The Scope of Contemporary Terrorism

The Scope of Contemporary Terrorism Introductory Definition The Psychological-sociological field of inquiry stresses that the critical and main purpose of terrorism is to cultivate shock and horror whilst political goals come second to that. In opposition, political rational considers terrorist actions as cognitive methods of operation steered by the logic of acquiring various interests and attaining absolute political goals (Ganor, 2011). In attempts at understanding how varied fields of knowledge define the phenomenon of terrorism, this paper begins with the customary definition as premeditated acts of violence largely aimed at civilians, organised by non-state actors in order to obtain socioeconomic, patriotic, political, ideological or religious objectives, through inculcating fear and threats (lbid). A universal comprehension and description of terrorism is arguably an impossible reality. To that effect and to avoid been accused of complacency, the United Nations (UN) commenced the effort by ratifying the 2004 Resolution 1566 stating, “Criminal acts, including against civilians committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or taking hostages with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons intimidate a population or compel a government or an offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic religious or other similar nature and calls upon all states to prevent such acts.” UN Resolution 1566 (2004). This paper’s chief preoccupation rests on elucidating the global paradigm of terrorism of which the engineer, victims and location of the violence binds at the least, two states or actors. Following this label, Al Shabab bombardments in Nigeria would represent domestic terrorism whereas attacks by Al Qaeda in Asia would represent international terrorism. The Evolution of Terrorism The ‘reign of terror’ that ravaged the fabric of France during the 1789-1799 French Revolution is deemed to be the birthplace of contemporary terrorism. Terrorism intersected with globalisation much later from the 1880s to 1914. When a Bosnian Serb assassinated the Archduke of Austria in 1914, which is believed to have been the act that fired up the First World War, modern terrorism is debated to have crossed into a new dimension. At the moment, the human race is languishing in a series of international terrorism since it is occurring in numerous corners of the earth and it entails surpassing national boundaries (Joll, 1964 and Hoffman, 1999). Academia now recognises that the world is experiencing a new form of terrorism altogether called ‘new terrorism’ or ‘postmodern terrorism’. In this very era, terrorism is undertaking some changes including: 1) more haphazard attacks 2) increased religion-oriented ideologies 3) internationally dispersed target-centres 4) culprits of terrorism are developing into an organisational system 5) aims are more ambiguous, incomprehensible and bizarre, and 6) identifying terrorists is further convoluted. To make mention, terrorism also involves cyber terrorism, dissident terrorism, criminal terrorism and state terrorism (Bergesen and Lizardo, 2004). Levels of Analysis in Terrorism The individual level of analysis speaks to the personality, motivations and idiosyncrasies of the collection of leaders participating in terrorist and counterterrorist activities. The group and social movement level analyses clans of individuals in organised social neighbourhoods, faith-based organisations or political groups and how they design grievances, plans, policies, recruitment and military schooling. The national level is the last that evaluates the national values and economic sponsorship granted to terrorist organisations that renders countries victims of terrorism (lbid). Fourth Level of Analysis (The Global Framework of Terrorism) Comparatively evaluating modern and international terrorism reveals a cycle of proverbial tendencies .i.e. hegemonic collapse precedes globalisation, competition amongst superpowers and ultimately reactionary terrorism that was initially conceptualised in tyrannical Second Worlds. This suggests that terrorism is born out of distinctive conditions and is theorised out of the cyclical theory of the world system. A very precarious possibility is that contemporary nuclear proliferation may lead to a time when terrorists acquire nuclear weapons and unleash nuclear terrorism. Evidence lacks as to whether or not nuclear countries can conspire with terrorist groups and provide them with nuclear arms or technology. Emboldened by Iran, Hezbollah has the mandate of annihilating Israel while Hamas has the mandate of creating a sovereign Palestine. Other Middle Eastern countries hold the belief that nuclear terrorism is legitimate protection in the face of nuclear Israel. ISIL as well desires to construct a Muslim caliphate in a territory that stretches into four countries. Unlike nuclear countries, no actor can deter a nuclear terrorist (Bergesen and Lizardo, 2004). Globalisation and Islamic Terrorism Industrialisation, modernisation and currently globalisation enhance integration into a greater web of trade that threatens internal power and regional autonomy. Severe religious terrorism, herein Islamic Terrorism, guided by expanding the global execution of Sharia Law, stands as the foremost threat of international terrorism. ‘Home-grown terrorism’ functions on influencing the hearts/minds of migrant first and ensuing kinfolk of Muslims, latest Muslims and supporters, and mustering extreme radicalism in the Muslim diasporas. This type of terrorism is a serious menace to Western countries and the rest since it is exercised by their own citizens that understand a society’s weak points, move around freely, understand the language, and are assimilated into the society (Bergesen and Lizardo, 2004 and Ganor, 2011). Reviewed Analysis of Terrorism Hoffman (2006), without providing the reader with an overt definition of the phenomenon, introduces the discourse on terrorism by supplying a broad view of the structure under which terrorism functions. He proposed that terrorism be construed in similar fashion as a virus; it grows, proliferates, ravages its victims and multiplies its methods and tactics so as to avoid been eliminated. Due to advancements in globalisation, the ‘abolition’ of national borders, and enlarged interconnections, frameworks of terrorism have substantially expanded. Developments in technology, with the assistance of media power, have broadened the reach of terrorist operations to the extent of propagating their objectives and ideologies internationally. For this specific purpose, Hoffman carried out a historical comparison between media apparatuses and their effects on terrorism. He demonstrated this by citing the 9/11 September attacks that several academics contended to be representative of the commencement of contemporary terrorist strategies. Traditional terrorism studies have preferred to focus on the activities of non-liberal stateless parties, financed and directed by pariah regimes or collaborators living in the developing world, against the developed world. This is only part truth. The studies subsequently exclude state terrorism, which in combination with other likewise systems of subjugation, has remained as a perpetual instrument of foreign policy of democratic regimes in the developed world, especially the United States of America (USA/US). US subjugation during the Cold War was aggressive but the world is now witnessing the resurgence of its usage in the ‘war on terror’. There is a trio of reasons explaining the nonappearance of state terrorism in traditional studies: 1) institutional alliances, 2) research methods and how understandings of terrorism are actually utilised, and 3) how international relations marginalise unambiguous normative approaches to foreign policy (Blakeley, 2007). Regrettably, the bulk of scholarly work on terrorism is entrenched in ‘problem solving’; “problem-solving theory takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions into which they are organised, as the given framework for action” (Cox, 1981:128 in Blakeley, 2007: 229). The duty of traditional terrorism scholars is not to debate with these institutions and power connections but to examine the challenge of terrorism within the context of these institutions and power connections. In summation, Blakeley stated that governments of any size can instigate terrorism since terrorism is a technique and not a political doctrine. With such an explanation, it is only befitting that terrorism research reintegrates the state back into its studies (Blum 2003, Blakeley 2007 and Piper, 2013). Accordingly, the focus of terrorism scholarship has been tediously marked by the essence of information on insurgent violence, spread by central governments, unlike the essence of the deficiency of information on state attacks (Stohl, 2008). An additional field of study that has not experienced thorough investigation is the connection between counterterrorism measures and the follow-on increase in human rights violation and state oppression in states enlisted by the US in the war on terror. ‘Insurgent terrorists’ are regularly described to be unreachable and unidentified. Government and policymakers are not usually deemed to be unreachable and unidentified. Instead, they progressively rely more on covert operations. With such a manoeuvre, they effectively diminish their openness to retaliations. Objectives of state terrorism attacks are in short, not exposed to the public. Furthermore, since the public has easy access to public administration offices and a government is open to international pressure, state terrorism is inclined to be concealed or coordinated by military groups whose connections to the government are officially denied (lbid). An intriguing aspect about this line of thought is that Stohl succeeds in highlighting a merit not referenced by other authors; ‘insurgent terrorism and state terrorism’. This is an important component in the classification, description and interpretation of the expression ‘terrorism’. Hoffman (2006) finalised his conclusion by writing that the end of terrorism is not imminent because although technology advances, all parties can exploit it. State perpetrated terrorism equally demonstrates perennial habits. Counterterrorism measures can eradicate terrorism only if governments institute practices which certainly purge terrorist operations. Pausing right here, is it then not possible that these ‘measures’ would in turn instigate state terrorism altogether? Another author that agrees with the stipulations of Hoffman, Blakeley and Stohl is Davidsson (2014). He shed light on the fact that besides other factors, state terrorism encompasses widespread economic fees, institutionalisation of arbitrary laws, ground assaults of regions and extensive surveillance. He however, strived towards the theory of ‘false flags’. False Flag Terrorism is as well termed as ‘false flag attacks’ or ‘synthetic terrorism’. False flag attacks are covertly operated by armed groups or paramilitaries led by the objective of turning the public against a particular ‘enemy’, and are depicted to have been orchestrated by the enemy. Due to the significance of concealing the links between state institutions and the perpetrators, false flags require increased cover-up and categorisation, and are as a result, exceptionally complex (Nimmo, 2012 and Davidsson, 2014). Dolan (2016) enlightened that since false flags require the manipulation of global media coverage and the ability to coerce other countries against exposing ‘inside jobs’, few states own the assets and objectives needed to execute them. This novel modern approach is deployed as an ideological instrument to spellbind society into fearing a fabricated enemy. The approach is employed in supposed democracies where citizens think they possess unquestionable rights. Such democracies especially Israel, Britain and the US have to scare their citizens into geopolitical and socio-political agreement, so that they can implement sophisticated modern disinformation and extensive clandestine operations. Global Research published an article in 2015 which was supported by (in)famous conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, which asserted that authentic false flag attacks have transpired regardless of the common dismissal of ‘conspiracy theory’. For example, the US falsely blamed Iraq for collaborating with Al Qaeda during the 9/11 attacks in order to provide a justification for their 2003 invasion. The 9/11 Commission went on to admit that no collaboration took place. Of all government systems/ideologies, terrorism challenges democracies the most. Liberalism rules that the population must adopt laws that do not enforce inequality on social castes because of their religion, ethnic or racial classifications. Liberal democratic principles like these essentially limit the measures that states can enact in their fight against terror. But if terrorism boils into a nuisance, states are pressured by huge public outrage demanding them to employ all means necessary to obliterate the vice, and this may come at the expense of libelling and harming national democratic values (Ganor, 2011). Also, depression in the economy of a hegemon provokes protective military approaches to preserve what would ordinarily have been guaranteed by economic prowess. Bergesen and Lizardo (2004) wrote that hegemonic demise destabilises global peace and bursts of international terrorism suggest at erupting when the global superpower is collapsing, thus far making international terrorism emblematic of world chaos. The collapse of a hegemon hence signals a World War (lbid). Not forgetting, economic dissatisfaction created by high unemployment rates and lack of opportunities frustrates youths into joining terrorist organisations as sources of financial security, with their families been assured of benefits even after the death of their suicide ‘martyr’. Conclusion Given the subjectivity, complexity and clandestine disposition of terrorism, an absolute universally accepted definition of terrorism is debatably an impossible feat. That does not however, imply that scholars from various schools of thought cannot arrive at a working definition. This paper has traced the academic record and development of terrorism believed to have originated in France in the 18 th century during the French Revolution. Amongst all the forms of and literature on terrorism, it was discovered that religion-oriented terrorism performed as home-grown terrorism in liberal democracies stands as the utmost threat to both national and global security. Coupled with that is the menacing prospect of terrorists gaining access to nuclear arms and finally unleashing nuclear terrorism. Most importantly, this paper incisively extracted the existence of state terrorism that orthodox terrorism scholarship neglected as it only paid attention to non-state actors. Moreover, false flag terrorism was divulged. Ultimately, humanity finds itself in an enigmatic actuality where the end of terrorism is not in sight because as the world, globalisation and technology develop, all actors of terrorism can exploit that. Word Count: 2,244 Bibliography Bergesen, A.J., and Lizardo, M. (2004). “International Terrorism and the World-System.” Sociological Theory. 22 (1). Pg. 38-52. Blakeley, R. (2007). ‘Bringing the State Back into Terrorism Studies.’ European Political Science. 6 (3). Pg. 228-235. Blum, W. (2003). Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. London. Zed Books. Davidsson, E. (2014). Review of Bruce Hoffman’s ‘Inside Terrorism’. MWC News. Available on http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/38509-bruce-hoffman-inside-terrorism.html. Accessed on 3rd August, 2016. Dolan, R. (2016). “Understanding False Flag Operations in Our Time.” Global Research. Available on http://www.globalresearch.ca/understanding-false-flag-operations-in-ourtime/5506139. Accessed on 3rd August, 2016. Ganor, B. (2011). The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle: A Guide for Decision Makers. New Brunswick, Canada. Transaction Publishers. Global Research Report. “False Flag Attacks. Historically Documented”. Available on https://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-attacks-historically-documented/5428849. Accessed on 3rd August, 2016. Hoffman, B. (1999). Inside Terrorism. New York. Columbia University Press. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. Revised and Expanded Edition. New York. Columbia University Press. Joll, J. (1964). The Anarchists. London. Eyre & Spottiswoode. Nimmo, K. (2012). “A Brief History of False Flag Attacks: Or Why Government Loves State Sponsored Terror.” Available on https://www.infowars.com/a-brief-history-of-false- flag-attacks-or-why-government-loves-state-sponsored-terror/. Accessed on 3rd August, 2016. Piper, M.C., (2013). False Flags: Template for Terror. Washington DC. American Free Press. Stohl, M. (2008). ‘The Global War on Terror and State Terrorism’. Terrorism Research Initiative. 2 (9). United Nations Resolution 1566 of 2004. “Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) on Threats to International Peace and Security Caused By Terrorist Acts”. Available on https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/blog/document/security-council-resolution-1566-2004-onthreats-to-international-peace-and-security-caused-by-terrorist-acts/. August, 2016. Accessed on 3rd