In 2002, the government of the United States (US) declared the Southeast Asian region as the second front in the US-led war on terrorism, justifying increased militarization and deepening armed conflicts in the region. Eighty percent of the victims of militarization are women and children.[2]

While Southeast Asia is considered home to radical Islamist groups such as the Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiah (JI), and the Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia (KMM),[3] the region is a mere transit point and not a target of Al Qaeda’s strategy. So why have more US troops been deployed in the region following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US?

The history of colonial conquest provides an answer: there is a close relationship between wars and the scramble for control of natural resources.[4] The global campaign against terror in Southeast Asia masks deeper motives to expand and protect U.S. economic and geopolitical interests in the resource-rich region.

Studies have shown that resource extraction, arms trafficking, violent conflict, human rights violations, humanitarian disasters, and environmental destruction are inextricably linked.[5] As global demand for primary commodities such as fuels, minerals, and water continue to rise rapidly, conflicts over ownership, access and control multiply and intervention by industrial powers to secure their raw materials increase.[6] In “Anatomy of Resource Wars”, Michael Renner suggests that one out of four wars and armed conflicts during the 1990s have a strong resource dimension: legal or illegal resource exploitation helped trigger or exacerbate violent conflicts or financed its continuation.[7]

The human toll of resource-related conflicts is atrocious. More than 5 million people were killed during the 1990s; close to 6 million fled to neighboring countries, and anywhere from 11 to 15 million people were displaced inside the borders of their home countries.[8]

Strategic location

The Southeast Asian region is rich in agricultural products such as rubber, palm oil, tropical fruits, coconut, sugarcane, and timber. Multinational corporations take interest in the gemstones of Burma, Laos, and Cambodia; coal of Laos and Vietnam; natural gas of Indonesia, Laos and Burma; oil in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Burma, Vietnam and Thailand; gold of Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines; copper of Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.[9] The variety of fishes and other marine resources found in its seas and lake waters are also attractive to foreign investors.

Further, the region is home to the Spratlys Islands in the South China Sea. Endowed with oil and natural gas, the South China Sea is also the world’s second busiest international sea lane - more than half of the world’s supertankers passes through these waters. Though not suitable for habitation, the islands are important for strategic and political reasons. Ownership claims to them are used to bolster claims to the surrounding sea and its resources. For the past two decades, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines have all staked rights over the islands or portions thereof.

Southeast Asia is also strategically located near the Middle East and China, two countries which are a matter of vital interest to the US. The insecurity of the US government is fuelled by the other rising economies like Brazil, Malaysia and India, which aside from China and the other western countries are emerging rivals in the global rush for scarce raw materials..

The plunder of oil, minerals, metals, gemstones, or timber fuels militarization and conflicts in the region. Plunderers are financed by superpowers or other external supporters. Aside from this, corrupt governments, warlords, and unscrupulous corporate leaders benefit from the pillage by raking in billions of dollars.[10] In many developing countries, the economic benefits of mining and logging operations accrue to local elites and foreign investors.[11]

Meanwhile, the costs – ranging from the expropriation of land, disruption of traditional ways of life, environmental devastation, and social maladies – are shouldered by the local population. These communities are rarely informed nor consulted about resource extraction projects. The pillage results in more resource scarcity – overuse and depletion – which contribute to a growing lack of economic opportunity and deepening social divides among the populace. As the powers-that-be get richer, the majority gets poorer and poorer.

War on Terror as Raison d’être for Militarization

Repressive governments make use of the global anti-terrorism campaign to continue the colonial tradition of curtailing civil liberties. The Southeast Asian governments welcomed [former] US President Bush’s war on terror as a political leverage over their people. They accepted US offers to curb “terrorism”, even to the extent of flouting their constitutions and bill of rights. Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Indonesia, to name a few, have already passed laws on “human security” or anti-terrorism that render the people more vulnerable to abuse.

The politicized term “terrorism” is deployed vaguely with a broad definition that targets ideological, political, religious and similar motives by certain organizations or individuals. By such broad definition, political authorities have been given the prerogative to take discretionary actions against their adversaries and against the people, resulting in all kinds of violations of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The US ensures the global war on terror in various ways: through military aid, by pushing other influenced countries to pass anti-terrorism laws, and by employing direct training of capabilities of the military in repressive regimes.

The US legislative branch had increased military funding for the Philippine government from US$ 11.1 million to US$ 30 million.[12] For its part, the Philippine government enacted an anti-terrorism law, Republic Act 9372 or the Human Security Act of 2007. Human rights organizations in the Philippines are questioning the legality of the Human Security Act in the Supreme Court. The Philippine government is one of the US-supported governments that have been under fire for its human rights abuses.

In Indonesia, then US President Bush had announced a US$ 157 million program “to improve the quality of Indonesian schools”, which is aimed at reducing the influence of Muslim boarding schools, many of which preach a “radical brand of Islam”.[13] In Thailand, the country’s Counter Terrorism Center (CTIC) had reportedly been provided with US$10 million to US$ 15 million and 20 CIA agents deployed as “technical assistants” to conduct counter terrorism activities.[14] Thailand had been designated by Bush as a major non-NATO ally in recognition of its support for the US war on terrorism.[15]

With US support, Southeast Asian governments are sharing intelligence information and forging cooperation to combat “terrorists’ attacks”. One of the early initiatives of the region is the Agreement on Information Exchange and Establishment of Communication Procedures, signed in 2002 by Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines followed by Brunei, Cambodia, and Thailand in 2003.[16] This agreement stipulates cooperation on anti-terrorism exercises, combined operations to hunt suspected terrorists, and the establishment of hotlines as well as the sharing of airline passenger lists.[17]

Another initiative is the Convention on Counterterrorism signed by members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in January 2007, which provides a framework for cooperation on countering and suppressing terrorism through rapid information sharing, establishment of a common database, and common procedures for prosecution and extradition.[18]

Likewise, the Regional Maritime Security Initiative has been proposed by the US to apparently “secure Southeast Asian waters against piracy and terrorism threats”.[19]

Collaboration with repressive governments

The US has supported repressive regimes in the Southeast Asian region through an escalation of military operations against local rebel groups. A case in point is the resource-rich Aceh province in Indonesia. It is home to the multinational Exxon Mobil natural gas plant, which exports gas to Japan and South Korea.[20] The plant is one of the largest resource projects in Indonesia and generates more than US$1 billion a year in government revenues.[21]

The Exxon Mobil plant had been subject to attacks by the guerrillas of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), causing its temporary shut down in March 2001. Historically, the GAM rebellion was sparked more than 30 years ago by the Acehnese people’s demand for independence. As in any other country where people revolt against an abusive state authority, attempts to portray separatists as terrorists to be crushed by military force do not come as a surprise. In May 2003, then President Megawati Sukarnoputri put the Aceh province under martial law and ordered over 40,000 soldiers and paramilitary officers to put down the GAM’s 5,000 guerrillas.[22] One of the priorities during the crackdown was to secure the plant. In the guise of the war on terror, the plant was provided by the government with 3,000 troops in what the country’s top security minister called “the biggest security deployment in Indonesia ever to defend a vital installation” during its reopening in July 2001.[23] During the first five days of the invasion, the United Nations reported the burning of more than 200 schools; and the number of internally displaced people in Aceh increased to 100,000 from 5,000.[24]

Meanwhile, Malaysia’s Internal Security Act (ISA) has imprisoned political opponents without trial for up to two years including human rights defender Irene Fernandez whose trial has entered its seventh year in Kuala Lumpur. But the former Bush administration had downgraded US human rights concerns over Malaysia especially since the ISA was employed against suspected members of JI and KMM, both tagged as terrorist organizations by the Malaysian and US governments.[25]

Malaysia also applied the ISA to the country’s ethnic Indian minority last November 2007. The minority group’s complaints of economic, educational, and cultural discrimination were met by police batons and tear gas. They were accused of having terrorist links and were arrested. At least 10 people died in custody in 2007 and police reportedly continued to use excessive force on peaceful demonstrators. The minister warned that the ISA could be used to prevent “illegal” protests and at least 83 people were detained under the ISA.[26]

Military-ruled Burma made a harsh crackdown of peaceful street protesters in September 2007. Vietnam’s police force was used to crush a movement led by farmers demanding compensation for lands that were seized by officials for “new development projects”.

Militarization: the 7th Deadly Sin Against Women

The global war on terror places a greater priority on state and private business security than the real essence of human security. Those who campaign for human rights and civil liberties are often at the receiving end of brutal measures unleashed by elected and non-elected governments.

Violence becomes severe in times of conflict, as documented in the different parts of the Southeast Asian region. Most are state-instigated. All cases have been characterized by the disproportionate victimization of women and children. Southeast Asian women have experienced rape, forced prostitution, sex trafficking, and health-related threats.

Women are considered as “spoils of war” and rape is seen as an inevitable though unfortunate by-product of armed conflict. Rape is systematically used for various purposes including intimidation, humiliation, political terror, extracting information, rewarding of soldiers, and “ethnic cleansing”. Those who are raped or sexually abused can hardly find a support system for counselling and processing of their traumatic experience.

During the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, many girls from East Timor were abducted by Indonesian army officers and militias. They were sent to camps in West Timor and made to marry Indonesian soldiers.[27] In February 2001, five women from the district of South Aceh were sexually abused by members of the paramilitary police, known as the Brimob.[28]

As governments unleash their swords and guns under anti-terrorism mantras, military operations occur without let up. Consequently, hundreds of thousands of families are displaced., with women and children comprising 80% of the internally displaced persons.[29]

As families lose their sources of livelihood and poverty is made worse by displacement, women are forced into prostitution. Some end up engaging in “survival sex” or “transactional sex” to obtain food.[30]

Military operations especially those that cause displacement put women’s health at risk. The absence of health facilities and the irregular supply of food cause malnourishment among pregnant and lactating mothers; and many women in this condition experience miscarriages and premature births. They also lose the extended network of family support during pregnancy, taking away emotional and practical support to already traumatized women.[31]

Areas of destination for trafficking of women and children are conflict zones where foreign or international military and civilian forces are based. Bars, brothels and entertainment establishments abound in conflict zones to serve the prurient needs of foreign troops as part of their “rest and recreation” activities.[32]

Some women who are forced to head their households after the breakdown of family and social networks may be at particular risk of sexual violence. This is because women may be forced to offer sex in exchange for food, shelter or protection,[33] making them vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS.

Thus state violence is considered by the Center for Women’s Resources (CWR), a research and training institute for women, as the “seventh deadly sin against women”.[34]

The Need for a United Call

Southeast Asian women should consider the underlying issues associated with the concept of human security. The US-led war on terrorism is a war against the people to control the world’s resources. It has resulted in the violation of the basic human rights of the people in defiance of international humanitarian laws. Women, who comprise half of the poor and struggling peoples, have been deprived of food, resources, and basic rights. Militarism has been instrumental in creating these conditions.

Yet, together with the people’s movements around the world, women are building movements and organizations to fight imperialism. More and more women have gotten to the roots of the problem; they have questioned the role and the legitimacy of US intervention and the prevailing interests of the powers-that-be in this global campaign against terrorism.

Many women have discerned that until the war on terrorism ends, more women and children will be victims of violence. As more Asian governments embrace the call for a war on terror, women must respond with a unified stand against the campaign and expose its abuses. Women are beginning to make use of the available venues for redress in the international and national arena.

Advocacy work that is gender-based should be actively pursued in every Asian country. Information should be disseminated among women so as to make them aware of the situation and move them to action. Female scholars and educators need to be grounded so as to provide appropriate intervention to other women in Asian communities. Women should get organized because it is only through their solid voices that they can be heard.

Hand in hand with the disadvantaged peoples of the world, women will have to rely on their own power to attain genuine security. The potentials of women’s power can best be realized when women all over Asia unite through movements and collective actions. The strength of women’s unity can best be achieved when they closely link with other communities of peoples in the world to build a global society free from fear and hunger.

Notes:

1 Abridged version of a paper presented to the Workshop on Women and War, Asia Pacific Research Network, June 17, 2008, Hongkong, SAR
2 Kofi Annan, UN DocA/52/298, 1997, as cited in “Violence against women in armed conflict situation across the Asia-Pacific region”, http://asiapacific.amnesty.org/apro/aprowe.nsf/pages/issue8 VAW conflict
3 John Gersham, Is Southeast Asia the Second Front? Foreign Affairs July/August 2002 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/58041/john-gershman/is-southeast-asia-the-second-front
4 William Tabb, Resource Wars, Monthly Review Vol. 58., No. 47, http://www.monthlyreview.org/0107tabb.htm.
5 Michael Renner, The Anatomy of Resource Wars, Worldwatch Paper 162, State of the World Library, Oct 2002
6 Michael Klare, Resource Wars: the new landscape of global conflict, Carnegie Council: Books for Breakfast, as facilitated by Joanne Myers, 22 May 2001
7 Renner, loc. cit.
8 Ibid.
9    Ibid.
10 Renner, loc. cit.
11 Ibid.
12 “US raises RP military budget plan to P1.38 billion; P92 million to solve killings”, www.gmanews.tv,07/06/2007
13 Mark Manyin (coordinator), Richard Cronin, Larry Niksch, and Bruce Vaughn, Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division, Terrorism in Southeast Asia, CRS Report for Congress received through the CRS web, The Library of Congress, Order Code RL31672, updated November 18, 2003
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Acharya & Acharya, loc. cit.
17 Ibid.
18    Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20    Al Gedicks, “Aceh’s War Centres on Resources”, AlertNet, July 22, 2003
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Amnesty International Report 2008
27 Wolte, Sonja. Armed Conflict and trafficking in women: a desk study, a GTZ sector project against trafficking in women, January 2004
28 Human Rights Watch August 2001, Vol. 13, No. 4 (C) 2
29 Internally Displaced Monitoring Centre, 2006
30 prepared by Gabriela National Alliance of Women’s Organizations, “Militarization and Rural Women in the era of the US global war on terror”, a briefing paper for the Rural Women’s Consultation, July 31-August 2, 2007, Philippines
31    Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights, May 27, 2004
32    Wolte, loc. cit.
33 Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights, loc. cit.
34 CWR categorized the different forms of VAW as seven deadly sins and these are the following: 1-rape and incest, 2-sexual harassment, 3-domestic violence, 4-prostitution/ white slavery/ sex trafficking, 5-discrimination in the workplace, 6-absence of maternal healthcare, 7-state violence