INSURGENCE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
The war on terror instigated by the United States has triggered an impetus in the global scale. This is manifested in the rise of the state actions against insurgents and other enemies of the state. Along with the rest of the modern world, the Southeast Asian region is one of the major areas where insurgency is prevalent. This has been going on for so long such that it even precedes the US-led war on terrorism. Spawned from far-reaching issues of religious consciousness and identity along with politically induced motivations, the insurgency of certain groups in the Southeast Asian region has been a long-standing struggle from its member countries. This paper intends to critically examine the struggle between the state and insurgent groups in certain areas of the Southeast Asian region. At the same time, the retort of the state in relation of the demands of the war on terrorism will also be analysed such that the elements of regional security and the coordination with the international community will be taken into consideration. The observations and arguments provided in this paper are to be supported by academic and scholarly journals related to the effects of terrorism and insurgency in the Southeast Asian region.
An inherent issue on battling insurgents and terrorism in the Southeast Asian region is the physical environment and the geography of the region. Majority of the countries in the region are archipelagos or island states. At any rate, majority of the region’s members are inherently separated by sea. This imply largely on the issue of permeability of the borders of each of the countries. (2001) This means that access to certain entry points of the member countries tend to be rather loose or to a certain extent out of the hands of the state. Insurgents and terrorists, to a certain extent, at liberty to move from one island to another and at the same time cross borders from one country to the next.
This poses a threat to the security of the region. Unless a unified front is forged to combat the issue on security, then the countries are left to defend themselves from an unidentified set of violent cells on their own. Fortunately, in 2001, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has called for its member countries to “ratify all relevant international anti-terrorist conventions.” (2006) This is well and good especially in ensuring the safety of the citizens in the region. However, the effectiveness of each ratified policy tends to remain as mere marks on paper. Concrete improvements and actual results have yet to be perceptible in the recent past. As indicated in the work of (2006) the region still lacks any indication of an effective “operational counter-terrorism mechanisms.”
In following this line of thinking, the states in the Southeast Asian region tends to still work individually in ensuring their own security. Collaboration tends to a mere superficial demonstration of action. Ironically, the outcomes in the specific countries tend to highlight the ineffectiveness and ineptitude of certain Southeast Asian countries in implementing these policies. Moreover, the continuing inability of the Southeast Asian countries to display a sense of urgency and recent terrorist events tends to indicate their incompetence given that they are battling a mere band of bandits.
On its face value, the war on terrorism tends to manifest that the Southeast Asian countries are failing miserably on their attempt to curb the insurgents and fanatics in their midst. To illustrate, the Republic of the Philippines have been one of the major nations that have been battling the acts of terror found on religious and political motivations. It has even been noted as one of the “major operational hub of the Al Qaeda.” (2002) This presents a paradoxical reality for the country given that it has been perceived as a centre of operations of a fundamentalist Islamic group despite being a catholic country.
Two of the highest profiled insurgents of the country included the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). Both groups are connected perceptively to the Afghan group, Al Qaeda. (2002) This indicates that the country is battling a couple of cells from an international terrorist organisation. However, it must be noted that the MILF has been in existence is initially fuelled by national liberation intentions. In this context, their connection with the Al Qaeda has unfortunately clouded their nobler intention. The ASG, on the other hand, have been instrumental for placing the Philippines in the limelight as it held kidnappings and massacres led by their then leader Janjalani. ( 2002) Though, Islamic struggles has been somewhat of a staple in the Philippine archipelago, the state regardless of its fervent efforts to curb the insurgencies and terrorist attacks has been criticised for being unsuccessful in cutting down the jugular of the movement. To this point, the MILF and the ASG still holds court and continuous operating within the borders of the country.
It must similarly be emphasised that the Philippines is not alone in its struggle against terrorism and insurgency. Malaysia, in the same way, has been battling a long standing war with insurgents. The issue of radical Islamists has been compounded with great complexity as the infamous terrorist Ramzi Yousef made the country the secondary headquarters of its operation. (2002) It was noted that the country was hot among Middle Eastern groups in establishing a companies as fronts to their terrorist operations. Looking at this point, the state government has been criticised to have effectively spinned the image of their country positively as a “tolerant Muslim state.” (2002)
Based on the discussions here regarding Malaysia, it is seen that the country strategic base for international terrorist. However, the downplaying of the state in such issues brings in the possibility of interpreting it as an improvement on their part in controlling the security in the country. Unlike the set of circumstances surrounding the Philippines, the radical Islamists based in the Malaysian region has yet to pose a major threat in the Southeast Asian region. The problem however rests on the possibility that the country is harbouring a small group of insurgents seeking to wreck havoc in the rest of the region in the foreseeable future. This is seen in the claim of (2002) indicating that a major political party in the Malaysian parliament is connected to the Kampulan Mujaheddin Malaysia (KMM), a noted organisation advocating jihad and proclaims the elimination of American soldiers because of their oppression with other countries.
In the case of Indonesia, this member of the ASEAN may have been burdened greatly as the country has been the birthplace of one of the biggest terrorist network in the Asian region as a whole. The Jemaah Islamiah has been one of the most notorious groups in the region as it has orchestrated numerous violent attacks in different states in the Southeast Asian region. (2002) Based on recent studies, the group have established cells in Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia. In the same way, there have been allegations that these cells consolidate in the Indonesian region.
Other countries like Myanmar and Thailand were also implicated in terrorist activities. In the case of Thailand, the country has been criticised to be the haven of terrorists because of the rather laid-back execution of its immigration policies. ( 2002) In the same way as Malaysia, Thailand is consistently becoming one of the centres of financial operations of these groups as the banking regulations of the country are similarly loose. In the case of Myanmar, the political situation is seen as the one fuelling the possible links of the insurgents to international terrorists. (2002) In this regard, one must note that Myanmar has been under a military junta repressing the Muslim minorities of the land.
The discussions above have implicated certain countries in the Southeast Asian region and their plight against insurgents and terrorist groups. As seen in the presented analysis, these states are far from being triumphant over these groups. To a certain point, there is a considerable difference from the case of Southeast Asian countries with the rest of the world. At some point, one could consider the possibility that this organisation may have acquired the sympathy of the public with regards to their principles and actions regardless of how gruesome they may seem. The issues on repression, national liberation, and radical religious consciousness could have compounded the issues of insurgency and terrorism in the region. However, this is a mere fleck of an excuse for states in the Southeast Asian nations. The lack of a concrete collaboration between the states of the country may have been the biggest element that has contributed to the increased movement of terrorist in the region. This study thus claims that the ASEAN should cease focusing on the economic element of the region and start looking seriously on the much larger issue of security in the region.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment