The post-Iraq war and Indonesia's response

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.