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.