Global Governance: Terrorism - Essay Example

Global Governance: Terrorism The events of 9/11 changed the world. Within a few hours, the world’s most powerful nation came under the terrorist attacks; the World Trade Centre buildings, the Pentagon and other buildings of America were targeted. In these attacks, more than 3,000 innocent Americans were killed and hundreds were injured. Before these horrible events, nobody had ever thought of the attacks of such magnitude could occur on the land o of the United States of America. Nor had one ever came across with the word ‘terrorism’ and it’s such an inhumane and demonic face. Globally, people were living in peace and harmony; they openly and freely were visiting to almost all states of the world. During the visits, they did not give much consideration to the issues such as caste, color, race, religion and other social, political and religious factors. Without any fear; they were sharing their beliefs and ideas with one another. Even if, they came across that a particular person belongs to a specific religious or political identity, it was not given much importance. However, soon after the attacks of 9/11, a new frame of mind came into existence. Extremist groups do not differentiate between an innocent people and their targets. Extremist groups can be extremist individuals, terrorist outfits, and hostile governments. Terrorists cannot be limited to one particular nation, tribe, sect, religion; rather they can come from any side of the social spectrum. They can be local, national, international groups. And these groups do not much differentiate between a target and an innocent person. To achieve their inhumane objectives, which they venerate and support them with their illogical religious or political backgrounds, they can go to any extent. However, in the recent history, the trend in the terrorist attacks has been international rather than national. In which, they have mercilessly targeted to innocent persons as well. To increase the fear of terrorism, they have implied in their attacks that the higher the number of casualties the more fearful would be nations and their leaders as well. It is their agenda to create the environment of fear and threat under which liberty remains at threat. For attaining these cruel objectives, terrorists have targeted the civilians and military targets in the recent history. But, worse thing is that, they are targeting more soft targets than the hard one-military targets. In the recent history, after the 9/11 attacks, they have attacked on Bali, London, Mumbai and certain other cities of the world showing a complete disrespect for the international law and humanitarian values. From their terrorist activities; it looks like they have a clear cut agenda to rule over the certain part of the world with the use of force, threat, intimidation and violence. They legalize their every inhumane violent action by providing authenticity either from a religious scripture or from a social or political point of view. In the recent attacks, they have clearly shown that they have their set of rules and regulations. On the basis of their rules and regulations, they define their inhumane actions and determine their course of actions at the cost of the international laws. The tenets of international laws, human and social, cultural, political, ethnic, religious values and norms have no meaning for them. They do not give significance to these human values rather they disrespect and use them in order to achieve their terrorist aims and objectives. It is this mentality that has increased the air of violence, threat, intimation and law and order situation globally. No country is safe and secure from this kind of frame of mind. This is the worst form of extremism that is rapidly increasing in the certain religious identities of the world. It is this mentality that have fuelled to the fire of terrorism and violence, which is not limited to any single state of the world. Slowly and gradually, it has targeted almost every nation of the world if not physically but psychologically. Religion, poverty, nationalism, non-democracy, and social injustice have become the causes of terrorism, and the European Union has devised its own strategy to tackle the menace of terrorism with the strategies of preventing, pursuing, protecting and responding [Thesis Statement] Background Numerous causes have brought the menace of terrorism. And the menace of terrorism has victimized many nations of the world with its brute force, including the United States of America, Spain, and United Kingdom. Although these international actors have no home grown terrorist infrastructure; however, they need to work on the identified causes of terrorism, which come from religion, poverty, nationalism, non-democracy and social injustice. Some religions have hatred ideology towards the non-believers. Among these religions, some scholars of the religion of Islam prove to be fundamentalists. For instance, many fundamentalist Islamic scholars have declared democracy un-Islamic, they have shown their detest toward the system of capitalism, wanting to establish a new caliphate in the world, which will lead the Muslims globally (Radu, 2001). Additionally, some fundamentalist Islamic scholars consider western society, which finds its base from the religion of Christianity, as the prime responsible element of terrorism, materialism. Also, Doyle (2003) is of the opinion that aggregately, the religious revival in general is growing with the US at the top. Here, this revival is not limited to a particular nation rather it is being experienced in many states of the world. In addition, Hayes (2001) describes that the nations having different religious identity are more likely to fight with one another than those who share the same religion. Economic inequality adds its part of share into the fire of terrorism. When a group or sect is deprived of its economic rights, they do not have any choice except to rebel. The sense of alienation and deprivation stimulates them to fight for their rights and consequently they resort to violence. Galtung’s(2002) critical analysis over the causes of terrorism concludes that the third world has more contributed. In the critical analysis, he clearly highlights the entire social, political and economic structure proves to be insufficient to fulfill its required part in these politically, economically fragile states of the world. Nationalism is not far behind for contributing in the vicious cycle of violence and terrorism locally and globally. A disgruntled group may resort to violence. Many causes may force the group to stand up and take up the arms to fight for their objectives, which can be religious, social, and political. Crenshaw (1981), has studied the previously colonized states; on the basis of his studies he concludes that most of the time, nationalist movements turns into a force of terrorism as they find it difficult to achieve their motives with the non-violent means. Williams (1994) after reading the relation between the possibility of conflict and ethnic minorities, concludes that when an ethnic minority is subjugated or is disadvantaged in economic opportunity, cultural expressions, political rights and voice and social status their religious symbols and beliefs, language, civil, political rights fuel the perceptions of unfairness. Subsequently, they find themselves to be trapped and this situation leaves no option for them except resort to violence and launch attacks against an opposite side. Additionally, the slogan of nationalism possesses utility; and that utility is being used by some vested interests. Since the feelings of nationalism go deep into the emotional spectrum of humans, the vested interests do not leave any single opportunity to further their interests. To serve their interests, these vested groups do not respect the human rights, social, cultural, ethnic, religious and political norms and values. They eliminate every one whom they consider to be a threat or a potential threat. Democracy accommodates all groups within a state. It gives them a chance to represent them so that they can be heard in a democratic way. For this reason, at least in theory, there cannot be a disgruntled group that is not represented properly; otherwise, it would be a severe violation of the basic doctrine of the democracy (Wilkinson, 1977). Unfortunately, in many of the under-developed states of the world, democracy has not been given a chance to serve the local people, especially in Asia and Africa, where tribal thinking and kingdoms have been strongly molding the political decisions and political affairs at the cost of the local population. To support their non-representative governments, states in these parts of the world have put their every step to suppress every voice that raise against their dictatorial and cruel regimes. For these non-representative governments, their nations don’t have any value in front of them; they treat them as their subjects and subservient servants. As a result, there are unavoidable implications of the non-representative governments; majority or minority non-representative groups in these states do not tolerate the cruel actions of their non-representative governments. Either to attain their religious or to struggle for obtaining their political rights, these groups can go to any extent for the purpose of their innate rights. They legalize every acts of violence, intimidation in their quest for attaining their motives. In addition, in such type of situations, the local grievances are used by the international terrorist groups at the cost of the genuine local objectives. These international terrorist groups fund, arm and train the local groups against their governments. By supporting violence and terrorism, the international terrorist groups try to achieve their local, national and international inhumane objectives. Tools to tackle terrorism The offensive and preventive tools are used to tackle the menace of terrorism. Soon after the attacks of 9/11, the United States of America with the backing of the members of the Security Council launched the war on terror. To carry out the military strikes, America required the backing of the international actors. Two Resolutions- Resolution 1368 and Resolution 1373- were passed after the attacks (echecalaguerre, web) .The former Resolution unequivocally denounces the 9/11 terrorist attacks and declares these acts as a threat to international peace and security. The latter Resolution which consists of certain anti-terrorism measures that the member states must need comply with. On the basis of these Resolutions, the United States of America with other international actors launched its full scale war against the state of Afghanistan on the pretext that it harbors the culprits of the 9/11 terrorists when the diplomacy fails to achieve its required international objectives. The United States of America used these Resolutions to hunt down the masterminds of the 9/11 attacks. But, interestingly, neither Resolution 1368 and nor Resolution 1373 even mentions the word Afghanistan (echecalaguerre, web). Despite that, America used them as a tool to tackle the specter of terrorism. Within that context, the doctrine of pre-emption is defined and put into practice. Anticipatory self-defense or striking an enemy before that enemy launches his attack (Arinello, 2005). When a sovereign nation feels that an enemy may launch an attack to the nation, to prevent that attack, the sovereign nation attacks in self-defense to eliminate the threat of attack. This tool was used in the case of Iraq invasion. The Bush administration perceived that the Saddam regime might possibly use the weapons of mass destruction. Second, the Bush administration termed the Saddam regime as an oppressor regime who persecutes its own people with different inhumane treatments. Third, the Bush administration had also termed the Saddam regime as a threat to the international peace and security. In order to topple the Saddam regime, the Bush administration first used the diplomatic means to peacefully dethrone the Saddam regime. The nuclear inspectors were sent to Iraq to search out the weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons as well. However, before the invasion of Iraq, the inspectors were unable to find any clue leading to substantiate the US allegations over the Saddam regime. To prevent Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against its own people and to its neighboring states, the United States of America using the doctrine of preemption launched air strikes into Iraq; America dethroned the regime of Saddam and established its own hen pecked puppets to run the governmental affairs of Iraq. The United States of America did not receive the mandate of United Nations over the issue of Iraq; the five members of Security Council- Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China- were not taken into confidence in the required way. The other members of the Security Council were totally ignored by America over the issue of Iraq invasion. Later, then Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Anan, announced that the Iraq war was illegal and it had no backing of the United Nations (MacAskill & Borger, 2004). The European Union and the United Nations have introduced some preventive measures as counter-terrorism strategies (Europe.eu, 2007). These measures are introduced in the wake of the recent threat of terrorism globally. The fundamental objectives behind these measures are to ensure the global peace and security, to build up and develop better safer world. Consequently, these steps would further the cause of democracy, dialogue, and good governance including rooting out the menace of radicalization and fundamentalism. Additionally, the EU has emphasized to attain the following objectives as well: Increasing cooperation with the third world countries ( particularly in South-East Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, and facilitate them with assistance; Preventing new recruits to terrorism; Protecting potential targets; Investigating and pursuing existing members of terrorist networks globally; Upgrading capability to respond and handle the consequences of terrorist attacks; Respecting human rights. “Prevent”, “protect”, “pursue” and “respond” are the four pillars to combat terrorism. And these pillars are put forwarded by the EU. By properly implementing these strategic counter-terrorism measures the above mentioned objectives would be served as determined. The “prevent” pillar works to combat the root cause of terrorism and methods used by the terrorist groups. This pillar is devised to identify those tactics, methods, instruments and propaganda used by the terrorist groups to recruit and propagate radicalization throughout the world. Since it is the propaganda and the existing conflicts in the world that are negatively used by the terrorist groups to gain sympathy and recognition of their dirty ideology, the use of this pillar would help to identify their tactics. It is the source of radicalization that provides a fertile ground for the acts of terrorism. Also, terrorist groups try to use the religion of Islam and the lifestyle in the West in a way to create a clash between these different structures of the world and to substantiate their claims they quote from the religious scriptures. In that way, they try to create a rift between the West and the religion of Islam; and they trade on it. The “prevent” pillar suggests the following to combat terrorism: Developing common approaches to identify and tackle problem behavior; Developing inter-cultural dialogue; Holding in check incitement and recruitment in the key environments (prisons and places of worship); Continually researching and sharing experiences and analysis on the issues. The “protect” pillar proposes to tighten the border security, transport and other cross-border infrastructures with an aim to minimize the targets vulnerability to attack and to limit the subsequent impacts of attack. In order to ensure the required functioning of this pillar, the EU has put more emphasized on the close and effective coordination and cooperation among the member states. The “pursue” pillar aims at hunting down the terrorists across borders, at the same time international law and human rights must be not compromised at any level; they must be respected as they should be. In this regard, the EU suggests that the terrorists must not be allowed to access the materials such as explosives, arms and ammunitions. Additionally, the terrorist groups cannot further their dirty acts without having funds. In this regard, the EU proposes to ensure and implement such measures that prevent terrorist reaching the sources of finance. This can be done by carrying out the deep inquires into the accounts of suspects, freezing their assets and so on. The “respond” pillar proposes measures to manage the damage after a terrorist attack. Undoubtedly, the risk of terrorist attacks cannot be wished away. There is nothing that can ensure 100 percent safety and security. Following strategies are suggested by the EU to manage the event of an attack: Exchanging policy and operational information ( in the case of a cross-border incident) Providing financial and non-financial assistance to EU citizens in third countries; Ensuring compensation, solidarity of the victims and their families at national and European level Protecting military and civil assets via EU crisis management operations. Recommendations These measures can also be at the international level between and among the member states of the United Nations. They can be used to prevent, protect, pursue and respond to terrorist attacks. Although there are various practical and doable theories that can better equip to the international actors to deal with the menace of terrorism in the most effective way, but the lack of political will, historical grievances and enmity among the members of the Security Council do not suggest an easy way to attain that strategic international objective. Historically, the United States of America and Russia do not share positive relations rather hostile; the same situation existed between America and China. Unfortunately, such hostility still exists among these member states. It is this misfortune that deters these international actors to work for the international peace and security. However, inter-faith dialogue, respect for human rights nationally and internationally as well, promote and support young and developing democracies in Asia and Africa, finance and support the under-developed states to become self-sufficient, are those fundamental aspects, if implemented with true and sincere intentions, many causes of international terrorism can be suppressed at the root level. In addition, the policy of pre-emption must be discouraged, this discouragement would encourage a peaceful way to manage the problem of terrorism globally. Till this point of time, the security situation in Iraq is far from stability, the negative impacts of the doctrine of preemption have totally denounced the use of this policy in settling any international political issue. Works Cited Radu, Michael, (2001), 'The Futile Search for "Root Causes" of Terrorism'. American Diplomacy, 27-5-2001. Web. 5 April 2011. Doyle, Rodger, (2003), 'By the numbers - Fundamentalism'. Scientific American, March 2003. p15. Hayes, Brian, (2002), 'Computing Science - The statistics of deadly quarrels'. American Scientist, January-February 2002, 10-15. Galtung, Johan, (2002), '11 September 2001: Diagnosis, Prognosis, Therapy'. In: Searching for peace - the road to TRANSCEND, Galtung, Johan, Jacobsen, Carl G. and Brand-Jacobsen, Kai Frithjof. London: Pluto Press. pp 87-102. Williams, Robin M. Jr., (1994), 'The Sociology of Ethnic Conflicts: Comparative International Perspectives'. Annual Review of Sociology, 20, 49-79. Wilkinson, Paul, (1977), Terrorism and the liberal state. London: Macmillan Press. 257p. “Afghanistan: A legitimate military intervention?” Web. Accessed on: 5 April, 2011, Available at: http://www.echecalaguerre.org/index.php?id=187/. Arinello, Micheal, (2005). “National Security Strategy of Preemption”, 18 March, 2005. Web. Accessed on: 5 April, 2011, available at:< http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA431862/> MacAskill, Ewan & Borger, Julian, (2004). “Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan” 16 September, 2004. Web. Accessed on: 5 April, 2011, available at:< http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq/> “Counter-terrorism strategy”, 26 November, 2007, Web, Accessed on: 5 April, 2011. Available at:< http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_terrorism/l33275_en.htm/> Read More