The Root Causes of Terrorism - Assignment Example

Identify and Discuss the Root Causes of Terrorism Introduction Terrorism is commonly used as a term to describe violent acts against civilian targets based on nationalistic, political or religious motivations. It is an unconventional form of war which is often used to weaken or subvert a government and the effects of a terrorist attack may be seen as a threat to international order (Baylis, 2002). However, the nature of the causes can be debated since some terrorist activities have been given support while others have been considered atrocities against humanity. For example, even the Boston Tea Party can be seen as a terrorist act in a technical sense but that event has been connected with a justified cause while recent acts of terrorism against the United States and the United Kingdom are considered unjustified. If not by all concerned individuals, at least by the western world and many other civilised nations who joined them in mourning for the loss of life and the tragedies which unfolded in the aftermath. Of course the question which needs to be answered is why terrorism takes place in the first instance and what the causes behind the acts of terror are. It seems that there is no single or easy answer to the question and different opinions can be given by different writers coming from various backgrounds. While the vast majority agrees that terrorism can not be justified, the causes remain ambiguous at best and unbelievable at worst. Undoubtedly, terrorism certainly affects those individuals who are targets or those who have lost something due to terrorist activity (NTC, 2006). However, even after the most significant and iconic terrorist strikes known to us i.e. the 9/11 attacks, the world order and the existing international relations have not changed significantly. In fact, if anything, the international order and the relationships between various countries (particularly western allies) have been more strongly defined since the attacks. As a matter of fact, even such unions have led to other countries like Britain come under the threat of terrorism while they were previously not the primary target. Again, the definition of allies and enemies may not remain true in the long term since international order is not solely dependent upon one or more evil characters being the terrorist and one heroic country saving the world. The image of a country being good or bad is nearly always dependant on the perception and understanding of the masses and it is irresponsible of the media or the government to present a very biased viewpoint since perceptions can be difficult to change overnight. Coady (2005) says: “There are very bad policies and very bad political leaders, but realism dictates that we recognize the presence of evil wherever and whenever it occurs. It also dictates that we take cognizance of the fact that the monsters of today were our allies of yesterday and may be our allies of tomorrow, and that our own shining virtue often appears in a different light to others (Coady, pg. 16, 2005).” In effect, Coady (2005) is suggesting that while the terrorists do not understand what we hold as being virtuous, we also do not understand what the terrorists want from us. The simplest cause of terrorism can be given as a matter of miscommunications. A conflict which can easily be resolved with words, negotiations and creating an understanding between cultures is simply being extended due to a total lack of understanding. A Lack of Understanding Duffey (2000) suggests that a lack of cultural and social understand is the root cause of terrorism against western interests as well as the problem which leads countries into conflict with each other. It has been accepted by both soldiers and other thinkers that an understanding of culture is essential for removing any issues which lead to terrorist activities. However, the need for understanding culture and how something is viewed in a cultural context is even more pressing when the need to end present cases of terrorism is there. Moreover, the nature of war has been broadened enough to the point where the battle for ‘hearts and minds’ is only a part of the game which results in less terrorism (Wheeler, 2003). More importantly, understanding cultures can save the lives of those people who have not yet been involved with terrorism or the prevention of the spread of terrorism. Skelton and Cooper are members of the American Armed Services Committee in Congress and consider culture awareness a top priority for the prevention of further terrorist attacks against the allies in Iraq and Afghanistan when they say: “As operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated, the process of restructuring the political order, economy, and social wellbeing of an entire country is as critical as defeating organized resistance. But it is cultural awareness that helps determine whether a host population supports long-term American military presence and may determine the outcome of the mission (Skelton & Cooper, 2005, Pg. 12).” The Crusades All Over Again Perhaps the best example of a lack of understanding between different cultures is given by the first speech President George W. Bush gave after the 9/11 attacks in which he used the word ‘crusade’ to signify America’s oncoming war against terror. The fallout from the use of this word (keeping in mind its cultural connection to the brutal wars between the Muslims and the Christians in the Middle Ages) was felt across the world as the middle eastern media as well as the western media considered it the call for a war of civilizations (Carroll, 2004). Of course mediation and explanations from both sides of the divide might have helped the situation, the lack of cultural understanding or appreciation of opinions of the other side merely caused the situation to deteriorate. While government officials almost apologized for the President using this word and clarifying the context in which it was used, in all probability, President Bush was not looking for a war against all Muslims but the Middle East could certainly see it as such (Li, 2002). When the speech given by the President was translated into Arabic for broadcast into the Middle East, the closest translation to crusade was ‘war of the cross’ (Carroll, J. 2004). Clearly, even a single word used carelessly in a conflict situation can lead to problems, misunderstandings and even hostilities since one culture may color a word very differently from another. Of course the cultural context of the crusades in their time was completely different but the images conjured by the word would certainly not mitigate the fears of the Muslim nations (Li, 2002). The Benefits of Understanding People Cultural differences in how terrorism was viewed caused problems for the peacekeeping forces deployed in East Timor. The Australians, who are long time allies of the Americans and have a background of training from the Americans, were seen to take even small acts of defiance against them as more or less all out war. They appeared to view any threat as a hostile menace and often used maximum force even when something lower might have worked (Duffey, 2000). On the other hand the approach of the British soldiers was more humane as they continually tried to build local connections and cultivate friends amongst the East Timorese (Duffey, 2000). Clearly, the approaches used here are very different and the British were more successful than their Australian cousins in reducing terrorism in East Timor. Certainly this situation could be improved tremendously if everyone in the mix saw an act of terrorism as an opportunity to resolve problems without firing shots but considering the number of times peacekeepers have to resort to violence and even abuse human rights; it seems as if cultural conflict within will continue to be a significant problem. Additionally, different behaviors exhibited by different forces can also create dichotomies for the local population who would see one group behaving in a different way from others and may even be confused about how to react with those who are seeking to create a cultural understanding. The Problems with Understanding May (2003) bemoans the fact that in the real world, there are no hard-and-fast rules about the causes of terrorism and it is left up to the intellectual elite as well as media personalities to judge which causes are justified and what level of action must be taken against certain groups who appear to have an unjust cause. Certain causes may gain public support and become justifiable while others may loose public favor and become unjustified. Additionally, it would appear that the legality of doing harm to the innocent is not questioned deeply when the eventual target is to achieve a greater good i.e. killing terrorists (Sterba, 2003). A terrorist attack in London will certainly have a significant impact on international order, stock markets, global trade, individual travel and the quality of life. In fact, even the threat of an attack or the news of an impending attack can shock the stock markets forcing early closures or reduced trading. On the other hand, genocide in Sudan is largely ignored until a spill over into neighbouring countries threatens to destabilise the region which could possibly have a negative influence on global oil prices (Chomsky, 2001). Terrorism might also therefore stem from our own lack of understanding about human life and how suffering can cause anger and resentment against western interests. The root of the problem according to May (2003) is that it is difficult to bring about an understanding as to what causes are justified since the ground realties may be quite different from what is being fed to the people. The legitimacy of both tactics and the purpose has to be established but mixing the two will simply pollute both. It is accepted that there are certainly causes which lead to terrorist activities round the world that need diffusion and attention from the political elite. The Kashmiri cause, the Palestinian cause, the Corsican cause, the Basque cause and the Kurdish cause are all cited as examples but the legitimacy of the cause is simply tarnished by the unjust actions of the terrorists. This does raise the question if violence is leading to more violence? The punishments given to Palestinian terrorists by Israeli commandos come back as acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens. It seems that no party is willing to move from their preset positions and the political motivations are more important than the cause of peace. Clearly, not only is the nature of the act important for understanding the cause and means of prevention, the nature of the solution has to also conform to the requirements of the various parties involved (Duffey, 2000). This simply highlights the importance of understanding the local culture where terrorism originates and the role of the governments in not only understanding the culture but also of playing by the rules of the location rather than imposing their own. Let Us Govern You Sadly, government by proxy seems to be the order of the day for locations where terrorism rears its head. The IMF and World Bank seem to be prime targets as organizations who govern with the blessings of Washington and London in economic terms over countries that seem unfit to manage their own economies. The defenders of these bodies call them a boon and a path to greater economic freedom for the less developed countries of the world. Those who oppose them call them a cruel implementation of new liberalism and a tool for the global hegemony of America (Williamson, 2000). The current policies of the IMF regarding low-income countries have been outlined by the Managing Director of the Fund (Rodrigo de Rato) who has set the adjustment of policies and economic bodies of poor countries as a priority. This would enable these countries to come out of debt and the poverty cycle on their own rather than assistance from the outside. In fact, the focus of the IMF appears to be on creating partnerships with countries rather than a master/slave relationship. At the same time, the IMF wants to take control of the areas which come under its expertise of macroeconomic growth, debt management, policy advisement and financial stability. On a closer examination, it does not appear why such policies can lead to terrorism since debt relief for the poorest countries of the world is a big part of this agenda. The IMF has already given 100% debt relief which was owed to it by the 19 poorest countries of the world. 13 of these countries were in sub-Saharan Africa and plans are being made to reduce or forgive the debts owned by several other poor nations. At the same time, policy recommendations from the IMF would prevent or restrict additional loans until certain conditions were met so that the economy has the chance to grow without substantial debt servicing (Rato, 2006). This policy would certainly help poor countries avoid the situation faced by the Central Asian Republics which came into being after the collapse of the Soviet Union. When they gained independence, the countries were debt free but within a few years they had heavy debts that caused a strain on their economy and depressed their future prospects. In fact, their debts have made them some of the most indebted nations of the world and the IMF is seriously looking into that situation as well (Rato, 2006). Similarly, the problem of aid management can be an issue for a country which does not have the expertise to handle large sums of money for productive causes. Aid is often given to specific causes or programs like hunger elimination, poverty reduction, improving education and disease control (AIDS/HIV, Malaria etc.) which means that there are conditions attached with its use since they are also a part of the UN millennium goals. The IMF wants to advice countries on how this money can be used within the country without causing a false rise in the currency value or increased inflation within the aid receiving country (Rato, 2006). By furthering the chances of a poor country’s citizen’s access to micro-lending programs and soft loans for small businesses, the IMF involves itself deeply in the financial sector of a poor country. Such methods can have negative influences since financial control and economic independence might have to be given up to some extent. On the other hand, it has a lot of benefits since the IMF can call upon a global strength of experts who are familiar with similar processes established in other regions of the globe. However, these experts may be seen not as guides but as neo-colonial governors who have come to establish their rule (Akbar, 2005). In fact, some developing countries as well as certain political leaders in the same countries attribute their economic problems directly to the policies of the World Bank and IMF. Even the rise of terrorism in recent years has been linked with the policies created by global entities who are supposed to work for the economic benefit of the developing world (Akbar, 2005). This idea would certainly be surprising for the western mind since those organisations are there to help the country but it seems that the help is turning out to be government by proxy rather than economic assistance. Perhaps the most controversial policy of the IMF is their involvement in governance policies where even a limited contribution or suggestions can be seen as a negation of sovereignty. For instance, the IMF advises countries on how to improve their Public Expenditures since they are important for managing increased aid flows. This also helps in the reduction of corruption to a certain extent and can even create accountability for the governments. However, this is a thorny issue and the Managing Director of the fund has appealed for international support in these matters by saying: “But on governance and on many other issues, the international community must work together if policies are going to be effective. We are already talking with our colleagues at the World Bank about the division of responsibility between the two institutions. I look forward to discussing this approach further with the rest of the international community (IMF, 2006, Pg. 1).” The interference in governance and the other issues which come under the purview of sovereignty of a nation can cause resentment. That resentment can lead to hatred which can find expression as a terrorist act. However, it does not seem very likely that the west can stay out of matters in the east or the Middle East. The world today is interlinked in more ways than one and as globalization continues on its path it is even more likely that east and west will have to come to terms in how they treat each other. Conclusion In conclusion, I feel that a lack of cultural understanding on both sides of the divide as well as the way in which the western countries treat less developed nations form the root causes of terrorism. Of course, it would be very difficult to change both these things overnight but it seems that the decision makers in the world are waking up to certain realities in terms of what guns can do and what they can not. I realised something very important while studying about the causes of terrorism and that is the fact that violence against a nation or against a group will not necessarily stop them from retaliating by the same means. In fact, it is only when we run out of bullets that we will feel the need to sit down and talk things out which may render all causes of terrorism to be useless and the cause of peace to be supreme. Word Count: 3,157 Works Cited Akbar, N. 2005, ‘Scoring the Millennium Goals: Economic Growth Versus the Washington Consensus’, Journal of International Affairs, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 233-244. Carroll, J. 2004, ‘The Bush Crusade’, Nation, vol. 279, no. 8, pp. 14-22. Chomsky, N. 2001, ‘The New War Against Terror’, CounterPunch.org, [Online] Available at: http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyterror.html Coady, C. (2002). The Ethics of Armed Humanitarian Intervention. United States Institute of Peace. Duffey, T. 2000, ‘Cultural Issues in Contemporary Peacekeeping’, International Peacekeeping, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 142-169. Li, X. 2002, ‘Dichotomies and Paradoxes: The West and Islam’, Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 401-418. May, C. 2003, ‘When Is Terrorism Justified? When the intellectual elite tell you it is, stupid!’ National Review, [Online] Available at: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-may022503.asp National Commission on Terrorism (NTC). (2006). Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism. 105th Congress. Rato, R. 2006, ‘The IMFs Medium-Term Strategy for Low-Income Countries’, [Online] Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2006/031606.htm Sterba, J. 2003, Terrorism and International Justice. Oxford University Press. Wheeler, N. 2003, Saving Strangers : Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford University Press. Williamson, J. 2000, ‘What Should the World Bank Think About the Washington Consensus?’, World Bank Research Observer, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 251-264. Read More