An East-West Consortium for Combating Terrorism.

This paper examines two different counter-terrorist styles: the hegemonic, often unilateral approach practiced by the West and the multilateral consultative approach of the East. America and its Western allies such as Australia have often voiced impatience with the gradualist, consultative modus operandi of Southeast Asian states in dealing with terrorism. Australia even warned after the 12 October 2002 Bali attacks that it would consider mounting pre-emptive military action to rout terrorist networks taking refuge in neighbouring countries whose counter-terrorist action was perceived as lackadaisical. This created a firestorm of protest from Canberra’s Southeast Asian neighbours. It is clearly unacceptable to allow complacency or the downside of the East’s way of approaching terrorist threats to be the norm. Conversely, a unilateral approach threatens to undermine jealously-guarded sovereignty and compound international relations in a time when multilateral collaboration is required. To strike the right balance between respecting sovereignty and instituting effective action requires a new model combining not the worst but the best of both East and West. In fact such a hybrid model may already exist in the Asia-Pacific, employed by both ASEAN and Pacific Island Nations to combat transnational crime. However, applying this model is not straightforward as some regional states barely tolerate one another and trust can be described as very poor. Nevertheless, there are some excellent best practices already found within overall Asia-Pacific strategies to combat transnational criminal activity such as people smuggling and illicit drugs, that might be similarly employed against terrorism. What is important is that whilst these Asia-Pacific transnational crime strategies fit with international conventions and treaties they are uniquely tailored to the region. The regional fora that facilitate action to combat transnational crime can be described as loose coalitions but with a ‘whole of nation’ approach where developing nations work closely with developed nations that are not members of existing regional associations. In fact the developed nations, like the US, work outside the box as dialogue partners and in some cases provide the necessary impetus for effective action. Strategies to combat terrorism in the Asia Pacific need to emulate the transnational crime approach where the power and authority exerted by the West is distilled into a formula for the East that is easily converted into a shared vision for agreed outcomes. A successful formula that injects hegemonic drive and resources to energize a loose counter-terrorist multilateralism built on bilateral and informal networks might be effective in the Asia-Pacific. One critical aspect of this top-down but mediated and multilateral counter-terrorist approach involves capacity-building: the US can help improve traditional governance arrangements in the East to more effectively cope with the threat of transnational terrorism. For example, is the ASEAN Secretariat or ASEANAPOL sufficiently resourced and does it possess the required policy base to be effective? A frustration of the West is perceived inaction by the East when in some cases developing nations do not have the capacity to participate in a multinational initiative. The question seems to be balancing the expectations of the West against the capacity of the East to deliver on global counter-terrorist conventions and treaties whilst combating a common menace. A hegemonically-energized but nuanced and multilateral counter-terrorist strategy might be what is needed to combat transnational terrorism in the Asia Pacific and even globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]