A Defence For Al-Qaeda - Case Study Example

A Defence for Al-Qaeda Can the indefensible be defended' For many the actions of Al-Qaeda are indefensible, represent an assault on common decency and respect for human rights, the rule of law and the rules of military engagement. Responsible for dozens of terrorist acts including the infamous hijackings of September 11th 2001, Al-Qaeda remains perhaps the most notorious terrorist network in the history of the world. Despite this, Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama Bin Laden enjoy a global following among disenfranchised and disaffected Muslims around the world. Can the actions of Al-Qaeda be defended' Seeking to address this question while providing context on the global war on terror, this analysis will explore the motivations for Al-Qaeda violence and ask whether or not theses motivations are defensible. Playing the devil's advocate, this analysis will provide justifications for the actions of Al-Qaeda and will conclude with an exploration of whether or not these justifications are in fact defensible. We now turn to an introduction to modern terror and a backgrounder on the emergence of Al-Qaeda. Following this we will explore the major motivations of Al-Qaeda and conclude as to whether or not their actions are legitimate. A Political Violence (aka "Terrorism") Primer Political violence - also referred to as terrorism - remains one of the greatest threats to global stability and world peace. Terrorist acts threaten governments, weaken economies and effectively destabilize societies. Terrorism thus has important ramifications for the nation-state as well as for the international system. Increasingly, modern terrorist groups and networks have global aims with international reach. What is a terrorist and how does one define terrorism' The age old adage that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" (Bergesen & Lizardo 39) remains true and the term terrorist has been notoriously difficult to define. Despite these challenges, a definition of terrorism is integral and must be defined to provide a theoretical basis to this essay. According to the world's foremost expert on the suicide terror phenomenon Dr. Mia Bloom, terrorism can be defined as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (Bloom 3). We can confidently say then that a terrorist is someone who engages in the act described above. Bloom's definition is comprehensive enough to guide our essay and complement our analysis of the Al-Qaeda phenomenon. Political Effects of Terror Terrorism - and the threat of terror - can have political, social, and economic ramifications. Politically, terror can sow fear, destabilize governments and provoke various forms of retaliatory measures. States of all stripes - including modern liberal democracies - have responded to terrorist threats through the curtailment of civil liberties (United States post 9/11), the imposition of martial law (Canada during the FLQ crisis of 1970) and the wholesale destruction of communities (Iraq's genocide of the Kurds in Halabja, 1988). Full-scale retaliatory measures, such as that which was practiced at Halabja using chemical weapons (between 3,000 and 5,000 people were killed one March afternoon), often indiscriminately target, kill and maim entire populations. In addition to eliciting violent and often disturbing political responses, terror can also have important repercussions for the economic well-being of a country (Haarf 64; Crelinsten 89; Nitsch & Schumacher 423-433). Economic Effects of Terror In a fascinating article entitled "Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City", it was estimated that the direct cost of this particular attack stood at between $33 billion and $36 billion to the city of New York (Orr, Bram & Rappaport 55). In addition to the direct costs associated with terrorism, terror, and the threat of further terrorism, can also harm important domestic markets. The tourism trade, which is an important sector of many modern economies, suffers as a result of terrorism - real or perceived. In their analysis of Greece, Israel, and Turkey, Drakos and Kutan found a direct correlation between terrorist acts and a drop in tourism dollars for each of these three Mediterranean economies. In fact, they estimate Israel's tourism dollar loss to be the most pronounced and in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum as a direct result of terror between 1991 and 2000, a period in which Palestinians revolted in what is now known as the First Intifada (621-641). In Israel the 21st century ushered in birth of the Second Intifada, a period characterized by extreme violence between both Palestinians and Israelis. This period in particular was witness to widespread use of the tactic of suicide bombing by key protagonists on the Palestinian side including armed groups associated with the Fatah movement, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and Hamas. The use of suicide bombing as a tactic of terror was particularly harmful to the Israeli sense of security and it also coincided with an Israeli economic downturn. In fact, key economic indicators such as GDP growth, unemployment and direct foreign investment showed signs of decline during most of the early period of the Intifada. In addition to slowed economic growth, an increase in unemployment and a retraction of direct foreign investment, the Israeli government, during this period, increased its defense spending significantly, thus adding to the already swelling Israeli pubic debt. In Israel, between 2000 and 2004, there was a direct correlation between a heightened level of terrorism, perceived threat, and a decrease in the productivity of the Israeli economy (Morag, 33-42). Introducing the Al-Qaeda Network Terrorists today are no longer hindered by national boundaries. Al-Qaeda provides perhaps the best and the most frequently sited example of the "new" global terrorist. Terrorism is now transnational with the Al-Qaeda network spawning both adherents and imitators from Jakarta to Kabul and from London to Vancouver. The Al-Qaeda network has reportedly been responsible for a myriad of attacks beginning with Yemen in 1992 and continuing today as part of the Iraqi insurgency. The Al-Qaeda network, headed by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, has mastered the use of modern technology, including the internet as well as the Middle Eastern television network Al-Jazeera, to gain adherents to their global jihad. While their demands vary - from Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories to the overthrow of the conservative monarchy in Saudi Arabia - Al-Qaeda has engaged in terror in countries as diverse as Indonesia and Britain, the United States and Tanzania, as well as the United Kingdom and Moracco, just to name a few. Its reach truly is global. In fact, this particularly insidious network of jihadists represents the most pronounced threat to global peace and international security in modern times (Burke, 18-26 & BBC 2007). Political violence perpetrated by Al-Qaeda has been motivated by a variety of geopolitical factors. These include US overt support for authoritarian dictatorships in the Middle East, American unilateralism as an explicit foreign policy goal and the persistence of the Arab-Israeli conflict as an important motivation for the political violence of Al-Qaeda. We now turn to American policy in the Middle East for more than sixty years. US Support for Dictatorships in the Middle East Support for dictatorships in the Middle East emphatically demonstrates that cold, hard geopolitical factors influence American state behavior and supersede any concern the United States may have for the promotion of human rights. Human rights abuses are routinely ignored in Egypt, where President Hosni Mubarak has resisted calls for democratic reform and remains President of the Egyptian Republic since the assassination of his predecessor Anwar Sadat in 1981. Saudi Arabia is a notorious oppressor of human rights and commits rights violations against women and religious and sexual minorities on a near daily basis. Since Saudi Arabia is one of the world's largest producers of crude oil, the United States has turned a blind eye to human rights violations and has helped propped up the theocratic Saudi monarchy since the days of Ibn Saud. The US invasion of Iraq of 2003, codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom" curiously was not undertaken following Saddam Hussein's genocide of the Kurdish minority in Halabja in 1988, nor after the violent suppression of a Shi'a insurgency following the First Gulf War. Instead US interests lie in securing the availability and continued flow of oil from one of the world's most important producers of this important natural resource. Although cloaked in rhetoric concerning the freedom of the Iraqi people, the invasion in fact has led to untold death on both sides, military occupation and a violent 5 year old insurgency. We now turn to a holistic analysis of American foreign policy with an analysis of unilateralism as an active US foreign policy objective (Bloom 33). Unilateralism as a US Foreign Policy Objective American unilateralism has been both an explicit and implicit policy of the United States for decades. Although the United States has historically been committed to multilateralism, collective decision-making and international rules of law, in recent times the United States has rejected foreign policy precedent and has engaged in direct military action on a unilateral basis. Former US President Woodrow Wilson espoused multilateralism as a cure to the world's ills and believed that concerted diplomacy, best channeled through international non-governmental organizations like the League of Nations (the precursor to today's United Nations), was the best way to avoid international conflict and violence. Collective bargaining and international coordination in global affairs has a long and storied tradition in the United States. Arguing that the rules of the game had changed in the post-Cold War and post-9/11 world, George W. Bush's famously remarked that "you are either with us or against us" and clearly articulates this policy of American unilateralism on a global scale (Skidmore 207-228). Described as part of the Bush Doctrine, this set of beliefs about the international order and world affairs paved the way for the application of unilateral military action as an important tenant of American foreign policy. A neoconservative worldview was espoused in the early years of the Bush Administration and the Bush Doctrine advocates unilateral action on the diplomatic front and justifies for preemptive war to safeguard US interests abroad. As the word implies, unilateralism allows the United States to act unilaterally in the sphere of foreign policy and diplomacy. Without a need for negotiation, consensus building or collective bargaining, the proponents of a unilateral agenda argue that the United States is less constrained in the exercise of foreign policy when it does not have to act in concert with partners. Unilateral military action has been justified in the wake of the attacks of September 11th and the most obvious case of this unilateralism was the decision by the United States to invade Iraq in 2003 after UN Security Council approval - a traditional international "seal of approval" for military action - was denied. In addition to this most obvious case scholars have traced a unilateral streak in American foreign policy since the early days of the Bush Administration when the United States butted heads with its traditional European allies on the issue of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence and the decision to ignore the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Groups such as Al-Qaeda resent US unilateralism particularly when it has implications in the Middle East, such as in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well as overt American support for the state of Israel. The Arab-Israeli Conflict Historically speaking, few places on earth share the religious importance of present-day Israel. In fact, the land of Israel has tremendous historical significance for all three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Jews revere the Wailing (Western) Wall, as the site of the Second Temple, and modern Israel as the land of Abraham and Moses. Christians from around the world look towards Bethlehem, in the present day West Bank, as the birthplace of Christ. For Muslims the Dome of the Rock is the third holiest site in Islam (after Mecca and Medina) and is revered as the place where Mohammed ascended to heaven. And finally, the ancient city Jerusalem has held mystic sway over the "peoples of the book" (Bible/Torah/Koran) for more than two millennia (see Bloom 2005). Established in the wake of the First World War and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate for Palestine began under League of Nations auspices. The Arab lands of the Middle East were partitioned between the French and British powers respectively and each was give mandatory status over the newly conquered lands of the former Ottoman Empire. France obtained title to modern day Syria and Lebanon while the British received Mandates over the territory which now encompasses the states of Iraq, Jordan and Israel. Almost immediately after the creation of the Palestine Mandate, the colonial British authorities received pressure from both Zionist Jewish organizations and indigenous Palestinian Arab groups to declare the country independent and establish either an Arab state on both sides of the Jordan River or a Jewish National Home in Palestine. After the Second World War and eager to wash its hands of the growing problems associated with a Palestinian Mandate including extreme violence on both sides of the nationalist debate and rising costs after the Second World War, the British established an independence timetable and with the new demographic balance in mind, the British began preparations to leave the Mandate in the hands of its residents. By facilitating incredible demographic changes in such a short period of time, actions of the British paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 following its War of Independence and the displacement of the Palestinian people (Brynen 19-33). A Jewish state in the Middle East remains a divisive and controversial subject. Condemned by its neighbors as an unnatural colonial implant, Israel is frequently subject to international sanction and scrutiny. The status of the Palestinian people, seemingly on the cusp of statehood not long ago, remains increasingly complex and forever unresolved. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains one of the most enduring and complex disputes of modern times. Historian Benny Morris traces the origin of this conflict to early Jewish settlement in the Ottoman region of Filastin (modern day Israel/Palestine) and the origins of the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians are important today because two key issues between the warring parties remain largely unchanged since the late ninetieth century. For more than one hundred years these two fundamental issues have driven, contributed to, and exacerbated the protracted nature of this conflict. The Western colonial legacy in modern Israel/Palestine shaped the future of the Middle East for the next sixty years. In the wake of the horrors of the Second World War, the British government took steps to establish a Jewish National Home in the territory of Mandate Palestine and directly or indirectly facilitated the establishment of the modern state of Israel. While the religious importance of the land of Israel is seeped in history, the land issue became increasingly complex with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. And while numbers vary, it is commonly accepted that between 350,000 and 1,000,000 Palestinians fled their homes or were expelled during the war of Israeli Independence in 1948. The Palestinian refugee crisis is tied to the land and the "right of return" has been an insurmountable roadblock peace between Palestinians and Israelis for the better half of six decades. Palestinian refugees account for one of the world's largest refugee communities in the world and compensation and/or the right to return has been demanded by Palestinian negotiators during the course of all attempts at negotiation. The loss of land and the "right of return" are essential components of the Palestinian collective identity and are embedded in the national consciousness of the Palestinian people (see Brynen 1990). The second major issue confronting Palestinians and Israelis are the competing nationalisms. Inextricably tied to the land, Palestinian and Israeli identities grew together and in juxtaposition of one another. Both national identities are relatively recent creations and a direct result of the nation building dialogue of the 20th century. Zionism, the belief that Jews should return and settle the ancient land of Israel, was an outgrowth of years of mistreatment of Jews in Europe, including pogroms and outright ethnic cleansing. Palestinianism - the belief that the Arab people of Palestine constitute a unique national community deserving a state of its own - grew in response to Zionist encroachment and settlement in the late ninetieth and early twentieth century. The belief that Zionism and Palestinianism are incompatible is a persistent feature of this conflict. It has also been a major impediment to any attempts at peace and a strong motivator for groups such as Al-Qaeda (BBC 2002). More than 60 years after the establishment of the state Israel, the Palestinian people remain displaced and a violent Palestinian insurgency in the semi-autonomous territories of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank continues unabated. The imperial legacy in Israel has had disastrous implications for the security of the region and the ramifications continue unabated as a political settlement to the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict seems further and further away. This exploration of the Western colonial experience in Israel/Palestine further supports the argument that overall the imperial experience in the Middle East did more to create tension and exacerbate problems than alleviate them. This conflict is an important motivator for Al-Qaeda and the plethora of sub-national violent political groups which have sprung up in the region over the past sixty years. Concluding Remarks The world forever changed the morning of September 11th 2001. The attacks on the World Center represented the most serious terrorist acts ever carried out on US soil. A watershed moment in world history, that fateful morning will forever be engrained in the American national psyche. From a political, social and economic perspective, the hijackings of 9/11 were unparalleled in scope and sheer devastation. Political scientists have been wracking their brains trying to make sense the horrific violence undertaken the morning of 9/11 and further violence inspired by global jihadists bent on taking over the world. Terrorism - and the threat of terror - can have political, social, and economic ramifications. Terrorists today are unencumbered by geographic boundaries and are able, through the use and abuse of modern technology, to sow damage and fear on a global scale. The terrorist of today is transnational and Al-Qaeda today provides perhaps the best example of a global terrorist network. This essay has charted the emergence of modern global terrorism, growth of the Al-Qaeda network and chartered the primary motivations for the political violence perpetrated by this organization. Can the actions of Al-Qaeda be defended' They can be understood in context but no, the targeting for innocents for political purposes cannot be reasonably defended. Grievances such as American support for Arab dictatorships, US unilateralism and the continued Arab-Israeli conflict are certainly legitimate and worth pondering. Despite this, Al-Qaeda engages in "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets" (Bloom 3) and thus is a terrorist organization which should be censured. Terrorism is also inherently destabilizing and wreaks havoc both politically and economically. Accordingly, Al-Qaeda remains one of the most sustained and important threats to global security and world peace. Works Cited Bergesen, Albert J. and Omar Lizardo. "International Terrorism and the World-System." Sociological Theory 22:1 (Mar., 2004): 38-52. Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. New York: Columbia University Press. Bram, Jason, Orr, James and Rapaport, Carol, "Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City." Economic Policy Review 8:2: 44-69. British Broadcasting Corporation (2007). "Investigating Al-Qaeda". Retrieved July 14, 2007 from BBC online Brynen, Rex. Sanctuary and Survival: The PLO in Lebanon. Boulder: Westview, 1990. Burke, Jason. "Al Qaeda." Foreign Policy 142 (May - June 2004): 18-26. Drakos, Konstantinos and Ali M. Kutan. "Regional Effects of Terrorism on Tourism in Three Mediterranean Countries." The Journal of Conflict Resolution 47:5 (Oct., 2003): 621-641. Morag, Nadav. "The Economic and Social Effects of Intensive Terrorism: Israel 2000-2004" The Middle East Review of International Affairs 10:3 (September 2006): 33-42. Nitsch, Volker and Dieter Schumacher. "The Economic Consequences of Terror." European Journal of Political Economy 20: 2 (June 2004): 423-433. Skidmore, David. 'Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy.' Foreign Policy Analysis, 12:3 (2005): 207-288. Read More