Muslim states to help fight terrorism

Raden Ayu Nurfini, Jakarta

When addressing a conference of the World Council of Churches in Kuala Lumpur on Aug. 3, Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi hammered home a plethora of messages which raised the eyebrows of many political analysts.

He touched on the core of the global debate on the war against terror and injected a new sense of realism into the matter. He attempted to remove the barrier blocking what he described as the "Christian West" from seeing the Muslim world with benign eyes. And he tried to put the debate in a realistic perspective, though his arguments may encounter severe criticisms from the targets he was aiming at.

The essence of his message was that the war against terror must not be directed at a certain religion. He was actually suggesting that when you fight terror, what you have to do is to punish the terrorists because of their crimes, but not because they are believers of a certain religion.

Using Badawi's logic, as he described it highly diplomatically, the "Christian West" needs to understand that the war against terror "must not be fought in the name of religion." This statement was perceived to have come not just from the leader of a Muslim nation, but more importantly from the chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) which embraces about one billion people on earth.

As such, nobody should be so naive as to trivialize the prime minister's statement. In fact, it was an elegant representation of the track that counterterror measures should have gone along.

Only days before Badawi made his remarks, he had visited U.S. President George Bush in Washington to fine-tune his perceptions with the superpower's leader. And interestingly, only four days after Badawi aired his warning, President Bush redefined his War on Terror (WOT) terminology during a campaign address, saying that America had actually defined the terminology wrongly. It wasn't a war on terror, Bush said, but rather "a struggle" against adventurers who wished to shake the tranquility of the global order.

This was the second correction Bush has made over the past year. The first was when he transmitted the message to Muslim leaders while on a visit to Bali earlier this year that he would no longer use the term "crusade" against political adventurers aiming to boycott U.S. interests around the globe.

With Badawi's definition, as introduced at the WCC meeting, the governments and peoples of Muslim countries must be pro- active in the war against terror to the extent that misleading perceptions about the religion can be rectified. Using this same premise, if a political adventurer who happens to be Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist carries out acts of terror while hiding behind religious symbols, he or she must not be perceived as representing his or her religion, albeit a fact that this may be easier said than done. Likewise, the response toward such adventurers must not carry the connotation of targeting a certain religion.

Badawi must have thought that a lack of this kind of understanding in the West is to blame for the complications that have arisen ever since Osama bin Laden started waging his so- called, yet narrowly-defined, "holy war" against "unbelievers" everywhere.

If Badawi's lengthy remarks can be summarized in one line, perhaps Billy Joel's lyrics would best serve the purpose -- "(I take you) just the way you are." And Badawi emphasized this point when he cited a passage from the Koran which says "to you your religion, to me my religion." This was the reason why Badawi deemed it necessary to tell the world that "religions must bring out the best in us and not the worst."

But why has Bill Clinton accused George Bush of instigating terror across the globe? Because under Bush, America's foreign policy has been perceived as a policy of attacking the problem rather than solving the problem. Shall we speculate that the war against terror would produce more significant results if a Democrat were to become the president of the United States? Even if that could not happen, why is it that America is not winning the war? And what are the mistakes?

If a terrorist hides behind the symbols of a religion, what should be done is to get (or force) religious leaders to bring him out and let them punish him for hijacking the religion; but not punish the religious leaders with misleading public opinions and dangerous generalizations. This is what Badawi meant when he said that "the war against terror must not be fought in the name of religion."

Wise philosophies apart, the reality today is that the world is haunted by increased threats of terror. Even such staunchly Muslim countries as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and its Gulf neighbors, Pakistan, and lately India, which is home to the world's second biggest Muslim population after Indonesia, are facing increased terror threats.

The biggest challenge now is whether the OIC can pass Badawi's message across to the Western media which, since the 9/11 tragedy, have painted a negative image of Islam despite the fact that some Muslim governments have been making serious efforts to combat terror.

Given present geopolitical realities, Arab nations cannot be expected to play significant roles. It is Indonesia and Malaysia that must take the lead given their higher degree of foreign policy independence as compared to the Arabs.

In the light of this, President Megawati Soekarnoputri's recent meeting with King Fahd on the Iraq issue needs to be followed up by enhancement of OIC cooperation so as to drive the Muslim world as the locomotive rather than the wagon for stamping out the threat of terrorism.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's July 6 comments could be taken as a good starting position. Moderate Muslims have a decisive role to play in clearing the dust off the canvas and bringing forth a more benign image of the religion as it actually is. Their pro-active contribution could help reduce misleading generalizations and misunderstandings of the religion, which have led to the dangerous assumptions on which America has defined many of its responses to terror around the world.

The wise foundation which Prime Minister Badawi has laid down should be respected and gratefully responded to by America and all its military and political allies. If the war against terror is to succeed, it must not be a priority of the United States alone. Let the Muslim nations take the lead with the full backing of the U.S., Britain and all their military allies, and we can finally entertain hopes rather than illusions about winning the war.

The writer (rayu@asiamail.com) is a political analyst residing in Jakarta.