moderator for the event, called on me for the first question. Here is the exchange:

.

.

.

.

Husseini: There’s been a lot of talk about the legitimacy of the Syrian regime, I want to know what legitimacy your regime has, sir. You come before us, representative of one of the most autocratic, misogynistic regimes on the face of the earth. Human Rights Watch and other reports of torture detention of activist, you squelched the democratic uprising in Bahrain, you tried to overturn the democratic uprising in Egypt and indeed you continue to oppress your own people. What legitimacy does you regime have — other than billions of dollars and weapons?

Hickman: Sam, let him answer.

Unidentified speaker: What was the question?

Turki: [motioning Husseini to the podium] Would you like to come and speak here? Would you like to come and speak here?

Husseini: I’d like you to try to answer that question.

Turki: I will try my best sir. Well sir, I don’t know if you’ve been to the kingdom or not?

Husseini: What legitimacy do you have, sir?

Turki: Have you been to the kingdom?

Husseini: What legitimacy does your regime have, other than oppressing your own people?

William McCarren [Executive director of the National Press Club, who had come up to Husseini and was literally-face-to-face]: Put your question and let him answer, we have a whole room of people.

Husseini [to McCarren]: He [Turki] asked me a question. He asked me and I responded.

Turki: No you did not respond.

[off audio, some back and forth continues between McCarren and Husseini, see below]

Hickman: Go ahead [Turki] –

Turki: Anyway ladies and gentlemen I advise anybody who has these questions to come to the kingdom and see for themselves. I don’t need to justify my country’s legitimacy. We’re participants in all of the international organizations and we contribute to the welfare of people through aid program not just directly from Saudi Arabia but through all the international agencies that are working throughout the world to provide help and support for people. We admit this, as I said that we have many challenges inside our country and those challenges we are hoping to address and be reformed by evolution, as I said, and not by revolution. So that is the way that we are leading, by admitting that we have shortcomings. Not only do we recognize the shortcomings, but hopefully put in place actions and programs that would overcome these shortcomings. I have mentioned the fact that when you call Saudi Arabia a misogynistic country that women in Saudi Arabia can now not only vote, but also participate as candidates in elections and be members of the Shura Council. And I just refer you to your own experience to your women’s rights, when did your women get right to vote? After how many years since the establishment of the United States did women get to vote in the United States? Does that mean that before they got the vote that United States was an illegitimate country? According to his definition, obviously. So, until, when was it — 1910 when women got to vote — from 1789 to 1910 United States was illegitimate? This is how you should measure things, by how people recognize their faults and try to overcome them.

Husseini: — So are you saying that Arabs are inherently backward? –

Hickman: Sam, that’s enough — this lady to the right, you’re next.

I was very glad to get the question in and and I was happy that Turki responded. I think his response opens the door to a lot more serious reporting. For example, Turki’s response that Saudi Arabia gets legitimacy because of its aid programs is an interesting notion. Is he arguing that by giving aid to other countries and to international organizations that the Saudi regime has somehow purchased legitimacy, and perhaps immunity from criticism, that it would otherwise not have received? This is worth journalists and independent organizations pursuing.

Turki ignored the general question of authoritarianism and human rights abuses, but he cited reforms that the Saudi regime is allegedly going to implement, like allowing women to vote for the first time in the Shura Council elections, slated for 2015. This raises a lot of other questions: Would these reforms, that he seems to take credit for and pride in, have had a chance of happening were it not for what he calls the “Arab troubles”? And how meaningful are they? Does that mean Saudi Arabia will become democratic in any meaningful way? Or will the same basic monarchical structure continue? Also, Human Rights Watch notes that the regime does not seem to be “reforming other areas of discrimination against women, such as the guardianship system that authorizes male control over women and the ban on women driving.”

The point that I was trying to follow up on — this notion by Turki that somehow because the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting the right to vote on account of gender was not passed until 1920 — that this somehow excuses Saudi Arabia from being so authoritarian and prohibiting women from voting until today seems highly dubious. It seems to accept the notion that Arab people should be behind the United States in reform by 100 years. I’ve heard similar statements by George W. Bush — when he was supposedly pushing for Arab democracy he denounced the notion that democracy was somehow good for some people but not for others. However, this was a very problematic thing coming from Bush given that he was using the rhetoric of “democracy” — as well as “non-proliferation” and “human rights” — to justify war. And it was perhaps most hollow coming from Bush because he was close allies with the most authoritarian of Arab regimes, including Mubarak and the Saudis as he was saying it. So the point is a critical one — democracy, and increasing meaningful democracy, is good for all people. But the point shouldn’t be misused to pursue oppressive policies.

I should note that there have been tensions at the Press Club before, some with me, some with other journalists. See “Banned from First Amendment Room.” Several years ago, McCarren and I were in the elevator together at the Press Building and he told me that I was causing him a great deal of grief because of my questioning of officials. He said that there were a lot of other places in Washington, D.C. — think tanks and such — that host officials without the officials having to deal with such questioning. I told him I understood his point, and even sympathized to a degree. I wasn’t trying to drive officials away, but that this was the National Press Club, that it should be known for its independence and not be a place where officials would come because they expected to avoid serious scrutiny. I said I thought that events at the Press Club would carry more weight and be more interesting the more critical the questioning was — and that events that were simply flacking for an official were hollow and less deserving of thoughtful attention. I walked away feeling like we had understood each other better.

Another issue is that tough questioning seems to be done selectively, and of course this is an issue not just at the National Press Club. When individuals who seem at odds with the establishment, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Jeremiah Wright have spoken before to the Press Club, they were very critically questioned. Others, however, are treated rather reverentially. I have participated, and at times benefited from some of this. When the Austrian Neo-Nazi Jörg Haider came to the Club, Hickman, the same moderator at the Turki event, allowed me to give him quite a grilling with several followups — at least four or five, much to my joy — and congratulated me for my efforts afterwords.

During the beginning of Turki’s reply to my question, McCarren continued speaking to me, he had walked right up to me and spoke in a rather obnoxious tone, telling me to let Turki answer the question. I told McCarren that I was simply responding to Turki’s question to me. McCarren continued speaking in an obnoxious manner to me and I said to him “are you threatening me?” He responded: “Absolutely.” We had an exchange after I left the news conference as well. After the event, I sent an email to Hickman asking if he knew where I could get video of the news conference and he replied cordially but could not help provide the video, which I was finally able to obtain after several days.

Later that afternoon, I got an email with the notice of suspension signed by McCarren. The letter states: “We are suspending your membership for two weeks, effective immediately, due to your conduct at a news conference held at the National Press Club on Tuesday, November 15, 2011. Your action was in direct violation of House Rule 4 and grounds for immediate suspension.

“House Rule No. 4 states: ‘Boisterous and unseemly conduct or language in or about the Club premises or in connection with any Club-sponsored event is prohibited. Any member so offending shall be liable for immediate suspension by any Member of the board or the manager or his designee pending investigation by the board, which shall render final action.’

“This matter will be review ed by the Club’s Ethics Committee. A meeting will be scheduled prior to the end of your two week suspension to discuss your conduct and the violation. The Chairperson of the Ethics Committee will contact you to schedule the meeting.

“In the meantime, you should not come to the Club or use its facilities for any reason.”

The charge is false. I did not engage in “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language” — I engaged in tough journalism with a powerful government official from an autocratic regime that is allied with the U.S. government. This apparently warrants suspension from the National Press Club in Executive Director McCarren’s view..

Postscript regarding my interaction with McCarren: After Turki finished replying to my question, I decided to head back to my office, I was trying to meet a deadline on another matter. McCarren was at  the door. I said to him as I left the room and walked into the hallway that Turki had asked me a question, explaining that I had to say something to respond to Turki’s question. McCarren claimed I was being disruptive. I said that I was simply trying to ask tough questions. McCarren was literally wagging his finger in my face. I told him to stop doing so and he did. He talked about suspending me. He grabbed me by the arm, I told him to stop. He let go of my arm. He was acting as if I was being loud at this point and was disturbing the news conference going on inside the room and he was literally trying to physically remove me from the Club. But I wasn’t shouting or anything, he was probably louder than me. At one point, when McCarren talked about suspending me, I looked over at Keith Hill, the Club vice president, who was standing next to us, listening to the exchange and he said with a shrug “he [McCarren] can do that.” I was not disruptive at this or any other point. I continued saying I was simply trying to ask tough questions. McCarren and I both started walking toward the elevators, he continued talking about suspending me. I told him it sounded to me like he was trying to mimic the authoritarianism of the Saudi regime in miniature. When we were near the front desk, near the elevators, he harangued me specifically about not directly answering Turki’s question to me — had I been to Saudi Arabia? I said it doesn’t matter — that Turki can answer the question I pose to him as he likes and I can answer the question he poses to me as I like. I didn’t want Turki to not answer the question by using a distraction. At this point McCarren was almost shouting: “It’s not about you!” I said of course it’s not about me, it doesn’t matter if I’ve been to Saudi Arabia, it matters that it’s an authoritarian regime. I told him he was being hysterical. He motioned to the elevators as if he were kicking me out, I told him I had lots of work to do, he began stepping away and I got on the elevator and headed back to my office.

_______

Sam Husseini is communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His personal webpage is husseini.posterous.com. He is also founder of WashingtonStakeout.com.

]]> http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/journalist-questions-legitimacy-of-saudi-regime-is-suspended-from-national-press-club/feed/ 0 myartikel Turki Al Faisal Al saud http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/hipokrasi-kebebasan-pers-amerika-kritis-kepada-pangeran-saudi-jurnalis-as-diskors/ http://myartikel.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/hipokrasi-kebebasan-pers-amerika-kritis-kepada-pangeran-saudi-jurnalis-as-diskors/#comments Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:12:27 +0000 myartikel http://myartikel.wordpress.com/?p=4046 ]]> Kritis kepada Pangeran Saudi, Jurnalis AS Diskors

SUMBER: Blog Alternatif

KLUB jurnalis Amerika Serikat (AS) terkemuka, The National Press Club, kembali menunjukkan standa ganda. Pada 15 Nopember, klub itu menskors jurnalis Sam Husseini karena bertanya kritis kepada Pangeran Turki al-Faisal al-Saudi dari Arab Saudi. Surat penskorsan, yang ditandatangani direktur eksekutif William McCarren, menuding Husseini telah melakukan “perbuatan atau bahasa tak pantas” dalam acara konferensi pers yang menghadirkan Pangeran Turki di “First Amendment Lounge”, Washington, D.C., Senin (15/11).

Ingin tahu bagaimana National Press Club mendefinisikan “perbuatan tak pantas”? Perhatikan transkrip kutipan tanya-jawab antara Husseini dan Turki berikut, sebagaimana dikutip dari blog pribadi Husseini.

HUSSEINI: Sudah banyak pembicaraan tentang legitimasi rezim Suriah. Saya ingin tahu legitimasi apa yang rezim Anda miliki, Tuan? Anda datang di hadapan kami, sebagai perwakilan dari salah satu rezim paling otoriter dan misoginis di muka bumi. Human Rights Watch dan lembaga lain melaporkan penyiksaan dan penahanan aktivis. Anda menindas revolusi demokratik di Bahrain. Anda mencoba menjungkirbalikkan kebangkitan demokrasi di Mesir. Anda terus menindas rakyat Anda sendiri. Legitimasi apa yang rezim Anda miliki—selain miliaran dolar dan senjata?

.

TURKI: (memberi isyarat kepada Husseini ke arah podium) Anda ingin datang dan berbicara di sini? Anda ingin datang dan berbicara di sini?

HUSSEINI: Saya ingin Anda menjawab pertanyaan tadi?

TURKI: Saya akan coba sebaik-baiknya, Tuan. Tapi, saya tidak tahu apakah Anda pernah berkunjung ke kerajaan (Arab Saudi—red) atau tidak?

HUSSEINI: Legitimasi apa yang Anda miliki, Tuan?

TURKI: Apakah Anda pernah berkunjung ke kerajaan?

HUSSEINI: Legitimasi apa yang rezim Anda miliki, selain menindas rakyat Anda sendiri?
…

.

Saling lempar pertanyaan terus berlangsung, hingga Peter Hickman, moderator acara itu, memutuskan cukup dan mengalihkan ke pertanyaan jurnalis lain.
.

.

.
.

Apakah hal di atas merupakan “perilaku dan bahasa tak pantas” dari seorang jurnalis yang mencoba kritis terhadap narasumbernya? Apakah, karena sang narasumber adalah pejabat tinggi rezim otokratik yang bersekutu dengan pemerintah AS, seorang jurnalis tak pantas bertanya seperti itu?

Sebagai catatan, National Press Club—yang pernah dijuluki “sanctum sanctorum” (tempat suci) jurnalis Amerika itu—pernah melakukan hal yang sama terhadap jurnalis kritis. Pada 2001, Russel Mokhiber dan Robert Weissman menulis tentang bagaimana klub itu berupaya melindungi Henry Kissinger dari pertanyaan kritis.

Husseini juga menyatakan bahwa ketika tokoh yang tak disenangi—seperti Presiden Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—berbicara di National Press Club, jurnalis bisa mengajukan pertanyaan sangat kritis tanpa ada teguran atau bahkan penskorsan. Tak jarang moderator pun memberi ruang untuk empat hingga lima pertanyaan lain.

Pangeran Turki al-Faisal adalah bekas kepala intelijen Arab Saudi, dan kemudian bertugas sebagai duta besar di AS dan Inggris.

Sementara itu, Sam Husseini adalah direktur komunikasi pada Institute for Public Accuracy, lembaga non-profit yang mempromosikan ahli berpandangan progresif dan sumber alternatif bagi jurnalis media arus utama. Husseini juga pendiri “Washington Stake Out”, media online yang memuat pertanyaan kritis terhadap figur politik.(jemala)

SUMBER: Irib Indonesia

Siapa yang tak kenal lagu ini lirik hymne guru berjudul “Pahlawan Tanpa Tanda Jasa”? Masih terngiang betapa di era 1980-an, lagu ini sangat sering dinyanyikan di sekolah-sekolah. Sebab setiap upacara bendera pada hari Senin, lagu ini selalu dinyanyikan.

Istilah “pahlawan tanpa tanda jasa” bahkan kemudian menjadi ikon yang disematkan kepada para guru. Siapa sangka bila “sang pahlawan” yang tanpa tanda jasa itu sejatinya dialami si pencipta lagu tersebut. Ya, Sartono, pencipta lagu yang juga guru itu di masa senjanya hidup dalam kesederhanaan. Laki- laki asal Madiun yang genap berusia 72 tahun, 29 Mei ini, tinggal rumah sederhana di Jalan Halmahera 98, Madiun.

Sejak ia mengajar musik di SMP Purna Karya Bhakti Madiun pada 1978, hingga “pensiun” pada 2002 lalu, Sartono tetap menyandang guru honorer. Ia tak punya gaji pensiunan, karena statusnya bukan guru Pegawai Negeri Sipil (PNS).

Kawan-kawan sesama guru sempat membantu mengajukan dia menjadi PNS. “Katanya sih sering diajukan nama saya, tetapi sampai saya pensiun dari tugas sebagai guru, PNS untuk saya kok tidak datang juga,” kata Sartono.

Sartono memang minder dengan latar belakang pendidikannya yang tak tamat SMA. Ia mengajar di SMP Purna Karya Bhakti, yang belakangan lebih dikenal sebagai SMP Kristen Santo Bernadus, berbekal bakatnya di bidang musik. Sartono yang beragama Islam itu melamar di Santo Bernadus berbekal sertifikat pengalaman kerja di Lokananta, perusahan pembuat piringan hitam di Solo, Jawa Tengah.

Hidup serba dalam kesempitan, tak membuat Sartono meratapi nasib. Ia merasa terhibur, dengan kebersamaan dengan Damiyati, BA, 59 tahun, isterinya yang guru PNS. Damiyati dinikahi Sartono pada 1971. Dari pernikahan mereka belum jua dikaruniai anak. Sehingga mereka mengasuh dua orang keponakan. Damiyati yang juga guru, juga seniman biasa manggung bersama Ketoprak Siswo Budoyo Tulungagung, di masa mudanya.

Kehidupan sehari-harinya kini hanya dari pensiun istrinya yang tak lebih dari Rp 1 juta. Sartono sendiri kala masih aktif mengajar, gajinya pada akhir pengabdiannya sebagai guru seni musik cuma Rp 60.000 per bulan. “Gaji saya sangat rendah, bahkan mungkin paling rendah diantara guru-guru lainnya,” katanya mengenang masa lalunya.

Kala masih kuat, Sartono menambal periuk dapurnya dengan mengajar musik. Sepekan sekali, Sartono yang pandai bermain piano, gitar, dan saksofon, ini rutin mengajar kulintang di Perhutani Nganjuk, sekira 60 kilometer dari rumahnya di Madiun.

Bermula dari Lokananta

Jalan menjadi guru berawal dari kegemarannya bermain musik. Putra sulung dari lima bersaudara ini sebenarnya lahir dari keluarga cukup berada. Maklum, ayahnya R. Soepadi adalah Camat Lorog, Pacitan. Sartono kecil memang suka bermain musik secara otodidak. Namun, hidup nyaman tak bisa dirasakan berlama-lama. Ketika ia berusia 7 tahun, Jepang menduduki Indonesia. Ayahnya pun tak lagi menjabat camat.

Sartono, bersama empat adiknya, Sartini, Sartinah, Sarwono dan Sarsanti, tak bisa mengenyam pendidikan tinggi. Ia sendiri putus sekolah kala kelas dua di SMA Negeri 3 Surabaya. Ia kemudian bekerja di Lokananta, perusahaan rekaman dan produsen piringan hitam. “Saya Lupa tahun berapa itu, tapi saya hanya bekerja selama dua tahun saja,” kata Sartono, yang mengaku sudah susah mengingat tahun.

Selepas kerja di Lokananta, Sartono bergabung dengan grup musik keroncong milik TNI AU di Madiun. Ia bersama kelompok musik tentara itu pernah penghibur tentara di Irian. “Di sana selama tiga bulan,” jelasnya.

Dari Secarik Koran

Ihwal penciptaan lagu himne guru itu boleh dibilang tak sengaja. Ketika itu, tahun 1980, Sartono tengah naik bis menuju Perhutani Nganjuk, untuk mengajar kulintang. Di perjalanan, secara tidak sengaja ia membaca di secarik koran, mengenai sayembara penciptaan lagu himne guru yang diselenggarakan Depdiknas. Hadiahnya besar untuk saat itu, Rp 750.000. Waktu yang tersisa dua pekan, untuk merampungkan lagu.

Sartono yang tak bisa membaca not balok ini, mulai tenggelam dalam kerja keras mengarang lagu saban harinya. “Saya mencermati betul seperti apa sebenarnya guru itu,” jelas Sartono sambil memulai membuat lagu itu.

Waktu sudah mepet, lagu belum juga jadi. Sartono pusing bukan kepalang. Syairnya masih amburadul. Pada hari pertama Hari Raya Idul Fitri, Sartono tidak keluar rumah. Ia bahkan tak turut beranjang sana mengantar istri dan dua keponakannya silaturrahmi ke orangtua dan sanak famili. “Saat itu kesempatan bagi saya untuk membuat lagu dan syair secara serius,” katanya. “Waktu itu saya merasa begitu lancar membuat lagu dan menulis syairnya.”

Awalnya, lirik yang ia ciptakan kepanjangan. Padahal, durasi lagu tak lebih dari empat menit. Sartono pun berkali- kali mengkajinya untuk mengetahui mana yang harus dibuang. “Karena panjang sekali, maka saya harus membuang beberapa syairnya,” jelas Sartono. Hingga muncullah istilah “pahlawan tanpa tanda jasa.”

“Guru itu juga pahlawan. Tetapi selepas mereka berbakti tak satu pun ada tanda jasa menempel pada mereka, seperti yang ada pada polisi atau tentara,” katanya.

Persoalan tak begitu saja beres. Lagu ada, Sartono kebingungan mengirimnya ke panitia lomba di Jakarta. Sebab ia tidak punya uang untuk biaya pengiriman via pos. “Akhirnya saya menjual jas untuk biaya pos,” katanya. Sartono menang. “Hadiahnya berupa cek. Sesampainya di Madiun saya tukarkan dengan sepeda motor di salah satu dealer,” kata Sartono.

Penghargaan Minim

Lagunya melambung, Sartono tidak. Sang pencipta tetap saja menggeluti dunia mengajar sebagai guru honorer hingga “pensiun.” Kalaulah ada penghargaan selain hadiah mencipta lagu, “cuma” beberapa lembar piagam ucapan terimakasih. Nampak piagam berpigura dari Gubernur Jawa Timur Imam Utomo yang diberikan pada 2005. Pak Gubernur juga memberikan bantuan Rp 600.000, plus sebuah keyboard.

Piagam lainnya diberikan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Yahya Muhaimin pada 2000. Kemudian piagam dari Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Bambang Soedibyo pada 2005, plus bantuan uang. “Isinya enam ratus ribu rupiah,” kata Sartono.

Tahun 2006 lalu, giliran Walikota Madiun yang dalam sepanjang sejarah baru kali ini memberikan perhatian kepadanya. “Pak Walikota menghadiahi saya sepeda motor Garuda,” kata Sartono seraya menunjuk sepeda motor pemberian Walikota Madiun.

Meski minim perhatian, Sartono tetaplah bangga, lagunya menjadi himne para guru. Pekerjaan yang dilakoninya selama 24 tahun. Pengabdian yang tak pendek bagi seorang pahlawan tanpa tanda jasa

SOURCE: http://saudiwoman.me

By Eman Al Nafjan

SOURCE: http://saudiwoman.me

By Eman Al Nafjan

The ministry of justice was provoked this week by an outspoken piece by Dr. Badriya Al Bishr to issue a statement to the same newspaper where Al Bishr’s piece was published. Al Bishr criticized the white washing of the Saudi justice system that took place at the International Association of Lawyers 55^th Congress in Miami. There, the minister of Justice, prof. Mohammed Al Eissa gave a talk on the justice system in Saudi Arabia. According to local papers his talk mostly constituted a presentation on how wonderful and just the Saudi justice system. The papers reported that among other things he stated that the Saudi justice system does not discriminate between men and women when it comes to rights and obligations. The audacity of making such a statement at an international conference by no less than the minister of justice himself seriously makes me wonder if this whole thing is all my head. Did I imagine that a few weeks ago a Saudi woman was sentenced to ten lashes for driving her own car and that only a pardon from the king spared her the punishment? Is Najla Hariri’s upcoming trial for driving her car a figment of my imagination? How about that the ministry of justice refuses to issue licenses to women to practice law and won’t even recognize the title of lawyer for women who have obtained licenses abroad, did that change overnight?

AlBishr is apparently having the same delusions as I am, since she pointed out how sexist the ministry is when it comes to sentencing in homicide cases. If women are charged with murdering their spouse, it’s an automatic death sentence while men who murder their wives are dealt with much more leniently. AlBishr cites the recent case of a man who ran over his wife because she would not give him her salary. The murder was committed in daylight, in front of the woman’s family home and in front of several witnesses and yet the man was only sentenced to 12 years in prison. Another case that I recall is one where a man decapitated his wife in front of their toddler and was originally sentenced to only five years in prison then revised to 15.

AlBishr also notes the irony in that the minister’s talk coincided with news that a teacher at an elementary school has reached out to activists concerning the weddings of two of her students during Hajj break. The third and fourth grade girls were scheduled to be married off to adult men at the same time that the minister was giving his talk in Miami. To say that there is no gender discrimination in the Saudi justice system is an outright denial of the truth. However the ministry in issuing its statement today has shown that it is persistent in this denial even at the national level.

In the statement, the head of the ministry’s press office, Ibrahim AlTayyer, mostly took offence with the part of AlBishr’s column that raised the issue of child marriages. He states that according to ministry studies the number of child marriages are not high enough to consider it a phenomenon in Saudi. Though he did not mention what number would be enough for the ministry to act nor more importantly disclose the number of child marriages that was documented in those studies. To me one child marriage is enough to issue a law however it is obviously much more than that. According to an interview with AlRiyadh Newspaper on Jan/22/2010, a sociologist, Dr. Al Johara Mohammed, states that “among us there are more than 3000 Saudi girls aged no more than 13 years married to men in the age of their parents or grandparents”. Are 3000 cases of pedophilia not a signficant enough number for our ministry? How about that an anonymous source within the ministry itself informed AlWatan Newspaper on Oct/15/2010 that in the Eastern region alone, during the previous year, 40 cases of child marriages were stopped via verbal unofficial instructions. The number of child marriages that were approved however was not mentioned in that article, only an interview with a girl who was a victim of child marriages.

AlTayyer went on to state that regardless of the ministry’s position on child marriages, it is not within its governmental jurisdiction to issue a law consigning a minimum age for marriage. If it’s not the ministry of justice’s jurisdiction, than whose is it? The Shura council when they were discussing the implementation of a child protection system, refused to officially recognize child marriages as a form of child abuse. Their reasoning was a bla bla bla argument on the semantics of child and minor.

The remarkable thing is that there is a widespread consensus among Saudis that child marriages should be banned. Members of the royal family, religious scholars, high ranking government officials and celebrities have all spoken out against it. Yet you can tell from AlTayyer’s statement that simply issuing a law that sets a minimum age for marriage is not going to happen in the forseeable future.

Maybe this is due to the hold that fundamentalists have on the Saudi government. A member of the highest religious council, sheikh AlFowzan, wrote in Okaz newspaper last July that child marriages should not be banned and warns that if we do ban them God will punish us by inflicting us with wars and plagues. A sentiment echoed yesterday by a Saudi woman columnist, Fatima Al Faqih. Besides the usual disputed argument that the Prophet (PBUH) married one of his wives when she was only six and consummated it when she was nine, she reasons that since girls for centuries were able to physically survive child marriages then the scientific argument against child marriages is de facto disproven.

Regarding those who claim that we should not abolish child marriages because the prophet (pbuh) consummated his marriage with Aisha when she was nine, this has been repeatedly proven inconsistent with historian records. This is discussed here in Arabic and you can read more about it in English. Besides the historical inconsistency, it’s also inconsistent with the prophet’s behavior since all his other wives were not only adult women but also divorcees and widows. And if we were to go with the fundamentalist argument that we should not ban anything that isn’t banned by the Qur’an than slavery should be legalized and sexual intercourse between a master and his female slaves as well. Both should be considered completely legal if we were to solely go upon the text of the Qur’an. Yet the government has abolished slavery and intercourse is only legal within the confines of marriage. So why can’t we abolish child marriages in the same way?

On a final note, in the local papers on the minister’s talk at the Miami conference, it is reported that the President of the International Association of Lawyers, Pascal Maurer, was impressed by the Saudi judicial system and hoped that the law system would be made accessible to the international community so that they could benefit.

I could not find any report of Prof. AlEissa’s talk in American or international press.

SUMBER: Tempo

TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Blak-blakan soal jual-beli pasal di Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi Mahfud Md. diserang balik politikus Senayan. Mahfud dituntut menunjukkan bukti-buktinya. “Masak harus membuktikan bukti atas bukti,” kata Mahfud ketika ditemui Tempo di kantornya, Senin, 21 November 2011. “Itu kan omong kosong.”

Kenapa tiba-tiba Anda bicara jual-beli pasal?
Dalam sebuah seminar, saya bilang politik hukum kita sudah bagus. Kita punya prolegnas, kita punya panduannya. Tapi dalam prakteknya, kenapa banyak undang-undang yang jelek. Dari 406 undang-undang yang di-judicial review ke MK, 96 di antaranya dikabulkan. Itu sekitar 23 persen. Karena ini seminar ilmiah, saya membuat premis, pradalil. Berdasarkan fakta-fakta di pengadilan, ada tiga sebab buruknya undang-undang itu.

Apa saja?
Pertama, ada tukar-menukar keinginan politik di antara para pemain politik DPR. Contohnya, dulu ketika konsep electoral treshold mau diubah ke parliamentary treshold, partai-partai kecil tak setuju. Kemudian terjadi kesepakatan, oke partai kecil setuju parliamentary asal boleh ikut pemilu lagi. Nah, itu melanggar konstitusi karena tidak adil. Karena banyak partai kecil yang tak bisa ikut pemilu karena tak punya kursi di DPR. Tukar-menukar seperti itu inkonstitusional, lalu kami batalkan. Sehingga semua partai boleh ikut pemilu.

Lalu?
Yang kedua, tidak profesional. Yang membuat undang-undangnya serampangan, tak punya naskah akademik, atau tidak paham Undang-Undang Dasar.

Sebab lainnya?
Begini, sebab pertama dan kedua itu bukan pelanggaran pidana. Tapi sebab ketiga, yaitu jual-beli pasal, termasuk pelanggaran pidana. Jual-beli pasal ada fakta dan putusan pengadilan. Pengadilan Tipikor sudah mengukum lima pejabat BI dan tiga anggota DPR karena kasus undang-undang. Lalu, ada kasus dana abadi umat. Ada saksi di pengadilan yang mengatakan bahwa uang Rp 1,5 miliar itu untuk mengegolkan undang-undang wakaf.

Faktanya hanya begitu?
Tidak, gejalanya masih ada. Contohnya kasus Kemenakertrans. Kenapa diadili Sesditjen itu (I Nyoman Suisnaya) diadili? Itu kan jual-beli dalam Undang-Undang APBN-Perubahan 2011. Yang lebih fantastis, kesaksian Wa Ode Nur Hayati. Dia sendiri yang mengatakan banyak pemerintah daerah yang ingin anggarannya masuk APBN harus membayar enam atau tujuh persen. Sehingga buruknya undang-undang ini karena ada jual-beli pasal.

Ada contoh lain?
Saya banyak mendengar. Tapi kan itu bukan fakta. Itu bagian dari gejala. Tapi agar Anda tahu saja, ketika isu itu mereda, saya banyak mendapat SMS dari pejabat, dari dirjen, dari kedutaan besar, bahwa itu benar. Kami ini korbannya, kata mereka. Ada yang bilang, menteri kami itu tak punya anggaran untuk membiayai undang-undang karena tak ada di APBN. Ada mantan menteri yang SMS juga, ‘Pak teruskan itu. Kami siap bersaksi.’

Anda pernah mengalami sendiri?
Ada anggota DPR yang ke sini. Dia cerita bahwa ia pernah mewakili daerah pemilihannya untuk mengajukan anggaran ke DPR. Anggota DPR ini datang ke temannya yang anggota DPR di Badan Anggaran. ‘Tolonglah masukan daerah saya itu. Jalan-jalannya sudah rusak dan sebagainya.’ Nah, oleh temannya yang di Banggar itu dia diminta uang juga. Tak sanggup dia. Akhirnya, dia bilang ke bupatinya, ‘menghadap langsung saja.’

Anda masih diminta politikus DPR untuk menunjukkan bukti jual-beli pasal?
Saya tak bisa didorong untuk, ‘Pak Mahfud harus tunjukan bukti.’ Saya justru menunjukkan buktinya. Masak harus membuktikan bukti atas bukti. Itu kan omong kosong.