Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay causes of terrorism
Essay causes of terrorism
Essay causes of terrorism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay causes of terrorism
With the rise of Islamic extremist groups, international terrorism has now become a worldwide social dilemma. The roots of this social problem include a variety of possibilities; however, most commonly terrorism is perceived as an issue triggered by the economic and political inefficiency of a country. In recent years this belief was particularly supported during presidency of George W. Bush and later reinforced by the “anti-Islamic” sentiment triggered by the events of September 11, 2001. Likewise Joseph Kahn and Tim Weiner, authors of World Leaders Rethinking Strategy on Aid to Poor, agreed with President Bush’s strategy of financially assisting the poor Middle Eastern nations to combat terrorism. In addition to poverty, transnational terrorism is also attributed to the political …show more content…
The assumption that these countries have a “broken” system has led the United States to believe that even the spread of democracy would effectively put an end to terrorism. This sentiment of idealism has everyone believing that “Faith-secular and religion-urges us to insist on a freedom for every soul in the service of democracy and salvation” (Fineman 198). In contrast to the proposed analysis, I suggest instead that the roots of terrorism are not based on poverty or political inefficiency of the nation, but are rather triggered by the growth of idealist views held by the United States. Western intervention has increased resentment among terrorist groups making this ideological and political resentment be their primary source of power.
In order to understand the negative effect that idealism could have in relation to foreign policy, it is detrimental to
The book A Concise History of U.S. Foreign Policy, by Joyce Kaufman, and the essay, American Foreign Policy Legacy by Walter Mead both acknowledge the history, and the importance of American foreign policy. The two argue that American foreign policy has always been an essential aspect of the prosperity and health of the United States. After reading these writings myself, I can agree that American foreign policy in the U.S. has always been detrimental to the success of this nation. Throughout history most Americans have had very little interest in foreign affairs, nor understood the importance. This essay will address the importance of foreign policy, why Americans have little interest in foreign affairs, and what the repercussions
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
In foreign policy, decision making is guided by different a leader that is from presidents, cabinets, parliaments and groups such as communist party of Soviet Union and the standing committee of the communist party of china and Central Intelligence Agency of USA. One cannot run away from the fact that a leader’s personality can affect foreign policy. Maoz and Shayer believe that one cannot underrate or ignore the role of personality in decision making as it plays a huge role. By examining ones foreign policy, we can understand foreign policy better (Jensen, 1982). If a leader is aggressive then there are certain traits he will exhibit such as paranoia, manipulation, thirst for power high intensity of nationalism, (Hermann, 1980). Hitler was one leader who led to world war when he challenged the treaty of Versailles by adopting an aggressive foreign policy. The opposite is true for a mild leader for example George Washington who told Americans to avoid entrapping alliances.
“Terrorism involves the use of violence by an organization other than a national government to cause intimidation or fear among a target audience;” at least, this is how Pape (2003) defines terrorism in his article “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” (343). The goal of this article by Pape is to discuss suicide terrorism and how it “follows a strategic logic, one specifically designed to coerce modern liberal democracies to make significant territorial concessions” (343). Similar to Pape, Bloom (2004) and Horowitz (2010) also delve into the exponential increase of suicide terrorism and why it occurs. Although Pape, Bloom, and Horowitz concur that suicide terrorism is increasing, they disagree why it is so prominent. While the arguments presented from each of these researchers is powerful and certainly plausible, suicide terrorism is in fact not irrational, but strategic and is most often caused by state occupation and, when organized, aimed specifically at democracies.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
Ever since September 11, 2001 Americans along with the majority of the world’s population have been skeptical of Muslims. It’s a sad reality but it’s hard for people to think of a Muslim without linking them directly to terrorism. But these assumptions aren’t totally out of the blue—the Muslim’s religion, Islam, teaches a low tolerance for other religions and the Islamic government has no separation of church and state, so it’s only normal to assume that their government shall have a low tolerance as well—some however, immediately translate this into terrorism. Through the Islamic government and religion, relations with foreign countries, and separation amongst themselves it can be concluded that Islamic Fundamentalism is clearly a threat to political stability.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state.
But in practice, this idea is not the current reality. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and countless other foreign interventions have demonstrated that for decades America’s foreign policy has fallen short of this utopian theory. And some argue we have become the very monsters we wish to destroy. In this essay, we will discuss
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
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.
Realism is one of the important perspectives on global politics, it is a notion about the conservative society and political philosophy (Heywood 2011: 54; Shimko 2013: 36). Besides, Gilpin (1996) claims that “realism…, it is not a scientific theory that is subject to the test of falsifiability, therefore, cannot be proved and disproved.” (Frankel 1996: xiii). The components of the realist approach to international relations will be discussed.
Terrorism has been around for centuries and religion-based violence has been around just as long. (Hoffman, 2). The violence was never referred to as terrorism though. Only up to the nineteenth century has religion been able to justify terrorism (Hoffman, 2). Since then, religious terrorism became motivated and inspired by the ideological view (Hoffman, 3). Therefore, it has turned against the main focus of religion and more towards the views of the extremist and what is happening politically (Winchester, 4).
Terrorist organizations have been committing atrocities against innocent civilians throughout the world for hundreds of years. Terrorism has evolved in many different forms and from various motivations such as religious protest movements, political revolts, and social uprisings. Regardless of the motives for terror, the problem is the financing of terrorism and terrorist organizations themselves. Recent global terrorist attacks using high technology and extensive networks have shown that money is essential to provide the means behind all terrorist activities. Individual terrorists plan terrorist operations and require resources to live, prepare, and implement their plans. The use of money laundering and financial support schemes are the root of the cause. If money laundering were curtailed or even eliminated, and financial supporters of terrorism were identified terrorism would decrease dramatically. To achieve these goals would take monumental efforts. The United States, United Nations and all sovereign nations would need to take cooperative action that has never been accomplished. Terrorism, its' history, concepts, reasoning, methods, and financial roots are object of this research.
Since the end of the Cold War, dramatic emerging shifts in the focus of international relations, from the world superpowers, have veered to that of terrorism and counterterrorism. Terrorism and in/direct threats to the order of international stability of sovereign states did not come to the forefront of significance and study until the 20th century with the events occurring on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center and the U.S. Pentagon. Immediately following these traumas, there “began a reorientation in foreign policy towards weak and failing states” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 1). The world of academia has traditionally focused on international relations as a discipline, with a sub-categorization on foreign policy. Historically, terrorism was not study specific. Focus on foreign policy allows for further exploration of policy analysis, theory and prescripts; however, the study of terrorism has been dotted through these areas disallowing the formulation of a concise framework for analysis. Because of these factors, building theories that focus on the connections between the two subjects has been difficult; and yet, in our current global society, they are critical. “Terrorism has [in fact] become a mode of doing politics” (Skuldt, n.d., p. 2) and can no longer merely be a subset to other areas of research and analysis.
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.