Southeast Asia's role in eradicating terrorism

Southeast Asia's role in eradicating terrorism

Jusuf Wanandi, Member, Board of Trustees, Centre of Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta

The interim period of the post-Cold War era ended with the
Sept. 11 terrorist act, and a new era has begun, characterized by
the United States' unipolar world. Washington by now has become
aware of its position of hegemony and does not hesitate to act
accordingly. The Iraq War has just confirmed the new era of U.S.
hegemony. How that is going to change the traditional balance of
power situation in East Asia is also a question to be
thoughtfully considered. And some developments to that effect
will be explained later.

There are two lessons to be learned from Sept. 11. One is the
radical ideology of this new global terrorism. They know no
limits when it comes to sacrificing the lives of innocent people,
and they base their ideology on some radical interpretation of
some Muslim teachings in the extreme. Those same teachings have
normal and acceptable explanations by mainstream and moderate
Islamic schools of thought.

Second, there is the global nature of the threat and their
ability to make use of modern technology. The evil genius of al
Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is their ability to integrate the
different local grievances in all parts of the globe into a well-
organized and focused group of radical terrorists, especially
against the U.S. and other Western interests. That is why
international cooperation is so critically important to overcome
them, particularly through cooperation in intelligence,
migration, border control, money laundering and police work. In
some instances, military means could be important, such as in the
case of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Related to the first issue is a very special kind of
cooperation with mainstream and moderate Muslims, because in the
end they have to overcome the wrong interpretation of Islam among
the rank-and-file believers, in order to show the humanistic and
peaceful intentions of Islam. They also have to show how Muslim
nations are able to modernize and become part of a globalized
world, as well as being democratic and economically developed
like the West and parts of East Asia. Only in this way can young
generations of Muslims be persuaded that they do not have to
despair for their own future. In short, it has to include also an
ideological struggle for winning the hearts and minds of Muslims.

Global terrorism has become a new challenge overriding other
normal threats in East Asia, especially in Southeast Asia, where
radical Muslim groups are operating and are helping al-Qaeda. The
largest one in Southeast Asia is regionally organized under the
name of Jamaah Islamiyah, and is based in Indonesia, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore and Southern Thailand.

Being a region of 250 million Muslims, or 20 percent of
Muslims worldwide, this could be a substantial threat. But at the
same time Islam in Southeast Asia is generally moderate and is
willing to separate politics and the state from religion. This is
a new phenomenon originating from Indonesia and gives hope that
there should be a new and enlightened Islam coming out of
Southeast Asia that could have an influence on Islam worldwide.
This is possible if they are successful in developing their
nations, have a functioning democratic political system and a
viable economy.

Since Islam is diverse in terms of numbers, ideas and
influence in the different Southeast Asian countries, the way
others should cooperate with each other on anti-terrorist
policies should also be different. Policies with regard to the
Philippines would naturally be different from those in Indonesia.
Thus far U.S. cooperation with each of them has been full of
nuance and finesse, which augurs well for the future.

Global terrorism has flourished in weak states in Southeast
Asia such as Indonesia, where domestic stability and security is
still a problem to be overcome due to the multiple crisis since
1997. One is the regional conflict of separatism such as in Aceh,
which is the most acute one. While these conflicts are
Indonesia's to solve, the international community can assist in
looking for a political solution.

On the Iraq War, the real question is whether the U.S. will
make the right conclusions and learn the right lessons from the
war.

First, it has to be recognized at the outset that the war is
seen by most people in East Asia as unnecessary. It was also not
sanctioned by the international community through the UN Security
Council. It was not necessary, because other means were available
and had not been exhausted before war as a last resort should was
applied. While it is recognized that in a situation of immediate
danger the principle of preemption is a possibility in self-
defense and has been applied in recent history, the immediacy of
the danger of the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
against the U.S. and others has not been proven convincingly.

At the same time, however, it should be recognized that the
U.S. has been outraged by Sept. 11, and that a strong sense of
vulnerability has been created among Americans nationwide. This
feeling aroused a sense of survival within the U.S. body politic,
and the possibility of terrorist attacks using WMD has become not
only a nightmare but also is very real to them.

A rogue regime like Saddam Hussein's that possesses WMD is
seen as an acute threat to U.S. interests. These new conditions
have to be recognized in these new asymmetrical threats, and new
rules should be agreed upon in the near future about the use of
force, including the principle of preemption both by the U.S. and
the international community.

But the debate is now temporarily over, and the most immediate
thing is to do peace-building in Iraq which could give legitimacy
to the U.S. and British occupying forces by the UN.

There is some hope that the U.S. would adopt a realistic
approach and is willing to take care of the post-war developments
to move the global and regional order in the right direction. The
U.S. has already overcome some of the negative effects of what
happened before and during the war by going to the UNSC again and
by asking the UNSC to participate in the decision on and
implementation of a post-War Iraq development program.

The world has only one superpower. It expects the U.S. to be
magnanimous and willing to listen to allies and friends and to
take their ideas and policies seriously into consideration. And
as the global leader, it should be willing to make some
sacrifices, which, in the end will be rewarded with support and
loyalty from allies and friends. And as was the case after World
War II, for over 50 years the U.S. leadership has been well
accepted and followed because of the rules and the institutions
the U.S. has created which were not only for her national
interest but also for the world's interest.

In most cases, the U.S. has been multilateral in its attitude
and the rest of the world should encourage them to do more of
that in the future. A diplomatic rupture, as was the case before
the Iraq War, is not a systemic or structural mistake of the
international system as it exists, but a result of diplomatic
bungling by both sides. These mistakes should be corrected in the
future, because the repetition of such diplomatic divisions could
damage the international system in the long-term.

The above is a slightly condensed version of the writer's
presentation at the Asian Security Conference in Singapore, held
from May 30 to June 1. The event was organized by the London-
based International Institute for Strategic Studies.