|
Dominos in Southeast Asia
Ximena Ortiz
Published 6/27/2002
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.
|
