Theory integration on 3 terrorism cases - Term Paper Example

?THEORY INTEGRATION ON 3 TERRORISM CASES This paper seeks to find a holistic understanding of terrorism, supported by the varied political theories which try to explain it. A general hypothesis shall be set, followed by validating this hypothesis in the case of three examples of terrorism which have prominently been discussed in popular and scientific circles. The general hypothesis is: Cases of terrorism can be more satisfactorily explained applying both orthodox and non-orthodox or holistic theories. This hypothesis finds relevance in the fact that cases of terrorism have been difficult to understand and appreciate. The theories on terrorism are also too varied, such as to defy an integrative understanding of the phenomenon. This paper will therefore explain the orthodox and non-orthodox theories on terrorism, applying these to three known cases of terrorism. Analytical discussion will try to show that the hypothesis is valid and relevant. Orthodox terrorism theories Terrorism is a highly debatable issue. Its complexity emanates from the primeval nature of man to sow lethal violence against his kind. It is estimated that the 18th century French Revolution gave impetus to modern terrorism that led to the upsurge of contemporary terrorism with its state, interstate and global dimensions. Thus far, orthodox theories on modern terrorism have been used to understand cases of terrorism, but these have been subjected to debates. In an in-depth analysis, Jason Franks opened up a discussion of the Orthodox Terrorism Theory or theories, proposing a more comprehensive non-orthodox understanding of the phenomenon which be applicable in the many years to come. For Franks, the Orthodox Theory is capable of answering the questions what makes up terrorism and how it can be countered. However, he notes that the Orthodox Theory fails to adequately answer why it happens. He explains that the orthodox understanding of terrorism is based on the perception of the legitimacy of the state, while perpetrators of terror are illegal and illegitimate. Thus, there is the opposing understanding of terrorism: firstly in defence of the state as when the U.S. Department of Defence defined terrorism as “unlawful use of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce and intimidate governments to accept political, religious or ideological objectives, and secondly in defence of the terrorist act as when Hezbollah leader Sheikh Fadlallah described terrorism as “fighting with special means against aggressor nations in religious and lawful warfare against world imperial powers.” ( Kramer n.p.). The situation shows that it is difficult to establish a sound foundation for research and policy on terrorism. This may also suggest that resolving the phenomenal rise of terrorism may continue to meet difficulties in the times ahead. To be fair, the Orthodox Theory on Terrorism has merits. It comprises the western model of understanding terrorism along the human ideals of liberty, rule of law, and democratic life in society. It is also a practical concept in dealing with acts of terrorism as threats to state authority. The Orthodox Theory has laid down three useful themes on terror acts, namely (a) Functional, as embodied by the Theory of Provocation, or the belief that terrorism aims to provoke a response from a repressive state by means of strategies that will radicalize citizens against government (Laqueur 72) (b) Symbolic or the explanation that terror acts have image- value under the idea of “terrorism in theatre” (Jenkins 132), and (c) Tactical as terrorists use strategies along short-term objectives such as hijacking, as well as long-term objectives to advancing the broader cause of revolution. In spite of merits derived from the Orthodox understanding of terrorism, Franks perceives that this approach needs to be improved owing to the new terroristic environment which has pushed terrorism beyond the state into interstate and global boundaries. The alternative terrorism theory Improving on the orthodox theory, Franks opened a holistic discourse on terrorism drawn from new studies on conflicts during the Post-Cold War Era. He mentioned new conflicts which take “the form of asymmetric warfare between groups, movements and organizations” (Franz 2), inclusive of ethnic identity/nationalist struggles and multi-party civil wars. Today, new conflicts also take the form of trans-state or super-state struggles amidst globalization. Proposing an alternative theory, Franz introduced a roots-debate which focuses not on the what or how, but on the why new terrorism occurs, exemplified by the terroristic acts of non-state extremists groups like the Al Queda. Franz’s alternative and holistic theory has the following characteristics: (a) critical (b) multi-level, and (c) multi-dimensional. Critical understanding entails an inquiry into the roots of terrorism beyond such orthodox theories as the Political Theory of Anarchism, Theory of Fascism, Theory of Religion, Economics Theory, Globalization Theory, etc. Meanwhile, multi-level understanding brings in the multi-level dimension of the roots of terrorism, namely the state level, non-state level, the structural level, and the individual level. Lastly, Franks invokes the multi-dimensional character of terrorism since the terrorist is an actor with unfulfilled psychological needs in the wide social, political, economic, religious and cultural environment he is in. An analysis incorporating the orthodox and non-orthodox theoretical approaches on cases of terrorism can now be made. The Baader-Meinhof Gang The German Baader-Meinhof Gang or Red Army Faction (RAF) was a left-wing terror group in post-World War II Germany. Founded in 1950, it described itself as communistic and non-imperialistic, and employed urban guerrilla armed resistance against a perceived fascist state. In its 30 years of most violent campaigns, it caused 34 deaths and many injuries until it declared itself dissolved in 1998. Traceable to the protest movements in West Germany, the group sought youth identity and joined left-wing politicians in confronting a feared revived Nazism, neo-imperialism, and suppression of women’s liberation. Going underground was necessitated by the alienation of youths from the state. They suspected the authoritarian structures which to them had a legacy of Nazism. The group was particularly outraged by the occupation of government positions by ex-Nazis. They also lamented the pro-NATO politics of convenience and pro-capitalist collusion of the state. Peaceful protests led to radical militarism and arson attacks, assassination attempts and guerrilla warfare on government, business and diplomatic establishments. It was reported that one-fourth of Germans felt sympathy for the RAF, even as it started robbing banks, hijacking a plane and bombing U.S. military installations. Continued arrests failed to completely decimate the group which claimed a second generation of adherents. But after its last bombing of a newly built prison-house, it declared itself dissolved on April 20, 2008. Applying the Orthodox Theory, the RAF is illegitimate and deserved the capture, trials and imprisonment of its hard-core members. However, applying a multi-dimensional approach to understanding it, there is a need to closely examine the radical influences of the Post-War II era: the split between East and West Germany, outlawing of the Communist Party in West Germany, university Marxist ideologues indoctrinating students, former Nazis occupying government positions from top-to-local levels, counter-terror by the state which caused the killing of rioters. Amidst models of guerrilla movements in Latin American countries, the RAF youths sought identity amidst broader socio-political and economic developments. Using the non-orthodox theory on terrorism, the state could have made timely and appropriate responses such as progressive governance, political re-education of the citizenry, and proactive educational reforms so that the youths could become positive contributors in all aspects of German life. Instead, the West German state imposed counter-terror strategies which only radicalized German youths and caused the decades-long anarchism by the RAF. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam or LTTE was formed in 1976 as a separatist militant organization in Sri Lanka. It waged a violent secession campaign to create an independent Tamil state in North and East Sri Lanka. At the height of its campaign, the Tigers had a well-developed militia and carried out high profile attacks including a symbolic bombing of a UNESCO World Heritage Buddha Shrine, the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi in 1991, and ethnic cleansing of Muslim Sri Lankans. It had support from Tamil nationalists in India, North America and Canada. It also acquired funding through criminal acts of extortion, sea pirating, human trafficking, drug-trafficking and gun running. After a prolonged civil war, it set up a virtual mini-state in North and East Sri-Lanka, but it was considered a terrorist organization by 32 countries until it was finally suppressed by the Sri Lankan military in 2009. From an orthodox mono-dimensional approach, the LTTE was a terrorist group with an illegal secessionist goal. It therefore deserved a counter terrorism move by the state employing its military and legal apparatus. Given the multi-dimensional approach, however, the human needs theory and social conflict theory deserve to be applied. This approach points to the recognition of the socio-cultural needs of the Tamils, while recognizing a possible socio-political and economic imbalance between mainstream and indigenous communities. And while the LTTE was militarily suppressed, the Sri Lankan state may still be judged for state terrorism which it may have inflicted upon the unfulfilled needs of an indigenous culture. Iranian state terrorism The Islamic Republic of Iran was set up as a quasi theocracy after the ouster of the Shah monarch by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. But from 1980 until today, it would be blamed for reprisals on political dissenters, a wave of kidnappings, bombings, hijacking of a TWA Flight 847, bombing of the Israeli Embassy and Jewish community centers. Intelligence reports would show that it has a hand in majority of terrorism in Israel through its support to deadly terrorist organizations such as the Hamas, the Hezbollah, the Islamic Resistance, Iraqi insurgents in Southern Iraq, and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. Internally, the state has quashed dissent using mass trials, arrests, torture and executions of political prisoners. All along, the U.S. has been at odds with Iran over its’ nuclear program and support for militant groups around the region. In May 2011, no less than the world’s global nuclear inspection agency claimed evidence of Iran’s working on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology which could be used for a nuclear weapon. But Iran claims its nuclear program is for peace. Internally, Iran is plagued by corruption, inflation, low growth (1.5%), and high unemployment (20% although the official rate is 11-12%). Using the mono-dimensional “regime terror theory” (Walter n. p. ), Iran as a semi-theocratic government has not only demonstrated state terrorism towards dissenters of its religious cultural revolution, but it is presently a threat to peace in the Middle East and the world. Adopting the orthodox theory of Religion as a Theory of Terrorism, there is a pattern of a religious-based terrorism which Iran shares with other Islamist fundamentalists. Under the Religion Theory, the Islamic religion has been used to “theodicize evil away” as part of God’s plan to establish Islam in the region and the world (Kraemer 113). Adopting a multi-level theoretical framework, Iran appears to be a threat to the stability of other nation states owing to its perceived links with terror type organizations like the Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention its links with militarist North Korea. The situation is precarious, especially owing to recent development in which the trio-support of Israel in the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) has met problems with the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt, the struggle of Jordan King Abdulla against dissenters, and the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran for regional ascendancy. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace, but using the structural conflict theory which has basis on culture and history, the culture of violence among extremist Islamists including Iran is systemic or ingrained in the whole cultural terrorist aggrupation. Still there is the multi-disciplinary approach to understand the situation. This forewarns against using Iran as the outright scapegoat for the regional/global threat of terror. There remains the group dynamics in which the Western bloc may be equally responsible for terrorism in the region. Allegations deserve to be examined, such as the reported goal among American Christian evangelicals to convert the Middle East from Islam to Christianity, also the interest of the West over the rich oil reserves of Iran and other Middle East countries. In sum, by combining the orthodox and non-orthodox theories on terrorism, it is possible to obtain an unbiased understanding of the terroristic phenomenon involving Iran. Conclusion This paper has shown that the orthodox theory of terrorism dominates present the discourse on terrorism. However, the use of a combined orthodox and non-orthodox approach can advance a more satisfactory understanding of terrorism, such as in the cases of Baader-Meinhof, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, and the quasi-theocratic Republic of Iran. It is therefore apparent that an alternative theory on terrorism comprise a more satisfactory way to understand, and possibly resolve terrorism as it inflicts the modern world. This new approach may be characterized as too sophisticated, but terrorism is also a most complex and sophisticated phenomenon. The widening terror conflict deserves a new and holistic paradigm. References Beiner, Ronald. Theories and Causes of Terrorism. Web 9 June 2011. Franks, Jason. Rethinking the Roots of Terrorism: Orthodox Terrorism Theory and Beyond. Draft 04/10/05. Web 9 June 2011. Jenkins, J. (1993). The Psychodynamics of Terrorism. NY: Praeger. Kraemer, E. (2004) A philosopher Looks at Terrorism. Nyatepe-Coo. Laqueur, Harvey (1999). The New Terrorism. NY: Oxford University Press. Szumski, Bonnie (1987). Terrorism Opposing Viewpoints. Minnesota: Greenhaven Press Walter, EV. (1969) Terror and Resistance. Oxford University Press. Read More