International Terrorism

1. International Terrorism What is it and how do we fight it?

2. What exactly is TERRORISM? There aren’t many terms that are more emotionally laden in our current political environment than terrorism/terrorist. Nations and groups want to define terrorism so they can exclude their own actions, but include those of their opponents Gray areas exist, but so do some clear black and white areas that few, if any, would question

3. Terrorism… • Involves the threat or use of violence • involves violence that must be carried out in the furtherance of some broader political or social objective (ex: mugger, not terrorist) • Is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victims. The randomness creates more fear.

4. Possible definitions • TERRORISM IS… • “The launching of reckless or indiscriminate attacks on civilians in order to communicate a message to a third party, who will invariably be the real enemy.” • Usually this is conducted by “a subnational group or non-state entity”(but this is controversial).

5. Terrorism or Terrorisms? • We can’t generalize about terrorism • There are differences in terrorist groups and understanding these is essential for developing appropriate policy responses. • Ex: Irish Republican Army (IRA), AL-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Aum Shinrikyo all are terrorist groups, but very different

6. IRA (Irish Republican Army) • Traditional terrorist group • Movement with fairly modest political objectives fighting against outside domination (get Brits out of Northern Ireland) • Tactics were traditional, small-scale bombings • nationalist/separatist group

7. Al Qaeda “The Base” • More expansive political & social goals deeply infused with Islamic fundamentalism. • Tactics and scale are on a totally different level…the scale of the 911 attack is what made it different • More groups will likely use greater levels of violence and unconventional methods • Now there are more religious terrorist groups, 1980 most were ethnic or nationalist, by 1995 over half were religious in nature

8. Different approaches to terrorism • These different frameworks for understanding terrorism imply different strategies of reaction as well. • Cosmopolitan response: views 9/11 as crimes against humanity • Realist/Statist Response: views 9/11 as an attack on the United States as a state and its people

9. Different frameworks • Statist/Realist Response: Terrorist attacks are acts of war and the most effective strategy for combating terrorism requires putting pressure on those states that actively support or passively tolerate terrorist organizations. • Cosmopolitan/Liberal response: Terrorist attack are criminal acts requiring an international, multilateral response within the context of international law and organizations. Long term strategy involves addressing root causes of terrorism—poverty, inequality, and discontent.

10. If we view 9/11 as acts of war… Then we respond with the “War on Terror” But this is not a traditional war, not an armed conflict fought by military means between states, with a definite ending, etc. There will never be a signing of unconditional surrender in the war on terror. The War on Terror is also not purely metaphorical , Al Qaeda and other groups are capable of inflicting damage like states in war

11. Law enforcement, not military model • 911 are crimes, not acts of war…See example of Oklahoma City bombing • Terrorists are international criminal organizations

12. International Legal Response • The US should have sought the establishment of an international tribunal with the authority to seek extradition or arrest and prosecution of terrorists. • Refrain from unilateral or precipitous military action, US should hav created a unified international coalition with strong Islamic representation. • Tribunal would be similar to the one dealing with former Yugoslavia. • Intl legal and law enforcement institutions aren~t as strong or well-developed as some domestic ones, but threat of terrorism justifies strengthening them and it is necessary because transnational terrorism demands more intl cooperation International legal responses…bandaid after the fact

13. The root of the problem • Try to understand root causes of terrorism so you can ameliorate or eliminate these issues • Islamic fundamentalism..long history of Western, especially US support for repressive and authoritarian regimes in the Arab world within the context of a long history of Western hostility to Islam that dates back to crusades • US support for Israel, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia and now occupying Iraq.

14. Root causes • Response to poverty and global economic inequality • When people can´t solve their own problems, they strike out irrationally, seeking foreign scapegoats, or collapsing into civil war over limited resources. This can in turn lead to a failed state, where terrorism might flourish. • “Feed the hands that bite us” • No justice, no peace. If justice, then peace.

15. Addressing root causes • US should work on...providing basic health care, support family planning, deal with environmental issues like deforestation b/c overpopulation, poverty and political dislocation are common backdrops to development of terrorism, especially as globalization widens disparities in wealth and opportunity

16. Addressing root causes • More to justice than alleviation of poverty • More than poverty fuels terrorism... that profound sense of exclusion and domination at the domestic and international levels • Domestically: Absence of democracy and lack of respect for human rights foster resentment without possibility of nonviolent dissent...need some level of democratization in the Middle East • Internationally: dominance of a small handful of nations (esp the US) with tremendous economic, political and military power who wield it assymetrically with only a passing glance at multilateralism • Reform the international and domestic institutions that perpetuate inequities and injustices.

17. Statist / Realist Rsponse • Obviously terrorism is a crime, but it is not ONLY a crime, it is an act of war • It may be a new concept of war, but it is one that build on and extends the classic concept, require a aggressive diplomatic posture. • Krauthammer:”half-measures are for wars of choice, like Vietnam, where losing is an option. You lose and you still surviv as a nation. The war on terrorism is different, losing is not an option, it is fatal. This is no time for restraint, but rather righteous might.”

18. Realist Strategy • Deemphasize legal and intl organizational elements of antiterrorism policy, ocassionally useful (tracking flow of financial resources to terrorist organizations) • Argue that with domestic terrorism, domestic agencies can combat terrorism legally and through law enforcement • But international level, the parallel agencies and institutions aren´t advanced enough to fight terrorism. Not effective.

19. Ineffectiveness of Int’l Legal Response • After 1972 massacre by PLO of Israeli athletes at the olympics in Munich, UN tried to coordinate a set of policies to deal with international terrorism. • UN couldn´t even agree of a definition of terrorism....especally since the actions of national liberation movements were often seen in the developing world as legitimate responses to oppression and domination (only option for the weak in the face of power).

20. International Response is problematic. • Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (1979), but only 97 signatories and of couse, states are free to withdraw. • Interpol works to an extent, but most national law enforcement bodies have more intelligence and often won´t share • Hard to create effective international response in a world of sovereign states

21. Realist response to “root causes” argument • Don´t really know what root causes are...idea that poverty or inequality cause terrorism is a faith statement not based on compelling evidence, look at the terrorrist themselves...not about poverty, about politics of radical islam. Ex: 911 hijackers, Osama, Hezbollah, etc.

22. Realist response to “root causes” argument • Even if cause is poverty and inequality, these aren´t going away any time soon, regardless of what we do. Threat of terrorism is NOW, in the present, requires a response. • Terrorism is a manifestation of fundamental conflicts of interests and values (Ex: Huntington´s Clash of Civilizations). • Root causes people are using this arg as a utopian evasion of the hard task at hand

23. Realist Response • Intractable conflict • Not very optimistic • Responses to terrorism must be crafted within the limitations of the existing state system. • Terrorists may not be states, but terrorists, terrorist training facilities, and terrorist financial resources are all located within the borders of states...war against states that support terrorism (but what about failing states????) • Last choice is regime change, replace the states that do support terrorism with those who don´t

24. Realist Response • admit we will never eliminate all terrorism • Deal with terrorist orgs as threats to the national interest, must be defeated or deterred • States are still critical players on the global level, even when it comes to controlling the actions of nonstate actors (ex. Terrorist orgs).

25. Int´l terrorism is complicated • The menu for policy options in fighting terrorism is loaded with short-term/long-term tradeoffs • Ex: Democracy in the middle East as longterm strategy, in short term need support of nondemocratic regimes All good things do not always come together.