Boycotting U.S. goods not useful way to protest war
Boycotting U.S. goods not useful way to protest war
As the U.S. and its allies continue its invasion of Iraq, more
and more people in many parts of the country are taking to the
streets, among others to demand that U.S. products be boycotted.
Senior lawyer and human rights activist Todung Mulya Lubis talked
to The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto about the issue.
Question: Rallies to boycott American products have been
taking place in several parts of the country. How do you view
this phenomenon?
Answer: It's a protest or reaction to the invasion of Iraq. We
can understand the anger of the people who are against the
aggression of the U.S. and its allies, because it is a blatant
violation against the UN charter, international laws and basic
human rights.
However, we should be wise in our response ... What is
happening in Iraq is not an interreligious war. We should not
link the Iraq war with moves against Islam, because Islam is not
the enemy and war is not the answer.
Linking the Iraqi crisis with religious sentiment is just a
reflection of our narrow-mindedness. Many Islamic countries in
the Middle East are providing the U.S. and its allied troops with
military facilities. And if the U.S. was said to go against
Islam, that many Americans would oppose the government's policy.
Appeals to boycott U.S. products would not be very useful ...
Talking about a boycott of U.S. franchises, like McDonald's or
Kentucky Fried Chicken, is talking about cutting off the supply
of chicken from local suppliers. Employees working for the
franchises are another problem. This is what we should all think
twice about. If the logic (of boycotting U.S. products)
continues, we would end up refusing financial aid from the U.S.
and the UK.
Q: Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) here have
reportedly rejected aid from the U.S. Is that true?
A: In context, boycotting U.S. products will only affect our
economy, so I don't fully agree with the NGOs that have rejected
aid from the U.S., UK and also Australia.
Their rejection is a mere emotional reaction based on narrow-
minded nationalism. The decision will affect the NGO's programs.
The money was not and will not be from Bush or Blair. It is
from the taxpayers, many of whom are also against the war. We
(the NGOs) deserve the money and donors also benefit from
distributing the money.
We should continue to protest the war without closing the door
on foreign aid, which will be very useful to finance our
democratic agenda, including eradicating corruption, bettering
law enforcement and promoting human rights. Without completing
that agenda we wouldn't be able to build a strong movement for
peace. We need the money to build a new Indonesia.
Q: Should all these rallies and demonstrations be coordinated?
A: Yes, sure. Protests against the invasion have to be well
organized and coordinated. Despite the fact that the movement
involves various levels of society, the message has to be very
clear. The war is unjustified, saddening and supported by unfair
propaganda, which is not siding with reality and truth.
Protesters need to coordinate with the government ... the
government should be more active to get support from antiwar
groups. The government's voice would be stronger with public
support, and the rally could become a nationwide movement.
We do have a strong basis for launching a peace drive. The
antiwar petition, initially signed by only 100 people and
published by several local media, now has more than 10,000
signatures.
There are many, many people who oppose the war. Unfortunately,
Bush and Blair's arrogance does not let them hear the protests.
Obviously we are now witnessing the beginning of a totally new
international law and order with a sole domination. What we are
now witnessing is how irrelevant the United Nations is. What we
are now witnessing is the emergence of an international
relationship that is based on the relations of powers.
We are coming closer to a new era that is less civilized.
Q: What about the search or "sweeping" of foreigners, which was
carried out by a certain groups of people following the attack on
Afghanistan?
A: No individual or institution, except for the police, has the
legal right to conduct "sweeping". It is an action that would
ruin the credibility of Indonesia as a country that respects the
law. This intimidation is a form of terror.
Q: You mentioned war propaganda earlier. Could you elaborate?
A: The war is unjust. I think the (particularly American) media
in their coverage have ignored the fact that innocent women and
children as well as elderly people have been killed during the
U.S.-led aggression. The victims were Iraqis who have suffered
under the repressive administration of Saddam Hussein. I think
the war propaganda is unjust and dishonest.
Q: The Iraq war may last longer than expected. Do you think that
the antiwar rallies will consistently continue?
A: It's not that easy to maintain endurance and stamina. I
wouldn't be surprised to see the rallies interrupted or
suspended.
However, the point is that the agenda of democracy at home has
to continue. We have to keep focusing on our homework.
Therefore, if we want to continue the antiwar drive, the best
possible thing we could do is push the government to cooperate
with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and
members of the nonaligned countries to press the UN to take steps
to stop the war. This move will likely be fruitless anyhow.
We could also concentrate on trying to send humanitarian aid
to help the war victims. I think that going to Iraq to become a
war volunteer is not acceptable. People would find it an unfair
battle. The war is unjust. The U.S. and its allies -- with their
very modern weaponry -- are attacking Iraq, which is not being
supported by any other country. We would just get ourselves
killed if we went there. We'd better help the Iraqis with
humanitarian aid.