All nations share responsibility for injustice<\/p>\n
J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Until the turn of the 20th century, the pattern of world
\npolitics, confined mostly to the Europe continent proper, had
\nbeen marked by a \"balance of power\", with Britain mostly acting
\nas a \"balancer,\" which often determined war and peace among
\nnations. With the advent of World War I and then World War II in
\nthe first half of the last century, the balance of power pattern
\nwas replaced by the Cold War, which purported to divide the world
\ninto East and West.<\/p>\n
The idea of bipolarization of the Cold War, however, had
\ncertain flaws. First, it was described as an ideological division
\nof the world into the communist East and democratic West with
\nambivalent relations between the two camps, and intermittence
\nbetween short periods of detente and confrontation and between
\ncooperation and competition. Moreover, both camps claimed to be
\none of democracy.<\/p>\n
Whatever the case, such bipolarization was more myth than
\nreality. For one thing, a large majority of nations were allied
\nneither with the East nor with the West. Most were newly
\nindependent nations of the so-called Third World of Asia and
\nAfrica, and the rest some \"recalcitrant\" socialist nations that
\nprobably should have stayed in the Eastern bloc, and some
\n\"neutral\" countries that probably should have joined and stayed
\nwithin the Western bloc.<\/p>\n
For another, in reality the \"bipolar world\" hinged on the
\nrelations between the United States, self-proclaimed leader of
\nthe democratic countries of the West on the one hand -- and the
\nSoviet Union, self-appointed leader of the socialist countries of
\nthe East, which were under the authoritarian rule of communist
\nparties. More specifically, the Cold War was focused on strategic
\nrelations between the two leaders of the two camps, the two
\nsuperpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union.<\/p>\n
Second, if covered in ideological rhetoric, the competition or
\nconfrontation was in the end essentially a military one, with
\nmutual assured destruction (MAD) as its central point. This
\ndeveloped from the gradual attainment of strategic parity between
\nthe two superpowers in their strategy of nuclear deterrence,
\nwhich would determine war or peace.<\/p>\n
Indeed, if nuclear deterrence had failed, none of us would
\nstill be around now, to witness the post-Cold War era of the
\nsystem of globalization. Yet no one can say that nuclear
\ndeterrence has worked. The most and the best one can say that it
\nhas not failed.<\/p>\n
During the Cold War, everyone was either friend or foe. In the
\nsystem of globalization that has replaced it, everyone is a
\ncompetitor.<\/p>\n
The tragedy of the World Trade Center buildings and the
\nPentagon, however, seems to have given birth to the old
\nbipolarization of world politics. In his address to the Congress,
\nPresident George W. Bush gave a stern warning to the world:
\n\"Either you are with us, or with the terrorists.\" This reminds us
\nof the bipolarization of world politics.<\/p>\n
Though not exactly the same, the attack on Kuwait by Iraq
\nalmost immediately in the wake of the end of Cold War, and U.S.
\nretaliation under the pretext of the UN umbrella, was used by
\nthen president Bush senior as an argument for the birth of the
\n\"new world order\". This referred to an order dominated by the
\nU.S., especially through its position in the UN Security Council.<\/p>\n
Just like the Cold War, what looks like the emerging
\npolarization of the world has its flaws, because of the
\nsimplistic, and thus distorted way of thinking underlying the
\nidea. Indeed, everyone of sound mind with commitment to humanity
\nwould be against any form of terrorism, whatever the cause.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the causes different people or groups of people
\nstruggle for vary considerably, and certain causes are often
\nregarded as so just and ideal as to justify acts, which others
\nmay be regarded as a form of terrorism.<\/p>\n
A religious cause is one, and the aspiration for independence
\nis another. The IRA is often regarded as a terrorist group. Yet,
\nwhile its members are most probably Catholic, religion is
\ncertainly not their cause. The same is perhaps true with the case
\nof the people of the Basque, who are often accused of acts of
\nterrorism in their fight for separatist movement from Spain.<\/p>\n
Terrorism on behalf of Islam, though often associated with the
\nPalestinians in their conflict with Israel, is based on an
\nincorrect perception, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is
\none of religion -- ignoring a large number of non-Muslims among
\nthe Palestinians.<\/p>\n
Indeed violence, carried out on behalf of religion is a
\nblatant contradiction, since religion and peace go together. The
\nmeans does not justify the end.<\/p>\n
Even if everybody or every nation is against terrorism, there
\nare different ideas of how to combat terrorism. Countries like
\nIndonesia, while definitely against terrorism and has condemned
\nin no uncertain terms the most devastating terrorist attack ever
\nsuffered by the U.S. on Sept. 11, hopefully do not consider the
\npossibility of supporting U.S. military attack on Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
Such an attack may be counterproductive unless undertaken as a
\nsurprise assault at lightning speed, with absolute precision and
\ncertainty of hitting the right target -- the prime suspects to be
\nbrought to a just trial -- with the least possible loss of
\ninnocent lives.<\/p>\n
Indeed, some people have condemned terrorism, particularly
\ngiven what looked like the most \"successful\" terrorist attack on
\nthe U.S. thus far, particularly in terms of its efficiency and
\neffectiveness, almost perfect timing, organization, coordination,
\nand the resulting destruction and loss of lives. Yet at the same
\ntime some people appear to entertain a degree of forbearance for
\nsuch terrorist acts on the unjust argument that the U.S. has been
\nthe main cause of injustice in the world.<\/p>\n
I only have this to say: Let us look at the injustice around
\nourselves within our own national boundaries. This is where we
\nwill find appalling forms of injustice in so many fields, because
\nof our unjust political system, lack of ethics among our
\npolitical leaders, lack of commitment to the supremacy of law and
\nto general welfare.<\/p>\n
I do not believe there is any new pattern or polarization in
\nworld politics in the making. The world will likely continue to
\nbe fragmented on various grounds, and continue to be in search of
\na more just world order. Under the circumstances, there is but
\none choice for every nation in our globalized world marked by
\nincreasing openness and interdependence: to put its own house in
\norder before embarking on proper, mutually beneficial relations
\nand cooperation with one another on the basis of justice and
\nmutual respect.<\/p>\n
In that way, all of us will share responsibility for getting
\ncloser to the ideal of a just, prosperous, secure and peaceful
\nworld.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/all-nations-share-responsibility-for-injustice-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}