U.S. strikes back

I would like to express my personal appreciation to Pak Irawan Abidin on his very sound and intelligent article Effective diplomats need not be obnoxious in The Jakarta Post's Oct. 13, 2001 edition.

U.S. diplomats' interpretation of "things" happening to them in Indonesia are out of proportion. The Sept. 11 events encouraged them and the world to take a course of action against terrorism. Unfortunately, Osama bin Laden refused to surrender and is under the protection of the Taliban regime. One should know that Osama is also the son-in-law of the Mollah Omar. This being written, no democrat in this world -- let him/her be Muslim or not -- can accept such a tyrannic regime.

Like most European people, Indonesian people regret that a peaceful solution could not be envisaged in the fight against terrorism.

It is also true that a review of U.S. policies in the Middle East is recommended, allowing terrorism to be dealt with efficiently for the long-term. Indeed, that might be wiser than the current bombings in Afghanistan. Innocent casualties are not unlikely and we cannot turn a blind eye to this situation.

Of course, there is a need to dismantle the terrorist networks and everybody agrees on that, except maybe the crazy fundamentalists.

However, it would be much better and appreciated all over the world if any necessary military actions could be carried out under the auspices of the UN. The argument that the UN is not ready for such a mission is not valid. If the UN were given an opportunity to lead, it could take the lead in the fight against terrorism in both the diplomatic arena, and on the battle grounds if necessary later on.

If we can understand that the U.S. government cannot negotiate with the Taliban, the UN could do so in an effective way. So, why didn't the U.S. government give the UN a chance to prove itself once and for all? This is the question we would like to be addressed by CNN reporters.

YVAN MAGAIN

Tubize, Belgium