June 16th 2003
By Val Chua and Jasmine Yin
The recent arrest of Arifin bin Ali, a senior Singaporean member of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), in Bangkok.
The nabbing of explosives expert Fathur Rohman Al Ghozi, in January last year, in Manila.
These “achievements” in cracking the regional terror web underscore one vital point: The arrests were made based on intelligence provided by Singapore.
These successes are laudable, given the lack of a common counter-terrorism treaty binding all 10 Asean nations - and against a backdrop of tricky political considerations.
In South-East Asia alone, analysts estimate that there are no fewer than 10 initiatives to fight the threat together - at various levels - on intelligence sharing, border controls and the freezing of terrorist assets.
Despite these, the only regional pact is the anti-terror accord signed last May by Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Singapore is not a member of the year-old grouping - a surprising stance for casual observers, given the Republic’s fervent support of anti-terror moves.
Analysts say it’s a delicate balancing act between supporting counter-terrorism moves without giving up one’s sovereignty.
Dr Andrew Tan, a security analyst at Singapore’s Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS), said that it is “not unusual” for Singapore’s exclusion, as it gives the other three countries more “political leeway”, he noted.
“It is a question of who is comfortable with whom in a particular setting,” he added.
However, the situation also gives rise to suggestions that the problem really lies within Asean.
Security experts from the annual Asian Security Conference held in Singapore recently lambasted Asean’s political inertia in tackling the regional anti-terror drive.
Its traditional way of seeking decisions by consensus and policy of non-interference in internal affairs came under fire.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute chairman Robert O’Neil was quoted by AFP as saying that these two Asean tenets are “obstacles” to effective regional cooperation on terrorism.
More biting was a comment from Indonesian security analyst Jusuf Wanandi, a member of the Centre of Strategic and International Studies. “The problem is political will and the willingness to put a lot of hard work and resources. The facade is always sensitivity, sovereignty and all the bull.”
A long-time political watcher says that a common Asean position on terrorism is difficult, because of differing agendas. “There isn’t really a need for a regional counter-terrorism accord. The Singapore experience has shown that to some extent,” he said.
One group of nations, including Singapore, believes that there is no need for a common Asean counter-terrorism treaty, he said, as they would end up spending more time negotiating the text, rather than tackling the threat.
Another group of nations, like Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines - which has always wanted a common Asean stand - tends to complicate matters by introducing side issues, such as extradition, transparency of banking systems, and transnational issues like piracy and smuggling, into discussions, he said.
A case in point is the trilateral pact involving Malaysia, Indonesia and Philippines - now joined by Cambodia and Thailand - which covers 10 areas, some of which have nothing to do with terrorism.
Dr Ralf Emmers, a post-doctoral fellow at IDSS, noted that there is already good intelligence sharing between Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines.
If the war on terrorism is focused in this area, sovereignty issues are not drawn into the relationship and are hence “less important”, he noted.
Dr Tan said that police cooperation in counter terrorism between Singapore and Malaysia has been “excellent” - a legacy of having combated communist subversion and rebellion in the past.
On the other hand, Indonesia-Malaysia relations are “not as cosy” as one might think, he added, given recent controversies over migrant Indonesian labour, and the unhappiness over Malaysia’s reaffirmation of control over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan.
Asean Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong said: “The existing network of agreements (for example, some bilateral and trilateral agreements) … and information-sharing arrangements produce quite effective results.”
Analysts generally agree that bilateral agreements are more effective as there is sharper focus and fewer opportunities for political wrangling. It’s also a lot more secretive.
Dr Rohan Gunaratna, a senior visiting fellow at the IDSS, explained: “Terrorist organisations are secret organisations and therefore the counter measures against terrorism should also remain secret,” he said.
“For example, Indonesia may discuss some issues with the Philippines, but may not want that known to the Malaysians,” he said. — with additional reporting by Ng Boon Yian.
