Terrorism And International Relations

The Changing Face of Terrorism and International Relations

In a world where the quest for peace is continuous, terrorism hits its soar in the beginning of the 21st century, spreading fright and terror on a worldwide scale. The word “terrorism” has not only a political connotation but also an emotional one, because it is, in essence, a violent act, destined to attack a government and the population that gives it its legitimacy. In other words, the term terrorism has in its goal the willingness to promote a political or religious message by the usage of fear. Instead of finding a common ground and overcome their differences, the actors choose to perpetrate horror in order to reach their objectives. The attacks of September 11, 2001, marked the advent of a new transnational terrorism and with it the devastating effect of bringing forth to the international agenda the “War on Terror”. Acts of international terrorism are varied according to the means of action, the authors, the reasons and the possible involvement in some states. The international community has responded to this diversity by providing appropriate responses to a complex phenomenon. However, the terrorist phenomenon changes in nature, and in particularly, strikes indiscriminately and massively with all the possible use of unconventional weapons. This new terrorism thus requires a multifaceted response.

The 1789 French Revolution is at the origin of the term and the reality that is terrorism. Terrorism then designs a revolutionary government system: The Terror starts in between September 1793 and July 1794. Terrorism is initiated at the core of the State, and it is this revolutionary terrorism that will become in the 20th century the foundation of the Nazi and Communist totalitarianism. In history, the first to be called “terrorists” were the troops of the conventional constituent assembly sent on a mission in province to assure the repression of royalism and federalism. The Terror was deemed necessary for the advent of a just society. The term is first used in a 1798 supplement of the French Academy. The paradox is evident, since the word “terrorist” is employed, while the Revolution extols on Human Rights.

From being the instrument of protection of the State, terrorism becomes the very tool of defilement of the state’s authority and actions. Since then, in the 19th century, the definition changes, and becomes the main violent strategy of contestation of the State. John Deutch (1997) differentiates state-sponsored terrorism, as the countries that are known to harbor known terrorists that have both the potential and the ideological inclination to advance their objectives through terrorism, such as Cuba, Iran or Iraq. It seems that terrorism is a relatively a recent concept in human history. The first act of “modern” terrorism is perpetuated against Napoleon Bonaparte, who successfully escaped the attempt bombing executed by the royalists, in December 1800. Since then, terrorism has continued to mark history with climatic moments, such as the attack against the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914 in Sarajevo, which brought Europe to the first World War, or the attacks of September 11, 2001. Contemporary terrorism then appeared in some far-leftist groups of the 1960s, aiming at the anti-colonial struggle and based on the theories of “urban guerilla” were developed in Latin America, and showed characteristics of resemblance with terrorist actions of the past. However, it is still a hard concept to define, as every definition holds a segment of subjectivity. Especially when talking about terrorism, and this is one of the main reasons why the UN (United Nations) had great difficulties in giving an exact definition to the international community, and this until 2005. Nevertheless, terrorism as we know it today appears in the 1800s, and while it is not form of violence exercised precisely by the State, it grows in parallel to the rise of the 1860 nationalism and democracy, and is the result of small groups without legitimacy or resources. These groups consist of anarchists, nationalists, nihilists or even “soldiers of God”; who justify their actions by the need of a so-called “resistance” in light of despotism. The most important is probably the Narodnaya Volya, formed in 1878 to fight against the Tsar Regime on the principle of “propaganda by action”. They claimed to follow the ideas of an Italian Republican extremist, “Pisacane argued that violence was necessary not only to draw attention to a cause, or to generate publicity for the cause, but also to inform, educate, and rally the mass behind the revolution” (Burcu Sari, 2003). This approach already shows that terrorism is achieved for various motives, the most evident being the generally intended psychological harm with only physical results, but also for other reasons, less obvious for those others than the perpetrators, who usually deem their actions as fit and just.

Being a major phenomenon in contemporary international relations, at the heart of current issues since 9/11, topped with the War on Terrorism declared by the USA, terrorism remains, quite difficult to define, not only because of the different forms it can take, but also due to the emotional repercussions it arouses, along with the political and moral implications of the classifications of terror. However, it is possible to define terrorism, aside from being a conventional military conflict, as a series of violent acts, heavily planned and mediatized, that targets military goals or not, and that creates a climate of fear and insecurity, to influence the decision-makers in the decision-making process (assign, negotiate, pay, suppress) in order to meet previously defined goals (criminal, economic, political). Generally, terrorism means violent acts, such as sabotage, bombings, assassinations, hostage; committed by isolated individuals or organized groups. Given the circumstances, is it possible to fight terrorism? The answer is debatable, since the enemy is stealthy, dispersed, and remains difficult to pin even after the degrading act is committed.

Terrorism is pitted as a kind of unconventional warfare, mainly referred to as an asymmetric conflict. In the Karen Mingst and Ivan Arreguin-Toft textbook on the Essentials of International Relations (5th edition), an asymmetric conflict is defined as detaining characteristics of “both conventional warfare and nuclear war” and often “conducted between parties of unequal strength. The weaker party seeks to neutralize its opponent’s strengths, including its technological superiority, by exploiting that opponent’s weaknesses.” While guerrilla warfare is one of the many strategies to defeat more powerful enemies, terrorism is yet another, bringing forth insecurity on an international scale. Since terrorism is difficult

...