Wolfowitz's remarks on terror questionable

Wolfowitz's remarks on terror questionable

Abdillah Toha, Executive Director Institute for Socio-Economic
and Political Studies, Jakarta

Paul Wolfowitz was right when he said in this newspaper
(Oct.12) that the campaign against terrorism was "not just
America's fight". What he stopped short at giving us was his
definition of terrorism. He defended America's position while
saying that the United States is not against Islam and that the
whole fight against terrorism was to uphold civilized humanity,
freedom and values we all share and condone.

No Indonesian, no Muslim and even no one should have a quarrel
with that. Yet I was rather stunned when Wolfowitz, who is widely
respected here, and who recently was reported as having a hawkish
attitude toward the need for an immediate and wider "war" against
terrorism, described how the U.S. had frequently come to the aid
of Muslims, such as in Kuwait, Kosovo, Bosnia, and other places.

What he failed to convince us was whether it was really the
intention of America to defend Muslims in those areas or was it
done in the interests of geopolitical stability while
concurrently safeguarding the economic and other interests of the
U.S. and its allies. Does providing aid to a Muslim country give
the U.S. the right to bomb another Muslim country and to act
simultaneously as prosecutor, jury and executioner?

What is questioned is not the fight itself -- but how we
should all fight it. Assuming that the Taliban is responsible for
the Sept. 11 attack, though this has yet to stand the test of an
impartial world court, should we drop tons of bombs on
Afghanistan whose military targets were exhausted after only two
days of continuous bombing and missile attack?

Or should we resort to some other means that would minimize
innocent human suffering? Those who oppose George W. Bush and
Tony Blair in their use of deadly weapons against the Afghans are
not necessarily on the side of Osama bin Laden or the Taliban.

Many other countries have suffered similar if not greater
consequences from various kinds of terrorism. So why has all this
calamity taken place with not much success in fighting it?

Is it just because of sick terrorists; or are there deeper
roots of the problem? Will the bombing of Afghanistan solve the
problem or will it create a cycle of more terror and battles?

Or, is the U.S. military action actually more directed toward
satisfying the American public's desire for retaliation? If so,
has the retaliation been precisely directed to those who are
really responsible for the terrorist attacks? These and many
other questions will have to be answered before an invitation to
fight side by side with America is accepted.

Those who oppose the U.S. strikes long for explanations. They
cannot understand its unilateral use of its super power, high-
tech armaments against a small country whose fighting equipment
is much inferior. Would the U.S. have attacked China or Russia
had Osama bin Ladin been hiding in and protected by those
countries?

The plight of the U.S. is not its plight alone. But when the
suffering of terrorist attacks is born by other countries, the
world's cries have not been as loud. Hundreds of Palestinians
have died as the result of Israel's unceasing use of violence
over the last six months alone; more are still dying every day.

The world cried for a week or two before it decided to forget
more than 8,000 people murdered, raped, and mutilated in Sabra
and Shatila in September 1982, at the hands of Ariel Sharon,
Israel's prime minister. More than one million people and
children are either mortally sick or have died in Iraq as a
consequence of a decade of siege and inhuman embargo.

How many million Bosnian Muslims were displaced and killed
before the West belatedly decided to intervene? Who is helping
the Kashmiris who are under constant violent harassment by India?

These facts and many others have gradually accumulated in the
minds of the world's Muslims. So when terrorism came to America's
own backyard, many Muslims, while condemning the barbaric attack,
hoped to see some enlightenment on the part of the U.S. that
would be reflected in its international policy and behavior and
produce a betterm more evenhanded treatment of the oppressed.

International terrorism must be fought together. But we must
first agree on what should be considered as terror. Should it be
limited to the Al-Qaeda type of terrorism or should it include
that organized and conducted by a state's occupying forces, and
terror by repressive regimes against their own people who happen
to oppose them?

The U.S. must be careful when it says that its fight against
terrorism is widely supported by most countries, including Middle
Eastern countries. Many of the countries that support the U.S.
have no choice but to do so either because of economic, security,
and financial dependency on the U.S., or because they are hotbeds
of "terrorism" fighting repressive and authoritarian rulers.

Their support may not reflect the support of their people. In
many cases, these repressive regimes are dependent upon the
protection of the U.S. for their survival.

The curtailment of civil liberties and the use of
indiscriminate force for the sake of security against potential
terrorist attack initiated by a country such as the U.S., a
"bastion" of democracy and human rights, is certainly welcome to
many a repressive regime.

Many rulers in the Middle East and Central Asia who have never
been properly elected by their people will now be encouraged to
resort to even harsher methods of violence against political
"enemies". Russia will have a freer hand in its violent treatment
of the Chechnyans, India of its Kashmiri opposition, and Israel
will be justified in "responding" with its tanks, missiles, and
bulldozers against Palestinian stone throwing.

The objective of the indiscriminate, retaliatory attack on
Afghanistan will be most likely unachievable. The certain outcome
is the death and suffering of civilians, a huge flow of refugees,
potential millions of starving Afghans, and a new type of
violence.

The only objective achievable is Bush's short-term political
goal of satisfying the U.S. public. The attack will instead
create stronger determination on the part of those who feel
unjustly treated to scheme further reprisals.

Trying to catch bin Laden, who could become a martyr, with
bombs and missiles will be fruitless. If the Taliban rulers are
replaced by the Northern Alliance, the U.S. would have to prop up
the new puppet regime indefinitely.

The longer the war continues the more likely it will increase
anti Western-hysteria in Islamic countries. It will be a losing
battle, not only for the U.S. but for the whole civilized world.

The only way to win the war against international terrorism is
to first of all accept the fact that the plight is widely shared
in the rest of the world, before we ask others to join the fight.