SPEAKING
FREELY Between the lines of Bali bomber's
remorse By Bibhu Prasad Routray
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
As Hisyam Alizein,
alias Umar Patek and a cadre of the Southeast
Asian terror network Jemaah Islamiah (JI), rose to
speak during his trial in the West Jakarta
district court on March 7, few would have expected
the 45-year old hardcore terrorist to apologize to
the victims of the 2002 Bali bombings that claimed
the lives of 202 people.
The JI had indeed
surprised many by its rise and ability to organize
repeated high profile symbolic attacks in the
early 2000s. Patek, being one of last remnants of
the outfit offered a
surprise yet again - this
time confirming the rapid decline of the outfit
since the Indonesian authorities executed the Bali
bombers in 2008 - both in terms of its existence
and ideology. Nothing else could have been a more
convincing statement on the decline of Islamist
terror in the archipelagic nation, with larger
implications on the entire Southeast Asia.
"I ask for forgiveness from all the
victims and their families. Those who lost their
lives and those who experienced material losses,
Indonesians as well as foreign nationals", Patel
told in his statement. He downplayed his
involvement in the incident, narrating how his
role in the attack was minor. "I was very sad and
regret the (Bali) incident happened, because I was
against it from the start. I never agreed with
their methods. I totally had no idea about the
target of the bombing," he added.
His
statement indeed contradicts all that is known
about him and executed JI senior leaders like Imam
Samudra, Mukhlas and Amrozi who took active part
in the bombings. His emotions now betray the
conviction of the leaders in the justness of their
perpetrated act - a necessary ingredient in all
acts of terrorism.
For the judges and the
world outside the court, believing Patek would be
difficult. Knowledge about his role in the
bombings is derived from extensive interrogation
of the JI cadres, including those who were given
death sentences. Unlike Patek, many of them had
spoken openly and candidly about the way they went
about carrying out the attack. They described in
detail the role played by each of the actors,
including Umar Patek.
It is beyond doubt
that each one of them was perfectly aware of their
own contribution to the bombings. JI worked as a
close knit organization and it is impossible to
believe that the senior leaders including Patek
were not in know about the things they were doing.
Moreover, Patek's role as a link between JI and
al-Qaeda until his arrest in 2011 in Abottabad,
when al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was in hiding
in the Pakistani city, was in perfect order of a
loyal and committed cadre of the outfit rather
than one who resented being a part of an operation
that killed so many people.
So why is Umar
Patek lying? One, Umar Patek realizes that the
acceptance of his known levels of involvement
would either mean a death sentence for him, just
like the other JI cadres involved, or even
deportation to a country like the United States,
which has a US$ 1 million bounty on him, or
Australia, which lost 88 of its citizens in the
2002 bombings. Patek wants to avoid both.
Secondly, he probably realizes that there is no
point going down as a martyr for a terrorist
organization that has lost much of its sheen over
the years. JI is almost dead in Indonesia and has
been replaced by the Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT).
The chief of Indonesia's National
Counter-Terrorism Agency described the JAT as the
"new camouflage of JI".
More
significantly, Umar Patek's remorse could provide
leeway to the Indonesian authorities, who were not
keen on his deportation from Pakistan to begin
with. The 2002 bombing is almost a decade old and
putting Patek in front of a firing squad may not
be easy for the authorities. While the other
bombers were executed in 2008 without much public
angst, death to Patek may stoke anti-American
feelings in Indonesia, create a backlash, and also
act as a force multiplier for the fortunes of the
JI or any other similar organization.
Umar
Patek's remorse may not sound the death knell for
Islamist terrorism in Indonesia, which has
manifested itself in recent times into newer
forms. Last year suicide attacks were carried out
inside a mosque (April 15) and outside a church
(September 25), terrorists planned to carry out
attacks on Singaporeans leaving the nation's high
commission building in Jakarta, and terrorists
have also been involved in several failed missions
to loot banks with an intention of financing their
activities. Containment would require sustained
efforts both internally as well as at the regional
level. However, it is without doubt that Patek's
remorse and apology will be a restraining factor
for individuals inclined to use terror to
articulate dissent.
Dr Bibhu Prasad
Routray, a counter-terrorism analyst based in
Singapore, served as a deputy director in the
National Security Council Secretariat, Government
of India. He can be contacted at
bibhuroutray@gmail.com
Speaking Freely
is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say.Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing. Articles submitted for this section
allow our readers to express their opinions and do
not necessarily meet the same editorial standards
of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road,
Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
