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.