Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified - Assignment Example

In what ways can terrorism be distinguished from other forms of violent conflict? Can terrorism ever be justified? In modern society, the developmentof conflicts against specific political decisions has been considered to be the most effective method for stating the opposition of particular part of the society (teams, political parties or individuals) to the criteria used for the development of a particular governmental policy. However, violent conflicts are often led to negative effects for all the parties involved. Even under these terms, the response of the governments to the conflicts developed by various teams or individuals is not the appropriate one. In this context, it has been noticed that ‘an alternative public policy might target high-risk technologies (civilian airlines, nuclear reactors, etc.) as the source of vulnerability to terrorism, thereby protecting civil liberties by reducing or eliminating the use of such technologies’ (Jurgensen, 2004, 55). The above suggestions could possibly help towards the limitation of violent conflicts in countries worldwide; however this outcome could not be regarded as guaranteed; the appearance and the development of violent conflicts in states internationally cannot be eliminated; it could only be appropriately controlled ensuring that no case of risk for the public safety will occur – a target that can be characterized as quite challenging especially if taking into account the post-September 11th events. The expansion of terrorism worldwide cannot be doubted. Through the years, the measures taken by governments for the limitation of the phenomenon are proved to be inadequate. In accordance with Fleming (1998, 27) ‘an ever-increasing reality in the world today is the threat of terrorism; the significance of the threat cannot be overstated because terrorism transcends both geographic and demographic boundaries; no community or organization is immune from acts of terrorism’. Various other views have been stated in literature regarding the reasons for the appearance and the development of terrorism worldwide; it seems that terrorism is related with specific political options that are contradicted with the interests of particular groups of people – or in some cases with the interests of nations. It should be noticed that in practice terrorist attacks are divided into five major categories: ‘(1) biological, (2) chemical, (3) explosive, (4) incendiary, and (5) nuclear; while most terroristic events involve one of these, the use of multiple types of terrorism against a target cannot be ruled out’ (Fleming, 1998, 27). The reference to these categories is made in order to identify the criteria that should be used for the design and the application of relevant plans of action worldwide; each type of terrorist attack (as described above) requires a specific prevention plan (referring to different social and political choices and initiatives). Regarding the potential differentiation of terrorism from other forms of violent conflict, it could be stated that in practice it is rather difficult to distinguish between terrorism and other forms of violent conflict. In modern era, the military conflicts are considered to be justified while the reactions of specific groups of population are usually characterized as terrorist attacks. The identification of the reasons related with both the above social phenomena – terrorism and violent conflicts is necessary in order to locate their characteristics but also their potential interactions within specific social or political conditions. Different assumptions could be made on the appearance and development of violent conflicts (that lead afterwards to actions of terrorism) in modern societies. Many social theories have been used to explain the specific behaviour but with no particular success. In accordance with Bonanate (1979, 197) ‘societies which must cope with terrorism are blocked, i. e. incapable of advancing and at the same time immune to disintegration; in this interpretation, the appearance of terrorism becomes an indicator that the society in question is only apparently democratic’. In accordance with the above view, societies in which terrorism is developed are those that have severe political or social problems; however, this is not the case. There are societies in which there are no particular phenomena of social conflict, however terrorism actions have also appeared in these societies (an indicative example is USA where no specific form of terrorism have appeared in the country before the events of September the 11th). On the other hand, it is noticed by Aradau (2007, 89) that ‘governing terrorism through risk involves a permanent adjustment of traditional forms of risk management in light of the double infinity of catastrophic consequences and the incalculability of the risk of terrorism’. In other words, handling terrorism is a difficult task for all governments worldwide; the success of the relevant efforts is usually depended on a series of factors (among which the ability of the state to respond effectively to the challenges set by specific teams or individuals). Through the years, governments around the world have tried to identify the measures that would be appropriate for the limitation of terrorism in their territories. However, the specific measures are usually proved only partially effective; in most cases the effectiveness of these measures is just temporary. Towards this direction, Kunreuther (2006, 38) noticed that ‘natural disasters and terrorist attacks are examples of what have been classified as low probability-high consequence (LP-HC) events; despite the first half of their title, these events are now in the headlines with increasing frequency’. In accordance with the above view, terrorist attacks can cause severe damages not only financially but also physically leading to the death of many people. On the other hand, natural disasters and terrorism attacks have a common point: they are very difficult prevented while the limitation of their results is too difficult even in cases that their appearance is known in advance (when they are expected to occur in accordance with specific natural or political signs/ events). In most countries, the efforts of reducing the effects of terrorism are based on the development of an appropriately customized compensation schemes (referring to the families of the victims of terrorism attacks worldwide). Regarding this issue, it is noticed by Dixon et al. (2006, 292) that ‘the institutions, programs, and policies that provide benefits to businesses and individuals affected by an accident, natural disaster, terrorist attack, or other type of loss can be thought of as a system composed of four primary compensation mechanisms: insurance, the tort system, government programs, and charity’. All these schemes can be considered as quite effective regarding the compensation of the families of victims of terrorist attacks. However, it should be noticed that these schemes should be combined with appropriate prevention plans (i.e. strategies for restructuring existing police department in order to increase the effectiveness of armed forces against the terrorism). In other words, the schemes for the compensation of the victims’ families are welcomed but they are not adequate; in order to be led to the limitation of terrorism worldwide appropriate strategies would be developed by governments worldwide; the consequences of various political options on the interests of groups of people worldwide should be also evaluated in advance (if the risk for a long-term terrorism threat from specific political choices is very possible it would be preferable that these choices are cancelled and be replaced by others – more favourable for the social and ethical characteristics of populations worldwide (referring to the case of the limitation of human rights as a precaution measure against potential threat for terrorist attacks). Because of the failure of governments worldwide to face effectively the expansion of terrorism, commercial activity worldwide is facing a continuous financial turbulence (lack of stability in the economy has a direct result on the performance of organizations – both of the private and the public sector – worldwide. Despite the difficulties faced by governments in order to develop an appropriate scheme for the limitation of terrorism worldwide, continuous efforts are made by individuals (working in various industrial sectors) in order to identify and eliminate the reasons that can lead to terrorist attacks. However, because this effort is quite challenging alternative plans of action have been developed, like the offering of sufficient compensation to the families of the victims of terrorist attacks but also the development of plans that can help modern organizations to face more effectively similar phenomena. In this context, it is stated that vulnerability management could be included in the strategic planning of all modern firms; the prevention of terrorist attacks should be the priority of the relevant mechanisms worldwide; the punishment of terrorists is another issue which will be evaluated further in this paper. More specifically, it is stated by Fuller et al. (2002, 275) that vulnerability management could be characterized ‘as holistic and integrated activities directed toward the reduction of emergencies and disasters by diminishing risk and susceptibility and building of resistance and resilience’ (Fuller et al., 2002, 275). Various other managerial plans could be developed in order to offer to modern organizations an operational framework that it will have increased safety against potential terrorist attacks. However, because the effectiveness of these plans can be limited, the development of compensation schemes (as described above) has been considered as necessary. From another point of view, the services provided by various organizations regarding the protection from potential terrorist attacks can be characterized as quite important – an indicative example is the administration of data making sure that no loss of valuable information will take place within a particular organization. The specific issue was examined by Montana et al. (1983) who tried to identify the value of the support offered to modern organizations by appropriately customized firms that operate mainly in the private sector. These firms often claim to have quite effective solutions regarding the protection of a firm from a potential terrorist attack – the most indicative example is that of the firms offering protection of IS systems in organizations of all types worldwide. The results of terrorism – protection schemes applied worldwide prove that there are no absolutely effective plans – referring to the limitation of the risk from terrorist attacks worldwide. Even the psychological profile of the terrorists has been attempted but with no specific results. In accordance with Horgan (2008, 80) ‘involvement in terrorism is a complex psychosocial process that comprises at least three seemingly distinct phases: becoming involved, being involved—synonymous with engaging in unambiguous terrorist activity—and disengaging (which may or may not result in subsequent de-radicalization)’. If the above issues are taken into consideration from the persons working on terrorism-prevention programs then it would be expected that the effectiveness of these programs would have been increased. The fact that terrorist attack are quite frequent worldwide – despite all the measures taken for their prevention – proves that terrorism is a phenomenon that cannot be easily controlled. In fact, only the level of compensation of the victims’ families is an issue that can be totally controlled by governments worldwide; all other aspects of terrorism are very difficult to be identified and appropriately handled. The development of military forces and the increase of the power of militants worldwide cannot be considered as the appropriate solution for the limitation of terrorism in the international community. Rather appropriate prevention measures should be developed making sure that the intervention of the international authorities in the internal issues of countries worldwide will be limited at the lowest possible level. Regarding the above it is noticed by Oliverio et al. (2005, 153) that ‘because the state exists in a symbiotic relationship to terrorism, responses to terrorism by any state, particularly at the definitional stage, appear to maintain a fairly consistent pattern’. In other words, terrorism – as all violent conflicts – cannot be faced through the expansion of the use of military force; rather negotiations with countries internationally – especially those in which the phenomenon of terrorism is quite developed – should be promoted making sure that the relevant terms are equal for all participants. In any case, terrorist attacks could not be justified even if the interests involved are related with a whole country. Other ways of supporting the national (or other type of) interests would be retrieved by the persons that participate in such actions. References Aradau, C., Munster, R. (2007) Governing Terrorism Through Risk: Taking Precautions, (un)Knowing the Future. European Journal of International Relations, 13(1): 89-115 Bonanate, L. (1979) Some Unanticipated Consequences of Terrorism. Journal of Peace Research, 16(3): 197-211 Dixon, L., Reville, R. (2006). NATIONAL SECURITY AND PRIVATE-SECTOR RISK MANAGEMENT FOR TERRORISM. Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 292-304 Fleming, D. (1998). Assessing Organizational Vulnerability to Acts of Terrorism. SAM Advanced Management Journal 63(4): 27-33 Fuller, C., Johnston, C., Mcentire D., Weber, R. (2002). A Comparison of Disaster Paradigms: The Search for a Holistic Policy Guide. Public Administration Review, 62(3): 267-285 Jurgensen, A. (2004) Terrorism, Civil Liberties, and Preventive Approaches to Technology: The Difficult Choices Western Societies Face in the War on Terrorism. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(1): 55-59 Kunreuther, H. (2006). Risk and Reaction: Dealing with Interdependencies. Harvard International Review, 28(3): 38-43 Montana, P., Roukis, G. (1983) Managing Terrorism: Strategies for the Corporate Executive. Westport: Quorum Books. Read More