Impact of Sept. 11 on strategic balance in Asia Pacific

Impact of Sept. 11 on strategic balance in Asia Pacific

Jusuf Wanandi, Founder, Member, Board of Trustees
Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir has brilliantly made use of
Sept. 11 for his political revival and initiative against
opposition party PAS. The main problem he might be facing is how
to reform the madrasah schools that have been developed along the
Pakistan model and are mainly under PAS supervision and
influence.

Indonesia is completely different in this regard because, for
many years, Muhammadiyah has never had exclusively "Muslim
curriculum schools", but has offered "normal" schools with Muslim
teaching, while Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) has been opened up to also
teach subjects similar to secular schools.

In the case of Singapore, it was a shock for the leadership
when they learned about Jemaat Islamiyah (JI) activities and
their plan to attack U.S. interests in Singapore and other parts
of Southeast Asia. Political stability and security is the
mainstay of Singapore's attractiveness to foreign investment and
such terrorist activities could damage that credibility. That is
why the leadership reacted swiftly and severely against these
activities. It also showed that regional terrorism, induced by
global terrorism, is already present in Southeast Asia.

The leadership in Singapore is more active in fighting
terrorism and in aligning themselves closely with the U.S. in
fighting global terrorism. But as the U.S. should understand,
Singapore should learn to appreciate the diversities of political
Islam, and should not become paranoid. To learn more about Islam
is an important challenge for the U.S. and for Singapore's
leaders.

As is the case in Indonesia, it is the mainstream Muslims that
should be encouraged to try to influence and guide the Muslim
communities towards moderation and openness through democratic
means.

It is important to distinguish domestic conflicts such as
political strife, insurgencies, ethnic or religious conflicts
from global terrorism. These conflicts have their roots in
domestic socio-political and economic problems and should be also
be solved through domestic socio-political, economic, and
security approaches. The rule of law and human rights concerns
should be attended to as they would be in the fight against
global terrorism. Exceptions can be made in survival cases, but
used only in a limited fashion, temporarily and with adequate
transparency to prevent abuses.

In Northeast Asia the key questions are: Are efforts against
terrorism going to change the strategic picture permanently or
not? And what complications are to be faced in fighting global
terrorism in that region?

On the Korean peninsula, the fight against terrorism has
brought about some complications because North Korea, who has
been dubbed a member of the "axis of evil" by President Bush and
has been given new pressures by the U.S., will complicate the
"sunshine" policies of South Korean President Kim Dae-jung. In
fairness, that policy has had limited results so far for Korea.

Bush's accusation was mainly directed at North Korea's
political system that is responsible for so much misery of its
own people, the possibility of North Korea not abiding by the
non-proliferation agreements she has signed and by the sales of
missiles technology and Weapons of Mass Destruction to "rogue"
countries that could endanger the region and the U.S.

In the case of Japan, the strengthening of the alliance and
the opening for Japan to become a "normal" country are important
developments. However Japan also has to undertake political and
economic reforms and be again on par with the U.S. economy in
productivity and vitality.

In China's case, it should be a lot more difficult to maintain
the earlier goodwill between China and the U.S. due to Sept. 11,
because there of so many tough problems between the two.
Basically this is a challenge for the two big countries, one a
superpower and the other becoming one, to deal with each other
normally. There is not enough trust and confidence between the
two governments and leaderships.

The most important question is Taiwan, but other matters such
as sophisticated arms sales and technology transfers by China to
other countries, especially those considered rogue ones by the
U.S. such as Iran and Iraq, human rights violations and religious
freedom are also important. Even the U.S. presence in Central
Asia, which has been accepted so far, could arouse questions
about the encirclement of China as well as the increase of a U.S.
presence in East Asia.

In the meantime, the rhetoric of the relationship that was
brittle earlier, has calmed down since Sept. 11, and constant
relations at the highest level have been maintained despite some
serious issues on Taiwan, especially sophisticated arms sales to
Taiwan and the visits of Taiwan's high ranking defense officials
to the U.S.

Visits by China's leaders to countries considered to be
supporting terrorism also created question marks in the U.S. By
becoming a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China
appears to have become more and more a conservative member of the
regional and international community by willing to abide by
international rules as well as the regional order and
institutions, which bodes well for future relations with the US.

The changes in the Asia-Pacific region due to Sept. 11 are
among others:

U.S. leadership is becoming more assertive in the Asia-Pacific
region after being somewhat dormant since the end of the Cold
War. What this will mean to the region is still unclear, because
how this administration is going to change things will be
decisive: Will this new leadership be more positive towards
cooperation and more multilaterally inclined due to the need for
coalition building in the war on terror. There is hope that the
U.S. wants to become more patient to give breathing room to some
countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, to face global
terrorism on their own terms, since the priorities are varied and
domestic complications are understood.

On North Asia, America's more assertive leadership could be a
problem in relation to North Korea, but this has to be settled
between the two countries themselves. In relation to China's
ascendancy, the U.S. might be prone to misinterpreting it,
although it might not be at all a Chinese problem. So, in North
East Asia while the existing relations might be maintained, a
more assertive U.S., might bring about new tensions. But a more
multilateralist attitude on the part of the U.S. might alleviate
some of the existing tensions.

Regional efforts to face global terrorism will be important.
First, this is more palatable for domestic constituencies in
individual countries and helps alleviate pressure from the U.S.
to do some of the things that are not necessarily a top priority
for individual countries or the region or sub-region. Regional
cooperation will be more important if the U.S. becomes more
unilateral in its approach in the future. The request by the U.S.
to cooperate against global terrorism will put additional
pressure on regional institutions to get their act together.

Each of the countries in the Asia-Pacific region has to
reconcile its own priorities with the need to fight global
terrorism. In most cases, U.S. support might be important,
especially cooperating and supporting in the fields of
intelligence, police work and money-laundering. Consolidating
each society should be the main task of individual countries,
especially Muslim ones. They have the difficult, but critical,
task to influence political Islam to become moderate, open and
democratic.

In the end, the struggle is really for ideas and visions. In
this case, Sept. 11 has also been a wake-up call for many Muslim
countries as well. Their challenge is to transform Islam into a
religion of peace, moderation, openness, and democratic values,
and to make the world understand and accept it. So, there is a
new challenge for every individual country after Sept. 11, namely
to keep their country together, keep them peaceful and developing
well and to be able to withstand extremist ideas and religions.

The article is an extract from Jusuf Wanandi's paper for the
Asia Pacific Roundtable on June 3, in Kuala Lumpur.