DEVELOPMENT, SECURITY AND TERRORISM

INTRODUCTION Insecurity dominates the current context of international relations. This situation might have been generated by the collapse of East European communist bloc and the USSR at the end of the 80s and early 90s or by the impact resistance to the New World Order and the negative phenomena of globalization. It is time for the international organizations (UN, EU, NATO, OSCE, etc.) to prove that are capable to meet new challenges such as transnational organized crime, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or other great dangers that may throw humanity into chaos and anarchy. A definition of the term security could refer to all political, economical, social, diplomatic, military, administrative, legislative processes, actions and measures, which guarantee the existence of national-state and the rights and fundamental freedoms of citizens. Regarding the world security we might also take into consideration globalization. Several years ago the term "globalization" was rarely used, especially by experts in the scientific meetings. Today, we meet it throughout the world, where politicians, economists, military officers, scholars, and not only, express their views vis--vis our world and especially to its development prospects. Even so rapid spread of "globalization" is an evidence that something new is happening in the world. As Gould argues, Yet we can also observe that the increasing globalization and universalization of culture worldwide have paradoxically been matched by increasing cultural particularism and separatism.1 This "something new" is not a set of structural changes that occurred to certain geopolitical areas. Actually it is a vast process in which are involved a number of trends that overlap and the effects are so rapid and spontaneous that can hardly be predicted and therefore difficult to monitor by the current national and international institutions, which in many cases prove to be unable to react properly.
1

Carol C. Gould, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p.118

Each important state is choosing its security policy against globalization and the threats caused by this phenomenon according to its own interests. Since the beginning, Presidents George W. Bush administration has clearly outlined the vision of US policy and security strategy. US are the main NATO military power and the first world power globalized, so they feel in charge of controlling globalization. The ratio between globalization and national security experiences a wide debate especially after the events of September 2001 in the US, which showed that the world is not ready to give appropriate answers to global asymmetric threats and to control the current sources of instability and armed conflicts. The main factor of risk to regional and global security is considered to be terrorism. Early 21st century highlights the new face of terrorism, a totally changed one regarding the way of action, objectives and the size of damage. Appeared as an unconventional threat during the "Cold War", terrorist phenomenon has been helped to increase by frustration of a polarized world in developed and underdeveloped countries at the call of ideology/religion or the spirit of revenge against hegemonic powers which could not be defeated or weakened with conventional means. Globalization has certain effects of economic, political, social, military and environmental nature, involving various risks and benefits. We are dealing with two types of conflicts: Conflicts which started within a region and have expanded or outside it. Both these types were based mostly on religious believes. DEFINING TERRORISM In the twentieth century the number of international terrorism acts committed in time of peace has increased greatly. The main characteristic of terrorism is intimidation through violence, the means used are extremely varied, including the kidnapping of persons, hostage taking, murder, executions, producing explosions, destruction of public buildings, sabotage of railways, industrial installations or means of telecommunications, dams breaking, poisoning drinking water, spreading contagious diseases etc. To the traditional methods were added new forms, such as attacks against heads of states, diplomatic missions and diplomats, attacks against political figures or private individuals for their known opinions, attacking public institutions or enterprises, commercial aircrafts, police forces etc.
2

Terrorism, in various forms, has been practiced throughout history and across a wide variety of political ideologies. There are as many definitions for the word terrorism as there are methods of executing it; the term means different things to different people, and trying to define or classify terrorism to everyones satisfaction proves impossible .2

Nowadays, the term terrorism is used with different meanings, depending whom you are asking to explain it. The same action might be considered by one side a terrorist act, while for the other side would be a patriotic or heroic act. For example, taking into consideration the quite recent intervention of US and NATO in Serbia which was supposed to be an act of justice, helping the Kosovo population to gain territory in the middle of another country due to their right to selfdetermination. The intervention was welcomed by the minorities, but it was considered an act of injustice or even terrorism by the native population who was complaining that the territorial sovereignty of their country was not respected. In consideration of the recent migration flows, we should imagine what will happen if another minority population established in a western country will ask for its right to self-determination. What is more ironic is the fact that even regarding the US definition of terrorism, what has happened in Serbia would be considered a terrorist act:
[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. 3

The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II can also be viewed as fitting the definitions of terrorism, albeit on a huge scale. Clearly, these were

Harvey W. Kushner, Encyclopedia of Terrorism, SAGE Publications, London , 2003, p. xxiii

United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077

acts of violence, committed in the service of political ends, with the intent of spreading fear among the entire Japanese population.4 The UN General Assembly adopted on 9th December 1994 Resolution 49/60, titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," which defines terrorism as Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.5 As it was expected, the UN Member States still have not agreed-upon definition of terrorism, because some of these states are using terror in their fight against this phenomenon. In order to gain information about terrorist organizations and their plans against diverse targets, western military peace troops are using torture on suspected terrorists. Unfortunately, not all of them have something to do with any criminal act and the price paid to find out this is sometimes unworthy.
If the definition of terrorism is equally applicable to nuclear war, conventional war, and guerrilla warfare, the term loses any useful meaning. It simply becomes a synonym for violent intimidation in a political context and is thus reduced to an unflattering term, describing an ugly aspect of violent conflicts of all sizes and shapes, conducted throughout human history by all kinds of regimes.6

Concerning defining terrorism, Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice adopted in 1998 The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism which explains it as any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or

Gerard Chaliand & Arnaud Blin, The History of Terrorism from Antiquity to Al Qaeda, University of California Press, 2007, p. 15
5

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm

Gerard Grard & Arnaud Blin, The History of Terrorism from Antiquity to Al Qaeda,University of California Press, 2007, p. 15

seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize national resources.7 Even though states havent agreed yet on a common definition of terrorism, they all seem to use some common operational features to explain it. The most important one is the premeditated use of threat of violence. Where this element is missing, however horrible would be the fact, it does not fit in terrorism. Illicit trafficking of drugs, weapons or false documents are not in themselves acts of terrorism if they dont contain elements of premeditated violence. As can be seen in the above definitions, terrorism is defined quite similar all over the world. The only thing which makes a difference is the way in which states with different cultures apply their fight against terrorism in close connection with their international politics. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND TERRORISM

Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster. - Prof. Geert Hofstede, Maastricht University

People from different countries have different values, attitudes and experiences. Sometimes they feel attracted to one another, but other times they feel rejected. Researchers found that when people encounter behaviors that do not understand, they begin to characterize the others as "abnormal", "strange" or "rude". In these days of globalization, intercultural communication has become almost inevitable. Therefore, we believe it useful to talk about cultural differences and the advantages they can bring through awareness and understanding of cultural diversity. It is obvious now that the conflicts of the early twenty-first century are not exhausted by lining up Western democracies on one side and states that are opposed to democracy on the other. Nor is it simply a matter of traditional conflicts of interest between, for example, petroleumproducing and petroleum-consuming states. An addition to these traditional sources of conflict, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are now in a position to undertake very destructive acts.8

The Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism, 1998

Barry Cooper, New Political Religions, or An Analysis of Modern Terrorism, University of Missouri Press, 2004, p. 15

Regarding to G.A. Anderson, terrorism has been known throughout the centuries as a method of getting people to comply with extreme religious or political ideologies, or a combination of both. Fear is the major motivator for both the terrorists and the victims of terrorism. Terrorists fear that their calmer voice will not be heard and that their angry needs will not be met through conventional means. Their numbers may be small compared with the larger armies that countries can muster to combat them. They are outnumbered. In order to compensate, they must use unconventional, extreme means of getting their points across and getting the attention of society.9 There are major differences between the way that the political implications of Islam have been worked out historically and the political order of liberal constitutional democracy. It is as important not to ignore those differences as it is to begin from the self-evident consideration that, although Islam broadly considered does not provide a threat to Western liberal democracy, militant jihadist Islam, what we have been calling Islamism, most certainly does. That, quite simply, was the meaning, the significance, and the message of September 11, 2001.10 As in civil wars, in many developing countries, cultural clashes appear to play an important role at the global level, most of the time these clashes being between the West and muslim societies. Anyway, cultural clashes are clearly not the only explanation. There have been long periods with no such cultural disagreements on any serious scale and there are also many societies which are muslim and have good relations with the western countries. Cultural specificities often are barriers to communication and give rise to misunderstandings. Awareness of these specificities is a first step toward effective communication and creating a positive atmosphere in a group of members from different cultures. Understanding cultural differences is particularly useful for questioning our own assumptions about how things should be done "right" and use these differences as an opportunity to learn new approaches to problem solving. United States and the European Union agreed that improving communication between Western and Muslim culture is an urgent priority. Adverse consequences of over extension war in Iraq, Muslim immigrant riots in Paris suburbs, Iran's nuclear ambitions, the difficulties of creating Palestinian state, the dimensions of Islamic terrorism, overwhelm international political agendas.
9

http://www.helium.com/items/1032164-what-are-the-causes-of-terrorism/print

10

Barry Cooper, New Political Religions, or An Analysis of Modern Terrorism, University of Missouri Press, 2004, p. 74

In my opinion, education, which is connected to culture, has a huge role in what is happening nowadays. Through education we can easily reach to terrorist acts, fatalism, extremism, and unimaginable cruelty, but also through education all these can be avoided. The media has also a huge influence on the masses and it should be used on behalf of world peace. But is peace desired by both parties or at least by one of them? DEVELOPMENT AND SECURITY Development signifies progress in human well-being. Most of the time it was assimilated with economic growth, but it is now commonly known that this is a very defective characterization. Most of the time, average per capita income is an important way to achieve such progress, but it is not the only one. Not only is average income unsuccessful to capture distribution across households, but it also may not be a good indicator of many important aspects of human well-being, such as peoples health, education or their security. In this case, policies towards security may turn into one part of development policies because as far as security is assured, this will contribute to development; and policies towards development may become part of security policies because improved development increases security. Even though, civil wars in developing countries usually reduce economic growth and worsen social development, there is not always an automatic connection between global threats to security and global growth. The end of World War II and the completed processes of decolonization made economics face dramatic realities: a large part of the world, newly independent populations were not provided with any of the conditions of existence worthy of the twentieth century. Imbalances that were revealed were of a completely different nature than those found in advanced Western economies. It was a lag behind in all areas, an underdevelopment whose results were of an unbearable human misery. At the beginning of the twentieth century a negative reaction against international migration has already started. It might have been a product of increased democratization and the development of radical populism. The ones who opposed to global integration sustained that living standards and labor incomes were affected by continuing migration.

Twentieth century seems to have highlighted the link between international security and economic issues. International security is essential for growth and economic prosperity while economic strength is the key to ensuring military potential, seen as a guarantee of security. At present, peace and global security are threatened the most by conflicts taking place inside countries rather than conflicts between states. It is talked a lot about the "democratic peace", stating that democratic societies do not start the war against one another.
As is illustrated in the global war on terrorism, all factors (related to parties, goals, issues, scope, and domains of conflict) are interrelated. Ethnic conflicts, combined with competition between radical and moderate Islamic groups, began to draw US attention, because the extremist groups may become potential allies for al Quaeda or other terrorist networks .11

Because of this, UN was trying for a long time to stabilize the conflicts in the Middle East pointing out that unstable countries are playing an important role in facilitating international terrorism. Exemplified by al Qaida in Afghanistan they can provide leadership heavens and training grounds for recruits.12 As Duffield argued, the poor are attracted to violent leaders, but this does not necessarily mean that its causing terrorism even though it might be facilitating recruitment. This kind of recruitment is not used only in underdeveloped countries. US army was also recruiting young, poor and minority soldiers which were easier to convince to go to fight in a war that was not theirs because they had less to loose.
A tipping point may arrive from a major re-evaluation of policy by a series of tragic events or an impending disaster. Threats, made with limited military action, can easily be misinterpreted, changing the characteristics of a struggle. Large changes in the status quo can sometimes happen at a single dramatic moment as a result of the manifestation of violent events. For example, the 9/11 terrorist attacks have developed clear demarcation lines in US relations with other parts of the world. The perceptional gaps between the Western and Islamic worlds have further deepened after the US invasion of Iraq. 13

11

Ho-Won Jeong, Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis,SAGE Publications, 2008, p. 149

12

Mark Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 162
13

Ho-Won Jeong, Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis, SAGE Publications, 2008, p. 114

On one side, the images of Muslims in western countries has been changed by the recent terrorist attacks in Europe and US, giving rise to discrimination, prejudice and social marginalization. On the other side the war in Iraq and the aggressive tactics of the war on terrorism, including torture and humiliation, has strengthen insurgent groups all over the world, producing new sympathizers for Jihad movements even among European Muslims.14 According to Jeong, the global war on terrorism has been manipulated to undermine the legitimacy of parties to any local conflict that rely on methods of struggle that can be easily classified as terrorist tactics. Furthermore he argues that US government monolithically defined the war on terrorism in terms of a fight against evil, leaving very little room for analysis of the political and social causes that might be related to the US role in the Middle East. Thanks to this tactic, the tolerance on the level of losses greatly increased compared with other interventions in civil wars.15 Conversely, as Robespierresaid said, Of all the passions capable of enslaving mans will, none is more incompatible with reason and liberty than religious fanaticism. Taking this into consideration, we might understand the tactics used by the leaders of the terrorist organizations. Actually, the tactics of US and their allies which include torture against muslim population suspected of terrorism, might easily turn against them, due to the fact that the local leaders of the insurgent population from Middle East might easily use verses from Quran to convince them fight against the enemy. For example, verse 5:8 says: O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.16
The jihad-by-the-swordor jihadistmovement, which first emerged in the early 1970s, draws its inspiration from an age-old ideology. But it has taken an aberrant formthe end result of a fundamentalist line of thinking based on a mythicized view of original Islam. Indeed, its goal is the manipulation of excluded and marginalized segments of Islamic societies. 17
14

Ibid., pp.121-131 Ibid., pp. 156, 189 The Quran, verse 5:8

15

16

17

Grard Chaliand & Arnaud Blin, The History of Terrorism from Antiquity to Al Qaeda , University of California Press, 2007, pp. 255-256

In 2001, Osama bin Laden was often invoking Allah in order to convince the Islamic insurgents to rise up against the invaders, encouraging them with examples from their fight against the Soviet Union, fight which he argued it was won by the muslim population. Due to the strong motivation of the insurgent population to defend their culture and religion, the US governments decision to invade Iraq in 2003 certainly reflects misestimation about the anticipated level of resistance against the American occupation by President Bush and his advisors:
The degree of confidence differs, depending on whom to fight against. American soliders in Iraq are likely to have lower levels of motivation compared with Islamic insurgents. Military superiority does not always guarantee success in a struggle against weaker but determined enemies. The level of subjective sensitivity to the same objective costs can be different. The insurgents care less about the number of deaths incurred from fighting than US and allied forces. The American general public would be less likely to accept high war casualties than populations in countries like Afghanistan that have become numb to seeing so much death.18

As can be seen, the changes in the international politics of the western countries are not welcomed by the underdeveloped countries, especially by the ones from Middle East, where local struggles were often present in the last decades. Since Kosovo and Afghanistan this situation has changed a lot. The western countries started intervening in the internal affairs of states, affecting their sovereignty, or just supporting authoritarian regimes.
Communities are disenfranchised not only by lacking political democracy but also by having little say in the economic decisions that affect them, deprived of their economic human rights. Global corporations may play a role in this process, not only in their everyday functioning, but also by supporting authoritarian regimes out of corporate self-interest.19

During the 1990s, military involvement in humanitarian emergencies was mainly in the form of providing logistical support and helping to protect civilian aid workers. Soldiers were not
18

Ho-Won Jeong, Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis, SAGE Publications, 2008, p. 238-239
19

Carol C. Gould, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 263

10

directly involved in providing humanitarian assistance. In addition, during the 1980s and early 1990s, humanitarian and development assistance had been politically partisan, with many NGOs for example, working directly with Mujahideen commanders. There was growing criticism that, in part at least, humanitarian endeavours had helped to fuel the conflict It reflected a wide consensus among aid agencies that badly managed humanitarian assistance had negative effects, for example creating dependency, encouraging criminality and undermining self-reliance.20

CONCLUSION Usually the process of globalization is perceived as referring to economic and financial issues, a partially correct or partially wrong approach if we consider that in public opinion, globalization appears as a uniform global standard of living and development. Globalization is a complex set of processes aimed at achieving international integration at different levels: economic, political, security and socio-cultural. The impact of globalization was not the same all over the world. It was greater in the North than in the South. The younger generation and the professional class felt it stronger than the older generation and the manual workers. At present the gap between the globalised and the ones who are not globalized is the greatest of all times. The gap of frustration between civilizations regarding cuts across age, class and gender is the deepest ever. Neither side understands the other. All this differences are likely to be a growing source of tension in the future. The globalization of terror has also changed in character because the way in which the western countries are imposing their development is encouraging religious fundamentalism.

20

Mark Duffield, Development, Security and Unending War, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 140-142

11

Almost all religious cults or religious terrorist movements that exist in the world nowadays are the result of the political strategies used in the last decades. As humans of different races, religions and civilizations, in order to have a globalized world with no discrimination and aggression we need all citizens of the world to have mutual understanding of their differences and similarities with other humans and their need for safety. In the process of this mutual dialogue, all religious leaders and policy makers should try to deal with responsibility for the creation of a peaceful world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Chaliand, G; Blin, A, The History of Terrorism from Antiquity to Al Qaeda,University of California Press, 2007 Cooper, B, New Political Religions, or An Analysis of Modern Terrorism, University of Missouri Press, 2004 Duffield, M, Development, Security and Unending War, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007 Gould, CC Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p.118 Jeong, H-W, Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis,SAGE Publications, 2008 Kushner HW, Encyclopedia of Terrorism, SAGE Publications, London , 2003 The Quran, verse 5:8 United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077

SITEOGRAPHY http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/49/a49r060.htm
12

http://www.helium.com/items/1032164-what-are-the-causes-of-terrorism/print

13