Difficult transition for SE Asia

Difficult transition for SE Asia

Don Pathan, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

All of a sudden, Southeast Asia doesn't look so good.
Longstanding problems continue to flare-up, while new problems
pose daunting challenges to governments across the region, which
are beginning to look like they're in over their heads.

International coverage of the clashes in southern Thailand
last week, that left the streets littered with dead Muslim
militants, has effectively shattered the country's reputation as
a land of peace and tolerance. Security agencies are now having
to prepare the country for the far-reaching repercussions. What
has been painted as a local problem between the country's Muslim
minority and the central government could easily attract the
likes of al-Qaeda, an international terrorist organization known
for exploiting the anxieties of Muslim communities worldwide,
senior government officials and foreign diplomats say.

As pointed out in the U.S. State Department's 2003 Patterns of
Global Terrorism Report, the net effect of the activities of
terrorist and separatist groups in the region "is to decrease the
likelihood of peaceful and long-term solutions to separatist
movement/ethnic conflicts, to exacerbate current regional
terrorism and to foster an environment conducive to terrorism's
continued growth."

Adding to the pressure on the Thai government, Malaysia has
publicly announced it will welcome with open arms anyone fleeing
the violence in Thailand's deep South, where the local population
is predominantly Muslim and of Malay ethnicity.

Moreover, leaders of Malaysia's opposition Parti Islam se-
Malaysia (PAS) have gone further, calling the clashes last
Wednesday "a massacre of Muslims", and accusing Thai troops of
violating the sanctity of religious institutions with their raid
on the Krue Se mosque in Pattani, which left over 30 people dead.
Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has told the rest of the world
to mind its own business while at the same time upping the ante
against local Muslim militants with his hawkish, all-or-nothing
mindset.

In the Philippines, meanwhile, a growing body of evidence
suggests that the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group has been preparing
to unleash a campaign of suicide bombings in the country.

Just days before the Feb. 27 sinking of Superferry 14 in
Manila Bay, which left at least 96 dead and more than 20 missing,
and an incident which the Abu Sayyaf claimed credit for, the
Filipino army said it had foiled a plot to stage suicide attacks
on military bases.

Manila released a report last year warning that 50 Abu Sayyaf
terrorists were being trained as suicide bombers by Indonesian
instructors who are members of Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) and received
training in Afghanistan.

While Manila has dismissed Abu Sayyaf's claim of
responsibility for the Superferry 14 attack, the Philippines' top
cop, Superintendent Roldofo Mendoza, has admitted that the links
between JI, al-Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf and suicide bombings continue to
increase.

Indonesia appears to be most vulnerable to terror at present,
facing a three-pronged problem: Political transition, ethnic
violence and economic instability. The country has suffered two
major terrorist attacks that have jolted the world community.

Illicit drugs, meanwhile, continue to pour out of Burma, as
evidenced in the recent seizure of nearly 300 kg of heroin on the
Chinese border in Yunnan province.

The entire region appears to be shifting away from the old
order, says leading security expert Asst. Professor Panitan
Wattanayagorn, from Chulalongkorn University. Many of the
countries in the region are moving from authoritarian-based power
structures to semi-democracies -- and the transition generally
has not been smooth, Panitan said.

Many of these countries are weak, with weak institutions and
short-term economic strategies that are unable to cope with the
challenges of a rapidly changing world. Panitan said ethnic
tensions and separatist movements are part of the "deprived
factor", or a segment of society that sees itself as having been
denied its fair share of economic growth or political
representation.

"The perception, and in many instances the reality, of being
the second front in the war on terrorism adds a further,
threatening element of tension to the situation, which the
structures of many Southeast Asian countries are ill-equipped to
handle," said Kobsak Chutikul, vice chairman for the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs.

"There were calls a decade ago for Southeast Asia to
reposition itself. But many political leaders accused the
advocates of being sour grapes," Panitan said.

Kobsak thinks Southeast Asia missed an opportunity to put its
house in order after the financial crisis of 1997.

"That was a wake-up call, but it became apparent that most of
the nations were not willing to fully embrace reform. Most of the
reforms were tentative and merely on the surface," said Kobsak,
adding that this response was largely the result of vested
interests that influence policy in many countries.

Today, more than half a decade later, the region's economy is
continuing its modest upward climb, but the same old problems are
still there -- communal violence, separatism, illicit drugs,
corruption and weak institutions.

But because no Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam,
have the total political control exercised by the Chinese
communist party, it is not easy to suppress the social,
political, cultural, ethnic or regional tensions that arise in
the transition to modern societies. Generally these kinds of
problems are simply glossed over with evocations of the region's
strong economic performance, Kobsak said.

Burma was admitted into ASEAN a decade ago out of strategic
concerns over China's growing influence in the region.
Ironically, bickering over Burma within ASEAN has pushed Rangoon
closer to China than it ever was before. And instead of
positioning itself as a mediator between China and the United
States, ASEAN has found itself stuck between the two powers.

Southeast Asia is once again at a crossroads. One route is to
adopt Chinese-style totalitarianism -- with closed politics and
an open economy. The alternative is to fully embrace reform,
modernization and democratization as in the West.

"But I fear most countries will attempt to muddle through with
home-grown hybrids with the result that we will be going around
in circles," Kobsak said.