Information Update #60 (August 2002)
The "War on Terrorism" in the
Asia-Pacific
Introduction:
Information Update #59 (May 2002) reviewed the work of the 2001 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the Asia-Pacific's sole high-level security body. As part of this exami- nation, we looked at the impacts of the US-led "War on Terrorism" on the region. In this IU, we continue that examination. The 2002 ARF and other ASEAN meetings which just ended in Brunei culminated with the signing of anti- terrorism pact between the United States and ASEAN nations. Associated Press (8/1/02) claims the accord is "aimed at making the region, which has become the second front in the war against terrorism, more responsive to future threats." As Barry Wain writes in the Far Eastern Economic Review (1/24/02), everybody is "jumping on the anti-terrorist bandwagon." However, he cautions, "The full impact of the anti-terrorist campaign, seen by some as a new Cold War, won't be clear for some time, but it is certain to make a region of profound diversity even more complicated." Some changes are already evident ranging from a set-back to democracy and human rights with the enforcement of national security laws, expanded US military presence in the region, enriched military budgets and even to diminished environmental protection.ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN):
As noted above, at the end of regional security talks in Brunei on August 1, the United States and ASEAN foreign ministers signed the Joint Declaration for Cooperation to Combat International Terrorism. As a US State Department spokesman signaled prior to the meeting, "Terrorism...is the centre of our agenda at this meeting."1 The declaration commits the participants to improved intelligence sharing and mutual assistance in curtailing the movement of terrorists, including border controls, detection of fake passports, and movement of terrorist funds. The accord is also expected to increase US technical and financial aid in counter-terrorism.According to Dawn (7/29/02), "ASEAN said the pact...would show the world that Washington has roped in Southeast Asia in the global fight against the problem." Reacting to the suggestion that ASEAN may have been coerced, Malaysian foreign minister Syed Hamid Albar argued that, "This is not a case of Big Brother United States imposing on ASEAN. This is something both ASEAN and the United States want."2 In part, ASEAN's willingness to sign the accord may be based on the "perception the region is a hotbed for terrorist activity,"3 which may have implications to investment and economic recovery. Although, as the Malaysian foreign minister suggests, ASEAN may have indeed signed on willingly, in fact, the deal was in the works for some time in the United States. Washington proposed the pact after having broached the subject with senior Asean officials late last year.4 Bob Broadfoot of the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy in Hong Kong says that SE Asia has been “under considerable pressure to step up legal reforms to prevent the spread of terrorist groups in the region...The changes to legal systems in Southeast Asia are largely driven by the United States and European pressure after last year’s terror attacks in the U.S.” and that, “The US is viewing terrorism as a cross border issue” and this isn’t a point the US is in any mood to negotiate.5 In May, Malaysia, Indonesia & the Philippines signed an anti-terrorism treaty centered on the exchange of intelligence information, joint anti-terrorism exercises and collective operations to hunt suspected terrorists. Later that same month, ASEAN’s 10 member states “pledged to bring their police and domestic security forces closer together and to align anti-terrorism laws.” Under the action plan, ASEAN members are to forge agreements to make national laws covering arrests, criminal investigations, prosecutions, extradition and seizure of evidence more consistent among the states.6 Roldofo Severino Jr., Secretary-General of ASEAN, said that ASEAN had boosted counter- terrorism and intelligence links since the September 11 attacks, but has no plans to transform itself into a military alliance. Severino also rejected the idea that Southeast Asia was destined to become the “second front” in the US-led war on global terrorism. He said, “I think this talk of ASEAN as a haven for terrorists is really out of place.” This theme was echoed during the recent ASEAN meetings in Brunei when Indonesia’s foreign minister Wirajuda said it would be a mistake to exaggerate the regional terrorist threat saying, “We do not believe we are the future Afghanistan.”8 According to Barry Wain in the Far Eastern Economic Review:
The extent of terrorism in Southeast Asia is the subject of sharp debate, if only because investigations are far from complete. Not everyone agrees with the dire threat seen by President George W. Bush’s administration. In fact, Mohamed Jawhar Hassan, director-general of the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia, says terrorist activity has ‘declined dramatically’ in the region over the past few decades...It is also hard to gauge the seriousness of the terrorist presence because of the blatant manipulation of the issue for political ends. Take Malaysia, the egregious offender. Prime Minister Mahathir early last year began jailing alleged Islamic militants supposedly planning to overthrow the government by force, most of them members of the main opposition party, Pas, which advocates the introduction of an Islamic state.... Mahathir has won high praise from Bush for contributing to the war on terrorism, without having to endure constant U.S. carping about the frequent use of the Internal Security Act, which provides for indefinite detention without trial...Independent authorities point to inconsistencies that suggest the Malaysian government is taking advantage of the climate of fear over terrorism to discredit its legitimate opponents.9
UNITED STATES PRESENCE IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC
US Secretary of State Colin Powell who represented the US at the recent ASEAN meetings claims that the new US-ASEAN anti-terror pact is a “political declaration,” and doesn’t “anticipate that [it] is a basis for any increased US military presence in the region,”10 However, the Los Angeles Times (7/31/02) suggests that, in fact, “The US-ASEAN pact reflects the Bush administration’s growing involvement in the region...” The day before, the LA Times also reported that, “At his first stop, Bangkok, Powell told Thai television that increasing US involvement in Southeast Asia is a key goal of President Bush’s foreign policy and that the United States would act as a ‘stabilizing presence’ in collaboration with regional friends.”The Bangkok Post (7/29/02) reports that Powell did “not rule out a return of US forces to Thailand to help combat terrorism the way they are doing in the Philippines.” After Brunei, Powell travelled to Indonesia where he said the United States expects to give Indonesia about $50 million to help the country expand its counter-terrorism and law enforcement capabilities. About $31 million of the total is earmarked for the Indonesian National Police. As well, emerging from a meeting with Indonesian Foreign Minister Hasan Wirajuda, Powell said he was eager to patch up military ties which have been curtailed by Congress. AP reports that, “Powell believes that a strong Indonesian military is essential to cope with militant Islamic groups, some of which have ties to al-Qaeda.”11 Among ASEAN states, Singapore expressed support for full resumption of military ties between the US and Indonesia proclaiming it would be a big boost in the fight against terrorism.12 According to Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, deployment of US forces is not part of the new anti-terrorism framework, and that such U.S. deployment would be on a bilateral basis -- an individual choice for ASEAN member states.13 For months in advance of Powell’s Asian trip, comments such as those of US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who warns of a “gathering storm” of terrorism and the critical need for security in Asia, are clearly being used to expand US military presence in the region.14 Even prior to September 11, the US military had a presence in 140 countries, but it is now looking at expanding this presence even further. As John Pike reports, “Overall, the American military global presence is more pervasive today than at any point in American history.”15 Specifically in the Asia-Pacific, Peter Brookes, a deputy assistant secretary of defense, claims that the US is seeking “contingency basing options” and more access in the region. He says, “We are exploring options to homeport three to four additional surface combatants in the region, as well as guided- missile submarines to improve our forward deterrent posture. These changes mean a US presence in Asia that will be more capable, more flexible and able to respond more quickly and capably when needed.”16 Brookes’s choice of the term “forward deterrent” is purposeful. As William Arkin suggests:
...the new emphasis is on a far more interventionist, proactive strategy in which the United States would stand ready to strike militarily around the world wherever and whenever it thought its security might be threatened. The new strategic watchword is called ‘forward deterrence’ and the tactical instrument of choice would be what the Defense Planning Guidance call ‘unwarned attacks’. What those catch phrases mean in practical terms is a new and expanded commitment to the creed of distant warfare -- an Afghanistan fighting force on steroids.1Two Asia-Pacific countries have had quite different reactions to President Bush’s new policy. On one hand, Australia was the first to endorse the controversial US policy of pre-emptive strikes against nations supporting terrorist attacks. When Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill was asked if Australia would join in a first-strike of Iraq if asked by the US, he said, “Yes, we are not waiting for attacks any longer. In principle, we would endorse the US taking action against a threat rather than waiting to be attacked.”18 New Zealand, on the other hand, declared it will not join a US-led preemptive attack on Iraq . New Zealand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Phil Goff said: “We acknowledge the reality of the balance of power in the world, but the days when New Zealand was an echo of London and Washington are over. We make decisions independently. We do not believe being a country of only four million people deprives us of that right.”19
| “The greatest challenge the Bush administration faces on global
terrorism is that all countries of the world condemn it, but only a few
are willing to adopt the US type of voluble perspective on that issue,
which is an intermingling of militarism and highfalutin moralism...The
global nature of transnational terrorism requires a global response.
However, such a response has to take into consideration political
realities of different regions of the world. An insistence on developing
or applying a ‘cookie cutter’ type of solution will only create
disagreements and dissensions among those countries whose support the
United States badly needs.
[Ehsan Ahrari, “Divergent views on the common scourge of terror,” Asia Times, 6/27/02] |
INDONESIA:
As mentioned above, among “targets” of US military involvement in the Asia-Pacific is Indonesia. Conn Hallinan, in a “Foreign Policy in Focus Commentary,” writes that shortly after Sept. 11, the White House, led by Deputy Secretary of State Wolfowitz, began maneuvering to loosen restrictions on military aid to Jakarta. Such aid had been cut off by the Clinton administration during the Indonesian army’s 1999 rampage in East Timor, which killed thousands of civilians. “But now Bush administration officials argue that the Indonesian army has reformed since the bad old days of two years ago and needs our help in its struggle against terrorism. As part of the war on terrorism, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently called for rebuilding military relations with the Indonesian army. In a joint May 13 press conference with his Indonesian counterpart, Matori Abdul Djalil, Rumsfeld said the Bush administration intended to work with Congress, `to reestablish the kind of military-to-military relations which we believe are appropriate.’”20The State Department has requested $16 million from Congress for Indonesia in a 2002 supplemental appropriation request. Of this, eight million dollars would go for a rapid reaction peacekeeping forces to be deployed to Indonesia’s provinces. The remainder would go to train the national police in counterterrorism. Also, according to the Jakarta Post (5/15/02), “The Pentagon has requested an additional 17.9 million dollars for a regional defense counter-terrorism fellowship program, which could include Indonesian military officers...Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Rumsfeld and others in the Pentagon have lamented the absence of military ties with the world’s most populous Muslim nation and a potential haven for operatives of suspected terror mastermind Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network...” The Washington Post (4/26/02) reports that Indonesian leaders are also anxious for a quick resumption of military ties, which would allow the cash-strapped Indonesian military to avail itself of US grants to buy weapons and other equipment.”
Anti-Terrorism Military Cooperation, Training & Wargames:
|
On July 19, the Senate Committee on Appropriations accepted an amendment to lift restrictions on International Education and Training (IMET) for Indonesia in the Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. The East Timor Action Network calls the move, “a green light for the Indonesian military (TNI) to continue escalating use of brutal tactics against civilians...In the name of the ‘war on terrorism’, the Senate Committee will only promote the continued terrorization of the Indonesian people by its military.”21
JAPAN:
| Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi “has used the alarm raised by the
Sept. 11 attacks and the increasingly hawkish sentiments of Japan’s
politicians to push through big changes in Japan’s defense posture.”
[Howard W. French, “Taboo Against Nuclear Arms Is Being Challenged in Japan,” NY Times, 6/8/02] |
Under the Antiterrorism Special Measures Law, enacted on October 29, Japan
sent several naval vessels to the Indian Ocean and C-130 aircraft to Pakistan to
provide logistic support for the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan. At the
request of the U.S., the Japanese government agreed to extend its support past
the May 19 termination date for the operation to November 19.26 Two more
warships -- a destroyer and supply ship -- were dispatched in early June to the
Arabian Sea.27
In another move related to terrorism, on April 17, the Koizumi Cabinet
submitted three bills on “contingencies” to the Diet. The bills are the first of
their kind since World War II. The legislation includes an emergency contingency
bill “to secure the peace and independence of the nation and safety of the
people” that would govern the nation’s response to foreign military attacks; an
amendment to the SDF Law; and a bill to amend the law that established the Japan
National Security Council. According to the Japan Times (4/16/02), “The bills
are aimed at enabling the nation to better deal with external military attacks
by concentrating power in the national government so it can quickly respond to
emergencies, and to free the SDF’s activities from various existing laws
controlling traffic, land use and other areas to accommodate its smooth
operation.”
Among criticism of the bills is confusion about the exact circumstances under
which the SDF would be mobilized. Opposition parties threatened to boycott the
Diet session should the bills proceed. By mid-June the Japanese government and
ruling coalition parties gave up trying to get the bills passed in the session
and instead, planned to set up a consultative committee with opposition parties
to negotiate possible revisions and have the bills ready for the next Diet
session.28
Asaho Mizushima, professor of constitutional law at Waseda University, argues
that the bills are,:
...like an inventory clearance of the vestiges of the Cold War. The Cold War regime took into assumption Soviet aggression. But now, as a result of US intervention, it became more likely for Japan to be dragged into a conflict and become a target of attack. It is a shift from ‘defense- type’ emergency legislation to ‘intervention type’ emergency legislation. If US forces attack ‘rogue nations’ and those that form ‘an axis of evil’ and Japan provides logistic support, it is a matter of course for Japan to be a target of a ‘counterattack’.29
According to the Japan Council against A&H Bombs:
The bills are aimed at mobilizing the entire nation to wars launched by the United States of America and override Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, which renounces war. Moreover, the bills, if passed, would turn Japan into a country ready to enter war anytime, by legitimizing concentration of power in the prime minister, procurement and requisition, restriction of freedom and human rights, and the mobilization of extensive sectors, including local governments, the press, transportation, medical services and energy. The bills even contain provisions to criminalize those who abide by the Constitution and refuse to cooperate in the war efforts. It should be noted that the Japanese government is pursuing such legislation just when the US Bush Administration is shifting the focus of its world strategy onto Asia, labeling North Korea and China as potential areas of ‘contingencies’ and preparing for the use of force in these areas with an option of using nuclear weapons.”30
OKINAWA CONTINUES TO PAY THE PRICE“...the movement to reduce the military presence on Okinawa, as advocated by Governor Keiichi Inamine and past governors, suffered a setback after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. as Washington has since stressed its military bases in Japan are essential.” The burden of US military bases is uneven -- “Okinawa accounts for 0.6% of the land base of Japan, but hosts 75% of the US military facilities in the country.”[“Okinawa marks 30th anniversary of reversion to Japan,” Japan Today, 5/15/02] |
PHILIPPINES
In early July, as part of the Balikatan-2 exercise, US military advisers began counter-terrorism training of 25 companies of Philippines armed forces and were expected to go on combat patrol with some units before the six-month US training operation officially ended on July 31. The training took place on Basilan and on the Zamboanga peninsula in southern Philippines.31 Although the bulk of the 1000 US troops who have been training Philippine soldiers since February pulled out by July 31 when the Balikatan exercise ended, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, US Special Forces are likely to continue training small units of Philippines military after this date.32 As well, the Washington Post (7/31/02) reports that about 300 soldiers will stay on to finish infrastructure projects on Basilan island.In mid-June, the Philippines defense minister Reyes had urged the US to extend and expand joint military exercises. He said, “We need more, and we need continued support and assistance from the United States in the fight against terrorism,” arguing that militant groups linked to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network remain a threat in the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. ‘It’s not over. When you think it’s over, that’s when they hit.’”33 In other exercises, the Philippine and US navies began a combined military exercise in the northern Philippine province of Pampanga in mid-July. The annual bilateral naval exercise -- the Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) 2002 -- is a regularly-scheduled event. This year’s involves 1400 US soldiers, sailors, marines and coast guard personnel and 1396 Filipino servicemen.34
“New Chapter in U.S. Intervention in Philippines”Balikatan-02-1 being held in Basilan and Zamboanga “are nothing but outright military operations by U.S. military forces led by the Special Operations Forces...[it] marks the largest U.S. military intervention engaged in actual combat against `real actual targets’ on Philippine soil since the Philippine-American War (1899-1913). It deploys the largest number of U.S. troops for combat in the Basilan-Zamboanga area since the Moro Wars (1901-1913). These were actually the first U.S. `Visiting Forces’ on Philippine soil...More and more U.S. military activities in the Philippines have been noted in recent months under President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo...” The Philippine president “...completely disregards the Philippine Constitution which prohibits `foreign military troops’ on Philippine soil, unless covered by a treaty to be concurred by the Senate. All existing security agreements of the Philippines and United States...do not have provisions for the deployment of foreign military forces, advisers, foreign military trainers or coordinators of actual combat operations....The dispatch of a significant number of U.S. troops including U.S. Special Operations Forces for combat in the Philippines opens a new chapter in U.S. military intervention in the Philippines.”[“U.S. Military Intervention in the Philippines: A New Phase,” Professor Roland G. Simulan, Lecture before the Third World Studies Center and the Institute of Islamic Studies Asian Center, UP, Dilman, 2/7/02] |
According to the Boston Globe (7/23/02), “The U.S. will start a series of training exercises in October for Philippine troops that will mean an American military presence in the country for at least eight months running...Armed forces Chief of Staff Gen. Roy Cimatu said a total of around 4,000 soldiers from both sides will be involved in the new exercises that would run until next June. He did not say how many will be Americans.” The Washington Post reports that an unnamed Pentagon official said, “The administration’s war on terrorism provided a timely rationale for getting more deeply engaged in the Philippines which is something [retired US Admiral Dennis] Blair and others had wanted to do.” The article also quoted Derek J. Mitchell, a specialist on Asian affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who said, “The Abu Sayyaf link [to Al Qaeda] was always very tenuous. It was always a convenient excuse to come to the aid of an important ally in need.” In the same article, an unnamed Senate staff member argued:
This has not been about striking a blow in the war on terrorism. This has been about helping a treaty ally that has a real security problem and that certainly needs counter- insurgency assistance. But if the underlying U.S. aim is to enhance the Philippine government’s ability to deal with a variety of threats, then we’re talking about a much longer U.S. commitment.35
WAR ON TERRORISM: SETBACK FOR DEMOCRACY & HUMAN RIGHTS
“The terrorist attack on September 11 in New York shocked and galvanized the world into a new ‘national security angst’ syndrome, and is being used to justify, defend and expand national security laws in Asia. This 21st century revival of the “national security” -- now dubbed the “war against terrorism” -- offensive has raised concern among Asian human rights and civil organizations that any progress made in the democratising efforts of the last two decades will be seriously setback, if not undone completely...National Security Laws have been imposed in the severest forms in many countries in Asia, and have in different instances taken the form of martial law, states of emergency and the state imposition of the national/public security laws. In some countries, such laws are a permanent part of the legal framework. Under these laws, normal constitutional and other provisions are suspended. The courts of these countries are deprived of the possibility of intervening in the protection of the rights of people...These laws are not used to ensure the security of the people. Rather, they are used to stifle dissenting voices, to destroy political opponents, to prevent democracy and to completely subvert the rule of law... The classic example is the 1960 Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia and Singapore. Just last year, Dr. Mahathir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, has used the ISA in a desperate attempt to crush a popular reform movement that he perceived as a threat to his power. While 5 leaders of the reform movement have already spent one year in detention without trial, after Sept 11, tens of alleged ‘Muslim radicals’ have been arrested under the same ISA on suspicion of connections with ‘terrorists groups’. [ISAs are also in effect in South Korea, China, Pakistan and Sri Lanka; since 911, similar laws are being introduced in Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Nepal.] This disturbing trend undermines the entire basis of attempts by the people to improve human rights and democracy in Asian countries.” [From: Forum Asia, AHRC, Suaram -- announcement for International Conference on “Democracy and Security of the People of the Asia Region,” Bangkok, August 22-25, 2002]
ENVIRONMENT“The Pentagon has used the so-called “war on terrorism” to push for exemptions from key environmental laws. Although the plan has been in the works for over a year, their efforts to undermine environmental laws have accelerated since 9/11 attacks. The bill would exempt military training and munitions from sections of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Noise Control Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, the definitions of the types of activities covered by the exemptions are so broad that virtually all Department of Defense activities could fall under these exemptions.”[“Military Maneuvers,” Kyle Kajihiro, Maluhia Me Ka Pono (AFSC - Hawai’i), May 2002] |
MILITARY BUILD-UP
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reports world military spending, which totaled $839 billion in 2001, grew two percent over the previous year according to official figures; however, the increase is much larger when outlays as a result of the September 11 attacks are included. Related to this, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) said in a recent report on the effects of September 11, that increased military spending reduces economic growth in the longer term: “Rough calibrations suggest that an increase in public military-security spending by one percent of GDP and private security spending by 0.5 percent of GDP would reduce output by about 0.7 after five years.”36
SAMPLER OF RECENT MILITARY SPENDING IN THE ASIA-PACIFICAustralia: 100 US Joint Strike Fighter aircraft at a cost of $8 billion.China: World’s largest importer of arms with an increase in 2001 of 44% over 2000; Negotiating with Russia to buy 8 Kilo-class submarines in addition to 4 already purchased as part of a $4 billion weapons package including 2 more Sovremenny-class destroyers; Preparing to accept the delivery of up to 48 of Russia’s most advanced Sukhoi SU-30MKK fighter jets in an estimated US$2-billion contract; Building 200 SU-27SKs under licence to be added to an existing fleet of 50 SU-27s. India: World’s third largest arms importer with imports up 50% in 2001; Has several major military hardware and software deals with the US, Russia, Israel and France, and others; Buying 66 British Hawk trainer jets in a deal estimated at $1.57 billion. Indonesia: 10MI-2 and MI-17 helicopters from Russia; 4 nomad patrol planes from Australia; training plane from France. Malaysia: In Malaysia’s largest defence purchase since 1994 and its first big spending on defence since the Asian financial crisis began 5 years ago, signed two contracts to buy British and Russian missile systems worth nearly $345 million. Pakistan: Has budgeted for an 11.4% increase in military spending July 2002-June 2003; 5 surveillance helicopters; 3 sensor- fitted planes, vehicles of various kinds from US under $73m free package; Russia has shipped Pakistan first batch of Mi-171 transport helicopters; US aid to Pakistan will increase by almost two-thirds in recognition of its backing of the war against terrorism. Philippines: November 2001 - Bush offered the Philippines $92.3 million of excess military equipment, including a C-130 transport plane, 8 UH-1H utility helicopters, a naval patrol boat, and 30,000 M-16 rifles plus ammunition. South Korea: 2003 military budget is up 12.7% over 2002; 40 F-15K fighter jets from US Boeing corporation worth US$4.5 billion to be armed with more than $110 million worth of missiles from Raytheon. Singapore: plans to buy 20-24 new generation fighter jets. Thailand: considering buying two frigates from Britain; agreed to buy two off-shore patrol vessels from, China for 3.5 billion baht. United States: is “burning through” an average of $2 billion a month in prosecution of the war on terrorism at home and overseas. [DOD Comptroller Dov S. Zakheim] [ Sydney Morning Herald, 6/28/02; Reuters 6/13/02; Washington Post, 6/25/02; Straits Times 7/11/02; Times of India, 7/17/02; Hindustan Times, 7/31/02; Jakarta Post, 6/17/02; BBC News, 4/10/02; Kyodo News, 6/18/02; Dawn 5/8/02; Hindustan Times, 6/20/02; New International (Pak), 7/17/02; FAS, Arms Sale Monitor 1/02; Korea Herald, 6/8/02; AP, 4/19/02; Korea Herald, 7/23/02; Defense-aerospace (Fra), 7/23/02; Xinhuanet, 6/26/02; Bangkok Post, 7/18/02; Defense-aerospace (Fra) 7/15/02] |
Notes:
(1) Dawn, 7/28/02; (2) AP, 8/2/02; (3) China Daily, 7/31/02; (4) Bangkok Post, 7/18/02; (5) Ron Corben, “Southeast Asian Countries Under Pressure to Step Up Anti-Terrorism Reform,” VOA News, 6/13/02; (6) Straits Times, 5/21/02; (7) David R. Sands,” “ASEAN Members Rule Out Military Cooperation,” Washington Times,6/28/02; (8) George Gedda, “U.S., Indonesia in Anti-Terror Plan,AP, 8/2/02; (9) Barry Wain, “A Questionable Strategy, FEER, 1/24/02; (10) Reuters, 8/1/02; (11) Gedda; (12) Straits Times, 7/30/02; (13) Dawn, 7/28/02; (14) “Need for security in Asia critical: Wolfowitz,” Dawn, 5/31/01; (15) Sally Buzbee, “U.S. Expands Military Ties Worldwide,” AP, 1/15/02; (16) Jim Wolf, “U.S. Wary of China, Outlines Military Build-Up in Asia,” Reuters, 4/25/02; (17) William Arkin, “High Tech Strategy Guides Pentagon Plan,” LA Times, 7/13/02; (18) Mark Forbes, “Australia backs US first strikes,” Age, 6/19/02; (19) Age, 7/23/02; (20) Conn Hallinan, “Supporting Indonesia’s Military Bad Idea Second Time Around,” FPIF Commentary, 6/2/02; (21) Arms Trade Resource Center Update, 7/24/02; (22) Farhan Bokhari, “US and Pakistan in pact on defence,” Financial Times, 2/11/02; (23) China Daily, 5/14/02; (24) Times of India, 5/13/02; (25) Age (Aus), 8/2/02; (26) Japan Times, 4/18/02; (27) Times of India, 6/10/02; (28) Asahi Shimbun, 6/14/02; (29) “Asaho Mizushima: Emergency Bills Nothing But Anachronism,” Asahi Shimbun, 5/27/02; (30) From a letter to Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro, April 20,2002, Japan Council against A & H Bombs; (31) Defense-aerospace (Fra), 7/8/02; (32) Philippine Daily Inquirer, 6/28/02; (33) Philip P. Pan, Washington Post, 6/10/02; (34) People’s Daily, 7/16/02; (35) Bradley Graham,“U.S. Advisers in -- and Out,” Washington Post, 6/20/02; (36) Reuters, 6/13/02Pacific Campaign for Disarmament & Security