Thai problems, neighborly tempers

For four decades, the amity between members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been the bedrock of the region's vibrancy. ASEAN leaders became "cronies", with their personal bonds ensuing much given-and-take within relationships, allowing disagreements to be shelved far from the fire of conflict.

But the contours of the relationships that we thought were so strong remain subject to personal ambitions, over-sensitivity and national zealousness.

It turns out that the ASEAN community that we thought was so solid is in fact sated with nervous niceties and cagey evasions.

How else can one explain the brouhaha over Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's remarks concerning religious militants in his country being trained in Malaysia and Indonesia. Both the remarks, and the ensuing reaction, were completely unnecessary.

From the outset the Thai prime minister should not have childishly responded with threats of a walk-out upon hearing that the issue of the deaths of dozens of detainees in Tak Bai, southern Thailand could be raised during last months ASEAN Summit in Vientiane.

If Thaksin had simply briefed the summit for a few minutes on his government's inquiry into the matter, there is little doubt that the meeting would have come out with a statement of regional support for Thailand's efforts to resolve the matter.

Instead, the Thai leader has since stoked even more controversy by saying that Thai militants in Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat provinces were trained in neighboring Malaysia and brainwashed by Indonesian militants.

Even if these accusations were true, it makes little sense to make statements in such a finger pointing manner, as if to say 'you are the cause of all my troubles'.

Diplomatic channels would have been a much more appropriate way of conveying these concerns, and intelligence exchanges would have been more effective in stemming acts of terror, if indeed it was Thaksin's intent to alert his neighbors that terrorists were exploiting their backyards.

If not, then we can only conclude that Thaksin was playing on his neighbors ire for a wholly unrelated domestic agenda. It is very unfortunate indeed when good neighborliness is sacrificed upon the alter of domestic political interest, especially when the issues concerned have little to do with the neighbor in the first place.

Prime Minister Thaksin needs reminding that even his own investigating committee concluded there was major wrongdoing in the way authorities handled the protesters in Tak Bai.

The somewhat fierce reaction of Indonesian officials to Thaksin's comments was understandable, but rather unnecessary.

They should know -- even better than Thaksin himself -- that this vast archipelago has been used for years as a training ground for terrorists. One only has to look at the numerous deadly attacks here as evidence. Thus whenever anyone makes any statement about terrorism and Indonesia, at the very least there is probably a grain of truth in it.

Our officials should also know that Indonesia's security apparatus was in a state of shambles during the late 1990s and 2000, thus allowing much covert activity to go unchecked.

However, the most important part of Thaksin's statement was what he did not say: He did not say that the Indonesian government was sponsoring or purposely allowing these activities to take place, neither did he say that the Indonesian people were supporting terrorist elements.

A simple, terse response from Indonesian officials would have sufficed, and would not have inflamed the situation further. Instead, our senior officials allowed themselves to be manipulated by a man desperate for domestic political support.

The saddest part of this whole affair is that amidst all the angry diplomatic exchanges, not a word has been said about justice for the 85 people who died in the tragedy.