Terrorism and Security M.A Summative Essay (University of Reading, U.K)

M.A INTERNATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES


TERRORISM AND SECURITY (Summative Essay 1)



What are the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism?



Terrorism today has both local and trans-state causes and costs; therefore, it requires coordination of local, state and global policy responses (Gold, 2005). The 9/11 terrorists attacks of the ‘Twin Towers’ in New York opened another phase towards taking global terrorism seriously. There has been much attention paid to the United States war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that the world has forgotten the spread and rise of terrorism in other states especially in Africa, South America and South Asia. There is concrete evidence that the ‘threat from terrorism is real (US Congress Report, 2003). When the history of old and new terrorism are examined, it puts forward the difficulties that confront states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. The difficulties faced by states are myriad. According to Sheffer (2005), the terrorists of today are the ones who attacked rich and poor, old and young, believers and non-believers. They did so to more effectively kill men, women and children who had done nothing to them. The new terrorism’s mode of attacks is complex and this poses difficulties to states in producing effective structures to counter them (Spencer, 2006).

The use of military force by the world powers, especially the United State to counter terrorism, has further made the terrorist to be more resistant and mindless in their modern day attacks (Laqueur, 2004). This is because they want to inflict maximum death and injury to their victims. The International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, held in Madrid from 8 – 11 March, 2005 revealed many difficulties that confront a state in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Because of the difficulties inherent in some states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism, with regards to intelligence and law enforcement, Australia sought closer intelligence and law enforcement cooperation with Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. This was echoed by U.S Congress Report (2003) that:

“Countering terrorism requires close cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies; some terrorists will need to be brought to justice in courts, but others are dealt with by military forces or covert actions. In recent years, important steps have been taken to encourage closer cooperation between communities, but some believe terrorist acts may have been facilitated by continuing poor information exchanges between intelligence and law enforcement agencies and by blurred lines of organizational responsibility.”

Gathering information about the plans, composition, location, capabilities and objectives of terrorist groups is a difficult task for any state; therefore meeting the challenge would require different skills than were needed for normal functioning of government (U.S Congress Report, 2003). Also lack of uniform law enforcement and development of national strategy to counter terrorism is one of the difficulties which confront most states. Tunisia has a multinational and comprehensive policy in counter-terrorism.

It has been found that states that harbor terrorism such as the ‘Rogue States’ were encouraging terrorism to thrive because of poor intelligence collection and collation (Dershowitz, 2002). For example, before 9/11, lack of universal consensus between Christian and Islamic states on the legislation to counter terrorism was one of the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Lebanon is a classic case. Dershowitz (2002, p.31) argue that:

“Terrorism worked because those who sponsored it too often benefited from the terrorist acts. The sponsors were rewarded because the dramatic nature of the acts got our attention and brought their perceived grievances to the forefront of public consciousness.”

“The more brutal and repressive we are towards the terrorists, the more we make them martyrs to be emulated by other potential terrorists.”
(Dershowitz, 2002, P.32)

The use of military force by states to counter terrorism is still common and conceived by many developed nations such as the United Kingdom and United States. The use of military force by Pakistan to repress the people of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a problem for Pakistani government, and this constituted a problem in countering terrorism at the state level. The action of the U.S and Britain in invading Iraq buttresses the fact. Richardson (2006) pointed out that with the experience from other countries, the military cannot successfully be deployed to democracies to defeat terrorism. The post 9/11 terrorist attacks on America and the immediate action by the U.S unilaterally without the backing of other Security Council members was a mistake (Gurr and Bjorgo, 2005). This invariably cost the republican their seats in the November 2006 elections.

The problem of distinguishing the difference between terrorism and legitimate struggle against oppression by the state or colonial domination or foreign occupation is one of the difficulties the states face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Zimmermann (2005) argues states in the developing countries are still suffering from the consequences of the colonial administration with regard to the demarcation of their boundaries. Kashmir is a typical example. Legitimate struggle to end occupation has often being termed terrorism. For example, the former South African President, Nelson Mandela, was fighting for the liberation of Black majority from the yokes of minority whites in South Africa but he was declared a terrorist and imprisoned for 28 years, when he came out of the prison, he became a president of South Africa just like Menachem who was called a terrorist in the 1940s but later became Israeli Prime minister in late 1970s and early 1980s (Dershowitz, 2002; Richardson, 2006). Some people have been termed terrorists while fighting for illegal occupation of their countries by imperialists (Richardson, 2006). No legitimate struggle to end occupation should be labeled as ‘terrorism’, for instance the case of American occupation of Saudi Arabia and some Islamic countries testify to this.

Sheffer (2005) explains that building structures to counter terrorism by the state requires clarity of vision, unanimity of views and seriousness of purpose. After the 9/11 attacks, many states have to adopt resolution 1373 of the Security Council, in order to have the cooperation of other states globally in tackling the menace of terrorism. How many states have been able to do so, considering the clandestine and complex nature of terrorism? For instance, Yemen, for one refused to accept the formula that did not recognize the right to legitimate struggle against oppression and foreign occupation (Gunning, 2005; Sheffer, 2005). The issue of lack of consensus between states on how best to tackle the issue of terrorism is still one of the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structure in countering terrorism. It is of course when ‘terrorism’ is clearly and precisely defined that states could be able to devise or fashion structures that can counter terrorism. Presently, as mentioned earlier, there are conflicting concepts of what terrorism is and what it is not (Laqueur, 2003; 2004). Also, the idea of extreme left and right wing terrorism and the complexity of their ideologies are what most states that experience terrorism have to grapple with. This was common in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, France in 1980s, early in 1930s on Nazi movements (Laqueur, 2003), and also in Ireland (Richardson, 2006).

Richardson (2006) posits that the clash of ethnic groups and religion in most of the terrorist states such as Indonesia, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, India, further escalates the occurrence of terrorist attacks. A classic example is Iraq, where ethnic and religious issues have escalated since American and British invasion. The three ethnic groups comprising the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are at each others throat daily. How on earth could Iraqi state produce effective structures to counter terrorism or should it better be put this way, could the state of Palestine with all the avalanche of terrorism ever produce effective structures to counter terrorism again the state of Israel? Or will Israel ever stop amassing the Palestinian land? This would continue to remain one of the difficulties they would be facing in producing effective structures to counter terrorism.

In another vein, Gunning (2005) argues that in Africa and the Middle East, some Muslim states have de-globalised over the last 25 years, this has catapulted the gap between rich and poor. Gunning (2005) further argued that the general effect is that inequalities will continue to leap and with time lead to more terrorist acts. Liqueur (2003) opined that structured inequalities among groups and between men and women with states have become breeding grounds for terrorism in particular and political movement generally. In addition, Liqueur (2003) confirms that conflicts, deprivation and oppression of the people by the state affect the effectiveness of producing a durable structure to counter terrorism. Hoffman (2006) echoed that within states, the groups that support and give rise to terrorist movements are relatively disadvantaged because of class, ethnic, or religious cleavages (Hoffman, 2006). For example, terrorism in 19th century Europe took it root among marginalized urban workers and some of the intelligentsia.

In another light, Rotberg (2002, p.85) argue that:

“Economic chaos and generalized neglect that is endemic to failed states can lead to regular food scarcities and widespread hunger – even to episodes of starvation and resulting international humanitarian relief efforts.

These are some of the difficulties both developing and transitional states face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Also, Rotberg (2002) revealed that some ruling elites have knowingly siphoned and empted the competencies of their states. It has been found that once the state capacity deteriorates and what is left is devoted largely to a few or to a favoured ethnicity or community, then there is every reason to expect less loyalty to the state on the part of the excluded and the disenfranchised (Acharya, 2005). This is why the legitimacy of the state plummets (Acharya, 2005; Rotberg, 2005). Similarly, Richardson (2006) elucidates that where a state has undermined its legitimacy by not protecting its citizens internally, very often terrorists act. In addition, Rotberg (2002) argued that within a failed state there is disorder and anarchic mentality in the use of guns and drugs that are compatible with terror.

The interception of financial resources of the terrorists by states has not been successful because the terrorists have other alternative avenues where they could obtain funds to finance their acts (Eckert, 2005).Two cases to be cited are America Versus Al Qaeda in Iraq and America versus Taliban in Afghanistan. In spite of America’s action in freezing all the money in both American and other banks, the Taliban and the insurgents in Iraq are still fighting the Americans, British and the allied forces. Nowadays, funds have been raised through other sources such as the sale of ‘opium’ and secret funding from friends and relatives. Eckert (2005) confirmed that any attempt to cut off all international funds to disadvantaged groups linked to terrorism is impossible and that policies that attempt to do so are likely to be counterproductive. Laqueur (2004) and Hoffman (2006) confirmed this. The issue of new terrorism and new threats where states are continually faced with faceless terrorist groups has made it difficult for them to produce effective structures to counter terrorism (Dershowitz, 2002). For example, in Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Lebanon, many faceless terrorist groups are emerging daily as their acts pose great concern to the states.

The difficulties faced by states in producing effective structures to counter terrorism as summarized in 9/11 Report (2003), Laqueur (2003; 2004) and Hoffman (2006) are as follows:
New terrorism and new threat
The evolving nature of the new terrorism
Over reliance on the use of military force by U.S and Britain
Lack of synergy between the security apparatus such as the police, intelligence gathering and media
dearth of funds by the state for training and capacity building to rehabilitate those that have denounced terrorism
Non-commitment the top ranking officers for combating terrorism
There is lack of coordination in information gathering. This has affected how the information on terror is collected

In order for states to surmount the difficulties they face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism, some states have liaised with countries that have the knowledge and tools, to combat terrorism (National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003). Joint action on combating terrorism should ultimately create an international environment that is habitable (National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003). In addition, according to Laqueur (2003), most terrorists are still sponsored and funded; therefore, denying or cutting their source (s) of funding will make a great difference in the war against terror. States should be allowed the willingness to build their capacities since all states are not economically equal (Dershowitz, 2002). States should increase the funding of the ordinary people’s project on ‘Poverty Alleviation’. Also, good monitoring is necessary in order to make sure that any fund allocated to the project is utilized judiciously; this would hopefully reduce the incidents of corruption which might arise (Abrahms, 2006).

According to Richardson (2006, p. 22):

“If we want to contain terrorism, we must first understand it.”

Modern terrorists rely heavily on internet and they use it to communicate, to proselytize, to recruit, to raise funds and to research, plan, and carry out their attacks (Richardson, 2006). This actually constitutes difficulties for states to produce effective structures to counter terrorism. Even the U.S with its enormous Information and Communication Technology (IC&T) could not detect the positioning of the terrorists when they attacked the World Trade Centre (Twin Towers) and their after. Furthermore, many states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, have sponsored terrorism abroad because they did not want to incur the risk of overtly attracting more powerful countries (Richardson, 2006). Also Richardson (2006) posits that Great Powers too supported terrorist groups abroad as a way of engaging in proxy warfare or covertly bringing about internal change in difficult countries without openly displaying their strength (Richardson, 2006). This spontaneously would be one of the difficulties in the countries to produce effective structures to counter terrorism.

Some of the causes of terrorism have often being linked to the politics of a state, religion and the advent of extremist groups (Hoffman, 2006). Therefore, drawing enough line between terrorism and other forms of political, non-political groups or violence are major difficulties faced by states in producing effective structure to counter terrorism (Laqueur, 2003; Hoffman, 2006; Richardson, 2006). The advent of extremist white supremacist citizens, militias and Christian Patriot, paramilitary groups and hate crimes in Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and especially the U.S, encourages and facilitates the act of terrorism (Hoffman, 2006). According to Huntington (2002, p.119), Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia confirmed that:

“The greatest threat to his country was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism amongst its youth.”

In Oklahoma, U.S, 1995, due to hate crime, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building and killed more than 120 people (Hoffman, 2006). This type of problem is one of the difficulties faced by states in producing effective structure to counter terrorism. States should be able to minor any type of group formation which falls out of the ambit of state control or groups that are violent in nature.

Drug trafficking has recently blurred the line of detection of terrorism by states (Hoffman, 2006). Because powerful people often back the drug traffickers up, they limit the states from producing effective structure to counter them. Afganistan, Colombia and Mexico are classic examples states that cannot control terrorism because the money realized from sale of drugs boost their economies.



In conclusion, for a state to produce effective structures to counter terrorism, terrorists and the act of terrorism need to be studied in the broader contexts of political conflict, taking into account both governing state and opposition parties and their allies in society (Schmid, 2004). It is when the states know about those that perpetrate terrorism and their cause, would they be able to produce effective structures to counter them. Also, countering terrorism requires cooperation, not only from within but also internationally. This is because the new terrorism has taken a global dimension and needs to be countered globally (U.S Congress Report, 2003). Therefore, any action taken by a state to produce effect structures to counter terrorism, will first and foremost address the root cause of terrorism. It is pertinent to tackle all manifestation of poverty, if the states presume that poverty or its allied factors are the problems they face in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. States should work devotedly to eliminate causes of frustration and deprivation, in order to settle all the major issues that could be exploited by terrorist groups (Dershowitz, 2002). See Box 1 for the summary of the findings of International Summit on the causes and underlying factors of terrorism.

Summary of the findings of International Summit on ‘the Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism

Findings and Summary

Poverty, per se, is not the cause of terrorism. Movements draw support from disadvantaged or marginalized groups through group leaders and activists. Extremist ideologies blending with traditional norms, social patterns and identity. Reduction of Structured inequalities. Promoting the growth of civil society. Supporting political compromise in states which marginalized groups have not yet resorted to terrorism e.g. supporting power sharing pacts and regional autonomy agreements for minorities. Providing opportunities for individual and collective disengagement from terrorism. Developing tools to increase transparency. Counter regional trans-state and cross-border terrorism by encouraging regional organizations to take the lead in counter terrorist initiatives in Africa, the Balkans and Middle East (Source: Gurr, Ted Robert and Bjorgo, 2005) “Economic Factors that Contribute to Terrorism in Social and Political Context.” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and security (1st May).

The finding of Gurr and Bjorgo (2005) and Richardson (2006) revealed that poverty is not the cause of terrorism but has an indirect link to terrorism to an extent. This was defended by Walter (2003; 2004) and Hoffman (2006) that poverty is one of the causes of terrorism. The act of terrorism does not really discriminate between the poor and rich because if this is the case, it means there would be more terrorists in Africa which is the poorest continent than the Middle East (Richardson, 2006). According to Kofi Anna, the UN Secretary General:

“The poor of this world suffer enough; one should not in addition brand them as potential terrorists.”

Dershowitz (2002, p.25) echoes that:
“To focus on such factors as poverty, illiteracy and disenfranchisement and others all too common around our imperfect world is to fail to explain why so many groups with far greater grievances and disabilities have never resorted to terrorism.”


Terrorism has been practiced by the left as well as the right, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and atheists but no single state can lay claims to terrorism because terrorism is not limited to any part of world or confined to one religion or political ideology (Richardson, 2006). Although, some countries are committed to producing effective structures to counter terrorism but many still lack the capacity to fulfill their social responsibilities because they lack legal framework, law enforcement, intelligence or military capability to combat terrorism (National Strategy for Combating terrorism, 2003).

It is only when terrorism is acceptably defined, enforceable laws put in place and there are consensus and synergy amongst states could it be possible for states to surmount the difficulties they faced in producing effective structures to counter terrorism. Also, there should be a binding international system of law on terrorism because presently, the laws preventing the act seem to be lax. For instance, more terrorists are discharged and acquitted than are prosecuted. In spite of the rampage of terrorism this era it seem the UN have not come up with the type of law or punishment that can deter terrorism. As it looks now, it seems it is only America and Britain that have taken the war to the lion’s den. The intervention also ignited a lot of criticisms from the international community. Tony Blair was fortunate to have won his reelection than the U.S Republican Party that conceded several seats in November 2006 to the democrats because of America’s invasion of Iraq.

Chris E. Obinwa



References


Abrahms, Max (2006) “Why Terrorism Does not Work” International Security, Vol. 31, no.2, pp. 42-78.

Acharya, Amitav (2005) “Civil Society, Religion and Global Government: Paradigms of Power and Persuasion, Paper presented at the International Conference 1-2 September, Canberra, Australia.

Andrew, H. Kydd and Barbara, Walter (2006) “The Strategies of Terrorism”. International Security. Vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 49-80.

Dershowitz, Alan M. (2002). “Why Terrorism works: Understanding the threat, responding to the challenges.” Publishers: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., Inc.

Eckert, Sue (2005). “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International. 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Hoffman, Bruce (2006). “Inside Terrorism” Columbia University Press: New York.

Gold, David (2005). “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International, held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Gunning, Jeroen (2005) “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Gurr, Ted Robert and Bjorgo (2005). “Economic Factors that Contribute to Terrorism in Social and Political Context.” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and security (1st May).

Huntington, Samuel (2002). “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remarking of World Order. Simon and Schuster Inc.

Rotberg, Robert I. (2002). “The New Nature of Nation-State Failure. Washington Quarterly. Vol.25, no.3, pp. 85-96.

Rotberg, Robert I. (2003). “Africa’s Discontent: Coping with Human and Natural Disasters. World Peace Foundation. No. 33.

Schmid, Alex (2004). Framework of Conceptualizing Terrorism”. Terrorism and Political Violence, vol. 16, no. 2 (April-June), pp.197 -221

Sheffer, Gabriel (2005). ) “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

Spencer, Alexander (2006). “Questioning the Concept of New Terrorism” Peace conflict and Development Issue, no.8 (January).

Stohl, Michael (2005). “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

UN Security Council (2002). “Terrorists Threats to International Peace, Security.” 4618th Meeting. Press Release SC/7522

U.S Congress Report (2003). “Intelligence to Counter Terrorism: Issues for Congress. Ed Richard Best, Jr. Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

Laqueur, Walter(2003). “No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century. Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

Walter, Lacqueur (2004). “Voices of Terror” Reed Publishers: New York

Zimmermann, Ekkart (2005) “The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism” International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security International held from 8 – 11 March, Madrid, Spain.

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (2003)

9/11 US Commission Report (2003)