[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3904-3906]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     NEW COMPREHENSIVE COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor several times 
about the administration's ill-conceived, poorly executed, and self-
defeating strategy in Iraq. Today, I intend to talk about how the war 
in Iraq is having a far-reaching and negative impact on our ability to 
conduct an effective fight against international terrorism. I saw this 
firsthand during a recent visit to Thailand and Indonesia, two valuable 
partners in the fight against terrorism in a strategically critical and 
often underappreciated region. I visited these two countries to gain a 
detailed understanding of the radical Jihadist networks that are 
proliferating throughout the region and of what it will take to 
effectively confront this threat.
  I bring back from the trip both good news and bad news. The good news 
is that we have a significant opportunity in Thailand, Indonesia, and 
in Southeast Asia in general, to get our counterterrorism strategy 
right. It is not too late to stem the relationship between 
international terrorist networks and local extremist organizations. Nor 
is it too late to tackle the root causes of extremism in the region.
  Unfortunately, there is bad news. Unless we develop a truly 
comprehensive, global strategy to counter terrorist threats, we will 
miss the opportunity to gain the upper hand in the fight against 
terrorism in Southeast Asia at what couldn't be a more critical time. 
And changing our misguided policies in Iraq must be a central element 
of this strategy.
  First, international terrorist networks are alive and well in 
Southeast Asia. During my visit, I examined the current nature of a 
leading regional terrorist organization, al-Jesmaah al-Islamiyah, or 
``JI'', and its affiliates--the threat it continues to pose to 
countries throughout the region, how it has survived the deaths and 
arrests of some of its key leaders, and its ties with al-Qaida. Most 
importantly, I gained a more detailed understanding of the conditions 
that have provided JI with a recruitment base and operational space.
  JI takes advantage of vast areas of ocean, isolated islands, weak or 
corrupt local and provincial governments, the absence of rule of law, 
and marginalized Islamic populations to develop its strength. JI has a 
presence throughout the region. And while arrests of prominent JI 
leaders in the last few years have helped shed light on the 
organization, it continues to operate in loosely formed cells, in 
regionally oriented entities, and in partnership with other terrorist 
organizations like the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines.
  That said, according to a number of sources, including the 
International Crisis Group, Congressional Research Service, and the 
State Department, JI and al-Qaida have developed a symbiotic 
relationship. There is some overlap in membership. They have shared 
training camps in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Mindanao, and often help 
one another with supply chain systems and transportation. Al-Qaida has 
also provided JI with considerable financial support
  JI and al-Qaida also exploit similar ground as they seek safe haven 
and new recruits. These groups feed on anti-United States and anti-
Western sentiment, fueled in part by discontent and anger about United 
States policies in Iraq. Unfortunately, the administration's refusal to 
provide a flexible timeline for withdrawing United States troops from 
Iraq allows these groups to portray us as occupiers of a Muslim 
country. Until we show that we are truly committed to redeploying 
United States troops from Iraq, terrorist organizations will continue 
to find recruits in otherwise moderate Muslim communities, and we will 
continue to make it harder to win the full backing of potential 
partners and allies in the fight against terrorist networks.
  It is in this light that I would like to lay out some of my key 
observations from my recent trip. I will talk about the political and 
security dynamics in both Thailand and Indonesia, and will argue that a 
new counterterrorism strategy in the region must incorporate respect 
for human rights, the rule of law, and the need to hold our friends and 
allies accountable for making necessary democratic reforms.
  I would like to begin with Thailand. Thailand is a critical strategic 
partner of the United States in, among other things, the fight against 
al-Qaida and its affiliates. Our close political and military 
relationship goes back decades and is a vital component of United 
States national security policies in the region. The 1954 Manila Pact, 
together with the 1962 Thanat-Rusk communique, forms the basis of the 
longstanding United States-Thai security relationship. Thailand's 
airfields and ports play a particularly important role in United States 
global military strategy, including having served as the primary hub of 
the relief effort for the Indian Ocean tsunami.
  Thailand has also shown its willingness to stand by the United States 
in recent military campaigns. Thailand sent 130 soldiers, mostly 
engineers, to Afghanistan to participate in the reconstruction phase of 
Operation Enduring Freedom. Specifically, Thai forces are responsible 
for the construction of a runway at Bagram Airbase, medical services, 
and some Special Forces operations.
  Thailand also contributed to reconstruction efforts in Iraq by 
dispatching over 450 troops, including medics and engineers, to the 
southern city of Karbala. The deployment proved unpopular with the Thai 
public, however, particularly in the volatile southern provinces, and 
in September 2004, Thai troops were withdrawn from Iraq.
  While Thailand has been and will continue to be a strong ally, my 
visit occurred during a politically fragile time for the government. 
Public demonstrations and significant political pressure on the Prime 
Minister highlighted the challenges of conducting an effective and 
responsible counterinsurgency campaign while managing domestic 
political pressures. The Thai Government has also struggled to account 
for over 2,000 extrajudicial killings over the last few years, the 
kidnapping of a prominent human rights lawyer by Thai police and his 
death in police custody, and overly aggressive and heavy-handed tactics 
used in the counterinsurgency campaign that in one case resulted in the 
killing of over 70 detained suspects.
  At the same time, though, preparations for national celebrations of 
the King's 60-year reign underscored the underlying stability of 
Thailand's constitutional monarchy. It is this stability that has 
permitted the United States to pursue close counterterrorism and other 
strategic ties with Thailand that transcend individual politicians and 
parties. It also provides the foundation of a partnership that can and 
must be based not only on an understanding of a common threat, but on a 
shared commitment to finding solutions to the conditions that breed 
extremism and terrorism.
  My visit to Thailand focused primarily on Thailand's counterterrorism 
role in the region. As I mentioned, longstanding tensions in the mostly 
Muslim southern provinces of Thailand have recently exploded into 
violent unrest that has claimed hundreds of lives. The unrest, which 
has elements of a separatist insurgency, included brutal attacks on 
civilians. Insurgent tactics have sometimes suggested the influence of 
international terrorism, but Thai, United States Government, and 
independent experts believe that neither al-Qaida nor its Southeast 
Asian affiliates have been behind the violence so far. Thai officials 
have noted publicly, however, that there has been evidence that many of 
those involved in

[[Page 3905]]

the unrest in the south had received militant schooling or training 
outside of Thailand. It is possible that in the near future 
international terrorist organizations like JI could exploit the 
continuing unrest in Thailand's southern provinces.
  The United States needs to have a clear understanding of what is 
happening in Thailand in order to formulate an appropriate policy 
response. With our Thai partners, we must remain vigilant to the 
possibility that international terrorist organizations could take 
advantage of unrest among disaffected Muslim populations in the south.
  When I met Prime Minister Thaksin and a number of his key advisors 
and cabinet members, I stressed the need for the Thai Government to 
confront the root causes of this unrest before it becomes an 
international security concern. This means promoting human rights and 
accountability for abuses that have been committed by Thai security 
forces and have helped fuel the unrest, as well as increasing 
opportunities for disaffected or marginalized communities to join 
regional and international economies. It also means promoting civil 
society, economic development, transparency and increased political 
participation of the Muslim community.
  I was pleased to learn of the progress being made by the National 
Reconciliation Council to address grievances stemming from the 
government's policies in the South. I urged the Prime Minister to take 
seriously the recommendations that the NRC will be delivering in the 
coming months, and to emphasize the value of honoring the NRC as a 
mechanism for strengthening dialogue between the Thai people and the 
government.
  I would like to shift to Indonesia now. After 3 days of meeting with 
senior Indonesian Government officials including the President, the 
Foreign and Defense Ministers, the new Chief of the Indonesian 
military, and the police chief, I have a new sense of optimism about 
United States-Indonesian relations. But while I am optimistic about 
progress being made there, limited progress in areas such as military 
reform and accountability for past crimes against humanity could 
undermine further democratic reforms and counterterrorism efforts.
  Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, and it is a critical 
player in the global fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates. The 
terrorist organization al-Jamaah al-Islamiyah and associated groups in 
the region pose a serious threat to Indonesia and to the interests of 
the United States, our allies, and our friends. In response to this 
threat, we need a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy and a 
bilateral relationship with Indonesia aimed at fighting terrorism while 
supporting that country's efforts at democratization. Fighting 
terrorism and supporting democratization are not incompatible--in fact, 
democratic reforms and the growth of civil society in Indonesia have 
gone hand in hand with expanded counterterrorism efforts, providing a 
clear indication that Indonesia's political reforms do not come at the 
cost of the government's ability to fight terrorism.
  While the United States-Indonesia relationship has never been more 
important, Indonesia's effectiveness in countering terrorist networks 
and other emerging threats hinges on its ability to reform its 
government, address past crimes and abuses, and improve both the 
transparency and the effectiveness of the central and provincial 
governments.
  We cannot forget that the Government of Indonesia has had a poor 
human rights record. The Indonesian military in particular has long 
been a perpetrator of human rights abuses as well as a serious obstacle 
to democratization. In recent years, efforts to reform the military, 
while commendable, have produced mixed results. The greatest 
improvement has been an increase in civilian control of the military 
and the withdrawal of the military from active politics.
  Ridding the Indonesian military of its private business holdings and 
providing greater transparency have been harder to achieve. In some 
areas, the military's treatment of civilian populations has improved, 
but abuses still occur and there has been virtually no accountability 
for past human rights violations. There is still a considerable amount 
of distance to travel for the government and the military to become 
``reformed,'' and while progress is being made, more needs to be done.
  Serious tensions continue in Papua, the remote easternmost province 
of Indonesia. Serious unrest due to repressive government policies, 
poverty, and recent abuses by the Indonesian military and police forces 
has created an environment of distrust, and I urged the Government of 
Indonesia to address the abuses that are taking place and immediately 
open up Papua to journalists and human rights organizations. Doing so 
would be an important step toward making transparency and justice the 
new norm for Indonesia.
  United States policy toward Indonesia, including the implementation 
of the administration's decision to resume military assistance, must 
take these ongoing concerns into account. We must ensure that our 
assistance promotes reform and human rights, we must remain vigilant to 
any backsliding, and we must develop clear benchmarks for progress.
  Carefully circumscribing any new military assistance is critical to 
formulating an effective bilateral counterterrorism relationship. There 
may be areas where the Indonesian military's role is warranted, such as 
maritime security in the Strait of Malacca. But any resurrection of the 
military's historical role in domestic security would be 
counterproductive to the fight against terrorism, not least because it 
would likely alienate much of the population. We must therefore make 
clear that such a development would undermine our bilateral 
relationship.
  We must also be alert to the risk that military assistance could 
overwhelm other elements of a larger counterterrorism strategy. If 
Indonesia is going to effectively fight terrorism, it must develop a 
professional, capable, and honest police force and strong judiciary. An 
imbalanced United States assistance program could harm reform efforts 
and undermine Indonesia's nascent efforts to coordinate the 
counterterrorism roles of its various military, police and civilian 
agencies.
  Finally, we must expand assistance programs in the areas of 
education, economic development and the promotion of civil societies. 
No counterterrorism strategy can succeed unless the political, social 
and economic conditions that breed terrorism are confronted head on.
  I do believe that we have an opportunity to create and execute a 
comprehensive and effective counterterrorism strategy in Southeast 
Asia. This strategy needs to take into account the unique nature of 
each of our partners in the region and their internal political, 
social, and economic dynamics, while addressing the root causes of 
extremism and the conditions that fuel or support the growth of 
terrorist networks.
  The United States can take a leadership role in the region and can 
help friends and allies like Thailand and Indonesia engage as full 
partners in the fight against terrorist networks. In many cases, the 
United States should push strongly for ending abusive or heavy-handed 
government policies, addressing past human rights abuses, and opening 
political space that allows the freedom to express political discontent 
or dissatisfaction with government leaders or policies.
  Unfortunately, our policies in Iraq are making it increasingly 
difficult to execute such a strategy effectively. Public opinion in 
Southeast Asia is critically important if we are to dry up potential 
havens and recruiting grounds for terrorists. In Thailand, neither 
anti-American nor anti-Western sentiment has taken root. At the same 
time, however, Thai officials have stated that the withdrawal of Thai 
troops from Iraq was motivated in part by the Iraq war's unpopularity 
in the Muslim community. Indonesians' views on United States policy in 
Iraq are harsher still, ranging from indifference to deep suspicion. At 
best, Iraq is seen as

[[Page 3906]]

``America's problem;'' at worst, people question our motives for being 
there. These widely held views make the critically important work of 
engaging our friends and allies in the fight against al-Qaida and its 
affiliates that much more difficult.
  There are also opportunity costs to our narrow focus on Iraq. The war 
in Iraq has drained precious resources away from what must be a global 
counterterrorism strategy, one that addresses the dangers of weak 
states and regions. The war also undercuts critical elements of this 
strategy. Widespread global skepticism about our policies in Iraq makes 
it all the more difficult for us to promote human rights and the rule 
of law while seeking partners against extremism and violence.
  The President's misguided, Iraq-centric foreign policy is both 
symptom and cause of an alarming failure to conduct a comprehensive, 
global war on the terrorist networks that threaten us. Southeast Asia 
is but one of the regions that requires more focused attention. We 
cannot afford to continue treating threats in this and other parts of 
the world as secondary to an Iraq-focused national security strategy. 
The time has long since come for the President to set a flexible 
timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, and to develop a comprehensive, 
global strategy to fight terrorist networks and the conditions that 
breed them.

                          ____________________