The post-Iraq war and Indonesia's response

Jusuf Wanandi, Cofounder, Member, Board of Trustees, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta

"What if the U.S. has to invade Iraq without the United Nations?" asked an American friend in early January. "You better make it quick, with minimum casualties and with the involvement of many allies, then stay on to reconstruct the nation, and above all make credible moves on the Israel-Palestine conflict," was my answer.

The reactions of Indonesians to the war have been measured, peaceful and balanced. They are against the war based on principles, international rules and humanitarian concerns, not because of Muslim solidarity.

This stance was possible because moderate Muslim leaders took the initiative to oppose the war, and this time the government was proactive. It was also possible because Saddam Hussein was never considered a Muslim leader.

After the fall of Baghdad, the people had the same reactions: They took Saddam's demise in stride, especially in the first week after Baghdad fell when they saw how much Saddam was hated by his own people.

However, the U.S. must give more serious attention to peace and public order after so much looting and violence has taken place. Basic human needs such as water, electricity, food, medicine and medical care have to be provided immediately.

Of course, a people that have been under so much stress and pressure for so long will react somewhat violently to their release. But it appears that the U.S. was not prepared for this reaction.

Providing basic needs is now the most important task for the U.S., especially because this is not only the concern of the Iraqi people but also of the Arab mainstream throughout the Middle East, who through their own media have seen and read many negative things about the situation in Iraq.

Indonesians, including Muslims, are also influenced by the vignettes shown on television about the miseries of the Iraqi people due to war and a lack of immediate action in restoring public order and providing basic human needs.

Political development and physical reconstruction should be next on the agenda after the emergency situation is under control. Here participation by the Iraqis from the very beginning is important, although a transition period under U.S. control can be expected. But this period should be as short as possible.

The role of the United Nations here will be very important, because only the UN can give legitimacy to U.S. efforts. This is especially true since, in international eyes, the war was not adequately legitimate. The UN also has the expertise and experience, as Afghanistan has shown.

The European Union's role is equally important (including through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), because peacekeeping and reconstruction require a lot of support in terms of human and financial resources.

Their involvement could be a first step toward reconciliation with many in Europe. This reconciliation is important for the U.S. leadership in the long term. The EU is also important in the fight against global terrorism, especially since the fight will be long and all-encompassing.

Muslim nations in particular have to be considered by the U.S. in this struggle against terrorism. It has to win the hearts and souls of Muslims worldwide, to convince them to adhere to Islamic teachings that are peaceful and to enable them to modernize toward democracy and economic progress.

That is why steps must be taken immediately to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, since this is politically the most important issue for Muslims worldwide.

This conflict provides Muslims worldwide an image of the injustice, despair and alienation they all feel due to U.S. and Western policies.

Last but not least is the debate about what to do next after Iraq. The exclamations coming from the neoconservatives inside and outside of the U.S. administration that Syria, Iran and even North Korea are going to be the next targets of a U.S. military strike or invasion because they are "rogue states" are very disturbing.

This places the U.S. as a new imperial power, which is not helpful in the fight against terrorism or in keeping global and regional order, which the U.S., as the world's only superpower, has a vital interest in maintaining.

Of course the world has to understand and appreciate how deeply the U.S. was wounded and how very vulnerable she felt after Sept. 11, 2001. But the struggle against global terrorism can only be won if the U.S. is supported by friends and allies everywhere.