Susilo, APEC and the broad issue of terrorism

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.