Understanding the Concept of Terrorism after September 11 - Essay Example

Understanding the Concept of Terrorism after September 11 Understanding the Concept of Terrorism after September 11 The classical debate that is dealt in every literature on terrorism is its delineation. Researchers undividedly agree that there is no a commonly agreeable definition although there is a general understanding that the concept has a negative and prejudiced undertone. The prejudice surrounding terrorism has grown to a point where some people have claimed rather sarcastically that it is easier to name those acts that do not meet the criteria of terrorism. In most cases, in classifying terrorism, authors differentiate between the objective and the means utilized (Crenshaw, 2000). In assessing the issue of terrorism, one thing that is unanimous is that the concept of terrorism changed considerably after September 11. This paper tries to analyse how the concept of terrorism has changed after September 11. Overview The subject of terrorism got a global attention in September 2001 following a rather brief but destructive attack on two of the major symbols of the United States. The attacks on the World Trade Centre and The Pentagon in reality were well-coordinated affairs. Without a doubt, the challenge of terrorism was an already well-established phenomenon when the planes hit their mark in the full glare of a wide, international audience that was connected by televisions. The politics of terror, and the overwhelming dread that terror produces in its aftermath, lay at the base of the evolution of social order. It is ironical that modern acts of savagery are becoming highly sophisticated in a society that is becoming highly modernized. At their foundation, terror, force and violence are interrelated and, as such, terrorism as a course of action cannot be differentiated from coercion as an approach or violence as a tactic (Kiras, 2005). The analyses of the challenge of terrorism have often foundered between the perpetual extremes that are innate in the unstructured ideas of terror. In most cases, analysts point out that the conceptualizations of terrorism are in most cases to broad to warrant any useful analysis or too intricate to be applied in a systematic manner. In almost all the cases, the explanations of terrorism have political innuendos and the analysts are left with the task of explaining the civil and uncivil means of applying violence. In the past, the term terrorist was a pejorative term used to denote any kind of political opponent just in the same manner that communist was used politically in the West during the Cold War. Terrorism has therefore been explained as the intentional creation and use of fear by employing violence or the risk of brutality to create dread. Despite the attempts made at differentiating terrorism from criminal violence, it is apparent that all acts of terrorism are criminalized acts that become popular because they are irregular applications of violent or coercive behaviour (Kiras, 2005). Following the September 11 attacks, analysts have turned their focus to examine the concept of state terrorism. In recent years, there has been increasing literature pointing out that states are increasingly using violence to instil terror among civilians. The term state terrorism has gained acceptance especially since it is agreed that the definition of terrorism should not rely on whether such acts are conducted by private individuals or government agents. Although the term ‘state terrorism’ is not a recognized term in international law, some analysts have insisted that the concept does indeed exist in the form of terrorist acts carried out during armed conflicts as well as terrorist acts carried out on foreign soil by state agents in the absence of armed conflict. State terrorism can further be classified as any involvement of the state in the undertakings of terrorists groups and any form of internal state terrorism. While the traditional form of state-sponsored terrorism is slowly fading away, a new form of state-tolerated terrorism is quickly on the rise. In recent days, although the examination of the concept of state terrorism is limited due to humanitarian law, it cannot be said to not be existent (Kiras, 2005). Before September 11, there were numerous cases that nations such as the United States would take their troops to attack other nations. A clear example of this was the attack on Iraq in 1991. While there seems to have been good reasons for this happen, this act in itself is an act of state terrorism. During this period, there was an unspoken belief that Muslims were unfairly targeted in the war on terrorism (Crenshaw, 2000). This all changed during September 11 when Islamist jihads landed the hijacked planes on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre. While Muslims were only believed to be behind terrorist activities before this period, the September 11 attacks served to justify this suspicion. The attack itself saw the world united in condemning Muslims and Islam in general for being behind terrorism. This thinking has become acceptable around the world and the passage of time has only made it worse (National Commission on Terrorist Attack, 2004). The September 11 incident is in itself termed by some analysts as a Machiavellian state terrorism. In definition, this is seen as terror/assassination that is conducted by reasons other than the ones that have been given away. In recent days, there has been the emergence of speculation that terror acts including that of September 11, was an attempt to destroy terrorism from within the State. Even if this is not the case, the truth is that September 11 altered the manner in which the war on terrorism is fought and seen. In the past, the most common form of terror acts includes assassinations, bombings, hostage seizures and plane hijacks (National Commission on Terrorist Attack, 2004). Prior to September 2001, the idea of state terrorism was a widely used term. However, the events of 2001 strongly reinforced the position of the state as the sole institution endowed with the task for the fight against terrorism. The problem with this kind of approach is that it has taken the focus away from the State as a possible financier of terrorism. The 9/11 as the most destructive attack of the last decade seems have heralded a new face of terrorism. As noted earlier, terrorism in the past was mostly a term used to refer to state terror against it citizens. This can well be seen in the example of the French Revolution (National Commission on Terrorist Attack, 2004). Before September 11, terrorism could best have been described as an illegal way of going to war. In the past, terrorism involved the hijacking of planes by individuals of one state in a bid to force another nation to give into their demands. This strategy has always produced results. However, September 11 showed that very few criminals are not keen on just hijacking planes since planes cannot stay in the air forever and very few countries are keen on allowing hijacked planes to land on their soils for fear of international condemnation. The hijacking and subsequent crashing of the September 11 planes is a clear indication that terrorists are now focusing on the interconnected world. This is clear given the effect that the Madrid 2004 train bombing had on the international sphere (National Commission on Terrorist Attack, 2004). The September 11 and the train bombing of Madrid 2004 shows that the terrorists only after targets that would guarantee many victims. Even if this form of terrorism was evident before 2004, many people believed that the main purpose of terrorism was to hurt not to destroy. After the September 11 attacks, the limits that terrorists were thought not to cross seems to have been dismantled. Today, terrorists are more engaged in criminal activities that produce mass destruction. While terrorism that was meant to destroy was present in the past, it was often carried out by individual perpetrators against other individuals (Nassar, 2005). The willingness to kill many individuals goes hand in hand with the likelihood of new targets that are presented by emerging technology. Today, people are more concerned about the possibility of incidences such as cyber terror that comprises an emerging threat by infiltrating the traffic control systems or by altering radio and TV broadcasts. After September 11, the world attention has now been turned to the possibility of future threats such as biochemical weapons or nuclear weapons. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, majority of the terrorist organizations lost their objectives or did not see any chance or recognizing their principles. This left majority of these groups without any sponsorship. However, the decline of the leftist terrorism allowed religious terrorist groups to sprout (Rothschild, 2009). Despite the fact that the biggest threat to the world today is from religious organizations, this does not in any way denote that there is a new type of terrorism. Just like in the past, the new form of Militant Islam is sponsored by the state. The only thing that seems to have transformed is that terrorism is now focused on the international context. Another difference is that the terrorists groups based on religion have a political mandate and does not place much emphasis on individuals. If this were not the case, then the leaders of religious movements would already be martyrs (Kaldor, 2003). Conclusion In its broadest sense, the concept of terrorism denotes the attempts to carry on political ends by employing terrorism to develop a sense of fear and uncertainty. In the past, the most popular forms of terrorist attacks included assassinations, bombings, hostage seizures and plane hijacks. However, the truth is that the events of September 11, indicate that the problem of terrorism has acquired a new face. For many years, the term ‘terrorism’ has been pejorative and was used selectively. While terrorism was often depicted as anti-government activity, analysts have pointed out to the existence of state-terrorism thus making terrorism a highly controversial term. In the past, terrorism was purely carried out by individual actors against individuals. The most common type of terrorism was the assassination of key figures or hijacking a plane by one state to force another state to give into their demands. However, this seems to have changed after September 11, with the main objective of terrorism now being bringing destruction to masses of people. References Crenshaw, M. (2000). The Psychology of Terrorism: An Agenda for the 21st Century. Political Psychology 21(2): 405-420. Kiras, J. (2005). Terrorism and globalization: The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford: John Baylis & Steve Smith. Nassar, J. (2005). Globalization and Terrorism. The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares. Oxford University Press. Rothschild, E. (2009). Globalization and the Return of History. Foreign Policy, 115, 106-116. Kaldor, M. (2003). September 11: The Return of the ‘Outside’?’ Global Civil Society. An Answer to War. Polity Press; Cambridge. National Commission on Terrorist Attack (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, New York. Read More