lecture 11 - terrorism Flashcards
definitions terrorism
- premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (US Department of State)
clandestine = secret/undercover - political terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or a group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators (Wardlaw)
- terrorism is a term without any legal significance, it is merely a convenient way of alluding to activities widely disapproved of and in which either the methods used are unlawful, or the target protected, or both (Higgins, ICJ)
defining terrorism
- hard to define: no consensus among scholars, practitioners or even in the UN
- ambiguous relation state and terrorism: state terrorism? (Wardlaw argues there can be state terrorism)
e.g. Argentina, Chile in the 70s acted as terrorist states + French revolution (origin of the concept of terrorism) + USSR 30s + China 60s - debate: terrorist or freedom fighter?
Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
Irish Republican Army terrorist? (had support in senate, was US financing terrorism)?
terrorism as label without definition?
- e.g. non-state actors and state actors
four waves of terrorism (genealogy)
- 1880s: anarchism
- 1920s-1960s: decolonization movements
- 1960s-1970s: the radical Left
- 1980s-now: Islamic-inspired Movements (has 3 waves: Afghan Fighters - Al Qaeda - London, Mardid, Paris, Copenhagen)
anarchism
first wave of terrorism: 1880s
anarchist movements in different parts of Europe + in Russia
anarchist belief that existing structures had to be destroyed so that states wouldn’t come back: there should be alternative forms of organization
idea that the centers of power needed to be attacked:
-> assassination Tsar Alexander 2 (1881)
-> Galleanist Bombings (1919): anarchist movements that tried to impose anarchist views on US by simultaneous bombings
led to a anti-anarchist discourse in the US out of the fear for terrorism (now: same type of discourse for different group)
decolonization movements
1920s-1960s: second wave terrorism
goal: overthrow of colonial rulers
- 1931-1948: Israel/Palestine (Irgun: Jewish/Zionist military organisation in land of Israel (nakomer Haganda ofzo): had no widespread support)
- 1954-1962: Algeria (FLN: bombings, executions, as strategies in war of independence against war of independence of France)
- 1954-1975: Vietnam (Viet Cong)
= part of broader nationalist agenda (not just terrorism)
the radical left
1960s-1970s third wave of terrorism
class struggle and support for decolonization + revolution
- large groups believed the revolution would come + were impatient + wanted to do it better
1970-98: Germany
- Rote Armee Fraktion / Baader-Meinhof Group
1970-1988: Italy
- Brigate Rosse
1969: USA
- Weather Underground (clandestine)
Islamic-inspired Movements
1980s-now
Fourth wave of terrorism
has 3 subwaves:
- Taliban 80s (Afghan Fighters, funded/supported by the US fighting against the SU)
- Al Qaeda 90s (turned against US: defined near enemy (dictators islamic world) + far enemy (US))
- late 2000s: London, Madrid, Paris, Copenhagen = groups emerged as off-shout: no extremely well-structured organizations, they are different (sub)groups
policy theories of terrorism
- Bush: (terrorism because) they hate our freedom
! not true: terrorism often because they think they will obtain freedom through these acts - Laquer: new terrorism (4th wave of terrorism is a new type of terrorism: barbarism/atrocity in stead of political goals)
! not true: 4th wave is also politically motivated
!everyone always starts talking with terrorists > shows that it is being recognized as political actor (not just barbaric)
radicalisation and the ‘‘stages’’ models
- highly contested + critiqued
- allows talking about ‘root causes’ of terror without justifying it
- appeared 2004-2005: shock of ‘homegrown’ terrorism
the 4 phases of radicalization
Sweden intelligence
- contact with radicalisator
- gradual change in behaviour + new communication habits (internet)
- narrowing of social life to include only like-minded individuals
- radical often goes through a process of (moral) hardening - by watching very violent videos and combat scenes
why these phases?
- idea that we can stop it
now = completely debunked
it doesn’t work that way: terrorism is a social movement
terrorism as social movement
- violence is political (focused on the choice to go underground + violence as means of obtaining political profits = collective dimension of violence)
- violence is relational: it is always violent in relation to competing organizations or adversaries (state authorities e.g.)
*bloody sunday: protest against British army in northern Ireland, was peaceful until British army responded disproportionate -> violence as only legitimate/logical response (no negotiation possible) - framing is key: there is always a cause (not just external opportunities)
- violence is emergent (develops in action + has its own logic + hard to come back from: reinforces group cohesion, commitment and strategies (people died for it -> difficult to stop being violent, to step back = incentive to keep going, otherwise it was for nothing)
we have to accept that it is a social movement
!terrorism can start without violence
Della Porta - Political Violence
sees terrorism as a social movement, wants to call it political violence
political violence = use of physical force to damage a political adversary
terrorism works as a social movement: the major difference is in the repertoire it has/employs
clandestine political violence
- Della Porta
clandestine is not the same as:
- armed resistence: targets non-combatants
- civil wars or revolutions: media attention (want people watching, not people dead)
secrecy of the actors
3 cases of transnational violence
- global frame national struggle: BR
- National frame, transnational struggle: KLA
- global frame, transnational struggle: Al Qaeda
Global Frame National struggle e.g.
Brigate Rosse
- national political opportunity structure: blockage and escalation (historical compromise left-right wing, strategy of tension, extreme violence between wings)
- national mobilizing structures: communist and student movement
- global framing: marxism, anti-colonialism
- repertoires: ‘‘foco’’ theory (provocating the state to overreact), targeted attacks, hostage taking
death Moro (78): isolation from the wider movement
National Frame, Transnational Struggle e.g.
national and international political opportunity structures: blockage and escalation
- end of the cold war
- breakdown of Yugoslavia
- Serbian nationalism
- Yugoslav army vs KLA
- Kosovo Democratic League vs KLA
national and transnational mobilizing structures: ethnic + diasporic soldiarity
National framing: Pan-Albanian ethnic nationalism
Repertoires:
- insurgency warfare
- foco theory
- organized crime financing
