Introduction
Is it possible to construct an objective definition of terrorism?
“Terror” is coined from a Latin word, ‘terrere’ that translates as ‘to frighten’.
Defining terrorism seems to be a controversial issue. A range of official systems and government agencies define terrorism differently in their general legislation. In addition, terrorism is yet to be given an officially binding definition by the International community, which is slow in formulating a universally acceptable one. This a bit difficult to accomplish because terrorism is usually charged with emotions and politics. The above divergences pose a major obstacle to the United Nations as it seeks to construct a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, by defining terrorism as a distinct, all-inclusive officially binding crime.
This paper will seek to establish if terrorism is definable and how effectively it can be done.
Discussion
Terrorism is as ancient as recordable history but still tough to define. Terrorism is described variously as an approach and a strategy; a criminal offense and a sacred obligation; an acceptable response to unfair domination and an intolerable atrocity. Clearly, as one tries to define terrorism, a lot is dependent on whose point of sight he is trying to bring out. Terrorism is an efficient strategy for the most likely too loose side in a conflict. As an imbalanced type of conflict, terrorism advocates for forceful power with various advantages of armed forces force at a part of the cost. Terrorism groups are secretive and characterized by small sizes. This way, the opponent is often unaware of a plot against them hence have no idea whom they are up against.
Terrorism is mostly a means to execute and launch divergence without the antagonist knowing the character of the danger, confusing terrorism for criminal aggression. Due of its characteristic uniqueness, terrorism has grown to be progressively more common amongst those after extremist goals all over the world. Nevertheless, regardless of its fame, terrorism can be a imprecise model. Even inside the U.S. Government, official bodies in charge of diverse duties in the constant struggle against terrorism, define it differently.
The United States Department of Defense describes terrorism as calculated application of unlawful brutality or threat of illegal bloodshed to instill fear; with the intentions to compel or to scare regimes or society in the quest of political, ideological or spiritual goals. Encompassed in this definition, are three important elements—aggression, fright, and coercion—and every element strikes terror in the affected victims. The FBI defines terrorism as the unauthorized use of force and aggression against people or their property to frighten or pressurize a regime, the resident population, or any division within, in the effort to further a biased political or societal objective. To the U.S. Department of State, “terrorism” is to premeditate politically motivated aggression to be committed against opponent targets by sub-nationalized insurgents or secret agents, typically intended to sway the targeted group.
Three perspectives generally govern terrorism; the aggressor’s, the victims ant the public’s. Terrorists share and accept the view that one man’s aggressor is another’s source of liberation. Terrorists do not consider their actions evil but rather see themselves as the rightful combatants, struggling for their beliefs, through whatever ways achievable. A terrorism victim views the aggressor as an immoral who has no regard for human life. The community’s view is the mainly unsteady. The aggressors go to vast pains to project a “Robin Hood” reflection in the society’s eye in the hope to sway the general society’s outlook toward the cause. The sympathetic outlook of terrorism is now an essential part of their mental warfare and requires to be resisted strongly.
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, the American Government launched a counter attack called ‘war on terrorism’. A lecturer at the University of Manchester, Richard Jackson, summarizes the type of public language is used to describe war on terrorism, and how rhetoric it is used to validate the worldwide counter-terrorism attacks as a rejoinder to 9/11. Language is intentionally used to influence public concern about fanatic terrorization to get support for armed forces action, and how the ill-treatment of Iraqi inmates has been regularized by public speaking and application (Jackson 2005, p.34).
Jackson is of the argument that the regulation and institutionalization by the government of the existing counter-terrorism reaction is harmful to society’s moral values as well as to autonomous political involvement (Jackson 2005, p.23). One wonders if the war on terrorism is another kind of complex terrorism targeting the aggressor’s countries of origin or current places of residence. This is considered so because he victim governments respond to terrorist attacks with brutal force, disregarding the innocent civilians. An example is America’s response to Iraqi’s suspicion of having weapons of mass destruction. A once promising oil producing nation was faced by multi-national military force in 2003, led by the American and United Kingdom’s armed forces. What is left now is a shell, with the hope of re-building their country, the Iraqi people look forward to result annunciation after parliamentary elections where voting took place in Mach 2010 for an independent government since 2003.
In an analytic outline, violence and counter- violence are viewed as types of communication that interrelate with supplementary forms of communal and opinionated communication, by non- agents actors or state agents. By studying how aggression and counter- aggression influence both societal and political lives directly and indirectly, both at domestic and the worldwide level, the analyst will clearly comprehend how terror campaign is as a result of other community or political activity, how advances into authorized or diplomatic action, and it encompasses aggression and passive actions for a political or societal cause. With the inclusion of counter-terrorism and an array of pre-arranged organizations to fight terrorism and correlated phenomenon, the representation forces become a degree of self-awareness to the forecaster, who is obligated to scrutinize societal, domestic and global organizations and variants of public control alongside policies and procedures of political agitation (Crelinsten 2002, p.18).
Al-Qaeda is an alleged Islamist terrorist group founded between August 1988 and late 1989. Al-Qaeda functions as a complex made up of both an international, a country-less arm and a Sunni faction advocating for worldwide jihad. This radical group is famed to be responsible for the devastating September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. The US administration reacted by inducting the War on Terrorism. Al-Qaeda fanatics pledge their loyalty to its alleged leader, Osama bin Laden. Its ideologues visualize absolute sever from the alien influence in Muslim nations, and the formation of an innovative Islamic caliphate.
The New Terrorism is the growth of an articulate set of ideologies in quality and in masses as a reaction to the September 11 attacks. A thesis of the above informs that Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are prepared to utilize ‘dirty bombs’ (Burnett & Whyte 2005, p.4). This thesis on new terrorism brings all attacks carried out by alleged terrorist groups and especially by Al-Qaeda in to an interconnected frame. This in turn will make certain that terrorism is predictable hence avoidable.
In the September 11, 2001 attack, like in many terrorist attacks, the world witnessed the conflict between two worlds, the U.S.A and Islam. The overpowering debris from the collapse and property destruction not only confirms what trails when worlds have a collision, but also is symbolic of the intricacy of perceiving conflict between worlds (Booth & Dunne 2002, p.2). Conflicts can be between diverse political entities, over the struggle for control and employing aggression and other conventional tools of policy; and among worlds exemplified by different values about what the reality out there is.
The U.S.A. government is the strongest most influential administration at the moment. America has experienced direct terrorist attacks and indirect attacks (the bombing of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 1998). To prevent a repeat of the above, U.S launched a retaliatory counter-aggression. This to some extent has evolved in to some sort of terrorism, new terrorism. It is alleged that CIA aircrafts worked illegitimately in Venezuela to aid the staged coup to oust President Chavez from power in 2002 (Grey 2006, p.46).
The CIA is said to run a scheme of secret prisons holding numerous kidnapped prisoners, from Iraq, Kenya, Afghanistan, and other Islam affiliated countries. Most inter-nation conflicts can be traced to realism, liberalism (a conviction in the value of freedom and equal rights.), international society, and theories of international political economy (Jackson & Sorensen 2007, p.21).
International politics, seek to comprehend political affairs between nation-states. These international ties are the basis on which general monetary and political associations between nations are cultivated in globally.
If there are global inter-relation problems, state and ethnic differences necessitate regulation, egalitarianism and the policy of national self-fortitude have to be watched, globalization and its connection to equality observed, aggression control and peace implementation learnt and the intercontinental political market of the surroundings stabilized (Edkins & Zehfuss 2009, p.56). Failure to uphold the above leads to oppression of human rights that may result in reactive human behavior in the form of terrorism.
International relations range from moderation through to inexperienced politics; it studies how diverse perceptions have emerged, who has predisposed them most, and what point represents key elements in international politics (Steans & Pettiford 2005, p.89). Liberal politicking needs to be encouraged with the introduction of moderation to green politics as this lacks experience and the sense of direction.
Conclusion
Terrorism is a term that is not easily definable because of the politics, emotions, location, religion and time complexities involved. Terrorism is a relative that depends on international and local politics, the sufferer’s, the aggressor’s ad the society’s outlook. To the aggressor, the attacks are definitely justified, to the victim uncalled for brutal force that is unnecessary, and to the society a variable depending on who it chooses to identify with, the terrorist or the victim. What is clear is that terrorism is not he most viable solution and more subtle solutions like diplomatic negotiations should be used to address rows are there are no innocent casualties. If diplomacy fails, the concerned parties should involve the international community to help in sorting out the issues.
References
Booth, K. and Dunne, T. 2002, Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Press, p. 2.
Burnett, J. and Whyte, D. 2005 Embedded Expertise and the New Terrorism, Web.
Crelinsten, R.D. 2002, Analyzing Terrorism and Counterterrorism: A Communication Model. Vol.14, No. 2. P.56
Edkins, J. and Zehfuss, M. 2009, Global Politics: A New Introduction. London: Routledge Press, p. 18.
Grey, S. and Plane, G. 2006, The Inside Story of the CIA’s Secret Rendition Programme. London: Hurst and Company, p. 46
Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. 2007, International Relations: Theories and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0199285438, p. 21
Jackson, R. 2005, Writing the War on Terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN-10: 0719071216, p.23
Steans, J. and Pettiford, L. 2005, Introduction to International Relations (2nd edition) Pearson: Harlow Press, p.89