Global rally indicates Iraq is not a religious issue

Last Saturday and Sunday millions people in several countries from Australia to Spain, from South Africa to Pakistan joined forces to send a message of peace to U.S. President George W. Bush. The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto interviews a Muslim scholar, Komarudin Hidayat, about the situation.

Question: How did you view last weekend's anti-war protests in many parts of the globe?

First, the protests obviously indicate to my mind that the world has become fed up with any kind of war. The people have been traumatized by wars. Second, there was global awareness of interdependence. No country can localize a war. This means that the wider impacts of a war will affect other countries. Third, I think that the protests were triggered by the fact that President George W. Bush has been too vigorous (about a possible) hit on Iraq, while he has no strong argument to do that. Also, the Iraqi people have been suffering for a long time without any guarantee of a better life. The global protests are a matter of solidarity.

Surprisingly, in London at least 500,000 people took to the streets in Saturday's protests, a large number of Australians also held similar demonstrations on Saturday and Sunday, while Britain and Australia are two of the key U.S. allies who support Bush's apparent desire to attack Iraq. Your comments?

This strongly indicates that governments (the Great Britain and Australian governments) can no longer control their own people. The governments can no longer curb their citizens' awareness of the danger of war. It's a question of global humanity and economics. Unfortunately, in Indonesia people see the Iraqi tension as just a religious-related conflict.

Indonesians should be aware that many people dislike Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but more people hate George W. Bush.

Do you think that the global protests will affect America's determination -- dubbed by many as President Bush's personal ambition -- to hit Iraq?

Absolutely. British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Australian counterpart John Howard could become unpopular in their own countries.

The protests could make the U.S. lose support.

By supporting Bush, Blair and Howard have their own interests at home. Every leader has been in a dilemma; on the grassroots level there is a strong demand from their citizens that war is not the answer for the Iraqi crisis, while at the upper level, the state leaders, including Indonesian President Megawati Soekarnoputri, there is a diplomatic demand called solidarity.

The citizens do not want war, but on the other hand the governments are dependent on the U.S. Let's take Indonesia's position in this U.S.-Iraq crisis; Washington is a friend of Jakarta and Baghdad is also our friend. What would you do if two of your friends started to fight each other?

Now the world has been trapped by discourse on the political adventures of Bush and Saddam.

President Bush looks very determined to crush Iraq despite the fact that the UN investigation team has not found Baghdad's alleged weapons of mass destruction. What is your take on this?

There are political, economic, military and religious aspects in the U.S.-Iraq tension. The aspects are linked to one another. The U.S. is favored in terms of its superior military and economic might, but Saddam has support in terms of religion. However, once again, both Bush and Saddam have their own interests in their political adventures.

Many say that Bush's persistence just reflects America's frustration for its failure to arrest Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be the key perpetrator in the Sept. 11 attacks. Do you think such an allegation is acceptable?

The American people, who have experienced the world's worst- ever terrorist attacks, are traumatized. This is understandable. So the (issue of) weapons of mass destruction has made them paranoid.

Unfortunately, President Bush has been inconsistent in his reasons for targeting Iraq. It is not clear if Saddam, Iraq or oil is his target. His apparent willingness to attack Iraq was once like a personal grudge he inherited from his father.

Then our question becomes: Is Iraq a real threat to the world? We, in Indonesia, have never felt threatened by Iraq. If the U.S. does want to tame Saddam, just tame Israel first. America has never taken any action against Israel. In this case, America just wants to take the simplest and most beneficial way.

Now George W. Bush is facing the opinion of his own citizens and other citizens in the world, and Howard, who has the ambition to become the watchman for Southeast Asia may now think twice about his support (for military action in Iraq.)

I just want to apologize because, in Indonesia the case has been seen as a religious crisis. Non-Muslim groups should have been more active in making their brother Muslims in Indonesia understand that the U.S.-Iraq crisis has nothing to do with religion (Islam).

Do you mean that Saturday's global protests, which involved non-Muslim countries, could help Indonesian Muslims' gain a better understanding that religion (Islam) is not the point of Bush's Iraqi fixation?

It's a matter of humanity, meaning that there is a problem in our society. Both the Muslims and non-Muslims must pay better attention to each other. Muslim communities in the country must learn and accept the fact that it is not religion that is responsible for the tension in Iraq.

So far, Indonesian Muslim communities have been overly obsessed with anything that hints of disrespect of religion (Islam), but they have been indifferent to any humanity problems involving non-Muslim communities. The Iraqi case could make Indonesian Muslims understand more about humanity.

Do you think the Indonesian government has done enough to explain the real problems in Iraq to the Muslim communities?

Our government is always unsure of its direction. It is always bewildered by problems without knowing what to do first. How could the government explain to the citizens about the Iraqi crisis if it has yet to deal with its own problems which need prompt actions, like the General Election bill?

How can it comment on Iraq when it doesn't know what to do to about all the flooding, or what to do to help the workers who were expelled from Malaysia?

Many Muslim groups in Indonesia really just do not like America, not only because of the Iraqi issue, but also because of the U.S. (after Sept. 11 tragedy) arrogance toward Indonesians, especially Muslims, living in America. Then what could be the worst impact in Indonesia should the attack on Iraq take place?

Indonesian Muslims must know that what would happen is just another impact of the political adventures (conducted by Bush and Saddam).

We will defend the Iraqi people (from a U.S. attack), but we should be critical enough to acknowledge who Saddam Hussein really is. Saddam is not a figure without problems. Never equate Islam with certain (political) figures. We should be more careful.

Then we should also understand who George W. Bush Jr. is. We must differentiate between Bush and Americans and, we should be aware that not all Australian people love Howard. Not all Indonesians love Megawati, do they? We need to be wise and objective.