Let’s Talk about U.S.-Southeast Asia Relations
S-CAR's Asian graduate students organized a meeting, to discuss U.S. - Southeast Asia relations. This also served as an exciting reunion between two old friends, Dennis Sandole, a Professor of International Relations and Conflict Resolution at S-CAR, and Daniel Chew, a former Senior Cultural Affairs Specialist at the U.S. Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Chew served as a program officer for Sandole’s U.S. State Department lecture tours to Malaysia and Southeast Asia (SEA) for twenty years.
Convening this meeting demonstrated Sandole’s ability to sustain the connection between S-CAR and Asian officials and scholars via track-two diplomacy. This kind of diplomacy involves informal dialogue and problem-solving activities aimed at building relationships and encouraging new thinking that can inform policy-making. It includes academics, entrepreneurs, and leaders of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) who interact more freely than state officials.
Our discussions included three themes: (a) the rise of the so-called Islamic State (IS) and security implications for SEA and America, (b) “lesser-known” stories of the U.S. “pivot” toward Asia, and (c) SEA opportunities for recent graduates from S-CAR and other universities in America. The discussion allowed all participants, including myself, the opportunity to think deeply and broadly about these themes.
The rise of IS and implications for SEA and America
Most participants in the meeting were interested in understanding the linkages between IS and SEA. IS is a predominantly Sunni jihadist group seeking to sow civil unrest in Iraq and the Levant with the aim of establishing a caliphate - a single, transnational Islamic state based on sharia. The group emerged from the ashes of the U.S.-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein; al-Qaeda in Iraq, and the insurgency that followed provided IS fertile ground to wage guerrilla warfare against coalition forces and their domestic allies.
Chew explained that, as the U.S. sought to assemble an international coalition to combat this threat, it looked mostly to the Middle East and Europe, the regions that seem to face a direct threat from militant Islamist groups. However, other parts of the world were just as anxious about IS—above all, SEA. The top concern for SEA governments was that IS’s extremist ideology could prove attractive to the region’s Muslims. It may lure some Muslims to the Middle East to fight as part of the group, and carry the ideology and fighting experiences back to SEA. Singapore has revealed to mainstream media that several of its nationals have made their way to the Middle East to join IS. The Philippine government has suggested that local IS sympathizers are attempting to recruit from among the Bangsamoro populations from southern islands of the country. Still, the greatest concern comes from Indonesia and Malaysia. In Indonesia, radical groups have declared support for the Islamic State in Jakarta, Surakarta, and other cities. In Malaysia, the police have arrested 19 IS-inspired militants planning attacks in and around Kuala Lumpur against pubs, discos, and a Carlsberg brewery. Three Malaysian women were alleged to have left for Syria to wage a “sexual jihad” (jihad al-nikah), offering offering their bodies to IS fighters to boost their morale.
I believe that IS’ influence and activities in SEA indicate what it might do in America and elsewhere. Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said hundreds of Americans and other young Westerners are fighting for IS in the Middle East, in part funneled there by a long standing “twin city” terror pipeline in Minneapolis-Saint Paul.
Ultimately, responses to IS are problematic. Some of these responses have emboldened IS, and have complicated U.S. relations with Asia and the world. Governments of SEA, Australia, and the U.K. declared that the Islamist jihadi ideology remains the main threat to their countries and the world. In stark contrast, U.S. President Barack Obama announced more airstrikes against IS in Iraq and Syria as if military power alone would be able to defeat IS’ ideology and end internal fighting and distrust among different groups in these countries. The question of the recruitment of SEA citizens and citizens from other countries into IS cannot be divorced from the larger context of the humanitarian crisis in Syria, which has been partially worsened by the U.S. led airstrikes. The universal sympathy for the Syrian people among SEA’s Muslim populations has prompted a large number of humanitarian missions to depart for the conflict zone. Members of these missions may well have set off with noble intentions. However, as they arrive in territories held by IS, they would be exposed to IS indoctrination and recruitment. Counter-IS strategies would be more practical if the U.S. government and its allies and friends took into account the messy combination of IS ideology threat and socio-economic and political instabilities in Iraq and Syria.
The U.S. “pivot” to Asia
What captured my attention most in the meeting was the way in which Chew responded to Sandole’s question on U.S.-SEA relations. His elaboration was informed by conventional wisdom of the field of international relations which considers states, but not non-state actors, as the major entities in politics.
Sandole: How does the U.S. “pivot” to Asia work for SEA?
Chew: the U.S. pivot to Asia does not make any difference in ordinary people’s lives. Overall, the pivot is welcomed by SEA governments.
On one hand, Chew’s insight accurately reflects a reality about the gap between the state and society in the study of politics. His insight acknowledges that mainstream political ideas and strategies are invented mostly by policy-makers, intellectuals, and to some extent, entrepreneurs (the minority). These people tend to believe that their work is relevant to the broader public, and aims to advance the interests of society (the majority). For instance, it is common knowledge among policy-makers and intellectuals that the U.S. pivot to Asia emphasizes diplomatic, trade, and military channels, protecting American interests in the region and engaging America’s allies to mitigate China’s aggressive and assertive rise. However, ordinary people in the U.S., Asia, and elsewhere may not know this description or comprehend how the U.S. pivot connects to their everyday life situations and concerns. Chew’s insight straightforwardly alerts policy makers and intellectuals that their work will become relevant to the broader public if they are able to effectively address this policy communication and implementation problem.
On the other hand, Chew’s insights did not include the role of non-state actors, such as NGOs and CSOs. Interactions among American, Asian, and other international/local NGOs and CSOs in the areas of socio-environmental justice and civic engagement are growing; but they often escape the eyes of politicians, mainstream media outlets, and policy specialists. This state of affairs is due to many factors, including: a lack of effective communication and coordination between/within state and non-state actors, their different priorities and capabilities, and non-state actors’ choice to operate at the margins on contentious politics. NGOs, e.g. U.S. based International Rivers, Earth Rights International, the Henry L. Stimson Center, and Thailand based International Institute of Peace Studies, that have offices and networks of friends and donors in the U.S., Asia, and elsewhere, do make a difference in promoting smart problem-solving processes. Their initiatives, e.g. policy consultation, fact-finding, arts and films, civic engagement, and capacity building, across the Mekong countries (i.e. China, Laos, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Vietnam) inspire local communities to share their stories about their struggles for freedom (including freedom from struggles to make ends meet and freedom from fear and want) and to re-claim their shared environment and shared futures. Learning to articulate their stories about the most urgent challenges facing their lives (e.g. land and water grabs, environmental degradation, and human rights abuses) in front of media workers makes the most marginalized (e.g. farmers and fishermen) feel that their voices and dignity matter to the world, and that they have the right and capacity to participate in decision-making. These changes are revolutionary in that they transform not only the regional political landscape but also the mindset and psyche of many people involved. Previously, many people accepted, or were forced to accept, states’ decisions on development and security issues even though some of these decisions threatened the environment, communities, and the people themselves. But many people now realize that they have the potential to advocate for change in their societies.
Overall, the process of interaction between non-state actors in the U.S., Asia, and elsewhere, engenders three important changes: (a) the idea that state alone is the single actor in politics is now a dead myth; (b) civil societies across borders believe that they can influence decision-making, ensuring that this process is an inclusive, wise, and fair one; and (c) individuals and communities have the capacity to change or maintain the status quo. Although these interactions existed before the Obama Administration announced the U.S. pivot to Asia, this policy brings non-state actors’ agendas against unsustainable development patterns to a higher level. Simultaneously, the activities of non-state actors broaden the scope of the U.S. pivot to Asia. This change, I believe, is what designers of the pivot did not anticipate. Indeed, Chew’s insight could have been more comprehensive and persuasive if it had thoroughly examined these value-added changes.
SEA opportunities for recent graduates
Chew was kind enough to inform S-CAR of SEA’s opportunities for American and international students and recent graduates. He believed that American and international students and recent graduates from American universities can serve as cultural ambassadors in SEA. These individuals can use their socio-cultural capital, particularly English language skills, to help strengthen human resources in the region, including the disadvantaged groups in less urbanized areas. The U.S. pivot to Asia strategy emboldens this civic engagement initiative.
The expansion of English training programs is essential to SEA and the United States, especially as it facilitates communication and understanding within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and between ASEAN and the United States. Additionally, the region has recognized English as a major tool for SEA citizens to climb the socio-economic ladder in their globalizing countries and to consolidate their ASEAN identity.
Remarkably, SEA’s demands for native speakers are higher than what the United States and other English speaking countries can supply. SEA is home to 6000 million people; whereas there are only about 330 million people who speak English as the first language in the world—many of whom are not trained to teach English. A practical solution for the imbalance between demand and supply is for SEA’s and the U.S. governments to support Americans and international students and graduates who have good English teaching skills to train the trainers in SEA. After these trainers become professional teachers, regional governments should support these trainers to serve different learning communities in urban and remote areas. An effect of this approach is that it will help ameliorate the divide and even tensions between advantaged groups in urban areas who can afford high-quality education and disadvantaged groups in less urban areas who have to study with teachers with a poor command of English proficiency and teaching skills.
In addition, while staying in SEA, these cultural ambassadors can hone their cross-cultural competence and experience first-hand the evolving “ASEAN’s Way” in conflict resolution. “ASEAN’s Way” indicates a process of SEA countries’ interactions based on informality, consensus-building, and non-confrontational bargaining styles. ASEAN’s way is different from the formal, majority-based, and legalistic decision-making procedures which are predominant in many institutions in America and with which many Americans are not familiar. The Malaysian-American Commission on Educational Exchange, in particular, has provided American and international students with the opportunities to advance their skill sets and knowledge about conflict resolution in cross-cultural contexts. http://www.macee.org.my/about/
The meeting was not simply about a reunion between two friends, but was also a rare and valuable informal platform for scholars and students with different epistemological lenses to examine what they believe to be the urgent challenges and opportunities in U.S.-Asia relations. Many of these challenges and opportunities are not located only within particular geographic sites. Rather, they spread across regions, capturing the attention of diverse state and non-state actors. Thus, they cannot be thoroughly examined by only one set of lens or a set of actors. Ultimately, it is in the interest of the faculty and administration of S-CAR to institutionalize and socialize the expansion of this kind of platform, making it a norm, not an exception. Doing so would advance the human capital of S-CAR, while at the same time making the school attractive, relevant, and legitimate in the eyes of the public at home and abroad.
### Photo: From left to right: Asaka Ishiguro, Yerin Lee, Nhina Le, Elmilia and Daniel Chew, Dennis Sandole, Naphaphanni Singsuwan, and Willy Torres. Photo: Nhina Le.
Photo: Asaka Ishiguro, Yerin Lee, Nhina Le, Elmilia and Daniel Chew, Dennis Sandole, Naphaphanni Singsuwan, and Willy Torres at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution’s John Burton Library. Image by Nhina Le, Fall 2014