What is the significance of international terrorism?

It is widely believed that 9/11 bought about the shift in the significance of terrorism. The threat of
terrorism suddenly rose in the eyes of western countries and  9/11 became a defining moment in 21st century history. The war on terror was launched shortly after the events of 9/11, which had a huge impact. But has the significance of terrorism really increased? has terrorism acquired a global reach? and has its destructive potential increased?

Terrorism goes global

The development of terrorism into a transnational phenomena is often associated with globalization. Increased cross boarder flow of people, goods, money, technology and ideas have generally benefitted non-state actors aye the expense of states and terrorist groups have proved to be particularly capable of exploiting this hyper mobility. Globalization has caused a backlash due to the increased spread of western goods, ideas and values and a consequence of the global capitalist system that has weakened and destabilised the global south.      

Catastrophic Terrorism

Terrorism is often thought to have become a more significant security threat because its impact has greatly increased. September 11 is usually sited in defense of this view. There is no doubt that the terrorist attacks on the USA in September 2001 were events of great significance. The assaults on the world trade center, the pentagon and the crash of the united airplanes flight 93 which is believed to of been heading to the white house, resulted in the deaths of round 3000 people, making this the most costly terror attack in history. Its impact was made greater by the fact that its targets were respectively symbols of global financial power, global military power and global political power. The emotional impact of September 11 on the USA has only been matched with pearl harbor in 1941, both incidents destroying the myth of US invincibility. However September 11 does not in itself demonstrate the global significance of terrorism. The scale of death for example was relatively small compared to other forums of warfare , For example about 1.5 million soldiers were killed the battle of Somme in July and August 1916, and 200, 000 died as a result of Hiroshima atomic attack in August 1945. The significance of September 11, therefore, is that it highlighted the emergence of  an almost uncontrollable security threat, one that has the potential to wreck untold death and devastation and is extremely difficult to protect against.  

Were the Yugoslavian wars, identity wars??

The Wars and what led to them

In 1919 Yugoslavia was recognised as a state by the treaty of Versailles, following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire. In 1945 Yugoslavia became a communist state made up of six republics: Serbia (which it in itself had two autonomous provinces: Kosovo and Vojvodina), Croatia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia, and Montenegro. Between the years 1986 and 1989 Serbian nationalism grew, Serbia was then largest and most influential republic, associated with the leadership of Slobodan Milosevic after 1987. In 1990, following the fall of communism across the rest of eastern Europe, each republic holds multiparty elections, strengthening support for independence in Slovenia and Croatia. In 1991 the break up of Yugoslavia starts with declarations of independence by Slovenia  and Croatia in June, Macedonia follows in September and Bosnia Herzegovina declares itself independent in January 1992. By April 1992 the only two republics remaining in Yugoslavia are Serbia and Montenegro. In 1991 there was a 10 day war set off by Slovenian independence but the Slovenians successfully resisted the Serb led Yugoslav army. From 1991 to 1995 the Croatian war of independence occurs, a bitter civil war fought against the Croation Serb minority who were helped by the Yugoslavian army.   

Between 1992 and 1995 the Bosnian civil war occurs becoming one of the most longest and most violent European war in the second half of the twentieth century, Caused by opposition by ethnic Serbs to Bosnia's succession from Yugoslavia, the war witnesses the massacre of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and a brutal programme of ethnic cleansing, whereby Muslims and Croats are expelled from areas under Serb control. Despite the 1995 Dayton agreement to re-establish a united country, Bosnia remains effectively divided into two autonomous halves, one Muslim-Croat and the other Serb controlled.  

Between 1996 and 1999 the Kosovo war occurs, in which the Kosovo Liberation Army takes up armed resistance against the Serbs, with accusations of massacres and ethnic cleansing on both sides. In 1999, a US led NATO campaign of aerial bombing forces Serb troops to withdraw from Kosovo, leading to the removal of the Milosevic government in Belgrade in 2000. Kosovo declares its independence from Serbia in 2008.

Identity War?

Identity wars are connected to identity politics. Identity politics are political arguments that focus upon the interest and perspectives of groups with which people identify. Identity politics includes the ways in which people's politics may be shaped by aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organizations. Identify wars are deeply routed in cultural differences: the majority of Serbs were Christian and the majority of Bosnians Muslim so the Yugoslav wars could be seen to be identity wars caused by the multiculturalism in Yugoslavia at the time. 

Islam vs The West

There has been conflict between Islam and the West for  hundreds of years, but relations between the two cultures have only seemed to have grown worse in the last couple of decades, due to Western interference pillaging and Islam extremism. The West is often seen as arrogant whereas Islam can be seen as Intolerant. Is the world big enough for both Islam and the West?

"The Clash of Civilisations"

There was huge controversy when Samuel Huntington published his "The clash of Civilisations?" essay in the journal of foreign affairs in 1993. This essayed argued that future conflicts would be caused by differences in civilisations. The dominance of western civilisation is not because of it's inherent superiority , but because of its economic and military dominance. In the 1996 book "The Clash of Civilisations and the remaking of world order, Huntington noted that the USA has double standards when it comes to preventing the expansion of nuclear weapons for Iraq or Iran yet allowing Israel to become nuclear, and when promoting Democracy, which they do, unless it brings political enemies to power, such as Hamas in the Gaza Strip. These, together with the feeling of western superiority would result in a clash of civilisations with either the Chinese or Islam.

Professor Huntington believes that cultural differences matter. He argues that they are more important than politics and economics, both of which are a product of culture. The importance of culture lies in philosophical thought but the features of culture are there for all to see. How people identify themselves is through their ancestry, language, history, values, customs and institutions. These cultural features are the building blocks for communities and ultimately civilisations. He describes his thesis as an articulation of evolutionary development that can be observed during the cold war and what the world can expect in the post cold war.

The actual "clash" of civilisations is may be a popular subject to talk about, but Huntington regards civilisations as not just a threat to peace but the basis of the new world order. He notes that in the early twentieth century there was one dominant civilisation called "western culture", other cultures, deemed extreme by the west, challenged its dominance, most notably Communism from the latter half of the century. When the cold war ended, the world could be dominated by up to nine different civilisations: Western, Orthodox, Latin American, Japanese, Sinic, Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic or African. Power is being transformed globally and this is altering  the balance of power. In particular China is an emerging superpower along with India, Russia and Japan, whom have all acquired global influence, notably through economic power. The power of the west has also been transformed by the emergence of another global power, the European Union, although the USA still holds the majority of power in the west. In terms of cultural values both Europe and America reinforce on another's world standing so that western culture still remains the most powerful civilisation. Nevertheless, with potentially five global powers and six or seven major civilisations alongside the western powers, the world has changed.

Huntington warned the USA against the error of trying to transform its power base by exporting western culture in a vain attempt to be universal culture. he argued tat it is a  grave misunderstanding of the deep and unique culture differences between civilisations and will result in "a global war of civilisations".        

Huntington's thesis is still a traditional analysis of power. Whereas in the cold war the global powers led ideological power blocs view the global powers would lead respective civilisations. The world would therefore, be on stronger foundations: culture is natural and essential to every community in defining who they are, it unites people, whereas ideology artificially divides cultures. They are grand theories that try to explain everything and end up weakening rather than accommodating cultural differences. In this optimistic sense a "remaking of the world order" is going along cultural lines. Huntington argued that the future is for world leaders to recognise and accept "the multi-civilised character of global politics.

Conflict within individual Civilisations

Civilisations however have their fault lines. In defining their identities, communities cannot define
themselves without reference to different cultures. We define ourselves by who we are not, notes Huntington. nevertheless implied in this cultural defining process are differences that civilisations pick up about others and are perceived to be threats to them, be it religion, custom or even symbols. Huntington does not deny that there will be wars within civilisations but argues that the wars between civilisations are far more serious for they have the potential to escalate into larger wars. It is this pessimistic view of a clash of civilisations that has come to dominate the minds of political observers in the post  9/11 era.   

The post 9/11 World order

The great appeal and relevance of Huntington's thesis post 9/11, is the context or paradigm of his political analysis on the world. A paradigm is a theoretical model that can describe and offer explanations about the world politics of today in a simple and intellectually refined manner. The appeal of its simplicity is that it provides a mind map on which commenters can view and make sense of the world. The dominant cold war paradigm  picturing a bi-polar world based on ideological conflict is no longer relevant. A new paradigm is needed to replace the old one. Four other post-cold war paradigms were rejected by Huntington, not because they were irrelevant but because they were to simplistic. One model, the triumph of liberal democracy as the global system of governance, is for Huntington to western centric. The simple notion that the east-west world has now been replaced by a north-south world of rich and poor states is also rejected. He argues that in this model the latter have no effective means to create conflict situations, so global security questions don't arise, and that many states in the south are integrating into the developing world. The realist paradigm that states will only act in world politics when their interests are at stake is fir Huntington a relevant model but is too focussed on the state and excludes other factors. The modern state is relinquishing some of its key functions to intergovernmental organisations and regional bodies and is also in retreat in controlling functions to intergovernmental organisations and regional bodies and is also in retreat in controlling commercial and financial sectors to a more international system. Lastly, he considered the chaos theory which stated that the cold war security certainties brought about by superpower tensions are over, weak states propped-up by the bi-polar will fail and ethnic and religious group tensions supressed during the  old war will erupt. There will chaos in the form of ethnic cleansing, terrorism, organised crime and the proliferation of weapons of  mass destruction. Huntington argued that the chaos theory comes across as highly relevant because it has journalistic approach to world events but there is no theoretical substance behind it.         

The paradigm offered by Huntington is a world of inter-civilisation conflict. Western civilisation dominates and will come into conflict with two other rising civilisations. Islam and China are the "challenger" civilisations competing for superiority and the leading position occupied by the west. There will, he argued be other inter-civilisation conflicts especially between Orthodox, Hindu, African and Western but they will be more local and mainly about boarder disputes but nothing on the scale of what the challenger civilisations will provide. As Huntington argued "The dangerous clashes of the future are likely to arise from western arrogance, Islamic intolerance and Sino assertiveness". The arrogance of the west is to assume that with cold war victory, democracy has triumphed and the whole world should convert to democracy. Led by the USA whose political culture is to be "a missionary state", democracy should be exported as a universal truth about political life. Liberalism, Capitalism, Constitutionalism and legalism are the universal values. All governments across the world will eventually embrace these values as self-evident truths. For Huntington this is cultural anarchy: "What is universalism to the West is imperialism to the rest". He predicted that with such arrogance the new age will be "the West versus the rest".        

The underlying context of this paradigm is the inevitable decline of western civilisation in relation to other civilisations.        

The War on Terror

Huntington sometimes refers to the "clash" of civilisations as one inevitable cultural difference, on other occasions the clash is taken to mean competitive cultural superiorities, but, and more prominently, on other occasions he describes a clash as meaning conventional conflict between civilisations. However the "war on terror" is far from conventional. The Islamist movements are non-state actors, they have no military armies: training is restricted to "boot camps" and bomb making manuals, and terrorist operate in small cells around the world. Furthermore their wealth is comparatively limited: they flourish in poor or failing states and it is from these environments that security questions are raised. Indeed poverty is considered a recruitment ground for terrorists. The motivation behind Islamists is in fact Ideological. Their violent attacks are as much against moderate Muslim countries as they are against western powers that intervene in their lands. The Islamists try to exploit the historical difference between Muslim sects on ideological grounds. Their Ideological vision to restore the 7th Century Caliphate. Furthermore the mantra of these extremists is that any Muslim who does not share their fundamentalist views can't be a "proper" Muslim. "The war on terror" is less about the west versus the rest but Islamists versus the rest.

The potential for conflict between civilisations is also being eroded by globalization: the attractive power of market economics joins civilisations to a common venture. Economic globalization is supported by all mainstream cultures because of the benefits it can bring. It is the feature of the present age that can transform current views about world politics.

To Conclude

Any paradigm for today must include an analysis of globalization and terrorism, a world of transformations and fundamentalism, a world of new types of  power ideologies coming to the fore, which cannot be reduced to inter-civilisation conflicts. 

Significantly, the paradigm offered by Huntington, however, rests on its predictive value. "The Clash of civilisations" predicts the demise of western civilisation, the hostile rise of other civilisations and the alienation between civilisations where there is no accommodation of cultural norms. Civilisation is of course steeped in history and Huntington's thesis clarifies this history, and at great length, but wrongly assumes it has some predictive value.   

The EU as a Political Entity

The European Union has resulted in something greater then just a collection of separate sovereign states. The EU has become a supranational, creating regional polices, dealing with internal European polices and external relations in the for of diplomacy. Individual states and the EU as a political entity often compete over sovereignty, this had led to debate between nation states, some believing that the EU should have more sovereignty over EU members where others believe it should have less.    

The EU has to respect the political systems of its member states so the state remains sovereign in local, regional and national affairs, however in order to become an EU member the state must accept that it may be more effective and efficient  for some affairs to be run on a union level in order to complete treaty obligations.

If member states agree to give up some of their power in this way they will have pooled sovereignty, the powers that have been given up by individual states are transferred to separate body's, for example, the EU trade commissioner represents member states in the WTO and the European Central Bank has the job of managing monetary policy and sets interest rates for the member states that use the euro for currency. In these and all other cases sovereignty has been pooled but not lost.

EU member states can no longer rely on just themselves as single states when dealing with international affairs, and sometimes they can not even rely on their own sovereignty when it comes to internal EU affairs, and yet when it comes to national affairs member states remain mostly sovereign and for the majority of polices do not need EU interference. However widespread the EU's sovereignty may be it can not be denied that it is a powerful political entity that mirrors the Westphalia model.   

Are nation states still the most important actors in global politics?

A nation state is a geographical area that can be identified as delivering its political legacy from serving as a sovereign nation. A state is a political and geopolitical entity, while nation is a cultural and ethnic one. 

In Global Politics it can sometimes be unclear as to which are the most powerful actors in the system. Some may argue that nation states are still the most important actors in global politics whereas others would argue that non state entity's are more important in the modern world.

A non-governmental organization (NGO) is an organization that is neither a part of a government nor a conventional for-profit business. Usually set up by ordinary citizens, NGOs may be funded by governments, foundations, businesses, or private persons.

Unlike nation states NGOs are not obliged to consider public opinion or desire.  NGOs have been recognized as being important in the progression towards a cleaner global environment, the quick relief in war zones, and the struggle towards democracy. The large number of NGOs in attendance at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development demonstrates their desire to be included as rightful participants in environmental management. The 1980s saw the emergence of NGOs as important figure in world elections.The monitoring of elections helped to provide democratic elections in countries where the leaders are often oppressive. From 1986 to 1989, election monitors played important roles in the transitional elections in the Philippines, Chile, Panama, Nicaragua, and Haiti.8 It is undeniable that NGOs play an important role in global politics. Through the United Nations, non-governmental organizations have a legitimate place within the political system. In practice, recognized NGOs have access to all UN documents which have been officially circulated.

In the international community there is not an individual or a group who holds higher authority than a state. Authorized states are entitled to participate in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Therefore, states are able to make decisions affecting political and economic policies which impact the world. Non-state actors are not entitled to vote in the United Nations; therefore, it is difficult to get their voices heard. Non-state actors simply do not have the resources to be successful as the major actors in world politics. In regards to finance, it is crucial that NGOs are not funded by a specific government or intergovernmental organizations. The fear is that if an NGO is financed by a state, that non-profit organization could become an instrument of foreign governments and thus compromise their independence. Without the assistance of a state, NGOs do not possess the power to become major actors in world politics.

In conclusion nation states do remain the most powerful actors in global politics but NGOs, international globalisations, have increasing amounts of influence due to globalisation.

Is an effective system of global governance now a reality?

Global Governance is the "collection of governance-related activists, rules and mechanisms, formal and informal, existing at a variety of levels in the world today". Global Governance is a broad, dynamic and complex process of interactive decision making at a global level that involves formal and informal mechanisms as well as governmental and non governmental bodies. States and governments remain the primary institution for articulating public interests and those of the global community as a whole, but global governance also involves intergovernmental and sometimes, supranational bodies. Global policy is made by a system of horizontal and vertical interactions in which officials in different branches of government work with counterparts in other countries as well as with activists, scientists, bankers and others outside government. The term "global governance" is sometimes used more narrowly to refer to the institutions through which these interactions take place.

It is important not to confuse Global governance with these three other concepts:

• International anarchy refers to the absence of a supranational authority capable of regulating the behaviour of states.
• Global hegemony refers to is a powerful state that possesses a pre-eminent military, economic and ideological recourses so it is able to impose its will within a region or worldwide. 
• World government refers to the idea of all of human kind united under one political authority.

So is Global Governance now a reality?

Liberal theorists argue that there is an unmistakeable and perhaps irresistible trend to favour global governance. The growth of international organizations provides both evidence of a greater willingness amongst states to cooperate and engage in collective action, and fosters further cooperation by strengthening trust amongst states, accustoming them to rule governed behaviour. In the sense that global governance is closely linked to globalization, its noticeably may fluctuate but it is likely to grow over time with a tendency towards interdependence and interconnectedness, if this is established it will be difficult to reverse. This is demonstrated by developments ranging from international migration, global terrorism and transnational criminal organisations and global pandemics. However the extent to which the world as a whole has become orderly and norm governed should not be exaggerated.  

Has the UN been effective in its peacekeeping role?

UN and peacekeeping has been both effective and non effective when the cost of the conflicts and the final death toll are compared. A study by the Rand Corporation analysed eight  UN peacekeeping operations found that seven of them had succeeded in keeping the peace and six even began to promote democracy. These cases included the Congo, Cambodia, Namibia, Mozambique, El Salvador, East Timor, Eastern Slavonia and Sierra Leone. There has however been a substantial amount of peacekeeping failures , notably Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia:

•  UN peacekeepers did not do much to stop the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.
•  UN backed US intervention  in Somalia led to too great embarrassment after forced withdrawal in 1995. 
• The Bosnian-Serb military in 1995 carried out the worst  mass murder in Europe since the second world war in the "safe area" of Srebrenica, which had been under the protection of a UN regiment of Dutch peacekeepers.  

Critics say such events are evidence of the danger of intervention in foreign countries lacking cival order and legitimate political institutions, others argue that they highlight the flaws failings with the UN system. Failures on the ground could be due to:

• The lack of a clear mission. 
• The security challenges that that put peacekeepers at risk. 
• The varying quality of peacekeeping fores and a confusing chain of command.
• The reluctance to use force when faced with peace breakers who use force criminally.   

Failings at a higher level could be due to a lack of political will and conflicting priorities and agendas in the security council and among other member states, a recent example of this is the inability of the UN to take action in Syria because Russia and China are allies of Assad , both countries hold a veto so action against Assad is not possible.  

Their is however evidence to suggest than the UN has learn its lessons. In 1992 their was a UN report, "An Agenda for Peace" and ever since that report their has been an understanding that peacekeeping alone is not enough to ensure lasting peace. Their is now a growing emphasis on peace building that generates peace structures that will that will strengthen the peace in order to avoid  a relapse in to conflict , ensuring a positive peace. Although the military remain the key player in most peace keeping operations, other actors now include economists, administrators, legal experts, police officers, electoral observers, human rights monitors and specialists in civil affairs and governance. In 2005 the UN Peacebuilding Commission was established as an advisory subsidiary body of General Assembly and Security Council. It's purpose is to support peace efforts in countries emerging from conflict, by bringing together all relevant actors, marshaling resources, and advising on and proposing integrated strategies for post conflict and peace building and recovery. The downside to this is that being advisory means that the Peacebuilding Commission can accomplish little through its own efforts, the greater emphasis within the UN of peace building is an acknowledgement that classical peacekeeping is effectively obsolete and that peace enforcement  is always difficult and may only be possible under specific conditions. Peace building as a whole is promoting peace and security mixed with a commitment to economic and social development.