Asia - Against Terrorism but Ambivalent Towards Bombing
ICHIMURA Shinichi / Director of the International Center for the Study of East Asian Development
November 20, 2001
The Shanghai political declaration announced by leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum was curious in content. All the leaders - including China's President Jiang Zemin - agreed to take a resolute stand in combating terrorism under the leadership of U.S. President George Bush, and expressed their support towards providing economic aid and applying pressure on the financial front as the means for achieving that end. Then again, nowhere did the declaration say they approved of military action. The New York Times reported that U.S. government officials were nevertheless "thrilled." That is understandable, since the U.S. side probably hadn't expected to gain support even at that level, considering that many Asian countries within APEC have sizable Islamic populations.
Almost all of Indonesia's 200 million nationals and the Malays who comprise as much as 60% of Malaysia's 22 million population are for the most part Muslim. In Mindanao in the southern region of the Philippines, radical Muslim groups are even at this moment engaged in repeated terrorist attacks. China too, has minority Muslim populations such as the Mongols and the Uighurs, and has especially been troubled by disturbances caused by the Uighur, Kyrgyz and Kazak peoples in its northwestern region. And as for North Korea, the country has been unable to brush off suspicions of itself being a terrorist nation. It would only have been natural for the U.S. government to be pessimistic about any possibility that APEC leaders would agree so easily on fighting terrorism.
Moreover, parties that govern Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines all have weak political foundations. Maintaining power would become difficult once they lose the support of part of their Muslim constituencies or if domestic security deteriorates. For example, while the political party of Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri is the largest, it holds only a third of the seats in parliament. At the moment, the stability of her government is ensured by the support of the second-largest Golkar Party - the former leading party under the Suharto regime, 38 members of the military and the PPP, the biggest Muslim party led by Vice President Hamza Haz. But as was the case under her predecessor President Abdurrahman Wahid, once Muslim discontent spreads and the PPP allies with Wahid's Muslim party PKB, both the Golkar Party and the military establishment are expected to quickly withdraw their support. Furthermore, the government's battle against radical separatists calling for the restoration of the Acheh Kingdom is underway, and there are advocates for the independence of Irian Jaya to contend with.
The Philippine government has yet to suppress the Muslim guerrillas in Mindanao. In Malaysia, while the government has long ago succeed in deterring communist guerrillas, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is still at pains dealing with his opposition. China meanwhile has been unable to extinguish the serious kindlings of insurrection among the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities, which is similar to Russia's situation in Central Asia. Governments in these countries therefore share a common dilemma, where they would lose credibility should they appear faint-hearted in the campaign against terrorism, but could lose power altogether should the general public begin to show sympathy and support for the terrorist cause.
Furthermore, the masses in these less developed countries are caught up in a swirl of emotion -envy towards people living in affluent countries, namely the United States, and exasperation concerning the desperate plight of those unfortunate people who are being bombed. There is also an undercurrent of accumulated discontent towards an America that continues to support Israel in the face of United Nations resolutions regarding the conflict in Palestine, and an America that concentrates most of its foreign aid to Israel and Egypt and not to helping the poor. This is why their Muslim blood churns as scenes of tragedy involving innocent people are televised repeatedly, even though they know it is part of an anti-terrorist campaign.
Why then did these Asian countries - setting aside countries such as Japan, Korea and Thailand where not many Muslims live - offer their support to the battle against terrorism? The reasons may be as follows: (1) Less developed countries will be unable to pursue their course of modernization if they tolerate terrorist activity; (2) Terrorism can cause serious direct damage to tourism and exports; (3) Their heavy dependence on the U.S. economy and U.S.-led international finance; (4) Government finances have been strained following the financial crisis, giving them no choice but to fall into line with the United States and Japan.
As has been demonstrated in the Gulf War, U.S. military power is important in resolving domestic and overseas conflicts, and it is difficult not to support the United States in its war of defense.
However, let me make a point here. APEC, as its name suggests, originated as a forum for economic cooperation, not for political discussion. It was U.S. President Bill Clinton who steered APEC in the wrong direction by holding his first meeting with Chinese leaders at the Seattle meeting following the Tienammen Square incident in 1993. Then in 1999 U.S. and Chinese leaders discussed the East Timor issue at the New Zealand meeting. And marking the third occasion, leaders of the two countries held their first meeting in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York.
I consider this the "politicization" of APEC and believe it is undesirable. There is an overwhelming number of extremely important international economic issues in the world today that require solutions, and the resolution of these issues would in turn be effective in resolving the political problems. I would also add that, one step at a time - from the Osaka Declaration to the Bogor Declaration - we have been setting course in the right direction towards global economic development. As a matter of fact, the main part of the Shanghai declaration calls for forcefully promoting liberalization of trade tariffs in line with the Bogor Declaration, and has reconfirmed the need for regional cooperation. For example, it expresses powerful support for the Chenmai Initiative engineered under Japanese leadership - an alternative proposal to the Asian Monetary Fund that was discarded due to opposition from the United States and China. APEC should not stray from such a path of economic cooperation.
The writer is Director of the International Center for the Study of East Asian Development. He contributed this comment to the Sankei Shimbun.
Almost all of Indonesia's 200 million nationals and the Malays who comprise as much as 60% of Malaysia's 22 million population are for the most part Muslim. In Mindanao in the southern region of the Philippines, radical Muslim groups are even at this moment engaged in repeated terrorist attacks. China too, has minority Muslim populations such as the Mongols and the Uighurs, and has especially been troubled by disturbances caused by the Uighur, Kyrgyz and Kazak peoples in its northwestern region. And as for North Korea, the country has been unable to brush off suspicions of itself being a terrorist nation. It would only have been natural for the U.S. government to be pessimistic about any possibility that APEC leaders would agree so easily on fighting terrorism.
Moreover, parties that govern Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines all have weak political foundations. Maintaining power would become difficult once they lose the support of part of their Muslim constituencies or if domestic security deteriorates. For example, while the political party of Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri is the largest, it holds only a third of the seats in parliament. At the moment, the stability of her government is ensured by the support of the second-largest Golkar Party - the former leading party under the Suharto regime, 38 members of the military and the PPP, the biggest Muslim party led by Vice President Hamza Haz. But as was the case under her predecessor President Abdurrahman Wahid, once Muslim discontent spreads and the PPP allies with Wahid's Muslim party PKB, both the Golkar Party and the military establishment are expected to quickly withdraw their support. Furthermore, the government's battle against radical separatists calling for the restoration of the Acheh Kingdom is underway, and there are advocates for the independence of Irian Jaya to contend with.
The Philippine government has yet to suppress the Muslim guerrillas in Mindanao. In Malaysia, while the government has long ago succeed in deterring communist guerrillas, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is still at pains dealing with his opposition. China meanwhile has been unable to extinguish the serious kindlings of insurrection among the Uighurs and other ethnic minorities, which is similar to Russia's situation in Central Asia. Governments in these countries therefore share a common dilemma, where they would lose credibility should they appear faint-hearted in the campaign against terrorism, but could lose power altogether should the general public begin to show sympathy and support for the terrorist cause.
Furthermore, the masses in these less developed countries are caught up in a swirl of emotion -envy towards people living in affluent countries, namely the United States, and exasperation concerning the desperate plight of those unfortunate people who are being bombed. There is also an undercurrent of accumulated discontent towards an America that continues to support Israel in the face of United Nations resolutions regarding the conflict in Palestine, and an America that concentrates most of its foreign aid to Israel and Egypt and not to helping the poor. This is why their Muslim blood churns as scenes of tragedy involving innocent people are televised repeatedly, even though they know it is part of an anti-terrorist campaign.
Why then did these Asian countries - setting aside countries such as Japan, Korea and Thailand where not many Muslims live - offer their support to the battle against terrorism? The reasons may be as follows: (1) Less developed countries will be unable to pursue their course of modernization if they tolerate terrorist activity; (2) Terrorism can cause serious direct damage to tourism and exports; (3) Their heavy dependence on the U.S. economy and U.S.-led international finance; (4) Government finances have been strained following the financial crisis, giving them no choice but to fall into line with the United States and Japan.
As has been demonstrated in the Gulf War, U.S. military power is important in resolving domestic and overseas conflicts, and it is difficult not to support the United States in its war of defense.
However, let me make a point here. APEC, as its name suggests, originated as a forum for economic cooperation, not for political discussion. It was U.S. President Bill Clinton who steered APEC in the wrong direction by holding his first meeting with Chinese leaders at the Seattle meeting following the Tienammen Square incident in 1993. Then in 1999 U.S. and Chinese leaders discussed the East Timor issue at the New Zealand meeting. And marking the third occasion, leaders of the two countries held their first meeting in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York.
I consider this the "politicization" of APEC and believe it is undesirable. There is an overwhelming number of extremely important international economic issues in the world today that require solutions, and the resolution of these issues would in turn be effective in resolving the political problems. I would also add that, one step at a time - from the Osaka Declaration to the Bogor Declaration - we have been setting course in the right direction towards global economic development. As a matter of fact, the main part of the Shanghai declaration calls for forcefully promoting liberalization of trade tariffs in line with the Bogor Declaration, and has reconfirmed the need for regional cooperation. For example, it expresses powerful support for the Chenmai Initiative engineered under Japanese leadership - an alternative proposal to the Asian Monetary Fund that was discarded due to opposition from the United States and China. APEC should not stray from such a path of economic cooperation.
The writer is Director of the International Center for the Study of East Asian Development. He contributed this comment to the Sankei Shimbun.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
アジアは反テロだが空爆には複雑反応
市村 眞一 / 国際東アジア研究センター所長
2001年 11月 20日
アジア太平洋経済協力会議（ＡＰＥＣ）首脳の上海声明は、奇妙な内容であった。ブッシュ大統領主導の下、江沢民主席を含め全首脳が断固テロ排撃に一致したが、それを実行する経済支援や金融の面からしめあげることを支持してはいるが、軍事的手段に賛成とはどこにも書いてない。これを報じたニューヨーク・タイムスは、それでも米政府高官が興奮したと語ったと伝えている。無理もない。ＡＰＥＣ内のアジア諸国にはイスラム教徒を多数抱える国が多く、この程度の支持も難しいと思っていたのであろう。
インドネシア国民２億の殆ど、マレイシア人口2200万の６割を占めるマレイ人はほぼ全部回教徒である。フィリピン南部のミンダナオには過激派回教徒が現にテロ襲撃を繰り返している。中国も蒙古族ウィーグル族等の回教徒を少数民族としてかかえ、特に西北部のウィーグル・キルギス・カザク族の紛乱には悩まされている。また北朝鮮に至っては、それ自身テロ国家との疑念をなお払拭できていない。だから、そうあっさりとテロ反対にＡＰＥＣ首脳が一致するとはアメリカ当局は楽観できなかったと思われる。
おまけにインドネシアもマレイシアもフィリピンも、みな政権党の政治基盤が弱い。もし回教徒の一部の支持でも失ったり、国内治安が悪化したりすると、政権維持が難しくなる。例えば、メガワチ大統領の党は第一党だが、全議席の三分の一を占めるにすぎない。目下は、第二党のゴルカル党（スハルト時代の政権党）、軍の三八名、副大統領のハムザ・ハズのＰＰＰ党（最大の回教政党）の支持で十分安泰だが、ワヒド前大統領がそうであったように、ひとたび回教徒の反感が強まり、ワヒドの回教政党ＰＫＢとＰＰＰが連帯すると、忽ちゴルカルも軍も離れるであろう。加えて、アチェ王国の復活を叫ぶ過激派の抗争はつづいているし、西イリアン独立派も存在する。
フィリピンは、未だにミンダナオの回教徒ゲリラをよく鎮圧してない。マレイシアはとっくに共産ゲリラは一掃したが、マハティール首相は野党対策に腐心している。中国もウイーグル族等の叛乱というたいへんな火種を消せないでいる。ロシアの中央アジアにおける事情もこれに似ている。だから、皆それぞれテロに弱腰を見せれば、自分の立場がなくなるし、反面彼等の主張が一般国民の同情と支持を得ると、政権がもたぬというジレンマを抱えている。
それに、これら低開発国の大衆には、アメリカを筆頭とする富裕国民への羨望と悲惨な人々が攻撃され救われないことへの憤懣の情が渦巻いている。パレスタイン紛争に国連決議を無視してイスラエル支持をつづけるアメリカ、対外援助の大半をイスラエルとエジプトに集中して貧者救済に向けないアメリカ、への不満の鬱積も底流にある。従って無辜の民の惨状がテレビに反復映写されると、反テロのためとはいえ、回教徒の血がさわぐのである。
日韓タイのような回教徒の殆どいない国は別として、これ等の国が、では何故反テロを支持したか。その理由を列挙すれは次のようである。
１．テロ行為を容認すれば、低開発国が追求している近代化路線が取れない。
２．テロの観光や輸出への被害が直接深刻である。
３．米経済と米主導の国際金融依存が巨大である。
４．金融危機後の今、財政にゆとりはなく、米日の歩調に合わせる以外道はない。
５．湾岸戦争の例が示すように、内外の紛争処理にアメリカの軍事力は重要であり、アメリカの自衛戦は支持せざるを得ない。
しかしここで一言したい。そもそもＡＰＥＣは、その名のごとく、経済協力協議の場で、政治協議の場ではない。ＡＰＥＣをこの誤った方向に舵取りしたのはクリントン大統領で、天安門事件後の九三年のシアトル会議で、米中首脳は初対面をしたのである。九九年にニュージーランドで東チモール問題を討議した。今回は三度目であり、紐育テロ事件の直後米中首脳が初顔合わせした。
しかし私は、これはＡＰＥＣの「政治化」で、それは望ましくないと信じる。何故なら、今の世界には極めて重要で解決を要する国際的経済問題が山積しており、それを解決することが、却って反テロ対策のような政治課題解決に有効なのである。しかも大阪宣言・ボゴール声明とつづいて一歩一歩世界経済の発展のための良い方向づけができているところだからである。事実、声明の主要部分はボゴール声明以来の貿易関税の自由化を強力に推進し、そのために地域協力を再確認している。例えば、日本が主導したチェンマイ・イニシアチブを強力に支持している。これは嘗て米国と中国が反対してつぶれたアジア通貨基金の代案である。ＡＰＥＣは、こうした線を忘れてはならないのである。
（筆者は国際東アジア研究センター所長。この原稿は産経新聞に掲載されたものです。）
インドネシア国民２億の殆ど、マレイシア人口2200万の６割を占めるマレイ人はほぼ全部回教徒である。フィリピン南部のミンダナオには過激派回教徒が現にテロ襲撃を繰り返している。中国も蒙古族ウィーグル族等の回教徒を少数民族としてかかえ、特に西北部のウィーグル・キルギス・カザク族の紛乱には悩まされている。また北朝鮮に至っては、それ自身テロ国家との疑念をなお払拭できていない。だから、そうあっさりとテロ反対にＡＰＥＣ首脳が一致するとはアメリカ当局は楽観できなかったと思われる。
おまけにインドネシアもマレイシアもフィリピンも、みな政権党の政治基盤が弱い。もし回教徒の一部の支持でも失ったり、国内治安が悪化したりすると、政権維持が難しくなる。例えば、メガワチ大統領の党は第一党だが、全議席の三分の一を占めるにすぎない。目下は、第二党のゴルカル党（スハルト時代の政権党）、軍の三八名、副大統領のハムザ・ハズのＰＰＰ党（最大の回教政党）の支持で十分安泰だが、ワヒド前大統領がそうであったように、ひとたび回教徒の反感が強まり、ワヒドの回教政党ＰＫＢとＰＰＰが連帯すると、忽ちゴルカルも軍も離れるであろう。加えて、アチェ王国の復活を叫ぶ過激派の抗争はつづいているし、西イリアン独立派も存在する。
フィリピンは、未だにミンダナオの回教徒ゲリラをよく鎮圧してない。マレイシアはとっくに共産ゲリラは一掃したが、マハティール首相は野党対策に腐心している。中国もウイーグル族等の叛乱というたいへんな火種を消せないでいる。ロシアの中央アジアにおける事情もこれに似ている。だから、皆それぞれテロに弱腰を見せれば、自分の立場がなくなるし、反面彼等の主張が一般国民の同情と支持を得ると、政権がもたぬというジレンマを抱えている。
それに、これら低開発国の大衆には、アメリカを筆頭とする富裕国民への羨望と悲惨な人々が攻撃され救われないことへの憤懣の情が渦巻いている。パレスタイン紛争に国連決議を無視してイスラエル支持をつづけるアメリカ、対外援助の大半をイスラエルとエジプトに集中して貧者救済に向けないアメリカ、への不満の鬱積も底流にある。従って無辜の民の惨状がテレビに反復映写されると、反テロのためとはいえ、回教徒の血がさわぐのである。
日韓タイのような回教徒の殆どいない国は別として、これ等の国が、では何故反テロを支持したか。その理由を列挙すれは次のようである。
１．テロ行為を容認すれば、低開発国が追求している近代化路線が取れない。
２．テロの観光や輸出への被害が直接深刻である。
３．米経済と米主導の国際金融依存が巨大である。
４．金融危機後の今、財政にゆとりはなく、米日の歩調に合わせる以外道はない。
５．湾岸戦争の例が示すように、内外の紛争処理にアメリカの軍事力は重要であり、アメリカの自衛戦は支持せざるを得ない。
しかしここで一言したい。そもそもＡＰＥＣは、その名のごとく、経済協力協議の場で、政治協議の場ではない。ＡＰＥＣをこの誤った方向に舵取りしたのはクリントン大統領で、天安門事件後の九三年のシアトル会議で、米中首脳は初対面をしたのである。九九年にニュージーランドで東チモール問題を討議した。今回は三度目であり、紐育テロ事件の直後米中首脳が初顔合わせした。
しかし私は、これはＡＰＥＣの「政治化」で、それは望ましくないと信じる。何故なら、今の世界には極めて重要で解決を要する国際的経済問題が山積しており、それを解決することが、却って反テロ対策のような政治課題解決に有効なのである。しかも大阪宣言・ボゴール声明とつづいて一歩一歩世界経済の発展のための良い方向づけができているところだからである。事実、声明の主要部分はボゴール声明以来の貿易関税の自由化を強力に推進し、そのために地域協力を再確認している。例えば、日本が主導したチェンマイ・イニシアチブを強力に支持している。これは嘗て米国と中国が反対してつぶれたアジア通貨基金の代案である。ＡＰＥＣは、こうした線を忘れてはならないのである。
（筆者は国際東アジア研究センター所長。この原稿は産経新聞に掲載されたものです。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟