Part 1 of 2 : Sept. 11 changed American foreign policy<\/p>\n
Hassan Wirajuda, Foreign Minister, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Great is the impact of the Iraq war. It will take several
\nyears before it is possible for us to fully assess the enormity
\nof its effect on the global political landscape, on the global
\neconomy, and on the sensibilities of the human race.<\/p>\n
I am not sure, however, that the Iraq war altered the global
\nsituation in any fundamental way.<\/p>\n
There is still the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the
\nproblem of small arms used in intrastate conflicts, the issue of
\npeople smuggling and money laundering. There are still the soft
\nthreats of extreme poverty, the economic gaps between and within
\nsocieties, the outbreak of epidemics, and the degradation of the
\nenvironment.<\/p>\n
Terrorism has been with us since a long time ago. It became
\ninternational many years before the Iraq war.<\/p>\n
There is even the question of whether the Iraq war is really
\nover. It well may be that the Iraq war has been merely
\ntransformed from a conventional war in which one side had a
\nprodigious superiority of arms and logistics, into a nation wide
\nguerrilla war in which superiority of arms and logistics do not
\ncount for much in a hostile and unfamiliar social terrain.<\/p>\n
It is possible that the forces of the old regime in Iraq,
\naided by foreign fighters infiltrated into the country, will
\ncontinue to wage a prolonged guerrilla campaign. There is the
\ndreadful prospect of the Balkanization of Iraq, with boundaries
\ndrawn on ethnic and sectarian lines.<\/p>\n
With presidential elections fast approaching in the United
\nStates, and as the guerrilla war intensifies, the occupying power
\nis resorting to precipitate \"Iraqization.\" But the political
\ninfrastructures necessary for carrying out such a policy cannot
\nbe built overnight. And if Iraqization were implemented without
\nthe necessary political infrastructures, the result could be a
\ndeadly power vacuum.<\/p>\n
The various rival factions in Iraq today could be sucked by
\nthat power vacuum into a new and terrible round of internecine
\nviolence -- a civil war. That would bring about even greater
\nchaos and more enormous suffering to the Iraqi people.<\/p>\n
Such dire developments would pose threats to the entire Gulf
\nand Middle East region. It would be a setback to the cause of
\nglobal peace. That is not what we wish to see in Iraq.<\/p>\n
We fervently wish to see an Iraq that is governed by its own
\nleaders who are elected in a process that is both orderly and
\ndemocratic. We hope to witness the rehabilitation of Iraq,
\npolitically and socially as well as economically, under the
\nmultilateral tutelage of the United Nations.<\/p>\n
We should like to see an Iraq that is at peace not only with
\nitself, but also with its neighbors and with the rest of the
\nworld. Above all, we want to see an Iraq that is a force for
\nglobal economic and political stability.<\/p>\n
And we should also like to see the positive and constructive
\nresolution of a number of global issues and problems that almost
\nautomatically come to mind at any mention of Iraq today.<\/p>\n
Foremost among them is the issue of unilateralism and the hard
\nquestions that it addresses to the world community.<\/p>\n
An arbitrary preemptive war has been waged against a sovereign
\nstate -- arbitrary because it is without sufficient justification
\nin international law. Does that mean that any state may now
\nindividually and arbitrarily decide to use force preemptively
\nagainst any other state perceived as a threat?<\/p>\n
To many thoughtful observers, the debate between unilateralism
\nand multilateralism has been settled by events. The United
\nStates, the foremost exponent and practitioner of the unilateral
\npreemptive military strike, harried by the chaos in Iraq, has
\nmade a belated return to the United Nations -- for support,
\nassistance and legitimation. One claims, \"Ideology is now
\nyielding to realities on the ground with reluctance.\"<\/p>\n
Reversing a previous policy, it has also sought a multilateral
\ndialogue on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.<\/p>\n
We welcome these developments, for they affirm the futility of
\nthe unilateral use of force. And they bring to light the wisdom
\nof dialogue as a process that lead to multilateral cooperation.<\/p>\n
The notion of a \"just war,\" once condoned by the League of
\nNations, has no place in the world of today. It contravenes, the
\nUN Charter, which arrogates unto the United Nations the sole
\ncompetent authority to use military force in defense of the
\ncollective security of nations.<\/p>\n
Yet, though we listen hard, we do not hear any renunciation of
\nthe doctrine of arbitrary preemptive war. Unilateralism therefore
\nis by no means dead. It may just be waiting for the next
\nopportunity and plausible pretext for leaping, with guns blazing,
\non the next perceived threat.<\/p>\n
The events of the Iraq war have also clearly demonstrated the
\nlimits of military power in solving the security problems of the
\nworld. But we do not hear any acknowledgements of these limits.<\/p>\n
It is true that the awesome firepower and technology of the
\ninvading forces leveled the infrastructures and routed the
\nleadership of an entrenched. But they could not obliterate
\nstubborn resistance from various quarters, not all of them
\nassociated with the ousted regime.<\/p>\n
Nor could military technology remove the threat to global
\nsecurity that the occupation forces sought to wipe out. In that
\nlight, the situation in Iraq today bears momentous implications
\non the global war against terrorism.<\/p>\n
The situation in Iraq today shows that smart bombs and air
\ncover cannot turn the tide of a war against terrorism. Terrorists
\nhave no fixed addresses that can be obliterated once and for all
\nwith surgical military strikes.<\/p>\n
Military operations often result in civilian casualties, and
\neven when it is clear that the casualties are combatants, they
\ngenerate a great deal of emotional vibrations. They create
\nmartyrs and make it so much easier for the terrorists to gather
\nnew recruits. The conflict areas then become safe havens and
\ntraining grounds for terrorist operatives.<\/p>\n
The war against terrorism is a struggle for the hearts and
\nminds of populations. That struggle calls for wise policies, not
\nsmart bombs. In Iraq, it calls for the safety of citizens when
\nthey walk on the streets, for the availability of fuel,
\nelectricity and water, and for the assurance that their dignity
\nis respected.<\/p>\n
If the purpose of the narrow coalition in invading Iraq was to
\nmake their countries and the world safer and more secure, it is
\nnot at all clear that they have attained that goal. If the
\npurpose was to liberate Iraq, today we are witnessing an Iraq
\noccupied by foreign troops.<\/p>\n
The coalition ousted the regime of Saddam Hussein because it
\nsupposedly threatened the region and the world with weapons of
\nmass destruction. But until this late day, these weapons of mass
\ndestruction have not been found.<\/p>\n
If those weapons have not been found because they do not
\nexist, then an entire country has been leveled to the ground for
\nno good reason.<\/p>\n
In any case, after the war in Iraq, a keen sense of grievance
\nhas become even more pervasive all over the Muslim world. That
\ncan only be a setback in terms of global stability. For the issue
\nof Iraq should not be viewed in isolation. How this problem is
\naddressed will have repercussions on the longer-standing issue of
\nPalestine and the challenge of terrorism.<\/p>\n
Moreover, by rushing off to war without allowing the United
\nNations weapons inspection mission to run its full course, it is
\npossible that the coalition has seriously damaged not only the UN
\ninspection regime but also the international community's
\nnonproliferation regime.<\/p>\n
That would make the war in Iraq a debacle to the cause of
\nglobal security and peace. The fruits of decades of intensive
\nwork to advance the disarmament agenda might have withered
\nbecause of it.<\/p>\n
One more fact of international life that the war in Iraq has
\nstarkly demonstrated is the need to apply regional solutions to
\nregional problems.<\/p>\n
The problem of Iraq was one of a repressive regime at odds
\nwith its neighbors, with a record of aggression and a reputation
\nfor harboring and willingness to use biological and chemical
\nweapons. The regional countries failed to vigorously and
\nconstantly address this problem, which lurked in their midst for
\nmany years.<\/p>\n
That failure gave external powers the perfect excuse and
\npretext for a massive intervention -- a preemptive war that
\ndevastated the country and left the region so much more insecure
\nand vulnerable.<\/p>\n
The above article is an abridged version of the minister's
\nkeynote address at the Council for Security Cooperation in the
\nAsia Pacific (CSCAP) conference in Jakarta on Dec. 8.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/part-1-of-2-sept-11-changed-american-foreign-policy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}