Gradually and seemingly on the defensive, the government leaders are responding to the concerns of some Malaysians for the setting up and siting of the so-called 'anti-terror centre' in Malaysia. It is supposed to be operational next year.

A Nov 3 AFP report quoted Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar as disclosing for the first time the official name of the centre. It is now called the Asean Regional Training Centre for Counter Terrorism.

Syed Hamid was also quoted as suggesting interestingly for the first time that the centre "may be" open to countries outside the (Asean) region, although it is still not known what is the geographical scope Syed Hamid has in mind.

This could be seen as either a positive effort to widen participation and inclusiveness in order to secure higher degree of international cooperation; but, a larger membership of the centre could also reduce doctrinal clarity, organisation coherence or cohesiveness, and operational efficiency. Too many cooks could spoil the soup.

Or, it could be a subtle and negative attempt to dilute American 'influence' and strengthen Malaysian 'control', but 'control', like power, always comes with responsibility, especially control and power which are linked to multilateral commitments at the international level.

Initially, it was reported that the centre would only be manned by Malaysian and American personnel who are "mostly civilian experts".

No military operation

Earlier on Nov 5, the New Straits Times reported Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as assuring, according to the headline of the newspaper, that "the government will never allow foreign intelligence agencies to infiltrate the proposed anti-terror regional centre".

He said: " It will not be an intelligence gathering centre for any country nor will it conduct any military operation".

He added that Malaysia has its own laws and security arrangements to ensure the centre would not be "manipulated" by foreign countries.

It is not yet clear if, by "intelligence", Abdullah means only human intelligence (HUMINT), or inclusive of other modes of intelligence collection, collation, analysis (or interpretation) and dissemination such as signal intelligence (SIGINT) or electronic intelligence (ELINT).

Usually, while human rights advocates and civil libertarians are legitimately concerned about the adverse effects of intelligence gathering or collection on privacy, and freedom of thoughts, speech and expression, security professionals the world over typically opine that only an efficient system of intelligence (of all modes) is the first, immediate and best line of pre-emptive defence against terrorism.

Not yes-or-no question

For them, finding out, addressing and removing the 'root causes' of terrorism, while important itself ultimately, should be left to anthropologists, sociologists, historians, political scientists and psychologists to explore in the longer run and with a more leisurely pace. British economist Lord John M. Keynes is often quoted as saying that "in the long run, we are all dead".

Also, in the view of security professionals, no cause, immediate or remote, justifies the targeting of armed and lethal forces intentionally against non-combatants in war, or unarmed and innocent civilians in peacetime.

In fact, most of the security and strategic analysts would have thought that, while the exclusion of military training and participation from the centre is expected, reasonable and acceptable, the principal function of the centre is for multinational coordination and joint consumption of intelligence for the purpose of preventing and disrupting terrorism.

Intelligence failure has often been cited as the main reason for the inability of the United States to prevent or preempt the terrorist attack in Washington DC and New York last year, as well as military blunders such as the dismal failures of American to protect Pearl Harbour, and of British to defend Peninsula Malaysia and Singapore in 1941-1942.

Thus, the issue of intelligence certainly deserves more in-depth, realistic and technical discourses, after taking into accounts of, and weighing, both its pros and cons. It is not a yes-or-no question.

Assuming, for analytical purpose, the setting up and siting of the centre is acceptable in principle, it is still not clear which countries would bear the capital, overhead and operating costs of the centre, or how the financial burdens are to be shared among the participating countries. Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak has already been quoted on Nov 6 as saying that the source(s) of funding of the centre "has yet to be discussed".

Questions of jurisdiction

There are also questions of jurisdiction. From what departments, ministries or agencies personnel from Malaysia, the United States and other participating countries are to be seconded to the centre? To what or which directing and managing authority personnel of the centre are answerable or accountable? Would the annual budget of the centre (at least the Malaysian share of it) be submitted to Parliament, or at least a Standing Select Committee on the centre, for scrutiny and approval?

Solving all these problems may be a little bit time-consuming but a solid and less controversial foundation would certainly make the centre more legitimate and durable. In the ultimate analysis, fighting terrorism is winning the hearts and minds of the majority of the ordinary people whose propensity to fear the unknown, unclear and uncertain is only human.

Since the Malaysian government has 'proudly' accepted the proposal to set up and site the Asean Regional Centre for Counter Terrorism in the country as an international 'recognition' for its counter-terrorism efforts, it is its sole duty and political responsibility to explain, clarify or justify it intelligently and convincingly to the Malaysian people.

Passing the buck around to others, or back to the United States sounds politically irresponsible because, as a sovereign country, it could have rejected the proposal. One cannot have a pie and eat it too.

While many critics and cynics of the centre have spoken up, supporters should also not be afraid to share their opinions and perspectives publicly if they think the centre is worth supporting for one reason or another.

Meanwhile, it is also advisable for Malaysians to keep an open mind to patiently listen to all sides of the arguments. It is not a black-and-white, or yes-or-no issue yet.

.