In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Epilogue Asia-Pacific security in the age of the ‘war on terror’ David W. Lovell On 11 September 2004 we commemorated the third anniversary of the tragic events of 9–11. We now know 9–11 as a step in the growing campaign against US power and Western values around the world by extremist Muslim terrorists, but it finally brought the focus of the struggle into the open—in a blaze of publicity to which terrorists characteristically aspire—and ensured that every subsequent action and reaction of transnational terrorism would be refracted through (and magnify) the reputation of al-Qa’ida. Although we remain in the early days of the 21st century, the so-called ‘war on terror’ looks set to be a defining feature of both our hopes and fears for the world into the foreseeable future, and perhaps the defining feature of the century itself. Such a prediction, while perhaps unworthy of the cautious scholar, seems nevertheless not unreasonable in the face of the centrality that has been accorded to this ‘war’ by the most important military and economic power in the world, the United States, and the intractability of the causes and implacability of the authors of this terrorism. For better or worse—and it will become clearer, as this essay proceeds, why I think it is for the worse—the ‘war on terror’ has become the catchcry for political rhetoric and patriotism in the West (always a bad sign), and a rallying cry for an interpretation of Islam that helps to deepen its roots among the poor and humiliated in the Islamic world (even if their discontent has nearer and more mundane sources). It is not, as should be evident from the thrust of this book, that the world’s other security problems have disappeared. Whether defined in traditional, statesecurity terms, or in broader, human-security terms, security problems remain, and some have been exacerbated. But they are all being reassessed, recast, and sometimes even obscured in the somewhat peculiar spotlight of the ‘war on terror’. In two respects, in particular, its glare is acting to deepen the world’s insecurity: by casting counter-terrorism as the key to security; and by conflating Muslim terrorists with Islam as a whole. This short epilogue will try to restore a sense of 204 Asia-Pacific Security light and shade to the picture by examining how Asia-Pacific security has been affected by the ‘war on terror’. Transnational terrorism and regional security Transnational terrorists have been busy since this book first went to press. There have been terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Spain, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Indonesia and elsewhere. In these attacks Muslims have been killed as indiscriminately as non-Muslims. Women and children have been victims. Car bombings have vied with kidnapping and decapitation as favoured methods. The incidents of transnational terrorism are easy to list, because they are designed to have a high visual impact, and are brought to us in our evening television news bulletins, our morning newspapers, and via the world wide web. In Jakarta in September 2004, a car bomb exploded in front of the Australian embassy killing nine and injuring 360. In the same month, Chechen separatists killed about 370, and injured more than 700 when they destroyed a school in North Ossetia, Russia; most of the casualties were children. In Madrid in March 2004, 200 were killed and 1500 injured in the bombing of commuter trains. In Jakarta in August 2003, a car bomb outside the Marriott Hotel resulted in 12 deaths and 160 injured. And since the US military victory in Iraq, terror is blamed for the American and Iraqi victims in a growing insurgency against foreign occupation. Terrorist activity in the Asia-Pacific region, sometimes allied with criminal and separatist activities, has been notable in Indonesia, the southern Philippines, and southern Thailand. It has exposed the networks of Muslim extremists, gathered under the (somewhat unhelpful) title of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), who wish to create a unified Southeast Asian Islamic state. They have been emboldened both by the worldwide assaults of transnational terrorism, and by widespread opposition to the US war against Iraq. But although the war against Iraq is in my view a diversion from the ‘war on terror’, and has divided the world’s support and sympathy for the United States, Asia-Pacific states are dealing with the problems of transnational terrorism in their region with continuing US assistance. The United States has strengthened a number of key bilateral...

Share