The changing world: Impact on security doctrines

Sri Najib Tun Razak, Minister of Defense, Malaysia

The system of international relations that governs the world today is in turbulence. The rules by which countries engage with one another have changed radically over the past 15 years. Not only are we are divided along political, economic, and geographic differences, but there is also great diversity within our own respective borders. It should be little surprise then, that our national policies -- on security, polities or economics -- are shaped by the needs and wants of a diverse range of constituents.

What then are the burning political and security issues that affect policy makers, political and business leaders todays? I would like to highlight five questions.

Firstly, is Islam a religion of violence? While its teachings are nonviolent, there are a number of terrorist groups who profess to furthering the cause of Islam by their acts of terror. These groups are driven by more worldly issues such as the desire for self determination, economic and political rights, and social justice.

Hence the second question: Can we hope to resolve conflicts by addressing the symptoms without firmly examining the root causes?

Palestine, for one, is not a religious conflict but one centered around territorial rights. Until the international community formally recognizes the right to peaceful co-existence of Israel and Palestine as two separate and viable states, instability and conflict will continue irrespective of international pressure on both sides to desist from violence.

Third: How far has the war in Iraq and Afghanistan helped to resolve the global threat of terrorism? There are those who argue that the war has created more recruits into the rank and file of terrorist networks. Others say terrorism will continue and that we will continue to be faced with random acts of terror. However, the successful prosecution of the war would have severed the possible collusion between states like Iraq and Afghanistan with individual terrorists groups and thus have deprived these groups from their traditional sources of funding and refuge.

We have not really seen a cessation of terrorist acts post Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of countries in Southeast Asia, have been categorized as potential targets for terrorism and in some cases like Malaysia are injustifiable.

Given that war is at best a blunt instrument to achieve stability and security in this new environment, should being anti war be equated with being anti-American7

Malaysia was strongly against the war in Iraq because we have never supported acts of violence in pursuit of political objectives. Malaysia opposed Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait in 1990 in clear breach of international law and supported the coalition organized by the U.S. under the auspices of the United Nations.

Since Sept. 11, Malaysia has been on the frontline of the global war on terrorism. We have put our faith in the governance of international institutions' and the diplomatic process of resolving conflict ... Malaysia also objects to the war on Iraq on several other principles. We are still waiting for evidence that Iraq was indeed a clear and present danger to the world.

However, we should not let our opposition to military intervention be interpreted as blanket anti-American stance. Both Malaysia and America are mindful of the very important interests that both nations share. The ties between Malaysia and the U.S. are deep in many important strategic areas. In trade and investment, the U.S. remains our largest trading partner.

We share a long history of mutually beneficial cultural, educational and military links. We espouse the same democratic principles and systems, economic aspirations and priorities with countries like the U.S.. Malaysia is an important bridge between the Muslim world and the West in many dimensions. We are also a modern, pragmatic and religious country where the Muslim majority coexists peacefully with those of other religions. We reserve the right to speak out against or in favor of other countries.

Finally, to what extent have we altered our military and security doctrine?

Malaysia's doctrine on security has not fundamentally changed. We have taken into consideration the need for economic prosperity, poverty alleviation, social justice and religious harmony. We will always endeavor to resolve conflict through peaceful means. Military objectives are subservient to the more holistic and humanistic priorities of our citizens.

Malaysia has attempted to pursue policies of non-violent conflict resolution. Where territorial claims overlap, we have endeavored to use joint economic development areas, for example with the Malaysia -- Thailand joint development area for the exploration of petroleum resources.

What has changed in this new environment is the need for our military and security apparatus to be better prepared and equipped to deal with unexpected and new challenges to stability -- non-state actors such as religious extremists, international drug networks, and illegal migrants. Governments in Southeast Asia have also been more open to having fellow member states act as mediators in what have trading been viewed as domestic conflicts.

We all now face the common and ominous threat of terrorism. Some have to deal with the demands of potential separatist groups, and some have remaining conflicts with our neighbours to resolve. We must seek common ground and empower our collective decision making bodies to arbitrate between our different perspectives, priorities and views.

The role of international institutions such as the UN have become largely obscured. Regime change by external forces, once considered the ultimate violation of state sovereignty, has now become a valid objective of another states national security. Without effective global institutions to govern and moderate such excesses of stronger, more powerful nations, other states may well follow suit and pursue their own political, security and economic interests at the expense of their neighbors, enemies or even economic rivals. This is a clear recipe for a turbulent new world disorder.

Traditional military and security doctrines will need to increasingly take into account the social, economic and political consequences of conflict. We will need to concern ourselves much mom with reconstruction efforts following conflict, and the strategy to bring about a return to normalcy and representative government for those most affected.

We face threats that can no longer be as clearly defined as before. We need to urgently consider other means to achieve stability and security -- through dialog and if necessary accommodation. Mankind would not have made progress if we continue to see war as the primary means to make peace in our time. We owe it to the rest of humanity to find a better solution to our problems.

The above is a condensed version of the writer's presentation at the Asian Security Conference in Singapore, held from May 30 to June 1. The event was organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.