[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 28 (Thursday, March 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2417-S2420]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SOUTHEAST ASIA

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in past weeks I have come to the floor to 
report on the tremendous job that America and other allies did in 
assisting relief from the devastating tsunami that struck in Indonesia, 
Malaysia, and Thailand last December. Later I spoke about the very 
promising development of broad-based support for moderate Islam among 
leaders in Southeast Asia. The constructive work being done there is an 
extremely important counter to the Wahabiism strain of Islam teaching 
which subverts the teaching of a peaceful religion to promote terrorist 
attacks on any and all

[[Page S2418]]

who are regarded as infidels. In addition, Hadhari, or ``civilization'' 
Islam, preaches fair and equal treatment for women and tolerance of 
views of other religions.
  As former President Richard Nixon detailed in one of his last books 
before his death, developing strong and supportive relationships with 
moderate Islamic countries is of critical interest to the United 
States. He had warned of the dangers of radical Islam teachings even 
before we experienced the overseas terrorist attacks against Americans 
in the 1990s, culminating in the massive attacks of September 11, 2001, 
on our homeland.
  In this area, former President Nixon was prescient, and laid out an 
important principle for us to follow today. With Southeast Asia and its 
large Muslim population as the second front in the war on terror, we 
have the opportunity through constructive engagement to help those 
countries win their wars on terrorism without the need for massive 
military actions such as we have undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq to 
root out governments that harbor terrorists.
  As President Bush said in his State of the Union speech, fostering 
and encouraging the development of democratic, free societies 
throughout the world is not only an humanitarium imperative for us, it 
is also in our own security interest because free governments, 
democratically elected, as much less likely to engage in aggressive 
military action against their neighbors, and threaten peace and 
security in the world. In addition, with the proper diplomatic, 
economic, and strategic support, we can help those governments as they 
fight to eliminate the threat of terrorist activities within their 
borders.
  In a region previously dominated by monarchies, communist rule, and 
autocratic governments, democracy is making strides in Southeast Asia. 
As in all evolutions of democratic societies, the progress is not 
without its stumbles, its reverses, and occasionally undesirable 
results from the democratic process. Southeast Asia still has 
significant problem areas where democracy and human rights are not 
flourishing. As Natan Sharansky has said in his book The Case for 
Democracy, and in his presentation to Senators here in the Capitol on 
February 9th, the difference between a free society and a fear society 
can be measured by the town square test. Can a citizen go to the town 
square and express opposition and criticism of the government without 
fear of reprisal?
  Southeast Asia has glaring examples of the fear society, which is the 
opposite of the free society in Sharansky's terms. Communist North 
Vietnam has shown some interest in economic development and some 
tolerance of free markets, but it is far from a free society. According 
to the measurements of Freedom House--which views political and civil 
freedoms--other countries regarded as not free are Laos, Cambodia, and 
Brunei. The worst offender in the Freedom House rankings, and in my own 
view, is the state of Myanmar, which we previously knew as Burma. That 
country has gained international attention for its arrest, 
imprisonment, and abuse of Aung San Suu Kyi, that country's leading 
political opposition leader.
  Most recently, Thailand--among the most free and open societies in 
all of Asia--overwhelmingly re-elected the government of Prime Minister 
Thaksin Shinawantra, a very successful business man with strong 
managerial skills. Personally, I was relieved to see that apparently 
there was no weight given to his opponent's charges that I personally 
had lobbied Thaksin and convinced him to allow the introduction of 
biotechnology through genetically modified food products into Thailand. 
In truth, on my visits to Thailand with world renowned plant 
biotechnology leader, Dr. Roger Beachy of the Danforth Plant Science 
Center in Saint Louis, Missouri, we and our Ambassador discussed with 
the Prime Minister making available the resources of our bio-technology 
regulatory agencies in the U.S. so that Thai scientists and officials 
would have the technical capacity to make judgments for themselves 
about the safety of proposed bio-technology plantings and GMO food 
products, which hold tremendous promise to cure crop and plant disease 
in Southeast Asia, to feed the countries throughout the world and 
perhaps deliver vital vaccines to less developed countries.
  In Indonesia, the voters have elected a new President Susilo Bambang 
Yudhoyono who is committed to operating a corruption-free government, 
dedicated to recognition of human rights, free markets, and civilian 
control of the military with full protections for the civilian 
population. It is worth noting that the President, popularly known as 
SBY, participated in the last International Military Education and 
Training program--IMET--with our military at Fort Leavenworth, KS 
before Congress effectively cut off IMET participation for Indonesia 
military leaders. He also received a Masters' Degree from Webster 
University in Kansas City, MO. In Malaysia, the newly-elected Prime 
Minister Abdullah Badawi--of whom I spoke previously--noting his 
support for Hadhari Islam, has taken steps to rid his government of the 
favoritism and corruption of the previous administration, which sapped 
the economic growth potential of that very prosperous country.
  In the Philippines, popularly-elected President Gloria Arroyo is 
facing challenges within her own government, but she has been 
democratically elected and brought major change in the life of that 
country following the corruption and abuses of Ferdinand Marcos.
  Singapore has a new Prime Minister, Lee Hsien-Long, who is the son of 
the long-time ruling figure in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, now known as 
the Minister Mentor. Although some have charged that it is highly 
unlikely that the people of Singapore could choose a candidate not 
associated with the Ruling Party, I believe that Singapore would pass 
Natan Sharansky's test of a free society rather than a fear society on 
the town forum test. In addition, Singapore has been one of our 
staunchest allies strategically, economically, and in the war on 
terrorism. When the United States military forces were booted out of 
the Philippines, Singapore responded by developing a deepwater port 
where our large warships could dock and refuel and resupply. They moved 
very swiftly to crack down on terror rings including the very dangerous 
Jemaah Islamiyah, JI, when they discovered threats against United 
States and Australia Embassies in that country. In addition, we have 
recently completed the first Free Trade Agreement in Asia with the 
Singaporeans.
  In addition to supporting democracies and free societies and fighting 
terrorism, the United States has a very significant strategic interest 
in Southeast Asia. As many leaders in that region have told me, 
privately, they are concerned that the United States active engagement 
and association with those countries is essential to stop China from 
extending hegemony over the region. China has made many moves recently 
economically to gain control over the markets of Southeast Asia with 
offers of free trade and other inducements. In addition, China has 
flexed its muscle in the region by military maneuvers in the South 
China Sea to lay claim potentially to the significant petroleum 
reserves in that area.
  States of Southeast Asia, notably Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia, 
control the important Malacca Straits through which one quarter of all 
the shipping in the world passes, and one half of the petroleum 
products carried by ocean-going vessels pass.
  The Southeast Asia nations which have been generally supportive of 
the United States stand in contrast to the People's Republic of China, 
which has long opposed our efforts against terrorism and may be 
engaging in proliferation of nuclear and missile technology. The 
influence of China can be seen already in support for lifting United 
Nations sanctions and the Arms Embargo of China. There are many who 
feel that China may be building military capability which could be a 
threat to world peace and security as well as to the United States--all 
the more reason to prevent excessive China influence or control in 
Southeast Asia.
  In addition to our strategic interests, Southeast Asia is a very 
important economic trading partner for the United States. Malaysia is 
our tenth largest export market and ASEAN has passed Japan and is now 
the United States' third largest trading partner; two-way trade stands 
at $120 billion. In 2003 United States exports to Singapore

[[Page S2419]]

were $19 billion, to Malaysia over $17 billion. Although Thailand with 
$6.8 billion imports from the United States, the Philippines with $5.4 
billion, and Indonesia with $2.8 billion, are relatively smaller, they 
also offer opportunities with economic progress to be much more 
significant trading partners with us.
  Farmers in Missouri and throughout the Midwest felt the severe pain 
of the collapse of the Southeast Asia markets in 1997 and in 1998. Our 
previous $12 billion a year agricultural exports in the mid-1990s 
dropped to almost nothing during that period. The impact of that on 
farm prices in the agricultural heartland was extremely harsh. Farmers 
suffered significant losses of income, and rural communities dependent 
upon agriculture felt the pain, everywhere from equipment dealers to 
retails stores. Missouri farmers have been very relieved to see the 
economies, and, thus, the demand for agricultural products recover in 
the ASEAN region.
  At the same time we have good economic ties with the region the 
United States has image problems that cannot be ignored. The problems 
with the United States start with its support for Israel in its battle 
with the Palestinians and its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. This 
has brought great concern in Muslim countries and the former Malaysian 
Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammed--the first Muslim to come to his 
United States Embassy to register his sympathies after the September 
11, 2001 attack--became an even harsher critic of the United States 
when we took the battle against terrorism to Afghanistan and then to 
Iraq. Previously, I and other members of the Senate, had heard him 
deliver in the mid-1990s stinging criticism of the United States and 
other peoples with light skin--especially Jews--for currency 
manipulation which he felt had brought on the collapse of the Thai baht 
which triggered the Asian economic collapse and problems with his 
currency in Malaysia.
  There is also the inevitable reaction against a very large and 
powerful country when we have a presence in the region such as we did 
during the tsunami relief efforts. At the time we deployed our aircraft 
carrier strike force with the helicopters and marine copter ship with 
troops to the region, a very good friend of America in the region told 
me the United States needed to ``tiptoe'' coming into the region. I 
noted to him it was difficult to tiptoe when you have to bring an 
aircraft carrier strike force with helicopters into a region to provide 
the airlift and the personnel needed for vital relief. I noted his 
concerns and passed them along to our forces who did leave as soon as 
the mission was completed.
  Our friend also suggested the U.N. should play a larger role or at 
least be perceived as playing a larger role. Upon investigation I 
learned that might be rather difficult. The first appearances of the 
U.N. officials in the region were to hold news a conference to 
criticize the United States for doing nothing. As we would say back 
home, they came with big hats but no cattle.
  Some 17 days after the tsunami, the first U.N. operation, a World 
Health Organization medical team, showed up and our airlift transported 
him to the site where they set up operations. The fact remains that the 
United States and allied governments in the region and volunteer forces 
were the ones who arrived at a critically important time to save the 
lives of perhaps tens of thousands who lived through the tsunami but 
were threatened by death and disease or starvation.
  Within 6 days of the tsunami, Navy and Marine helicopters were 
delivering lifesaving food, water, and medical attention to isolated 
areas all along the west coast of northern Sumatra.
  I might also say there is a perceived racist undertone and some 
resentment of the United States. As I mentioned, in 1996 I was part of 
a Senatorial delegation attending the Asia Pacific dialog conference in 
Malaysia. Unfortunately, we had to sit through a 25-minute attack by 
Prime Minister Mahathir who placed the problems of his country at the 
feet of Jews, Americans, and other Caucasians who he said did not care 
about brown-skinned people--obviously, a very unpleasant message. At 
least one of my colleagues vowed he would never travel halfway around 
the world again to hear such accusations.
  The larger problem, of course, in the Muslim region has been the 
United States support of Israel and the conduct of the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq where many are concerned that the United States is 
conducting war on Islam, not on radical terrorists. These concerns have 
been partially and somewhat temporarily relieved by the extraordinary 
tsunami relief effort, but the scholars in the region, people whose 
judgment I respect, think this improvement will not last long without 
significant continuing efforts.
  As I have said, the most obvious problem we have with Indonesia has 
been a congressionally imposed restriction on military assistance in 
Indonesia. These restrictions were first imposed in response to abuses 
by the Indonesian military, TNI, during the 1990s in brutally 
repressing the unrest in East Timor, leading to the establishment of a 
separate state in East Timor. Subsequent human rights abuses occurred 
in other areas under the authoritarian rule of President Suharto. But 
with a newly elected President SBY, who is working to gain control over 
the military and install appropriate respect for human rights and 
civilian control of the military, the time has come, in my view, to 
assist in that effort by reestablishing full participation for the 
Indonesian military and our International Military Education and 
Training Program.

  Secretary Rice has taken the first step by clearing the way for 
resumption of full IMET participation by Indonesia. ``IMET for 
Indonesia is in the United States' interests,'' Secretary Rice said to 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I agree. I look forward to working 
with her and this body to expand the opportunity for IMET training.
  Not only, however, are we missing an opportunity to help Indonesia on 
its path to appropriately constrain military force, the sanctions have 
raised strong reactions from democratically elected members of the 
Indonesia parliament. Defense Minister Sudarsono stated that if the 
United States does not change its position, Indonesia would look 
elsewhere for assistance and alliance. Some members of parliament urged 
him not to solicit or accept the United States' assistance, but their 
position, fortunately, still does not appear to be the controlling view 
in the Government of Indonesia.
  Some opponents of increased IMET participation for Indonesia are 
charging that the TNI was responsible for murders of Americans at the 
Tamika Mine. Our FBI, our own U.S. FBI, was deployed to the area and 
conducted an investigation in conjunction with the Indonesian forces. 
The FBI has concluded that the murders were committed by an Indonesian 
separatist who thought he was killing TNI members. That individual is 
still being sought, and we hope he will be brought to justice in the 
near future.
  Obviously, I think that expanding military-to-military relations with 
Indonesia is the first and most important and obvious step we can take 
to improve relations. Beyond that, however, there is work to be done to 
work more closely with our friends in southeast Asia in providing 
technical assistance and tsunami relief efforts to help rebuild water 
infrastructure and other needed facilities.
  Another tremendous concern is itself a compelling reason for the 
United States to pursue an active foreign policy with Indonesia; that 
is, the threat to democracy from political groups that may espouse an 
extreme form of Islam. After the fall of the Suharto regime, an 
authoritarian government, the people of Indonesia have embraced 
democracy. In Congress, Indonesia does not get the credit it deserves 
for moving so quickly down the path of democratic government.
  With the election of President SBY, Indonesia just experienced its 
fourth peaceful democratic transfer of power. Voter participation in 
Indonesia, approximately 80 percent, should be the envy of us in the 
United States. However, the voice of extreme Islam is working through 
the political system, through activists and politically oriented 
groups, to spread their influence. Their presence is small but growing. 
In 2004, 79 percent of their voters cast their vote for a secular 
party, but that is down from 84 percent in 1999.
  There are groups such as the Justice and Prosperity Party that is 
growing by taking a hard line against the corruption of the past 
administration, and

[[Page S2420]]

it has participated in tsunami relief and other charitable activities. 
The party is gaining influence among those in Indonesia. But there are 
also elements in the party in the past who have expressed a desire for 
an Islamic State and feel that Islam suffered a setback as well as 
Indonesia suffering an economic setback during the secular dictatorship 
of Suharto in the ensuing years.

  There is a danger of the spread of radical Islam, whether it be in 
the madrasas or the political arena, the anti-western strain of this 
intolerant form of Islam, or other activities. I believe, as I have 
outlined previously, there are courageous and determined people in 
Indonesia fighting to ensure the future of the country as a democracy 
and one that values the principle of freedom known in secular 
government. We must remain engaged so their struggle prevails.
  The bigger picture requires active engagement with Southeast Asian 
countries seeking the path of democracy, human rights, and economic 
freedom. In my view, the best forms of assistance we can provide are 
economic participation by American companies in the region and 
educational exchanges. These were actually identified by the U.S. 
Agency for International Development Woods Report of the early 1990s 
which said that economic investment, trade, and education were the most 
effective ways of strengthening the relations and building the 
economies of developing countries. I believe that report was accurate, 
and I think it is the path for our participation in Southeast Asia.
  For example, in my recent visit to Malaysia, many leaders we spoke to 
were concerned that fewer Malaysian students are now studying in the 
United States than in the past. I believe this educational exchange is 
extremely valuable for us as well as for students. I hope we can 
encourage more American colleges and educational foundations to 
increase their support for educational exchanges.
  As noted above, however, I believe we must deal with military 
restrictions and use our IMET programs and other collaborative efforts 
as a means of assisting Indonesia, as well as other countries in the 
area, to work in a constructive fashion with our military in observing 
human rights and civilian control in that country. Not only is it in 
the interest of the people in Southeast Asia, I believe it is in our 
economic interest, our strategic interest, and in our interest in 
fighting the war against terrorism.

                          ____________________