International Relations Theory and Approaches: War on Terror - Coursework Example

246206 International Relations theory and approaches - "War on Terror" Instructions: FINAL PAPER: To finish the will write a paper, in which they will reflect upon the use or added value of (particular) theory (ies) for our understanding of the ‘War on Terror’. You can think of an elaborate case study applying a particular approach (in contrast to another), or for instance an analysis of different theoretical conceptualizations of a central concept (like power) and how this leads to different readings of the WoT. The paper must do more than present a historical reflection of the events. It must be analytical in nature; integrating and critically reflecting knowledge derived from lectures, the assigned readings, and additional research. For further guidelines, see the instruction sheet attached. FORMAT 3500 words (with max 10% margin) using 1,5 space; proper referencing - foot notes. The following is a discussion as to whether the September 11th attacks and the resultant War on Terror altered the international system, as well as reflecting the various concepts found within it. There are arguments both for and against that assertion that can be fitted into concepts relating to present day International Relation theory. In some respects the September 11th attacks and the War on Terror could be viewed as representing a continuation of ongoing trends within the international system or conversely argue using different theories or concepts the attacks / War on Terror did indeed alter the international system. The United States government, as indeed its people were stunned by the Al-Qaeda attacks as well as the death and destruction that they actually caused. International Relations theory before the attacks and the War on Terror had tended to stress the relationships between nation states rather than that between nation states and non-state terrorist or political groups. The international system had already changed with the end of the bipolar system of Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. There is debate around the idea of a global hegemon built around the sole remaining superpower, the United States, and how the War on Terror was a response to the Al-Qaeda attacks of September 2001. 1 The majority of International Relations theories have contended that the United States has to rely on influence and economic might to operate effectively in the Middle East.2 The Americans did succeed in establishing strong links with Saudi Arabia and Iran to secure its oil supplies. Resentment of the United States is strong throughout the Middle East because of its support for Israel, a motive for radical Islamic groups to attack its interests. However, many people living in the Middle East resented the United States just like Britain, and France, in earlier decades as imperialist powers.3 The United States is not liked in the Middle East due to the liberal democratic values it tries to spread globally been regarded as un-Islamic, plus it is seen as hypercritical when backing undemocratic regimes whilst claiming to spread neo-liberal economic policies, and when possible liberal democracy.4 Terrorist attacks by groups such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Basque Nationalists ETA and even Hamas or Hizbollah led to relatively few victims. These groups tended to campaign for national liberation often tinged with left wing or Marxist concepts of the armed struggle. Hamas and Hizbollah are motivated by religious or ideological zeal with the willingness to take part in suicide bombings to advance their jihad against Israel. However the tactics, directly caused the War on Terror and the strategy pursued by the group Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda were different from other groups in that they wanted to change the international system by waging war against the United States and its allies, Osama Bin Laden gave them a Weltanschauung or world view that required them to act on a larger scale. It was indeed a perspective of the world and launched its attacks in order to provoke a response from the United States, in the form of the War on Terror.5 Al-Qaeda is amongst the groups that wish to reverse the process of globalization or more accurately counter the American dominance of the process and use it for their own ends. Waltz for one argues that the process is still adaptable or reversible and that a change in globalization equates to a change in the international system.6 Islamic radicals tend to view Islam as a global movement itself that transcends nationalism and rejects secular culture. In other words Islamists regard the United States as representing everything they detest within the international system.7 It can be argued that the September 11th attacks changed the world order or international system because of the symbolic as well as the brutal nature of the attacks. Al-Qaeda was behind the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.8 The intention of the attackers was to provoke a reaction from the United States, which was achieved in the guise of the War on Terror. Al-Qaeda strategy and ideology shows not only the age old element of Islamic notions of jihad or holy war but also revolutionary Marxist concepts of the armed struggle although it would not admit to such a link given the atheist nature of Marxism. As a concept Marxism usually stresses the competition between differing economic systems or political ideologies, which was more the case between capitalism and communism than the theological and ideological conflict between liberalism and radical Islam. Marxism however has waned in ideological value and usefulness. Al-Qaeda have often claimed that the United States spreads capitalism, secularization, and even Christianity at the same time as backing Israel and stealing resources from Islamic countries.9 In attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Al-Qaeda struck a devastating symbolic blow as well as actual physical blows against the United States. The twin towers of the World Trade Center symbolized economic might and prestige, whilst the Pentagon represented the military nerve centre of the world’s only remaining superpower. Bin Laden has a wide view of history and politics, he fully appreciates the role of symbolic acts in promoting change and altering the course of international conflicts and relationships. If using the concept of world-systems analysis then September 11th represented a change in the international system as any major change in one part of the system changes the over all system.10 For many in the United States September 11th was shocking because they no longer felt secure. After all aside from the earlier World Trade Center attack it was ‘the first time since the war of 1812 that the national territory has been under attack or even threatened.’11 The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had not attacked at the American interior. The war against Al-Qaeda is an international conflict against an organisation rather than another nation state. In a sense the September 11th attacks ‘changed’ the international system because they took so many people by surprise. However, for some that has studied trends with Islamist groups or knew Bin Laden’s world outlook ‘raised the specter or a future struggle between international terrorists and the West in the twenty-first century’. 12 Al Qaeda and similar groups with CIA training, money and weapons fought against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Bin Laden started to regard the United States as an enemy as well.13 As the Soviet Union began to lose it’s war in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and other groups believed that the struggle for Islam had to continue against the Americans and their Middle East clients. Many Americans did not comprehend how much they were detested in the Middle East or the motives for Al-Qaeda, centre –periphery analysis or Marxist critiques could provide a useful way of explaining widespread anti-Americanism.14 Al-Qaeda were already considered a potent threat to the United States interests and while attacks had so far been confined to outside the United States itself it was highly probable they could turn their attention to the American interior itself. President George W Bush and Vice President, Dick Cheney were even explicitly warned by President Clinton himself about that threat and through several briefings by the CIA. For whatever reasons President Bush and Vice President Cheney ignored those warnings and the subsequent attacks indeed changed the international system.15 The changes in the international system could be usefully understood via Realism, Maximal Realism in particular. As the United States is currently the sole hegemonic power, states and groups must try to ally themselves or compete against it. September 11th and its aftermath resulted from the desire of Al-Qaeda to challenge that hegemon, whilst the Americans are fighting to hold on to their power and position.16 Realism is arguably the best method of understanding the context of September 11th within International Relations theory; it seems to give a far greater understanding of the international system. The plan for the September 11th attacks was bold, simple and highly effective. Through a combination of lax United States security and the effective co-ordination of timing, the hijackers were able to use four airliners as large bombs. The American authorities had failed to notice that the hijackers had flight simulation lessons without learning how to take off or land. They learned just enough to fly the planes into their targets. Only the bravery of the passengers on the fourth plane prevented it reaching Congress or the White House as an additional target in Washington. Destroying the White House and killing the President it would have been an even greater change to the international system. Instead President Bush gained a great deal of domestic support for the subsequent War on Terror.17 The attacks led to debates in the United States as to whether they should amend their traditionally liberal approach to civil liberties internally and their support liberal democracy in foreign policy to contain and counter the terrorist threat. In other words a choice between realism and liberalism. The way the attacks were carried shows that the process of globalization although an economic term can helpfully be applied to international relations theory. Al-Qaeda is quite happy to use the technology linked with globalization to finance, plan and carry out their plans.18 The attacks of September 11th marked a change in the international system because of the way in which President Bush reacted to them. President Bush immediately launched the “war on terrorism” to destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that had based and supported them. The United States government used the term ‘war’ even though it was primarily a campaign against the non-state Al-Qaeda network. Bush had been tempted to use the term ‘crusade’ but was persuaded that would have been a propaganda own goal given it’s negative connotation in the Islamic world.19 In the immediate aftermath of the attacks there was widespread sympathy for the United States even from the States such as Iran and Syria that had poor if not openly hostile relationships with the United States. Even the Russians allowed the Americans to use their bases in Uzbekistan from which the Soviets had attacked Afghanistan. President Putin was amongst the first to offer condolences, in return for which the Americans turned a blind eye to the war in Chechnya.20 President George W. Bush was willing to ditch any ideas of ethical foreign policy or promoting liberal democracy, accepting help from the less than democratic governments of Pakistan and Russia and offering aid in return. After the fall of the Taliban regime the Bush administration showed its disregard for the liberal democracy they are fighting to defend by detaining captives in Guantamino Bay without trial or sentencing. The United States mistreatment of prisoners in turn helps Al-Qaeda recruit more members for their holy war against the liberalism and culture of the United States. The United States is arguably at the center of the international system, alongside it’s allies it controls the greater the share of resources and wealth whilst being the driving force behind economic and political development. Meanwhile the states and peoples within the periphery are exploited by the centre for their raw resources such as oil or metals in exchange for some of the center’s money and technology. In the Middle East the only ones to benefit from such arrangements are the ruling elites of the oil rich Persian Gulf states, like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. 21 It was such radical Islamic views that led Huntington to write of the clash of civilizations between the American led West and the Rest (mainly the Islamic world). Just like the concept of the Cold War it was a simple explanation of the causes of conflicts in a complex world with a large number of state and non-state actors.22 The Cold War had been a bipolar contest of Marxist communism against liberal capitalism. However bin Laden and President Bush both appear to have a simple bipolar view of the world, good versus evil, liberalism versus radical Islam but with vastly different concepts of good and evil. For those that believe in the validity of the bipolar paradigm in International Relations theory a change in the system to a context of rivalry between the secular / Christian West and the Islamic east draws parallels with the Middle Ages and the clash between Crusaders and Saracens.23 Osama Bin Laden often describes the United States and its allies such as Britain as crusaders, a useful analogy when he wants to gain support in the Islamic world. The post positivist school would help explain the emotional, illogical appeal of Al-Qaeda in its conflict with the West, as it draws support by appealing to the feelings of frustration or hatred amongst Muslims towards Americans. September 11th using post positivist analogies changed the international system due to removing the feeling of powerlessness amongst anti-American radical Muslims yet at the same time induced a sense of loss and anger in the United States. Post positivist theory has its limits; some thinking it is too theoretical and does not pay enough attention to reality.24 September 11th changed the international system because it was intended to do so by Al-Qaeda. President Bush also used the attacks to usher in a more aggressive era of United States foreign policy. After the attacks the United States turned their attention to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and destroying the Al-Qaeda bases there. If President Bush had only been interested in avenging the September 11th attacks he would have stopped after successfully removing the Taliban regime, just continuing to track down the Al-Qaeda network. Bush and Cheney put forward proposals for a radical change in defence and foreign policy. The United States would make preventative and preemptive military action against regimes it considered to be a military threat or who have co-operated with terrorists. The regimes outlined were Iraq, Iran and North Korea all alleged to have weapons of mass destruction, links to terrorists or both. This policy shift was built on dubious interpretations of international law but provided the excuse to invade Iraq. Bush decided to use war on terrorism, alleged links with Al-Qaeda and the development of weapons of mass destruction as the reasons for removing the Saddam Hussein regime. Bush seems more motivated by the desire to have removed Saddam Hussein; it was unfinished business from his father’s presidency and the Gulf War of 1990-91. Bush had used September 11th to promote his aggressive and expansionist policies ‘one step at a time, one war at a time’.25 Conversely it can be argued that the September 11th attacks did not represent a change in the international system rather it was a continuation of changes that had already started. The conflict real or potential between the United States and radical Islamic elements was in fact ongoing as previously mentioned. It was the launch of the War on Terror that made public what the Bush administration had already been considering, removing the regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq.26 From this perspective Al-Qaeda strategies can be explained by the desire to damage the West by restricting or removing the oil supply as happened in 1973 and 1979. However, that would only be part of their objectives, they wish to remove the center’s influence and power from the region. Al-Qaeda attacks were supposed to undermine the United States in the region but the Clinton administration was not prepared to launch all out assaults on Al-Qaeda just retaliatory cruise missile strikes when needed. The problem with using the centre-periphery analysis in relation to the September 11th attacks is that although it provides an adequate means to explain the causes of radical Islam’s conflict with the United States it does not explain their zeal. However it does not allows a complete understanding of how far Al-Qaeda is prepared to go in pursuing their goals. Besides Bin Laden does not strictly view the world in economic or geographical terms, he would regard the world as been divided on theological and ideological grounds. American military might on the other hand shows the much greater strength and technology available to the centre compared to the periphery. The United States with it’s stealth bombers, it’s B-52’s and it’s Special Forces was able to crush the Taliban in eight weeks whereas as the Soviet Union withdrew after a decade of fighting.27 The overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime was just as swift. The September 11th attacks did not change the International system in that the end of the Cold War had already changed it, the United States was mightier than a superpower, and the term ‘uberpower’ was developed to describe American dominance over the international system. In other words the United States is the mightiest nation upon the earth and no single nation can hope to overturn its dominance of the global economy or the spreading of its liberal culture and values throughout the world. Whilst America acts to promote stability throughout the world, it’s strength means the groups such as Al-Qaeda have to inflict damage through suicide bombings and innovative attacks such as those of September 11th. Suicide bombers have proved far harder to stop than the poorly equipped Iraqi soldiers and the Taliban. The insurgency in Iraq and the re-emergence of the Taliban threat in Afghanistan have dented the sense of idealism that President Bush and his administration had attempted to instill in the War on Terror.28 Thus the September 11th attacks can be regarded to have changed the international system as it directly caused the War on Terror. That international system had already seen profound changes that made September 11th happen. Al-Qaeda had emerged from the Islamic groups fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan. In the context of the bipolar Cold War system the Americans aided the Afghan resistance and forced the eventual Soviet withdrawal. In effect the collapse of the Soviet Union left the United States as the sole remaining superpower some even using the term uberpower, as the Realism model stipulates that the international system tends to suggest one such power is the best or most important actor throughout the global system.29 However the sheer apparent might of the United States meant Al-Qaeda saw it as their greatest enemy in a bipolar military contest between the militantly Islamic and un-Islamic. Al-Qaeda had made increasingly daring attacks on American targets and interests during the 1990s that meant they wished to carry out bolder attacks. September 11th changed the international system because it struck at the heart of American economic and military power, at the core of its liberal democratic values. The reaction of President Bush changed the international system as well. It was not the swift removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that showed a change it was the war against Iraq. Using allegations that Iraq had links with Al-Qaeda and possessed weapons of mass destruction was used as the context to oust Saddam Hussein. However, it also clearly demonstrated the aggressive nature of President Bush’s foreign policy. Bush justifies that foreign policy by calling it “the war on terror” but the war in Iraq also seemed to be the setting of unfinished business with imperialism thrown in. Using the criteria of attacking states that sponsor terror Iran, Libya and Syria could be next, or for weapons of mass destruction then North Korea, Pakistan, India and Iran could be next.30 It is a great paradox that the September 11th attacks showed that the United States was not secure from terrorist attacks from determined groups such as Al-Qaeda but that it had enough military power to crush any conventional army it faced. Unfortunately the resulting campaigns in Afghanistan arguably demonstrated that the developers of the War on Terror no effective exit strategy to prevent anarchy in defeated countries, for instance in Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States some argue maybe an uberpower or the global hegemon, that is the greatest power within the international system but all Al-Qaeda has to do is survive and the War on Terror continues. The Americans are left with the choice of sacrificing their liberal values to win the war on terror or losing the war on terror but maintaining their liberalism. As the bombs in Bali in 2002, Madrid in 2004, and London in 2005 prove the Al-Qaeda network has the capacity to launch attacks anywhere in the world. It maybe an uneven struggle but it is useful to analyze it as a bipolar struggle nonetheless. In many ways that is how Al-Qaeda and its linked groups would regard their resistance to the War on Terror. Other models that can be used to theorize the changes in the international system include Marxism, the centre –periphery theory and globalization. However the best explanatory theory is realism. The international system has changed because Americans must remain on guard not only against terrorism but also about the root causes of it. Bibliography Brown C, with Ainley K, (2005) Understanding International Relations 3rd edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke, New York Cameron, F. - US Foreign Policy after the Cold War –Global hegemon or reluctant sheriff? (2002) Routledge, London, New York Chomsky, N. 9-11 (2002) Seven Publications, New York Cox M, Empire By Denial, The Strange Case of the United States, International Affairs 81, (2005) Dean, J.W. Worse than Watergate - the secret Presidency of George W. Bush (2004) Little, Brown and Company, London Dunbabin, J.P.D. The Cold War – The Great Powers and their allies (1994) Longman, London Eickelman, D.F and Piscarto, J. Muslim Politics (1996) Princeton University Press, Princeton Esposito, J.L. The Islamic Threat - Myth or Reality? 3rd edition (1999) Oxford University Press Hirsh, M. At War with Ourselves – Why America is squandering its chance to build a better world (2003) Oxford University Press, Oxford Keay, J. Sowing the Wind – the seeds of conflict in the Middle East (2003) John Murray Meir, A. Black Earth – Russia after the fall (2004) Harper Perennial, London Parker, G. Geopolitics – Past, Present and Future (1998) Pinter, London Patomaki & Wright – After Positivism? The Promises of Critical Realism – International Studies Quarterly, June 2000, Vol 44 no 2 The Economist - The new-years bombers, December 23rd 1999 Read More