Terrorism And Globalization

act of act of act of terrorism And GlobalizationDefining act of act of terrorismThe terrorist phenomenon has a yearn and varied history, punctuated by lively debates over the meaning of the term. The term itself has un hold backingly been a troublesome integrity to define. This is partly because the term has evolved over the days and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective. Generally accosting, the targets of the terrorists be non the victims who be killed or injured in the attack. The terrorists hope to aim a re implement ofttimes(prenominal) as fear, repulsion, intimidation, overreaction, or al-Qaidaization. Terrorism is mean to be a matter of perception and is thus seen dis quasi(prenominal)ly by different observers.The problem of defining terrorism has hindered analysis since the inception of studies of terrorism in the earlier mid-seventies. One arrange of problems is due to the fact that the belief of terro rism is deeply contested. The use of the term is often polemical and rhetorical. stock-still if the term is use objectively as an analytical tool, it is still difficult to arrive at a satisfactory definition that distinguishes terrorism from different violent phenomena. Generally speaking, terrorism is deliberate and schemaatic violence performed by piffling heels of put up, whereas communal violence is spontaneous, sporadic, and requires mass participation. The purpose of terrorism is to intimidate a watching habitual audience by harming except when a few, whereas genocide is the elimination of entire communities. Terrorism is meant to hurt. Terrorism is preeminently policy-making and symbolic, where as guerrilla warf ar is a military activity. repressive terror from above is the action of those in tycoon, whereas terrorism is electrical resistance to authority. nevertheless in practice, even outts green goddessnot incessantly be precisely categorized.A few supe rior generalizations go offister be made virtually terrorism that differentiates it from the articulates use of force. First, terrorism almodal values has a political nature. It requires the occurrence of outrageous acts that will lead to political change.Second, it is the nonstate character of terrorism that differentiates it from the many other uses of violence that ar inherently political such as war among states-even when terrorists receive military, political, economic, and other bureau of support from state sources. States obviously employ force for political ends When state force is used externally, it is con locatingred an act of war when it is used domestically, it is called various things, including fairness enforcement, state terror, oppression, or civil war. Although states can terrorize, they are not specify as terrorists.Third, it is broadly speaking the innocent that break down the target of terrorism. This besides distinguishes it from state. In any given example, the latter may or may not be seen as justified but this use of force is different from terrorism.Finally, state use of force is subject to supra content norms and conventions that may be invoked or at least consulted. Terrorists, on the other hand, do not abide by universewide laws or norms. In fact, in exhibition to maximize the psychological effect of an attack, the terrorist activities make a deliberately unorthodox quality.Thus, generally speaking, terrorism can be give tongue to to cede the next characteristics a fundamentally political nature, the surprise element (use of violence against obviously random targets), and the targeting of the innocent by nonstate actors.Even at bottom the terms of these general characteristics, the practice of terrorism is highly divers(a). The idealual category of terrorism encompasses a wide variety of phenomena, ranging from kidnappings of individuals (in order to pressure governments to agree to specific political deman ds) to indiscriminate mass-casualty flunkings of high-profile symbolic targets. Terrorism occurs in widely different ethnic backdrops.OriginsTerrorism is as old as human history. Modern terrorism, however, is generally considered to spend a penny originated with the French Revolution. The term terror was front employed in 1795, when it was coined to refer to a policy systemically used to protect the French state government against counterrevolutionaries. Modern terrorism is a dynamic concept, from the outset pendent to some degree on the political and historical context within which it has been employed.Although individual terrorist groups view as unique characteristics and arise in specific topical anesthetic contexts, an examination of broad historical patterns reveals that the world-wideist system within which such groups are born does influence their nature and wants. A distinguishing feature of recent terrorism has been the connection amid political or ideological concepts and change magnitude levels of terrorist activity foreignly. The broadpolitical aim has been against (1) empires, (2) colonial powers, and (3) the U.S.- led outside(a) system marked by orchisalisation. Thus it is important to understand the general history of novelistic terrorism and where the current threat is within an international context.David Rapoport has described modern terrorism as part of a sacredly inspired fourth curl up. This wave, according to him, follows three anterior historical word forms in which terrorism emerged in relation to the breakup of empires, decolonization, and leftist anti- horse operaism. Rapoport argues that terrorism occurs in consecutive if somewhat overlapping waves. The argument here, however, is that modern terrorism has been a power struggle a dour various scales central power versus topical anaesthetic power, big power versus small power, modern power versus traditional power. The draw variable is a widespread perceptio n of hazard, combined with a severance in a particular political or ideological paradigm. Thus, even though the saucyest international terrorist threat, emanating largely from Muslim countries, has to a greater consummation of ghost homogeneous inspiration, it is to a greater extent(prenominal) accurate to see it as part of a larger phenomenon of anti- world-wideization and accent amidst the have and have-not nations, as well as between the elite and underprivileged within those nations.In the ordinal century, the emergence of concepts such as universal suffrage and popular empowerment raised the hopes of people throughout the western world, indirectly resulting in the first phase of modern terrorism. In Russia, for example, it was stimulated not by state repression but by the efforts of the czars to placate demands for economic and political reforms, and the inevitable disappointment of popular expectations that were raised as a result. The goal of terrorists was to enga ge in attacks on symbolic targets to get the attention of the common people and thus provoke a popular response that would ultimately overturn the prevailing political order. This reference of modern terrorism was reflected in the activities of groups such as the Russian Narodnaya Volya (Peoples Will) and later in the development of a series of lawsuits in the United States and Europe, especially in territories of the motive poove Empire.The dissolution of empires and the search for a youthful distribution of political power provided an opportunity for terrorism in the nineteenth and twentieth century. It climaxed in the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, an event that catalyzed the major powers into pickings violent action. World War I, the result of the assassination can be said to have ended the first era of modern terrorism. scarcely terrorism tied to popular movements seeking greater democratic government agency and political power from coerciv e empires had not ceased. For example, the Balkans, after the downfall of the former state of Yugoslavia.A second, related phase of modern terrorism is associated with the concept of national self-determination. It can be said to have developed its greatest predominance after World War I. It also delays to the present day. These struggles for power are another facet of terrorism against larger political powers and are specifically designed to win political independence or autonomy.Terrorism achieved an international character during the seventies and mid-eighties, evolving in part as a result of technological advances and partly in reaction to the dramatic flare-up of international media influence. world(prenominal) colligate were not idea, but their centrality was. Individual, scattered national causes began to develop into international organizations with links and activities increasingly across borders and among differing causes. The 1970s and 1980s represented the height of state-sponsored terrorism. Sometimes the lowest common denominator among the groups was the concept against which they were reacting-for example, westward imperialism- rather than the specific goals they desire. The close important innovation, however, was the increasing commonality of international connections among the groups. After the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre of eleven Israeli athletes, for example, the Palestinian Liberation establishment (PLO) and its associated groups captured the imaginations of young radicals most the world.AN EARLIER WAVE OF TERRORISMWhile globalisation is for many a causal variable generating wince and resistance, in that location also have been ahead waves of globalization. If terrorism and globalization appear together today, it is practicable that terrorism and globalization co-appeared during an front period that ran from the 1880s to 1914. Associated with the idea of propaganda by deed, Russian, Italian, Spanish, French, the States n, Serbian, and Macedonian terrorists were involved in a period of assassination and bomb throwing from the Russian and Ottoman Empires to the east through the Austrian Empire and Western Europe to the United States in the west. In Serbia, thither was the Black egest in Russia, Narodnaya Volya, or Peoples Will among Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs, the Young Bosnians and the Narodna Obrana, or the Peoples Defense. Terrorists from one surface area also killed people from another. While the contemporary period is k presentlyn as one of international terrorism, in that location are open air grounds for considering the nihilist period as one that also had international or global aspects.Some scholars have made comparisons between figures like bin ladle and late 19th-century Russian terrorists. Similarities in the political religion of their ideologies, the diasporic-or transnational-nature of both sets of terrorists who often resided and planned attacks abroad, and the similarity of g lobal political economic conditions at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries have been noted. If al-Qaeda is a reaction to American empire, as few scholars argue, then one could see earlier terrorist resistance in the form of pre-1914 terrorist groups attacking the empires of their day (the Serbian Black snuff it versus the Austrian Empire Inner Macedonian Revolutionary Organization versus the Ottoman Empire and the terrorists of Narodnaya Volya versus the Tsarist Russian Empire). In the case of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, a comparison with the Sudanese revolt of the Mahdi in the 1880s against the British Empire and bin load against the United States has been made. Some note a similarity between the plague of London as the financial boil down of world capitalism at the end of the 19th century and the hatred by fanatical Muslims today of the dominance of Wall Street and the Pentagon.Since the kinfolk 11 attacks, the world has witnessed the maturation of a in the altoget her phase of terrorist activity, the jehad era, spawned by the Iranian Revolution of 1979 as well as the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan shortly thereafter. The powerful attraction of religious and apparitional movements has overshadowed the nationalist or leftist radical ethos of earlier terrorist phases (though many of those struggles continue), and it has wrench the central characteristic of a suppuration international hack.Religious terrorism is not recent rather it is a continuation of an ongoing modern power struggle between those with power and those without it. What is different about this phase is the urgent requirement for solutions that deal both with the religious fanatics who are the terrorists and the far more politically motivated states, entities, and people who would support them because they feel uneffective and left behind in a globalizing world. Thus if there is a trend in terrorism, it is the public of a two-level challenge the hyper religious motivation of small groups of terrorists and the much broader enabling environment of bad governance, nonexistent well-disposed services, and poverty that punctuates much of the developing world. Al-Qaeda, a band driven by religious extremism, is able to do so much harm because of the subaltern support and sanctuary it receives in vast areas that have not undergo the political and economic benefits of globalization.There are four types of terrorist organizations that can said to be currently operating around the world, categorized of importly by their source of motivation left-wing terrorists, right-wing terrorists, ethno nationalist/separatist terrorists, and religious or sacred terrorists. All four types have enjoyed periods of relative bump in the modern era, with left-wing terrorism intertwined with the Communist movement, right-wing terrorism drawing its inspiration from Fascism, and the bulk of ethno nationalist/separatist terrorism serial the wave of decolonization especially in t he immediate post-World War II years. Currently, sacred terrorism is becoming more significant. Although groups in all categories continue to exist today, left-wing and right-wing terrorist groups were more numerous in earlier decades. Of course, these categories are not perfect, as many groups have a cockle of motivating ideologies-some ethno nationalist groups, for example, have religious characteristics or agendas-but usually one ideology or motivation dominates.NEW TERRORISMFollowing incidents such as the assail of the twin towers in 1993, U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998, and the attacks on the Pentagon and WTC in cc1, the conventional belief of researchers and commentators on terrorism was that the world had entered a unexampled phase since the 1990s that departed dramatically from what had kaput(p) before. It variously was called the new terrorism or spoken of as involving new types of post-cold war terrorists or a new breed of terrorist or new generation of terrorists or terror in the mind of theology or a clash of fundamentalisms or simply a new wave of terrorism. In these analyses terrorism seemed to be changing in some of the following(a) ways.Several recent works focus on a new terrorism that is motivated by religious belief and is more fanatical, deadly, and permeative than the older and more instrumental forms of terrorism the world had grown change to. This emerging new terrorism is ruling to differ from the old terrorism in terms of goals, methods, and organization. The comparison goes roughly as follows.Whereas the old terrorists sought short-term political power through revolution, national liberation, or secession, the new terrorists seek to transform the world. Motivated by religious imperatives, they are thought to lack an earthly constituency and thus to feel accountable only to a deity or to some transcendental or mystical idea. stuffy left-right ideological distinctions are not applicable. Because they do not want popular suppo rt, they are unlikely to claim public credit for their actions. Also, new terrorists are thought to be more inclined to use highly fatal methods in order to destroy an impure world and tot about the apocalypse. The strategies of the old terrorists were discriminating terrorism was a form of communicating a specific message to an audience. In the new terrorism, limitless ends lead to unlimited means. Thus the new terrorists seek to cause high numbers of casualties and are willing to commit felo-de-se or use weapons of mass decease in order to do so.Finally, whereas traditional militants were linked in tight, centralized, structured conspiracies, the organization of the new terrorists is decentralized and diffuse. Adherents are united by common experience or inspiration rather than by direct individualized interaction with other members of the group and its leaders. Institutions and organizations are less important than beliefs. An earlier and more violent historical antecedent of the conception of a new terrorism is anti-Western terrorism originating in the place East that is linked to radical or fundamentalist Islam. This concern dates from the 1980s and terrorism attributed to the Shiite Hezbollah action in Lebanon. Alarm over the emergence of radical Islam (which is a small minority of the Muslim world) was heightened by a combination of factors the resort to suicide bombings in Lebanon and Israel, a general willingness to inflict mass civilian casualties, and anti-Americana and anti-Western targeting patterns. The bombing of the World shift Center in 1993 as well as the bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 further increased the American disposition of vulnerability.Trends in Modern TerrorismBy the late 1990s, four trends in modern terrorism were becoming apparent an increase in the incidence of religiously motivated attacks, a decrease in the overall number of attacks, an increase in the lethality per attack, and the gr owing targeting of Americans. Statistics show that, even before the kinsfolk 11 attacks, religiously motivated terrorist organizations were becoming more common. The acceleration of this trend has been dramatic According to the RAND-St. Andrews University Chronology of transnational Terrorism, in 1968 none of the identified international terrorist organizations could be classified as religious in 1980, in the wake of the Iranian Revolution, there were 2 (out of 64), and that number had expanded to 25 (out of 58) by 1995.Another important trend relates to terrorist attacks involving U.S. targets. The number of such attacks increased in the 1990s, from a low of 66 in 1994 to a high of 200 in the year 2000. This is a long-established problem U.S. nationals consistently have been the most targeted since 1968. But the portionage of international attacks against U.S. targets or U.S. citizens rose dramatically over the 1990s, from about 20 percent in 1993-95 to almost 50 percent in 200 0.In addition to the evolving motivation and character of terrorist attacks, there has been a notable dispersal in the geography of terrorist acts-a trend that is likely to continue. Although the Middle East continues to be the locus of most terrorist activity, Central and South Asia, the Balkans, and the Transcaucasus have been growing in significance over the past decade. International connections themselves are not new International terrorist organizations inspired by common revolutionary principles date to the early nineteenth century and complex inner ears of funding, arms, and other state support for international terrorist organizations were in place especially in the 1970s and 1980s.Terrorism Becoming GlobalNewer terrorist organizations seemed to have moved away from the earlier model of professionally trained terrorists operating within a hierarchic organization with a central command chain and toward a more loosely coupled form of organization with a less clear organizat ional structure. Similarly, whereas from the 1960s through the 1980s groups more clearly were intimidate nationally (German, Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Irish, Palestinian, and so forth), more recent organizations like al-Qaeda have members from multiple nationalities and organizational sites outside the leaderships country of origin.The identities of terrorist organizations have become more difficult to identify. Terrorist organizations also seem to identify themselves or to claim obligation for specific acts less often, such as the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa or the events of September 11, which while purportedly organized by bin Laden and al-Qaeda, never clearly were claimed by that organization. This is in contrast with earlier terrorist organizations, which were much clearer in taking responsibility for their actions and defining who they were, often with elaborate radical political ideologies.Terrorist ideologies have become more religious. What has been called t he new religious terrorism or holy terrorism reflects the increasing prevalence of religion in the ideology of terrorist organizations, with the most notable being Islamic fundamentalism, or political Islam, and also including Christian fundamentalism or the religious sect Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese terrorist group that released poisonous gas in a Tokyo metro in 1995. There also seems to be an increase in groups with more vague and religious ideologies than earlier radical groups such as the German deprivation Army Faction, the Italian exit Brigades, or the Japanese Red Army.Terrorist violence becomes more indiscriminate. Along with a geographical dispersion of targets, there seems to be a move away from specific targets, for instance as when hundreds of civilian Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy employees and passersby were killed to achieve the objective of bombing the U.S. embassy. The 1993 and 2001 attacks of the WTC were also examples of more indiscriminate targets, as opposed to earlier skyjacking of a national airlines plane in order to attain specific demands or the kidnapping a particular politician.On reflecting upon these changes, many of them suggest the summons of globalization raising the question of whether terrorism, like other economic, cultural, and political aspects of brio also is globalizing. Arguments about a growing dispersion and indiscriminateness of terrorist violence also express a disregard for national boundaries and, as such, a growing global, as opposed to national, character of terrorism.GLOBALIZATION AND TERRORISMSome scholars get word the link between globalization and terrorism in a causal fashion globalization generates a backlash or resistance that can take the form of terrorist attacks on national powers in the forefront of the globalization processes. In this regard, some see terrorism as a defensive, reactionary, movement against global forces of cultural and economic change. Industrialization then and globalization wit hout delay involve integrating into a larger web of economic proceedings that threatens local authority and sense of place. The result is defensive, reactionary mobilization, manifested in European food riots then and Middle Eastern terrorism now. In their article, International Terrorism and the World System, Albert J. Bergesen and Omar Lizardo have formulated a number of theories and bring forth the links between globalization and terrorism.World-System TheoryWhile world-system theorists usually are concerned with questions of development and underdevelopment, they have advanced similar ideas regarding globalization and terrorism. Chase-Dunn and. Boswell in Transnational Social Movements and Democratic Socialist Parties in the Semiperiphery speak of the reactionary force of international terrorism as an anti-systemic element or globalization backlash M,Jurgensmeyer in Terror in the Mind of God The Global Rise of Religious Violence links the disruption of globalization with defe nsive reactions that often take a religious character, and when that reaction is terrorism, it can take the form of fundamentalist Arab-Islamic terrorist organizations.World-Society/Polity TheoryWhile world-society theorists have not addressed the issue of international terrorism directly, they have put down the go along expansion of Western originated cultural models of rationalized action and universal standards during the kindred period that a rise in international terrorism has been observed. To the extent that there is a possible causal relationship, world-society theorys top-down model of the assault of the world-politys global standards, expectations, norms, and definitions of reality also might generate defensive backlash that might, under some circumstances, take the form of international terrorism. It would seem that the harvest-tide in world society provides a generalized empowerment for international action on the basis that social existence is global existence and that social problems are global problems. The expansion of global society should empower action across the globe as a distinctly glob logical effect, which means that individuals in Latin America suffering from the side effects of economic globalization should feel just as globally empowered to engage in international backlash terrorism as those of the Arab-Islamic Middle East. But this does not seem to be the case there is not as much international terrorism emanating from Latin America as from the Middle East, yet both are or should be globally empowered (world-society effect) and angry (globalization creates resistance effect). But the fretfulness seems to be turned inward in Latin America and outward in the Middle East. What accounts for differences of response? Relative openness, democracy, representational institutions, and levels of functioning intermediary social organization may absorb, channel, or somehow provide outlets for the tensions and anger set off by globalization . Their anger is channeled into electoral politics, demonstrations, social move-mints, and domestic terrorism in the more autocratic Arab-Islamic regimes, dissent is suppressed more often, and there are fewer opportunities for its expression within the institutionalized political opportunity structures of those states. As a result, given the same level of global empowerment, the anger is turned outward to take the form of international terrorism more often than in Latin America. There is also no surmise something of a curvilinear effect with linkages to world-society. They empower and, given grievances, would have a positive effect upon contentious acts like international terrorism. But continued linkage into world-society also would seem to have an integrative effect and thereby would dampen terrorism rates, yielding an overall curvilinear relationship between linkages to world-society and rates of international terrorismBlowback TheoryM.Crenshaw in why America? The Globalization of Civil War argues that terrorism should be seen as a strategic reaction to American power, an idea associated with Johnsons blowback thesis. In this view, the presence of empires-both at the end of the last century and today-and the analogous unipolar military position of the United States today provoke resistance in the form of terrorism. Johnson notes that the Russian, Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires-which controlled multiple ethnic, religious, and national peoples-led to a backlash, or blowback, by Serb, Macedonian, and Bosnian terrorist organizations . By analogy the powerful global position of the United States, especially in its role of propping up repressive undemocratic regimes, constitutes something of a similar condition with Arab-Islamic terrorism as a result.The Center for Strategic International Studies (2002) attempts to precisely define globalization, calling it a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations , a process driven by international address and investment and aided by information technology.Some aspects of globalization help oneself terrorism. At its basest meaning, globalization means internationalization. Something is taken from a national setting and projected across the world. Certain nations adopt this, others reject it. When most nations do accept it and adopt it, globalization is taking place.A K Cronin in Behind the Curve suggests that terrorism cemented itself as an international phenomenon in the 1970s and 1980s, evolving in part in reaction to the dramatic explosion of international media influence. At this point in time, news media was truly becoming international in scope. Many broadcasting companies maintained correspondents or sister send in other nations, sharing information back and forth. This would lead to the first visions of terrorism for many peoples who had never seen it. Presently, the media can be responsible for perpetuating the clime of internat ional terror.Another aspect to this concept is that the media can be used by terrorists for their purposes. Osama bin Laden released his now-infamous recorded statements employ instruments of globalization. Many have seen video of bin Laden on American media outlets even though it was originally released to regional network Al-Jazeera.International media certainly is not the main byproduct that facilitates terror. Perhaps the main facilitator stemming from globalization is communication theory technologies. There are many devices taken for granted in Western society that changed the way terrorists operate, especially digital communications device. Clansmen fighting Americans in Somalia in the early 1990s used digital phones that could not be tapped. The internet, mobile phones, and trice messaging have given many terrorist groups a truly global reach. Leading up to the September 11 attacks, al-Qaeda operatives used bumpkin e-mail, while the presumed leader made reservations onli ne and other members researched topics such as using crop dusters to release chemical agents Perhaps even more unreassuring is that these technologies can be used to disperse terrorists to different locations yet check mark connected. Cells can stay in touch through internet communications while websites spread ideologies. It is estimated that al-Qaeda operates in over sixty countries now as a result of using technologies inspired by globalizationGlobalization makes CBNR weapons increasingly available to terrorist groups. Information needed to build these weapons has become ubiquitous, especially through the internet. Among the groups interested in acquiring CBNR (besides al-Qaeda) are the PLO, the Red Army Faction, Hezbollah, the Kurdistan Workers Party, German neo-Nazis, and the Chechens.Globalization has enabled terrorist organizations to reach across international borders, in the same way (and often through the same channels) that commerce and argumentation interests are link ed. The dropping of barriers through the North American Free Trade Area and the European Union, for instance, has facilitated the smooth flow of many things among countries. This has allowed terrorist organizations as diverse as Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Egyptian al-Gamaat al-Islamiyya to move about freely and establish cells around the world. Movements across borders can obviously en-able terrorists to carry out attacks and potentially border capture, but it also complicates prosecution if they are apprehended, with a complex maze of extradition laws varying greatly from state to state. The increased permeability of the international system has also enhanced the ability of nonstate terrorist organizations to collect intelligence. States are not the only actors interested in collecting, disseminating, and/or acting on such information. In a sense, then, terrorism is in many ways becoming like any other international enterprise.Terrorist organizations are broadening their reach i n gathering financial resources to fund their operations.. The list of groups with global finance networks is long and includes most of the groups identified by the U.S. government as foreign terrorist organizations. Sources of financing include legal enterprises such as nonprofit organizations and legitimate companies that distinguish profits to illegal activities and illegal enterprises such as drug smuggle and production. Websites are also important vehicles for raising funds. Although no comprehensive entropy are publicly available on how lucrative this avenue is, the proliferation of terrorist websites with links or addresses for