RI should look beyond the war and support UN

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.