ASIA: Aftershock of Sep. 11 Felt Most in Domestic Politics
By Tim Shorrock
WASHINGTON, Apr 9 — Despite the seismic changes in global politics since last year's terrorist attacks on the United States, the greatest impact on Asia from Sep. 11 and its aftermath is likely to be felt internally, in relations between local governments and their citizens.
So says Amitav Acharya, the deputy director of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore and a prolific writer on East Asia, arms control and the global power structure.
"The real impact of 9-11 is within states," Acharya told a Washington panel on the East Asian response to the Sep. 11 attacks, sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, a Japanese philanthropic group. "States are far more united among themselves than states and their own peoples."
The internal dynamic in the war against terrorism is illustrated, Acharya says, by the fact that the 19 men who hijacked the planes on Sep. 11 had grievances against the United States — but were also angry at their own governments, especially Saudi Arabia, for its close military ties with Washington. Nearly all of the suspected hijackers were Saudi citizens.
Similarly, while people in Asia initially expressed sympathy with the United States in the days following the attacks, many groups have become disenchanted with their governments' cooperation with the U.S. 'war against terrorism'.
The anger is especially acute in the Philippines, which invited U.S. troops in to help fight the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas, a small band of rebels that Washington says has ties with al-Qaeda.
Many Muslim groups in Indonesia — whose president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, was the first leader of a Muslim country to visit Bush after the attacks — are upset with their government for taking the U.S. side as well.
At the same time, some governments in Asia have used Sep. 11 and the U.S. 'war against terrorism' to harden public opinion against separatist groups or organisations seeking, even through peaceful means, changes in the status quo.
"Now, any internal security problems are seen as terrorism," said Acharya. "If the tactics are terrorist, the goals must be bad."
China, for example, has seized on the attacks and its support for the U.S. 'war against terrorism' to rally support for its suppression of Muslim separatists in its far-western border areas.
These developments do not augur well for human rights, particularly when terrorism, separatism and extremism are "all lumped together" and the distinctions between "external security threats and internal security disappears," said Acharya.
At the same time, the poor U.S. treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners at the U.S. base in Guantanamo, Cuba, "will complicate the lives of those who advocate freedom."
President George Bush's statements that countries are "either for or against" the U.S. war, coupled with attempts by some Asian governments to group people into two camps is worsening the dynamics between state and society in Asia, says Suzaina Kadir, a political scientist from the National University of Singapore now teaching in the United States.
"Governments are not getting to the root causes of terrorism," she said. "This just worsens the problem and ends up simplifying the issues."
On the whole, argues Acharya, the United States is widely seen in the Asia region as a winner from the Sep. 11 attacks.
Asians have generally rallied behind the United States, while several governments -- notably Japan and Pakistan - are providing logistical support for the US war in Afghanistan.
The Bush administration has also taken advantage of the war to strengthen its military ties with the Philippines and gain access rights to bases in Central Asia.
Others see Japan as a winner because it has expanded the use of its military to include a war zone. The Sep. 11 attacks "were a good opportunity for Japan to do what it wanted anyway", said Acharya.
On the other hand, China is seen by many Asians as losing prestige because of Japan's expansion of its military powers and the new U.S. military presence on its western front.
Inside China, military officers and analysts realise that they have a long way to go to catch up with the U.S. firepower and military prowess on display in Afghanistan, he adds.
In his view, said Acharya, it's "too soon" to declare winners and losers.
In particular, with Israel's war against the Palestinian authority heating up on the West Bank, "U.S. political gains could unravel" if the Bush administration does not respond to international concerns over Palestine'', he added.
Underscoring his point, thousands of Indonesians rallied on Apr 7 to condemn Israeli actions in Palestine and Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda pressed U.S. officials to demand an Israeli withdrawal.
U.S. efforts in the Philippines also offer "potential liabilities" if the situation there deteriorates, said Acharya. On Apr 8, the United States said it was sending 300 more U.S. troops to the Philippines.
Frederick Brown, associate director of the Southeast Asia Studies Programme at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, says the Filipinos who oppose the return of U.S. military forces are a minority. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's close relationship with the United States, he added, "works clearly in her favour''.
But he agrees that U.S. ties with the Asia region could be damaged by its support for Israel. Despite the support the United States has received since Sep. 11, "it could still be badly hurt by the failure to criticise Israeli policy in regards to Palestine", he said.
Even after calling for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, Bush "probably won't be able to undo the long-term damage" to U.S. interests by its strong support for Israel's military actions, said Brown. "Bush doesn't appear to be an honest broker." (IPS/2002)
