S'pore stand on terrorism not just empty rhetoric

S'pore stand on terrorism not just empty rhetoric

Bantarto Bandoro, Editor, 'The Indonesian Quarterly',
Centre for Strategic International Studies, Jakarta

Indonesian-Singaporean relations have not been particularly
warm over the past year. Now, the two countries have again become
involved in a war of words following the remarks of the
Singaporean Senior Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, that his country
remained at risk from a terrorist attack because leaders of
regional extremist cells were still at large in Indonesia. This
war of words comes at a time when the Southeast Asia countries
are set to join the global antiterrorist coalition.

National Intelligence Agency (BIN) chief Lt.Gen. (ret) A.M.
Hendropriyono stated before the House of Representative's foreign
affairs commission last week that "if al-Qaeda is said to have
branches or chapters in Indonesia, it is totally baseless. If
there are people who have been contacted, that does not
necessarily mean there is a network. But there are contact
persons (in Indonesia)" (The Jakarta Post, Feb.21). But doesn't
Hendropriyono ever think that the sustainability of terrorist
networks is attributed to, among other things, the clandestine
roles of such contact persons?

The post-Sept. 11 period has led countries in this part of the
world to be preoccupied by the issue of terrorism, and there has
even been strong calls for a regional coalition against
terrorism. The issue could become a cementing factor in regional
relations within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, but
it could also be a factor that is likely to fracture bilateral
relations. This is exactly what has happened to relations between
Indonesia and Singapore. Thus, bearing in mind ASEAN's
weaknesses, its new fight against terrorism will always be
constrained by elements that derive from the member countries'
bilateral relations. Terrorism is indeed a real test for ASEAN
solidarity.

Lee's statement has sparked strong protests from the
Indonesian public and officials. Some say that Lee's statement
has gone too far in that it constitutes intervention in our
domestic affairs. Others demand that the government sever
diplomatic relations with Singapore. Would one expect more
stable regional relations were these two countries detached
diplomatically from each other only because of the issue of
terrorism? Or would Indonesia gain more economically were
Singapore no longer a part of Indonesia's regional policy? It is
perhaps very unrealistic to raise such an idea at a time when
both countries are facing serious challenges from international
terrorist activities.

While Singapore may be wrong to make remarks that touch on
Indonesia's notion of sovereignty, Indonesia should not be so
defensive and emotional in reacting to Lee's remarks. Why should
Indonesia's reaction be so defensive when Indonesia has stated
publicly that it is also aware of the grave danger created by
terrorist activities? Lee's remarks must be seen as an attempt by
the region's most senior statesmen to cultivate regional
sentiment about the need to treat terrorists indiscriminately.

Being the most senior statesman in the region, one who has
gained worldwide recognition for his public statements, it is
believed that Lee has no intention of personally intervening in
Indonesia's domestic affairs and hurting those who claim to be
part of Indonesia's Muslim community. Lee's statement must be
seen from the perspective of Singapore's geopolitical position.
As a tiny city state, Singapore has always been vulnerable to
most types of threat coming both from inside and outside
Singapore, even non-conventional types of threat such as
terrorism.

But one must not ignore the fact that, even as a tiny city,
Singapore has been able to demonstrate to the world its continued
success in economic development and maintaining domestic
stability. Perhaps it is not wrong to say that against the
background of its success in economic development Singapore has
successfully applied the most advanced technology in every field.
Singapore's belief that terrorist activities are being managed
from its immediate neighbor may be the result of the use of
advanced technology to support its intelligence networking.

Indonesia, on the other hand, has not been able to provide the
public with an accurate analysis of the possible existence of
terrorist networks in the country, if such an analysis is indeed
needed. It was reported that Hendropriyono once publicly admitted
the possible existence of the al-Qaeda network in the country and
even suggested their involvement in the conflict in Poso. The
statement was then withdrawn following strong criticism from
certain interests in the country who claimed that the al-Qaeda
network was irrelevant to the conflict in Poso.

BIN's intelligence analyses often gives rise to confusion.
This reflects not only a lack of coordination in the national
intelligence network, but also a lack of sophisticated
information technology that could be used for early and accurate
detection. Thus, Lee's remarks on terrorism should not be seen as
provocative, but rather as telling Indonesia to be more adaptive
to technology development so as to be able to identify accurately
whatever is a source of terrorist threat. Or perhaps Indonesia
should learn more from the way Singapore utilizes technology to
support intelligence networks.

Lee's statement is a clear reflection of the concern that the
region be freed from terrorist activities. There is, in fact,
nothing new in his statement, nothing that has not been said by
Singapore's Foreign Minister and other foreign leaders, namely
that Indonesia may be a safe haven for terrorists. The professor
Juwono Sudarsono is absolutely correct when he pointed to the
inconsistencies in Indonesia's reaction to foreign critics of the
country's perceived tardiness in fighting terrorism (The Jakarta
Post, Feb. 25).

The rift in Indonesian-Singaporean relations will certainly
have a spillover effect on the stability of the ASEAN coalition
against terrorism. This is part of the complexity of ASEAN's
fight against terrorism and the pitfalls that lie before it. If
ASEAN's strategy in combating terrorism is to be seen as
indiscriminate, then it is urgent for its members to work out
ways that would remove the potential frictions that could hamper
the execution of ASEAN policy against terrorism.

Lee's statement on terrorism has at least provided an
additional stimulus for the region in combating international
terrorism. The allegation by some Indonesian officials that
Singapore is a mouthpiece of the United States is a reflection of
a hollow understanding of the regional political and security
configuration in the post-Sept. 11 environment.

Unilateralism in fighting terrorism has now become a thing of
the past. It is only through extensive contacts and coordination
that the coalition can garner international support and thus
guarantees for its sustainability. Thus, there is nothing wrong
with Singapore acting as a regional front-runner in the U.S.-led
coalition against international terrorism, if that is what the
current policy of Singapore in fighting terrorism is meant to be.

ASEAN must appreciate Singapore's efforts in keeping the issue
of terrorism alive and intact as part of the regional agenda.
Lee's statement on terrorism, after all, came from the most
uncorrupt and stable country in the region, and the country that
has the smartest leadership. Indonesia, therefore, should not
take Lee Kuan Yew as a joke. In Juwono's analysis, time will tell
whether Lee's concerns were right and whether the Indonesian
government's response was appropriate.