EVENTS

Date:	Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Time:	10:00 AM -- 1:00 PM
Location:	Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

May 2006

Security Crisis in Southeast Asia: Terrorism, Despotism, and American Interests

 

In the past decade, Southeast Asia has faced a series of crises: the Asian financial crisis, Islamic and separatist terrorism, continued instability in recently democratized states, the erratic security behavior of the military junta in Burma, and the 2004 tsunami disaster. Despite Southeast Asia's progress toward democratization and economic development in the late twentieth century, the region's future remains in doubt, with grave implications for the large share of global trade and energy supplies that transit the region. How are the governments of Southeast Asia responding to these challenges, and what support do they require from the United States? What are the ties between Southeast Asian separatists and the global jihadi movement? Can the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) maintain progress towards regional integration while the regime in Burma fuels regional insecurity and competition between India and China? What interests and responsibilities does America have in the region? These and other questions were considered at a May 24 AEI panel discussion.

Panel I: The War on Terror in Southeast Asia

Sidney Jones
International Crisis Group

The Indonesian government is making major strides combating major terrorist networks. However, there are still some underlying problems. First is interagency coordination, a problem not unique to Indonesia. Second is the prison regime in Indonesia and the need to find a proper balance between punishment and rehabilitation. Prisons are too relaxed rather than being too harsh. The third problem is with recruitment. Although when and where the recruitment occurs could be determined, it is difficult to figure out how to solve the problem without disrupting the civil liberties and arousing political backlash. The blurry line and the difference between clandestine groups and some aboveground organizations has to be realized.

The other aspects of concern are international training, financing, and ideological influences. The only place where Indonesians are actively training is Mindanov. However, there are no Indonesians and Southeast Asians in Iraq. Second, with regard to international financing, though there is funding coming from individual donors especially in the Gulf, all the organizations in Indonesia are struggling for cash. Third, with regard to the ideological influences, there is a change occurring from old writings by people like Abdul Azaam to the writings from radical Egyptian and Saudi groups that are translated from Arabic to Indonesian by people detained on the charges of terrorism. International ideological influences are important, extensive, and largely derived from access to websites that can be reached from anywhere and by anyone around the world.

Panitan Wattanayagorn
Johns Hopkins University

In the last two years, violence in Thailand has increased twenty-five times. Human deaths have increased in southern Thailand. Murder has become more prevalent. The modes of attack have become more sophisticated. Despite these trends, there has been a decrease in security operations. This is due to the various factors such as budget cuts, shifts in command, more control from the local leaders, and more open borders. The methods of attack are better organized, coordinated, and sophisticated than in the past. There is a better command control and centralized planning. The attackers have established their operations at different locations and units. They have international, youth, economic, and various other divisions. They also have a secretary and a finance section. Their present intention is to take control of the southern area.

The government has set up a new organization in Bangkok to address this problem. The Ministry of Interior and the police work more closely together within this framework. The government has invested about US$500 million into this new structure and has come up with various strategies for strengthening the security. These include strengthening the borders, organizing villagers under self- defense protecting units, and enacting confidence-inducing programs for the panicked public. There have also been many human resource projects created under the southern border peace building command.

However, the new structure of the peace building command center is complicated and is difficult to implement, especially during wartime. The situation in the region is also very complicated since whatever happens in southern Thailand could have an impact on the neighboring countries as well, as it is becoming a center for radical groups. Therefore, the neighboring countries and the United States should extend their assistance in countering this problem.

Marvin Ott
National Defense University

The countries in Southeast Asia have long histories and deeply rooted cultures. The colonial intervention by the Europeans and the United States had the effect of breaking a set of viable and sophisticated political systems and societies. Further effects include subordination, humiliation, and subjugation. This gave rise to an anti-colonial reaction and modern state independence movements with the motto of throwing out the aliens and establishing a local autonomy. Subsequently, aspiring modern secular states have emerged. The net effect was that many elements of the traditional culture were marginalized and disrespected. This was also the case with the Islamic community, a part of the minority population which was ethnically disfranchised and devalued. This gave rise to the separatist movements of various Islamic groups, which developed a sense of collective fate.

The solution lies in building the state capacity to address this issue. The whole phenomenon of jihadist terrorism has an impact on Southeast Asia in geopolitical terms. This phenomenon, which is a manifestation of state weakness, loosens the security fabric of the region. The Islamic jihadist movements have potential geopolitical and maritime threats. However, these concerns have led to some positive consequences. First, there is a remarkable growth in the security cooperation in the region. Second, there has been enhanced cooperation and interaction between the American and Indonesian militaries in terms of bilateral security.

Panel II: Burma: The Challenge to Regional Security and Integration

Jared Genser
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary

Several efforts made in the past to achieve reconciliation in Burma have failed. Therefore, President Havel and Bishop Tutu have decided to launch a new initiative. A report was commissioned in this regard for three reasons. First, it is important to jumpstart the international debate on Burma and get beyond the debate over sanctions. Second, the authors wanted to increase the global understanding of the criteria for Security Council intervention and why Burma met those criteria. Third, they wanted to apply further pressure on the military junta in Burma.

The threat to peace is not defined under the UN Charter. There are five criteria when the Security Council has tended to get involved in the past: when there is an overthrow of a democratically elected government, when there is a conflict between the central government and ethnic factions, when there are widespread internal humanitarian violations, when there is an outflow of refugees, and in the case of other factors such as drug trafficking and spread of HIV/AIDS. Burma meets all of the aforementioned criteria.

The report has made some recommendations. It outlines the major reasons for the Security Council’s involvement. It requires the government of Burma to work on implementing a plan for national reconciliation, prescribing the process. It requests the secretary general to remain vigorously engaged in the resolution process and report back to the Security Council regularly. It urges the government of Burma to ensure the immediate, safe, and unhindered access to all parts of the country for the UN and international humanitarian organizations to provide humanitarian assistance. It calls for the unconditional release of Aung San Su Kyi and all prisoners of conscience in the country.

The next step would be the challenge of getting public disclosure in Burma. Nevertheless, the endorsement by the Security Council of the state’s responsibility to protect innocent civilians from egregious human right violations provides another reason why Burma is a threat to peace. Most importantly, Under Secretary Gambani’s visit to Burma provides the impetus for Security Council action. The key indicator is how the UN Security Council responds to the briefing. The questions are whether there will be a briefing, a president’s statement, or a resolution and whether the military junta would succeed in deflecting the pressure off itself, having allowed the meeting with Aung San Su Kyi.

Ellen Bork
Project for the New American Century

Burma has exposed the weakness of Asia’s regional organizations and might expose the weakness of the United Nations as well. Burma would be an extraordinary problem for any institution to deal with, given its government’s record. Institutionally, ASEAN is unlikely to play a decisive role in resolving the Burma question. It is also unknown whether the UN can be suitable in coping with the situation in Burma. So the broader question is how the United States will approach its posture in Asia, especially in regional organizations. The Bush administration has expressed its intentions of reinvigorating its alliances, changing functions and the bilateral relationships in Asia, and adopting a new approach. But the administration is confused by what the East Asian summit represents and what the response of the Unites States should be. The Burmese problem shows how weak the organizations are and that they lack cohesion, purpose, and enforcement mechanisms. Now would be a good time for the Bush administration to start exerting some leadership in the creation of a regional forum, which has principles that would help in resolving longstanding problems and in overcoming the diversity of interests rather than undermining them.

Stephen Cohen
Brookings Institution

The United States has very few opportunities in Burma. It can continue its present policy of making faces at the Burmese regime and extend a boycott policy. It could move to its "new ally" India. It could intervene directly by becoming a player itself, lifting sanctions, having diplomatic relations, and extending economic aid. The United States could urge India and China to extend their cooperation in developing Burma into a significant economic place and in doing something about the regime and working with the ASEAN in this regard. This requires a comprehensive approach to Burma and better relations with India and China. The Chinese interests in Burma were more economic than strategic or military. India had decided that competing with China in Burma was more important than extending support for human rights. It therefore shifted its support to the Burmese government.

However, India and China are competing for their interests and economic positions in Burma. So the United States is unlikely to have a significant role. It could at best be an outsider unless it tries to bring India, China, Japan, and the ASEAN together to develop Burma and avoid the competition between India and China. But the chances of this happening are very dismal. Therefore, the United States is put in the position of a bystander and is unlikely to have any change in its position.

AEI intern Shivani Kota prepared this summary.