TERRORISM WORLD
By: Ali, Andi Ibrahim
Table
of Content
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Terrorism Definition
1.2.
The Evolution of Terrorism as a Strategic Threat
1.3.
Terrorism Nowadays
2.
State and Sub State Terrorism
2.1.
State Terrorism
2.2.
Sub State Terrorism
3.
The Cases of Terrorism
3.1.
IRA (Irish Republican Army)
3.2.
LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)
4.
How to Counter Terrorism
4.1.
Decapitation:
Catching or Killing the Leader
4.1.1.
How Decapitation Ends Terrorism
4.2.
Negotiation
4.2.1.
How Negotiation Ends Terrorism
5.
Conclusion
6.
References
1.
Introduction
I write this task, because this is really my passion
to get to know deeper about the Terrorism from the beginning, until now. This
terrorism issues are very interested to talk about. Many people don’t know
about the terrorism itself. They only assume that, terrorism is a part of
Muslim. Many west people perhaps argue like that. After 9/11 the perspective in
the terrorism changed. The whole world assumes that Muslims are the terrorist,
and they have to be destroyed. The Muslims had turned to a threat in this
world.
I totally disagree with this. I am a Muslim, and if we
take a look deeper about terrorism, maybe we can find the IRA (Irish Republican
Army). Were they a Muslim terrorist? No they were not. They were Catholic. If a
Muslim commits a criminal, they assume that Muslim is Terrorist, it is
terrorism. But if the other commits crime, they say criminal.
In my country Indonesia, there are a lot of terrorism
movements. The law enforcement in Indonesia assumed that the terrorism
movements in Indonesia were the Al Qaeda network. The cases were such as
bombardment in Bali, which it happened twice, book bombardment and many more.
This is the task of the law enforcement in Indonesia and of course in the
entire world, to counter the terrorism movements. We have to at least reduce
the terrorist attacks and movements in order to bring peace in the world. Even
it is really hard in my opinion, but we have to do so.
Terrorism Definition
Terrorism word came from Latin terrere which mean I frighten. Terrorism
is the premeditated use or threat to use violence by individuals or sub national group in order to reach the political
or social objective through the intimidation of large audience beyond that of
immediate victim. Within the terror action, it must be use the presence or
threat of violence and a political and social motive. Without violence or its
threat, terrorists cannot make a decision maker respond to their demands. The
terrorists use to be randomly when they execute their target, but actually it
is only a way that makes the anxiety feeling in the society. They actually
planned it well. For example the drive-by shooting, many people think that they
attack randomly, but the terrorist have already thought, they well organized. That’s
why they look like they bring fear, anxiety to all society.
Besides the violent and the political motives, a
minimalist definition depends on three additional factors: the victim, the
actor, and the audience. The victim? It is really controversy. Is an assault
against the peacekeeper army a terrorist act? The Israelis say yes. It is a
terrorist act. An assault against the passive military is also defined as a
terrorist act. This is a little bit clumsy, because as a terrorist act is
considering attacking the civilians.
Now we move to the actor. The actor in here is also
present the controversy. If a State is using the terror tactics to attack its
own citizens for example in the Stalin’s regime and the Saddam’s biochemical
weapon, it is not a part of terrorism, it is a state terror. In this case, the
actors are individuals or sub national groups. We cannot assume that the State
is also including as the terrorism. The States also can assist the terrorist
group through safe havens, funding, weapon, intelligence, training, and of
course another assistances that the terrorist group need. We call that state sponsored terrorism. The examples
of the state sponsored terrorism are Cuba, Iran, and Libya.
Finally we move to the audience. What does it means by
the audience? The audience means that to whom the terrorist act is intended to
intimidate. For example the drive-by shooting. The terrorist aims that act to
cause the anxiety in the society. And also the bomb in the train. It considers
that the bomb could planted in the train, it also makes sense that the aim of
that act to bring the fear to the train users. Why the terrorist seek such a
wide audience? Actually the terrorist’s objective is to parry the normal
political procedures and to make a political change through threat and
violence. By intimidating the many people it will make the decision makers do
what the terrorist demands. For examples the suicide attack, the car bomb, and
many other insanity that the terrorists do.
The
Evolution of Terrorism as a Strategic Threat
Well actually the evolution of terrorism as a
strategic threat has already explained in a glance before. The terrorism
becomes a global trend for nowadays. In the recent story, terrorism has been
consistently became a strategic threat. Terrorism can change the world. It is
almost impossible to stop the terrorism campaign. Many group of terrorism are
ridden by many politics group in order to over throne, or to fall the current
regime.
They create the anxiety, fear to the society. The
terror evolved to be one of the dangerous strategic threats in this world. All
people are afraid of terror. The terrorism is hard to erase, because there are
many conspiracies beneath.
Terrorism
Nowadays
People afraid of terrorism, suicide bomb, drive-by
shooting, the terrorist kidnap, hostage, and many acts they did. After 9/11,
the terrorism came up. It became really hot news in whole world. The WTC, the
highest building in the world was attacked by a plane. It caused the building
tumbled down. At that time, the paradigm has changed. The Muslim world was
assumed as the biggest threat by the west side. I remembered about the Rambo 3
movie. On that movie, the Muslim and the west was a good friend to fight
against the Russia. Mujahidin, Al Qaeda, were a friend of America. But now,
they just like stabbing a knife each other. Can we say this is also a clash of civilization because of the war
between the west and the Muslim? Let we put it aside, because the Huntington’s
theory is still controversy.
2.
State and Sub State Terrorism.
State Terrorism
State terrorism was actually known as a state terror. Because the in definition
up there, we cannot define a terrorism when a state as a sponsor to the terror
act. And, how does distinguish the state terror and the violence. Declaring war
and sending the military to fight other militaries is not terrorism. The using
of violence to punish the criminal, who has been sentenced of violent crimes is
also not terrorism.
Let’s take a look from the authoritarian states in
twentieth century. The Nazi and the Stalin are the famous one of the examples
of state terror. The authoritarian states committed to using violence and
extreme threat against their own citizens. However many democratic countries
are also capable of terrorism. For example Israel used terror against the
populations of the territories it has occupied since 1967. The democratic
countries may use the state terrorism for the populations outside the border,
they are impossible to terrorize their own citizens.
Sub State Terrorism
The definition of the sub state terrorism: a small
group within the state is trying to use violence to accomplish its own goal. In
this case, the sub state terrorism has six purposes:
1. social revolutionary
2. national separatist
3. religion fundamental
4. new religious
5. right wing
6. single issue
The example of sub state terrorism base on the purposes:
1.
Social
Revolutionaries : Rebel against corrupt old ways. For
example das Baader Meinhof gang in
Germany.
2.
National
Separatists : Trying to carry on the family mission. For examples
Palestinian terrorists, Northern Irleanders.
3.
Religious
Fundamental : They kill in the name of God. For
examples Osama bin Laden, Abortion Clinic Bombers.
4.
New
Religion : Cults defending new religions. For
example Shinrikyo in Japan (sarin gas subway)
5.
Right
Wing : They see the government as the enemy
and illegitimate. For examples Neo Nazis, Timothy McVeigh, Klu Klux Klan.
6.
Single
Issue : For examples animal rights,
ecological terrorism (usually single people willing to kill) South Korean
animal activist protest in Seoul.
3. The
Cases of Terrorism
IRA (Iris Republican Army)
The conflict was begun because the North Ireland
Catholics believed that they were discriminated against in housing, welfare,
education and employment by the protestant majority. In 1960s a catholic civil
rights movement in the region led to political riot. The name IRA has been in
use since the organization was founded in 1921. From 1969 through 1997, the IRA
splintered into a number of organizations, all called IRA. They included: The
Official of IRA, The Provisional of IRA, The Real IRA, Continuity IRA. The
association of IRA with terrorism comes from the paramilitary activities of the
Provisional of IRA which is no longer active.
From the 1970-1990s, the IRA received weapons and
training from various international sources, most notably American
sympathizers, Libya and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Connection
between the IRA and Marxist-leaning terrorist groups, especially at their most
active in the 1970s. These include: Basque separatist group ETA, Italian Red
Brigades, German Baader Meinhof Gang, and Kurdish Workers Party. The Objectives
of IRA was to create of a unified under Irish, rather than British rule. PIRA
used terrorist tactics to protest the Unionist/Protestant treatment of
Catholics in Northern Ireland.
The
emergence of the Irish Republican Army has its roots in Ireland's 20th century
quest for national independence from Great Britain. In 1801, the Anglican
(English Protestant) United Kingdom of Great Britain merged with Roman Catholic
Ireland. For the next hundred years, Catholic Irish Nationalists opposed
Protestant Irish Unionists, so named because they supported the union with
Great Britain. The
first Irish Republican Army fought the British in the 1919-1921 Irish War of
Independence. The Anglo-Irish treaty concluding the war divided Ireland into a
Catholic Irish Free State and Protestant Northern Ireland, which became the
British province, Ulster. Some elements of the IRA opposed the treaty; it was their
descendents who became the terrorist PIRA in 1969. The IRA began its terrorist attacks
on the British army and police following a summer of violent rioting between
Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. For the next generation, the IRA
carried out bombings, assassinations and other terrorist attacks against
British and Irish Unionist targets.
Official
talks between Sinn Féin and the British government began in 1994, and appeared
to conclude with the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement. The Agreement
included the IRA's commitment to disarm. PIRA strategist Brian Keenan, who had spent over a
generation promoting the use of violence, was instrumental in bringing about
disarmament (Keenan died in 2008).By 2006, the PIRA appeared to have made good
on its commitment. However, terrorist activity by the Real IRA and other
paramilitary groups continues and, as of the summer of 2006, is on the rise. In 2001, the U.S. House of
Representatives Committee on International Relations released a report detailing
connections between the IRA and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia
(FARC) going back to 1998.
LTTE
(Liberation Tamil Tigers Eelam)
Tamil refers to the predominant ethnic group of
northeastern Sri Lanka, and Eelam means homeland in the Tamil Language. The
home base of the LTTE is in the Sri Lanka. The group finances itself and arms
purchases in Europe, through a variety of illegal and legal means. The
objectives of this group are the establishment of an autonomous Tamil entity in
Sri Lanka.
The Sri Lanka government actually already began peace
talk in 1985. But no solution was made until 2002, when they negotiated a
ceasefire. The ceasefire was meant to last four years, and was
reaffirmed by both sides in February 2006. Nevertheless, the LTTE resumed
attacks in the spring of 2006. The situation rapidly deteriorated, and although
neither side called off the truce, there was consisted fighting between the Sri
Lankan military and the Tamil Tigers in the fall of 2006. Most observers of the situation are
pessimistic about the prospects for a peaceful settlement in the near future,
in a government dominated after 2005 elections by hard line Sinhalese
nationalists. Jihan Perera, an Sri Lanka based analyst, said that "There
is a question mark about the government's willingness to put forward a
realistic proposal that would at least go halfway to meeting the Tamil people's
aspirations, let alone LTTE aspirations" (in "Resumption of Sri Lanka
War Tests Civilians' Endurance," by Somini Sengupta, New York Times,September
18, 2006).
Sri
Lanka, an island in the Indian Ocean off the southeast coast of India, gained
its independence in 1948. Ethnic Sinhalese Buddhists make up about
three-quarters of the island's population; Tamils, both Indian and Sri Lankan, are
the next largest ethnic group. Most are Hindu. Tamil terrorism is rooted in
conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese, who predominate in government. The Tamil Population began to agitate for secession
in the early 1970s, following Sinhalese measures to establish their cultural
and political dominance. For example, Sinhalese was made the only official
language and Buddhism was decreed the official religion. In the 1970s, student
groups and others turned to armed protest to press their case with government. The
conflict escalated in 1983, when anti-Tamil riots in the capital, Colomo,
killed thousands and displaced almost 100,000 residents. The moment was
decisive for many Tamils, who lent large scale support to independence
movements. According
to some estimates, about 65,000 people died in the conflict between 1983 and
2002.
4.
How to Counter Terrorist
“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well,
there’s really an easy way:
Stop participating in it.”
-Noam
Chomsky
There are so many way in order to combat the terrorism
in this world. Maybe Mr. Noam Chomsky quote’s is also right. If we want to stop
the terrorism activity, it can be started from a little thing like stop
participating in it. Many leader terrorist asked a lot of people to join their
group to create one condition that can bring fear and anxiety to all people in
order to make changes in political condition or so on. There are 2 ways to
counter terrorism, which are done very often.
Decapitation:
Catching or Killing the Leader
Leaders of terrorist groups are often captured or
killed in the final month of terrorist campaign. But the specific techniques of
targeting vary, and long term effects of decapitation are inconsistent. While
many campaigns end as a result, other barely falters and may even gain
strength.
What decapitation means? Firstly, we must clarify what
we mean by decapitation. Decapitation refers to the removal by arrest or
assassination of top leaders or operational leaders of a group. Actually the
states that decide to target the leader of a terrorist group must determine to
arrest them alive or not. Decisions
about that may whether to capture or kill the chief may depend on local
condition. Capturing the leader reflects the view that he is a criminal,
lawfully, entitled to trial, killing him is threatening him as combatant , fair
game for attack.
The Arrest of Top Leaders
Capturing a leader, putting him or her on trial and
then presumably behind bars, emphasizes the rule of law, profile leaders as
criminals, and demonstrates the appropriate application of justice. All else
being equal, it is much better to arrest and put the terrorist leader in
prison, so that his fate will be demonstrated to the public. When terrorism is
primarily treated as a criminal offense, either by the state or the international
system, the existing legal mechanism for responding to it and are reinforced.
Assassination or “Targeted Killing”
Holding terrorist leaders is difficult, and a
potential liability for the state and its citizens. Should leaders of
organizations that carry out terrorist attacks instead be identified, targeted
and killed? Debates of ethics of agent of democratic states killing terrorist
leaders have become increasingly public and spirited in recent years.
If a state or a government really does the assassination
to the terrorist leaders, it will bring the real disadvantages to the
government or to the states. It will be a backfire. The member of terrorist
group will find for revenge, and the all the target, representatives, citizens
or else are really vulnerable to get that terror. If a state really wants to
kill the leaders, it has to think strategically, not only tactically. Because
it can make a confusing part within the terrorist group. For example, if the
leader is a charismatic leader may indeed be irreplaceable. The member of the
terrorist group will mistrust to other member, and it can make a chaos within
the group, because they try to find who was leaking the information to the
enemy, and they will kill each other.
How
Decapitation Ends Terrorism
On the basis record arresting leader is more effective
in damaging a group than killing him. Killing the leader could be a backfire,
resulting in increased publicity for the group’s cause and the creation of a
martyr who attracts many new members to the organizations.
Negotiations
Democracies do not negotiate with terrorist. At least
that is what many official claims. The idea of negotiation with group that
deliberately kills civilians to advance their political goals is repulsive to
most people. In fact, however, democracies do negotiate with terrorist.
Virtually all democratic governments facing terrorist campaigns have been
forced to negotiate at some point, and many have even made concessions,
although of course there are differences in degree.
Why governments negotiate? Whether alone or in a
coalition, states negotiate with terrorist groups for reasons that may not be
obvious or admitted. These motives may be intertwined, even contradictory:
negotiations are not the obverse of fighting terrorism through other means. For
all parties, negotiations may be a type of interaction that is seamlessly
connected to more violent form
How
Negotiation Ends Terrorism
Negotiations are the best thought of as an essential
elements in a broader range of policies to marginalize a group, as a
conciliatory gestures or proposal change the dynamics of support; to exploit
the differences, hive of factions, and enable members to leave or
constituencies to turn elsewhere, to provide crucial information about how a
group functions, and to reduce the degree and intensity of attacks over time,
as groups lose momentum or make error. Negotiations carry with so much benefit;
however, instantaneously ending the violence is not one of them. Given the
small numbers off operatives needed for terrorist attacks to continue,
negotiations do not typically end the violence alone, and it is foolish to
promote expectations that they will.
Conclusion
Terrorism is one biggest threat in the world right
now. Since the 9/11 tragedy, the terrorism came up and became a hot news. They
bring fear, and anxiety to the society. They aim to political changes and
others. Many ways can end terrorism. Government naturally responds to terrorism
by trying to capture or kill the leader. Government also negotiates, but
negotiation rarely ends terrorism by them, but agile diplomacy can be a
strategic tool for managing the decline of campaign.
But it would be really hard to end terrorism, because
it seems like impossible if in this world there are no terrorism. Or at least
maybe the west paradigm can change. The west people still assume that Muslim is
the terrorists. When the other committed crime, they said, they are criminal,
but when Muslim committed crime, they are terrorist, it is really bias. There
is no such a thing like that. So many cases was also called terrorism such as
the LTTE, IRA etc. they are also terrorism. It is not fair, to say that Muslim
is entirely terrorist. Because we are not terrorists. Who is terrorist anyway?
References
Cronin,
Audrey Kurth. “How to End Terrorism”
Horgan,
John and Braddock, Kurt. Terrorism Studies
Enders,
Walter and Sandler, Todd. The Political economy of terrorism. Cambridge
University press
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar