The Washington Times, June 27, 2002
Dominos in Southeast Asia
Ximena Ortiz
BANGKOK, Thailand. -- Just when you'd relegated firebrand ideology in Southeast
Asia to the secure corridors of history's libraries, a belief system of domino-toppling
potential is sweeping the waterways, jungles and cities of Southeast Asia. More than
two decades after the end of the Vietnam War, a familiar question has once again
become lamentably pertinent: Are we losing Southeast Asia?
Although the media has focused on the Middle East as the source of virulent
anti-Americanism coupled, according to the militants, to the Muslim faith, it is
becoming increasingly clear that this sentiment is gaining pace in Southeast Asia. In
fact, this region has been identified as the likely area for al Qaeda's relocation and the
second front of the war on terror.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, while in Singapore for an Asian security
conference, warned recently of a "gathering storm" of terrorism. Some high-profile
arrests that governments in the area have made in the wake of September 11 testify
to the proliferation of terrorist cells in the area. Malaysia has arrested 62 people it
says were plotting terrorist attacks. In December, authorities in Singapore arrested 13
militants believed to have links to al Qaeda. One of their cells had already obtained
four tons of ammonium nitrate to use as an explosive. Intelligence officials in Malaysia
believe that the men had links to a terrorist known as Hambali, who is believed to have
arranged refuge for Zacarias Moussaoui when he visited Malaysia.
In January, authorities in the Philippines seized on intelligence from Singapore to
arrest an Indonesian munitions expert believed to have been trained by al Qaeda just
hours before he was scheduled to fly to Thailand. As a result of the arrest, the police
in the Philippines uncovered explosives, detonators and other bomb-making
equipment which, according to the Philippines police chief, Leandro Mendoza, "were
[powerful] enough to level a block of houses." In March, Agus Dwi Karna, an
Indonesian suspected of being a member of a group linked to al Qaeda, was arrested
at Manila's international airport for possessing components for explosive devices. He
was deported along with two Britons, a Japanese and a second Indonesian.
Widespread adherence to Muslim militancy in Southeast Asia is rudely surprising
because it is a very new phenomenon. After all, this militancy, coupled with anti-U.S.
fervor, has only recently spread even in the Middle East. A few short decades ago,
Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and many other states were cosmopolitan,
open societies. Even the Muslim fundamentalists that prevailed in the states of Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia were far from virulently anti-American.
And for all the talk of Islamic extremism being medieval, Muslims were models of
tolerance compared to their Crusading Christian contemporaries at that historic
juncture. Islam, which emerged after Judaism and Christianity, quite specifically
instructs Muslims to respect the beliefs of Christians and Jews, since they are people
of the book and therefore guided by a definitive moral code. Jesus is one of Islam's
holiest prophets, as is Moses.
In the past few decades, Islamic fundamentalism and anti-American sentiment has
obviously intensified in the Middle East. But how did Muslim militancy hopscotch
continents to claim the minds of so many in Southeast Asia? Judging from the
statements of the region's leaders, the psychological component of Muslims'
discontent seems to be surprisingly similar in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. In
rare but still lethal cases, that discontent mutates to militancy.
Clearly, the Israeli-Palestinian issue resonates unmistakably with Muslims in
Southeast Asia, despite the geographical distance from the conflict. In a speech last
Thursday, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who condemns suicide
bombings and terrorism in general, called on Malaysians to shun Muslim militancy.
But he also voiced strong concern for the Palestinian people: "Ariel Sharon, the prime
minister of Israel, believes that terror can be stopped by more terror against those
whom he claims are sponsors of terrorists. Every time Israel and its people are
attacked by the Palestinian suicide bombers, Sharon orders more Palestinians to be
killed. The ultimate was the attack against Jenin, where concrete houses were
destroyed while the occupants were still in them."
Also, poverty in the region, and its ability to stoke terrorist tendencies, has
policymakers so worried that it was a focus of a recent meeting, not of finance
ministers, but of defense ministers. At a security conference earlier this month in
Singapore, Southeast Asian defense ministers called for unity to stamp out poverty
and discontent. "While we embark on the global war on terror, I believe we should also
embark on a global war on injustice, poverty and underdevelopment," said Malaysian
Defense Minister Najib Razak.
But just what should America pledge to do? Should Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld have a new "war on poverty" division? Can the White House single-handedly
deliver peace to Israel and Palestine, and lift Southeast Asia or, better yet, the world,
out of poverty? The answer to these questions is obvious enough. But there are a
couple of tactical and ethical positions the White House should stand for,
unwaveringly, because they are the source of the country's superpower durability.
America must adhere to its principles, rather than alliances, which, after all, are more
ephemeral. It must banish any kind of moral relativism from its lexicon -- the
standards that apply to some must apply to all. The White House must reach out to
the developing world in general, and prove it is willing to give emerging economies a
greater stake in the riches of globalization. And, quite importantly, it must continue to
press even its allies on gradual democratic progress and the respect of inviolable
human-rights standards (everybody knows, in their gut, what these are).
The White House surely recognizes that the war on terror has a distinctly
psychological component. It must therefore work especially hard to engage the region
diplomatically and through new avenues of trade and development. No one wants to
hear the sounds of falling dominos in Southeast Asia, especially since this time the
impact will be felt here.
Ximena Ortiz is an editorial writer for The Washington Times.
All site contents copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc.
|
