RI must be firm, but realistic, says Hidayat

RI must be firm, but realistic, says Hidayat

Here is the man behind the largest rally ever held in Indonesia
in protest of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on March 30. Hundreds
of thousands of antiwar protesters took to the streets of Jakarta
to condemn the destruction of Iraq, the cradle of the world's
oldest civilization. Despite the huge turnout, there were no
clashes or stone throwing reported. It was indeed a very peaceful
rally that belied the violent stereotype of Muslim protesters.

Far from a typical outrageous, vocal activist, Hidayat Nur
Wahid is a down-to-earth, modest and coherent speaker.

Hidayat, who turned 43 on April 8 and hails from the Central
Java town of Klaten, is the president of the Prosperous Justice
Party (PKS) formerly known as the Justice Party (PK). The party,
established after the downfall of Soeharto, aims to debunk the
image of a president as a sacred, untouchable figure.

Hidayat, also a senior lecturer at the state-run Hidayatullah
Islamic Institute in Jakarta, is a keen observer of the crisis
currently taking place in the Middle East. Not only because he
spent 13 years living in the region, but mostly because it
concerns humanity and civilization. Amid his tight schedule, he
shared his thoughts on the Iraq issue with The Jakarta Post's
Emmy Fitri. Below is an excerpt of the interview.

Question: To address the Iraq crisis, you have staged at least
two rallies and one of them was a truly massive one. However, the
war was unstoppable and even these days we're still waiting for
its final phase, waiting for the U.S. to claim that they have won
the war. What will you do next?

Answer: First we have to be realistic and keep things in
perspective because we are not a country that has veto rights nor
are we a member of the UN Security Council or a country that has
powerful diplomatic influence to lobby other countries to take a
unified stance against others.

We're just a country, part of the world which, of course, must
care and give a contribution to the making of world peace. We
also have to be responsible for the future of civilization.
Therefore we will keep staging peace marches, sharing our
opinions, offering counters to the war logic -- the U.S.
propaganda -- to the public.

You met with U.S. Ambassador Ralph L. Boyce when you staged a
rally on the first day of the invasion. Was there anything you
conveyed to the U.S. government through Boyce?

We had a lengthy discussion. He (Boyce) explained why his
country had to wage the war against Iraq.

He said the war was legal because Saddam (Hussein) did not
meet United Nations Resolution 1441. I said it was illegal
because it was the UN that issued the resolution and not his
government. I also told him that it was not reported that the UN
gave the mandate to George Bush's administration to act (against
Iraq).

The UN had not even issued a penalty (against Iraq). If there
had been a penalty, I don't think it would have translated into a
war, a brutal action that destroyed a civilization.

If the decision for war was related to Iraq's alleged
possession of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. should have
waited for the results of the UN investigation. The (UN) team was
still working. The investigation was ongoing and no conclusion
had been made. Boyce was silent and did not comment.

He then assured us that although the war was unilateral, the
U.S. had received support from other countries. At that point I
told him that we shouldn't pretend that we knew nothing about how
his government had stepped up its pressure on the countries that
claimed to support the war.

His government has apparently used the carrot-and-the-stick
approach with its allies. I asked him why America did not respect
the principles of democracy, given that the majority of the
Security Council members rejected the invasion and moreover the
world community had also voiced its strong objection.

I told him that actually we were of the same opinion that
Iraqis must be freed from Saddam's tyranny so they could live in
democracy, but the war would not touch Saddam. It would only
destroy the civilization there and kill the people. Saddam would
survive. If he was the target, why didn't the U.S. do the same
thing that they did to Panama leader Manuel Noriega.

We know what happened to Afghanistan leader Mullah Umar and
Osama bin Laden. The U.S. government could not even touch him but
we see who have suffered in the invasion -- it's the people.

Now what is happening in Iraq, instead of liberating the
Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny, the U.S. government introduced
three new tyrants; Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.

What will happen in Iraq then? And what is the implication for
us?

There will be new power holder for sure. Exactly like what
happened in Afghanistan when Hamid Karzai was up on the stage; he
is just an America-made leader.

I am afraid in Iraq there will be a new seemingly democratic
administration which is completely controlled by America.

But there is still a lot of unfinished business there right
now. We haven't seen how the tug-of-war between the U.S. and the
British over who will manage Iraq after war will come out. The
already weakened UN can play a role to salvage the remains of
ruined international order by forcing the U.S. to forsake its
ambitions in Iraq. There will be various implications in
connection with who will run Iraq.

If it's the U.S. that runs Iraq, it will have an effect on oil
prices, among other things. It will control the world's oil
distribution and price which in turn will cause a depreciation in
the price of oil. Our state budget will surely be affected.

Secondly, it will also influence our diplomatic ties with
Middle Eastern countries because the U.S. will launch a massive
secularization in the territory as they have already done,
stripping the Arabic letters Allahu Akbar (Allah the Great) from
Iraq's national flag.

I have a strong feeling that they will stamp a terrorist label
on Muslims and Islam. At this point, our relations with Islamic
countries will be affected. America will not stop with Iraq.

Our predominantly Muslim population has close relations with
Middle Eastern countries in terms of cultural, social and
economic ties.

It's obvious that our government and our people have a clear
standpoint toward this Iraq-U.S. issue. I think the U.S. will
make this a problem in the future because of our dependence on
the U.S. The problem in the future, if our government can't stand
firm, is that we will be pressured or dictated to by the U.S. in
all matters, including, for example, into taking repressive
measures against prodemocracy or critical Muslim groups.

I hope that our leaders still have the courage to say that
we're a sovereign country and firmly stand by our decision to
reject war and the rationale behind it.

What should be done by the government then?

So, here what we can do is just to counter the irrationalities
of the Bush administration and urge the people, the Indonesians,
to remain rational and not react emotionally to Bush's
propaganda.

We should not be trapped into Bush's war rationale and the
government should ride on this issue to push the Indonesian
people to improve the quality of their products and ask them to
use local products so we can gradually end our dependency on U.S.
products and those of other countries.

It's also an effective way to solve our economic problems,
isn't it?

We must reverse the thinking that we depend on the U.S. It is
we, Indonesians, who enrich the U.S. Many American companies
operate here like Exxon, Freeport, Newmont and Caltex. They use
our natural resource. Why can't we be richer than them? We must
reserve this type of mentality and work on it. How? Improve our
regulations and carefully manage our resources.

Sudan is a poor country. They survive amid environmental
difficulties. We are a rich people. Who says we cannot survive?
Leaders must set an example of modesty and use local products and
not flaunt their wealth and lavish lifestyles.