Security and Terrorism

Week 10: International Politics (PIED1511)

A Brief Disclaimer

This session will include footage of a violent video game, some bad language and a cartoon television featuring Barney the Dinosaur!

This Week

This Week

• Feedback Week: Everyone to complete the survey form please!

• Security: A Quick Recap• The Changing Nature of War1. Old Wars: 2. New Wars:

The War on Terrorism!What Are We Afraid of? Terrorism in Culture

Security

A Quick Recap

Security

• There is no single notion of security• Conflict between individual, regional, national,

international and global objectives – unclear if these are compatible.

• Clear threats that are not other states: sub-state actors, terrorism, breakdown of global monetary system, global warming, nuclear warfare/accidents. All are security issues!

Neo-Realism and Security

• States as the highest authority• Security as the priority obligation of

government• Self-help to secure state survival• Permanent peace unlikely: war necessary to

prevent other from achieving hegemony – any co-operation likely marred by cheating or unfavourable relative gains

Neo-Liberalism and Security

• Institutions help achieve stability– Information– Reduce costs– Bolster credibility– Unlikely to eradicate war; but worthwhile to try

Constructivism and Security

• International politics shaped by ideas, as well as power

• Shares many realist assumptions: anarchy, the centrality of the state, and so on

• State structured by social relations; interests other than self-preservation

• Importance of the rule of law• Optimistic: States can pursue peaceful ends

Others and Security

• Critical Theory: States are diverse and should be considered a part of the problem, not the solution.

• Feminism: Rejects the masculinisation of IR theory, arguing that women are often more affected by war than men (p.239)

The Changing Nature of Warfare

The Changing Nature of Warfare

‘For nearly 200 years, the tools and tactics of how we fight have evolved with military technologies. Now, fundamental changes are affecting the very character of war. Who can make war is changing as a result of weapons proliferation and the fact that the tools of war increasingly are marketplace commodities. By extension, these affect the where, the when and the how of war’ (Cebrowski & Garstka, 1998)

The Changing Nature of Warfare• No single, straightforward definition of warfare• There are different models, which represent

warfare at different stages• One basic distinction is between ‘Old War’ and

‘New Wars’ – this provides a good way to contextualise the inherrent challenges of the War on Terror.

So We Begin With Old War!

Old Wars

Old War

So when you think of warfare, what images come to mind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCEFOx5Hc2Y&noredirect=1

Anything like this?

Old War

• Classic image of warfareState vs. State (Organised armies)Defined BattlefieldHegelian Social Contract between people and

state• Commonly linked to Carl von Clausewitz

One extreme: war as a continuation of ‘Politik’Other extreme: war as unconstrained violence‘Real War’ exists on a scale between these points

Old War

Real War ‘occurs along a spectrum from the mere threat of force, through wars tightly limited in their scope by constraints of motives of resources, to conflicts which are unlimited in the sense that at least one of the antagonists is unwilling to accept any outcome than the complete overthrow of this adversary’ (Bassford, 1994, p. 324)

New Wars

New War

Critics argue that Clausewitz: -• Is a bloodthirsty dilatant, who advocated

wholesale slaughter… • Overly accepting of the longevity and centrality of

the phenomenon of warfare… • Is overly focused upon the state and neglects the

effect of legislative control…

And those ‘critics’ are Keegan (1993, p.6), Kaldor (2010, p.271) and Van Creveld (191, p.50)

New War

‘It follows that, where there are no states, the threefold division into government, army and people does not exist in the same form. Nor would it be correct to say that, in such societies, war is made by governments using armies for making war at the expense of, or on the behalf of, their people’ (van Creveld, 1991, p. 50)

New Wars

• Shift in nature following the end of the Cold War: end of the polarising threat of war.

• A conceptually ‘new’ form of warfare referring to ‘a conflict between politically organised groups involving large scale violence. This definition excludes acts of violence in which only one side is socially organised, for example government repression or organised crime’ (Kaldor, 1997, pp. 7-8).

New War

Characteristics include: - • Disregard for humanitarian law• Breakdown of state monopoly over force• Blurring of lines between combatant and non-

combatant groups (targeting of civilians is now common)

• Unclear ‘battlefield’ – fluidity of conflict

In summary: -

New War‘First, the main protagonists and units of analysis of war, such as state or non-state actors, public or private actors, terrorist groups and warlords. Second, the primary motives of protagonists, such as ideology, territorial secession or material aggrandisement. Third, the spatial context: interstate, ‘civil’, regional or global. Fourth, the technological means of violence – the weapons and strategies of war. Fifth, the social, material and human impact of conflict… Sixth, the political economy and social structure of conflict… The term ‘new wars’ is applied to a wide body of literature that argues or implies that clear changes have occurred in the patterns of violent conflict with reference to some or all of these variables’ (Newman, 2004, p. 174)

New War• No longer distinctive in time and space’

(Kaldor, 2000): no specific times of war and peace

• Asymmetrical: state vs. non-state• Space-less: Spills across borders• Violence often target civilians directly– 80% of casualties/wounded are non-combatants – Prevalence of sexual violence as a war-weapon

It is within this ‘new wars’ framework that we view the phenomenon of terrorism!

Terrorism

Terrorism and Fear

Terrorism plays upon something primal; the need to face ‘the threat’. Fear is most fearful when we cannot see the full picture, and must respond without full knowledge of what we are responding to: - ‘…if a power grid goes down we must respond without knowing if it was the result of terrorist attacks, a lightening strike or the act of a precious California teenager’ (Bobbit, p.4)

The September 11th Attacks

Consider 9/11… It was initially unclear that the U.S. was under attack: -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtZKEjr-Sfg&noredirect=1

So What is ‘Terrorism’?

• Undermines the state by undermining its ability to protect its citizens – its raison d’etre: supplants the state of consent with a state of fear (Bobbit, p.13)

‘…the use of violence by sub-state groups to inspire fears, by attacking civilians and/or symbolic targets, for purposes such as drawing widespread attention to a grievance, provoking a severe response or wearing down an opponent’s moral resolve, to effect political change’ (p.367)

So What is ‘Terrorism’?

Balancing act: enough to remain visible, but not enough to diminish support – terrorist seem willing to use chemical weapons, however (2004: Ricin in London raid; 2004/2007 Al Qaeda plan use of Chlorine gas in Jordan and Iraq)

State-less: Although states such as North Korean and Iran may fund terrorist action, any overt action would be tantamount to suicide. The terrorist may even be able to attack without state help – parts/weapons available on the market

The Growth of International Terrorism• Initially rare for terrorist activity to spread

beyond international boundaries, this begun to change in 1968. Why?

The commercialisation of air travel: Easy and

cheap to cross boundaries; minimal security; states freely gave into to demands

posed by hijackers.

The Growth of International Terrorism

There were 5 terrorist hijacking in 1966, this number rose to 94 in 1969. What other development aided terrorist activity?

Television: This provided an audience for the attacks; although as with all programming this audience appears to tire of ‘repeats’.

The Growth of International Terrorism

Other notable influences have included: - The Internet: Many terrorist organisation have their own websites. The virtual presence of key terrorist figures will often out-live their physical presence. Exchange of information… Computer and Printers: Low-cost manufacture of leaflets and posters, reaching even web-free areas.Video: Campaign videos and recording of attacks can be easily collated/disseminated.

Causes

• Culture: Defence of culture/traditions from the threat Western materialism

• Economic: Strike against Western economic imperialism that disadvantages the global South. Also migrants, unable to achieve the aspirations promised by the Western image.

• Religion: Attacks against spiritual bankruptcy of the West – rebellion as spiritual purity (hard to threaten this materially!), divine mandate for violent acts…

Dealing With the ‘Terror Threat’

Winning the War on Terror

Winning the War on Terror

• States must win a war of ideas: killing the opponent and capturing territory will not end the war

• Terrorism will often be provocative: state responses must be proportion and, ideally, within legal framework, retaining the moral high ground (Guantanamo Bay as a terrorist recruitment tool!)

• Conspiracy theory that war on terror is a governmental aim to establish Orwellian state

A Thin Line…

Is the US more secure?

Our conceptualisation of warfare and what it means to be ‘at war’ require adjustment, as the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ lacks many of the characteristics of conventional warfare: - No defined enemy that can be beaten No specific battlefield No realistic prospects for negotiation/peace Lack of clear beginning and end

Winning the War on Terror

Bobbit (pp.17-19) notes that the objective of the war on terror is not to conquer territory or to silence an ideology, but to secure an environment for states of consent and make it impossible for enemies to impose states of fear… To preclude a world in which fear, rather than the consent of the governed, legitimises the stateBut how can we, as individual process the terror threat?

The ‘Terror Threat’

Fearing Fear Itself

Humour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC9vQOAJNcQ&noredirect=1Note: Cut to 3mins 19secs following initial section

Make the objective of our fear visible & knowable- Even if this fear is of the fear itself!

Facts

Are bathtubs more or less dangerous than

terrorists?

Since 9/11, worldwide deaths from terrorism equal the number of

people who drowned in bathtubs in the US!

What about meteors?

The lifetime change of an American being

killed by a terrorist is about the same as

being hit by a meteor!

Facts

Participation

Creation of global military culture through the military-industrial-media-entertainment-network… There is a synergistic relationship with the forces of production… 9/11 became a part of the ‘spectacle of warfare’ – as you saw from Der Derian… Video games, in particular, allow the player to be both terrorist and ‘insurgency-hunter’ No Russian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NMnnMRWJ-0&noredirect=1

Next Week

Next Week

Weapons of Mass DestructionHowlett, Darryl, ‘Nuclear proliferation’ in John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics. An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 382-97. Exam Revision Strategies

This will be our last week!

And finally…

John Stewart on Fox News and a cycle of fear.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TLLIYtiPqA&noredirect=1

See you next week!