Indonesia must join Afghan mission

Indonesia must join Afghan mission

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, The Indonesian Quarterly,
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta

It has been widely reported that the opposition Northern Alliance
has finally captured Kabul. The Taliban regime has been forced to
move to its two remaining strongholds, Kandahar and Kundus. New
hopes grow, but anxiety and fear remains. This is only a small
part of what will be the larger and longer story of Afghanistan.
Its future will be determined not only by the stability of the
interplay of the factions within the Northern Alliance, but also
the extent to which the Taliban can regain its position through
guerrilla warfare.

The fall of Kabul is perhaps the beginning of new instability
in Afghanistan. It is therefore expected that a new policy should
be initiated, as is the case after every crisis. The
establishment of a United Nations peace keeping force in the
country is now on the UN agenda.

Indonesia, which has had considerable experience in peace
keeping operations dating back to the Suez Canal war in 1957, has
been named along with other predominantly Muslim countries like
Bangladesh, Jordan and Turkey as the most suited to carry out the
UN peace keeping mission in Afghanistan.

However the idea that Indonesia should be part of the forces
has created controversy at home. Why?

Legislators are divided on the issue. Some offer conditional
support for Indonesia's participation in the force provided that
the government first consult the House of Representatives. Others
bluntly urge the government against joining an international
peace keeping force, even if the request comes from the UN,
saying that Indonesia needs all its available resources to deal
with its domestic problems.

If one prescribes to such a view, then perhaps we would never
have seen Indonesia's participation in the international forces,
since its participation in such operations in the past has always
been against a backdrop of domestic problems. It also depends, of
course, on how one defines domestic problems.

It is also difficult to understand the argument that
Indonesia's peace keeping forces would be used as a buffer for
the United States in dealing with the people in Afghanistan, or
that Indonesia would be playing into the hands of the United
States.

Why should the U.S. ask Indonesia to be its buffer or act as
its extension if there are other countries, perhaps better
equipped and with more experience, whom the U.S. can depend on
for its continued operation in Afghanistan?

Indonesia's participation in the restabilization and
restoration of Afghanistan should not be viewed through such
narrow lenses. Besides there is just no guarantee that a Muslim
force would not create difficulties. It is indeed prudent for
Indonesia not to always follow the policy of a superpower.

But post-Taliban Afghanistan, after having been torn apart by
continuous bombing and where human suffering is the most
compelling problem that must be dealt with, needs the aid of all
countries, regardless of their policy and stand toward each
other.

Peace keeping operations are not new to Indonesia as we have
joined UN missions in different parts of the world since 1957 and
we have been praised by other members of respective missions.

The polemics over our participation in the UN mission should
not prevent the government from making the right decision. The
government should not subscribe to the views of those who object
to or have reservations about Indonesia's participation in the UN
peace mission.

The Afghan crisis has created a momentum for Indonesia to
enhance its efforts to retain its reputation and enhance its
credibility in international relations. This is in line with the
government policy that Indonesia should initiate a more active
role in international politics, regardless of who plays the main
role in shaping it.

Achieving a positive image as a peace-loving country is
definitely not the primary purpose of Indonesia's participation
in the UN mission in Afghanistan. If the UN does finally request
our participation in the mission and Indonesia sends its troops
to Afghanistan, the participation must be seen not only as a
clear reflection of our responsibility in maintaining
international peace and security, but perhaps also as an explicit
expression of our concern for the suffering of our Muslim
brothers.

As the largest Muslim country in the world and as the main
victims of the tragedy in Afghanistan are Muslims, Indonesia
should not hesitate in initiating a policy that would enhance its
standing in the Muslim world.

This is not to say that Islam should dictate the current and
future foreign policies of Indonesia. It is in our national
interests that Indonesia be part of international efforts in
combating terrorism and help heal, both mentally and physically,
those who have been the target of terrorism and of retaliatory
actions.

Rebuilding Afghanistan in the post-Taliban regime is now the
prime concern of all members of the international community. Our
participation in the UN mission in Afghanistan would definitely
bring some tangible and strategic gains to the country.

First, our active participation, despite our economic crisis,
would increase the confidence of the international community in
Indonesia and demonstrate our willingness to play a leading role
in international cooperation. This would mean an enlargement of
Indonesia's global role in resolving international problems.

Second, more active participation will elevate our competitive
leverage vis-a-vis other participating Muslim countries. Third,
Indonesia will be noted by the UN as being one of the those
countries committed to promoting a civilized world and who does
not justify its participation on religious grounds.

As the world's most populous Muslim country, Indonesia should
continue to encourage the deployment of a UN peace keeping force
in Afghanistan. But once the force is established, Indonesia must
take a firm position to remind the UN that the execution of its
mission should not be to further the interests of certain major
powers, but for the sake of protecting civilians from being
victimized by further instability and insecurity.