Can Certain Political, Economic and Social Contexts Justify the Perpetration of Acts of Terrorism - Essay Example

?Karim Benyahya 0612150 Assignment Can certain political, economic and/or social contexts justify the perpetration of acts of terrorism? IntroductionIn the contemporary context, we are facing a different kind of threat, one which is not so much based on one country wanting to conquer another, but one which is based on intimidating people and nations. This threat is that of terrorism. In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the face of terrorism has been associated with Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda, Iraq, the Middle East, suicide bombers, and similar images and concepts. As some of these terrorists have expressed their disdain for Western politics and interference, they have also pointed out that their terrorist activities have been carried out for religious and political reasons. Analysts have also pointed out that terrorism and terrorist groups have emerged because of economic and social reasons. Such viewpoints have been discounted by other interest groups, claiming that political and economic reasons cannot justify the perpetration of acts of terrorism. Although terrorism has been around since around for a long time, it has been difficult to define. One of the most accepted definitions for terrorism have been conceptualized by US Department of Defence where they defined terrorism as, “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (as cited by United States Marine Corps, p. 1). Based on this definition, there are many possible causes and motivations for terrorism, but the constant element in all conceptualizations of terrorism is the element of fear instilled upon the victims of terrorism (Coady, p. 5). This desire to instil fear stems from a variety of causes which ranges from the economic to the political. Terrorism can also be viewed as an attack upon the state from within its borders; and there may also be an element of secrecy associated with the implementation of terrorist activities (Coady, p. 5). This paper shall now discuss whether or not certain political, economic, and/or social contexts justify the perpetration of acts of terrorism? Economic causes of terrorism Poverty has been set forth as the root cause of terrorism because the people’s discontent with their financial situation which has left them hungry and lacking in the basic necessities for survival has seemingly led them to lives of terrorism. This life is apparently one where they can intimidate their government authorities into acceding to their wishes and resolving their economic issues. In a discussion by Piazza (p. 159), the author pointed out that world leaders, including the United Nations, have acknowledged the major role of poverty in the perpetration of terrorist activities. Kofi Annan remarked that “no one in this world can be comfortable or safe when so many people are suffering and deprived...” (as cited by Piazza, p. 159). With these words, a possible link between poverty and terrorism can be gleaned. Annan went on to express that the industrialised nations have to double their efforts to assist the Third World nations in addressing their poverty concerns. Leaders have also expressed the fact that the world’s poorest nations are breeding grounds for violent activities (BBC News, 2002). These violent activities often eventually lead to acts of terrorism against government authorities for failing to address the people’s economic concerns. In some instances, their poor economic conditions also prompt these poorer citizens to join terrorist groups (Moghadam, p. 82). Moghadam (pp. 82-83) further discusses that economic determinants are important elements in understanding the causes of terrorism. He acknowledges the fact that poverty does not directly lead to terrorism; however, there is an indirect link between these two elements. He points out that poor countries often serve as havens for terrorism. “Poverty can lead to civil war which in turn breeds terrorism; and poverty makes it easier for terrorist groups to recruit members” (Moghadam, p. 83). To some extent, terrorism has become a business as it manages to line the pockets of terrorist leaders and to give motivation for terrorist members to stay within the organization. For those who cannot afford to live hard and poverty-stricken lives, they remain with the terrorist groups where they know they can get atleast three square meals a day. Political differences causes of terrorism Politics is also considered one of the causes of terrorism. More particularly, non-democratic forms of government have been associated with a higher incidence for terrorism. Based on the openness and popular participation seen in democracies, these democratic states have been seen to enjoy better “legitimacy among their population – hence dissatisfaction rarely reaches a level of serious threat to the existence of the regime itself” (Lia and Skjolberg, p. 19). Democratic nations have also been known to have alternative systems of expression by which they can release their dissatisfaction. For which reason, a high level of state power and low level of terrorism in democratic regimes have become apparent. In considering politics as a cause for terrorism, environmental factors are the primary elements in this discussion. In this discussion, political oppression and deprivation is considered to be a factor in the rise of terrorism (Walzer, p. 14). The inability to obtain something which the people need often triggers feelings of frustration which then eventually “facilitates the emergence of collective violence” (Walzer, p. 14). The inadequacy of the political systems in place can also lead to terrorist activities. The lack of political will and control from government leaders can minimize the element of control over the activities of its citizens (Lia and Skjolberg, p. 19). For countries with weak political wills, they have a higher risk of controlling the untoward activities of their citizens. Martin (p. 79) discusses how the concept of political will has always been associated with military might and eventually to terrorism. In effect, in order to gain political leverage, terrorism seems to eventually emerge as a viable political tool. Ideological and religious causes of terrorism One of the easily acknowledged causes of terrorism is the religious and ideological cause. In the case of Muslim extremists, this is certainly true. It was observed by Ranstorp (p. 2) that the number of Muslim extremists increased during the mid 1990s. These groups are said to be motivated by religious reasons, alongside their political beliefs. This is especially apparent among Muslim terrorist groups where their religious and political beliefs can hardly be separated from each other (Ranstorp, p. 2). Case in point is the Hamas which based their actions on their religious ideologies combined with their political actions in Lebanon and Palestine. In effect, they implemented short-term objectives with say, the release of their imprisoned members, and long-term goals, such as the resistance of Israeli occupation of their so-called territories (Ranstorp, p. 2). In some instances, their government authorities also often support the terrorist activities of their constituents. Such religious groups sometimes become easy and convenient tools for some states to advance their foreign policy agenda (Ranstorp, p. 2). These groups may also have nationalist separatist goals where the religious goal is sometimes embroiled with cultural and political factors. The growth of religious extremist groups also saw the rise of terrorist acts since the late 1980s, registering about half of the 64,000 recorded incidents between 1970 to 1995 (Ranstorp, p. 2). The growth of religious terrorism also indicated a transformation of contemporary terrorism into a means of war and the extension of tactics used by different terrorist organizations. To a certain point, religious extremist groups can be credited for the perpetration of many terrorist activities, especially those involving suicide bombers. Moreover, these religious terrorists have a strong feeling that their faith and their communities are at a crucial point in their history and they feel that they have to preserve their religious identity and they think that this is the best time for them to secure and shape their future (Ranstorp, p. 2). In other words, they believe that in order to preserve their religious beliefs and their political power, they have to exhibit their military power and strength to the outside world. Can certain political, economic and/or social contexts justify the perpetration of acts of terrorism? After considering the above discussions on the causes of terrorism, it is appropriate to now discuss whether such political, economic, and or religious contexts can be used as means to justify the perpetration of acts of terrorism. Based on the discussion on the economic causes for terrorism, it may appear that certain economic situations can justify the perpetration of acts of terrorism against government officials who cannot effectively alleviate poverty and depressing economic conditions. However, there is much uncertainty in attaching poverty as a justification for terrorism. Although, poverty may indeed be a cause for terrorism, much doubt is cast in this contention. “Blaming poverty allows us to ignore the difficult and politically dangerous questions. Among them: ‘Is the Islamic belief in Jihad inherently dangerous?’, ‘How can we silence hate speech of Immans without betraying our own cherished values of free speech and freedom of religion?’ And ‘How deep and widespread is hatred of our Western culture?’” (Gorski, p. 2). Laying the blame for terrorism on poverty also conveniently allows people to believe that security can actually be bought; and through increased foreign aid and reduced tariff rates, terrorist attacks can be prevented (Gorski, p. 2). This is far from the truth because even as resources are spoon-fed to the poor nations, without actually addressing the animosity they feel towards the Western and richer nations, the poor nations would still be able to launch violent and terrorist activities against the industrialised countries – this time with the resources provided by the industrialised nations (Gorski, p. 2). Accepting poverty as a justification for terrorism would also be tantamount to closing the doors in finding the real cause for terrorism. In the end, even if the poverty issue is addressed, terrorism would still be rampant in the world. The political context has been used as a means to justify terrorism in the sense that its implementation in some quarters have been carried out in order to displace an unwanted political power. This was seen in the Second World War when German troops used terrorist tactics in order to intimidate the British Army and prevent the latter from controlling Palestine (Hoffman, p. 48). In this regard, terrorism was used to gain an upper hand against a force which could not, under normal circumstances be defeated. Based on such context, terrorism can be justified. The British position on this issue may be seen differently because they may be seen as the ‘good side,’ however, since both parties have already perpetrated acts of violence and intimidation on each other, neither party can be justified in their activities and be considered as either good or bad. Both parties being more or less on the same plane of ‘terrorism,’ both parties can be deposed by the other through ‘terrorist’ activities as well. Laquer also discusses about the culture which dominates the terrorist groups – the culture of political loyalty. Some leaders within the Al-Qaeda groups contend that American betrayed them and betrayed their trust and loyalty. They view American continued presence in their Arab holy lands as a violation of the trust given by the Arab nations to the US. They further cite the US oil interests in the Arab region as a motivation for US presence in Iraq (Laquer). Based on this analysis and from the Arab context, terrorist activities may be justified as means to displace foreign troops which have violated the basic principles of trust which these Arab nations have extended towards the recipient country. From the viewpoint of the Americans, they would not see any justification for terrorist activities; however, for these Arab groups who have a firm belief on loyalty and on the sanctity of their lands, terrorism is a justified action. Conclusion Answering the query of whether or not certain political, economic, and/or social contexts can justify the perpetration of acts of terrorism requires a complex and dynamic discussion straddling both sides of the political fence. The causes of terrorism discussed in this paper include: economic, political, and religious/ideological causes. Although these causes may provide sufficient explanations for terrorist acts, using them to justify the acts of terrorism is another story. Poverty cannot be used to justify acts of terrorism because even as the problems of poverty would be resolved, the animosity towards Western nations may still remain. The political context of terrorism is considered a more complex discussion. Depending on which side is being looked at, terrorism may or may not be justified. Arabs may justify their terrorism activities against the US because the latter has violated their trust and the sanctity of their Arab lands. And the US may not see such violations of trust and sanctity as sufficient justifications for terrorist activities. Nevertheless, for parties wanting to depose an inefficient political power, terrorism may also be justified. This political discussion brings us to the basic Machiavellian concept of ‘ends justifying the means’. All in all, however, there is a need to consider the individual context of each terrorist act before an adequate judgment of the terrorist activity can be made. Works Cited BBC News. ‘Poverty 'fuelling terrorism.'’ 2002. 17 March 2011 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1886617.stm Coady, C. ‘Defining Terrorism in Igor Primoratz (ed.), Terrorism: the philosophical issues’. (2004). Palgrave. 17 March 2011 from http://www.palgrave.com/PDFs/1403918171.Pdf Ehmad, A, ‘Terrorism: Theirs and Ours’. (1998). 18 March 2011 from http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Ahmad.htm Gorski, D. ‘Is Poverty A Root Cause of Terrorism?’ State University of New York at Buffalo. 2002. 17 March 2011 from http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/papers/Martin_Gorski.pdf Hoffman, B. ‘Inside Terrorism’ (2006) London: Columbia University Press Laqueur, W, ‘Why the Easy Generalizations About the Causes of Terrorism Are Wrong.’ History News Network. 18 March 2011 from http://hnn.us/articles/1629.html Lia, B. & Skjolberg, K. ‘Why terrorism occurs – A survey of theories and hypotheses on the causes of terrorism’. Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. 2000. 17 March 2011 from http://rapporter.ffi.no/rapporter/2000/02769.pdf Martin G. ‘Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues’. (2006). London: Sage Publications Moghadam, A. ‘The roots of terrorism’. 2006. New York: Infobase Publishing. Newman E. ‘Exploring the ‘Root Causes’ of Terrorism’. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 29, No. 8, Dec. 2006. Piazza, J. ‘Rooted in Poverty?: Terrorism, Poor Economic Development, and Social Cleavages’. Terrorism and Political Violence, 18:159–177, 2006. Ranstorp, M. ‘Exploring Root and Trigger Causes of Terrorism’. Transnational Terrorism. 2007. 17 March 2011 from http://www.transnationalterrorism.eu/tekst/publications/Root%20and%20Trigger.pdf United States Marine Corps. ‘Individual's Guide for Understanding and Surviving Terrorism’. (2007). New York: Cosimo Walzer, Michael, ‘Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations’. (2006). London: Sage Publications Read More