Paul Pillar lists these reasons as follows: leverage for bargaining, political or diplomatic disruption, influencing the behavior of a fearful population, provoking a government into reacting harshly and indiscriminately, showing the flag, revenge, simple hatred, and the carrying out of a divine mandate (Pillar, 2001). Individuals or groups that practice terrorist activity do so for a variety of reasons. All of these definitions have a common thread: that terrorism is typically violence directed against civilians for the purpose of achieving some political aim or aims. Finally, the United States’ statutory definition of terrorism is “âÂ?¦premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Pillar, 2001). Andrew Fiala tells us “The terrorist is interested in using the threat of pain in order to antagonize a people and destabilize a social structure” (Fiala, 2002). Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, “Terrorism is the deliberate and systematic assault on civilians to inspire fear for political ends” (Netanyahu, 2001). Caleb Carr defines terrorism as “âÂ?¦warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable” (Carr, 2002). Terrorism has many definitions, but only one generally accepted meaning. However, before we can embark on an examination of the theories of Realism and Liberalism, it is first necessary to understand just what terrorism is. This paper will argue that the realist approach to international relations offers the best guidance for explaining and dealing with terrorism because it recognizes that terrorism is a sort of proxy war being fought as part of the struggle for power and self-preservation among states. Realism and Liberalism offer differing viewpoints on terrorism and how it should be dealt with. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recognized terrorism as a political problem when, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, he said, ” What is at stake today is nothing less than the survival of our civilization” (Netanyahu, 2001).įor an answer to a political problem, it is necessary to examine some political theories and their treatment of the subject at hand. However, this treatment of terrorist activity has proven insufficient for dealing with what is, in reality, a political problem.
Terrorism has traditionally been treated by Western governments as a criminal matter rather than a political one.
Finally, the paper will conclude with an assessment of the utility of each theory’s explanation of and guidance for dealing with terrorism.įew would argue that the greatest danger faced by Western nations, and in particular the United States, manifests itself in the form of terrorism. The discussion of each political theory will also include the theory’s guidance for dealing with terrorism. The paper will then discuss the key concepts and basic logic of the political theories of Realism and Liberalism, including their strengths and weaknesses and how each theory explains terrorist activity. The paper will begin with a brief discussion of terrorism, including some accepted definitions, the reasons why some individuals, groups, or states choose terrorism, the traditional treatment of terrorism as a crime, and why the treatment of terrorism as a criminal act is insufficient for dealing with terrorist activity. The purpose of this paper is to examine the political theories of Realism and Liberalism with respect to the phenomenon known as Terrorism.
0 kommentar(er)
