International Terrorism - Essay Example

International Terrorism 1. Definition of Terrorism When we begin to encounter words and the meanings associated with it, we learn that a word can actually take on a variety of meanings. Nevertheless, we need to set out a concrete definition of a word that is agreed by all. The controversy surrounding the definition of terrorism is that some acts, violent as they are, have been committed to further political and religious goals. The violence criterion is also a point of debate as most countries employ destructive weapons that also maims and kills hundreds of people as compared to the tens of people killed in most terrorist attacks. Does it mean that these nations are terrorists as well? The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” while The British Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism so as to include not only violent offences against persons and physical damage to property, but also acts "designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system". The problem with the definition of US Department of Defense is what constitutes lawful violence? To whose perspective will we use to view what is lawful or not? The US thru the CIA and other interest groups have been involved in assassinations and spurring violence to topple governments. Furthermore, the Western superpower may deem it as unlawful but to the eyes of the terrorist underdog, it becomes the only legitimate and therefore lawful way to fight the perceived enemy. (UK Government 2000 Online) Scholars have provided a more elaborate definition of terrorism. Take for example the definition offered by Oxford Philosopher, David Rodin. According to Rodin, "terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or non state actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process." James M. Poland defines terrorism as the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience. (Wikipedia, 2007) The problem with the definitions by these scholars and the institutions as well is that who determines who the terrorist are. For the government, any act that uses force to pursue a goal can be called a ‘defense’ act and the violence associated with it can be much more massive than what a suicide bomber can do. If we consider the actions taken, for example, by the CIA to topple governments such as that of Fidel Castro’s Cuba, we see that it was not considered as a terrorist act but a matter of pursuing national security. However, in the definitions that these people offer, these acts uses deliberate force and violence to achieve a political goal. The arguments surrounding the definition of what is a terrorist is best summed up by the popular saying, “One man’s terrorist may be another man’s freedom fighter.” 2.0 Justifications of Terrorists In the popular media, we are bombarded with pictures of men, women and even children tagged as terrorists. If we take a closer look, however, we notice that these people are actually ordinary people who we may have met in a public place. What concerns us now and to most people is to know what drives them to blow up themselves and take as many people’s lives with them. We have mentioned that one’s man’s terrorist may be another man’s freedom fighter. In this context, we find that most people give up their lives and kill people in the process in the belief that they are doing so as a service to their cause. Some organizations tagged as terrorist groups take on a religious color blended with political goals. According to the United States Department of State, the most prominent of these are Muslim organizations such as Islamic Jihad Group, Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah and Palestine Islamic Jihad. The Jemaah Islamiya, for example, is an extremist group that seeks the establishment of an Islamic caliphate spanning Indonesia, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, and the southern Philippines (p. 220). To be sure, there are also other religious organizations aside from those with Islamic orientations which have committed terrorist acts. Two examples of these are Kach and Gush Emunim which are dedicated for the advancement of Jewish interest particularly in Israel. (p. 222) There are also terrorist organizations which are solely dedicated in addressing social and political issues. They commit terrorist acts to force the government to cede a territory to form a new sovereign state, to proclaim their dominance of territory or resources as members of a certain ethnic group, to protest the economic deprivation of a population or to oppose a domestic government or occupying army. The New People’s Army in the Philippines, for example, conducts burning of commercial vehicles and collection of revolutionary taxes as a way of funding their armed struggle to impose a communist regime in the Philippines (p. 210). The Basque Fatherland and Liberty conducts bombings and assassinations of Spanish government officials to install a Marxist regime (p. 209). Another one is Hizballah which was formed in 1982 to repel the Lebanon invasion of Israel (p. 215). 3.0 Structure of Terror Groups The United States Department of State outlines the basic operations of the terrorist groups which they found to be commonly founded by a charismatic but radical leader/s. Although some may have a few active operatives, the strength of terrorist organizations lies in the thousands of supporters that they gain from pursuing a goal which strikes at the very heart of issues relevant to the individuals of the society. Not only does this support base serves as a source of funding and logistics, it also serves as a large pool of potential combatants and suicide bombers. Some of them have all members as combatants. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) founded in 1976 as a secessionist group in Sri Lanka is estimated to have 8,000 to 10,000 armed combatants in Sri Lanka, with a core of 3,000 to 6,000 trained fighters. (p. 227) Almost all of these terror groups have their base of operations in rural, coastal and mountainous areas which are usually inaccessible to authorities. They operate in cells with each unit comprised of as low as a single individual to as large as hundreds operating in armed camps or operating secretly in urban areas. Their funding comes from pooling of resources, rich individuals such as Osama bin Laden and government sponsors such as the former Iraqi and Afghan regimes. Perhaps what is challenging to their leaders is to coordinate their actions with other members of the organization. As I have mentioned, these groups often operate in splinter cells which must be informed of the decisions and actions that will be undertaken. Although the increasing availability of technological devices such as cellular and satellite phones have made it easier to contact one another, the increasing dedication of counter-terrorism institutions have strained communications though we can only speculate to what degree. Considering that some people who appear to be ordinary citizens are actually terrorist members, we can only guess that the coordination is not that very strained. Nevertheless, authorities may take advantage of the communication gap by having operatives planted in areas where terrorist are believed to be operating. There are also monitoring devices which can intercept radio conversations. They can also resort to determining and confiscating assets believed to be used for operations. Dubious financial transactions thru banks can also be frozen so as to stop the flow of funds. All of these operations, however, require the coordination not only of local authorities but also of international involvement as well. The discreteness, extent of operations and the sympathy that these groups enjoy of presents the most daunting issues to the counter-terrorist. 4.0 Huntington’s Theory Political Scientist Samuel Huntington (1993) proposed the theory of the Clash of Civilizations stating that people's cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. He divided the world’s people into 8 different civilizations – the Western, African, Hindu, Islamic, Latin American, Japan, Orthodox and Sinic. According to Huntington, the West is eager to insist their beliefs and philosophies to other civilization. That is, they believe in the universality of their values and political systems and that the set of beliefs other civilizations are naïve. However, Huntington claims that the West’s insistence on democratization and such "universal" norms will only further antagonize other civilizations. Huntington sees the West as reluctant to accept other civilizations because it built the international system, wrote its laws, and gave it substance in the form of the United Nations. Huntington identifies a major shift of economic, military, and political power from the West to the other civilizations of the world, most significantly to what he identifies as the two "challenger civilizations", Sinic and Islam. The Islam civilization, according to Huntington, is experiencing a population boom which is fueling the fundamentalist and revisionist movement we are now experiencing today. One of the prominent proclaimed enemies of most Islamic terrorist groups is America – the icon of Western Christian civilization. If we are to use Huntington, we can see that the conflict is based on the orientation of the societies as well. That is, the conflict is not against groups versus groups but whole societies against whole societies. Therefore, terrorism is not advocated by a few but is the results of the angst and aggrandizements that societies have against other societies. Does it mean, therefore, that the fight against terrorism becomes a fight against civilizations which can only be done thru confrontation and conquest? Jogerst (2005) states that the strategy should transcend these civilization categories which mean that terrorism and terrorist should be “projected as separate from civilizations and are actually evil, misguided opportunists who exploit popular discontent and use it to fuel their radical agenda.” 5.0 19th Century Socialism The age of Industrialism brought about many changes in society but the general effect was to endow the bourgeoisie economic and political power and place the old peasant class in factories. In short, it only served to widen the gap between the rich and the poor with the latter working in environments that could kill or maim them. As a response, many individuals saw the depressing condition and rebelled against the severe treatment of the masses and the power placed in the hands of the few. (Brian, 2005) The first considered anarchist of his time was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who went against the appropriateness of a central government calling for its abolition to be replaced by a system of autonomous groups and communities which was virtually governed by contract and mutual interest in place of laws. Mikhail Bakunin believed that only thru destruction can a society with a collective ownership of the means of production be created. The violent nature of anarchists saw its beginnings in Errico Malatesta’s theory that only thru the propaganda by deed can socialist principles are achieved. Thus began the murders of President Sadi Carnot of France (1894), Antonio Cánovas del Castillo, the prime minister of Spain (1897), Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1898), King Umberto of Italy (1900), President William McKinley of the United States (1901) and José Canalejas y Méndez, another Spanish prime minister (1912). August Spies wrote in 1886 that “A pound of dynamite is worth a bushel of bullets” and soon enough seven policemen were killed by a bomb thrown at them while dispersing a strike. France had its Restaurant Véry dynamited in 1892 . (Woodcock, p. 19-25) As many writers would attest, their ideas only gains prominence thru publicity and the more they get exposed to the public, the more they will be discussed. This presents a problem to the authorities especially now that information can be disseminated by just surfing the internet. Should the authorities go after these people and risk having them much publicized? In my opinion, what the authorities can do is to minimize the publication and circulation of the work of the author and not blatantly arresting him. For example, they may systematically hinder the writer from getting any media exposure or warning publishers about the consequence that these persons may have. Of course, these should be done as discretely as possible and make it look that the authorities had no hand in it. In any case, these anarchist authors should not be given the opportunity to disseminate any of their ideas. Reference: Brian, Paul (2005). Introduction to 19th-Century Socialism. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/socialism.html Huntington, Samuel (1993). Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. Free Press: New edition 2002 Jogert, John (2005). What Kind of War? Strategic Perspectives on the War on Terrorism. Air & Space Power Journal - Spring 2005. Retrieved May 16, 2007 from http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj05/spr05/jogerst.html  UK Government (2000). Terrorism Act 2000. Retrieved may 16, 2007 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm United States Department of State (2006). Country Reports on Terrorism 2005. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism United States Department of State Publication 11324 Wikipedia (2007). Definition of Terrorism. Retrieved from www.wikipedia.com Woodcock, George (1962). “Anarchism”. Pelican Books: New York Read More