Political Terrorism - Why Do Some Groups Resort to Political Terror - Essay Example

Political Terrorism Why do some groups resort to political terror? Introduction Events of terrorism are a frequent occurrence in our times occurring at one place or another. So much so the word political terrorism is bandied about frequently in private conversations, by the media and by the politicians. Political terrorism has existed for long time, yet it has gained in importance, because of the fear that it portends due to the mass death and destruction potential it carries today. It is this reason that has made political terrorism a burning issue in modern society. When the words political terrorism are used does it have the same meaning to those who utter it, or is there a blurring in its meaning and understanding? To answer this question let us look at the definition of terrorism. Political terrorism is a mode of warfare and has a different meaning for different people and in this is the conundrum in defining political terrorism. For the developed world the Libyan-supported attacks on the airports at Rome and Vienna in 1985 were acts of political terrorism by Libya and the revolutionary elements using armed struggle to promote their aims at securing freedom. From the perspective of Libya, however it was the retaliatory attack by the powerful United States of America in 1986 that was an act of political terrorism, for it was purely with the objective of putting fear into Libya and the insurgent groups that violence would be met with violence. Thus searching for a universally accepted definition of political terrorism is futile exercise and there would be better reward in trying to understand what political terrorism means (Merari, 2007). The Development of Political Terrorism There are three basic elements that go into providing an understanding of political terrorism. The first is that the destructive violence seen in mode of warfare of political violent is unlike the conventional open combat and is essentially in used by stealth. The second basic element is the principal targets of this violence is political and even when the targets are not political, the message attempted to be communicated through the violence is political. The final basic element in political terrorism is that it is used by insurgent groups against the state or as recourse by the state. Thus the main players in political terrorism are insurgent groups acting against the state or the state by itself (Ronczkowski, 2004). Terror as a weapon has a long history and is not a development of the twentieth century. However, the nature of terrorism that society faces today is far different from the earlier experiences and as a coherent philosophy is rooted in the revolutionary warfare of the twentieth century. One of the early proponents and theorist of political terrorism is Mao Tse-tung integrated a set of military tactics that could be employed by those lacking armies in the conventional sense. Mao Tse-tung is famous for the slogan ‘political power grows out of the barrel of the gun’, wherein the military strength is the basis of political power. However, more importantly he set out to define how numerically and technologically inferior forces can take superior military forces (Wardlaw, 1989). In this strategy political power acts as the substitute for military and technological power. Drawing on the political support of a group of people, the political motivated insurgents are capable of carrying out a determined and protracted war, in spite of an early reverses that they face. This has the effect of wearing down a superior military opponent, but with less dedication and commitment. Political terrorism thus transcends into a peoples war, as there is always a group of people that act as the oasis from which the insurgents can draw sustenance and the capacity to keep the engagement protracted. A consequence of this strategy is the need for continuous mobilization of people in support of the cause of the insurgents and what better strategy than portraying the well aimed blows at the enemy through violent acts. It is this that has caused violence to be embedded in political terrorism, where the greater the violence the larger the impact. It is not the actual physical violence that counts, but the dramatic effect. Quite often the initial use of political terrorism is focused in the wrong direction. Political terrorism in this strategic form was used initially in the Jewish struggle to get the British to leave Palestine for the establishment of Israel (Wardlaw, 1989). The purposes and circumstances under which a state uses violence against groups acting against the state differ from this (Merari, 2007). Insurgent Groups Use of Political Terrorism against the State Kellner 2003 argues that the growth in insurgent groups and their use of political terrorism is a consequence of globalization and the sharpening of the divide between the haves and the have-nots. This widening divide provides a growing well of support for insurgent groups to act against the state. Yet, this addresses only one aspect of economic deprivation as the cause of political terrorism and the violence witnessed in it. The political violence theory on terrorism lays the cause of terrorism across the wider arena of political, economic, and social situations and the emotions of misery, frustrations and grievance and despair as justification for violence in political terrorism. It is the interplay of these emotions that pave the way for collective action by insurgent groups to demonstrate violence in their actions against the state (Schmid & Jongman, 2005). To understand the political dimension of political terrorism, the insurgent groups activities in the 1960’s and 1970’s provide the basis. Political objectives were by and large present as the basis of insurgent group political terrorism. The primary objective of terrorism during this period was the seizure of power the promotion of a particular revolutionary ideology, or at least some diffuse political purposes (Gurr, 1988). In the 1970’s social revolutionary groups like the Red Brigades in Italy, the Red Army Faction in Germany and the Action Direct were built on the transformational political platform and were motivated by their perception of rampant injustice prevalent under the prevalent political systems that were based on capitalism. Overthrowing the prevalent capitalist political systems and ushering in a utopian classless society was their political objective. Those dedicated to this objective found violence as the means to this end and therefore killing capitalists and their supporters, though non-combatants were justified (Richardson, 2004). Evidence from studies conducted in the objectives that have motivated Palestinian suicide terrorist recruits have clearly demonstrated the political motivations involved. The denial of the creation of a Palestine nation led to the martyrdom that was easily instigated through internal logic that was caused by frustrated ambition (Helmus, 2009). Quite often the focus on political terrorism by insurgent groups remains on the political aspirations, forgetting that the insurgent groups also have economic aspirations that could be used as economic resources for their activities. This is particularly so, when there is either erosion of their support base or the support received is unable to provide sufficient economic resources. The association of terrorist groups with members of organized crime, particularly drug trafficking is on the rise. This hybrid combination leads to the combination of a political objective with a quest for power through the desire to derive revenues through illicit activities and the willingness to use any amount of violence to these ends. The danger posed in this is that for many of the insurgent groups, independent source of funding poses a problem and criminal activities is the easiest solution. The Madrid train bombings were conceived and executed through a motley mix of Al Qaeda terrorists and radicalized gangsters (Gunaratna & Acharya, 2007). The war on terrorism in Afghanistan has run into the financing that drug trafficking provides for terrorism. The war lords control the drug trafficking and the terrorists provides them the power for control of their area, even when it involves violence against the local populace or the administration (Konarovsky, 2007). Political and material incentives alone do not explain the psyche of political terrorism. The age old recognition made by Aristotle that “man is a social being”, amplifies the presence of the social factor in the development of political terrorism. Social incentives are motivating factors for large and small groups to come together and act violently towards these social incentives. Evaluation of the American Civil Rights movement did not transcend into political terrorism simply for the reason that there wasn’t enough social incentive for collective political terrorism for achieving the social goals of the African Americans (Crotty, 2005). Religious terrorism does not form a part of political terrorism, but the analysis of modern terrorism shows that the religious terrorism cannot be totally de-linked from political terrorism, for religious terrorism has taken on the garb of most of the ingredients of political terrorism in the form of political and economic motivation in addition to religious motives Al Qaeda is a modern terrorist organization that operates in the twilight zone of religious and political and economic motives. Within the political motive is the re-establishment of Khalifa or the Caliphate as an empire that stretches from Andulasia to Indonesia. It believes in dramatic acts of violence as the means to achieving this objective (Cooper, 2004). State Use of Political Terrorism Political terrorism is usually viewed as repressive governments using violent force against its own citizens to force them into obedience, oppression of the minorities in the country and overcoming political dissent. For this violent action the government often uses its own military meant to fight foreign invasion and turns their might towards their political objectives within their country. This is possible for the military is often plays a pliant role to their political masters or the military may also be the government in that country. State sponsored political terrorism came to the forefront during the 1970’s and 1980’s in many countries of South and Central America, which were ruled by dictators. Violence was unleashed by the state against the popular political dissidents, which led to many disappearances, political imprisonment torture and massive exile. This violent state action was a consequence of the development of popular radical movements against the oppressive rule of the state. These radical movements called for public reforms and programs to assist the underprivileged classes present in the urban areas and the poor peasant farmers. Action against these popular movements resulted in political terrorism by the state to spike dissent. It must be remembered here that many of these repressive regimes did receive support from the developed world, who viewed the radical elements in the country as a problem that needed to be eradicated (Siegel, 2008). Reflecting these actions to curb dissension, the counter terrorism and insurgency strategies quite frequently border on political terrorism by the countries involved in the war against terrorism that the accusation of state terrorism is quite frequently witnessed in these counter terrorism activities by many developed states (Forest, 2007). State repression in the developed world and nearer home in the United Kingdom is not a new experience. In the nineteenth century the United Kingdom was besot with dissent arising from the dissent of the Fenians in Ireland and the Suffragettes in the United Kingdom itself. The repressive response of the state was to imprison these dissenters and treat them more harshly on the ground that the criminality was a passing phase and more acceptable than the dissent to the state demonstrated by the Fenians and the Suffragettes (McLaughlin, 2002). Conclusion Political terrorism is not easy to define in a manner that is universally accepted. Yet, there is acceptance that political, economic and social motives are the fundamental basis for political terrorism indulged by in groups of insurgents, while state terrorism stems from repressive regimes and curbing of dissension. Earlier religious terrorism was differentiated from political terrorism, but the political and economic motives of modern terrorist groups have blurred this distinction. The answer to the question why some groups resort to political terrorism is found in the political, or economic, or social or religious motives, which cause them to resort to political terrorism. Literary References Cooper, B. 2004, New Political Religions, or An Analysis of Modern Terrorism, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, Missouri. Crotty, W. 2005, ‘Democratization and Political Terrorism’, in Democratic Development and Political Terrorism, ed. William Crotty, North Eastern University Press, Boston, pp.3-16. Forest, J. 2007, ‘Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century: Combating the Sources and the Facilitators, Praeger Security International, Santa Barbara, California. Helmus, T. C. 2009, ‘Why and How Some People Become Terrorists’, in Social Science for Counter Terrorism, eds. Paul K. Davis & Kim Cragin, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, pp.71-109. Gunaratna, R. & Acharya, A. 2007, ‘Terrorism and Transnational Organized Crime in Comparative Perspective’, in Organized Crime: From Trafficking to Terrorism, Volume 2, eds. Frank G. Shanty & Patit Paban Mishra, ABC-Clio Inc., Santa Barbara, California, pp.363-370. Gurr, T. R. 1988, ‘Some Characteristics of Political Terrorism in the 1960’s’, in Politics of Terrorism, Third Edition, ed. Michael Stohl, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, pp.31-58. Kellner, D. 2003, From 9/11 to Terror War: The Dangers of the Bush Legacy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Maryland. Konarovsky, M. 2007, ‘Central Asia and the War against Terrorism: A View from Russia’, in Islam, Oil and Geopolitics: Central Asia after September 11, eds. Elizabeth Van Wie Davis & Rouben Azizan, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Lanham, Maryland, pp.13-27. McLaughlin, E. (2002) ‘Political Violence, Terrorism and States of Fear’, in Crime, Order and Social Control: The Problem of Crime, eds. John Muncie & Eugene McLaughlin, sage Publications, London, pp.283-330 Merari, A. 2007, ‘Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency’, in The History of Terrorism: From Antiquity to Al Qaeda, eds. Gerard Chaliand & Arnaud Blin, University of California Press, California, pp.12-54. Richardson, L. 2004, ‘Fighting Against Terrorism and for Justice’, in Liberty & Power: A Dialogue on Religion & U.S. Foreign Policy, eds. J. Brian Heir, Miachael Walzer, Louise Richardson, Shibley Telhami, Charles Krauthammer & James Lindsay, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, pp.53-70. Ronczkowski, M. 2004, Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime: Intelligence Gathering, Analysis and Investigations, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Schmid, P. A. & Jongman, J. A. 2005, Political Terrorism, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Siegel, L. 2008, Criminology, Tenth Edition, Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, California. Wardlaw, G. 1989, Political Terrorism: Theory, tactics and countermeasures, The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge. Read More