Seeking common ground in global terrorism drive

Seeking common ground in global terrorism drive

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

A civil and balanced discourse between an American and an
Indonesian on the Sept. 11 tragedy took place in this newspaper
through the articles of Paul Wolfowitz on Oct. 12 and Abdillah
Toha on Oct. 18. The two perspectives, which discussed the root
causes of the incident, are very different.

Toha's view represents that of the average Indonesian
intellectual; who is clearly is against the terrorist attack, but
strongly objects to some policies of the United States that are
seen as unjust, unilateral and full of double standards.

Wolfowitz, on his part, attempted to explain openly and
sincerely the U.S. policy in responding to the incident, namely
that it should not be seen only as a U.S. concern but a concern
of the global community, and above all it was not against Islam.

Wolfowitz, however, failed to mention the paramount importance
of the event in terms of its effect on how the U.S. views the
world now as well as on international relations and global
strategic developments. The September tragedy is a much bigger
blow to U.S. public's sense of security and emotions than the
attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan in 1941.

This terrorist act was an attack on innocent people and on the
symbols of U.S. power, and was targeted at the U.S. economic
heartland. It is seen not merely as a tragedy but is regarded as
something that has endangered the way of life of the U.S. and
global civilization.

Toha did not appear to have fully appreciated this aspect. The
attack was of such magnitude and created such a big shock, and as
such has resulted in a change of an era. The strong public
response to the event and pressures on President George W. Bush
led him to undertake the massive effort to punish the culprit.
This happens in a democracy.

However, the response was undertaken on the basis of Article
51 of the United Nations Charter, namely as an act of self-
defense. It is also based on a number of resolutions of the UN
Security Council, directed at Osama bin Laden as the suspected
instigator of many terrorist acts even before Sept. 11.

From the U.S. viewpoint, this act is a crime against humanity,
civilization and the international order, and therefore, every
nation should involve itself in fighting against this crime. This
applies to Muslims and Christians, developed as well as
developing nations.

This event represents a watershed in the post-Cold War period,
and in fact, has practically put an end to this era, that has
been characterized by the presence of one superpower and great
uncertainties as to the direction of global developments. The new
era will essentially be characterized by a division between those
who are against terrorism and those who are not.

Be that as it may, not every nation should necessarily act in
the same way or even be involved in everything that the U.S. is
doing. There can be a variety of coalitions, not necessarily one
large solid one led by the U.S.

This is so because the fight against terrorism will be an all
encompassing one: political-diplomatic, economic-financial, as
well as in intelligence, police work and military operations.

Some states could do their share by first taking care of their
own domestic affairs in educating the public on the necessity of
fighting against terrorism because their own national interests
could be at stake.

Second, they might cooperate in intelligence and police work
in dealing with centers of training for terrorists and the
blockage of bank accounts, for instance of the al-Qaeda network.
The third effort is to provide political-diplomatic support to
the global fight against terrorism.

All the initiatives could be enlarged into regional efforts,
such as in ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and also
among members of the Organization of Islamic Conference and the
Non-Aligned Movement, as well as the UN.

Mainstream Indonesian Muslim leaders have come to a consensus
on the September tragedy. They condemn terrorism in all its
forms, but they also do not approve of the threats of sweeping
and other harassment of foreigners in Indonesia as well as the
breaking of diplomatic relations with the U.S.

Such actions are considered to transgress dignified civil
conduct and are against national interests. But again they cannot
approve of the bombing of Afghanistan as the evidence against bin
Laden and the Taliban is seen as inconclusive. Moreover, too many
innocent Afghans have become victims of the attacks.

Toha's points about the root causes of the terrorist act are
valid and must be tackled to ensure success in fighting
terrorism. Ending terrorism will be possible only if its root
causes are removed. This is a medium-term effort. This also does
not mean that justice should not be meted out on bin Laden, his
network, and the Taliban. The U.S. should take note of Toha's
honest assessment.

In the fight against terrorism, Indonesia and the U.S. do need
each other, and both are facing essentially the same threat. Each
can adopt different approaches but should coordinate their
efforts. On Indonesia's part, the global effort will be supported
if Indonesia's involvement is based on Indonesia's own
initiative, applying Indonesian methods and approaches.