U.S. demands put Muslim nations in quandary

Takashi Shiraishi, Kyoto University's Center for Southeast Asian Studies, The Yomiuri Shimbun, Asia News Network, Tokyo

A year and four months have passed since the "war on terrorism" began in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

As the attacks recede into the past, however, fewer and fewer news reports appear about Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, which was widely held responsible for the attacks, and Jemaah Islamiyah, the alleged perpetrator of a bomb blast at a nightclub in the tourist resort of Bali, Indonesia, on Oct. 12 last year.

This decrease in media attention comes as the memories of the war in Afghanistan fade away, and war in Iraq appears to take place anytime.

This does not, of course, mean that the "war against the international network of Islamist terrorists" centering on al- Qaeda has come to an end, as the terrorist activities of al- Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah and others are certainly continuing.

The ongoing war on terrorism has given rise to politically sensitive problems in countries where Muslims account for a great majority of the population.

What is the nature of these problems, then? Why have they arisen?

From Japanese media reports on terrorism over the past 16 months, one may be forgiven for thinking that such militant Islamist groups as al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah are nothing more than groups of "crazy people" that lack clear-cut political agendas.

One may also get the impression that these groups first appeared in the Middle East, greatly expanded their ranks in the jihad in Afghanistan, and rapidly spread across North Africa, Central Asia, South Asia and Southeast Asia.

These impressions, however, run counter to reality.

The Islamists are not "crazy," who transgress the bounds of ethics and morality, but are members of political organizations espousing the ideology of "Islamism."

Islamists call for establishing an Islamic state governed by Islamic law, or Shariah, as commanded by the teachings of Islam.

This can be said in spite of the fact that there are considerable differences in views among Islamist groups themselves regarding strategies and tactics that should be employed to achieve their goals.

In other words, Islamists refuse any separation of church and state. Islam vests all sovereignty in God alone, categorically refusing to pay reverence to anything other than God as sovereign.

The modern world is based on two organizing principles -- the nation-state system and capitalism. Our conception of the nation state, which is reflected in phrases such as "we, the nation," makes states -- secular states -- ontologically significant. Neither the modern nation-state nor capitalism attach any ontological significance to God.

To Islamists, however, such principles are anathema. For them, sovereignty resides with God alone, never the people.

In this sense, Islamism is a revolutionary ideology for it flatly denies the very foundation on which the modern world is built.

The terrorist atrocities perpetrated by proponents of Islamism are, to them, political activities meant to bring about revolutionary changes in the modern world as we know it.

It also is wrong to say that Islamism, after first appearing in the Middle East, spread across North Africa, South Asia, Southeastern Asia and so on as a result of the jihad in Afghanistan.

In fact, many Islamist groups across the world -- such as Harakatul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-i-Taiba in Pakistan and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines -- are indigenous to their respective areas.

Even though it was only after Sept. 11, 2001, that Islamist groups came to the attention of the world's media, their emergence as revolutionary forces in countries where Islam is strong predates the attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

The assertion that all Islamist revolutionary groups should be treated as if they are international terrorists originating, by and large, in the Middle East, is a typically American way of thinking.

This is why the U.S. has caused problems in its war on terrorism in countries where Muslims are in a majority.

The U.S. has, for example, demanded that the Indonesian government clamp down on Jemaah Islamiyah as part of its "war on terrorism."

In addition, the governments of Malaysia and Singapore have taken dozens of Jemaah Islamiyah activists into custody under their respective internal security acts. These arrests were often only possible because of information provided by the U.S.

However, a deep-rooted distrust of the U.S. government remains among many Muslims. Indeed, many Muslims suspect that the war on terrorism championed by the U.S. may in reality be just a "war on Islam."

Cracking down on people acting in the name of Islamism in countries with Muslim majorities, in the way being demanded by the U.S. government, could provoke anger among Muslims.

What, then, should be done?

The government of Indonesia, in this connection, did two things worthy of note.

First, the police investigated a series of bombings, including the Bali blast, as criminal cases. They arrested suspects -- who were Jemaah Islamiyah activists -- for criminal, not political, offenses.

Conversely, Malaysia and Singapore arrested those Jemaah Islamiyah activists as political prisoners.

In light of principles of democracy and human rights, there can be no question about which of these two approaches should be considered better.

In addition, the Indonesian government has got in touch with leaders of powerful Islamic organizations informally and explained the government's position, while asking them not to equate the arrests of the Jemaah Islamiyah activists with antagonizing Islam in its entirety.

The government of Indonesia has also been fairly successful in persuading the Islamic leaders to make statements opposing both terrorism and the Islamist campaigns.

The measures are carefully designed to politically contain those resorting to violence in the name of Islam.

This may not be easy to understand.

However, the U.S. is often uninformed of the domestic affairs of Islamic countries, and tends to urge them to join the war on terrorism in simplistic fashion.

Such an attitude is at least in part responsible for the U.S. being seen as arrogant, which is bound to incur adverse reactions from Muslims.

Islamist activists are found everywhere in the world, but it is noteworthy that the influence of such people varies from country to country.

The reasons for this are numerous, but one important factor is whether nation-building has been successfully achieved.

Simply put, it depends on whether the government concerned can guarantee its people justice and provide its population with minimum services to ensure the security of their daily lives.

It is this factor that is of decisive significance -- whether the people accept the government as legitimate and as their own. Whether militant Islamist forces could be contained depends on the government gaining the confidence and endorsement of the populace.

Needless to say, "winning hearts and minds of the population" is primarily up to each government.

However, there are some things we can do.

For example, we could help contain Islamist forces by helping moderate Islamic organizations undertake projects to combine Islamic and secular, technical education, which is well suited to the age of globalization in all sectors of society.

What is truly needed in addressing such tasks is not something that the U.S. and its allies alone can make sense of, but the power of imagination to understand the wishes of people they are attempting to "help." Such understanding is undoubtedly a prerequisite for winning the war on terrorism.