Part 1 of 2 : Sept. 11 changed American foreign policy

Part 1 of 2 : Sept. 11 changed American foreign policy

Hassan Wirajuda, Foreign Minister, Jakarta

Great is the impact of the Iraq war. It will take several
years before it is possible for us to fully assess the enormity
of its effect on the global political landscape, on the global
economy, and on the sensibilities of the human race.

I am not sure, however, that the Iraq war altered the global
situation in any fundamental way.

There is still the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the
problem of small arms used in intrastate conflicts, the issue of
people smuggling and money laundering. There are still the soft
threats of extreme poverty, the economic gaps between and within
societies, the outbreak of epidemics, and the degradation of the
environment.

Terrorism has been with us since a long time ago. It became
international many years before the Iraq war.

There is even the question of whether the Iraq war is really
over. It well may be that the Iraq war has been merely
transformed from a conventional war in which one side had a
prodigious superiority of arms and logistics, into a nation wide
guerrilla war in which superiority of arms and logistics do not
count for much in a hostile and unfamiliar social terrain.

It is possible that the forces of the old regime in Iraq,
aided by foreign fighters infiltrated into the country, will
continue to wage a prolonged guerrilla campaign. There is the
dreadful prospect of the Balkanization of Iraq, with boundaries
drawn on ethnic and sectarian lines.

With presidential elections fast approaching in the United
States, and as the guerrilla war intensifies, the occupying power
is resorting to precipitate "Iraqization." But the political
infrastructures necessary for carrying out such a policy cannot
be built overnight. And if Iraqization were implemented without
the necessary political infrastructures, the result could be a
deadly power vacuum.

The various rival factions in Iraq today could be sucked by
that power vacuum into a new and terrible round of internecine
violence -- a civil war. That would bring about even greater
chaos and more enormous suffering to the Iraqi people.

Such dire developments would pose threats to the entire Gulf
and Middle East region. It would be a setback to the cause of
global peace. That is not what we wish to see in Iraq.

We fervently wish to see an Iraq that is governed by its own
leaders who are elected in a process that is both orderly and
democratic. We hope to witness the rehabilitation of Iraq,
politically and socially as well as economically, under the
multilateral tutelage of the United Nations.

We should like to see an Iraq that is at peace not only with
itself, but also with its neighbors and with the rest of the
world. Above all, we want to see an Iraq that is a force for
global economic and political stability.

And we should also like to see the positive and constructive
resolution of a number of global issues and problems that almost
automatically come to mind at any mention of Iraq today.

Foremost among them is the issue of unilateralism and the hard
questions that it addresses to the world community.

An arbitrary preemptive war has been waged against a sovereign
state -- arbitrary because it is without sufficient justification
in international law. Does that mean that any state may now
individually and arbitrarily decide to use force preemptively
against any other state perceived as a threat?

To many thoughtful observers, the debate between unilateralism
and multilateralism has been settled by events. The United
States, the foremost exponent and practitioner of the unilateral
preemptive military strike, harried by the chaos in Iraq, has
made a belated return to the United Nations -- for support,
assistance and legitimation. One claims, "Ideology is now
yielding to realities on the ground with reluctance."

Reversing a previous policy, it has also sought a multilateral
dialogue on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

We welcome these developments, for they affirm the futility of
the unilateral use of force. And they bring to light the wisdom
of dialogue as a process that lead to multilateral cooperation.

The notion of a "just war," once condoned by the League of
Nations, has no place in the world of today. It contravenes, the
UN Charter, which arrogates unto the United Nations the sole
competent authority to use military force in defense of the
collective security of nations.

Yet, though we listen hard, we do not hear any renunciation of
the doctrine of arbitrary preemptive war. Unilateralism therefore
is by no means dead. It may just be waiting for the next
opportunity and plausible pretext for leaping, with guns blazing,
on the next perceived threat.

The events of the Iraq war have also clearly demonstrated the
limits of military power in solving the security problems of the
world. But we do not hear any acknowledgements of these limits.

It is true that the awesome firepower and technology of the
invading forces leveled the infrastructures and routed the
leadership of an entrenched. But they could not obliterate
stubborn resistance from various quarters, not all of them
associated with the ousted regime.

Nor could military technology remove the threat to global
security that the occupation forces sought to wipe out. In that
light, the situation in Iraq today bears momentous implications
on the global war against terrorism.

The situation in Iraq today shows that smart bombs and air
cover cannot turn the tide of a war against terrorism. Terrorists
have no fixed addresses that can be obliterated once and for all
with surgical military strikes.

Military operations often result in civilian casualties, and
even when it is clear that the casualties are combatants, they
generate a great deal of emotional vibrations. They create
martyrs and make it so much easier for the terrorists to gather
new recruits. The conflict areas then become safe havens and
training grounds for terrorist operatives.

The war against terrorism is a struggle for the hearts and
minds of populations. That struggle calls for wise policies, not
smart bombs. In Iraq, it calls for the safety of citizens when
they walk on the streets, for the availability of fuel,
electricity and water, and for the assurance that their dignity
is respected.

If the purpose of the narrow coalition in invading Iraq was to
make their countries and the world safer and more secure, it is
not at all clear that they have attained that goal. If the
purpose was to liberate Iraq, today we are witnessing an Iraq
occupied by foreign troops.

The coalition ousted the regime of Saddam Hussein because it
supposedly threatened the region and the world with weapons of
mass destruction. But until this late day, these weapons of mass
destruction have not been found.

If those weapons have not been found because they do not
exist, then an entire country has been leveled to the ground for
no good reason.

In any case, after the war in Iraq, a keen sense of grievance
has become even more pervasive all over the Muslim world. That
can only be a setback in terms of global stability. For the issue
of Iraq should not be viewed in isolation. How this problem is
addressed will have repercussions on the longer-standing issue of
Palestine and the challenge of terrorism.

Moreover, by rushing off to war without allowing the United
Nations weapons inspection mission to run its full course, it is
possible that the coalition has seriously damaged not only the UN
inspection regime but also the international community's
nonproliferation regime.

That would make the war in Iraq a debacle to the cause of
global security and peace. The fruits of decades of intensive
work to advance the disarmament agenda might have withered
because of it.

One more fact of international life that the war in Iraq has
starkly demonstrated is the need to apply regional solutions to
regional problems.

The problem of Iraq was one of a repressive regime at odds
with its neighbors, with a record of aggression and a reputation
for harboring and willingness to use biological and chemical
weapons. The regional countries failed to vigorously and
constantly address this problem, which lurked in their midst for
many years.

That failure gave external powers the perfect excuse and
pretext for a massive intervention -- a preemptive war that
devastated the country and left the region so much more insecure
and vulnerable.

The above article is an abridged version of the minister's
keynote address at the Council for Security Cooperation in the
Asia Pacific (CSCAP) conference in Jakarta on Dec. 8.