Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract This paper explores how the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN) has tackled the threat of terrorism since 9/11 and the Bali bombings. It
claims that ASEAN has applied its traditional approach to security, based on comprehensive security and the principle of resilience, when addressing this challenge.
The resilience concept underpins the nexus between national and regional security
and emphasizes domestic regime consolidation re-enforced by regional consultations. In their pursuit of resilience, member states have sought in various degrees
to address terrorism domestically through a mixture of security, law enforcement,
socio-economic, ideological, and educational policies. It is noted that Indonesia,
the Philippines, and Singapore have tackled terrorism more comprehensively than
Thailand and Malaysia. Reflecting the synergy between national and regional resilience, ASEAN has operated as an umbrella organization meant to complement
domestic and sub-regional efforts. It has been committed rhetorically, has produced
frameworks of action, as well as reached agreements with the great powers. The
paper is not overly optimistic, however, about ASEANs role in promoting regional
resilience against the threat of terrorism in Southeast Asia.
Keywords ASEAN; Southeast Asia; terrorism; comprehensive security; national
and regional resilience.
Ralf Emmers is Associate Professor and Head of Graduate Studies at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University (NTU),
Singapore. His publications include Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia
(Routledge, forthcoming 2009), Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN
and the ARF (RoutledgeCurzon, 2003) and Non-traditional Security in the Asia-Pacific: The
Dynamics of Securitization (Marshall Cavendish, 2004). Dr Emmers is the co-editor of Security
and International Politics in the South China Sea: Towards a Cooperative Management Regime
(Routledge, 2009), Order and Security in Southeast Asia: Essays in Memory of Michael
Leifer (Routledge, 2006), and Understanding Non-traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in
Securitization (Ashgate, 2006).
Address: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University,
Block S4, Level B4, Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798. E-mail: isremmers@ntu.edu.sg
The Pacific Review
C 2009 Taylor & Francis
ISSN 0951-2748 print/ISSN 1470-1332 online
http://www.informaworld.com/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09512740902815300
160
Introduction
The threat of terrorism is an important issue that needs to be addressed in
the context of Southeast Asian security and the activities of the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Militancy and violence related to
the activities of separatist and religious groups have long existed in a number of Southeast Asian states. The Philippines, Indonesia and other regional
countries have been victims to terror attacks on their territories in the past.
Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) have, for example, been fighting on the southern islands of the Philippines to create
an independent Islamic state. In Indonesia, Laskar Jihad has been sending radical Muslim militants to Ambon, the provincial capital of Maluku,
where Christian and Muslim communities are in conflict. Although 9/11 led
to a diminished sense of security among many Southeast Asian nations, it
was the Bali bomb blasts on 12 October 2002, with the loss of 202 lives,
which demonstrated the shift from hard to soft targets and highlighted the
threat of radical Islamist terrorism in Southeast Asia. Since 2002, Jemaah
Islamiyah (JI) has been identified by some analysts as a significant grouping with links to al-Qaeda (Gunaratna 2002, 2007; Ramakrishna 2004).
Founded by Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Bashir in the 1990s, JI is said
to be fighting for the creation of a Daulah Islamiah Nusantara, a pan-Asian
Islamic state that would incorporate Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and
Brunei, as well as parts of Cambodia, the southern Philippines and southern
Thailand (Ramakrishna 2004: 55). JI is considered to be responsible for
an attack against the Philippine ambassador to Indonesia in August 2000,
the 2002 Bali bombings and the bombing of the J. W. Marriott Hotel in
Jakarta in August 2003. More recent attacks have included the September
2004 bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta and the October 2005
attacks in Bali.
This paper explores how in recent years ASEAN has sought to tackle
the threat of terrorism. It focuses on the years that followed 9/11 and the
Bali bombings, as it was during this period that most national, sub-regional
and multilateral efforts were initiated. Its central argument is that the Association has applied its traditional approach to security, based on comprehensive security and the principle of resilience. ASEANs security cooperation is said, therefore, not to have changed fundamentally. National
resilience essentially means that the respective national governments are
expected to promote domestic stability on a comprehensive basis so that
the resultant secure states can withstand internal and external stresses and
thus contribute to the attainment of regional resilience in Southeast Asia.
A bottom-up approach to security progressing from the national to the regional level is implemented. Moreover, the pursuit of national and regional
resilience is perceived as mutually re-enforcing. Indeed, ASEAN seeks to
operate as an umbrella organization where regional consultation is meant
to enhance domestic regime consolidation.
162
domestic and regional stability through the use of economic and social
development. By improving the living conditions of local populations,
ASEAN leaders had expected to check subversive influences (Antolik
1990: 98). It was also anticipated that resilient states would lead to
regional resilience, which would constitute a foundation against internal
and external threats in the long run (Huxley 1993: 4). Suharto argued in
October 1974 that if each member-country develops its own national
resilience, gradually a regional resilience may emerge, i.e. the ability of
member-countries to settle jointly their common problems and look after
their future and well-being together (Suharto 1975: 8). One should note,
therefore, the underlying premise of the synergy between national and
regional resilience.
The principle of resilience was officially introduced in the ASEAN
rhetoric at the first summit of ASEAN heads of state and government held
in Bali in 1976. At the opening of the summit, President Suharto declared:
Our concept of security is inward-looking, namely, to establish an orderly,
peaceful and stable condition within each territory, free from any subversive elements and infiltration, wherever their origins may be (Suharto
1976). The Bali Summit of February 1976 led to two statements: the Declaration of ASEAN Concord and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
(TAC) in Southeast Asia. The ASEAN Concord is particularly relevant for
this paper. It formally proposed the principle of resilience as a shared approach to domestic and regional security. It affirmed that the stability of
each member state and of the ASEAN region is an essential contribution
to international peace and security. Each member state resolves to eliminate threats posed by subversion to its stability, thus strengthening national
and ASEAN resilience (ASEAN 1976). The Concord formalized political
cooperation within the ASEAN framework and called for a strengthening of political solidarity by promoting the harmonization of views, coordinating positions and, where possible and desirable, taking common actions (ASEAN 1976). It also excluded military cooperation on an ASEAN
basis. In short, the Concord provided ASEAN with a shared approach
to security, emphasizing domestic regime consolidation and regional
consultation.
This ASEAN approach to security has been translated into policy prescription. Individual member states are responsible for their own security
and the preservation of national sovereignty. The achievement of national
resilience is expected to be translated into reduced intra-regional tensions
and regional vulnerabilities, thus contributing to regional resilience. Similarly, ASEAN enhances regional stability through its informal process of
interaction, enabling member countries to concentrate on their domestic
development. It is interesting to note, however, that the notion of resilience
is less commonly used today in Southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia, owing to its association with the Suharto regime. Still, clearly in line with the
spirit of the resilience principle, the ASEAN Charter signed at the summit
164
166
168
(Hassan and Pereire 2006: 465). In February 2006 the government also
launched the Community Engagement Programme to enhance inter-faith
dialogue in Singapore. Finally, with the support of the ISD, Muslim
organizations have provided financial and psychological assistance to the
families of JI detainees. Hassan explains that it was particularly important
to minimize the risk of the children being radicalized in the future by
the detention of their fathers or by economic marginalization (Hassan
2007: 149).
In contrast to Indonesia, the Philippines, and Singapore, Thailand and
Malaysia have relied primarily on a direct security response to counter the
threat of terrorism. Since 2004, Thailand has had to face the escalation of
Islamic militancy in its three southern provinces of Narathiwat, Pattani and
Yala. The area has traditionally been affected by the long-running insurrection led by the Pattani United Liberation Organization (PULO). The
conflict escalated in January 2004 after a raid on a Thai army camp in the
province of Narathiwat led to the imposition of martial law and the deployment of additional troops. The former government of Prime Minister
Thaksin Shinawatra, overthrown by a military coup in September 2006,
was criticized at that time for mishandling the crisis and exacerbating the
grievances of the local Muslim population (Pongsudhirak 2006: 293). The
wave of violence that erupted in southern Thailand during Thaksins years
in office led largely to a security-related response. The situation on the
ground has since been characterized by an intensification of the conflict and
the insurgency further employing terrorist tactics. Little attention has been
given to wider comprehensive policies. Some financial incentives have been
given out but then primarily to villages that have directly cooperated with
the security forces. The manner in which the situation in southern Thailand
ought to be handled continues to be a highly debated issue in Bangkok.
No united stand existed within the democratically elected government of
Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej that came to power in January 2008.
When Interior Minister Chalerm Yoonbamrung proposed autonomy for
the southern Thai provinces in February 2008, he was immediately criticized
by his own prime minister for articulating such a policy statement. Rather
than moving towards regional autonomy, some governmental officials have
instead argued that the army should be given full control in tackling the
violence.
In Malaysia, then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed took advantage of
9/11 to discredit the Islamic Party of Malaysia (PAS) by portraying it as
a party of Islamic militants. As a result, he succeeded temporarily in extending the dominance of his own political platform, the United Malays
National Organization (UMNO) (Jayasankaran and Holland 2001). The
Malaysian government also brought into play the fight against terrorism as
a way of justifying the expulsion of thousands of Filipino workers from the
state of Sabah. The latter was said to be used by terrorist groups as a base
to prepare attacks in the Philippines. In terms of its immediate response
170
172
having been absorbed with domestic difficulties since 1998. Simon explains
that the proposal is designed to restore Jakarta to ASEAN leadership by
acknowledging the importance of fighting terrorism trans-nationally to the
associations future (Simon 2006: 105).
It is too early to assess the institutional strength of the ASC or its possible
impact on the threat of terrorism. The operationalization of the ASC is still
being negotiated by the ASEAN members, and the community is not expected to be established before 2020. Yet the regional response to seventy
proposals put forward by Indonesia to forge an ASC may be an indication
of its future institutional limitations and restraints. The proposed plan of
action included a call for the establishment of an ASEAN peacekeeping
force, the setting up of an anti-terrorism centre, as well as the promotion of
democracy and human rights. Proposals related to domestic political governance were flatly rejected by Vietnam, Myanmar and other members, which
undermined the so-called Indonesian leadership in ASEAN (Weatherbee
2005: 163). A watered-down version of the ASC Plan of Action was eventually agreed to by the 2004 AMM and later adopted at the ASEAN Summit in Vientiane in November 2004 (ASEAN 2004). The plan no longer
included the idea of introducing a more flexible application of the noninterference principle and other controversial points.
Finally, ASEAN has succeeded in defining a common position towards
the external powers on the issue of terrorism. On 1 August 2002 the ten
ASEAN members and the United States signed a Joint Declaration for
Cooperation to Combat Terrorism. The agreement was a political statement that confirmed ASEANs commitment to the war against terrorism.
It stipulated the importance of having a framework for cooperation to prevent, disrupt and combat international terrorism through the exchange and
flow of information, intelligence and capacity building (ASEANUS 2002).
The signatories were asked to improve intelligence sharing and collaboration among their law enforcement agencies, provide assistance on border
surveillance, immigration and financial issues, and comply with UN resolutions on terrorism. Stubbs argues that the agreement provided Southeast
Asian states with the structure for intelligence sharing with the Americans
(Stubbs 2004: 5). Yet the declaration was a non-binding agreement comparable to the anti-terrorism accord reached by Indonesia, Malaysia and the
Philippines in May 2002. Concern over US interference in domestic affairs
was also translated into the agreement. The latter did not refer to military
operations or the deployment of American troops in Southeast Asia. Prior
to its adoption, Vietnam and Indonesia had rejected any clause that might
be regarded as allowing the involvement of US forces in the region and thus
undermining the principles of national sovereignty and non-intervention in
the affairs of other states.
Besides the United States, ASEAN has sought collaboration with China
on a wider spectrum of challenges. At the Sixth ASEANChina Summit in November 2002 the Association signed a joint declaration with
Conclusion
ASEANs security model has been defined by an inward-looking approach
to security and regional stability. Rather than concentrating on external military threats, ASEAN members have favoured a comprehensive security
agenda. Members have enhanced their security through domestic socioeconomic development and an informal process of regional interaction.
This has led to reduced intra-regional tensions and regional vulnerabilities. It has been argued that ASEANs bottom-up approach to security
has been applied to the threat of terrorism since 9/11. Terrorism remains
primarily a domestic source of instability for Southeast Asian states. In
their pursuit of national resilience, governments have relied to various degrees on a mixture of security, law enforcement, socio-economic, ideological, and educational policies. Comparatively, Indonesia, the Philippines,
and Singapore have tackled terrorism more comprehensively than Thailand and Malaysia. As expected, national and bilateral efforts have mattered most when seeking to counter the threat of terrorism. In light of
these circumstances, what role has ASEAN played as a promoter of regional resilience? The Association has acted in Southeast Asia and beyond primarily as a platform for collaboration and a regional voice on
the issue of terrorism. Seeking to complement and re-enforce national efforts, regional consultations have focused on adopting a common rhetorical stand, setting up frameworks of cooperation and action, and engaging
dialogue partners. In their cooperative response, the ASEAN states have
collectively condemned terrorism, indicated their willingness to work to`
gether, and defined a common position vis-a-vis
the great powers on this
issue.
Nonetheless, it is difficult at this stage to be overly optimistic with regards to ASEANs ability to promote regional resilience against terrorism.
The Association has served primarily to complement national and bilateral
174
Acknowledgements
Notes
1 This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 40 Years of ASEAN:
Performance, Lessons and Perspectives conference, organized jointly by the
BMW Foundation Herbert Quandt, Munich, Germany and the Department of
Political Science of the University of Freiburg, 1011 May 2007.
2 Interview of Evan Abelard Laksmana conducted at the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies (RSIS), Singapore on 18 February 2008. The interviewee is
an analyst at the RSIS Indonesia Program.
3 Interview of Jolene Jerard conducted at RSIS, Singapore on 25 February 2008.
The interviewee is a research analyst, International Centre for Political Violence
and Terrorism Research, RSIS.
4 Interview of Jolene Jerard conducted on 25 February 2008.
5 Mas Selemat Kastari later escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre in
Singapore on 27 February 2008.
References
AMMTC (2002) Joint Communique of the Special Ministerial Meeting on Terrorism, ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Trans-national Crime (AMMTC), Kuala
Lumpur, 2021 May.
AMMTC (2004a) Joint Communique of the Fourth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting
on Trans-national Crime (AMMTC), Bangkok, 8 January.
AMMTC (2004b) Joint Communique of the First ASEAN Plus Three Ministerial
Meeting on Trans-national Crime (AMMTC+3), Bangkok, 10 January.
AMMTC (2005) Joint Communique of the Fifth ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on
Trans-national Crime (AMMTC), Hanoi, 29 November.
Antolik, M. (1990) ASEAN and the Diplomacy of Accommodation, Armonk: M. E.
Sharpe.
ASEAN (1976) Declaration of ASEAN Concord, Bali, Indonesia, 24 February.
ASEAN (1997) ASEAN Declaration on Trans-national Crime, Manila, 20
December.
ASEAN (2001) ASEAN Declaration on Joint Action to Counter Terrorism, Bandar
Seri Begawan, 5 November.
ASEAN (2002) Declaration on Terrorism by the Eighth ASEAN Summit, Phnom
Penh, 3 November.
ASEAN (2003) Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II), Bali, 7
October.
ASEAN (2004) Chairmans Statement of the Tenth ASEAN Summit, Vientiane, 29
November.
ASEAN (2005) ASEAN strongly condemns terrorist attacks in Bali, Indonesia,
statement by the 39th Chair of the ASC, Kuala Lumpur, 2 October.
ASEAN (2007a) The ASEAN Charter, Singapore, 20 November.
ASEAN (2007b) Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an
ASEAN Community by 2015, Cebu, the Philippines, 13 January.
ASEAN (2007c) ASEAN Convention on Counter Terrorism, Cebu, the Philippines,
13 January.
ASEANChina (2002) Joint Declaration of ASEAN and China on Cooperation in
the Field of Non-traditional Security Issues, Sixth ASEANChina Summit,
Phnom Penh, 4 November.
ASEANChina (2005) Joint press statement of the Informal ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Trans-national Crime Plus China Consultation, Hanoi, 30
November.
176
ASEANEU (2003) Joint Declaration on Cooperation to Combat Terrorism, Fourteenth ASEANEU Ministerial Meeting, Brussels, 2728 January.
ASEANUS (2002) ASEANUnited States of America Joint Declaration for
Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism, Bandar Seri Begawan,
1 August.
Chong, T. (2006) Singapore: globalizing on its own terms, in D. Singh and L. C.
Salazar (eds) Southeast Asian Affairs 2006, Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, pp. 26582.
Collier, K. (2006) Terrorism: evolving regional alliances and state failure in
Mindanao, in D. Singh and L. C. Salazar (eds) Southeast Asian Affairs 2006,
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 2638.
Collins, A. (2003) Security and Southeast Asia: Domestic, Regional, and Global
Issues, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Cragin, K. and Chalk, P. (2003) Terrorism and Development: Using Social and
Economic Development to Inhibit a Resurgence of Terrorism, Santa Monica:
RAND.
Gunaratna, R. (2002) Al-Qaeda: the Asian connection, Janes Intelligence Review
(January).
Gunaratna, R. (2007) Combating Al Jamaah Al Islamiyyah in Southeast Asia, in
A. Aldis and G. P. Herd (eds) The Ideological War on Terror: Worldwide
Strategies for Counter-terrorism, London: Routledge, pp. 11327.
Hassan, M. H. (2007) Counter-ideological work: Singapore experience, in A. Aldis
and G. P. Herd (eds) The Ideological War on Terror: Worldwide Strategies for
Counter-terrorism, London: Routledge, pp. 14359.
Hassan, M. H. and Pereire, K. G. (2006) An ideological response to combating
terrorism: the Singapore perspective, Small Wars and Insurgencies 17(4): 458.
Huxley, T. (1993) Insecurity in the ASEAN Region, London: Royal United Services
Institute for Defence Studies.
Huxley, T. (2005) Southeast Asia in 2004: stable, but facing major security challenges, in C. Kin Wah and D. Singh (eds) Southeast Asian Affairs 2005,
Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 323.
Jayasankaran, S. and Holland, L. (2001) Malaysia: profiting from fear, Far Eastern
Economic Review, 11 October, p. 32.
Kristof, N. D. (2002) The Philippine front of the terror war looks like a con game,
International Herald Tribune, 910 February, p. 4.
Lanti, I. G. (2006) Indonesia: accomplishments amidst challenges, in D. Singh and
L. C. Salazar (eds) Southeast Asian Affairs 2006, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 93110.
Lau, L. (2002) ASEAN believes terror network dealt severe blow, The Straits
Times Interactive, 30 January.
Lengsavad, H. E. S. (2004) Statement by Chairman of the 38th ASEAN Standing
Committee in connection to the terrorist bombing in Jakarta, 9 September.
P. and Peou, S. (1993) Cooperative Security and the Emerging Security
Lizee,
Agenda in Southeast Asia: The Challenges and Opportunities of Peace in Cambodia, YCISS Occasional Paper No. 21, Toronto: Centre for International and
Strategic Studies, York University.
Ministry of Home Affairs (2003) The Jemaah Islamiyah Arrests and the Threat of
Terrorism, White Paper, Ministry of Home Affairs, Republic of Singapore, 9
January.
Mydans, S. (2008) Terror in the family: a defectors dilemma, International Herald
Tribune, 12 March, p. 1.
Pongsudhirak, T. (2006) Thaksins political zenith and nadir, in D. Singh and L. C.
Salazar (eds) Southeast Asian Affairs 2006, Singapore: Institute of Southeast
Asian Studies, pp. 285302.