The Nature of War and Terrorism in the 20th Century - Essay Example

War and Terrorism Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date The 21st century is significantly associated with globalization; the single most phenomena that is used in redefining economic, social and political aspects the world over (Marigheli, 1995). International security environments are ultimately being restructured in relation to the globalized nature of the current world. Change is inevitable, and like anything else war and terrorism has significantly changed in the 21st century (Tsu, 2005). The factors that drive and facilitate war and terrorism have considerably changed (Clausewitz, 1998). This paper is purposed to justify that war and terrorism in the 21st century has changed. To achieve this, the paper will discuss the nature of war and terrorism both in the 20th and 21st century. Consequently, the paper will describe the legal differences in the use of force between state and non-state actors. War and Terrorism in the 20th century During the early 20th century nationalism intensified throughout the world becoming a tremendous factor in various colonial empires. Regardless of resistance that sometimes ended up in open warfare, nationalist identities were the focal point (Marigheli, 1995). The states and nations were eventually tied together through race and ethnicity; concepts which were highly supported by international political developments (Patrick, 2003). Ethnic groups whose countries had ceased existing as separate entities due to colonization, found an opportunity to recapture back their nationality (Tsu, 2005). Some of these groups rearranged themselves into terror groups using terror to conduct their fight for recognition in the world (Koskenniemi, 1990). For example, the Irish and the Macedonians in Europe had terrorist campaigns which they used as part of their struggle for independence (Clausewitz, 1998). The most common tactic used by terrorists in the early 20th century was assassination. They targeted significant persons to undermine their establishment and to make clear that they are able to hit authorities where it hurts most (Marigheli, 1995). The assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Australia Hungary in 1914 was completely politically inclined and this act is believed to be the start of the First World War. During the Second World War, terrorist, armed forces, and other resistance groups helped in deploying new terrorist strategies (Clausewitz, 1998). This helped immensely making it possible for terrorists to emerge from civilian community, attack and then quickly go back to their civilian cover (Lauterpacht, 1952). During Cold War period, terrorism was the only tactical strategy that was employed by leaders of nationalist insurgencies and revolutionists to fight their enemies (Tsu, 2005). This kind of terrorism was coordinated with political, social and military action. In fact, in some instances terrorism became a dominant aspect of nationalist struggle like in the case Palestinian campaign against Israel (Marigheli, 1995). In 1930s many countries adopted State Terrorism. Here, the government used terror instruments to impose its will on enemies or its own people (Clausewitz, 1998). For instance, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany predominantly used terror methods like concentration camps and other harsh measures to enforce the law (Koskenniemi, 1990). Terrorism received funding from established international political organizations. During the cold war, the Soviet Union provided direct funding and other kind of assistance to revolutionary movements the world over (Tsu, 2005). This support provided extremists an opportunity to use violence and terror as the only means to realize their objectives (Clausewitz, 1998). Liberation movements utilized terrorism to strengthen their political and military objectives (Jasmine, 2008). International terrorism in the 20th century was initiated in the 1968 by the Popular Frontier for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) after they hijacked an EL AL airline on its way to Rome (Marigheli, 1995). The main objective of this particular terrorist attack was to deliberately use passengers as hostages to make their demands public on the Israel government (Clausewitz, 1998). Consequently, new groups emerged with a single most aim to safeguard Palestine for Arabs (Patrick, 2003). They also introduced new terrorism strategies that include; hijacking aircrafts with civilian passengers, attacked Israel Olympic team, killing 11 athletes, and also short Israeli schoolchildren (Koskenniemi, 1990). In the advent of the Lebanese civil war, new methods of terrorism were invented by the radical Islamists. Suicide bombing became commonly used. Owing to this, 41 suicide bombings killed 659 victims in Lebanon during the 1980s (Marigheli, 1995). Consequently, terror groups started targeting groups that had cultural significance (Koskenniemi, 1990). Just to mention, Visitors to the Temple at Luxor were shot in 1997and in 1993 Al-Qaeda started targeting any individual who associated with American activities (Jasmine, 2008). War and Terrorism in the 21st century The nature of war and terrorism has substantially changed in the 21st century. In the advent of globalization new technologies have been invented new ways of communicating, and doing commerce has been improvised (Marigheli, 1995). The spread of information together with greater public participation in economic and political activities has been enhanced by globalization (Tsu, 2005). The spread and sharing of democratic ideas through the internet and other modern forms of communication has also increased the total number of democracies across the globe (Koskenniemi, 1990). Globalization has also resulted into more interdependence between national and regional economies thereby integrating the overall world market economy (Patrick, 2003). However, despite the aforementioned benefits of globalization, the spread of democracy, free market economies, the latter has also exposed the world to vast dangerous terrorism activities (Marigheli, 1995). Consequently, globalization is changing the way wars are being fought in the 21st century which will ultimately endanger the world citizens as compared to the previous era (Patrick, 2003). For instance, the greater the mobility of people, things, and ideas certainly increases the mobility for non-state actors, dangerous weapons, and radical fundamentalisms of various kinds (Koskenniemi, 1990). The current times terrorists are adaptive, they are well informed about the previous actors and have generally integrated their tactics in response to anti-terrorist measures (Tsu, 2005). According to the US department of State, there exist more than 60 active terrorist groups with some having more than 100,000 members across the world (Jasmine, 2008). Globalization has significantly offered them an opportunity to communicate and exchange ideas and coordinate their activities (Marigheli, 1995). War and terrorism of the current times is diversely sophisticated. Globalization has facilitated proliferation of destabilizing capabilities; for instance, weapons of mass destruction have been developed (Jasmine, 2008). Many countries are now launching nuclear programs to develop nuclear weapons. Other countries already have ballistic missiles with the number expected to increase (Marigheli, 1995). This virtually explains how globalization has enhanced sophistication in weaponry development. There are currently many chemical and biological weapons programs across the world and in fact the number is on the rise (Patrick, 2003). As it is the case, advanced weaponry increases the power and confidence to initiate a war or a terrorist attack with minimal or without provocation (Koskenniemi, 1990). The nature of war/terrorism and globalization in the 21st century can be described in three main categories; the element of subordination for instance war as a political instrument, war as an element of hostility thus blind natural force, and elements of chance and uncertainty i.e. the use of military forces (Patrick, 2003). Each element will be described independently (Koskenniemi, 1990). The anti-terrorism war across the globe represents that first conflict in the 21st century. Using war as a political instrument, globalization has increased the role of politics in determining the aim and in influencing the ultimate conduct of war (Marigheli, 1995). To be more specific, both President Bush, and the terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden linked their actions to political agendas. Terrorists and insurgents of the 21st Century seek to achieve political objectives (Tsu, 2005). These political returns ends up serving goals defined by states fighting insurgencies or prospective aspiring to change the system through violence and armed conflict (Patrick, 2003). Currently, then fast pace of technological integration, increased level of knowledge in both the national and non-national actors, easy access across borders, has virtually changed the war tactical strategies (Patrick, 2003). The nature of war has completely been changed. Improved weapons, backup bombs, computer and biological viruses, and chemicals are t6he order of the day. Military units are no longer battalions and divisions but teams of two or ten. In the 21st century, terrorism is the highest stage of war (Koskenniemi, 1990). In the 20th century armies used not only to occupy the land of the enemy but also wielded weapons of war (Tsu, 2005). That tactical choice as of now is dramatic explosion, or chemical/nuclear attack that generates fear destroying the economic functions of the enemy. For instance the objective now is not to kill or capture or destabilize the government but instead to undermine, cause panic, or just get simple revenge. Consequently, the origins of conventional war were always governments (Patrick, 2003). However, in the 21st century, even an individual can wage war, the most commonly methods used is the use of small groups whose power potentials is exponentially increased by the change in technology and weapons at large (Marigheli, 1995). The power of these groups lies in the lack of a defense. For instance, however much well armies and security personnel are trained; they can not frisk or check each and every truck, car, and individuals entering into or out of a given country. The ethical/moral/legal differences in the use of force between state and non-state actors According to the principles of the just war, the ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. For instance it is believed that peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought (Tsu, 2005). In the 20th century, after the firs and second world wars, most states attained peace. During the cold war period, the Soviet Union, and Nazi used extreme unjustified force against civilian population. This was both unethical and illegal according to the just war theory (Marigheli, 1995). For instance, the violence used in any war must be proportional to the injury suffered. In addition, states are prohibited in using unnecessary force to attain the limited objective of addressing injury suffered. The Popular Frontier for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) attacks on the Israel passenger plane with passengers on board, the suicide bombings in the Lebanese civil war and other terrorism attacks of the 20th century are not legally binding (Patrick, 2003). The principles of just war states that the weapons used in war must discriminate between the between the combatants and non-combatants, civilians are not permissible to be war targets and all considerations must be undertaken to ensure their safety (Tsu, 2005). The civil wars of the 20th century were focused on nationality. The fight against the colonialists is legally justifiable; many nations became independent. In the 21st century, terrorism and fight against terrorism are regarded to be the major wars. In 1998, Osama bin Laden declared jihad against Christians and Jews using the World Islamic Front (WIF). The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the world trade center was immoral and unethical (Marigheli, 1995). The terrorists targeted civilian population who were completely innocent; the world was taken by surprise (Marcelo, 2007). Recognizing the just war principles, President Bush justified his intentions and objectives of global war von terror. For instance, President Bush said “For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack’’ (Tsu, 2005). The US Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, was in any way justifiable, in fact the US was internationally criticized for not having a valid reason to invade the latter. In addition, the claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were unfounded. This particular war lowered the moral authority for future military endeavors were lowered (Tsu, 2005). The ethical problems particularly in Iraq include, military forces using extreme force and torture on Iraq prisoners. These actions violated the Geneva Conventions. In a nutshell, war and terror have virtually changed into the 21st century. During the 20th century, terrorists and law enforcement authorities colluded in one way or another to achieve political ends. The 1st and 2nd World Wars are the major wars of the 20th century (Marigheli, 1995). Illegal terror groups like the Frontier for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Al-Qaeda came into play in the late 20th century (Tsu, 2005). Globalization and technology that are eminent in the 21st century have played a big role in changing terrorist activities and the eventual counterterrorism exercises. Weapons of the 21st century are highly improved owing to the integrated technology and information. Human mobility in the current century is highly enhanced thus making terrorism activities and the fight against it is more sophisticated. Bibliography Marigheli, C. 1995. Mini-Manual of the Urban Guerrilla. Retrieved on 24/10/2011, from; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marighella-carlos/1969/06/minimanual-urban-guerrilla/index.htm Patrick, M.C. 2003. Clausewitz Condensed Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress. Retrieved on 24/10/2011, from: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/clauswtz/clwt-toc.html Koskenniemi, M. 1990. The politics of international law. European Journal of International Law, vol. 1, p. 4. Lauterpacht, H. 1952. The problem of the revision of the law of war. British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 29, p. 382. Jasmine, M. 2008. Can jus ad bellum override jus in bello? Reaffirming the separation of the two bodies of law. Retrieved on 24/10/2011, from: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-872-moussa.pdf Marcelo G. K. 2007. The notion of state survival in international law’, in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 307. Tsu,S. 2005. The Art of War. Retrieved on 24/10/2011, from, http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html Clausewitz, K. 1998. On War Online at SONSHI. Retrieved on 24/10/2011, from: http://www.sonshi.com/clausewitz.html Read More