All nations share responsibility for injustice

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta

Until the turn of the 20th century, the pattern of world politics, confined mostly to the Europe continent proper, had been marked by a "balance of power", with Britain mostly acting as a "balancer," which often determined war and peace among nations. With the advent of World War I and then World War II in the first half of the last century, the balance of power pattern was replaced by the Cold War, which purported to divide the world into East and West.

The idea of bipolarization of the Cold War, however, had certain flaws. First, it was described as an ideological division of the world into the communist East and democratic West with ambivalent relations between the two camps, and intermittence between short periods of detente and confrontation and between cooperation and competition. Moreover, both camps claimed to be one of democracy.

Whatever the case, such bipolarization was more myth than reality. For one thing, a large majority of nations were allied neither with the East nor with the West. Most were newly independent nations of the so-called Third World of Asia and Africa, and the rest some "recalcitrant" socialist nations that probably should have stayed in the Eastern bloc, and some "neutral" countries that probably should have joined and stayed within the Western bloc.

For another, in reality the "bipolar world" hinged on the relations between the United States, self-proclaimed leader of the democratic countries of the West on the one hand -- and the Soviet Union, self-appointed leader of the socialist countries of the East, which were under the authoritarian rule of communist parties. More specifically, the Cold War was focused on strategic relations between the two leaders of the two camps, the two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union.

Second, if covered in ideological rhetoric, the competition or confrontation was in the end essentially a military one, with mutual assured destruction (MAD) as its central point. This developed from the gradual attainment of strategic parity between the two superpowers in their strategy of nuclear deterrence, which would determine war or peace.

Indeed, if nuclear deterrence had failed, none of us would still be around now, to witness the post-Cold War era of the system of globalization. Yet no one can say that nuclear deterrence has worked. The most and the best one can say that it has not failed.

During the Cold War, everyone was either friend or foe. In the system of globalization that has replaced it, everyone is a competitor.

The tragedy of the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon, however, seems to have given birth to the old bipolarization of world politics. In his address to the Congress, President George W. Bush gave a stern warning to the world: "Either you are with us, or with the terrorists." This reminds us of the bipolarization of world politics.

Though not exactly the same, the attack on Kuwait by Iraq almost immediately in the wake of the end of Cold War, and U.S. retaliation under the pretext of the UN umbrella, was used by then president Bush senior as an argument for the birth of the "new world order". This referred to an order dominated by the U.S., especially through its position in the UN Security Council.

Just like the Cold War, what looks like the emerging polarization of the world has its flaws, because of the simplistic, and thus distorted way of thinking underlying the idea. Indeed, everyone of sound mind with commitment to humanity would be against any form of terrorism, whatever the cause.

Unfortunately, the causes different people or groups of people struggle for vary considerably, and certain causes are often regarded as so just and ideal as to justify acts, which others may be regarded as a form of terrorism.

A religious cause is one, and the aspiration for independence is another. The IRA is often regarded as a terrorist group. Yet, while its members are most probably Catholic, religion is certainly not their cause. The same is perhaps true with the case of the people of the Basque, who are often accused of acts of terrorism in their fight for separatist movement from Spain.

Terrorism on behalf of Islam, though often associated with the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel, is based on an incorrect perception, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of religion -- ignoring a large number of non-Muslims among the Palestinians.

Indeed violence, carried out on behalf of religion is a blatant contradiction, since religion and peace go together. The means does not justify the end.

Even if everybody or every nation is against terrorism, there are different ideas of how to combat terrorism. Countries like Indonesia, while definitely against terrorism and has condemned in no uncertain terms the most devastating terrorist attack ever suffered by the U.S. on Sept. 11, hopefully do not consider the possibility of supporting U.S. military attack on Afghanistan.

Such an attack may be counterproductive unless undertaken as a surprise assault at lightning speed, with absolute precision and certainty of hitting the right target -- the prime suspects to be brought to a just trial -- with the least possible loss of innocent lives.

Indeed, some people have condemned terrorism, particularly given what looked like the most "successful" terrorist attack on the U.S. thus far, particularly in terms of its efficiency and effectiveness, almost perfect timing, organization, coordination, and the resulting destruction and loss of lives. Yet at the same time some people appear to entertain a degree of forbearance for such terrorist acts on the unjust argument that the U.S. has been the main cause of injustice in the world.

I only have this to say: Let us look at the injustice around ourselves within our own national boundaries. This is where we will find appalling forms of injustice in so many fields, because of our unjust political system, lack of ethics among our political leaders, lack of commitment to the supremacy of law and to general welfare.

I do not believe there is any new pattern or polarization in world politics in the making. The world will likely continue to be fragmented on various grounds, and continue to be in search of a more just world order. Under the circumstances, there is but one choice for every nation in our globalized world marked by increasing openness and interdependence: to put its own house in order before embarking on proper, mutually beneficial relations and cooperation with one another on the basis of justice and mutual respect.

In that way, all of us will share responsibility for getting closer to the ideal of a just, prosperous, secure and peaceful world.