The U.S. Should Support an "ASEAN Way" to Fight Terrorism
by Catharin Dalpino and David Steinberg
America's current unilateralist surge -- from Afghanistan to the "Axis of Evil" -- is not sustainable, militarily or politically. To maintain a global war against terrorism, indeed to make it genuinely global, the United States must begin now to encourage and support regional counterterrorism strategies. First on its list should be Southeast Asia where the ASEAN framework, although strained by the Asian economic crisis and the incorporation of four new members, still offers a foundation for cooperation between the U.S. and Asia and within the region. The arrests of al-Qaeda linked Jemmah Islamiah members in Singapore in January left no doubt that terrorism is a regional problem and requires a regional solution. In order to make such a policy work, however, the United States must defer a greater degree of judgment (and initiative) to ASEAN and introduce longer-term issues into a policy that has been intensely focused on the short-term. Both of these shifts will be uncomfortable for Washington.
The United States chafes at what it sees as the turgid pace of the ASEAN process, but this irritation masks a larger reality: attempts by Washington to introduce its own vision of a regional framework for Asia have historically been doomed. ASEAN was established a few years after the collapse of the U.S.-led Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), which failed from the beginning to follow the model of its European counterpart. As recently as the mid-1990s, Asian leaders, even democratic ones, rejected a U.S. attempt to form an Asian human rights network modeled after the Helsinki Accords.
Washington is in no better position to launch its own version of regional cooperation on counterterrorism. Political constraints on both sides of the Pacific prevent the duplication of the Philippines quasi-combat joint "training exercises" elsewhere in Southeast Asia. On a more basic level, extremism in Southeast Asia is centered in debates within the Muslim communities of the region. Attempts by the U.S. to manage these debates, in a high-profile "hearts and minds" campaign, will only add fuel to the flames.
Since Sept. 11, ASEAN has made several ad hoc moves to develop a common approach to counterterrorism. At Manila's behest, a troika -- the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia -- has been formed to discuss common policy in the face of extremist threats in those countries. Talks between Indonesia and Malaysia on border cooperation have increased, and the first-ever meeting of ASEAN military chiefs was held. Counterterrorism will doubtless be high on the agenda for the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) this year. These are hopeful signs, but they don't yet amount to a regional framework.
How can the United States encourage the development of such a framework? First, it must look beyond the immediate task of apprehending terrorists and also support regional cooperation that addresses the root causes of discontent. What U.S. development assistance remains in Southeast Asia is stove-piped to individual countries. Additional funds should be provided to help build regional networks to address issues of economic disparity, good governance, and human rights as ASEAN defines them. U.S. support can also strengthen ongoing initiatives, such as the ASEAN Human Rights Working Group.
Equally important, the U.S. should encourage the development of nongovernmental networks in the region that approach these issues from a societal view. In the 1980s, for example, universities attempted to form an ASEAN Muslim Social Sciences Forum, which brought together scholars in the region to consider Islam's changing social and political roles. It foundered for lack of funds.
The style of such support will be as important as the substance. Funds should be provided to American nongovernmental organizations with solid field experience for projects that support these linkages. The "brass plaque syndrome," which requires that all official U.S. government assistance carry a clear advertisement for the United States, would be anathema to many of these efforts.
Lastly, Washington needs simply to pay more attention to Southeast Asia in its Asian-Pacific dialogues. In recent years, the U.S. has seen the ARF less as a venue to discuss Southeast Asian concerns and more as a launching pad for initiatives in Northeast Asia policy. The 2000 ARF meeting was the site of the historic meeting between Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her North Korean counterpart. In 2001, the ARF meeting was a springboard for Secretary of State Colin Powell's first official visit to China. In 2002, Washington should reorient its focus in the ARF to give greater weight to Southeast Asia. In the security environment after Sept. 11, U.S. interests in the region are no less vital than in Northeast Asia.
Catharin Dalpino is a Fellow at the Brookings Institution. David Steinberg is Director of Asian Studies at Georgetown University. An abridged version of this article ran in the March 28, 2002 issue of the International Herald Tribune and is reprinted with permission.
http://www.csis.org/pacfor/pac0213.htm
Linear Mode
