International Terrorism
The issue of terrorism is both complex and highly emotional. It is convoluted as the issue amalgams a number of various factors of human experience, inclusive of topics such as military planning, psychology, philosophy and history, among others. On the other side, extremism is also high charged emotionally as the instances of terrorism give rise to enormous feelings, combined with the fact that seeing terrorists justify their actions as right have strong emotions with regard to the use of violence against these terrorists (United States Institute of Peace, n.d., p. 3).
Simply stated, terrorism can be defined as “propaganda by deed”; this usually involves the “staged’, or theatrical, use of “discriminate” or “indiscriminate” acts of hostility by groups with the objective of working for the downfall of the legitimate government or government sponsored elements tasked with spreading instability across the region or the world. To persuade the public or sow panic and fear, these organizations, individuals and even nations seek to display the fact these have an undeniable will to use hostility even if the only means of accomplishing that objective is the loss of their own lives or the use of genocide.
With the rise in the use of the Internet and the advancement of new technologies in mass communication, the capacity of states to restrict the flow of information, as well as radical ideas within their territories and have given anti-state revolutionaries an enviable advantage; though the terrorists can use the mass media to “export” their radical ideas and the media is all too willing to report, the government cannot interfere with the transmission of the ideas being peddled by the extremists (Gardner, 2013, p. 52).
As defined by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), “international terrorism” can be regarded as actions that fall within these classifications. These are actions that are considered as dangerous to human life and infringing on Federal or state laws, intended to harass or coerce the government in its policy, intimidate the policy of the government, and are done outside the territory of the United States (United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, n.d., p. 1).
In the work of Gupta as cited by Bjorgo (2004, pp. 16-17), terrorism is not a new phenomenon, having long and deep foundations in the history of humanity. The most noteworthy question that can be given in dissecting the causes of terrorism is whether these groups morph from a base level of terrorism, anchored on long held beliefs of frustration and despondency, to evolve over time to one that is fueled by the need to inflict significant damage and fueled by the need to take the lives of their illusory enemies. This type of extremism is now anchored on fanaticism anchored on ideologies, the camaraderie and sense of unity with the other members of the group, and the attachment of the members of the group to a “larger than life” leader (Bjorgo, 2004, p. 17).
In the aftermath of the attacks, majority of the debate on the political plane and in the media have been on the development of determent policies against terrorist elements. There is a far reaching belief that terrorism has its roots embedded deep in the soil of poverty, and much of the contention centers on this factor. This assertion does not come as a surprising thesis; much of the literature in the field is consistent with the majority of the findings that are found in developing theories in the economics of hostility.
In the work of Alesina (1996), there is the proffer that poverty or dire economic conditions dramatically increase the possibility of political upheavals. As terrorism is a sign of political strife, the results of the research as well as those of others done in the same area indicates that economic hardship and negative living conditions can play a part in essaying the possibility of generating terrorist inclinations among the citizens in a country (Abadie, 2004, p. 1).
Ideology can be defines as a “set of beliefs, values and/or principles by which a group identifies its particular aims and goals”. This can embrace religion or political canons and policies. Examples of these types of organizations include the Irish Republican Army, the Liberation Tigers of Tamal Eelam in Sri Lanka, and the Bader Meinhoff based in Germany. The IRA and the Tigers are striving for the creation of a separate state for their peoples in their respective countries, the Bader Meinhoff is a group comprised of middle class individuals seeking to abolish the capitalist system in Germany (USIP, n.d., p. 9).
Nevertheless, the commission of terrorist acts in the name of furthering the ideology of a certain group or sect is not an activity that is acceptable in the international community. In the text of the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism issued by the Council of Europe, the agreement strongly declares that:
Recognizing that terrorist offenses and the offenses set forth in this Convention, by whoever perpetrated, are under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, ethnic, religious, and other similar nature, and recalling the obligation of all Parties to prevent such offenses and, if not prevented, to prosecute and ensure that they are punishable by penalties which take into account their grave nature” (Council of Europe, 2005, p. 1).
Extremism is often seen as an offshoot to the failure of a political solution or situation in their country. When the people go to the government to seek relief, but fail in their objective, it is often released in the instigation and committing of violence that the people give voice to their grievances. In this context, it can be said that terrorism is the sum of a reasonable analysis of the objectives of a certain group, and their chances of successfully accomplishing their goals. If the possibility of meeting a goal is greatly diminished via the “traditional” means of political resolution, then the avenue of terrorism may the better avenue to accomplish that goal (USIP, n.d., p. 9).
Since the brutal attacks of 9/11, the castigation of and the development of policies and practices designed to thwart terrorism has been a focal point of the actions conducted by the members of the United Nations. From the establishment of a Special Reporter on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights while engaging terrorist elements to the effort of coordinating and working to develop consistent programs via the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF), the General Assembly has remained active in the conflict against terrorism (Pati, 2009, p. 283).
In the latter part of the 1990s, the Secretary General of the United Nations put out a report in compliance with the mandate of the Resolution 50/53 of the General Assembly. In the report, the Secretary General examined the current legal mechanisms that are being used against terrorism and concluded that these instruments must further be expanded to embrace areas that are at present fall outside of the ambits of these accords (Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2005, p. 1).
Moreover, the United Nations Security Council in a number of resolutions taken to combat terrorism has consistently and repeatedly defined activities of international terrorism as “actions that pose a threat to international peace and unity”, and did not define the action as a “breach of the peace”, and less as an act of aggression.
The body has often used synonymous language in many of the subsequent resolutions on the matter, where it embraces a comprehensive policy in countering terrorism. Inclusive of these declarations are Resolution 1456, adopted on the 20th of January 2003, outlining a declaration for countering terrorism, and Resolution 1566 issued on the 8th of October 2004 stating that terrorism is “one of the most serious threats to peace and security”.
The categorization of activities of global extremism as menaces to global peace and security has two significant effects. One, acts of global extremism allows the Security Council to act and enact policies, inclusive of the use of force, as listed in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This qualifier, on the other hand, excludes the possibility that the state that has been hit with an act of international terrorism can deploy its own forces in defending itself, as the threat to peace and security is not reflective of an ongoing armed invasion, as is given in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Nevertheless, it can be considered in a number of instances that actions of global extremism can reach a level that the severity of the attack can be considered as an act of aggression against a state, or the independence of the state. This situation happens when the action results in significant damages and destroys or damages locations and facilities that are of particular importance to the interests of the targeted state. Using the 9/11 attack as an example, given the swath of destruction that the event generated and the inordinately large number of casualties and the facilities and the targets that were destroyed, specifically the Pentagon, the attack can be considered as an “armed attack” as listed in Article 51.
The probability that actions of extremism can be regarded as comprising an “armed attack” can be viewed as being derived from the text of Resolutions 1368 and 1373 adopted by the Security Council. In the resolution’s preamble section, the text sanctions and strengthens the innate right of states to self defense, either on its own or in a collective alliance in compliance with the tenets of the UN Charter.
The mention of self defense, in its basic form, must not be taken, within the context of the 9/11 attacks, that the United States has been given the right to launch an attack against Afghanistan in the context of asserting its right to defend itself. In the work of Nesi (2007, p. 261), the conditions that can justify the use of force against an enemy in response to an act of international terrorism must be found in the tenets of Article 51. Nevertheless, it would be a different case if the attack was launched on a state by a group who is supported by a nation or hostile government.
In order to give credence to the allegation that an armed group is operating for a hostile state, it must be proven that the hostile state exercises effective operating control over the armed group, though the requirement to prove that the state gives the group specific tasks to accomplish, or as ordered by the state. Under this tenet, it would be possible to hold Afghanistan legally accountable for the actions taken by the Afghan state for the extremist acts undertaken by Al-Qaeda owing to the close association of the group and the ruling Taliban government operating in the country at the time (Nesi, 2007, p. 262).
The threat of global terrorism makes imperative a collaborative effort among the members of the global community. One nation or alliance cannot hope to make significant headway in tackling terrorism head on; only by having the international community make committed and binding initiatives against terrorism can there be success in combating this modern day scourge.
References
- Abadie, A. (2004). “Poverty, political freedom, and the roots of terrorism”. Retrieved 1 June 2014 from < http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/aabadie/povterr.pdf>
- Bjorgo, T. (2004). Root causes of terrorism: myths, reality and ways forward. London: Routledge
- Council of Europe (2005). “Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism”. Retrieved 1 June 2014 from <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/196.htm>
- Gardner, H. (2013). American global strategy and the ‘War on Terrorism’. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing
- Nesi, G. (2007). International cooperation in counter-terrorism: the United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing
- Nuclear Threat Initiative (2005). “International convention on the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism”. Retrieved 1 June 2014 from < http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/international-convention-suppression-acts-nuclear-terrorism/>
- Pati, R. (2009). Due process and international terrorism. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
- United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (n.d.). “Definitions of terrorism in the U.S. Code”. Retrieved 1 June 2014 from < http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition>
- United States Institute of Peace. “Terrorism: definitions, causes, and responses”. Retrieved 1 June 2014 from < http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/terrorism.pdf>
