Defense Against Terrorism
Globalization and Terrorism
The emerging global economy has stripped down previously enduring geographic and political boundaries, leading to deterritorialism or the blurring of lines that separate one country from another. As economies and businesses impose itself upon the sovereignty of one nation, it also brings with it threats such as terrorism and war. (Collins, 2007, p. 54) Indeed, the evolving global order has created a community of countries whose fates are so intimately linked with one another. The irony is that while international relations are more important than ever, it also heightens security risks, which in turn make such relations more important than ever. (Hough, 2004, p. 4) The international system creates a cycle of benefits and risks that perpetuate itself and actions by one country can create a ripple effect that has profound consequences on a possibly global scale. (Evera 1998, p. 40)
The long history that scaffolds the situation in Afghanistan makes President Bushs fight against terrorism on Afghan soil look very controversial. In fact, his platform of war against terror has polarized much of his people. The decisions and actions made in the 1960s during the Afghan-Soviet war were necessary in that day and age, but it cannot justify a full-blast war against a nation whose only tragedy was to be caught in the conflict between superpowers. Indeed, there are those who say that the Taliban is an offspring of the Afghan militia who were once trained by the United States to fight Soviet forces. The people whom American soldiers trained are the very same people they are now coming back to rage a war with. Whatever disagreements or misgivings that countries have over major issues should be discussed and resolved so that a united front can be projected at all times. In any war, the perception of weakness or lack of resolve spells the difference between victory and defeat, and if the world is to have a chance against terrorism, it can only do so with the cooperation and active involvement of everyone concerned. Indeed, our hopes of a better world can only be achieved when we set aside doubts and be resolved in our actions, but that thinking should be tempered with diplomacy and good will.
War is always controversial because it means the mass killing people and the destruction of a way of life. As such, it should always be an option of last resort, after all other avenues have been explored and have failed.
The Just War Theory maintains that war can only be justified when several elements have been met. They are the following that the damage caused by the aggressor is severe and enduring that all other options for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted and ineffective that the war must be viable or should have a high probability of success and the use of armed violence will not sow greater conflict of greater evils. (Orend, 2006)
Taking these elements into consideration, the latest war on Afghanistan by the United States may not fall into the category of a Just War. While the 9-11 attack on the Twin Towers of New York City is truly fearsome and devastating, the group who perpetrated the attack are composed of terrorists from several countries, not from Afghanistan alone. Very little effort was made to seek out a peaceful resolution to the war against terrorism. In fact, there was a call to arms immediately after the 9-11 attack. This may be largely attributed to the swelling of emotions, but emotions should be the last consideration for war because emotions are never reasonable. War should be decided through lucid deliberation because of the long-term and polarizing effects it can have on the psyches of the people whose countries are involved in the war. The United States could have launched isolated attacks on known Taliban strongholds instead of proclaiming war on the entire helpless country. (Orend, 2006).
The United States could have again asked for the help of Pakistan to negotiate with the Afghan people to bring the Taliban down. (Riedel The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2008) There were so many other options that were not done in the haste to look for justice. The only requirement that would justify this war is that it has a high rate of success, which eventually it turned out to be. But at what price Have we really ended the war on terror or have just created a new breed and generation of enemies The United States should be careful and never employ too much violence in order to get justice. After all, this is cause of many wars over the course of our collective histories and we should be careful that we are not caught guilty of doing the same acts of terror that we are trying so hard to put an end to. (Orend, 2006)
The success of some countries at preventing an extremist operation has brought to fore the importance of diligence. It has been said time and again that insurgents are always one step ahead, but they are only humans, and are prone to error as well. Europe as a target must come together in the effort to discourage would be attackers, and intelligence reports must always be given proper attention. The success of Germany against this recent terrorist threat is a testament to the things that could be achieved with an efficient and dedicated police force as well a vigilant and alert government, willing to be criticized in order to protect its people.
On yet another front, most people are baffled that while Bush has been aggressive on Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been rather taking a consistently soft stance on other known havens for terrorism such as North Korea, Syria, and Iran. Hillary Clinton has been particularly vocal about classifying Irans Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, and thus take appropriate, UN-approved sanctions against them. However, while the move is getting support in the United States, other countries have taken a more cautious stance, saying that to classify an Iranian group as a terrorist is to openly invite conflict against the country. (Smelser et al, 2002, p. 192) While most of Europe is agreeing that additional pressure must be exerted on the Iranian government, some, especially Russia, France, and Germany, has been particularly concerned about how this recent move will affect current negotiations with Iran.
The disagreement over the imposition of sanctions against Iran may send out wrong signals, especially to terrorists who may see this as a weakening of the resolve to stop extremism. As such, the United Nations must always be clear in sending an image of unity because to do so will be to the advantage of the enemy. Whatever disagreements or misgivings that countries have over major issues should be discussed and resolved so that a united front can be projected at all times. In any war, the perception of weakness or lack of resolve spells the difference between victory and defeat, and if the world is to have a chance against terrorism, it can only do so with the cooperation and active involvement of everyone concerned. Our hopes of a better world can only be achieved when we set aside doubts and be resolved in our actions.
These examples underscore the fact that the international system and the global order have influenced the way governments have ruled over their own countries. (Booth Dunne, 2002, p. 48) As such, countries can no longer afford to become overly protective. World leaders, as led by the newly elected Barack Obama should take an idealist stance and reach out to countries and seek avenues of peace. Leaders should trust that while human nature can drive people to violent acts, they will only do so when threatened and afraid. People, regardless of culture or race, will always prefer a peaceful and orderly coexistence over endless war and terrorism. (Vermaa, 2007, p. 217)
Anarchy in Order
If there is one particularly adverse effect of globalization, and one that heightens the risk of terrorism, is the homogenization of culture and the subservience of minority or ethnic cultures and languages under the dominant one. (Whittaker, 2006, p. 86) It is a phenomenon that if allowed to continue unabated can lead to the extinction of minority cultures, which in effect can lead to the loss of the identity that renders individuals with their own creative uniqueness. In a world that purports to celebrate diversity, it is ironic that the international system seems to be leaning towards homogenization or the standardization of forms. (Howard, 1992, p. 91) Globalization necessitates the need for the homogenization of communication and business culture because only in this kind of atmosphere can trade relations and transactions thrive.
In the process of seeking homogeneity, the international system goes against the very nature of humanity. The rules of conformity suppress the need to be able to express ones self in an individual manner, and thus find expression in other ways. That is why the international system, while seeking homogenization, is inherently anarchic because the very people that it seeks to homogenize are inherently different and free. This can be seen with the consistent fate of oppressive political leaders. Eventually, the people will rise up in arms to revolt against an overbearing government. An oppressive government will always succumb to the power of the people. It is only a matter of time. And history has proven this time and again.
The same goes true for an international system. Sooner or later the economies of scale would tip the balance and one party would suffer in the arrangement. International systems are fragile in the sense that it seeks to impose standardized ways of doing and thinking. Eventually citizens would feel the imposition and begin acting in defiance. When this rebellion reaches critical mass, the whole country may lash out at the imposing foreign country, resulting in what we now call as war and acts of terrorism. (Booth Dunne 2002, p. 53)
We should do well to remember that wars are acts of pain, acts of anger towards a perceived sense of violation. Wars and terrorists are products of their times and circumstances. They are the manifestation of a world gone mad. Indeed it may be said that terrorists are only instruments of those have vested interests in keeping insurgency alive. Ideologies are being used for commercial ends. (Sen, 1999, p. 15) In the final analysis, the war against terrorism is not about who is right or wrong, but is more about who stands to earn more from the death and suffering of so many innocent lives.
If the global order is to have any chance for success, every country should seek to respect the culture and traditions of another. Rather than imposing conformity, the international system should hope to find common ground amid the diversity. (Baylis 2007, p. 18) Developed countries that encroach upon poor countries should keep in mind that the root of any insurgency is always a sense of violation, and it can only be healed with acceptance and respect. We all should very well heed the lessons of history and begin taking steps towards reconciliation and acceptance. Anarchy is inherent in any repressive system.
Indeed the war against terrorism involves the very delicate and difficult task of recognizing insurgents even before they become they commit a terrorist act. This is a very sensitive issue that is highly prone to misuse and abuse by the authorities. Patels case should serve as a model because it was done with careful investigation and discretion. As such, extreme caution must be taken in order to ensure that our need to weed out terrorists will never be used as an excuse to step on our rights and dignities as human beings. The cause of peace and stability should not be advanced at the expense of a world where our individual freedoms are respected an upheld.
The public should be careful in making hasty conclusions. People have the right to express their opinions, no matter how contrary it may seem to the majority. In our efforts to curb terrorism, we should be wary of making hasty judgments, which can worsen an already dire situation. While laws should govern actions such as the ones exhibited by Siddique and should have its proper consequences, the fact still remains that a supporter of a belief does not necessarily make one a terrorist. For all intents and purposes, Mohammed Atif Siddique is guilty because he advocated the use of violence, and that is what separates the extremists from supporters, and the authorities and the public should always bear that in mind. We all have the right to support a cause, but never to support violence to advance an ideology.
Democratic Policing
If the fight against terrorism amidst a global economy is to have any chance for success, every country should seek to respect the culture and traditions of another. (Lesser et al, 1999, p. 78) Rather than imposing conformity, the global community should find common ground amid the diversity. (Baylis 2007, p. 18) Developed countries that encroach upon poor countries and impose their products and services should keep in mind that the root of any insurgency is always a sense of violation, and it can only be healed with acceptance and respect. We all should very well heed the lessons of history and begin taking steps towards reconciliation and acceptance. Anarchy is inherent in any repressive system. (Cragin Chalk, 2003, p. 138)
A big part of the war against terrorism can be conducted without an actual war. It can be fought on so many fronts, like economic sanctions. (Ahmad Barsamian, 2002, p. 65) Indeed the global community can have a far greater chance at success of fighting terrorism if it capitalizes on the unique heritage indigenous to a country rather than imposing uniform products without any room for variations. (Laqueur, 2004, p. 17) The war against terrorism in the face of globalization should be about celebrating diversity rather than homogeny. When each place has something unique to offer, we protect our heritage and we keep the worlds tenuous peace.
Guantanamo A Case of Defense Gone Wrong
The Guantanamo Bay or Gitmo, became more important during the Cold War. When Cuba allied themselves with Communists, all diplomatic ties were severed between the neighbors. The base has been subject to much tension, which forced it to became self-contained and self-sufficient in order to continue its operations in the volatile area. Right now it remains one of the most controversial bastions of Cold War paranoia and the military and intelligence tactics that continue to be practiced among enemies. Over the years, the Guantanamo Bay has evolved to become a detainment facility for prisoners of war and enemy combatants. The Gitmo is believed to be the venue for keeping suspected international terrorists, in light of a post-911 world.
The issues surrounding the modern use of Guantanamo Bay in the war against terrorism lies in the possible abuses that may be done on prisoners of war and enemy combatants. In the United States, the term enemy combatant has a more sinister meaning. The term is usually referred to alleged or suspected members of known terrorist groups such as the Taliban. They are being held in the Guantanamo Bay as part of the United States war on terror. Thus enemy combatants are actually perceived as those who are active enemies of the United States and their allies and are not just enemies because of circumstances such as an ongoing war. Enemy combatants do not have the same rights as prisoners of war who are protected by the United Nations. As the United States uses it, the term enemy combatants refer to unlawful or unprivileged combatants who engage in extreme acts of terrorism to advance an ideological cause. The nature of their war requires them to use deception and they are not easily identifiable as soldiers. Those that are reported to be enemy combatants can be held and interrogated for an indefinite period of time. They are denied any legal rights and cannot implore the right to an attorney or to trial. As such, to be designated as an enemy combatant can spell the end to ones life, given the current tensions that surround the war on terror.
Indeed the war on terror and the use of enemy combatant status to keep a person in detention lies on an effective system of intelligence. There should be no room for mistakes especially when it is a matter of life and death and national security. One cannot make the designation arbitrarily just because one looks a certain way or subscribes to a religious belief. (Corlett, 2003, p. 91)
Prisoners of war on the other hand are necessary products of a war. Countries that wage war against one another draft soldiers to fight in the frontlines. These soldiers do not necessarily believe that the other country is bad, they just happened to be on opposite sides of the battlefield. Prisoners of war may be captured during the conflict and may be detained longer for several reasons, but not without guidelines under the Geneva Convention. Prisoners of war should be well provided for and treated humanely by their captors. They cannot be executed without due trial and are usually freed after debriefing or formal repatriation plans have been planned.
The Guantanamo Bay has held many enemy combatants and prisoners of war, especially in light of current terrorism acts. The important thing is that whether one person is a POW or an enemy combatant, they are still human beings whose inherent rights should never be violated. The United States should be careful and never employ too much cruelty in order to get information. After all, this is cause of many wars over the course of our collective histories and we should be careful that we are not caught guilty of doing the same acts of terror that we are trying so hard to put an end to.
Conclusion
As an idealist, this writer subscribes to the philosophy that whatever values we hold true in our country should be the same values that we use to frame our relations with other countries. If we are keen on upholding human rights and peace within our countries, then it should be the same ideals with which we use to deal with other countries. We cannot straddle the moral and ethical fence when it comes to international relations because we cannot support an ideal and discard it in the name of national security. Such an attitude would only wreak more conflict in the end.
Humanity is never gone, even in the most hardened of criminals. In particular, terrorism is a highly emotional situation, and those who become one are never without any feelings. On the contrary, their strong emotions are being used by other people in order to get them to do what they want. Keeping that in mind, we should all do well to remember that an act of terrorism is an act of pain, an act of anger. (Marks Fleming, 2006, p. 311) Terrorists are products of their times and circumstances. They are the manifestation of a world gone mad. And as long as people can be pushed towards acts of terrorism, then that means that we all have to step up and be more concerted in our efforts to create a kinder, safer world for all of us.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment