Analysis on terrorism
Introduction
There have been several views on terrorism. However, research on terrorism differs from the standard social science research. As one is dealing with underground organizations, often there is little or incomplete data. Terrorism is like a war in the shadows that creates massive publicity. For the majority of researchers, it can be dangerous to do investigative research in danger zones, and therefore, majority of the research is carried out on the basis of reports released by the government and media news stories. Research on terrorism has more often been criticized as it is believed that most of the writing on terrorism is based on a number of dubious assumptions. For example, a common assumption is that the West stands for justification and is the common target of terrorism. It is assumed that the aim of terrorism is to undermine democracies.
Summary
Devine and Rafalco start with diverse views on terrorism and call for better research on terrorism. They argue that from a philosophical viewpoint, very little is found on the subject of terrorism that is often portrayed as a romanticized heroism or senseless violence. Many researchers look at terrorism to be a political strategy that involves violence directed against the innocent. There are different arguments in defense of terrorism. It is considered as the cheapest form of warfare. The second view contends that terrorism draws public attention towards institutional injustice, while the third outlook is that public holds a Collective Guilt that makes them silent on terrorism. For the terrorist, there is nothing as right or wrong and for him and his goals are supreme.
Defining terrorism is not easy, according to Devine and Rafalco, but it is certainly different from the ordinary crime or atrocities that occur during international and civil wars. Terrorism term is often used rhetorically to glorify the acts of revolutionaries (Devine and Rafalko). The word terrorism and violence go together. Killing is the central form of violence. However, holding someone prisoner or inflicting physical pain, or putting one in trauma are no less than terror, although there is no killing involved. Even during the wartime, one comes across several atrocities like bombing, and the violence here is not looked upon as terrorism. Devine and Rafalco give the example of killing of a pet that may be violent but certainly not an act of terrorism.
Terrorists commonly use violence and fear to achieve their political motives. There are three elements working behind the political strategy of a terrorist, as stated by Devine and Rafalco. The terrorists may take public responsibility for their action or create the right kind of violence. The victims may be innocent but are associated symbolically with their target state. The next element is of motivation, and the third viewpoint is that the terrorists simply move ahead with no clear aims of terror. However, sometimes, the victims of terrorism are in no way involved in the conflict the terrorists are pursuing.
After defining the key elements working behind a terrorist act, Devine and Rafalco take a look at governmental and non-governmental terror, the governmental terror will probably claim more victims as the non-governmental groups will be relatively unlimited. The non-governmental groups will voice their opinions on the motives and justification behind their terrorist activities. These terrorists portray themselves reformers and romantics, and thus garner more sympathy for their cause and activities.
Looking inside the mind of a terrorist, he commits those acts for a cause and is selfless. He is laying down his life for a justified cause and believes that his actions are wholly moral. The last resort measures like civil disobedience and revolutions are defensible occasionally. However, there is a stark difference between terrorism and revolutions or civil disobedience (Devine and Rafalko) Civil disobedience does not resort to violence while terrorism believes in using violence to attain the objectives. Revolution may be violent or nonviolent. The perpetrators of civil disobedience and revolutions have clear objectives in their mind, while terrorism may be ambiguous of its goals.
Devine and Rafalco argue that there are three views justifying terrorism. The Economy of Scale does not support civil disobedience as it remains ineffective to achieve a political strategy. Revolution too doesn’t seem to be the right option as it remains beyond the reach of the activist. Terrorism remains the final option and the cheapest form of warfare. Conscious raising argument related to terrorism holds that the public often turns a deaf ear to the wrongdoings of the government and the act of terrorism can wake them up. Terrorists take the role of leaders here and feel responsible for awakening the public. The collective Guilt argument sees the public again as ignorant of the offenses happening around them. The terrorists believe that if the public is not a part of the solution, it is the problem itself. Thus, the terrorists become a kind of revolutionaries here as in their view; the victims are not innocent. They take examples of Aldo Moro kidnappings, the oppression of Palestinians and the murder of Israeli athletes in 1972 Munich Olympics to explain terrorism.The general objections that can be raised against any terrorist activity are that these activities are counter reproductive, they lack vision and coherence. The campaigns of terror are directed in those societies where other means of appeal are allowed for injustice. No matter how strongly justified an act of terrorism is, it only ends in intensifying hostilities. Even if a terrorist act is successful in achieving its directive, it does usher in chaos and indecisiveness. It is difficult to meet the outrageous demands of the terrorists. The terrorists can justify their acts of violence by maintaining a posture of inflexible moral righteousness. Their activities are based on the significance of a conclusive action which is designed to set a series of events leading to a kind of society that the terrorist desire.
Devine and Rafalco conclude with the outlook of the terrorist conflicts with that of a civilized society. He rejects the principles of political prudence, tolerance, and rationality. The nation can defeat the terrorist’s subordination of procedural values by acting on its centrals beliefs.
I agree with the fact that the critical approaches towards terrorism are not new. Devine and Rafalco have done a good job on defining terrorism, and analyzing as to how terrorism finds its place within the critical security studies in world politics. However, I feel that the provocative analysis of terrorism is unavoidable. It is not tough deciding as to what to study and what not to study and to whom the studies are directed. There are some inter-related components(Jones and Smith, 292-302) that should be incorporated into the mainstream studies on terrorism. The terrorism studies should be based on the equal rights of all, and not from the perspective of victims. Devine and Rafalco focus more on non-governmental terrorism, while governmental terrorism too should be given attention.
The studies related to terrorism should engage more on the self-reflexive dialogue. There is much public support in some countries for activities defined as terrorism. The terrorist activities are a part of deeper project that use violence, especially against civilians. I feel that terrorism studies should take a broader outlook when seen o from the platform of liberal traditions of world politics. Liberalism is the main support to the universal ideas of human rights. Devine and Rafalco probe an eclectic approach on the terrorism studies
It can be argued that there is slight rational value extended by reducing a person or group to a subset of their overall behavior. Terrorist groups do form, but still remain highly unstable. It is seen that most terrorism occurs in the scale of wider political struggles. This is not to say that there is no recognition of actual violence in the real world as terrorism. Rather, the world experiences violence and terrorism via a political, and cultural process. It is also significant to realize here that Western democracies have often been guilty of involved in terrorist attacks activities on the civilian population. A good example is the involvement of the U.S. government in a military dictatorship in Guatemala.
I would argue that there is an obligation to deliverance of the moral and intellectual questioning of political violence, whether it be terrorist based or state or non-state violence. There is a need to work towards minimising all kinds of physical, structural, and cultural violence, prioritizing human security over national security.
Conclusion
The studies on all forms of terrorism should break with mainstream studies and look into as to how terrorism has grown as an instrument of the power. The mainstream of studies on terrorism studies remained unchanged. There is a need to have a higher linking to ideas, and the studies should be based on the equal rights of all victims. Attentions needs to be paid to both state and non-state terrorism(Jackson, 244-51). If on Googles on the phrase “terrorist”, it is not surprising to see so many hits and with different meanings. People who are in favor of terrorist activities, look for different meanings and definition of terrorism. The label of terrorism steers towards notions of evil and abnormal psychology. There is a need to design a strategy with a new approach and agenda that will explore the changing role of terrorism.
Reference
Devine, Philip. And Rafalko, Robert ."On Terror." American Academy of Political and Social Science (1982). Print.
Jones, D., and Smith. " We are all Terrorists Now: Critical – or Hypocritical – Studies on Terrorism?‟( 2009) : 292-302. Print.
Jackson, Richard. "The Core Commitments of Critical Terrorism Studies." European Political Science 6.3 (2007): 244-51. Print.
