After series of attacks around the world, terrorism has been one of the most worrisome issues in world politics nowadays. Fortna (2015: 522) defines terrorist as people that utilize indiscriminate violence against public civilian in order to force government to make political compromises and conceding outright defeat. As there is yet no single explanation and definite causes of terrorism that can be relate to all categories of terrorist, I will explore the conditions that create favorable environment for transnational terrorists to keep budding. Despite many opinions and perspectives, I firmly believe that constructivism provides the best and well-grounded reasons for it. First, I will explain the constructivism’s keystones in relation to terrorism. …show more content…
Second, I will argue about the clashes of identity between terrorists and the west. Next, I will clarify the anti-imperialism and counter-violence norms use by terrorists to create fear amongst society. Lastly, I will present the few limitations of constructivism in addressing this issue. Constructivism is a theoretical lens that critically examines the ‘social theory of international politics’ which emphasizes the rationale and interaction of people (Behravesh 2011).
It also examines the value of knowledge (Jackson & Jones 2012: 104). The main concepts of constructivism are identity that roots from actors’ conceptualize roles, objectives and actions (Jackson & Jones 2012: 104), and also intersubjectivity which is a kind of system involving norms that is constituted by ideas instead of materialism (Jackson & Sorensen 2006: 162). Wendt (1999 cited in Zehfuss 2001: 318) says that state and non-states actors act according to their identity which are built and changed based on interaction that later will engender inspiration, behavioral character and provide interests. He also argue that actors’ identification spectrum from positive to negative determine the degree of willingness to involve together in ‘collective security practices’ especially in the conceptions of self and others (Wendt 1999 cited in Zehfuss 2001: 318). Next, constructivism claims that experience from events and preexisiting central belief has shaped the norms-based foreign policy (Snidal 2008: 303). Constructivists also argue that socially constitute interest were created from the ‘process of socialization and internalization’ involving the urge for society’s acknowledgment, the drive to establish norms that legitimize one’s behavior and the presence of a ‘sense of community’ (Snidal 2008: …show more content…
303). In relation to constructivism’s identity concept, transnational terrorists promote identities which are opposed by most international community particularly the west. Most Middle Eastern transnational terrorists carry the contemporary and practicality of Islamic identity which is completely different with the liberal, largely secular and logically-derived policies adopted by the Westphalian system of sovereign state (Cronin 2003: 41 cited in Schild 2011: 68). Terrorists are said to have two major motives which are first, to achieve national autonomy and replace the secular laws with religious laws and second, to accomplish the three R; revenge, renown and reaction (Richardson 2008: 2). Al-Qaeda for example has clearly stated their objectives to eliminate America’s influence in every aspect (military, economic and cultural) of Middle East and Islamic countries, weakening America’s ally Israel and remove secular Islamic leaders that promote corrupted forms of Islam by establishing the Islamic caliphate (Zalman 2014). Undoubtedly, sub-state terrorists are very negative with western ideologies and identity and therefore reject any form of relationship between Islamic countries and the west. The understanding of identity explains the reason behind ISIS attacks on some Middle Eastern and Islamic countries for instance Syria, Indonesia and Turkey. In the relationship between ‘Selves and Others’, terrorists (the Self) believe that they are rational and their action is morally acceptable while consider the west (the Other) as irrational and immoral. U.S had brutally bombed and killed almost 450,000 innocent lives with their AGM-86D and AGM-130C cruise missiles and radioactive Depleted Uranium (DU) bombs during the 2001 conflict in Afghanistan (Blum 2002). In response to these kinds of ‘immoral’ actions and ‘irrational’ actor, the religious terrorist groups come with their own ‘rational’ justifications and actions. The Guardian (2015) in June 2009 reported a response from a self-proclaimed member of Al-Qaeda, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad who shot and killed one soldier and injured another in a drive-by shooting in Akansas as an act of revenge for Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan that were killed by the U.S. Basically, the differences between identities affect the interactions between countries because the Others have to be treated differently (Jackson & Jones 2012: 105). Secondly, based on constructivism view on norms, terrorists use anti-imperialism and counter-violence norm to create fear amongst civilized citizens. According to Robert Lowe in the Fortnightly, imperialism is the assertion of absolute force over others (Shaw 2008: 199). Essentially, terrorism is just a revenge method choosen by some self-proclaimed ‘responsible people’ (Al-Qaeda for example) who witnessed and suffered human insecurity due to constant violence, oppression and exploitation. This psychological pressure later lead to aggression, tension and thus, erupted conflict (Beyer 2008: 63). Terrorist Osama bin Laden advertised the idea of anti-imperialism as he says that Al-Qaeda attacks the U.S because the U.S attacks them first and continuously attacks them ever since; referring to the constant military intervention in the Middle East by the U.S ever since the end of WWII till now (Beyer 2008: 66). America is practising imperial realpolitik to determine their foreign policy objective where the U.S divides other states into four ranks based on their priority and likeness, and states in fourth group (dislikes by the U.S) are most likely to be intervened; among them are Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon (Forte 2014: 153). ISIS attacked Syria because they wanted to eradicate NATO’s (the west) hegemonic and imperialist power in Syria that uses Islamic extremism as a tool to reconstruct the Middle East based on their interest and preference and thus, resulted in the western control (Munho 2014). Furthermore, terrorists also used counter-violence norms as a liaisons to attack other states and create fear amongst the west so that they can gain control of their political policy, economic, religious and social issues. Terrorists’ primary audience is actually the government who control state policies but civillians are also being attacked because generally they support and give consent to be governed by it (Fortna 2015: 525). The victory of Afghan Mujahideen force against USSR military forces proves to Al-Qaeda that violence can be a successful act (Schild 2011: 89). Terrorists violence acts during the 9/11 tragedy managed to change U.S policy from defensive to pre-emptive (Kolin, 2006: 3). In economic terms, Government Accountability Office reported that U.S emphasizes too much on terrorism that the U.S had spend $3 trillion on security and arms forces only, while giving less attention towards climate change issue (the U.S only allocate 8.8 billion for it) (2011: 5 cited in Forte, 2014: 151). It is irony how violence can be manipulated based on the doers and the justifications that lies behind it. The U.S for instance had committed violence in Iraq and Afghanistan by using ‘War on Terror’ and counter-terrorism tickets whereas the terrorists use violence to counter back violence that were started by the U.S. This is where Gerald Seymour’s cliché quote which states that one person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter apply the best. In order words, terrorists see their actions as acceptable because they view themseves as the victims of human security. However, constructivism does have a flaw in explaining terrorism because first, given all the cultural theory, constructivism does not offers any political theory.
According to Paul Kowert and Jeffrey Legro, constructivism does not present absolute causal theory of identity and they are most likely to overlook the materialism concept by rationalists (Nughoro 2008: 87). Other theories (for example critical theory) have an absolute assumption in explaining the politics of identity by using the ideas of hierarchy, subordination, supremacy, emancipation and state-social relationship (Hopf 1998: 197). There is also a problem of underspecification as theory of process (Constructivism) does not focusses on the existence of value and only be understandable using norms, practices and social structure (Hopf 1998: 197). Nevertheless, in a sense as a theory of process, constructivism allows plentiful explanation and elaboration regarding the causal of social events and also open to the dicovery and uses of other substantive theories (Hopf
1998:197) In a conclusion, I believe that terrorism is best understood using the lens of constructivism. Constructivism expose the reader about the usage of ‘anti-imperialism’ and ‘counter-violence’ propagandas or norms used by the terrorists to respond to the U.S’s ‘War on Terror’ policy. Not only that, Constructivism also highlights the values of identity and how it characterized and justified both state and non-state actors’ behavior and goals. As a matter of perspectives, I believe that every actors and states either terrorist or the West are doing things which they perceive as the best and rightful based on their own reasons and intentions. (1457 words)
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
In Module one, I learned that terrorism is a result of physical harm or deadly acts of force with the intent of a political outcome by the use of terror for coercion. There are various types of terrorism such as international terrorism and domestic terrorism. International terrorism occurs outside of the United States with a purpose to influence the policy of a government by intimidation. International and Domestic terrorism both involve violent acts dangerous to human life that violate federal and state laws. Domestic terrorism occurs within the United States with the intention of coercion or intimidation by way of mass destruction, etc. Some forms of terrorism include Improvised explosive devices (IED), kidnappings, suicide bombings and
middle of paper ... ... Unfortunately, this idea of a zero sum military power game does not match up with reality. Each state takes actions based on the given situation and neo-realism misses this nuance. Constructivism actually considers this more by analyzing the actors at play and their identities and interests.
Most constructivists analyze International Relations by examining the goals, threats, culture and other elements of "Social Reality" on the International arena as social co...
...ialogue are enveloped in the great ‘ism’ constructs for which this extremely modern political theory is known (Hughes, Chp.3). And as the Constructivist sees social groups interacting within the world, he contributes to our understanding of the groups through the invention of identity. The Constructivists label groups of people with common interests and gives words with which to speak of rising ideas and philosophies.
While some may argue that a state-centric international system is apt for non-state actors, since to attain a foreseeable future, they need to comprehend the state system and how to operate within it. This structure is weakening as non-state actors are increasing their influence in conflicts and challenging the international order founded upon the power of states. The openness of commercial markets and the weakening territorial sovereignty has limited the state’s monopoly of power asserted by structural realists. In Structural Realism After the Cold War, Kenneth Waltz alleges that, “If the conditions that a theory contemplated have changed, the theory no longer applies.” Theories and traditions in international relations must become more comprehensive if society intends to tackle the conflicts of the 21st century more effectively in the future.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
Terrorism is one of the most extensively discussed issues of our time and at the same time it is also one of the least understood. The term itself “terrorism” means many different things to different people, cultures, and races. As a result, trying to define or classify terrorism with one universal definition is nearly impossible. The definition of terrorism used in this research is a reflection of much of the Western and American way of defining it. The definition of terrorism is,
One of the most common criticisms of constructivism is that constructivism devalues material factors. This is based on a misunderstanding of constructivism. Constructivists recognize the role of these factors and that they are extremely important in international relations, especially when it comes to international agreements. However, constructivists believe that these material factors get their value from social constructs, and that ideas are the basis of society (Behravesh 2011). To be clear, this does not mean that these material factors have any less value, or that these social constructs are any less powerful. This is relevant to international agreements because material factors like the military and economy have a large effect. Material factors often are what leads states into agreements, especially when it comes to trade and other financial agreements. Material factors also can encourage states to comply with agreements. Constructivism simply holds that these are still social constructs. This gives constructivists more freedom in this discussion of international agreements because they are not bound by more constraining ideas because they recognize the dynamic nature of international relations. This is why constructivism is better at explaining international agreements and compliance because it can get to the core of these issues, and since it is more adaptable, it can more easily explain transformations that take place in the
Issues of ideology and power are remained deeply embedded when dealing with democracy. In International Relations, cultural relativists determine whether an action is right or wrong by evaluating it according to the ethical standards of the society within which the action occurs. . This is particularly so where culture is linked to particular state or regional interests. Relativism has become a complimentary to constructivism since these two concepts are philosophically related. Constructivism and cultural relativism are products of man’s mind. According to both, there are no absolute truths that can really answer the central questions in this thesis since the case itself is about culture, values, and ideology. Furthermore,
Islam, the religion of peace and harmony has unfortunately been corrupted by the deadly terrorist acts which have taken place around the world during these past couple of years. Today the people in this world view Islam as a threatening and terrorist religion. Often, the killing of innocent people, suicidal bombings and terrorist attacks are carried out people who tend to claim themselves as Muslims, though in reality, the dissident actions of these so called named Muslims have nothing to do with Islam. Among all the attributes of God, the Holy Book (Quran) mentions that: he is the source of peace and bestower of security (59:23) people must establish peace in their life. Terrorism what a complete disgrace, however people forget one thing that terrorism is not only found in Islam yet also continued in other religions and countries. But then why Islam? Is it because terrorism has been related to Islam just like peace is to war. The terrorist that claim they are Muslim with pride are oblivious, ignorant and it shows their lack of knowledge. The Holy Quran clearly states that:
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American