"Bali was a Very Important Wake-Up Call"

Rohan Gunaratna specializes in Islamic terrorism in South East Asia and is the author of "Inside Al Qaeda," along with many other publications. He is a former principal investigator with the United Nations and has worked as a law enforcement consultant for the United Kingdom and the United States. He is a regular commentator on terrorism and counter-terrorism in South East Asia.

DW-WORLD.DE: How do you think Australia has changed since Sept. 11 and the Bali bombings?

Rohan Gunaratna: Australia did not take the threat of terrorism seriously until the first Bali attack. I still recall meeting with the officials from the Australian government and them denying that the South-East Asian terrorist group, Jemaah Islamiah (JI), who were responsible for the bombings, had links with Al Qaeda. I recall there were a few Australian journalists and academics who also said the threat was exaggerated. The first Bali bombing was a very important turning point for Australians because the threat of terrorism was not taken seriously until a large number of Australians were killed. For most nations, it takes suffering from a terrorist attack to realize that terrorism means serious business.

Are Australians more aware of terrorism? You said in a previous interview that Australians are not as concerned about terrorism as they should be.

Because Australia is so far away from the rest of the world and is a big island protected by the sea, many Australians don't have a large understanding of the outside world. Bali was a very important wake-up call, primarily for Australian officials. The Australian federal police has a highly successful off-shore counter-terrorism strategy in Indonesia and the best counter-terrorism training center in South-East Asia. But it may take a terrorist attack in Australia for people to become more alert and aware.

You have previously said that Australia was a terrorist target before the Bali bombings. Why was this the case?

Australia was perceived negatively by the jihadists over East Timor. Certainly there was a sharp escalation after 9/11, because of Australia's participation in Afghanistan, which was a terrorist Disneyland and even more so following Australia's participation in Iraq.

What do you think of the range of counter-terrorism laws that have been introduced, post Bali and Sept.11?

The Australians have significantly and dramatically changed their legislation since the first Bali attack. The Australian authorities have been able to move in on JI, because they rapidly implemented more appropriate legislation, following the first Bali attack. These laws were necessary to help enforcement agencies act effectively against terrorism. The Australian government must now work more actively in South East Asia, because the terrorist threat to Australia has become home-grown, so the counter-terrorism policies must address both the domestic and the regional threats.

What about in the future, can these terrorism laws go too far?

The government response must be proactive and reactive. In counter-terrorism, we need to be proactive -- otherwise more people will be killed. If Indonesia is not pressured to fight terrorism, Australians will suffer more. At the same time there must be a proper balance, where everything is done by the rule of law. Maintaining public support is paramount in the fight against terrorism. Sometimes there is a need to develop special legislation but then that can be review annually, to see if such hard legislation is needed beyond a specified period of time. We can build certain safeguards, so we can ensure that our response is in keeping with the laws of the land.

How can the Australian government maintain a sober relationship with Indonesia?

Australia has done a remarkable job at a tactical and operational level of providing capabilities to the Indonesian police to act against terrorism. Where Australia has failed is to influence Indonesia's counter-terrorism strategy and plans at a policy and a strategic level. The head of JI, Abu Bakar Bashir, who is the Osama Bin Laden of the South-East Asian region, has killed about 250 people and today, he is still free and roaming around the streets preaching even more violence. This is the singular failure of the South-East Asian nations as well as Australia. Australia lost 88 of their people in the first Bali attack. This was much like JI mounting an attack within Australia and still JI is not a banned organization in Asia. It is important for Australia to work with the Indonesian government and get them to ban JI.

Has Australia's close relationship with the United States changed international perceptions of Australia?

The image of Australia has changed very sharply and very dramatically in South-East Asia. Prior to the first Bali attacks, most South-Asian countries thought of Australians as happy-go-lucky, backpacking, beer-drinking people. But today Australians are taken more seriously. Australia is being perceived as the US of the region by the jihadists, but this is the price you have to pay when you fight terrorism.

Do you think the close relationship Australia has with the US has been positive?

The relationship has positive and negative aspects. But for Australia, America is so important and without the US, it will have big problems. Australia participated in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is in many ways the right thing to do, but at the same time earned the anger of the terrorist groups. As a nation -- perhaps the most developed and most advanced in the south-east Asian region -- it needs to maintain relationships with the US and the UK, and for that reason, Australia will be at a greater risk from terrorism.