Asian Transformations in Action - Api-fellowships.org

154 SPECIFICITIES OF GLOBALIZATIONACTIONS OF NON-STATE GROUPS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: ORIGINS,DRIVING FORCES AND NETWORKSI Ketut GunawanIntroductionThis work centers on non-state groups’ actions in theform of terrorism and/or insurgency utilizing terrortactics in Southeast Asia. These actions potentiallyundermine a transformative Asia that shows promise inmoving forward into its political maturity and socioeconomicadvancement and threaten the very basicsof human security in the region. To deal with suchthreats or problems, one should better understand thenature of such groups’ actions. In doing so, this researchsheds light on their actions in three religiously distinctcountries, namely Indonesia (predominantly Muslim),the Philippines (predominantly Catholic) and Thailand(predominantly Buddhist).The main objectives of this work are, first, to betterunderstand the origins and driving forces of theseactions and the networks built by the perpetrators,and second, to identify the historical, structural andideological roots of the problems. The significance ofthis work is, first, it can be used as an entry point to dealwith the issues highlighted, second, it can promote theincreased use of non-conventional approaches (nonmilitaryapproaches) in solving the problems, and third,it can promote religious tolerance in building a morepeaceful society.This study applies a qualitative analysis to data obtainedthrough in-depth interviews, personal communications,focus group discussions and library research. While theanalysis of the Philippine and Thai cases is mainly basedon the data collected during fieldwork in Manila andMindanao (Zamboanga, Basilan, Davao, Cotabato)and Bangkok and the Thai southernmost provinces(Pattani, Yala, Naratiwat, Songkla, Satun), respectively,the analysis of the Indonesian case is based on myacademic observations of the case, library research andcontent analysis of related documents. The findings arepresented as a comparative study.Conceptual frameworkNon-state groups’ actions are defined as actions by nonstateactors. Categories of non-state groups’ actionsvary widely, from peaceful demonstrations and streetconfrontations against the state security apparatusto insurgencies and terrorism. This work focuses onterrorism and insurgency utilizing terror tactics. Whileinsurgency can be easily understood as a non-stategroup’s action, terrorism in fact can be grouped intotwo main categories, namely state terrorism and nonstateterrorism. State terrorism is beyond the discussionof this study.There are over one hundred definitions of terrorismproposed by experts and governments (Schmidt andJongman in Malik 2001), and attempts to find a singleuniversal definition have “been long and painful and[are] now living a separate life of [their] own.” Theyhave come “to resemble the quest for the Holy Grail”(Malik 2001, vii). This particularly becomes problematicwhen it is related to independence struggles, guerillamovements or insurgencies, as described in theconundrum, “one state’s ‘terrorist’ is another state’s‘freedom fighter,’” (UNODC nd) “one person’s terroristis another person’s freedom fighter,” (Primoratz 2004,xi) or “what one’s enemies do is terrorism, what onedoes oneself is not” (Kronenwetter 2004, 14).One important clue to define terrorism, as Primoratz(2004, xii) suggested, is that one should “seek a definitionthat does not define terrorism in terms of the agent,nor in terms of the agent’s ultimate goal” but “shouldfocus on what is done and what the immediate pointof doing it is, and put to one side the identity of theagent and their ultimate and allegedly justifying aim.”In this line, Ricolfi (2005, 80) distinguishes betweenterror attacks “which have civilian targets” and guerrillaattacks “which have military targets.” Therefore, it iswrong to say that all insurgents’ violent acts regardlessof the type of the violence are not terror attacks (e.g.,the terrorising of innocent civilians by insurgents). Inthe same line, not all violent acts carried out by terroristorganizations can be categorized as terrorism (e.g.,certain violent robberies committed by certain terroristorganizations).The discourse on violent actions was dominated bygrievance theories until the late 1990s. This is becausegrievance “is not only much more functional externally,it is also more satisfying personally” (Collier 2000,Asian Transformations in ActionThe Work of the 2006/2007 API Fellows