Lutz and Lutz, Global Terrorism - Essay Example

Critical Analysis of Newspaper Article: In the 1999 article for the Asian Wall Street Journal, Kanishka Jayasuriya points out the salient features ofa vibrant democracy and how it differs from superficial symbols of democracy as seen in East Asian countries of late. Countries such as Indonesia, Philippines, etc, which were colonies of European powers until half a century back, the effects of the protracted period of imperialism are still evident in their institutions. These post-colonial societies are at crossroads of history and have to overcome challenges in the realm of economics and politics if they are to emerge as competent players in the new world order. In light of this fact, Kanishka Jayasuriya makes some perceptive observations on the current state of democracy in East Asia and suggests possible remedies for improving the situation. The rest of the essay is a critical analysis of the article in question and attempts to demonstrate both its merits and demerits. To begin with, the article is a typical example of erudite academic writing, as the author takes a broad historical approach to his analysis of South East Asian politics. For example, we find references ranging from Indonesia and South Korea to Thailand and Philippines, making it comprehensive. Further, the author does not indulge in standards of moral relativism when evaluating the state of democracy in these countries. In other words, his assessment of the political situation in these nations is based on objective facts and universally accepted standard of human rights. It is a well documented fact that the western media did not strictly condemn the Indonesian atrocities in East Timor. While not stating this in so many words, the author does point out the authoritarian manner in which Indonesian invaded East Timor in 1975. More than two decades later, with Megawati Sukarnoputri contending for political leadership of the country, the dark legacy of authoritarianism is still part of the fabric of the political establishment. This can be discerned from the fact that Megawati made no concessions to Timorese independence (not even local level autonomy) in the lead up to the elections. This goes to prove that democracy and the instrument of elections alone are not sufficient for imposing acceptable standards of freedom, equality and justice in a country, which is the central hypothesis of Kanishka Jayasuriya’s article. Another important aspect of post-independent history of this region, is the blatant disregard for legislative power as well as the judiciary. As a result, several leaders have misappropriated their executive powers to impose emergency rule over the citizens and civil institutions, making the institution of democracy a total farce. While several justifications have been forwarded for the application of emergency powers, none has been accepted as valid by neutral observers of the international community. This infringement on legal and parliamentary authority had happened in almost all nations of the South East Asian bloc, including Indonesia and Philippines, which is ironical considering the fact that these two nations were supposed to be the more advanced in the region. The invoking of emergency powers by President Fidel Ramos in Philippines remains a classic case of abuse of power. The other disturbing trend witnessed in East Asian democracies is the smooth transformation of the old authoritarian elite into top leadership of political parties. This defeats the very purpose of intended progressive changes, as those individuals accustomed to exercising autocratic rule assume roles in democratic institutions. Kanishka Jayasuriya cites the example of the KMT in Thailand, the leaders of which held undisputed power in the country’s days of dictatorship as well as in the new period of democracy. While political organization might have changed for the better, the regime has effectively been the same. The successful entry of authoritarian ruling class into democratic institutions is achieved, as in Thailand and Philippines, through patronage and intimidation of uninformed, illiterate and underprivileged masses. This is clearly evident from the re-emergence of autocrats from the Marcos era in the Philippines. These tendencies have been very well documented by journalists and scholars, further validating the assertions made by Jayasuriya in his article. The author alludes to the nexuses between political parties and business corporations. In almost all countries of the region, the influential business class interferes in democratic processes, thereby undermining the will of the electorate. Jayasuriya terms this phenomenon as “money politics”, where political manoeuvres in favour of business interests can be bought with money. The disconnection between the military and electoral democracy is another major concern for people of the region. The South East Asian region had seen its share of military coups, which subvert the power of the citizens in determining political outcomes. The central financial institutions of the region wield too much power in shaping economic policies. As Kanishka Jayasuriya correctly observes, the central banks of Thailand and Korea basically act as agents of the IMF. The policy framework within which they work ensures that the international economic order is maintained, even at the cost of depriving its own citizen’s basic standards of living. Hence, in the final analysis, it can be asserted that the Wall Street Journal article by Kanishka Jayasuriya brings to light some of the disturbing trends in East Asian politics, namely, the re-emergence of authoritarianism and the impotency of the judiciary to ensure a fair and just country for its citizens. The author, by virtue of making a nuanced assessment of the complex polity in the region, illuminates the reader’s understanding as well as implicitly making suggestions for improving the situation. Critically assess the effect of terrorism and counter-terrorism measures on global norms and institutions. The first few years of the new millennium is defined by the rise of terrorism across the world. This escalation is attributable to two primary causes. The first is the hegemonic foreign policy initiatives of the United States of America, tacitly supported by its strong allies that include Britain and Australia. The second is the radicalization of Islamist ideology, which has given shape to the concept of ‘holy jihad’ and ‘noble martyrdom’, making it easy to find willing participants in terror operations. Any study of terrorism in the contemporary world should be made in light of these two complementing factors and this essay attempts to do the same. The United Nations has long been at the forefront of international peace initiatives. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and subsequent terror strikes in the power centres of Europe and Asia, the UN had put together a Global Counter-Terrorism strategy, which would serve as a template for individual nation-states in framing their own counter-terror measures. In the words of Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, President of the 61st session of the General Assembly who officially inaugurated the United Nations’ Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy on 19th September, 2006, "The passing of the resolution on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy with its annexed Plan of Action by 192 Member States represents a common testament that we, the United Nations, will face terrorism head on and that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, must be condemned and shall not be tolerated.” (Martin, Understanding Terrorism) Although the issue of terrorism has been discussed in the General Assembly sessions for more than two decades, it is only recently that substantial measures were undertaken. As part of drawing up the new framework of addressing terrorism, the United Nations had organized a series of international conventions to tackle specific challenges posed by terrorist activities. Constituent nations of the UN have utilized this global forum to coordinate and cooperate in their efforts to mitigate terrorist activities. And one of the ways in which this end is achieved is through the formation of a common legal code. The United Nations’ Security Council has provided a suitable platform for devising strategies to counter terror. A significant development of the Security Council sessions has been the passing of numerous counter-terror resolutions and the establishment of potent subsidiary bodies (Simon & Benjamin, 2001). In addition to these measures, the UN has launched an array of programs and agencies to deal with unique challenged posed by specific terror networks. These agencies provide specialized assistance in terms of intelligence gathering and tactical advice to the member nations. This is a laudable initiative on part of the United Nations, for a blanket counter-terror strategy across the globe will not be effective, given the differing agendas and modus operandi of these disparate terror networks. Nevertheless, all these individual programs are based on the accepted norms of the global counter-terrorism strategy, which “forms a basis for a concrete plan of action: to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism; to prevent and combat terrorism; to take measures to build state capacity to fight terrorism; to strengthen the role of the United Nations in combating terrorism; and to ensure the respect of human rights while countering terrorism. The strategy builds on the unique consensus achieved by world leaders at their 2005 September Summit to condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations”. (Heyman, Terrorism and America) But, in spite of such sweeping changes to domestic and cross-border security, the instances of terror has seen no downward trend. The reason for the ineffectiveness of such comprehensive counter-terrorism measures is the widespread discontent with the prevailing global order. The United States, by virtue of being the only superpower in the world, is seen to promulgate its own self-interests at the cost of depriving peoples of the rest of the world. The interventions in the Middle-East region, including the Palestine and Iraq, as well as its tacit support for such dictatorships as the Saudi royal family, has damaged the reputation of the United States through the rest of the world. Hence, rather than negating terrorism, these unlawful interventions have served to instigate further resentment in terrorists, leading them to conjure and implement bigger acts of terrorism. This is why, even the much hyped Lyon Summit had proved to be ineffective in curbing global terrorism. The participants at the Lyon Summit “voiced their determination to give absolute priority to the fight against terrorism. They decided to examine and implement, in cooperation with all States, all measures likely to strengthen the capacity of the international community to defeat terrorism. To that end, they called for a meeting of their Foreign Ministers and their Ministers responsible for security to be held without delay to recommend further actions” (Lutz and Lutz, Global Terrorism). Further, the participant leader of the Lyon Summit promised to undertake a thorough review of emerging trends in international terrorism. By understanding the gravity of the terror situation the members reiterated their fundamental view that acts of terror are not simply justifiable on grounds of ideology. Their discussions focused on the urgent need to find lasting solutions that take into consideration all the factors and will ensure an enduring “settlement of unresolved conflicts and on the need for attending to conditions which could nurture the development of terrorism” (Lutz and Lutz, Global Terrorism). Yet, in spite of such unanimous consensus among world leaders to control terrorism, the world today remains as dangerous as ever. There were no attacks of the magnitude of the September 11 strikes in the last few years, but western interests anywhere else in the world is not safe. This is made clear by the Bali bombings as well as the most recent massacre in Mumbai, India, where many citizens belonging to the United States of America and its allies in the War on Terror lost their lives (Heyman, Terrorism and America). References: Lutz and Lutz, Global Terrorism, various chapters. Gus Martin, Understanding Terrorism, various chapters. S. Simon & D. Benjamin, ‘The Terror’, Survival, ‘, 43(4), 2001,       READER. G. Martin, Understanding Terrorism, Chap. 2. READER Paul R. Pillar, Terrorism and US Foreign Policy, Chap. 2     READER Philip B. Heyman, Terrorism and America, Preface. READER. Jean-Marc Sorel, ‘Some Questions About the Definition of Terrorism and the Fight Against its Financing’, European Journal of International Law, 14(2), 2003. READER Jeffrey I. Ross, ‘Defining Terrorism: An International Consensus, A Critical issue After 9/11’, Encyclopedia of World Terrorism, 1996-2002, (NY: Sharpe, 2003), pp. 12-16. READER. Che Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare (Pelican, 1969), Ch. 1.       READER Jonathan Fox, ‘Is Ethnoreligious Conflict a Contagious Disease?’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 27, 2004, pp. 89-106. Bruce Hoffman, G.H. McCormick, ‘Terrorism, Signaling, And Suicide Attack’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 27, 2004, pp. 243-281. Alex P. Schmid, ‘Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2004, pp. 197-221. Read More