Many people have been asking how my thesis is progressing, and indeed what exactly my thesis is about. So, I'm going to post a few excerpts from what I have written (remember, rough draft!) for those who are interested (don't worry, it is the short and general stuff). So, if you want to read some "academic" stuff, by all means proceed, if you'd rather not, I completely understand!

***

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 propelled the world into a new age where anti-terrorism laws and policies are top priority. The Bali bombing of October 12, 2002 directed attention to Southeast Asia, and emphasized that while the Middle East has been the primary target in the “War on Terror”, terrorist threats are on the rise in other regions of the world as well. The U.S. Government has expressed extreme concern that Southeast Asia, particularly Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, have known ties to the Al Qaeda terrorist network and are a base for current and future operations. The Jemaah Islamiyah, a militant terrorist group associated with Al Qaeda and based in Southeast Asia, allegedly spearheaded terrorist campaigns in Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Other notable groups that are active in the region include Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the Laskar Jihad (LJ) and Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) in Indonesia. Many episodes of political violence in Southeast Asia have also been linked to terrorism; Communist activities in Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore, and state-sponsored anti-separatist movements in the Philippines and East Timor are commonly included in terrorism reports. Another series of Bali bombings in October 2005, and escalating Muslim separatist insurgencies in Thailand and the Philippines, compound the urgent need to develop effective counter-terrorism plans in Southeast Asia....

***

Through my own research, I hope to contribute to the debate about how governments and the international community should prepare for and respond to terrorist threats. I use a cross-disciplinary approach to examine current strategies for promoting national security in Southeast Asia. The focus is on the terrorist threat in the region, legal tools used to combat the threat, and impacts on development. The study falls within the broad ambit of security, development, and human rights, and is presented in a comparative legal framework. By juxtaposing Singapore and Indonesia, neighboring countries that experience similar security concerns but wield the law in contrasting ways, I show alternatives for protecting national security while simultaneously promoting development in the region.

There are several reasons this is a meaningful addition to current scholarship. First, I emphasize linkages between fields that have long been considered at odds with one another. My experience has been that those working in the area of national security tend to dismiss development and human rights as secondary concerns that create roadblocks for all-important security objectives. Security is considered “hard” politics, while development and human rights are “soft” politics. There is a prioritizing of security first, development somewhere further down the line, and human rights trailing along at the end of a long list of national objectives. But security actors are not the only ones to consider their objectives paramount. Development policymakers designate economic advancement and free trade as the ultimate goal of all people throughout the world, throw democracy and good governance into the mix, and think this will solve all the world’s ills. Human rights advocates proclaim that recognition of universal human rights is the singular most important global plight, criticizing those in the security field for building weapons instead of peace, and those in the development field for heartlessly exploiting the disadvantaged to increase the profits of the advantaged.

The reality is that security, development, and human rights depend upon each other to realize respecitve goals. Human rights are not meaningful in an environment that is in turmoil, either because of precarious or non-existent security, or under-development. Development cannot be achieved without a basic level of security. Nor is economic economic development an end in itself; political, social,and cultural factors implicit in human rights must accompany economic development in order to achieve sustainable change. Security is also only sustainable when people are secure in their rights and enjoy economic well-being and prospects for advancement.

Second, with terrorism on the rise at a time when borders are blurring through globalization , states are increasingly vulnerable to security threats. Globalization facilitates terrorism by easing the operation of terror plots from remote locations and relaxing barriers to movement across borders. Globalization also creates the possibility of simultaneous attacks in different locations. Undoubtedly, terrorist groups have grown stronger with globalization. According to modern dicta, globalization is an inevitable, and perhaps irreversible, process. Thus, having laid the foundation for this new “era of global terror,” it is now essential that nations develop effective strategies to ward off threats. National and international tools to prevent terrorism need to be fine-tuned to provide maximum effectiveness. I present case studies of Indonesia and Singapore to show both strengths and weaknesses in current approaches to counter-terrorism. These case studies are significant if only for the simple reason that wecan learn from others’ failures and successes.

Third, I have already noted that the terrorist phenomenon in Southeast Asia is growing and deserves greater scrutiny. The October 1, 2005 Bali bombings are an example of the magnitude of the threat in Southeast Asia. Three years after the previous bombing, tourists began flooding back onto Bali’s beaches, confident in local residents’ claims that there was nothing to fear and that Bali was safe for tourists. The explosions that tore through restaurants in the popular tourist destinations of Kuta and Jimbaran, killing more than 20 and wounding over 100, quickly dispelled the myth of Bali’s safety. Two major attacks in three years show that terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have the capability to plan and carry-out threats. Fear of more attacks is reasonable and will likely lead to set-backs in the region’s development.

Fourth, law is one of the most potent weapons for fighting terrorism. Michael German, a former American FBI undercover agent and counterterrorism instructor, states that his “repeated success using constitutionally sound, proactive law enforcement techniques to infiltrate terrorist groups and prevent acts of terrorism convinces [him] that a criminal law approach to counterterrorism can be effective.” The key is knowing how and when to use the law, including when to refrain from pursuing legal mechanisms. In this paper, I explore how the law is currently used in Singapore and Indonesia, and then hypothesize how the law ought to be used in order to create a more effective counter-terrorism regime. By looking at the impact of the law on greater society, rather than only within the microcosm of legal institutions, I hope to make some pragmatic and achievable suggestions for fighting terrorism.