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.