Part 1 of 2 : Support U.S., UN in returning peace in Iraq

Part 1 of 2 : Support U.S., UN in returning peace in Iraq

Jusuf Wanandi, Member, Board of Trustees Centre for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta

I was privileged to have listened to presentations by two
American columnists during my visit to the United States last
September. They were Thomas Friedman from the New York Times and
Max Boots from The Wall Street Journal. They both visited the
Middle East, including Iraq, in August. As is known, Friedman is
a liberal while Boots is more conservative. They both concluded
that the political and economic situation and developments in
Iraq have improved, and in many ways things are better than
during Saddam Hussein's 30-year regime. Schools and universities
are open, healthcare facilities and hospitals are functioning,
and electricity and water supplies have been restored.

However, signs of trouble were already emerging in September
on the security front in the areas around Baghdad and the Sunni
triangle. The situation has since become more serious and has
become akin to an urban guerrilla war against the Coalition. This
has to be overcome before the Iraqi people and the international
community will have the confidence to come to Iraq to provide
humanitarian assistance as well as to do business as part of the
effort to rebuild Iraq.

The security issue has become the main focus for the media,
which is mostly based in Baghdad, as regards the rebuilding of
Iraq. The aspects that have been marked by positive developments
have not attracted the attention of the media or international
public opinion. Why is this the case? One reason is the
credibility gap suffered by this U.S. administration. U.S. public
diplomacy appears to be rather underdeveloped. However, these
positive developments are real. In a poll undertaken by an
international agency in August, 40 percent of the people in the
survey in Baghdad said that they were worse off but 60 percent of
them said they prefer the present situation than being under
Saddam.

There is no doubt that security has to be restored first and
at all costs. The new, more active policies of the Coalition to
overcome the resistance is necessary, but they have to be
undertaken in such a way that they will be understood and
supported by the common people. And the people should be
protected as much as possible.

The northern part of Iraq, which is under the Kurds, has seen
real improvements. In the south, where the Iraqi Shiites live,
who make up 60 percent of the population, the situation is
stable. Their leaders are willing to introduce greater Islamic
characteristics into the political system but are not promoting a
theocratic Muslim state, which they saw was not working well in
Iran where they had been in exile during the Saddam era.

Greater political freedom and the expansion of political space
have become facts of life although it remains to be seen how this
will lead to a successful democratic transition and
consolidation.

In conclusion, it may be said with some confidence that
despite real security problems and challenges and the limitations
faced by the Coalition forces and the Coalition Provisional
Authority under Ambassador Bremer there have been real
improvements in Iraq. It is, therefore, important that the UN
participates and provides leadership in the near future. Equally
important is an early transfer of power and sovereignty to the
Iraqi people and their leaders. Although general elections may
not be feasible in the very near future, other means could be
used as temporary measures to select Iraqi representatives.

The presence of U.S. and Coalition security forces may still
be needed for the next 3 to 4 years to maintain security and to
enable the interim Iraqi authority to implement its policies. The
promises made by the U.S. to assist and support Iraq to get on
its own feet have to be kept in order to maintain its leadership
role and authority in the future, globally as well as regionally.
It is in the interest of all to assist the U.S. in this matter.

On the one hand, it has to be recognized that the reasons used
by the U.S. to instigate the war were not sufficiently
convincing for many people across the globe, including in East
Asia. However, many governments, especially in East Asia, also
realize that they are still dependent on the U.S. for peace,
stability and economic development. They have restrained their
populations from creating major disruptions in their relations
with the U.S.

Now that the war in Iraq, in the narrow sense of the word, is
over, the East Asian region, including Indonesia and ASEAN,
should make serious efforts to cooperate with the U.S. because of
the latter's critical role in the region. Support should be given
to the U.S. to complete its peace-building efforts in Iraq. In
this regard, the role of the UN is critical in providing
legitimacy, personnel, technical and financial support. The U.S.
has become more open on this, and Indonesia should definitely
play an active part in these efforts.