|Home||Admissions 2016-17||Bridal Dresses||Jobs Pakistan||Govt Jobs||Pakistani Clothes||Cars-Bikes Prices||Child Specialist Karachi|
|Essay Writing Notes, Applications, Letters All English, Urdu, Sindhi, Politics Essay Notes Application and letters download or free share with us|
||Post New Thread||LinkBack||Share||Thread Tools|
|08-29-2013, 11:34 AM||#1 (permalink)|
Essay On Terrorism Full Essay
Essay On Terrorism Full Essay
The history of mankind is replete with tales of horror of some power-wielding humans going mad, while others have been the victims of their unimaginable brutalities. The perpetrators have ranged from individuals to armed groups to states. The systematic use of terror as a means to attain political objectives exists all over the world.
The attention we give to terrorism often seems disproportionate to its real importance. Terrorism incidents make superb copy for journalists, but kill and maim fewer people than road accidents. Nor is terrorism politically effective. Empires rise and fall according to the real determinants of politics – namely overwhelming force or strong popular support – not according to the bit of mayhem and pandemonium caused by isolated fanatics whom one would take seriously enough to vote for it. Indeed, the very variety of incidents that might be described as Terrorism has been such as to lead critics to suggest that no single subject for investigation exists at all. Might we not regard terrorism as a king of minor blotch on the skin of an industrial civilization whose very heart is filled with violent dreams and aspirations. Who would call in the dermatologist when the heart itself is sick?
But popular opinion takes Terrorism very seriously indeed and popular opinion is probably right. For the significance of Terrorism lies not only in the grotesque nastiness of terrorist outrages but also in the moral claims they imply. Terrorism is the most dramatic exemplification of the moral fault of blind willfulness. Terrorism is a solipsistic denial of the obligation of self-control we all must recognize when we lived in civilized communities.
Certainly the sovereign high road to misunderstanding Terrorism is the pseudo-scientific project of attempting to discover its causes. Terrorists themselves talk of the frustrations, which have supposedly necessitated their actions, but to transform these facile justifications into scientific hypothesis is to succumb to the terrorists’ own fantasies. To kill and main people is a choice people make, and glib invocations of necessity are baseless. Other people living in the same situation see no such necessity at all.
HISTORY OF TERRORISM:
Terrorism is not a recent phenomenon. The Zealots employed it against the Roman occupation in Palestine. The Assassins used it in eleventh and twelfth centuries in Persia and Syria. The Thugs in India used it for many centuries against innocent travelers to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali. Terrorism became an important feature of European politics during and after the French Revolution as different political groups comprising anarchists, nationalists and social revolutionaries practiced assassinations, bombings and various forms of violent seizure and destruction of property.
Terrorism has become the greatest evil in our worlds today. It is perpetrated by fanatics who are utterly indifferent to the sanctity of human life. Although the international community remains divided a universal definition of what is meant by terrorism, yet it remains committed to confront it through a variety of means.
WHAT IS TERRORISM?
In the present scenario, the terrorism is being successfully tackled by the United States and its allies who have declared War on Terrorism. If we ponder upon the word Terrorism, it’s a relative term, which takes on a different meaning if we change its context. Terrorism has no absolute and globally accepted definition and its interpretation can easily be used or abused to suite particular needs. The adage that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” reveals the wide range of variations in its interpretation but, if simply stated, terror is extreme or intense fear. It is a psychological state, which combines the physical and mental efforts to create dread and insecurity. The matter of terrorism is complicated. The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today and the hero of yesterday is the terrorist of today. This is serious matter of constantly changing world in which we have to keep our heads straight to know what is terrorism and what is not. But most importantly to know what causes it and how to stop it. The present terrorism scenario is very closely related with Islam.
GLOBALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITIONS:
On December 6, 2001, Justice Ministers of the 25-member European Union adopted a new common definition of terrorism. It defined terrorism as:
“Acts committed with the aim of seriously intimidating a population, forcing a government or international organization to abstain from performing any act, or seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organization.”
Bruce Hoffman, an expert on terrorism, defined it as:
“Ineluctably political aims and motives, violent, or equally important, threatening violence, designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target, conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command.”
International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and security held in Madrid on March 10, 2005. The panel calls for a definition, which would make it clear:
“Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”
THE RISE OF TERRORISM:
“Most Muslims are not fundamentalists, and more fundamentalists are not terrorists, but more present day terrorists are Muslims and proudly identify themselves as such.”, writes Bernard Lewis in ‘The Crisis of Islam’.
Thanks to the rapid development of the media, and especially of television, the more recent forms of terrorism are aimed not at specific and limited enemy objectives but at world opinion. Their primary purpose is not to defeat or even to weaken the enemy militarily but not to gain publicity and to inspire fear – a psychological victory. The same kind of terrorism was practiced by a number of European groups, notably in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Ireland. Among the most successful and most enduring in this exercise has been the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
The PLO was founded in 1964 but became important in the 1967, after the defeat of the combined Arab armies in the Six-Day War. Regular warfare had failed; it was time to try other methods. The targets in this form of armed struggle were not military or other government establishments, which are usually too well guarded, but public places and gatherings of any kind, which are overwhelmingly civilian and in which the victims do not necessarily have a connection to the declared enemy. Examples of this tactic include, in 1970, the hijacking of three aircrafts – one Swiss, one British, and one American – which were all taken to Amman. These and other operations by the PLO were remarkably successful in attaining their immediate objectives – the capture of the newspaper headlines and television screens. They also drew a great deal of support in sometimes-unexpected places, and raised their perpetrators to staring roles in the drama of international relations. Small wonder that others were encouraged to follow their example.
For a while freedom and independence were used as synonymous and interchangeable terms. The early experience of independence, however, revealed that this was a sad error. Independence and freedom are very different, and all too often the attainment of one meant the and of the other, and the replacement of foreign overlords by domestic tyrants, more adept, more intimate, and less constrained in their tyranny.
A new phase in religious mobilization began with the movement known in western languages as pan-Islamism. Launched in the 1860s and 1870s, it probably owed something to the examples of the Germans and the Italians in their successful struggles for national unification in those years. Their Muslim contemporaries and imitators inevitably identified their objectives in religious and communal rather than nationalist or patriotic terms, which at that time were still alien and unfamiliar. But with the spread of European influence and education, these ideas took root and for a while dominated both discourse and struggle in the Muslim lands. Yet the religious identity and loyalty were still deeply felt, and they found expression in several religious movements, notably the Muslim Brothers. With the resounding failure of secular ideologies, they acquired a new importance, and these movements took over the fight – and many of the fighters – from the failed nationalists.
A letter to America published in November 2002, and attributed to Usama Bin Ladin, enumerates in some detail various offences committed not just by the government but also by the people of the US and set forth, under seven headings, “what we are calling you to do, and what we want from you.” The first is to embrace Islam; the second is to stop your oppressions, lies, immorality, and debauchery; the third, to discover and admit that America is a nation without principles or manners; the fourth, to stop supporting Israel in Palestine, the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens, and the Manila government against the Muslims in the southern Philippines; the fifth, to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. This is offered as advice for America’s own goods, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins. The sixth, to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington; seventh, to deal and interact with the Muslims on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of subjugation, theft and occupation. The document ends by telling the Americans that, if they reject this advice, they will be defeated like all the previous Crusaders, and their fate will be that of the Soviets who fled from Afghanistan to deal with their military defeat, political breakup, ideological downfall, and economic bankruptcy.
“If freedom fails and terror triumphs, the peoples of Islam will be the first and greatest victims. They will not be alone, and many others will suffer with them.”
THE TROUBLE WITH TERRORISM:
Charles Townshend writes in “Terrorism”:
“Terrorism upsets people. It does so deliberately. That is its point, and that is why it has engrossed so mush of our attention in the early years of the 21st century. Insecurity can take many forms, but nothing else pays quite so sharply on our sense of vulnerability. After September 11 we found ourselves in an apparently open-ended and permanent state of emergency, a “war against terrorism”, whose ramifications are as inscrutable as terrorism itself. Terrorism is never easy to understand, and least of all in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. When society feels under threat, attempts at rational analysis are often openly resisted as giving aid and comfort to, or even sympathizing with, the enemy. Yet without such analysis, combating Terrorism seems a baffling contest against an indefinite threat. Although Terrorism can sometimes took rational, more often it seems to go straight off the chart of common sense – to be not only unjustifiable, but atrocious, mad or mindless.”
The Problem of Definition:
“Both political and academic efforts to get to grips with terrorism have repeatedly been hung up on the issue of definition, of distinguishing terrorism from criminal violence or military action. In a word it is labeling because terrorist is a description that has almost never been voluntarily adopted by any individual group. It is applied to them by others, first and foremost by the governments of the states they attack. States have not been slow to brand violent opponents with this title, with its clear implications of inhumanity, criminality, and – perhaps most crucially – lack of real political support. Equally, states find it quite easy to produce definitions of Terrorism. The USA, for instance, defines it as ‘ the calculated use or threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies’; the UK as ‘the use or threat, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological course of action, of serious violence against any person or property’.”
“In the states view, only the state has the right to use force – it has, as academics tend to say, a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. But outsiders may wonder whether all use of violence by non-state actors is equally unjustifiable, even it is formally illegal. The very first revolutionary terrorists in the modern sense believed themselves justified in opposing with violence a repressive regime in which no freedom of political expression or organization was permitted.”
“Thus arose a notorious adage that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. This relativism is central to the impossibly of finding an uncontentious definition of Terrorism.”
“Terrorism is a distinctive form of modern political agency, intended to threaten the ability of a state to ensure the security of its members’ – and thus its claim to legitimacy. To get closer to a definition of Terrorism we need to unpick its political logic. For the core of nearly all definitions of Terrorism – the use of violence for the political ends – is too similar to the definition of war to be much of use.”
Terrorism & War:
“Clearly war and terrorism are intimately related. It is hard to imagine a war that did not generate extreme fear amongst many people, and sometimes this is more than a by-product of violence – it is a primary objective.”
“The essence of Terrorism, by contrast, is surely the negation of combat. Its targets are attacked in a way that inhibits self-defence. But, of course, what marks Terrorism out in the public mind is its readiness to attack not just selected but also random targets; in the indiscriminate bombings of a street market, a store, or a bar, we see a deliberate flouting of the international law of war, and a refusal to accept as binding the prevailing moral distinctions – b/w belligerents and illegitimate targets. So the vital part of the US definition is the non-combatant targets against whom violence is perpetrated.”
The Terror Process:
I. Seizing attention: shock, horror, fear, or revulsion: this is certainly the most straightforward stage. The thirst for order and security impels societies to establish conventions and boundaries to regulate violent coercion: when these are transgressed, shock is generated.
II. Getting the message: what do terrorists want: by no means all-terrorist groups rush to claim responsibility for their actions, or if they do so, deliver a comprehensible rationale or demand. When terrorist acts are left unsigned – like 9/11 attacks – it is up to the onlookers to fill in the blanks. The results can be varied. George W. Bush assured his citizens that the 9/11 attacks were ‘intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat’. But retreat from what, or where? American commentators, both official and unofficial, showed a marked reluctance to accept a surely well-established view that Usama bin Laden’s primary motive against the US was the defilement of Saudi Arabia by the presence of US troops. Instead they preferred more abstract explanations of the attacks rooted in envy or hostility towards American prosperity and democracy.
III. Fight or flight? – The response: partly because the assessment of motives can be quirky, responses can be unpredictable or contradictory. If the demands are comprehensible and fulfillable, fear may drive people to comply. It is easy enough for people to fulfill minimal demands – to keep quiet and defuse to help the police, for instance; but bigger political demands can’t usually be delivered directly. The people who are most likely to be intimidated or alarmed are the people who in most political structures are outside the decision-making sphere.
Strategies of Terror:
T. P. Thornton proposed two basic varieties: enforcement and agitational terror. The function of the enforcement terror is likely to be limited, aimed at preserving the security of the rebel organization by deterring the public from giving information to the security forces. To succeed in this, the organization needs a sufficiently extensive surveillance system to persuade people that assisting the authorities will be detected: most terrorist groups are simply too small for this. Agitational terror is likely to grasp at mush extensive, longer-term goals: revolution of some kind, or ‘national liberation’. Some of these goals are more feasible than others.
“Terrorist action may be auxiliary -one element of a larger military or guerilla strategy; it may be confined to limited goals; or it may be absolute – the pursuit of political goals through the systematic use of terror alone. It is this absolute, independent terror strategy, rather than terrorist action per se, that should properly be labeled terrorism.
“Thus Terrorism properly so-called is not just the use of violence for political ends; not just outrageous violence; not just violence by the armed against the unarmed; it is conceived as a free-standing, sufficient, and decisive political strategy.”
Terror & Politics:
“Thinking about the terror process leads to the conclusion that the essential distinction b/w war and terrorism lies in their operational logic: war is ultimately coercive, terrorism is impressive. War is physical, terrorism is mental. Terrorism operates, therefore, through subjective psychological pressure.
Women & Terrorism:
From Vera Zasulish, who carried out the first Narodnik armed attack when she shot the governor of St. Petersburg in 1878, to Waffa al-Edress, the first female Arab suicide bomber in Israel in January 2002, women have been frontline actors and, consequently, pioneer recasters of gender roles.
CRUSADERS & CONSPIRATORS:
The Good Terrorist:
Good terrorist are those whose actions are justified by the oppressiveness of the system they oppose.
Who becomes a terrorist? The answer is likely to be that it depends on the circumstances. Terrorist organizations differ markedly in how they recruit their members. Some will indeed require fanatics, ideologies, dreamers; others may be so embedded in their communities that recruitment resembles a rite of passage.
Freedom Fighters: that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter – or one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist – is surely a commonplace of our times. There are some obvious grounds for relativism. Terrorism as a distinctive political concept got its name from the actions of the holders of the state power, perhaps the first modern regime – the French Convention of Year II of the French Revolution (1793-4). Since then, governments have been on any quantitative measure the most prolific users of terroristic violence. Yet there is not hint of this in the dominant official discourse, terrorism is used by extremists – rebels – against the established order – the state.
“Communist states, especially Soviet Union and their surrogates, as well as other militant totalitarian regimes like Iran, Libya and Syria, are actively exporting terrorist and terror techniques into other countries. Their activity is a manifestation of transnational state-sponsored terrorism. They indoctrinate, fund, train, arm sub-state groups of diverse national origins to at as their tools, using psychological warfare and propaganda to create severe psycho-social conflict in contemporary life.”
US insistence on the central role of state-sponsorship has survived such cautionary advice, however; and several of the old ‘rogue states’ have been recently re-identified by President Bush as part of an axis of evil.
It has become clear over the last decade that we need to look into the future, to access the possibility of terrorists acquiring and using so-called ‘WMDs’ – chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Although they did not involved such weapons, the unprecedented scale of 9/11 attacks seemed to bring the exponential expansion of destruction a big step closer.
THE REIGN OF TERROR:
“Virtue without terror is powerless.”
The French Revolution’s ruthless and systematic use of violence created a model for the application of terrorizing force by the holders of state power over the next couple of centuries. A recent college textbook on terrorism identifies three functional levels of state terrorism: intimidation, coerced conversion; genocide – deliberate extermination of an entire class. Ethnic, or religious group. Although the prime exponents of terrorism from above were overtly repressive autocracies and despotisms, or radical revolutionary regimes like the Bolsheviks during the Russian civil war. The USA tolerated the persistent, systematic terrorization of the Southern Black community by the Ku Klux Klan, as well as the less dramatic use of intimidatory violence by employers against labour organizations.
NATIONALISM & TERROR:
We need to understand the way in which different societies maintain their vision of their collective selves, and so produce different terrorisms and different terrorists. In other words, the framework for much modern terrorist action is ethnic or nationalist. Indeed, the emblematic terrorist act of the early 20th century – the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-hungry, at Sarajevo in June 1914 – was carried out by a Serbian nationalist.
Nationalist movements have shown mush greater resilience and destructive capacity than the small and fissiparous left-wing revolutionary groups. They tend to be significantly bigger, for one thing, and to draw on a broader pool of recruitment; and though their cause – freeing or uniting the nation – is not necessarily more practicable than the revolutionary dream of total social transformation, nationalism has dominated modern politics precisely because it connects with a visceral, apparently natural force.
Terrorism may play a leading part in the attempt to preserve or reawaken the national spirit, and also in the accompanying struggle against a foreign or imperial government. But there is another and possibly more intractable problem: what all too often stands in the way of national liberation movements is not only the foreign government, but the fact that people of other ethnic groups live within the presumed national territory.
“The fight in defence of religion and belief is a collective duty; there is no other duty after belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting our life and our religion.”
At the end of the 20th century the world faced a revival of religious fundamentalism, quite puzzling to many people who has assumed that the process of secularization was, although perhaps erratic, an irreversible one. The long standing liberal assumption that the rise of modern society and the decay of religion were two sides of the same coin was suddenly thrown into doubt; and the shock effect of this was soon registered in writing on terrorism, where religion has confidently been consigned to the margins of terrorist motivation.
One of the leading surveys in the late 1990s asserted that ‘the religion imperatives for terrorism is the most important defining characteristic of terrorism today.’ While the author of an American college textbook on terrorism put ‘religious fanaticism’ top of her list of terrorist motives. Official assessments reflect this too; for instance, the Canadian Security intelligence Service 2000 Public Report states that ‘one of the prime motivators of contemporary terrorism is Islamic religious extremism’.
SUICIDE BOMBINGS & TERRORISM:
The suicide bombing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine even in London and other parts of the world including the Muslim countries as well is also referred by many philosophers, leaders etc. in the ambit of terrorism.
Recently, Robert Pape wrote a book “Dying to win: the Logic of Suicide Terrorism”. Pape is an assistant professor at the university of Chicago. He had collected a storehouse of information on 462 suicide bombers who made headlines by their successful missions from 1980 to 2004. By analyzing demographic data, the psychology of the terrorists and their ideological and political motives, Pape had drawn interesting and valid conclusions.
The most important point stressed by the Pape is that “Islamic fundamentalism is not a closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think.”
In the Bruce Hoffman’s Inside Terrorism, most of the part is devoted to religion. Pointing out that none of the identifiable terrorist groups that had been operating in 1968 could be classified as religion, Hoffman notes that the first modern religious terrorist groups did not appear until around 1980. By 1994, however, fully a third (16 out of 49) of known terrorist groups ‘could be classified as religious in character and motivation’, and thus proportion leapt again the following year to almost half (26 out of 56).
COUNTERING TERRORISM THROUGH TERRORISM:
Although terrorism is an inevitable reality in the present scenario, when the whole world is in the cruel jaws of it, but this ineluctable reality cannot be curtailed through the more terrorism or on the same pace; as many countries of the present world are trying to do it in this way. The obvious example of Kashmir and Palestine tells otherwise. The relative term ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ is also fully involved here. The freedom movements of Palestinians, Kashmiris and the Chechens have been branded through the Western media and also through diplomatic efforts the specific countries are doing on their best.
In the present scenario, countering terrorism has become more difficult for the countries in order to establish peace and stability in the world. As we discuss above, the definition of terrorism is still under the fog, and it would be under the fog until and unless the member countries of UNO would not adopt a universal definition of it; or until the US and its allies would not get their hidden motives under the umbrella of their ‘war on terrorism’.
In order to counter terrorism countries are unilaterally adopting the same attitude (definition), which the US has set for them – pose the opposition as terrorists in front of the world and attack them unilaterally. Israel as well as India’s state-terrorism falls in this scenario. As in the current imbroglio of Middle East Crisis, Israel’s unilateral attack over Lebanon – just to search its two beloved and loyal soldiers – has further not only deteriorated the situation but also tell the whole world that “if you want to wipe off the terrorist from the surface of the world then kill the innocent civilians and change the cities into the graveyards”, then you might be able to curtail terrorism and then peace, harmony and security can be established.
State-terrorism has become the order of the day. It is evident not only from Israel’s unilateral attack over Lebanon but also in the case of India and Russia in Kashmir and Chechnya respectively.
COUNTERTERRORISM & DEMOCRACY:
A world in which 80 per cent of terrorists were not Marxists but Muslims might present a totally different kind of issue. But the American response to September 11 showed that little had changed, except the roster of usual suspects: Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan in place of the rogue states of the 1980s, Libya, Syria and Iran. The theory of state-sponsorship may be weakly developed but its practical significance is immense: it validates the direct retaliation, which has become an established American policy preference. A belief in the American deterrent effect of smart munitions has survived a surprising amount of contrary evidence.
Democracy against terrorism:
There can be no dispute that terrorism s undemocratic in that it ignores all conventional processes of representative politics. But does it go further than this? Is it inherently antidemocratic? And are democracies uniquely vulnerable to terrorism? We have already noted that democratic states may be more sensitive to the threat that terrorism is seen to present to public safety.
AMERICA’S ‘WAR ON TERRORISM’:
Prior to 9\11, whether this terrorism existed in this shape or not. Noam Chomsky, a Noble prizewinner, of USA defined terrorism:
“Its calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.”
On Jan 2001, President Bush declared Iran, North Korea and Iraq-the axis of Evil. 9\11 provided them perfect logic. After 17th September 2002, USA sums up with her national security strategy. USA possesses the right of pre-emption strike. The United States has right for preemption strike against any measures that can crop up with fear. USA has attained unlimited military superiority of the world and there is no enemy of the United States except Terrorism. After 9\11, war started against the Muslims on the name of terrorism.
FBI defines terrorism, “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Department of Defence (DoD), “The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies as to the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.”
Department of State (DoS), “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
If we take a look of the above-mentioned definition, the following steps can be derived:
I. For political stability
III. Involvement of other forces as UNO etc.
Interior Motives Of Us War On Terrorism:
If we take a look of Political disputes like Bosnia, Iraq, Chechnya etc the Interior motives of war on terrorism are:
I. To get hold of world’s natural resources to ensure sustained supply. This is the foremost motive of Europe and America. After the first Arab war, Europeans did not want the cut off the oil from Arab. They directed against those countries, which possess natural resources. If this is not the case, why this war on terrorism is in the Middle East.
II. To malign Muslim freedom struggles. Wherever in the world, there is bloody freedom movement going on such as in Kashmir, Xing yang, Chechnya, Palestine. It is not in the best interest of America that these would be successful. Because according to Domino theory, a movement leads to another movement.
III. To damage the ideologies of Islam specially Jihad. They are against the Jihadees not against the independence of practicing Muslims. For that purpose, they have started reforms in the Madressahs in Pakistan providing them computers etc.
IV. To stop the rise of orthodox Muslim governments. They are doing it in the name of democracy. They are changing the elected governments. e.g.; in Taliban’s case. In Iran. It is being isolated. They are there to protect monarchies in Gulf States. These changes are just to protect Israel.
V. To spread its own culture. If a nation dies it’s a national death but if a nation dies of cultural death, it’s all over. The United States is permeated its culture in the countries on the name of terrorism. As in Iraq, they made dance clubs in the Green Zone. The uniform of new force of Iraq i.e. identical as it matched with USA.
CAUSES OF TERRORISM
I. Unresolved political disputes: In the hot disputes of the world, Muslims are involved. No effort has been made to resolve these issues. The cause is inherent in the disputes of one religion against the other politically. E.g.; Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya.
II. Ineffectiveness of UNO: The world bode formed after the Second World War. “To avert any other international war. But it utterly fails in going that. The disputes if resolved in UNO, the terrorism was not prevailed as it is.
III. Globalization: It is suited to Western interests than the third world countries. It seeks the occupation of countries by multinational corporations (MNC’s). This is spreading poverty and unemployment in the third world countries.
IV. Universal law of cause-and-effect: “like cause will produce like effects”. If the go about combating terrorism with terrorism, it will produce obviously terrorism.
V. Double standards of the West: On one hand, previously when Afghan Jihad was going on- they were projected as heroes and then became terrorists. These are the pure double standards towards democracy. They are motivating the third world or least developed countries to increase their defence budget. As Pakistan is buying 75 Jets at the cost of $ 3.2 billion from America. Debt traps have been orchestrated.
WHAT TERRORISM HAS DONE?
It started after 9\11. Bush administration had got chance “to become world more safer”. But it did in opposite manner;
I. Unilateralist approach of USA. It gave up the approach of bilateralism and multilateralism. “This terrorism is a threat to entire world community”. The United States has decided to go it alone to combat terrorism.
II. The United Nations was sidelined. The prestige attached to UNO was ended.
III. The Muslim country’s nuclear ambitions were strictly checked. As in Iran. As in Dr. AQ Khan’s case.
IV. Calls were being made to challenge American superiority. No matter how we dislike this sole super power element. It does not have any vested interest.
V. Huntington’s Clash of the Civilizations. This theory came to be true. “ The battle line would be drawn on tenets lines of civilization.” There is going to be war wherever a civilization ended. As Jews v/s Muslims, Hindus v/s Muslims, Islam and the West etc.
EFFECTS ON PAKISTAN
Pakistan has adversely affected by terrorism than any other country of the world. No country in the world has suffered in wake of terrorism than Pakistan. Although, Pakistan is a victim of terrorism is being labeled as a state sponsoring terrorism. The emergence of terrorism in Pakistan was the consequence of its direct involvement in Afghanistan war. Pakistan has learned the lesson “the hard way” but it is imperative that we must not forget it. Lot of time and energy of Pakistan is being consumed to make world understand that Pakistan is not the sponsor of terrorism but it’s a victim, and while doing so it is being forced to make compromises on its vital interests. Even the friendly countries like China, Iran, Indonesia started looking towards Pakistan with suspicion. In a nutshell, terrorism has formed Pakistan to go on a back foot and became more defensive on this issue. It has become more important for Pakistan to clean its image tinted with terrorism and take rightful place amongst the community of nations.
Steps Taken By Pakistan:
I. Intimation of war on terrorism:
First motive was to clean its image in the eyes of international community.
President Musharraf took various steps to clean it. He visited many countries of the world, which were never being visited by any leader of Pakistan.
II. U-turn on its foreign policy:
Pakistan had taken drastic u-turn after 9\11. It wanted to show international community that we are not fundamentalists. Pakistan took u-turn on its Kashmir and Afghan policy.
III. Ban on Jihadee organizations:
Government of Pakistan banned almost all Jihadee organizations on 12th January 2002.
COUNTERTERRORISM STRATEGY BY DR MALEEHA LODHI:
“There is no silver bullet that can address global terrorism in all its complexity,” writes Dr
Maleeha Lodhi in “The Threats of all Threats”. “In a globalised world of interconnected threats and challenges,” she further writes, “terrorism poses a clear and present danger to peace and security, more menacing than ever in the past. This threat has grown more urgent since 9/11; the attacks on the United States dramatised the increased lethality of terrorism and marked a watershed in the history of terrorism. Every continent has seen acts of terrorism. Perpetrators belong to diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths. Since 1968, there have been at least 8,000 serious incidents of terrorism across the world. About 70 countries have been affected by the activities of as many as an estimated 100 terrorist entities.
She proposed a broad-gauge counter-terrorism strategy based on nine ‘Cs’:
1) Comprehensiveness: A comprehensive, multifaceted strategy is needed that encompasses law enforcement, political, social, cultural, financial and diplomatic measures.
2) Consensus at the global level is required on a strategy incorporating both short- and long-term measures that work in tandem.
3) Causes and conditions that breed, encourage and contribute to terrorism must be objectively identified and addressed.
4) Confusion between explanation and justification must be removed. Trying to understand a phenomenon does not mean giving in to terrorism.
5) Capabilities must be improved and national capacities strengthened across the spectrum to pursue terrorists and prevent terrorist activities.
6) Cooperative rather than coercive national and international strategies should be pursued so that the reaction to counter-terrorism measures does not compound the problem.
7) Civil liberties and principles of good governance must be upheld in the fight against terror, because real security can only be achieved through respect for human rights.
8) Civilisational and cultural: dialogue and understanding including engaging in the battle for the hearts and minds, must become an integral part of global consensus-building to evolve a joint strategy. Such a dialogue must be premised on the understanding that the root cause of friction between civilisations are not primarily religious differences, but mainly issues of power, competing political and economic interests, policies and misunderstandings.
9) Conference at the summit level must be called to craft and coordinate an approach based on these elements.
• Today terrorism is hybrid and complex in nature and scope, even across the continents by non-state actors. Countering this multi-headed phenomenon requires a multi-pronged, multinational, and sustained policy by the governments across the globe.
• One of the characteristics of the prevailing environment is that deprivation and an unjust political and socio-economic dispensation rapidly give rise to frustration. The consequent perception of helplessness is sufficient to motivate individuals and groups to adopt violence as an expression of their anger.
• Many decades ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” And time has proved how much right he was.
• The remedy lies in a tolerant and democratic society. Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy absolutely necessary. However to enable the United Nations to evolve an effective strategy for this purpose it is imperative to define terrorism that may be acceptable globally. Also make a distinction between terrorism and legitimate struggle for freedom and right of self-determination, the denial of which can breed terrorism and a threat to “peaceful co-existence”.