The Origins of International Terrorism Targeting the United States - Essay Example

The origins of international terrorism targeting the United s 2008 Outline: A) Definition of terrorism B) Psychology and origins of terrorism. C) Subgroups of terrorism D) ‘New’ terrorism E) Conclusion After the events of September, 11 2001 terrorism threat became evident as never before and international action against terrorism became the first in the international agenda. The problem of terrorism was not new before the notorious events of September. However, the studies of terrorism since early 1970s were hindered by the problem of defining terrorism and separating from other violent actions. In comparison to other violent phenomena terrorism is “deliberate and systematic violence performed by small numbers of people,” with the purpose of intimidating and harming only a few. It is “political and symbolic”, “a clandestine resistance to authority.”1 ITERATE’s definition of international terrorism is the following: “the use or threat of use of anxiety-inducing violence for political purposes, by any individual or group with the intent to influence the attitudes and behavior of a wider target group.”2 Again in this definition we see key words ‘threat,’ ‘anxiety,’ ‘political,’ ‘target group’ which were highlighted above. Defining terrorism is important to follow its origins. Though the phenomenon of terrorism is “highly diverse” and “deeply contested concept,”3 which embraces a number of different actions on behalf of certain grouping or states, in this paper we focus on the issue of why United States has been serving a target of international terrorist actions. The research into the psychology of terrorism is also important for understanding the sources of terrorism directed against the U.S. Since the outburst of terrorist actions, most researches were interested with psychology of terrorism. Some interpreted it as “a form of madness with perhaps an underlying physical disorder.” Some researches related terrorism with “nervous over-excitement of the period” resulting in “exaggerated individualism and the spread of decadent literature.” There were attempts to explain terrorism with fluctuations of barometric pressure, moon phases, alcoholism and droughts. 4 Terrorism was explained by personality disorders in particular narcissism or paranoia. Terrorists were viewed as abnormal, different psychologically from general public. This viewpoint was supported by a number of authors. Post (1990) and Pearlstein (1991), who believed that "the individual who becomes and remains a political terrorist generally appears to be psychologically molded by certain narcissistic personality disturbances" (p. ix).5 However, most terrorism researchers do not account for personality factors as triggers of terrorism. Individual characteristics cannot outweigh “shared ideological commitment and group solidarity.”6 Ross7 introduced an integrated theory in which he explained that individuals predisposed to terrorism find satisfaction of their needs joining underground groups. Sprinzaks8 introduced theory of split delegitimization which explains violence and terrorism as a result of view that terrorists hold about their enemies as illegitimate and non-human and threat they feel towards them. Ideological terrorism has been sponsored by different political movements from the left and the right to pure terrorism and terrorism as one weapon. What underlies left-wing and right-wing terrorism is “a free-floating activism-populist, frequently nationalist, intense in character but vague and confused.”9 Terrorist response may be provoked by ethnic and ideological-political tensions rather than economic and social conditions. Terrorism expressions are evident under oppressive rule or conquest in spite of the fact whether it is real or perceived by a terrorist group.10 Terrorism arises when certain subgroup of a larger population like an ethnic minority feels subordinated or repressed. Thus a social movement develops to fight for equality or a separate state. Dissatisfied minority or majority is enough to cause terrorism. However, terrorism is not a reflection of objective deprivation. It can be perceived deprivation which triggers ‘discrimination resistance’. Perceived injustice gives rise to anger being expressed in terrorist actions. 11 There are several types of terrorism which explain the nature of its phenomenon. State-sponsored terrorism covers such states as Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. In majority of cases it was directed against the United States. International pressure, economic sanctions and U.S. military might cause Cuba, Iraq, Lybia and North Korea to be active terrorist sponsors. 12 The second source of terrorism is terrorism in the name of independence. This category comprises the largest number of incidents – separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam truck explosion in Colombo, Sri Lanka, Kurdish separatist group attacks against Turkey, IRA in Northern Ireland, Aum Shinrikyo and Japanese Red Army of Japan, etc.13 A third category is Islamic group terrorist activities operating in Middle East. These groups are the most dangerous for the U.S. 1993 World Trade Centre bombing is a vivid example of the Middle Eastern threat. Americans often become victims of ‘dissident’ category of terrorists because of their presence in the region as representatives of a world leader. 14 In the 1970s and early 1980s when two superpower states – United States and Soviet Union – were in opposition, terrorism had an ideological tone. International terrorism has been often viewed as "part of the superpower struggle for global supremacy, particularly with the continued presence of nuclear weapons holding human existence in the balance."15 It is true that U.S.-Soviet relationship of opposition, marked by the development of nuclear weapons (reminding different states of the danger they cannot counterbalance), had the powerful influence on the terrorism development. The Soviet Union has always supported "liberation" movements directed against imperialism. States supporting terrorism such as Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, Libya, and South Yemen were Soviet proxies.16 These socialist-oriented states, receiving finance from Moscow could have been involved in terrorist operations, “out of mutual interest or in repayment of debts or future favors”17 The fact is that since 1968 one third of the victims and targets of terrorism come from the U.S.18 U.S.–Soviet opposition in controlling strategic areas in the international arena can be illustrated by Soviet relations with the Palestine Liberation Organization before to the Israeli victory in 1973 War and after it. When political position of the U.S. in the Middle East improved after the war, the Soviet Union had to improve its political and diplomatic relations as well. It starts to provide the PLO with funding and military assistance. This is a vivid example of how terrorism is employed to regulate foreign policy positions.19 These facts suggest that terrorism was employed by the Soviet Union and other communist states for the advancement of their interests. For Moscow terrorism was “a low-risk means to both foster communist revolutions and confound U.S. foreign policy gains.” 20 Unlike Western democracies including the United States, authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union were more likely to resort to international terrorism as a mechanism of influence on foreign policy when they felt defeated by democracies. There are some researches which herald of a "new" terrorism based on religious beliefs being “more fanatical, deadly, and pervasive” in comparison to the older form of terrorism differing “in terms of goals, methods, and organization.” 21 Since 1990s World Trade centre bombing in 1993, U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and Pentagon and WTC attacks in 2001 marked a new phrase of terrorism called ‘new terrorism.’22 New terrorist differ from old ones in a number of aspects. They operate on an international level. Modern age terrorism started with the Palestinian terrorist attack which happened in 1972 and was directed on the Israeli Olympic team in Munich and was followed by commercial airline hijacking.23 They use “highly lethal methods” like weapons of mass destruction. Modern terrorists have more possibilities to get access to the weapons of mass destruction of all kinds – nuclear, chemical and biological. Chemical and biological weapons are easy to manufacture like sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo subway used by the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo.24 A trend which is observed in terrorist activities pattern is that more and more terrorists target civilian mass and unlike ‘old’ terrorist tactics of ‘just intimidating’ they commit mass murder as it was in the case of September 11, U.S. ‘New’ terrorists are trying to transform the world. Driven by religion, they are “accountable only to a deity or to some transcendental or mystical idea.” 25 Fundamental Islamic movements associated with extremist Islamic terrorism stems from economic and social conditions of the region. These groups view themselves as “viable alternatives to an established system” which is considered to be “corrupt and inefficient.” 26 They have decentralized and diffuse organization which is considered less important than beliefs.27 Earlier model of professional terrorists working within a hierarchical organization seems to be obsolete. A new form of organization has less clear structure and comprises members of different nationalities and countries other than country of origin leadership. For example, al-Qaeda is an organization of a new age. 28 Unlike terrorist of old age ‘new’ terrorists are not “clear in taking responsibility for their actions and defining who they were, often with elaborate radical political ideologies.” None of the organizations claimed responsibility for U.S. embassies bombing in Africa and for events of September 11. 29 Modernization brings up a set of factors which serve a permissive cause of terrorism. For example, networks of transportation and communication allow mobility and the publicity means for terrorists. Urbanization is considered to provide “accessibility of targets and methods.” Cities offer a perfect battlefield for terrorists, ensuring “a multitude of targets, mobility, communications, anonymity, and audiences” as well as “a recruiting ground among the politicized and volatile inhabitants.” 30 Technical innovations of the 21th century inspired for cyberterror which makes possible penetration into the telecommunications and computer systems of the states, air traffic and power plant control systems, making them controllable by the intruder.31 The outcomes of such intrusion can be well imagined. In the 1990s U.S. faced terrorism as a “major national security threat.”32 In the U.S a "new" terrorism is introduced by radical right violence such as 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, activities of the survivalist, militia, and Christian Identity movements. 33 The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon made diplomatic, economic and strategic means to manage international terrorism ineffective and international community headed by the United States started to work out more effective means to fight terrorism and introduced a military response to it.34 The threat of Islamic terrorist groupings is also evident after the events of September, 11. Political, economic and military spheres leadership of the U.S. made it vulnerable to terrorist attacks. However, statistics proves that other nations also suffer greatly from this plague. In 1996 the United States comprised only 25 percent of reported terrorist incidents with the worst attacks having happened in Great Britain, Israel, Peru and Sri Lanka.35 The problem of the exaggeration of terrorist threat is attributed to media coverage of terrorist incidents. The explosion of coverage of anti-U.S. terrorist was in 1979 and 1980 which added to the sense of victimization of American people during this period. Such inaccurate coverage produces significant distortions in the perceptions of people about nature and frequency of terrorism in the world. For example, terrorism directed against business people was under-covered, overplaying private citizen incidents, which creates a picture of an average American as a terrorist victim.36 All the changes which differentiate ‘new’ terrorism from ‘old’ one such as network form structure of terrorisms, threat of mass destruction weapons, etc suggest of globalizing power which impacts not only national economies but also terrorists’ activity which seems to lose national borders. Some scholars view terrorism as a reaction of resistance to the globalization processes which lead to cultural and economic change. 37 Other scholars view terrorism as a political phenomenon rather than economic what is evident from economic status of people engaged in terrorist activity and countries of origin which offer fewer civil liberties.38 Terrorists’ main goals are political objectives such as promotion of religious freedom nationalism, separatism, ideology. The early international terrorist actions were also employed for political purposes. It was in 1901 when the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization seized a Congregationalist missionary Ellen M. Stone and held her in captivity for six month demanding ransom from Roosevelt administration. This event showed Americans that acquiring status of international elite, places a burden of being a “suitable object of political terrorism.” Stone affair was probably the first lesson in the “diplomacy of terrorism” demonstrating “the importance of circumstance in policy formation.”39 As terrorists always aim to get maximum of media attention and create a general atmosphere of fear and at the same time seeking political objectives and change, they tend to direct their violence at a larger audience, for example, massive car bombings in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia when U.S. troops were murdered in their sleep.40 Recent terrorist attacks also serve a proof of this statement. Bergesen and Lizardo give excessive example of terrorism outbreaks in the periods of the rise and fall of dominant or hegemonic states.41 Through analysis of the relevant literature we come to the conclusion that the U.S. along with other strong states has been a target of international terrorism due to its superpower status. As an elite state U.S. possesses powers to make a change or influence international order. It has also publicity capacity which ensures maximum attention of the audience. From early days of domination U.S. was employed as an object of political terrorism. References Bell, J. Bowyer. Explaining international terrorism: The elusive quest. In International terrorism, edited by Charles Kegley. New York: St. Martins, 1990 cited in OBrien, Sean P. “Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, No. 2. (Jun., 1996): 320-335. Bergesen, Albert J. and Omar Lizardo “International Terrorism and the World-System.” Sociological Theory 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium. (Mar., 2004): 38-52. OBrien, Sean P. “Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, No. 2. (Jun., 1996): 320-335. Carpini, Michael X. Delli and Bruce A. Williams “Television and Terrorism: Patterns of Presentation and Occurrence, 1969 to 1980.” The Western Political Quarterly 40, No. 1. (Mar., 1987): 45-64. Cline, Ray S. and Alexander Yonah. Terrorism: The Soviet connection. New York: Crane Russak, 1984 cited in OBrien, Sean P. “Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, No. 2. (Jun., 1996): 320-335. Crenshaw, Martha “The Causes of Terrorism.” Comparative Politics 13, No. 4. (Jul., 1981): 379-399. — “Is international terrorism primarily state-sponsored?” International terrorism, edited by Charles Kegley. New York: St. Martins, 1990 cited in OBrien, Sean P. “Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, No. 2. (Jun., 1996): 320-335. —“The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century.” Political Psychology 21, No. 2. (Jun., 2000): 405-420. Deutch, John “Terrorism.” Foreign Policy, No. 108. (Autumn, 1997):10-22. Grosscup, Beau. The explosion of terrorism. New Jersey: New Horizon, 1991 cited in OBrien, Sean P. “Foreign Policy Crises and the Resort to Terrorism: A Time-Series Analysis of Conflict Linkages.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 40, No. 2. (Jun., 1996): 320-335. Enders, Walter and Todd, Sandler “Transnational Terrorism in the Post-Cold War Era.” International Studies Quarterly 43, No. 1. (Mar., 1999): 145-167. Laqueur, Walter “Interpretations of Terrorism: Fact, Fiction and Political Science.” Journal of Contemporary History 12, No. 1. (Jan., 1977): 1-42. Lozada, Martin. “International Antiterrorism and the Rule of Law.” Universidad Fasta-Bariloche, 2006. Krueger, Alan B and Jitka Malecková “Education, Poverty and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, no. 4. (Autumn, 2003): 119-144. Ross, J.I. “The psychological causes of oppositional political terrorism: Toward an integration of findings.” International Journal of Group Tensions 24, (1994): 157-185. cited in Crenshaw, Martha “The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century.” Political Psychology 21, No. 2. (Jun., 2000): 405-420. Sprinzak, E. “The psychopolitical formation of extreme left terrorism in a democracy: The case of the Weathermen.” In Origins of terrorism: Psychologies, ideologies, theologies. States of Mind W. Ed. Reich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 65-85 cited in Crenshaw, Martha “The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century.” Political Psychology 21, No. 2. (Jun., 2000): 405-420. Woods, Randall B. “Terrorism in the Age of Roosevelt: The Miss Stone Affair, 1901-1902.” American Quarterly 31, No. 4. (Autumn, 1979):478-495. Read More