“The policies in the USA, Britain, and
other allies towards Iraq
and Israel have not only inflamed
Islamic communities and
directly led to new terrorist attacks,
but also undermined the
public moral critique of Islamist terrorism
and, more deeply,
affirmed an image of the West as a
jahidi civilization and a
threat to Islam. We may complain that the moral and
strategic picture is far more complex
than they portray it, but
this will be virtually impossible to
convey given the binary
prism thorough which Western acts will
be viewed. And self-
regarding talk of the superior values of
secularism,
representative democracy and free
markets (especially when
they are accompanied by attacks on
multiculturalism and
basic civil rights) will only make the
situation worse. Euben
perceptively points out that Qutb’s work
demonstrates that
there is ‘a transcultural problematic of
modernity’ which
needs careful analysis, but Fukuyama is
a paradigm case of a
thinker who cannot accept that modernity
might be
criticizable. His own theory of the inexorable advance of
American modernity and its dissolution
of local cultural
differences beneath a single capitalist
horizon is exactly the
target of Qutb’s critique of the
‘Crusader spirit’ that ‘lives on in
the seemingly inexorable march of
Western colonization and
the cultural hostility it embodies and
expresses”.
(Burke 2008, p. 46)
Introduction
The root causes of terrorism have
largely been misunderstood. A short
history
of the discipline will reveal that this
is partly a result of the politicized forces that
have dominated terrorism studies. More recently, the contribution of theorists
from a range of disciplines including
sociology, history, anthropology, social
psychology have built on overly
simplistic psychological explanations of terrorist
behaviour. This essay will attempt to situate many
different types of terrorism,
religious and ethno-nationalist, in
legitimate grievances individuals and groups
have with the State.
Psychology
Early social scientific explanations of
the root causes of terrorism focused on
psychological explanations for terrorist
behaviour, attempting to argue that
terrorists were personally predisposed
to terrorism (Sageman 2014, p. 2).
Attempts to assign psychological
disorders, mental illness, pathology, deviance,
personality disorder were made using
psychological theories (Erlenbusch 2014,
p. 473).
The scholarly literature has disregarded these explanations (Sageman
2014, p. 2; Shughart II (2006, p. 11), although descriptions of terrorists as
irrational or psychologically disturbed
individuals continue to dominate
mainstream media. Moreover, terrorists continue to be
conceptualized in
Western political discourses though this
lens (Erienbusch 2014, p. 474).
Similarly, explanations that attempted
to determine the character traits of
terrorists have also been disregarded,
finding that there are no common threads
of race, ethnicity, education, income,
employment status that run through
individuals or groups involved in
terrorist activities (Shugart II 2006, p. 11).
More sophisticated psychological
approaches have emerged. For example,
rational choice perspective that treats
terrorists as deliberate actors engaging in
reasoned behaviour (Crenshaw 2008, p.
7). These actors are assumed to be
motivated primarily, but not solely, by
self-interest. Here, decisions to join a
group and participate hinge on the
individual’s evaluation of the probable
benefits or costs to recruitment and/or
participation. Group based explanations
(Hoffman 2013, p. 231) use a combination
of sociology and psychology, moving
away from psychopathological
explanations focus on the social processes leading
to perpetuation of acts of terrorist violence
(Hoffman 2013, p. 231).
Other disciplines
More sophisticated explanations of the
root causes of terrorism have emerged as
different disciplines have become
interested in explaining terrorism. This
includes; sociology, anthropology,
political science, history, economics,
engineering, computer science (Sageman
2014, p. 5-7). Social psychology and
social moment studies have provided
great insight in analyzing the root causes of
terrorism. These theories have been used to examine the
social processes of
becoming a terrorist, including
recruitment policies, social networks, trigger
events and peer dynamics (Hoffman 2013,
p. 232). A multi-disciplinary study of
the root causes of terrorism reveals the
extent to which the causes of terrorism
have been understood through a
politicized lens. For example, security
organisations that seek to blame the
enemy may spend very little time or energy
attempting to understand root causes and
instead focus on counter terrorism
strategies that fail to take account of
the genuine grievances a terrorist group
may have with the government. This reveals that bias hides the root causes
of
terrorism. In the case of the United States of America
and the ‘War on Terror’ an
examination of key strategic documents
since 2001, reveal that the United States
response to terrorism is characterized
by a lack of focus on the underlying
grievances Muslim or other populations
may have with the West.
History
“The history of terrorism in the second
half of the twentieth
century would have been quite different
had Transjordan, as it
was intended to be, been made a
Palestinian homeland; if
Kurdistan had not been mysteriously
overlooked in the
Settlement of 1922; if a line had not
been drawn around Iraq,
but that Mesopotamia had instead been
divided along its tree
natural internal boundaries; and if
Armenians, Tajiks, Uzbeks,
Pashtuns, Punjabis and many other ethnic
populations had not
been marooned across the borders of two
or more contrived
nation-states”(Shughart II 2006, p. 36).
Shughart II (2006, p.7) locates the root
causes of terrorism in the artificial
creation of nation states. Nationalism and ethnic separatism are prime
motives
underlying terrorism that emerged in the
wake of the Second World War
(Shughart II 2006, p. 17). He argues that terrorism is a predictable
response to
artificial nation states that we created
by colonial powers without regard for
traditional ethnic homelands or
customary patterns of trade (Shughart II 2006,
p. 8).
Shughart II also explains that the root causes of terrorism originated
in the
genuine grievances of ethnic and
religious groups, marginalized politically.
Gershman (2002, p. 63) argues that the
root causes lie in weak states, inadequate
cooperation between countries in region,
social problems, including anemic
economies, unequal patterns of
development and fragile democratic institutions.
While economic inequality seems to be
given by Left Wing groups and Marxist
theories that attempt to explain this
type of terrorist behaviour, the inequalities
that pervade society influence all types
of terrorism whether, religious, right and
left wing or ethno nationalist.
Globalisation
Newman (2006, p. 750) argues that
poverty, demographic factors, social
inequality, exclusion, dispossession and
political grievances enable conditions
for terrorism. As an extension of this, he says that
globalization, free markets
and spread of democracy resulted in
economic instability and volatile social
situations (Newman 2006, p. 754). Moreover, as Juergensmyer (2008, p. 9)
points out, the domination of Western
cultural and economic control is
interpreted by many as neo-colonialism.
Hanlon (2008, p.116) argues that
globalization is widening the gap between rich
and poor states. He says that it further undermines the
sovereignty, security and
legitimacy of those states on the
fringes of the globalized world (Hanlon, p. 116).
He makes the conclusion that armed
states are uniquely positioned to exploit the
benefits of globalization in ways that
weak states cannot (Hanlon 2008, p. 124).
Similar to a number of other authors,
Hanlon (2008, p. 122) argues that the
deeper causes of terrorism lie in
fractured states were created during the
decolonization period after 1945. Juergensmyer (2008, p. 32) explains that one
of the reasons why secular ideas and
institutions are strongly rejected by some
religious leaders is that these ideas
and institutions are perceived as responsible
for the moral decline within their own
countries.
Gershman (2002, p. 63) builds on Hanlon
(2008), to explain the broader
economic and political conditions that
have facilitated the emergence of
extremist political Islam. He uses Muslim regions in Thailand and the
Philippines as examples of areas that
have the worst poverty, income inequality,
infant and maternal mortality rates and
literacy levels (Gershman 2003, p. 68).
Rather than attributing religion to the
terrorist activities, the author explains
that particular groups of people have
been marginalized, their marginalization
being along religious lines. This makes it easy for disputes about
inequality to be
misconceived as being purely about
religion.
Alienation
A number of authors use alienation as an
explanation of the conditions that lead
individuals and groups to joint
terrorist groups, and participate in terrorist
activities. Many authors see alienation as connected to
globalization, an
inevitable result of the deep
fundamental grievances suffered by a particular
population (Tan 2013, p. 15). Under conditions of anxiety and societal
strains
(Alienation and the quest for renewal,
p. 115), the alienated individual is left
susceptible to appeals to religion,
ethnicity and class (Tan 2013, p. 15).
Taking a sociological response, Hall
(2007, p. 74) argues that it is Muslim
alienation, not radical Islam that is
the root cause of Islamic terrorism (Hall
2007, p. 74). “Alienation and victimization – whether real
of perceived – among
a considerable proportion of the
worldwide Muslim community needs to be
recognized and responded to
positively. If unaddressed or dealt with
in token
ways, there is a risk that the world
will slide back into international policies
based on spheres of influence; in
effect, the ‘War on Terror’ will become the new
Cold War” (Hall 2007, p.75). Hall (2007, p. 74) uses an explanation
reserved for
ethno-nationalist terrorism, when he
argues that Islamic violence is fueled by
feelings of collective victimization and
social inequality, challenging popular
conceptions about the connections
between Islam and terrorist violence.
Tan (2011) provides an example of the
Malay Muslims in Southern Thailand. He
argues that the Malay Muslims have
become alienated over time. He explains
that this has occurred because Malay
Muslim populations never really accepted
state legitimacy (Tan 2011, p. 69). Combined with this, there has been a
continued failure to make progress on
resolving some of the fundamental
grievances of the Malay Muslims (Tan
2011 p. 78). These grievances include
discrimination, mismanagement,
corruption and insensitive policies made by the
central government (Tan 2011, p. 86).
Current Western responses to Terrorism
If the root causes of terrorism lie in
genuine grievances particular populations
have with States, it becomes obvious
that the war in Iraq, waged by the United
States of America and its allies,
boosted propaganda and terrorist recruitment.
For example, while the West attempts to
characterize terrorists in particular
ways, the Fatwa set out by Bin Laden and
five other terrorist groups, for
example, outlines three justifications
for attacking Americans and America. The
Fatwa gave the following reasons and go
some way to explaining anger directed
at the West: US troops in Saudi Arabia,
US foreign policy to Iraq, and the US
support of the state of Israel.
In 2006, UK Prime Minster, Tony Blair
said liberty and justice, “can only be won
by showing that our values are stronger,
better and more just, more fair than the
alternative” (Blair in Hall, 2007, p.
73). This quote is consistent with the
popular
notions coming out the USA, Britain and
Australia, which characterize the West’s
value system is superior to anything an
imagined opposition can offer (Hall
2007, p. 73).
At the level of international
cooperation, UN resolutions that are enforced
against one party and ignored by others,
weapons proliferation treated that are
only applied to some and international
laws that are enforced against some, but
ignored in the case of others,
contribute to alienation that many groups, such as
fundamentalist Muslims feel towards the
West (Hall 2007, p. 73).
The “West lacks collective moral and
political authority to preach from any high
moral ground when it comes to a value
judgment. Incidents like Abu Graib, the
rendition of Guantanamo, the use of
extraordinary rendition in the case of
prisoners and the use of cluster
munitions in populated areas have not worn
coverts to the Western cause” (Hall
2007, p. 74). Incidents like these
exemplify
that the West is prone to hypocrisy,
duplicity and unilateralism (Hall 2007, p. 74)
and suggest the way the behaviour of
States can contribute to the emergence of
terrorism (Schmid 2005, p. 130).
Conclusion
To provide a more effective response to
terrorism, it is important that the root
causes of terrorism are adequately
examined. This requires scholars to
understand that terrorism emerges, at
least partly, through the failure of States
and scholars to take responsibility for the
key role the West plays in creating and
perpetuating inequality and alienation,
fundamental reasons for terrorism. By
accepting the West’s role in manifesting
hate directed at it, the West may begin
to implement policies that combat
inequality both within and between countries.
References
Burke, Anthony 2008, The end of
terrorism, Critical Studies on Terrorism, vol. 1,
no.
1, pp. 37-49.
Crenshaw, Martha 2008, Current research
on terrorism: The academic
perspective, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 1-11.
Erienbusch, Verena 2014, How (not) to
study terrorism, Critical Review of
International
Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 470-491.
Gershman, John 2002, ‘Is southeast Asia
the second front, Foreign Affairs, vol. 81,
no.
4, pp. 60-74.
Hall, Robert 2007, The sociology of
terrorism, The RUSI Journal, vol. 152, no. 3,
pp.
72-75.
Hanlon, Querine 2008, Globalization and
the transformation of armed groups, US
Naval
College, Newport.
Hofmann, David 2012, The sociology of
terrorism: People, places and processes,
Behavioral
Science of Terrorism and Political Aggression, vol. 5, no. 3,
pp.231-233.
Juergensmeyer, Mark 2008, Global
rebellion: Religious challenges to the secular
state,
from Christian militias to Al Qaeda, University of California Press,
Berkeley
& Los Angeles.
Newman, E 2006, ‘Exploring the “Root
Causes” of terrorism, Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism,
vol. 29, pp. 749-772.
Sageman, Marc 2014, ‘The stagnation in
terrorism research’, Terrorism and
Political
Violence, vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
Schmid, Alex 2012, ‘Root causes of
terrorism: Some conceptual notes, a set of
indicators,
and a model’, Democracy and Security, vol. 1, pp. 127-136.
Shughart II, William 2006, An analytical
history of terrorism, 1945-2000, Public
Choice,
vol. 128, pp. 7-39.
Tan, Andrew 2011, Security strategies in
the Asia-Pacific, Palgrave Macmillan,
New
York.
Tan, Andrew 2013, Terrorism and
insurgency in Southeast Asia, Rutledge, London.
Bibliography
Burke, Anthony 2008, The end of
terrorism, Critical Studies on Terrorism, vol. 1,
no.
1, pp. 37-49.
Chadler, Michael & Gunaratna, Rohan
2007, Countering terrorism, Reaktion
Books,
London.
Crenshaw, Martha 2008, Current research
on terrorism: The academic
perspective, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 1-11.
Erienbusch, Verena 2014, How (not) to
study terrorism, Critical Review of
International
Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 470-491.
Franks, Jason 2009, ‘Rethinking the
roots of terrorism: Beyond orthodox
terrorism
theory – a critical research agenda, Global Society, Vol. 23:2, pp.
153-176.
Gershman, John 2002, ‘Is southeast Asia
the second front, Foreign Affairs, vol. 81,
no.4,
pp. 60-74.
Hall, Robert 2007, The sociology of
terrorism, The RUSI Journal, vol. 152, no. 3,
pp.
72-75.
Hanlon, Querine 2008, Globalization and
the transformation of armed groups, US
Naval
College, Newport.
Hoffman, Bruce 2006, Inside terrorism,
Columbia University Press, New York.
Hofmann, David 2012, The sociology of
terrorism: People, places and processes,
Behavioral
Science of Terrorism and Political Aggression, vol. 5, no. 3,
pp.231-233.
Juergensmeyer, Mark 2008, Global
rebellion: Religious challenges to the secular
state,
from Christian militias to Al Qaeda, University of California Press,
Berkeley
& Los Angeles.
Krieger, Tim & Melerricks, Daniel
2011 ‘What causes terrorism’, Public Choice,
vol.
147, pp. 3-27.
Newman, E 2006, ‘Exploring the “Root Causes”
of terrorism, Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism,
vol. 29, pp. 749-772.
Post, Jerrold 2010, “’When hatred is
bred in the bone:” The social psychology of
terrorism’, Annals Of The New York Academy of Sciences, 1208, pp. 15-23.
Rinehart, James 2006, Apocalyptic faith
and political violence: Prophets of terror,
Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
Sageman, Marc 2014, ‘The stagnation in
terrorism research’, Terrorism and
Political
Violence, vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
Schmid, Alex 2012, ‘Root causes of
terrorism: Some conceptual notes, a set of
indicators,
and a model’, Democracy and Security, vol. 1, pp. 127-136.
Shughart II, William 2006, An analytical
history of terrorism, 1945-2000, Public
Choice,
vol. 128, pp. 7-39.
Tan, Andrew 2011, Security strategies in
the Asia-Pacific, Palgrave Macmillan,
New
York.
Tan, Andrew 2013, Terrorism and
insurgency in Southeast Asia, Rutledge, London.
No comments:
Post a Comment