Do Events of 9/11 and Beyond Presage an Era of New Terrorism - Essay Example

?“Discuss whether the events of 9/11 and beyond presage an era of ‘new terrorism’? What problems do this pose in terms of Risk Management.’’ Introduction The events of 9/11 changed the world. A new but more dangerous form of terrorism appeared to threaten the existence of the humanity. Due to the magnitude and loss of human lives involved in these terror attacks leave no doubt that terrorists possess capability to strike anytime and anywhere. Such events did not stop there rather a chain of terror attacks took place in the subsequent years. In 2004, terror hit the city of Madrid, commonly known as 3/11. In which more than 200 innocent people lost their lives. (Cutting edge, web). Exactly one year later, terrorists targeted London, which is remembered as 7/7. In which, 52 innocent people lost their lives in these attacks (BBC NEWS, web).Since then and till this point of time, neither terrorism nor terror attacks have reduced rather they considerably are increasing globally. However, the international community sat together and targeted the safe heavens of terrorism such as in Afghanistan and Iraq as well soon after the attacks of 9/11. The purpose of these targets was to hunt down terrorists and bring them to justice. Unfortunately, such military solutions have been unable to deliver the expected remedy of the causes of terrorism. Instead of decreasing, the events of terrorism are globally increasing taking place in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This calls for a new but effective strategy to counter the menace of terrorism. The fundamental causes of terrorism elimination such as poverty elimination, promoting peace and justice, winning hearts and minds of people, empowering weaker and unstable political governments of under-developed countries have not been used to counter the menace of terrorism. And, at the same time; unfortunately, there is no universally one single definition of terrorism. The international political leaders have been unable to find a consensus necessary to develop and define an agreed definition for terrorism. Instead various definitions of terrorism are used to define and determine the level and nature of terrorism (Ganor, n.d. ).. Some terrorism definitions emphasize on the operational style of terrorist organisations, whilst other focus on the specific religious doctrine. As a result, the world political leaders are unable to tackle the problem of terrorism in a required way. At the organisational level, a set of different strategies can be pursed such as cooperation, coordination, intelligence sharing between different securities agencies, and surveillance can be used to minimise the risk of attacks of terror. In the subsequent parts of this paper, causes of a variety of terrorism definitions are highlighted and it is followed by the old and new terrorism before and after the events of 9/11. Subsequent to that, causes of terrorism are described and certain risk management strategies are explained before including concluding the entire paper. Causes of various definitions of terrorism At least 109 different definitions of terrorism highlight different aspects of terrorism (Schmidt and Youngman, 1988). Schmidt and Youngman (1988) further elaborate that various elements involvement do not allow a single definition. For that purpose, they carried out a survey among the renowned academicians. The results of the survey suggest that in the terrorism definitions, elements such as violence and force (83.5%) of the definitions; political (65%) emphasis on terror, fear (51); threats (47%); anticipated reactions and psychological impacts (41.5%); difference between the victims and the targets (37.5%); planned, organized, systemic, and intentional action (32%); tactics, methods of combat and strategy (30.5%); are involved. Additionally, in that survey, the respondents were asked to answer the following question that what issues in the terrorism definition are un-resolved (Schmidt and Youngman, 1988). In reply, the respondents highlighted the following points: The relationship between terrorism and guerrilla warfare The boundary between and among terrorism and other types of political violence The relationship between terrorism and crime Whether resistance terrorism and government terrorism are part of the same phenomenon Can acts of terrorism be legitimate? What gains justify the use of terrorism? Is terrorism a sub-category of influence? Coercion? Power? Violence? Separating the acts of terrorism from simple criminal acts, from war between consenting groups, and from acts that clearly occur due to mental illness At syntactical and conceptual level, the present definitions of terrorism consist of various difficulties (Gonar, n.d.). He further argues that due to such difficulties, separating and distinguishing underground movements, guerrillas movements, national liberation movements would not become an easy task and most of the time, such movements consist of such characteristics which resemble with the activities of terrorist organisations. As a result, these difficulties in defining terrorism are used by different terrorist organisations in a way to legitimise their activities; and at the same time gain moral and political support from others. Old and new terrorism Various reasons can justify the prevalent distinction between old and new form of terrorism (Crenshaw, 2003). First, the objectives of new terrorism are identified as limitless and there is no particular extent that can be put and define the ultimate ends of new terrorism. The new terrorist groups do not operate in one particular boundary or in a particular state rather surprisingly they have made the existing geographic distinctions irrelevant; and they can move from one country to another without requiring the basic documents in most of the cases. And, in this regard, some reasons are identified by Crenshaw (2003). First, the new terrorism obtains its guideline from some particular religious doctrines; the commandments of such doctrines suggest brainwash them with hatred towards today’s way of life, Western values, their culture norms, and civilisation. On the other hand, the ends of “old” terrorism were limited and negotiable (Crenshaw, 2003). The acts of terrorism in the past were limited to a particular territory or space of land; additionally, their objectives were set, clear and understandable. Most of time, at that time, terrorists were fighting for the inalienable sovereignty or territorial liberty (Crenshaw, 2003). As the goals and objectives of terrorism were clear and negotiable, most of the time a peaceful and endurable peace deal occurred between the terrorist groups and the relevant states. The religious motives have replaced the political motives. Previously, in the old terrorism, the terrorist groups prefer to change the political set up, political infrastructure, and political governments. They use every weapon to destroy the military and non-military forces to achieve their targets. And in their quest, they considerably differentiate between a target and general public. They try to kill their target in a way by avoid harming to the general public. But, in the new terrorism, such distinction does not hold much water rather they consider a target and general public as equal and equivalent target. As their one of the objectives of today’s terrorist group is to not only to kill their targets but also want to create fear by terrorising general masses. And, the maximum death and destruction has become their one of means to attain such objectives. However, the “old” terrorists were not differentiating their targets in some instances in the political history. And many old terrorist groups had shown this sort of mentality. As they had to achieve their terrorist objectives, they considered the achievement of their goals supreme over the human lives and human values. In the 1880s, the French anarchists bombed restaurants (Crenshaw, 2003). During the period of Algerian war, the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLE) indiscriminately and mercilessly attacked in many European countries by targeting military and other non-combatants. And, in the famous “Battle of Algiers” the FLN bombed cafes, soccer stadiums, beaches and bus stops. Further, in the year of 1986, the Sikh extremists targeted and bombed an Indian airline in midair. In 1988, Colonel Qaddafi plotted and carried out the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. Additionally, it was the weapon and dangerous tactic of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) that used “suicide” bombing on the military and non-military forces of Sri Lanka. On the other hand, the new terrorism seems to be more devastating and destructive in its sense and in its terrorist activities, such as Aum Shinrikyo’s use of chemical weapons to target people in the Tokyo subway and the hijacking of aeroplanes in the terrorist acts of 9/11 are the leading examples in this regard. The organisational structure of terrorist group doesn’t remain the same. In the old terrorism, the terrorist groups were highly centralised. A chain of command did not have much power to exercise to its sub units and most of the time, the main leader were only authorised to carry out their activities. However, the new terrorism works completely differently. Instead of using centralised and top down approach, it uses decentralised mechanism (Crenshaw, 2003). In which sub- units are to be led by a ring leader and the decisions and tactics finalised by that ring leader would be considered final. Additionally, the chain of command can further be decentralised in order to carry out an attack or depending on the nature and type of the attack being planned to be carried out. Causes of terrorism Various economic, political, social and religious causes force terrorist organisations to carry out the acts of terrorism. Despite considerable number of elements involved in terrorism, a sufficient number of defence analysts, authors, academicians have consensus over a particular definition of terrorism- a deliberate use of intimidation and use of violence targeted towards a large audience for the purpose of forcing an institution, a community or a government into accepting ideologically or politically motivated objectives (Krieger and Meierrieks, 2009). Additionally, the main objectives of terrorist organisations can be identified into short term and long term objectives. in the short term, the terrorist organisations prefer to attain short term goals by destabilising national economies, damaging the current polity and trying to receive maximum media coverage and gaining publicity (Tavares, 2004). Whilst in the long run objectives, the terrorist organisations prefer to redistribute power, wealth and influence (Frey and Luechinger, 2004). In order to achieve the long run terrorist objectives, they use the tactical terrorist behaviour with the use of assassinations and hostage takings (Krieger and Meierrieks, 2009). Economic deprivation causes terrorism. Some authors describe economic deprivation as manifesting in the shape of poverty, which is mostly caused by inequality and improper distribution of wealth. Additionally, the concept of relative deprivation was put forwarded by Gurr (1970.) in this concept , Gurr contends that when there is a difference between what citizens of a country think they deserve and they expect it to be received and what they actually receive during the process of distributing economic resources, this situation creates seeds for relative deprivation in that country. Under such stressful economic conditions, the citizens constantly raise their concerns over the issue of relative deprivation. They use every peaceful available platform to raise their voices against this social and economic injustice. When they realise that their voices are not receiving the required response from the concerned authorities and their economic problems and issues have no significance in front of them. This situation augments the sense of frustration among the economically deprived citizens. Under such conditions, terrorist organisations nurture themselves on the frustration of the citizens. They use their feelings for the purpose of attaining their terrorist organisations. They make them believe that only violence and destruction can only be a way to achieve their economic, political and social rights. The terrorist organisations using the economic deprivation as a main source of terrorism carry out their terrorist organisations. Some authors contend that modernization is disowned and disliked by a certain type of ideological people. They term today’s modernization as a western attack to their religious, social, and cultural values. Basically, modernisation can be defined as changes in employment patterns, the use of latest means of technology, new institutions such as schools and colleges and most importantly individual liberalisation in the most of the Western countries (Krieger and Meierrieks, 2009). In this regard, Robison et al (2006) contend that these changes are not welcomed by many individuals rather they prefer to detest them as much as they can; as a result, these factors may create a sense of grievances attached with demographic, economic and social strain. Additionally, Ross (1993) further adds that such grievances are generated when the process of transition from a traditional to a modern society occurred. Under such circumstances, the terrorist organisations by using certain religious points for the purpose of legitimizing their terrorist objectives may use such grievances for the purpose of amassing support from such communities and use them as a tool of weapon against their targets. Political and institutional order may cause the acts of terrorism. Currently, two political systems such as democratic and autocratic, are being practiced for the purpose of running the state affairs. And, Li (2005) argues that the democratic set up may suggest a peaceful way to register one’s difference and grievances, and they may use non-violent means for that purpose. On the other hand, Li (2005) contends that autocratic regimes using their repression power can generate grievances associated to political disenfranchisement. Additionally, some authors believe that semi-open societies or partial democracies may present provide more fertile ground for terrorism as it is totally insufficient to capitalise on the advantages of pure democratic system (Krieger and Meierrieks, 2009). Risk Management and terrorism Managing the risk of terrorism poses one of the biggest challenges to the risk managers. Terrorism is one of those types of risk that cannot be fully eliminated nor rooted out completely rather it can be managed at global and organisational level. However, most of risk management practices remain the same. For instance, the use of surveillance possesses the same level of application for both global leaders and risk managers as well. However, as the menace of terrorism is a global threat, as a result, it looks more appropriate and reasonable to determine and highlight a global counter terrorism strategy. In this regard, European Union (EU) in association with the United Nations has developed a comprehensive global counter terrorism strategy (European Union, 2005). In the year of 2005, the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy was devised and was based on four pillars to effectively combat terrorism globally. And, the four pillars are prevent, protect, pursue and respond. Prevent Combating radicalisation and recruitment of terrorists defines the main objectives of this pillar. For that purpose, the Council suggests that terrorists’ method of propaganda and their instruments must be identified. This identification would help the Member States to effectively monitor and control the activities of terrorists. In this regard, the Council suggest the members to ensure a sufficient and effective coordination among the national policies, determining the required information and sharing of information must be implemented. Further, the member states must ensure that additional but comprehensive systems of surveillance must be put in place. They should be installed on public and private places for the purpose of monitoring. Additionally, the prevent pillar suggests developing common approaches to identify and tackle problem behaviour; developing inter-cultural dialogue; using non-emotive language to explain the EU policies; promoting good governance, education, democracy and economic equality and prosperity via using different aid and assistance programmes. Protect This pillar focuses on the protection side. The main aim of this pillar is to reduce the vulnerability of targets by limiting the resulting impacts of attacks. For that purpose, it proposes to implement combined action for border security, transport and other cross border infrastructure. The Member states are asked to increase their transport security including air, sea, road and railway tracks. Additionally, the Members States must have the Shenzhen Information System II (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS) in addition to European Borders Agency (FRONTEX) with an intent of ensuring a maximum effectiveness of border controls. Pursue This pillar is aimed to pursue terrorists across borders. For that purpose, EU suggest to cut off the access to attack material such as explosives, ammunitions and arms, disrupting terrorist networks, tackling the illegal use of non-profit associations and hunting down the recruitment agents. Respond Terrorism risk cannot be brought down to the level of zero. The EU members must be sufficiently equipped enough to tackle the resulting impact of a terrorist attack. For that purpose, they must be prepared. And, that preparedness must be ensured by having in place the response systems to terrorist attacks. At the time of attack, it is highly essential to : Exchange policy and operational information and at the same ensuring media coordination ( in the event of cross border attack) Ensure assistance, compensation and solidarity with the victims of terrorism Conclusion The events of 9/11 shocked the world. The entire world has now entered into a new world where “new” terrorism has replaced to the “old” terrorism. The new terrorist organisations do not have the same agenda or terrorist objectives rather they are completely different to the old terrorism. The new terrorists are more influenced by the religious doctrines and economic deprivation. These new factors- religious aspect and economic rights- have pushed a certain sections of the society to resort to violence. And use the weapon of violence for the purpose of attaining their religious or economic goals or rights. Additionally, a certain section of the society does not agree with today’s modernisation. They consider it against their religious ethos and beliefs rather they consider modernisation as a threat to their religion. In order to protect their religion and their religious practices, customs, traditions, these groups prefer to fight against the people leading today’s modernisation. In that context, they consider Western states to be a leading force in that direction. As a result, by fighting against and carrying out terrorist attacks on Western civilians, they term it protecting their religion and religious practices. In order to protect today’s humans from such terrorists, the EU in coordination with the United Nations have devised a comprehensive counter terrorism strategy. In which, four pillars such as prevent, protect, pursue and respond are accounted for. This EU document provides all the steps necessary to face the risk of terrorism in the most effective way. References 1. Frey, B.S., Luechinger, S. (2004). Decentralization as a disincentive for terror, European Journal of Political Economy 20, 509-515, 2. Gurr, T. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press: Princeton 3. Tavares, J. (2004). The open society assesses its enemies: shocks, disasters and terrorist attacks. Journal of Monetary Economics 51, 1039-107 4. Robison, K.K., Crenshaw, E.M., Jenkins, J.C. (2006). Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist Transnational Terrorism. Social Forces 84(4), 2009-2026. 5. Ross, J.I. (1993). Structural Causes of Oppositional Political Terrorism: Towards a Causal Model. Journal of Peace Research 30(3), 317-329 6. Li, Q. (2005). Does Democracy Promote or Reduce Transnational Terrorist Incidents? Journal of Conflict Resolution 49(2), 278-297 7. Crenshaw, M. (2003) ‘New versus old terrorism’, Palestine-Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. Special Issue on “Violence and its Alternatives” [Online], 10(1), 48-53. Available at: http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=80 [accessed: 30 May, 2011 8. “Spain suffers her own "9/11" attack on 3/11, 2004”, [available at: http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1903.cfm] [Accessed on : 30 May, 2011] 9. “London Attacks”, [available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2005/london_explosions/default.stm] [[Accessed on : 30 May, 2011]. 10. Ganor, B, n.d.”Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?” [available at: http://www.understandterror.com/articles/Defining%20Terrorism%20by%20Dr%20Boaz%20Ganor.pdf ] [[Accessed on : 30 May, 2011]. 11. Schmidt A.P and Youngman A, et al. 1988, Political Terrorism (SWIDOC, Amsterdam and Transaction Books,), pp. 5, pp. 29-30. 12. Krieger, T and Meierrieks, D 2009, “What Causes Terrorism?” [Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1148682 ] [Accessed on : 30 May, 2011]. 13. European Union, 2005, “ Counter-Terrorism Strategy”, [Available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/fight_against_terrorism/l33275_en.htm ] [Accessed on: 30 May, 2011]. Read More