What Is so New about New Terrorism - Coursework Example

What is so “new” about “new” terrorism? Introduction Terrorism is a term that de s the execution of humans by non-governmental political actors for different reasons. There has been no specific and conclusive definition to describe the term terrorism, but linguist concur that it is a pejorative term. It is a pejorative term because when a person or people employ the term, they refer to the actions of their enemies as something evil that doesn’t possess any human compassion. Merari (1993) argued that there are some specific elements that should compose the definition of terrorism and they include: violence; political objectives; and the aim of spreading fear in a target population. There has been endless debate in the present time to distinguish between new and old form of terrorism. The definition of terrorism has not changed, the religious, political and ideological goals are the same (Sloan, 2006). Though the main purpose of terrorism has not changed many policy makers, scholars, consultants, political analysts and journalists seems to concur that terrorism of the past is very different to the “new” terrorism. The new of terrorism is argued to have taken precedence in the mid-1990s, which is a complete change in terms of characteristics and form. The concept of “new terrorism” has different actors, aims, actions, tactics and motivations in comparison with the concept of “old terrorism.” The disaster of 9/11 is said to be preventable if the policymakers and other government elite could have recognized that new terrorism is different to the old terrorism. Though it is very important for the political class to find new techniques to handle “new” terrorism, there is really nothing new to in the new terrorism. All the definitions that are presented have a unanimous claim that terrorism has the following distinctive features: 1. Violence- when looking at both ‘new’ and ‘old’ form of terrorism it will be evident that violence is used in both systems. The violence used in both forms is aimed to achieve some goals. 2. Motive- the type of terrorism that is carried out depends on the type of motivation. Whether old or new terrorism if there was no social or political motive, the violent act was regarded is criminal. 3. Perpetrator- this has proved to be controversial in both forms of terrorism. In both perspectives the perpetrator is regarded as a terrorist if it is the oppressed. 4. Victims- in the definitions of terrorism they concur that any form of assault against civilian as terrorism. The most controversial aspect in this is the victims can either be innocent or the targets. 5. Audience- in both forms of terrorism the audience are the population, individuals or group of persons that the terrorists intends to intimidate. Since the salient features of terrorism are present in both ‘new’ and ‘old’ forms of terrorisms the most puzzling question that one might ask is, what is so “new” about “new” terrorism? This paper will examine categorically the slight differences exist between ‘new’ and ‘old’ forms of terrorism. Concept of ‘Old terrorism’ Terrorism can be traced back in historical times, it is a political violence. Available literature on terrorism have suggested that Sicarii are among the first forms of terrorism of groups, Sacarii were Zealot religious groups that fought against the Roman rule in Palestine (Peter, 1998). In order to protect the French Republic from counter-revolutionaries the term ‘terror’ was coined 1795 to protect the government which was very vulnerable at that moment. Anarchists used assassinations and bombing from the mid of 19th century up to First World War as the most regular weapons to fight against autocracy. The second World saw terrorism become a very important aspect of fighting colonialism. Due to this fact, the terrorism that was used to fight colonial powers has been described as the only form of terror that was able to achieve long-term political goals. The period which has been argued by scholars as the time frame that can best describe ‘old terrorism’ is 1960-1980. The groups that formed the old terrorism had different motives and political objectives but this form of terrorism has some specific characteristics. One of the characteristics of old form of terrorism is the fact that their motivations was secular and their political reason was rational to justify the acts of terrorism (Kumar and Andrew, 2002). For instance, left-wing terrorism groups utilized the use of violence to lobby the working class masses to act against the capital system. Other groups of terrorism were aimed to gain separation or gain independence for their ethnic group. Such form of terrorism was rational since its main aim was to secede from the oppressor, they aimed to have their own sovereign state or merge with another country. Due to the fact that this form of old terrorism advocated for a rational cause, their demands were reasonably negotiable. From this perspective it is evident that old terrorism offered room for negotiation and dialogue. The manner in which violence was used in old terrorism was in line with the intensity and scope of the political objectives being pursued (Simon and Benjamin, 2000). Terrorists found it very prudent not to use excessive and discriminatory violence in order to woo supporters, they did to justify their legitimacy and this would increase their funding and recruit of supporters. Old terrorist were determined to keep their eligibility intact, and this would help them have a place at the bargaining table, especially being offered a role in the successor governments (Simon and Benjamin). They selected their targets with utmost due diligence, which characterizes old terrorism as discriminative. The attacks that were carried in this form of terrorism were done with a lot of precision targeting the high authority that they opposed. The high authority comprised of prominent politicians, government officials, aristocracy members, military or the government buildings. Their actions were mainly used to increase propaganda to popularize their support. This terrorists were determined to gain publicity to greater heights, which will help them have a wide range of audience thus spend their ideologies in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore it was associated with theatre as it seemed to be choreographed for the media (Jenkins, 1975). After the terrorist carried their attacks, a communiqué followed to take credit of those actions, and giving an explanation as to why it was carried out to that specific target. The tactics to perpetrate the violence were conventional by using machineguns, hand-held guns and bombs. This terrorist didn’t show any interest on weapons of mass destruction or any other non-conventional weapons (Hirschmann, 2002). This is because they didn’t want to cause any innocent causalities since this would cause the population to disregard them and their popularity would decline. In some instances they could even express sorrow and regret for some of the accidental deaths during the attack (Horchem, 1986). Another major accepted characteristic of ‘old terrorism’ is that it was linked with state support or sponsorship (Kidder, 1986). A particular state could fund and offer full support a group of terrorism in order to carry out terrorism acts in another country. In so doing the country funding and supporting the terrorism would avoid a full-scale war, and within the Cold War framework. The terrorists in this age were proxies of both middle powers and super powers (Combs, 2000). Terrorism in this age could be used to maintain diplomacy within countries, the countries supporting the terrorists could do so without raising and suspicion and they could offer support to fight terrorists that they had initiated the other country so long as their demands were met. Another distinctive feature of ‘old terrorism’ is that they had a definitive hierarchical organization with clear command and control structures. There were top leaders that formulated the overall policy and strategic plans. Then there are the other specialized terrorists that are supposed to carry out the actual actions of terror activities such as assassinations, bomb-making, and surveillance. The next level are the supporters who’s main role is to supply intelligence, transportation and safe house, weapons, facilitate communication, and other important supplies that would aid the terrorist group to attain its objectives. At the bottom level of the hierarchy is the passive supporters who are not directly with the terrorism acts but help by spreading the goals of the terrorist organizations as well as expressing their emotional support (Fraser, 2001). The goals of the ‘old terrorism’ from the distinctive feature can be said to be negotiable and were limited. Their ambitions were local, aims were tangible and understandable which was associate with issues that surrounded nationalism and territorial autonomy. Negotiation as a salient feature of terrorism gave the opportunity of making the deals to be struck and sometimes this led to the termination of terror attacks. Most of the old terrorists advocated for objectives that were realistic and pragmatic, and they can be referred to as ‘sensible terrorists.’ The fact that old terrorist did not advocate in any way mass destruction since that would contravene their traditions justified their cause and enabled them to gain sympathy. Though they hated their enemies they didn’t act irrationally; their hate didn’t blind fold them. Since the old terrorists were very much specific and restrained in their targets, their main aim was to lure people to watch, and this made them very selective and discriminating. The old terrorists very careful while carrying out their attacks and the violence they used, they avoided any controversial brutality since they knew that such acts could deny them an upper hand in the negotiating table. The old terrorists had the opportunity to be destructive since they had all the capabilities but they chose not to be. They were very concerned on changing the attitudes of their audiences. In terms of limitation, they were limited by their reliance on constituencies and by political interests, and their pursuit of legitimacy in effect, controlled their behavior. Nevertheless, ‘old terrorists’ were not always discriminating while choosing their targets. The level of selectivity varied cross time and groups, but not specifically according to secular-religious or present-past divide. There instances where the terrorists attacked places the innocents were, for instance, the restaurants where the bourgeois frequented were bombed French anarchists of the 1880 and some of non-bourgeois could be present in the restaurants. The nationalists, a type of ‘old terrorist groups’ are reported to have caused mass destruction. The bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by the Zionists extremists killed 91 and injured 45 (Bell, 1977). During the famous “Battle of Algiers,” Europeans indiscriminately left bombs on beaches, in cafes, at bus stops and in soccer stadiums. Algerians as well as Europeans were often killed by this bombs. Old terrorism had an element of individualization, the victims were not chosen at random. For instance, in 1975 a terrorist known as Carlos the Jackal, attacked the OPEC conference whereby he took 70 hostages and killed three. In this example the victims that were killed were target because of their symbolic value, and it is reported that the terrorist had an escape plan that worked. Sometimes the old terrorism acted with violence with no basis, which was meant to target individuals who are symbols of what it is opposed to like bankers, head of states and diplomats. Though most of the time the old terrorism tried to target those that opposed their ideological views, casualties and who even comprised of their supporters and audience were caught in the crossfire. As the subsequent section will analyze, old terrorism didn’t use much violence as compared to new terrorism. The old terrorism tried as much as possible to be discriminative to avoid any element of innocent casualties. Conclusion In conclusion, though the definition of new and old terrorism seems to be the same in terms of some specific characteristics, there are other characteristics that have been attributed to new terrorism. Unlike the old terrorism the new terrorism is seen to be highly motivated by religious fanaticism, which was not experienced in the old terrorism. The new terrorism is indiscriminative in all dimensions, unlike old terrorism where the state supported terrorist organizations new terrorists are independent. Today technology has improved the efficiency of communication networks, new terrorists are able to recruit their supports across the globe. This is very different from old terrorism where the terrorists were only concerned and restricted within a given region. It can be said that this additional features are not entirely ‘new’ to the concept of terrorism, but a continuation of ‘old’ terrorism. It is argued that the salient feature of ‘new’ terrorism is the aspect of fanatical religious. The assertions in this paper has revealed that fanatical religious has existed in many years. Therefore, the claim that ‘new’ terrorism to a large extent religious motivated is not true rather an artificial claim. For instance the terrorist that carry out terror attacks as jihadist, their main objective is to convert states to Muslim nations which is politically motivated. Recently, the ISIS have been quoted saying it is either non-Muslims convert or pay some form of taxes. ‘New terrorism’ have been claimed to use indiscriminative violence unlike the ‘old terrorism.’ There are some occasions that the old terrorism used indiscriminative form of violence to carry out some of their terror attacks. Today just like the past, terrorism has proved to be a theatre where they want the media to cover their actions and make sure that their intentions are known. The process of recruitment but the only difference is that today technology is facilitating the process. Therefore, there is nothing new with ‘new terrorism’ it’s only the fact that dynamics of the present world force terrorist enhance the old terror tactic. References Bell, J. B., (1977) Terror out of Zion. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Combs, Cindy C. (2000) Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, 2nd Edition, London: Prentice- Hall. Fraser J. (2001). cited in Harry Henderson, Global Terrorism – The Complete Reference Guide, New York: Checkmark Books. Hirschmann, K. (2002). “Internationaler Terrorismus gestern und heute: Entwicklung, Ausrichtung, Ziele”, in Hans Frank & Kai Hirschmann, (eds.) Die weltweite Gefahr – Terrorismus als internationale Herausforderung, Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz. Horchem, H. J., (1986). “West Germany’s Red Army Anarchists” in William Gutteridge (ed.) “The New Terrorism”, London: Mansell Publishing. Jenkins, B. (1975). “International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict”, in David Carlton & Carlo. Schaerf (eds.), International Terrorism and World Security, London: Croom Helm. Kidder, R. M. (1986) “Unmasking State-Sponsored Terrorism”, Christian Science Monitor. Kumar R. & Andrew T., (2002). “The New Terrorism: Diagnosis and Prescriptions” in Andrew Tan & Kumar Ramakrishna (eds.), The New Terrorism – Anatomy, Trends and Counter- Strategies, Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Merari, A. (1993). Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency. Terrorism and Political Violence, 5(4), 213–251. Peter, W. (1998), Terrorismus – Provokation der Macht, Munich: Gerling Akademie Verlag. Simon S. & Benjamin D.,(2000). “America and the New Terrorism”, Survival, Vol.42, No. 1 Sloan, S. (2006). Terrorism: The Present Threat in Context. Oxford: Berg Publishers Read More