– From a review of “MILITANT ISLAM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA — Crucible of Terror,” linked today by the Counterterrorism Blog. The author, Dr. Zachary Abuza, an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Simmons College, is a contributor to the blog.
More below, including this key statement: “Abuza rightly warns that the war on terror cannot come at the expense of human rights in the region”:
More from the review of “MILITANT ISLAM IN SOUTHEAST ASIA — Crucible of Terror”:
Traditionally, the governments in the region were secular and followed pluralistic policies. Indonesia is home to the world’s largest population of Muslims at just over 200 million. The Muslims here were different from the Arabs of the Middle East as they had fused Islam with Buddhism and Hinduism. They were secular in their outlook and rejected the radical strands of Islam of the variety found in the Middle East.
Abuza points out that any understanding of the radicalisation of Islam must acknowledge that the growth of extremism has less to do with theology and more to do with socio-economic failures of domestic governments, unemployment and the ever-widening rich-poor divide.
Historical context
Concentrating on the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, the author explains the historical context which helped extremism gain a foothold in the region. The economic breakdown of the 1990s with the attendant soaring unemployment and collapse of the regional currencies created the space for Islamic extremism to take root. While it was once “on the fringes of society, it now entered the mainstream.”
A large number of people with legitimate grievances against the failure of civil society facilitated the mosque to become the rallying point of propaganda and anti-government resistance. A watershed event that led Muslims to believe in Islam as a catalyst of political change was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979.
With secular institutions waning, madrassas and mosques backed by the financial clout of oil-rich Saudi Arabia spread the puritanical teachings of Wahabist Islam. And then the Palestinian issue: always a tinderbox. The injustices suffered by the Palestinians at the hands of Israel backed by the U.S have enraged Muslims across the world who see the Palestine issue as a religious struggle. Again, to many Muslims, the war in Iraq was yet another confirmation that the U.S. was waging a war against Islam and not terrorism.
[………….]
While militant Islam is not new to the region, the transnational links are new as the Bali bombings seem to indicate. Much of the book attempts to trace the transformation of local jihadis who had narrow political agendas in their state to “internationalists.” Al-Qaeda has been able to tap into this Islamic resurgence.
[………….]
It was no small coincidence that the then Indonesian President, Megawati Sukarnoputri was the first Muslim leader to visit the U.S. after the September 11 attacks.
As leader of the largest Muslim country, her support to the international coalition against terror was crucial. But what did the ASEAN do before the September 11 attacks to combat terrorism? Precious little. All too often, governments have only used Islam to bolster their political legitimacy.
The author contends that the ASEAN, though an appropriate forum to combat terrorism in the region, is much emasculated in its multilateral relationships and members have generally pursued individual national interests in confronting transnational terrorism. The ASEAN needs the U.S. to stay engaged in the region but this certainly comes at a price.
Abuza rightly warns that the war on terror cannot come at the expense of human rights in the region. Governments cannot use anti-terrorism legislation to curb and stifle bona fide political opponents. Disenchanted moderates must be engaged to counter the trend of radical Islam.
