JP/6/SISWO

JP/6/SISWO

Is ASEAN ready for an anti-terrorist convention?

Siswo Pramono
Deputy Director
for Global Organization
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Jakarta

Various regions -- America, Western Europe, East Europe,
Africa, and South Asia -- have regional treaties to combat
terrorism. Southeast Asia has no such treaty. With this
oversight in mind, legal officers and diplomats from Southeast
Asia met in Bali last August and agreed, in principle, that such
a treaty (or convention) is a necessity for the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations.

ASEAN leaders have also taken up such concerns in the recent
Summit. Bali Concord II states that ASEAN shall fully utilize the
existing institutions and mechanisms within the association with
a view to strengthening regional and national capacities to
combat and counter terrorism.

At the national level, ASEAN member countries have been
engaged in capacity building to suppress terrorism, leading to
controversy, particularly when they are seen as encroaching the
human rights of suspects.

Brunei Darussalam is equipped with 11 national legislations to
suppress terrorist acts. Indonesia has enacted Law No. 15/2003
concerning the eradication of acts of terrorism. Malaysia has
developed a compendium of 55 laws, including the Penal Code and,
as is also the case with Singapore, the Internal Security Act, to
counter terrorism.

Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam have taken legal measures to
assert control of terrorist activities. The Philippines is in the
process of enhancing its national legislation to combat
terrorists. At present, only Lao and Myanmar do not have specific
(or comprehensive) laws on terrorism.

The problem with the aforementioned national legislations is
that they may not be compatible with one another. And, worse, due
to their respective colonial histories, ASEAN countries have
adopted different legal systems.

With such difficulties in mind, and while considering some
assertions on the lack of political will, rather than the flaw,
or incompatibility of the existing national institutions and
mechanisms, an "ASEAN convention on combating terrorism" is worth
considering. Such a convention could help bridge the gaps among
various national legislations and contending legal systems in
South East Asia.

ASEAN has in fact developed a regional political
infrastructure -- seven declarations, a plan of action and its
work programs, an agreement and its protocols, joint communique
and statements etc. -- to deal with terrorism.

With the existing political infrastructure and, hopefully, a
more determined political will, a regional convention to suppress
terrorist activities is now a possibility. But what should such a
convention focus on? ASEAN can learn from the various anti-
terrorist treaties arrived at by other regional organizations.

The definition of terrorism, for one, is often a frustrating
starting point. But ASEAN could learn, for instance, from the
detailed definition of terrorism as elaborated in the 1999
Convention of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on
Combating International Terrorism.

Article 1 of the convention defines "terrorism" and "terrorist
crime". It also provides a comprehensive list of the criminal
acts accepted by the international community as terrorism.

Extradition, as a tool to combat transnational crime,
particularly terrorism, is always a controversial issue. The
capture of Hambali and the debate over his possible extradition
is the case brought to mind. Some states, including Singapore,
are cautious when they discuss extradition. But, for various
regional anti-terrorist treaties, extradition is a necessity.

The 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism
devoted 8 out of its 16 articles to dealing with extradition. And
6 out of 11 articles in the 1987 South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation on Suppression of Terrorism are devoted to
extradition. As such, provisions on extradition must likewise be
included in the ASEAN anti-terrorist convention.

In case an agreement on extradition is hard to reach, then,
alternatively, the ASEAN anti-terrorist convention could adopt
articles on extra-territorial investigations and mutual legal
assistance. The Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention on
the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism governs such an
arrangement. Thus, for instance, without necessarily calling for
an extradition, Indonesian police would be given access to
investigate an Indonesian citizen held in another country over
terrorist charges.

An ASEAN anti-terrorist convention could also serve as a
blueprint for technical cooperation. Here, the experience of
countries in East Europe is relevant. The 1999 Treaty of
Commonwealth of Independent States in Combating Terrorism governs
various technical matters, ranging from exchange of intelligences
to sending special anti-terrorist units to fight terrorists
operating in other member countries. (But ASEAN should not
necessarily step toward this extreme direction).

More importantly, and taking the promotion of the ASEAN
security community into consideration, the anti-terrorist
convention could function as a tool of social engineering.

A "dialog forum" involving academicians, experts, and
diplomats held last August in Semarang revealed the need for
ASEAN to promote a common understanding among the South East
Asian community about the teaching of jihad in the context of
pluralism and tolerance.

The ASEAN anti-terrorist convention could help attain such a
goal by, for instance, standardizing the curricula of religious
boarding schools (of various religions) in ASEAN countries.

Last but not least, the ASEAN anti-terrorist convention could
help strike the balance between the urgent need to protect the
ASEAN community from the dangers of terrorism, and, equally, the
pressing need to protect the suspects from the possible human
rights abuses, which are a form of state terrorism.

The opinions stated above are solely those of the author.