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…
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
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
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
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.