U.S. refocuses on Southeast Asia, hopefully for proper reasons

U.S. refocuses on Southeast Asia, hopefully for proper reasons

Chua Lee Hoong, The Straits Times, Asia News Network, Singapore

In 1991, while studying at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Massachusetts in the United States, a 49-year-old American student at one of the Harvard graduate schools asked me if Singapore was in China.

Couldn't blame her, I suppose; those were pre-Michael Fay times. Singapore featured in the American consciousness, if at all, probably as "one of those developing nations".

Many of the items in the ubiquitous Gap clothing stores then were labeled "Made in Singapore". When Singapore was mentioned at all during the classes I attended, it was as one of the states in the "pirate-infested" Straits of Malacca.

Returning to Boston recently, I looked to see if things had changed.

Yes, they had. Gap clothes now overwhelmingly proclaim themselves "Made in China", as did almost everything else in American stores. (An unusual exception was a "Made in Brunei" line of clothing in a shop, which I found interesting because it is a sign that the oil-exporting sultanate is widening its economic base.)

A story in the Boston Globe told of how New England's world- renowned medical centers were losing international patients in the wake of Sept. 11, primarily to Germany and Singapore. As a Singaporean worrying about the Republic's economic fortunes, the news provided some lift.

What was more gratifying, however, was coming across a story in the subway freesheet, the Boston Metro, about the joint declaration signed by the U.S. and ASEAN in Brunei on cooperating against terrorism.

Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines were leading the regional charge in the war against terror, the story noted in its concluding line.

The story took up only a small space, but for it to have been carried at all by a minor newspaper was reassurance that Southeast Asia is back on the radar of ordinary Americans.

Along with many others in this part of the world, however, I hope that U.S. attention here is for the right reasons.

A July article in Foreign Affairs, Is South-east Asia the second front?, notes that the U.S. "has not acted as a partner with countries in the region since the end of the Cold War".

"Now that Washington has rediscovered Southeast Asia as the source of a perceived security threat" -- echoes of Indochina? -- "the partnership should be recreated in a way that addresses issues of mutual concern," said author John Gershman.

Seen against that light, last week's declaration was path- breaking: U.S. administrations have traditionally showed little interest in ASEAN or support for its initiatives. But it still failed to escape accusations of perceived American high- handedness in the way the agreement was reached.

While most governments in Southeast Asia see strategic benefits in friendly relations with the U.S., their populations are not all as pragmatic. Opposition to America exists in virtually every country in the region, varying only in degree and manifestation.

In the Philippines, for instance, despite strenuous American denials, the presence of U.S. troops for the first time after 10 years fosters suspicion that the U.S. wants to re-establish military bases and is using the anti-terror campaign as a smokescreen.

Clyde Prestowitz, a trade negotiator under President Ronald Reagan, wrote recently on the "hundreds of expressions of new and disturbing alienation from America" that he came across during a visit to 14 Asian, European and Latin American capitals.

He concluded: "The U.S. must pay more than lip service to the views of others. When the White House finds it necessary, as it sometimes will, to swim against the stream of international opinion, it should take pains to explain why and offer alternatives."

The U.S., to its credit, has begun to take cognizance of these views. More than taking cognizance, it has also embarked on concrete measures.

The U.S. Senate decided last week to ease restrictions on military assistance to Indonesia in the next fiscal year. Congressional approval is now the remaining hurdle on the path towards more normal military ties with Indonesia.

Washington has also pledged to grant Manila US$100 million (S$174 million) this year in development aid and another $55 million to counter terrorism.

But can sending money, guns and troops be enough? Certainly not. And realizing that, the U.S. is also sponsoring a forthcoming visit of civic and religious leaders from the American Muslim community to Indonesia.

Visits like these should be vastly expanded in order to increase understanding on both sides. They should become more frequent and include a wider spectrum of people.

Those who influence opinion in America should be given the opportunity to see South-east Asia for themselves, instead of through the restrictive lenses of biased interest groups.

American heartland media can, for a start, cover South-east Asia more comprehensively, instead of only those incidents involving their citizens. Apart from the media, most ordinary Americans have no lens at all through which to see this part of the world.

How many realize, for instance, that tiny Singapore alone is America's 10th-largest export market, or that American companies have billions of dollars in numerous stakes here?

Finally, capping American efforts to reach out to Southeast Asia, President George W. Bush should pay a visit to the region to explain American intentions.

Both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell were in the region recently, but the closest Bush has come to Southeast Asia was in February, when he visited China, Japan and South Korea.

That trip was billed as winning the continued support of the three countries in the fight against global terrorism.

Given that some in his administration branded Southeast Asia as "the second front" after Afghanistan, the President's failure to make a personal visit here is tantamount in some eyes to adding insult to injury.

Equally importantly, a Bush visit will signal to American audiences that the U.S. values countries here, and that despite some militants at large here, the entire region ought not to be tarred with the same terrorist brush.

At stake is an important cause: Combating international terrorism without splintering the world or causing an Islamic backlash. Paying attention to the second leg of the cause is as important as the first.