Lecture 11 Flashcards
How does Orthodox Terrorist Studies define terrorism?
Politically violent action designed to influence an audience through fear perpetrated by subnational groups or non-state actors (Hoffman 1998: 43)
- Emphasis on non-state actors/ subnational groups
- Non-state actors are those who perpetrate terrorism
What is state-terrorism?
Beginning of terrorism
- Acts of violence conducted by representatives against civilians to instill fear; political violence to further perpetuate their political aims
- Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible (Robespierre)
- Reign of Terror 1819
- Terror started by the state
- Example: November 2008: Lashkar-e-Taiba attack in Mumbai; group sponsored by a state (Pakistan). But US does not see Pakistan as state sponsor of terrorism (thus subjective list).
- Scholars point to complicity of Western democratic government in perpetrating acts of terror
What is modern terrorism?
Transnational terrorism
- Transnational nature
- Globalisation as major force in propagation of terrorism
- Easier to transport international violent groups
- Media focus and globalisation
- “Terrorists want a lot of people watching rather than a lot of people dead” (Jenkins 1975) = ‘Propaganda by the deed’
Example: Munich massacre
What is New Terrorism (early to mid 1990s)?
- Refers to acts of violence taken by religious or extremist groups with weapons of mass destruction to create high number of casualties
- Catastrophic terrorism: Difficult to defend against, Scale and scope of attacks, Use of WMD
- ‘Loose nukes’, WMD programs and international organisations → easier for non-state actors to get possession of WMD (International Atomic E Agency & OPCW)
- Catastrophic terrorism is often sporadic with a variety of targets
But: Duyvestuyn; how new is new terrorism?
What is catastrophic terrorism?
- Difficult to defend against
- Scale and scope of attacks
- Use of WMD
What is Islamic Terrorism?
- Emerged in 1970s
- Resistance to ‘near’ enemy
- Resistance to ‘far’ enemy
- Growth in religious fundamentalism
- Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89)
Today:
- Groups are varied
- Most attacks occur in a relatively small number of countries; Often countries that have conflict (Iraq, Algeria, Afghanistan, etc.)
- US response to 9/11 has big impact on Islamic terrorism
→ Very Orthodox approach to understanding terrorism
What is the critical definition of terrorism?
Terrorism is ‘a violent strategy or tactic of political struggle which actors can employ to try and achieve their goals; it is a means to some kind of political end’ (Jackson et al. 2011: 35)
→ Gets us to focus not on the enemy but on political motivations behind terrorism
What is Critical Terrorism Studies?
How the existing order came about, how we have come to think about terrorism in our world (modern, new, Islamic terror), how can we challenge these ideas and norms, how can we transform our understanding of terrorism
- Exposes OTS terrorism knowledge as politically constructed and state-centric
- Seeks to understand the perspectives of politically violent actors
- Is critically reflexive about how terrorism knowledge is used
- Advances an emancipatory politics
- A politics that takes us away from targeting certain groups legitimizing violence; politics based on human rights and values
How did Orthodox Terrorist Studies (OTS) respond to Critical Terrorism Studies?
For Horgan and Boyle (2008), Critical Terrorist Studies…
- Invents OTS as strawman
- Is not novel; OTS are very aware of limitations of terrorist research
- Is unclear about its commitment to emancipation
- Dismisses policy relevant work too readily
What is Offensive liberalism (Miller)?
- Democratic peace; democratic states are interdependent states (free trade, international institutions to guide behaviour, respect for universal rights, etc.)
- Respect for human rights nationally and internationally
- Forced regime change to spread democracy
Built on Bush doctrine
- “A sweeping overhaul of US foreign policy and a highly aggressive plan to reshape world order in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon”
What does Miller argue about the balance of threat?
“A liberal hegemon that faces a hostile and violent international environment will tend to adopt an offensive liberal strategy, namely use its superior capabilities to find a fundamental solution to its security problems by transforming the ideological character of its opponents through regime change, if necessary by force” (Miller: 40)
Tactics/strategies used by hegemon:
- High external threat: more aggressive liberalist strategy
- Benign environment: liberalism does not have to be offensive; it can rest in liberalist principles
What are the critiques on offensive liberalism?
- Agency; if structure is dominant, then you don’t have agents? Systematic factors and passive US (Was US hopeless?)
- 9/11 as systematic threat? Or construction of threats?
- Context of ‘terror’ across time and space – blowback
- Legitimacy, terror and imperialism – undermining liberal values (Ikenberry 2002)
- Economics – (neo)liberalism is always offensive
What is the main giveaway of Campbells book on writing security?
Danger is not an objective condition. It is not a thing that exists independently of those to whom it may become a threat’ (Campbell 1992; 1)
- Not all risks are held to be equal
- It is how these risks are constructed is what we need to think about
- Temporality, spatiality, and ethicality (Hansen 2006)
- Spatiality; who belongs and who doesn’t
What does Jackson say about the notion of Islamic terrorism?
Jackson 2007: Constructing enemies, ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in political and academic discourse. Government and opposition.
- Attempt to create a stable category
- Discourse is problematic and unstable
- Orientalist, stereotypes, vague definitions, problematic binaries
- … to justify foreign and domestic policies
We need to think about what motivates terrorist groups.
Jackson states “in-depth qualitative studies suggest that terrorism is always local; that is, it is driven by identifiable political grievances and issues specific to particular societies and locales”
“With us or against us”
