U.S. loses moral grounds so model human rights

U.S. loses moral grounds so model human rights

The George W. Bush administration seems impatient in attacking
Iraq despite international protests and reports by the United
Nations weapons investigation team, which does not verify U.S.
claims that Iraq has a weapons program and arsenal. Lawyer and
human rights activist Todung Mulya Lubis shares his views with
The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto.

Question: Do you see any strength or power that could stop the
U.S.'s apparent resolve to attack Iraq?

Answer: There is almost nothing that can stop the U.S., and
the United Kingdom is also willing to attack Iraq. Although
reports made by the UN weapons investigation team contain no
conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or
biological weapons, Iraq's uncooperative response to providing
open access to investigators could be enough for the U.S. to take
action, which could take place soon.

Many parties in Europe, in Middle Eastern countries and even
in America have protested Bush's plan (to attack Iraq). And I'm
sure that the silent majority in Indonesia have also been very
worried about the attack. Here in Indonesia, several Islamic
groups have voiced anxiety about the attack, which they dub as an
action motivated by religion. Such a belief is not correct, of
course, but from the perspective of humanity, the attack (if it
takes place) would be a war of aggression, justified as a
"preemptive war".

It is difficult to judge whether there is a threat against the
U.S. If we read Chapter 51 of the UN Charter, it says clearly
that a state is allowed to conduct self-defense if there is an
armed attack against it, and that a state may use force in the
case of an armed attack. The U.S. could not blame Iraq for the
Sept. 11 attack in Washington, and thus, (the September attack)
is not a justification to attack Iraq.

This is the general understanding among international legal
experts.

When America used force against Nicaragua, which had been
accused of helping El Salvadoran rebels, its actions were
considered a violation (of the above Charter), as there was no
actual armed attack (against America). This is clear.

Regardless of the political and economic interests of the
U.S., attacking Iraq would be seen as a tragedy of humanity
brought on by a self-professed champion of human rights. What are
your comments on this?

In wars against terrorism (conducted by various countries),
the real loser is peace. We have witnessed the issuance of many
anti-terrorism legislations and laws, which unfortunately deny
civil liberties. War against terror and all anti-terrorism
regulations must not violate human rights.

It is no wonder activists in many countries have protested the
anti-terrorism laws produced by their countries. We in Indonesia
saw many protests against the anti-terrorism government
regulation in lieu of law (issued in November last year).

Article 2 of Chapter 4 of the UN Charter clearly recommends UN
member countries not to use force in settling any disputes. This
is the UN's noble effort to maintain peace in the world.

Would the reported plan to raid Iraq be considered justified
as a consequence of a clash of civilizations?

I don't want to be involved in an open discourse on the clash
of civilizations.

I just see the U.S.'s plan as a human tragedy that is actually
avoidable, because there are peaceful means to settle the
tension. We should thank France for opposing the plan, and
Indonesia should be more proactive in rejecting the attack.

What we are witnessing is that Bush is making a unilateral
decision with or without the UN Security Council's
recommendation, and maybe without authorization from Congress.
This is a big threat to international rules, which is based on
multilateralism.

What would the impact of such a superpower's unilateralism be
on the ability of communities to build a civil society based on
respect to humans as individuals or as a nation?

In this context, I think America has lost its moral grounds to
be a model in upholding human rights. I believe there are many
American people with good common sense and a strong conscience
who have joined the anti-war movement in their country. And this
is evidence that the initiative to crush Iraq is not popular
enough and does not win adequate support. We also see similar
movements in England.

What would be the worst impact of a U.S. attack against Iraq
for the world?

The war would greatly disrupt the stability of South Asia and
the Middle East. The political and economic costs of the war
would be very high. Iraq has been suffering for a long time; the
American aggression would just prolong its suffering.

Back to your earlier statements. Many Indonesian Muslim groups
have expressed their opposition to the U.S. stance against Iraq,
and their spirit of Muslim solidarity has been evoked. How could
the Indonesian government explain to these groups that the U.S.
attitude against Iraq has nothing to do with religion?

In the context of international law, a U.S. attack would be a
violation, a violation against human rights and crime against
humanity. The U.S. should not undermine this.

The government of Indonesia must be tougher in rejecting any
wars of aggression which contradicts international law, and build
or support a multilateral power to curb unilateralism. Our free
and active (independent) foreign policy enables this.

Wouldn't it be easier for the government to explain the
attack against Iraq if the attack was recommended by the UN? As a
member of the UN, Indonesia would have no choice but to accept
the UN decision.

This is what I mean by multilateralism. There is an
international mechanism for such a situation. And if the
mechanism doesn't work, there must be something wrong.