Explain why the term ‘terrorism’ is controversial and contested. (15)

Introduction

Terrorism according to Andrew Heywood is a form of political violence that aims to achieve its objectives through creating a climate of fear and apprehension. Terrorists thus seek to create unease, anxiety and apprehension, while thriving on surprise in order to create an unstable environment. This sort of conflict is thus likely to be asymmetrical in the sense that terrorists choose to inflict violence against specific targets rather than engaging in a head to head conflict which has consequences of its own. The use of the term ‘terrorism’ suggests that the actions which are being utilised are ultimately immoral and illegitimate.

Edexcel Markscheme:

Terrorism is usually taken to refer to attempts to further political ends by using violence to create a climate of fear, apprehension and uncertainty, through acts such as bombings, assassinations, hostage seizures and plane hijacks. Terrorist violence is typically high profile, consciousness shocking and seemingly arbitrary, and, conventionally, it is carried out by non-state actors.

Paragraph 1

One reason why the term terrorism has been controversial is because there is no global agreement of the definition of the term terrorism itself. As terrorism began to emerge in countries like Bulgaria and Russia during the 19th century, so did an international debate on how to define it. Since then, scholars, organisations and government agencies have created approximately 260 definitions of the term ‘terrorism’. This shows a reason why the term terrorism has led to controversy because the definition itself is not universally accepted and the variety of definitions illustrate the inconsistency of the term when trying to use it for real life events. Additionally, the fact that the term has been and is being subjectively used is another reason why the term terrorism is controversial. It has been argued that the controversy lies within how we differentiate between one mans freedom fighter and another’s terrorist. “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.” For example, Michael Collins, who was the IRA commander used terrorist tactics to expel the British from Ireland. According to British people he was recognised as a terrorist but to the Irish, he was recognised as a freedom fighter against British oppression. Similarly, this is shown in the case of the Boston Marathon bombings. Many argued that the marathon bombings were an act of terrorism, whereas Obama refused to describe it as an act of terror. Such examples demonstrate that the term terrorism has led to controversy and contest because there is not a universally accepted definition of the term itself and so different individuals, states, governments and organisation choose to interpret actions based on their subjective definition of the term itself.

Additional Notes & Examples:

“Terrorism has become one of the most pressing political problems during the last half-century” (Whittaker, 2007). Yet academics have failed to establish a definition of terrorism.
The EU for example define terrorism as acts such as attempted murder, kidnapping, etc, where the aim is of ‘seriously intimidating a population, or
– unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
– seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.
There has also been many different view points on why individuals/ groups may choose to turn to act of violence.
– Some argue that it is because they may desire power.
– Others argue that it is due to desire of justice or defence.
– Academic Professor Louise Richardson believed it was because of revenge, to provoke a reaction and because they are looking for glory.
The phrase “One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter” has also been used by critics to argue that it is unfair that Israel refer to Hamas as a terrorist organisation and for NATO to refer to Al- Qaeda as terrorists since they are recognised as freedom fighters to their supporters.
Events demonstrate that there are contrasting views on what defines a terrorist or a terrorist organisation because it can be argued that it is dependent on the side that you are on.
Robert Dear for example, opened fire at a planned parenthood clinic in 2015, killing 3 and injuring 5. A congressman didn’t think that Dear’s actions were terrorist related. However, experts which were funded by the Department of Homeland Security did not take long to decide that Dears actions were in fact terrorist acts.
People across the world hear the world ‘terror’ every day both in politics and in the media. Donald Trump for example, has used the term over 40 times since he was elected, most often in connection with people from other countries.
Experts say that people who only hear about terrorism through the lens of political expression might have a specific type of person in mind when they hear the word making it much harder to imagine a terrorist as someone who looks like themselves. – For example, people might only see terrorists as someone associated with well known terrorist groups such as Al- Qaeda and ISIS.

Paragraph 2

Another reason why the term terrorism has been controversial is because of the increase in the different types of terrorism which have evolved. This is because the rise of different types of terrorism such as loner and global have led to some arguing that the term in fact encourages misunderstanding since some terrorists may be seen as more justifiable than others. The change from old terrorism to new terrorism can be recognised as the area where the controversy lies. The motivation behind old terrorism and new terrorism has significantly changed. Old terrorism had no desire to over kill and new terrorism has been recognised to have the desire to perform extreme, unachievable objectives. Such changes in motivation has made the definition of terrorism seem increasingly unclear and inaccurate. It has been argued for example, to categorise Al – Qaeda and PLO together as terrorist organisations is not right as the aims of both groups are so radically different. Additionally, old terrorism has shown to have a clear motivation, usually politically based. For example, the IRA deployed terrorist acts in order to resist British rule. They also had no desire to over kill. This can be shown by the fact that in 1983, the IRA chose to explode a bomb outside Harrods where 6 died as they knew that hundred more would have died if they exploded the bomb inside. New terrorism however are seen of having extreme, unachievable objectives as well the desire of inflicting mass violence and destruction. This can be shown by the act f Al- Qaeda in 9/11 as well as the serious atrocities committed by ISIS. Thus, the fact that old terrorism and new terrorism have contrasting objectives and aims is another reason why the term terrorism has led to controversy as it has become increasingly difficult to categorise acts of terror due to the mass differences of violent ‘terror’ acts.

Paragraph 3

An additional reason why the term terrorism has been controversial is because it has been argued that governments may engage in state terrorism which refers to acts of terrorism conducted by a state against foreign targets or against its own people. Some argue that terror ought to be a state policy in order to protect the citizens of a state from its enemies. Realists for example believe that the state is dominant and it should act in order to protect its people in this dangerously anarchic world. Robespierre believed that, ‘Terror is merely justice, prompt, severe and inflexible…’ suggesting that he believed and recognised terror as a consequence of virtue and just a defensive reaction against its enemies. Critics however recognised state terrorism in a bad light and not a requirement to protect its people but intact to take advantage of the power they may maintain. This is the reason why many scholars believed that the actions of governments can be labelled as terrorism. Noam Chomsky for example, defined state terrorism as ‘terrorism practiced by states (or governments) and their agents and allies.’ Examples of state terrorism include the invasion in Iraq in 2003 as well as the establishment of Guantanamo Bay as innocent civilians has been killed and abuse, torture and violence is being used. Such acts correspond to the definition of terrorism. In addition, the ‘Shock and Awe” theory which was derived from military theorist Clausewitz is the name given to massive intervention designed to strike terror into the minds of the enemy and is based on the use of overwhelming power to destroy the enemies will to fight is a form of state terrorism. The Iraq invasion was an example of this as the initial assault on Iraq by the US was to show the superiority of the US. Therefore, due to the fact that governments have been shown to engage in state terrorism is another reason why the term terrorism has led to controversy as terrorism which is usually linked to non governmental groups or organisations has demonstrated to be utilised by states and governments too.

–

Explain the key criticisms that have been made of the ‘clash of civilisations’ thesis. (15)

The clash of civilisations (COC) thesis was introduced by Samuel P Huntington int he aftermath of the Cold War and his thesis stated that the 21st century world order would be characterised by conflict and tension due to cultural reasons rather than political, ideological or economic. Events such as 9/11, the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, the bombings of Bali and London and the rising tension between the Western and Muslim nations seem to prove his thesis. Despite this, there have been many criticisms that have been made of the COC thesis.

The main criticism of the COC thesis is that it has been argued that it is too generalising and too often the acts of extremists are used to generalise a whole of a culture. Edward Said who was highly critical of the COC thesis warned against generalising Islam. Muslim countries are not necessarily more intolerant than non Muslim countries but the increase in focus on Muslim extremism has allowed the thesis to be recognised as right. Despite this, there are many examples which show that Muslim countries are accepting of western liberal norms of behaviour. For example, Indonesia which is a Muslim dominated country is a thriving democracy and Malaysia which is another Muslim dominated country is a democracy. Also, Turkey which is another Muslim dominated country is a member of NATO and is keen to join the EU. Such examples show that Muslim countries are not in fact more intolerant but rather they are interested in western values and western norms of behaviour. In addition to this, Saudi Arabia recently allied with Israel against the Geneva nuclear deal between the P5 and Iran which suggests that although Saudi Arabia is recognised as the leader of the Arab world, it still vests its interests in the West. This can be used to criticise Huntington’s COC thesis as he states that different civilisations are potential threats to one another but recent examples demonstrate that they can still ally. Therefore, the COC thesis has been criticised because it is too generalising.

Another criticism of the COC thesis is that it has been argued that the idea of cultural boundaries has diminished. For example, Paul Berman proposed that cultural boundaries do not exist in the modern world. Berman believed that there was no such thing as a ‘western’ civilisation or an ‘Islamic’ civilisation as shown by the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the USA. Due to the benefits that both states bring from each other due to globalisation, they have no reason to go to war with one another. According to Berman, conflict arises because of different philosophical beliefs between groups, regardless of cultural or religious identity. It has also been argued that most of the violent clashes today are within same civilisations and not different. For example, the most toxic violence and conflict in the Middle East are within Islam and the most killed by ISIS are Muslims and not Christians. Also, there is considerable evidence that different cultures, ethnic groups and religions are able to live together in peace and harmony. For example, in the Balkans during the Ottoman era. In addition to this it has been argued that when cultures clash it is not necessarily due to ‘natural’ rivalry but instead it is because of deeper political and social issues such as the distribution of wealth and power. Therefore, the COC thesis has been criticised because Huntington ignores the extent to which globalisation has blurred cultural differences in many parts of the world.

An additional criticism of the COC thesis that has been made is that there are many different interpretations on what a COC is. Amartya Sen for example argued against Huntington’s belief on what causes conflict. Huntington believed that conflicts arise when people see each other as having a singular affiliation which may be a person being associated or recognised as being a Muslim or being a Hindu. Amartya Sen disagreed and believed that every individual has plural identities and believed that ‘our humanity gets savagely challenged’ because of ‘the dominant system of classification- in terms of religion’. Sen believed that religion which was a single affiliation was not in fact the cause of violence and conflict like Huntington believed and instead believed that it was due to multiple affiliations such as being a housewife, artist, female and so did not focus solely on religion. It has also been argued that there has been problems with the practical application of Huntington thesis in real life examples. The COC approach suggests that the same groups (civilisations) will come together in support, yet the coalition to defeat Iraq in 1999 involved numerous Arab nations. Thus, such examples can be used to criticise Huntington’s thesis as application in the modern world has been problematic suggesting that due to differences of interpretations on what a COC is and practical application problems, Huntington’s COC thesis has gained criticism.

Bibliography: