June 2nd 2003
THE weapons of choice, when it comes to fighting terrorism in South-east Asia, are bilateral or multilateral pacts.
This was the finding of a brainstorming session at the Asia Security Conference.
Asean as a grouping is a less effective mechanism because its competing political priorities and preferred way of making decisions by consensus, founders on a menace which affects its 10 members to differing degrees, said a group chaired by Lord Hurd, Britain's former secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs.
As big a drag is the regional body's bureaucratic inertia, said Professor Robert O'Neill, former director and chairman of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which hosted the Shangri-La Dialogue.
He was yesterday reporting the observations of a group of delegates who huddled behind closed doors over the weekend to deliberate on confronting terrorism in South-east Asia.
Among the panelists were Indonesian Defence Minister Matori Abdul Djalil, Philippine Defence Secretary Angelo T. Reyes and Thailand's General Boonsrang Niumpradit, who handles policy matters at its defence ministry.
'Countries in the region differ very much in their susceptibility to and experience of terrorism and hence it is extremely difficult to obtain an effective Asean-wide response to it,' said Prof O'Neill.
'Intelligence sharing has brought positive results, especially in the apprehension of terrorists in Indonesia, but bureaucratic inertia is also at work, as is the special Asean way of taking decisions plus the preference for each member country to introduce a local solution.
'The traditional Asean way of seeking consensus on all important policy decisions is an obstacle to effective region-wide cooperation in combating terror.
'So also is the strong Asean tradition of non-intervention in each other's affairs.'
The message he conveyed on behalf of the group was that 'full Asean multilateral cooperation against terrorists is unlikely to occur in the near future' especially because 'many wish to maximise the freedom to act according to their own lights'.
Jusuf Wanandi from Indonesian think-tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies, who participated in the open forum held to debate on the findings of the panel, was much more stinging.
He thought Asean merely used the excuse of being sensitive to one another's needs to cover up the lack of political will and willingness to commit resources to solve the problem.
Where Asean does score, however, is as a norm-setting body which defines the principles to guide actions, Prof Amitava Acharya told The Straits Times in an interview later.
The deputy director and head of research at Singapore's Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, who sat in on both the open and closed forums, said: 'Nobody says Asean is irrelevant, only that it has limits, and that's true of almost any organisation - European Union, Nato, the United Nations.'
'It doesn't mean Asean is not doing enough. Its main role is setting principles and norms and also getting a common commitment, like one country should not provide sanctuary to terrorists operating in some other countries. Or that terrorism or counter-terrorism should not be used to interfere in the internal affairs of other states.'
He added: 'The actual operational cooperation is better done on a bilateral or trilateral basis.'
Last year's trilateral pact signed between Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines was held up as a possible model during the panel discussions.
Thailand and Cambodia have made known their desire to join this framework, which deals with issues as wide-ranging as people and narcotics smuggling, apart from terrorism.
Its loose terms of reference were, however, deterring other members from joining in, said Prof O'Neill, who added that there was a need to accelerate defining these terms and setting up a machinery to implement it.
'In the final analysis, the most effective action against terrorism is that which comes from the local national governments most directly concerned. Only they can take many of the most essential actions.'
