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.