Section I: Introduction and Statement of Purpose
Generally, terrorism is understood as the use of threats and violence that aims to achieve political objectives. According to The Global Terrorism Index, in 2014, the level of the terrorist attacks across the world increased by 80% (Bender, 2015). Despite the fact that regions that mostly suffer from the threats of terrorism include the ones in the Middle East, Africa, and Russia, the fight against terror is an international issue. The United States of America experiences the middle impact of terrorism and ranks 35 among 124 positions in the Global Terrorism Index 2015 Map (Bender, 2015). However, the middle level of terrorism does not mean an absence of sufferings and consequences and an impossibility of the growth of this level at all times. Everybody remembers the awful September 11 attacks and nobody can guarantee the similar ones will never happen. Europe has already been covered by the series of terrorist attacks, and the threat of terrorism becomes even more serious nowadays.
The negative impact of terrorism is not just fear or psychological pressure; terrorism also brings serious economic and social problems and can affect the political role of the country on the international stage. More importantly, it attracts the world attention through the victimization of innocent people. The understanding of the terrorist impact on the United States and its citizens can help in the understanding of the problems that the issue of terrorism brings in whole and can be applied to every country in the world to a greater or lesser extent. This paper aims to discuss the political and economic perspectives on the issue of terrorism and its impact on people in the United States, to analyze an integrated perspective, and to discuss possible future trends that the issue of terrorism can have if remains unsolved.
Section II: The Political Perspective on the Issue
Terrorism appears when one nation or group of people aims to achieve specific political goals on the local or international stage. The definition of terrorism originally refers to politics and, thus, becomes the political problem in the first instance. Furthermore, the issue of terrorism, whether it is global or not, is a crime. Arnold writes that despite the fact terrorism is not included into the ICC Statute, one can call it “a crime against humanity” (Arnold, 2004, p. 999). Every crime requires punishment, and this one is expected to come from the side of the government and to be regulated by the government with the use of the antiterrorist laws.
The political perspective on the issue of terrorism is double-sided. Indeed, terrorism is an international threat and one of the major international problems of the modern world. International terrorism mostly focuses on reaching its purposes through killing civilians that belong to one or another country, and one can expect the counter reaction, as the government should protect its citizens. However, when one takes a closer look at the reasons of various terrorist acts, one can guess that terrorism appears because of politics. R. Jackson writes, “Terrorism is an intentional and pre-determined strategy of political violence” (Jackson, 2008). Nowadays, this term has cultural and political nature and becomes “the organising concept for a vast array of powerful political institutions, processes and practices in contemporary society” (Jackson, 2008).
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The United States of America started “The War on Terror,” the international military campaign that aimed to fight against the terrorist organizations and its supporters. The prime target of “The War on Terror” was the destruction of Al Qaeda and the killing of Osama Bin Laden who took credit for the 9/11 incidents and extended thanks to the 9/11 suicide attackers. Osama Bin Laden proclaimed his attitude towards Americans as far back as in 1998, when he said, “to kill Americans . . . civilian and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible” (Van Evera, 2006, p. 11). Indeed, the U.S. government could not leave this statement without proper attention and started the war against Al Qaeda. Van Evera writes that the Bush administration made a mistake concentrating only on one war while should have fought four (Van Evera, 2006, p. 11). The USA led a strong offensive military company overseas but forgot about the defense that had significant holes. Those holes could have become crucial in providing the homeland security against the 9/11 attacks.
According to Scheuer, the reasons of Bin Laden’s hatred towards the United States laid in the foreign policies the U.S. government put forward in the Middle East (Scheuer, 2004, p. 9). Bin Laden and Al Qaeda found those policies oppressive and aimed against Muslims. Furthermore, Bin Laden was famous for his proclivities to Americans to embrace Islam and to reject such immoralities as homosexuality, gambling, fornication, etc. Thus, he clamored both against foreign and domestic policies of the American government. Whether those policies were the only reasons of Bin Laden’s hatred towards the U.S. or not, they initiated anti-American statements of Al Qaeda, American responses to those statements, and the appearing of terrorism against the United States. The 9/11 terrorist acts that shocked both the country and the whole world were born due to political conflicts that appeared between the USA and Al Qaeda on the international scene and got a respond in the form of the harden American foreign politics against Al Qaeda and their supporters.
Section III: The Economic Perspective on the Issue
As Endlers and Olson write, “Terrorism can impose economic costs by disrupting commerce, destroying tangibles such as factories and infrastructure, and by causing human casualties” (Endlers & Olson, 2012, p. 16). The sums of money that the government pays to the relatives of terror victims and spends on the repair and reconstruction cripple the economy of the country. According to Enders and Olson, the economic costs of terrorism can be divided into the direct and the indirect ones (Endlers & Olson, 2012, p. 6). The direct costs relate to the damaged and destroyed property, lost income, and the price of human lives. It seems that the direct costs constitute huge sums of money; however, the indirect costs could constitute even more. The indirect costs include the losses of the tourism industry, the psychological traumas, the suffering of the terrorist attacks victims, etc. Enders and Olson write, “It is the indirect costs of the attack that are most difficult to measure” (Endlers & Olson, 2012, p. 8). Furthermore, the economic impact of the terrorist attacks significantly affects several key sectors including foreign investments, the transportation, and the financial markets. One should understand that it is really hard to measure the damage that terrorism brings to the economic sphere of the country; it is hard both to predict it before the terrorist act and to calculate after.
Of course, one can attain the better understanding of the impact that terrorist attacks have on the American economy through the example. Let’s consider the 9/11 events, one of the most massive and cruel terrorist attacks the USA has ever experienced. According to O. Jackson, it was not possible to predict how the 9/11 events would affect the economy of the United States, as in 2001, the country was going through the recession (Jackson, 2008, p. 2). The uncertainty led to the formation of three camps of forecasters: first of them said that the American economy would become worse and the USA would lose its international economic power; the second ones were sure that the attacks would not significantly affect the economic situation and the recession would continue; the last group of forecasters argued that the American economy would get benefits as spendings on security would rapid the globalization. O. Jackson writes that one could divide the economiс impact of the 9/11 attacks into five subcategories: the U.S. stock market, U.S. economic growth, consumer spendings, foreign investments, and budgetary resources (Jackson, 2008, p. 3). The American economy demonstrated resilience, especially in first two subcategories. After 9/11, consumer spendings decreased, but, as O. Jackson notices, there are no evidence that it happened only because of the attacks (Jackson, 2008, p. 14). Foreign investments followed the previous course, and the 9/11 attacks also did not significantly affect the American budget, as it had already been affected by the U.S. military actions in Afganistan. However, that is not to say that the 9/11 terrorist attacks did not affect the American economy at all.
When O. Jackson studies the impact the 9/11 attacks had on the American economy within the limits of one-two decades, Enders and Olson consider this issue in a more local way. According to their research, the damage brought by the destruction of property was about $14 billion, and the losses of government entitles succeeded $2 billion (Endlers & Olson, 2012, p. 7). The whole estimates of the direct costs succeeded $30 billion (Endlers & Olson, 2012, p. 7). Moreover, the 9/11 attacks affected the employment sector and led to the dramatic increase of the unemployment rate. The indirect costs included the damage to the tourism industry and air travel. Furthermore, the U.S. government spent about $40 billion on the heightening of the security level inside the country, and the whole spendings constituted about $100 billion (Endlers & Olson, 2012, p. 8).
According to OECD investigations, “even though the short-term recovery from the terrorist attacks has been faster than expected, negative medium-term consequences through various indirect channels cannot be excluded” (OECD, 2002, p. 136). The strength of the American economy and its malleability provided the fast return to the way it followed before the 9/11. However, the increases of the security spendings and private spendings had a negative effect on the level of productivity. Even if the American economy successfully survived the 9/11, it was not guaranteed. Generally, terrorism can negatively affect investments and the international trade system. The reducing of the economic consequences of terrorist attacks is required.
Section IV: An Integrated Perspective on the Issue
The main conclusions that one can draw on the basis of the political and economic perspectives are:
Terrorist acts are born because of the political conflicts and constitute a part of the modern political war.
Terrorism can bring significant damage to the economic sphere of the country; however, it did not happen after the 9/11 attacks, as the American economy demonstrated its strength and resilience.
Gage writes that terrorism dominates the modern American political discourse (Gage, 2011, p. 73). The United States of America is one of the leading countries on the international stage, and, indeed, it pursues strong domestic and foreign policies. These policies mother discontent and dissatisfaction from the side of terrorist organizations. According to one of the RAND conference participants, “There is a permanency to this. It [terrorism] cannot be redefined as a nuisance” (Jenkins, 2014, p. 5). Maintaining strong antiterrorist policies and military campaigns and a strong economy, the U.S. government can achieve its aims and strengthen its international influence. People constitute the part of the country, and they become naturally involved into the political conflicts. As the result, they experience sufferings and losses. The war cannot be fought without victims, and who else can be them if not civilians?
Despite the fact terrorism is an integral part of the modern political stage, its consequences can become more serious than hijack, detonations, or damage of property. Enders and Olson write, “the concern is that a future chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) attack could be even more dreadful” (Endlers & Olson, 2012, p. 30). The areas of the terrorist attacks can become larger, and the number of victims can dramatically increase. One cannot escape terrorism, so the government should guarantee its citizens higher security. It should maintain even stronger economics that could survive terrorist attacks and allocate enough funds for domestic antiterrorist campaigns. If terrorism is a part of the modern political issues, the government should consider the scales it could take, to prepare, and to protect its nation.
References
Arnold, R. (2004). The prosecution of terrorism as a crime against humanity. ZaöRV, 64, 979-1000. Retrieved from http://www.zaoerv.de/64_2004/64_2004_4_a_979_1000.pdf
Bender, J. (2015, November 18). This map shows how terrorism has spiked across the world over the past year. Business Insider. Web. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/global-terrorism-index-2015-2015-11
Enders, W., & Olson, E. (2012). Measuring the economic costs of terrorism. UCI School of Social Sciences, 1-39. Web. PDF. Retrieved from http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~mrgarfin/OUP/papers/Enders.pdf
Gage, B. (2011). Terrorism and the American experience: a state of the field. The Journal of American History, 73-94. Retrieved from http://archive.oah.org/special-issues/teaching/2011_06/article.pdf
Jackson, O. A. (2008, March 3). The impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US economy. Florida Memorial University, 1-27. Web. PDF. Retrieved from http://fmuniv.edu/pdf/OliviaJackson911andUS-Economy.pdf
Jackson, R. (2008). An argument for terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, 2.2. Web. Retrieved from http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/27/html
Jenkins, B. M., Liepman, A., & Willis, H. A. (2014). Identifying enemies among us. Paper presented at the RAND corporation seminar. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF300/CF317/RAND_CF317.pdf
OECD. (2002). Economic consequences of terrorism. OECD Economic Outlook, 71, 117-140. Retrieved from http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/ocde-terrorisme.pdf
Scheuer, M. (2009). Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror. Dulles, VA: Brassey’s Inc. Print.
Van Evera, S. (2006). Assessing U.S. strategy in the war of terror. ANNALS, AAPSS, 607, 10-26. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/ssp/people/vanevera/Annals%20-%20Assessing%20US%20Strategy%20in%20War%20on%20Terror.pdf
