By Design or Accident: Reflections on Asian Security

12. A Not So Happy New Year?

12 A Not So Happy New Year? As one year is about to end and another begin, the outward calm of this holiday season belies uncertainty and unease. Religion-inspired terrorists, who would rather destroy the modern world as we know it if they cannot change it to one of their liking, are on the offensive from Bali to Mombassa. The spectre of war looms in the Middle East as Mr Saddam Hussein inclines towards a self-perceived heroic end by exacting maximum destruction on his foes, and, by extension, on his country. Where Islamic terrorists and Mr Saddam’s regime used to be as different as oil and water, each loathing the other, a war against Iraq could lead Al Qaeda to opportunistically step up its own attacks in order to tap into the Muslim sentiment aroused by the war. Ironies and surprises come in quick succession. As Al Qaeda tries to dress its religious terrorist agenda in a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel mantle in order to win over more Muslims for its war against “Jews and Crusaders”, Mr Ariel Sharon in Israel seeks to tarnish Palestinians with the Al Qaeda brush. The radical absolutists in the Muslim world are being matched in their anti-pluralist absolutism by sections of the Christian right in America. And to complicate an already A Not so Happy New Year? 49 dismal international situation, North Korea has chosen this moment, when America’s attention is absorbed by Iraq and the war on terror, to embark on its own game of brinkmanship. However, a conflict of civilizations is unlikely, given the moderate character of many Muslim regimes, and the common sense of much of the Muslim street, especially in Southeast Asia. After all, half of the world’s Muslims live in South Asia, Bangladesh, India and Turkey, and they are less likely to heed the clarion call of the terrorist version of jihad. In Singapore, most people are preoccupied with jobs, incomes and economy. All could be affected significantly by the events that will unfold over the next several months. Some intellectuals still debate the rights and wrongs of an American attack on Iraq, when the time for such debate is past. It is past because, unless Mr Saddam suddenly changes course (he is capable of near twelfth-hour about turns) or he is overthrown, war looks inevitable. More relevant at this stage would be discussion of the possible consequences of war, especially of what can go wrong. A number of things can go wrong. One is the possibility of the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which many believe Iraq still possesses. Unlike the Gulf War of 1990–91, this time Mr Saddam may use chemical and biological weapons because his hold on power, even his life, are under threat. There could also be adverse security and geostrategic consequences if a war against Iraq does not go well for the US. Any resulting strategic weakness of the US will embolden terrorist groups and rogue states. At this 50 By Design or Accident moment in history, the US occupies a pivotal position in the international security system. While many chafe at its perceived unilateralism and arrogance, there is as yet no other power that is in a position to assume its role as an anchor of international stability. Nearer home, a US attack on Iraq will arouse Muslim sentiments in SoutheastAsia. Most of the governments in the region will probably manage the situation relatively easily if the war is quick and decisive, though extremist groups in Indonesia may put the Jakarta government to sterner test. Al Qaeda will have its own devilish designs, irrespective of any war against Iraq. One goal that it has indicated publicly is to deliver a blow to the US and western economies. It seems well aware of the developed world’s economic vulnerabilities. In Southeast Asia, Al Qaeda and its acolytes like the Jemaah Islamiyah may want to mount more attacks, possibly to coincide with a war on Iraq. Singapore is well protected by its efficient security services, but given its geographic location, no amount of controls and policing of borders can be fool-proof. The danger of terrorist attacks remains, especially if the terrorists go for progressively softer targets that are more difficult to secure. The nightmarish possibilities outlined above may not all come to pass. The war against Mr Saddam may be won with...