Why Western States Become so Concerned about the Security Threat from International Terrorism - Assignment Example

Please just send a message if you need anything. Thanks Terror, Western Governments and the Media Why Western states become so concerned about the security threat from international terrorism? Introduction Western states appear so concern about the security threat from international terrorism particularly after 9/11. Some of the most popular reasons provided are eliminating the world with evil, protection from ungodly and barbaric individuals who knows no law and boundaries, and shield against the menace of democracy and freedom. However, although these reasons seem appropriate, there is more profound explanation about this behaviour. These include the importance of state legitimacy, social order, and the impact of mediated spectacle of abject violence on public perception and decision-making in government. The following discusses the nature of terrorism and its impact on social order, social disorder and destruction of state legitimacy, mediated spectacle of abject violence and the role of media in public psychological conditioning and global dissemination of state’s perspective on terrorism, and the relationship between the need to sustain legitimacy and overwhelming concern over international terrorism. The Nature of Terrorism There exist a significant disagreement on the meaning of terrorism but literature on terrorism such as Black (2004) “The Geometry of Terrorism” generally suggest that it is premeditated, inflict mass violence on civilians, intended to influence a certain audience, unlawful, and carried out to achieve either political, religious, or ideological objectives (p.16). Moreover, based on known incidents such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, terrorism is not merely a crime but a form of social control and coercion against a specific nation-state. Terrorism also differs from vengeance or rebellion as both requires direct aggression against an authority. In 9/11 and other known terrorist attacks around the world, terrorism is an act indirectly challenging a nation-state who in a way intruded in their territory and way of life (ibid, 17). By analysis, considering Donald Black’s explanation of pure terrorism put 9/11 terrorist attack as an inter-collective action against the United States that is socially superior and a powerful state (Black, 2004, p.18-19). Moreover, since such attack is targeting the social order that the state established (ibid, p.5), there is a strong possibility that terrorist is destabilising state legitimacy in providing a just and safe social system. Social Disorder and Legitimacy of the State The legitimacy of the state seems to play an important role in establishing and maintaining a certain social order. For instance, according to Esch (2010), America established itself as an exceptional and a morally upright state ready to challenge any form of barbarism and ungodly deeds (p.358). Although this American image is widely considered a myth in American political culture, this idealistic image enable the United States to morally justify its military aggression around the world (ibid, 358). For instance, it is a common knowledge that before 9/11, the United States has been involved in different wars and most of them were outside American soil such as the Gulf War in the 1990s. This behaviour is somewhat connected to this political myth where military intervention and intrusion is considered a moral obligation and self-fulfilling prophecy (ibid, 364). By analysis, such myth brought the United States both positive and negative consequences. Positive in the sense it has indeed framed the world’s perception and control political behaviour of the American society. According to Esch (2010), going to war requires social willingness (p.363) and this was acquired a number of times through this political myth by emphasizing the obligation of America to eliminate the world with evil. For instance, labelling someone as communist creates an idea that he or she is an enemy of the United States thus eliminating the threat is morally acceptable. The same political myth granted America its right to extend its influence by force as a manifestation of its destiny. For instance, Esch (2010), explanation of the term “Manifest Destiny” suggest that America actually used this myth to justify their territorial expansion in the latter part of 19th century. Similarly, it also drives the United States to spread freedom and democracy persistently in other parts of the world including the Middle East (p.365). The negative effect however is terrorism because not all people believed in this myth and comfortable with the idea that they have to give up their sovereignty, culture, religion, and traditional way of life just because America is allegedly a “chosen nation” with a superior social order (Esch, 2010, p.366). Logically, there is no reason for Osama bin Laden to attack the United States if the latter has not done anything wrong. For instance, Osama bin Laden accused the United States of being part of Christian and Jewish crusade against Islam (Black, 2004, p.17) which by analysis has something to do with American political myth particularly the mission to defend good against evil (Esch, 2010, p.387). It should be noted that after 9/11, the American media themselves framed the incident as a civilisation-based conflict where the “barbaric culture” is working against American democracy and freedom. Some headlines even called the attack “about Islam”, “religious war”, “diffusing the holy bomb”, “collision of alien cultures”, “battle field of the souls” (ibid, 381) while different TV networks in the US add more to public depression by linking 9/11 to Pearl Harbour (Nacos, 2012, p.310). The Bush administration on the other hand was also very remarkable in saying that terrorist hate creative, lively and joyful societies because they are barbarians with barbarous cause (ibid, 382). Moreover, although the United States repeatedly denied the link between faith and its war on terror, continually depoliticising the motivations of the terrorist attack, and attributing terrorism to few barbaric individuals, there is still a bright line of demarcation on who is “US” and “THEM” , “the righteous WE” and the “barbarians” making the political myth more evident. It is also evident that the terrorist attack, 9/11 in particular, was not merely a barbaric act as what the Bush administration was trying to introduce in the hearts and minds of the American society but obliteration of state legitimacy in providing unity, security, and order. For instance, political experts view 9/11 as a turning point in the United State social and political relations brought about by political disorientation (Mythen & Walklate, 2006, p.126). It has constituted to some form of universal transgression with historical significance, culturally omnipresent phenomenon, old fashioned act of terror perpetrated by a group with unrestrained hatred, and symptomatic of the need to think of security in the years to come (ibid, 126). Apparently, the attack was successful in creating a climate of fear as evidenced by a number of terrorism-related political decisions and increasing spending on national security. For instance, stung by 9/11, the British government hurriedly passed anti-terrorism legislations, launched public awareness campaign about terrorist threat, and improved their national security measures (ibid, 127). According Gabe Mythen and Sandra Walklate, miscommunication between the public and state can lead to “culture of distrust” (p.128) and therefore closely associated with preserving the legitimacy of the state in providing unity, security, and order. Moreover, 9/11 and the London bombing were successful in weakening the legitimacy of the state as public demand for transparency and dialogue about risk issues (ibid, 128). The way people respond to terrorist attack is not determined by the scale of the disaster but by the incident itself (ibid, 131). On the other hand, cultural, political, economic, and social issues often determine the meaning of terrorist attacks rather than the people involved. For instance, 9/11 is undoubtedly a culturally significant event thus cultural values are used to stir emotions and establish public point of reference. Here, terrorists are framed as agents of chaos, enemies of freedom, and people associated with radical Islam championing an ideology of terror and death (ibid, 132). Analysis of US and UK government responses against terrorism suggest that both state are much aware of the impact of these attacks on their legitimacy. The awareness campaign, post-9/11 rhetoric, framing terrorist as menace of democracy and freedom, war on terror, and others except terrorist political motivations are measures to recover trust deficit. Moreover, dissemination of information not only satisfies public demand for transparency but opportunity for the state to demonstrate that it is in control, operating efficiently, and prepared to any terrorist threat (ibid, 128). Clearly, Western states are so concern about international terrorism because they do not want to lose their legitimacy as a guardian of social order and unity. However, transforming society’s perception of terrorism and winning back their trust is not an easy task particularly when media is creating a culture of terror at the same time. Mediated spectacle of abject violence Study conducted by Roy & Ross (2011) about media commentary of terror events suggest that media plays an important role in creating a culture of terror (p.290). For instance, media is often quick in disseminating messages about terrorism and most of the time, they determine which is a terror event or not (ibid, 290). According to the same study, media commentaries of terror events are so influential that they inspire states decisions and responses to terrorism. In the United States for instance, media’s description of terrorism generate “politics of fear” (ibid, 290) and demonizing terrorist (ibid, 291). Global media on the other hand is very effective in portraying terrorism as “absolute evil” thus erasing the root causes of terrorism in the public mind (ibid, 290). By analysis, these negative media descriptions of terrorism particularly when supported by visual images of abject violence can excite fear and distrust about the legitimacy of government. For instance, calling terrorist as elements of absolute evil can send the wrong message that it is hopeless to fight them or intensify demand for government (which everyone think has not done enough) action and assurance. Similarly, responses developed using media commentaries may not be appropriate approach as these commentaries may be exaggerated and delivered with a different agenda in mind. For instance, media commentaries may be systematically developed to increase patronage of a particular media or use terrorism as vehicle to discredit a particular regime by exaggerating terrorist capabilities and lapses in the state’s intelligence and national security strategies. Clearly, mediated spectacle of violence can result public hysteria that is consequential to state’s diminishing legitimacy in terms of social order and security. Western media on the other hand is somewhat useful in helping the state retain its legitimacy despite mediated spectacle of terrorism. For instance, western media have the tendency to align their perspective within the context of US War on Terror and therefore often label terrorist as evil and victims as innocent and inherently good people (ibid, 291). The media in the process seems to distorts and suppress the flow of information about the true nature of terrorism or the causes of terrorism that may be useful in developing appropriate responses and went along with the Bush administration’s point of view (ibid, 291). In terms of legitimacy and social order, this media behaviour is advantageous to the state as although there still mediated spectacle of violence, the effect is not hysteria but vision of a secure society through pre-emption and elimination of threat. According to Heng (2006), Bush administration’s “War on Terror” captured the public imagination and legitimised the concept of stable globalised world by spreading democracy and reduction of security threats that primarily include pre-emptive attacks on suspected terrorist (p.72). Apparently, this public psychological conditioning cannot be achieved without the influence of media, which in this case heightened the need for security and pre-emptive actions, by portraying terrorist as evil individuals victimising innocent and good American civilians. However, the power of media in intensifying concerns over international terrorism around the world seems infinite, its impact still depend on local assumption. Hodges (2010) examination of discursive constructions of global war and terror suggest that Bush administrations discourses on War on Terror are actually being adapted in Serbia. Young Serbians who were part of the study seems to identify themselves as representatives of the West and see their enemy as those described by Western media. For instance, these Serbian consider Islamic terrorism as their enemy and associate Muslim terrorist in 9/11 with those in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia. Moreover, since the Bush administration through global media seems to describe terrorism as all-violent acts committed beyond 9/11, the Serbians also label it as such and see themselves in the right side of the line drawn by the Bush administration to separate the good from evil or those “with us or against us” (p.310). Sustaining State Legitimacy and Overwhelming Concern over International Terrorism The demarcation between good and evil resulted to counter-terrorist strategies not only in the West but also in other parts of the world. This went as far as singling out fundamentalist Islamist ideology as one seeking destruction of Western society, reforms in international relations, change in national security priorities and range of international aid provided to Muslim countries (Howell & Lind, 2010, p.280). Although there were media commentaries and releases supporting reconciliation and emphasizing the different between peaceful Muslims and fundamentalists, divisive voices prevail over them (ibid, 311). The problem is further intensified with the West new conception of war which according to Heng (2006) globalised risk and made it a main security concern (p.70). Here, the war on terrorism is conceived as extremely different from conventional notions of war that does not require anticipatory actions (ibid, 72). This new concept of war have been communicated to the public through media which according to Mythen & Walklate (2006) resulted to further insecurity, fear, and uncertainty (p.123). More importantly, since such communication of terrorist threat is somewhat ill conceived, confusing, and inconsistent, it had concealed the failures and lapses in the security duties of the state (ibid, p.124). Analysis of these developments in the war against terrorism shows numerous attempts of the Western states to sustain their legitimacy. For instance, while media is using the spectacle of violence to please their audience, the states is riding along with their new concept of terrorism to conceal their lapses and inability to protect their people. Conceiving the 9/11 and subsequent terrorist attacks as new form of terrorism seems a grand strategy to justify states unpreparedness and hide the root causes of terrorism. Logically, admitting intelligence failure is not a good idea since this will likely result to widespread public distrust. Similarly, admitting that this type of terrorism is traditional will likely result to further embarrassment and public scrutiny of the root causes and state’s role in intensifying this hatred. Western states somewhat overwhelming concern over security threat posed by international terrorist appears as a face saving measures rather than counter-terrorism approach. This is evident in the Western states attitude towards the actual impact of counter-terrorism on individual freedom and human rights. For instance, suspected terrorist were detained without trial, torture, and deprived of their basic rights as prisoners (Howell & Lind, 2010, p.280) which in essence is mere show of force in the aftermath of 9/11. It should be noted that US President Barack Obama rejected the term “War on Terror” in 2009, closed the Guantanamo Detention Facility, and initiated peaceful talks with the Muslim (ibid, 281). In other words, if the overwhelming concern over international terrorism is indeed a matter of national security then why the administration after Bush reject it. Is Barack Obama not troubled by another terrorist attack? No because unlike Bush, President Obama do not need to protect his reputation and legitimacy to the world. Another face saving measure is evident in the relentless demonization of terrorist in Western media that as mentioned earlier has the tendency to align with the logic of Western states “War on Terror”. By analysis, these coordinated efforts have two important benefits for the state namely continued state legitimacy and preservation of unity and social order. Conclusion Western states overwhelming concern about the security threat from international terrorism is influenced by several factors. First, there is a need for Western states to protect their legitimacy. Second, terrorism is undoubtedly destructive and a threat to Western societies. Third, mediated spectacle of abject violence is so convincing thus, public demand for action is far more intense. Terrorism is not merely a crime but a form of social control and coercion against the legitimacy of the state. Terrorism is the product of the United States idealistic image, political myth, economic supremacy, and military aggression around the world. State legitimacy entails maintaining unity and social order thus experiencing disastrous attacks similar to 9/11 negatively affect this legitimacy. An illegitimate state cannot rule and therefore it must be concern with issues affecting the social order such as international terrorism which Western states view as exceptional and unique. Bibliography Black D, (2004), The Geometry of Terrorism, Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium (March 2004), pp. 14-25 Esch J, (2010), Legitimizing the “War on Terror”: Political Myth in Official Level Rhetoric, Political Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 357-389 Heng Y.K, (2006), The ‘Transformation of War’ Debate: Through the Looking Glass of Ulrich Beck’s World Risk Society, International Relations, Vol. 20 (1) : 69-91 Hodges A, (2010), Discursive Constructions of Global War and Terror, The Handbook of Language and Globalization, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 305-320 Howell J. & Lind J, (2010), Securing the World and Challenging Civil Society: Before and After the “War on Terror”, Development and Change, 41 (2), pp.279-291 Mythen G. & Walkate S, (2006), Communicating the terrorist risk: Harnessing a culture of fear, Crime Media Culture, Vol. 2 (2), pp. 123-142 Nacos B, (2009), Greater and Lesser Evils in the War on Terrorism and Beyond, International Studies Review 2012, 14, pp. 308-313 Roy S. & Ross S, (2011), The Circle of Terror: Strategic Localizations of Global Media Terror Meta-Discourses in the US, India, and Scotland, Media, War, & Conflict, 4 (3), pp. 287-301 Read More