All nations share responsibility for injustice

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.