“Counter Terrorism After Al-Qaida” by Paul Pillar
The article analyses the attacks that the Islamic extremists made on the world trade center in New York, USA. It examines the causes that inspired the group to destroy properties worth millions of dollars and lives as well. He notes out that because of the support that the United States offers to Israel and the continued attack on other Arab Islamic states, the youths in the Middle East have risen to fight back. They retaliate by carrying out deadly attacks on the United States and its associates especially in Europe.
On its part, the article claims that the United States does everything to contain the situation. It employs all available security methods to bring terrorism to a halt. The biggest challenge in the mission is the small but efficient groups of terrorism. It has made the United States suspicious of any Middle East individuals including governments that are suspected to be supporting terrorism. The United States government has been forced to engage other states by way of co-operation to counter-terrorism especially those in Europe and Africa.
The American government might not succeed in dealing with terrorism because some of the fundamental causes of terrorism have not been handled. Religion as a factor is has played a big role in shaping the activities of terrorism. The government of the United States should dig deeper into the causes of terrorism and come up with clear policies that will help solve the problem forever.
Summary Review
The arguments of the writer in the article are true in that the government had not concentrated on the risks of terrorism. The kind of attention given to terrorism was too little; it was not intended to keep the state secure. Al-Qaeda is known to be a destructive Islamic group whereas the government was not taking its threats seriously. The attempted attack on various American properties awakened the government efforts to neutralize terrorist threats.
“Counterterrorism Before 9/11” by National Policy Coordination
Terrorism was not a big security threat in the United States in the late 1980s and early 1990s; it was considered a normal security complication. The central government handled security with funds allocation from the national kitty. The security agencies involved in monitoring the security situations were few; they had inadequate personnel and resources. The attempted terror attack on the world trade center and experiences from other places sensitized the government on security. The agencies in charge of security were increased with diversified roles, especially monitoring the conduct of foreigners from Middle East origin.
Furthermore, the situation worsened forcing the government to declare terrorism a national threat to security. The government came up with various policies aimed at dealing with terrorism including forming standby forces to respond to any forms of terrorism. Everyone in the government was notified of the danger and sufficient information was provided to the public. Information on terrorism was also circulated to other states including the American embassies.
The article talks about all the relevant steps that the government took at that time but it does not tell much about the co-operation and assistance that the government sought from the governments of Middle East states. It is understood that terrorism is a societal problem; it is not to be fought by the United States alone. It does not tell us much about whether non-governmental organizations and other experts were involved in making terrorism-related policies. The civil society has been complaining through the media about profiling and associating Islam with terrorism. Relating Islam to terrorism is one of the factors that has led to the ineffective application of the law in dealing with terrorism
Summary Review
The article does not handle the basic requisites of security especially involving the public in maintaining peace. The government employs policies that are not operational in real practice, for example involving only the government security chiefs without seeking the counsel and advice of other experts in the private sector. An all-inclusive policy is arrived at when a participatory kind of decision-making is followed. The government from time to time should review the security policies to suit the taste of time.
“Liberalism and Neoliberal Institutionalism” by Karen Mingst
Liberalism is a theory that emerged to address the problem of war; it was formulated after the Second World War. It explains how states and individuals ought to be organized to prevent future wars though it was a utopia. Norman Angels, Bertrand Russel, and Woodrow Wilson proposed the theory. The theory starts by understanding human behavior they relate to in the international system. It understands the intrinsic nature of human beings they share some qualities.
Human beings are well-intentioned and that they love each other, they can do well and are virtuous. For there to be stability, states should create a conducive environment for interaction both nationally and internationally.
At the international level, there should be institutions such as creating an international criminal court to enforce law internationally. States should be guided by one universal interest in maintaining peace. The covenant of collective security should be agreed upon because all states should be involved in universal security. The power of morals and ethics is emphasized in international relations; it is about right and wrong not necessarily dependent on law.
To prevent war nationally, states should be governed democratically because democracies never engage in war. For major decisions to be made, citizens must be consulted to make the most objective decisions. Democracy educates people on the dangers of war and the wishes of the majority are covered. Another aspect of liberalism includes free-market economies, the state does not interfere with the market instead of market logics are left to control operate themselves. The state only intervenes when there is some instability but once normalcy is regained, the state withdraws. The article summarizes some of the important requisites of security hence the writer is justified.
Summary Review
Idealism is never exercised in the international system, the states do not apply the policy of “love thy neighbor as you love thy self”, instead they use their neighbors to benefit themselves. This is evidenced in the way states respond to each other in the international system especially during international forums. Each state strives to outwit the other so that to benefit from scarce resources. Liberalism is not practical since whatever exists between states is hostility. States always play blame games over natural and fabricated problems.
Development in Underdevelopment by Frank Gunder
Many of the underdeveloped states remain poor and always in need of foreign aid mainly because they were underdeveloped by the western countries. Their conditions are matched with the old ages of developed nations; which is a false notion. The developed nations that are undeveloped were not in any way forced to be so. The states in most of the third world countries were underdeveloped both structurally and culturally.
States such as those in Latin America have been depending on aid for a long but they are not developed as those in North America and Europe. The developed states will never allow the developing ones to be industrialized since they will offer competition to their interests. The developed ones in many ways including influencing their decision-making mechanisms control the politics of less developed nations. Economically, they enter into trade agreements with less developed ones promising to supply aid and other technical assistance that in many cases are irrelevant to them.
The underdeveloped nations are producers of raw materials that are processed elsewhere. They, in turn, receive the goods at exorbitant prices as finished products, their products do not add value to goods. Japan and other Asian tigers could not have progressed economically could they be depending on the western countries for markets and technology. The under developing states engage themselves in the production of raw materials mainly agricultural products.
The colonialists established weak agricultural systems that mostly depend on rain, not irrigation. The type of agriculture emphasized is cash crop while making them neglects the main sector of the economy, which is the production of food crops. Whatever the writer talks about in the article is true, could these nations been left alone they could be like the Asian tigers such as Singapore, Thailand, and China whose economies are growing daily.
Summary Review
The views of the writer are strongly supported because states are always interested in self-glory. There is no way that small countries will be allowed to develop economically. If the less developed countries are given room for development, they will threaten the growth and expansion strategy of the developed ones. The developed states insist that democracy is mandatory but its tenets emphasize foam, not the content. It follows that they only want some freedom in developing countries favorable for investment.
References
Pillar, Paul. “Counter Terrorism After Al-Qaeda.” The Washington Quarterly, 2003.
The 9/11 Commission. “Counterterrorism Before 9/11.” Understanding the War on Terror, edited by James Hoge and Rose Gideon, W. W. Norton & Co., 2005, pp. 166–81.
Mingst, Karen. “Contending Perspectives: How to Think About International Relations Theoretically.” Essentials of International Relations, 4th ed., New York, W.W. Norton & Co., 2008, pp. 62–98.
Gunder, Frank. “The Development of Underdevelopment.” Monthly Review, September, 1966, pp. 17–31.