Susilo, APEC and the broad issue of terrorism

S.P. SETH, Freelance Journalist

While global terrorism is a major problem, sometimes it is even a bigger problem for countries to convince the United States that they share its commitment to fight and eradicate it. Indonesia is an important example.

It has been the target of terrorist violence on more than one occasion, and is quite serious about combating this threat. But there is a feeling in the United States and Australia that it hasn't been doing as much as it should-though President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is presently enjoying their goodwill. And he would obviously like to keep it that way. Not surprisingly, therefore, terrorism featured prominently in his address to the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Santiago.

He said, "To fight terrorists who ignore borders, governments must evolve a different security culture. Our police, intelligence, immigration officials must be able to work together extensively. The community of nations must evolve a new global security culture where the norm is for all law enforcement agencies to cooperate with one another."

And to showcase his country as an exemplary case of such cooperation, Susilo highlighted what Indonesia and Australia "did when we co-sponsored a number of regional conferences on people's smuggling, money laundering and counter-terrorism."

Another one on inter-religious dialogue is due early next month in Jakarta. According to Alexander Downer, Australian foreign minister, the idea behind it is "to empower the moderates in religious communities and encourage them to take more of a lead in addressing regional issues", especially terrorism.

The inter-faith dialogue is an interesting idea but not likely to do much good. Because all such initiatives start with the underlying assumption that Islam needs help from moderates within its ranks who, in turn, need propping up from outside. In the process the moderates tend to lack credibility in their wider Muslim constituency, being regarded as agents of external powers out to divide and decimate Islam.

It is not to suggest this is a valid or correct view, but the perception persists. For instance, Canberra has excluded Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly, Mufti of Australia, from its Muslim delegates for his outspoken views. But it has included Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, in the delegation who created quite a controversy recently by comparing Islam to communism, which is an atheist ideology.

But getting back to the APEC conference, there is some welcome shift in the US and Australian position. They seem to be recognizing that terrorism is more than just a security problem. In his address to APEC business leaders, President Bush said, "In the past, many powerful nations preferred others to remain underdeveloped, and, therefore, dependent. It was a cynical doctrine. And that doctrine is unsuited for our times."

He elaborated, "Weak and troubled nations export their ills- problems like economic instability and illegal immigration and crime and terrorism. America and others sitting around the table here at APEC understand that healthy and prosperous nations export and import goods and services that help to stabilize regions and add security to every nation."

Not surprisingly, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia is also now thinking on these lines. According to him, "It is important to try and tackle those inequalities in societies which provide, how I should put it, a point of advocacy for terrorists."

President Susilo, of course, emphasized the link between economic backwardness, and growth of terrorism and other crimes. Which establishes a common ground of sorts with the United States, Australia and other countries similarly inclined.

But how do you go about reversing the situation of "increasing disparity between the haves and the have-nots, between developed and developing countries"?

The United States (as do Australia) believe that this could and should be done through trade and globalization. The problem, though, is that the terms of global trade are stacked against the developing countries because the rich and powerful generally define and lay down the rules of the game in their favor. Though they might now think that terrorism requires some bait for the poorer countries ("which provide a point of advocacy for terrorists"), there is no blueprint to translate it into practice.

And even if one were to eventuate, the time lag between a plan and its implementation and consequent benefits for the poorer countries is unlikely to make much difference, at least in the medium term, to tackling the problem of global terrorism.

Interestingly, reporting from APEC conference in Santiago, Tom Allard of the Sydney Morning Herald thus summed up the consensus reached among the summit leaders to defeat the "scourge of violent Islamism", as he put it. It included intelligence sharing, eradicating radical Muslim schools that teach hatred, more discussions between the leaders of different religions and nations and, and economic development. It is worth noting that economic development features last in the list.

Even more tellingly, the APEC conference (essentially a regional forum to promote trade liberalization) ended up being essentially an adjunct to the problem of global terrorism.

President Susilo was right when he said in his keynote address: "It goes without saying that security and prosperity are two sides of the same coin. But since Sept. 11, the dynamics between them are changingThe world economy, particularly APEC economies, must now strive to find the right balance between security concerns and open trade."

The pity, though, is that the rest of his address read like an essay on terrorism.