RI should look beyond the war and support UN

Jusuf Wanandi, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta

Indonesia's strong disapproval of the war by the U.S. against Saddam Hussein is not based on Muslim solidarity but is a matter of principle and Indonesia's own interests. The war has not been sanctioned by the United Nations. It is seen by nearly all Indonesians as a war that is not necessary.

It is a war that is not necessary because other means were available and had not been exhausted before war as a last resort should have been applied. While it is recognized that in a situation of immediate danger the principle of preemption is a possibility in self-defense and has been applied in recent history, the immediacy of the danger of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. and others was not proven convincingly.

It should be noted that after Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. was outraged by the attack, and a strong sense of vulnerability has been created among Americans. This feeling aroused their sense of survival, and the possibility of terrorist attacks using WMD has become a real nightmare for many.

A rogue regime like Saddam Hussein's that possesses WMD is seen as an acute threat to the U.S. However, there is no clear and convincing evidence about the existence of WMD nor is their any real evidence of the willingness of the regime to use them against the U.S. or any other power, and just as unclear is whether there is any relation between Saddam and al-Qaeda (largely seen as responsible for Sept. 11).

Moreover, the objective of the U.S. to topple Saddam Hussein's regime has not always been clear and consistent: First, it was to get rid of his WMD, and at another time it was regime change, and finally it is to transform Iraq into a democracy. Except for the argument against WMD, the other explanations cannot be considered a just cause for war. Above all, the unilateral and arrogant rhetoric of this U.S. administration has created a situation wherein a lot of people have been taken aback and oppose them for that alone.

Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, has long been considered a rogue country. He has abused his own people and neighboring countries, such as Iran and Kuwait. Therefore, there is no love lost between Indonesians and Saddam. Indonesians also do not accept him as a Muslim leader, since he is merely an opportunist who is using Islam as an excuse for his opposition against the U.S. That is why reactions by the government and leaders of all walks of life (NGOs, the media, students, religious leaders and politicians), including Muslim ones, have been generally balanced and peaceful.

The main challenge for Indonesia now is what it can do for Iraq. Indonesia should first realize that the U.S. administration has made up its mind to get rid of Saddam's regime. There is no way to prevent that from happening or to stop the war. However, there are other important things that Indonesia can do. Efforts should be made through various regional or international fora, such as ASEAN, the OIC, Non-Aligned Movement and through the UN system.

First, Indonesia can support UN efforts for humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. The U.S. has already asked the UN to coordinate that, and definitely this is most urgent. Second, is to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq through the auspices of the UN although the U.S. might oppose it at the beginning. The U.S. must realize that the international community has to get involved, since the task and burden will be so huge and complex that only the UN system can really do it.

The third effort should be to support the UN as the centerpiece again for international peace and security. That implies reactivating the UN Security Council (UNSC) in debating further efforts in the aftermath of the war.

This will have to be done although the U.S. will be very reluctant to play along. It is hoped that the U.S. also will accept an improved UNSC, which is critical for the UN system itself. Since the UN system is of critical importance to small- and medium-sized countries, they should support the necessary changes to restore the credibility of the institution.

Fourth, is to exert pressure that will help move the Israel- Palestine conflict towards a solution, as has been promised by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair before the Iraq War was started.

There still is a fighting chance that some sort of solution could happen immediately after the war, like in the case of the Madrid Meeting in 1991 after the First Gulf War to placate the interests and the concerns of Muslims worldwide.

This will also be important to show to the Muslim world that the U.S. is paying attention and could be more evenhanded on this most important issue for them. In that way the U.S. could also cut off support for terrorism among the Muslims in the future. Fifth, which is more for the medium term, is to contribute to thinking about the kind of international and regional order that is going to be established after the Iraq War ends.

A key question is whether in the aftermath of the war, the U.S. and most of the rest of the world are able to reconcile each other's views on the global and regional order. This will influence transatlantic relations, the relevance of NATO, the unity and future constitutional developments in the EU -- and maintenance of East Asian stability and peace, despite the crisis of proliferation of nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula.