An Anti Terrorism Centre - Whose Agenda?Media Statement An Anti Terrorism Centre - Whose Agenda? It would be in the interest of the Malaysian nation for the government to adopt a cautious attitude towards the proposal by the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, to establish a regional centre in Kuala Lumpur to counter terrorism in Southeast Asia that would be run jointly by the two governments. While efforts to combat terrorism -- the deliberate killing of civilians in pursuit of one's goal -- should be intensified, we should not allow ourselves to be used, wittingly or unwittingly, as a pawn in Washington's anti-terrorist crusade. For it is obvious to many political analysts that the sole superpower of the day is manipulating the issue of terrorism to extend its hegemony over the world. Since September 11 Washington has brought a Central Asian state under its direct control through military action; established military bases in three other Central Asian republics; created a military presence in another Central Asian state; re-enacted a military role for itself in a Southeast Asian state; and gained total access to the inner sanctuary of the security system of a number of countries around the globe. Equally important, the US's unassailable military supremacy has enabled it to tighten its grip over that one resource which has been critical to the shaping of its foreign policy in the last five decades. Today, after the war in Afghanistan and the newly forged military alliances with Tajikstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, Washington is in a position to control oil in the Caspian Sea region. It is estimated that by 2010 the region will yield 2.3 billion barrels of crude oil per day -- equal to Saudi Arabia's present output -- in addition to 4850 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year. This goes to show that there is a powerful economic dimension to the US's war on terrorism. Indeed, Washington's economic and military hegemony is one of the factors that has prompted disenfranchised and marginalised groups to resort to acts of terror to vent their anger against an unjust global system. This is why the terrorists who committed the carnage of September 11 targetted the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. It also explains why some of the militants operating in Southeast Asia appear to have put Singapore high on their hit list since the island republic allegedly enjoys intimate military and economic links to the US. Would Powell's proposed anti-terrorist centre be able to examine Washington's hegemony and its impact upon Southeast Asia? If it cannot study such issues in depth would it be able to generate ideas to counter global terrorism since global terrorism is in some respects a reaction to global hegemony? On the other hand would the centre be able to probe in an honest manner some of the domestic causes of terrorism in countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia? Since these causes maybe related to the prevailing economic and political situation, the centre will have to impress upon the ruling elites the importance of pursuing more equitable policies aimed at rooting out the underlying causes of terrorism. Will the centre have the independence and the courage to adopt such a stance vis-a-vis the powers that be? If Powell's centre cannot deal with the domestic and global causes of terrorism and propound solutions which address the real issues of justice and identity which lie at the heart of so much of the grievances associated with terror and violence, what purpose would it serve? Would it become yet another tool in furthering Washington's hegemonic agenda?
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar 1 August 2002
Our new contact numbers
______________________
Diterbitkan oleh : |
Ke atas
Home