Dan
Lavigne
May 2nd,
2018
Global
Politics of Terrorism
Political
Science
What is
Terrorism: revisited?
In
February of 2018, I wrote an essay, defining terrorism. I suggested that
completing a simple google search for the term would provide a sense of what
this term is. What was shown on the screen is what many would expect, masked
men aiming rifles at hostages. The second set of images included the aftermath
of explosions from presumably the result of a bomb, as orange flames and black
smoke left out of the vehicle. At the time I argued that the definition of
terrorism is the use of illegitimate violence politically motivated by a force to
promote and impose its ideology upon others, operating outside the standard
definition of war.
To
construct this argument, I used leading works from security experts, focusing
on terrorism. In terms of being critical of this original piece, more
engagement was needed. It was summarized very well put failed to answer the
question from a theoretical viewpoint, which was necessary for the successful
completion of this essay. Additionally, what made this challenging was the lack
of examples as they were not yet presented in the course until later.
In
this essay I made note of the different way the authors thought about
terrorism. Rapport for example, thought of it as a process, thus breaking it
down into four distinct eras, examining the goals of terrorism changed across
time and culture, despite that tactics stayed the same. For Rapport he viewed
terrorism as asymmetric and used to disrupt society, to demonstrate one’s grievances,
domestically, and internationally. Bobbit notes that terrorism acts as an
opposition to, or acts as a reflection to the current order, meaning that the
definition of terrorism is fluid and will change over time. Lastly, Tilly
frames this discussion that to talk about this phenomenon of terrorism, it must
be thought of outside the terms of traditional warfare, which is a “political
struggle”. This allows terrorist to be studied academically and put actions on
a spectrum. My conclusion suggested that violent tactics are designed to
enforce an ideology, and that proxy actors fall into the category of war, and
very much agreed with Tilly on the academic study of classifying terrorism.
Twenty classes have
passed since the original essay. I studied several cases dating from the 18th
century to present day and have explored such questions as to what is
terrorism? What is not terrorism? I questioned the idea of tactics versus
strategy, in addition to terrorism as ends or a means. Now that several classes
have passed, I argue that terrorism is a socially constructed concept to
justify the use of violence for political purposes by the state against
non-state actors. To demonstrate this, I will use two cases: Piracy and the
Rohingya Crisis.
The first case
explores piracy in the 18th century. Originally pirates were called privateers
and were given letters of marque. These letters granted permission to carry out
privateering missions on the high seas against Spanish ships, in which a majority
of the loot was brought home to the English Crown.
As many European
powers set up colonies in the new world, the economic situation began to
change, and posed a larger security risk. During this time England was coming
into its own as a naval power and established recognizable trade routes found
in the triangular trade. European goods were shipped to Africa. Slaves were
shipped to the New World. Raw materials for manufactured goods were sent back
to England. “Trade functioned best in peace, and it became harder to justify
continued warfare beyond the [territorial waters]” (Shirk, 2016,8-9).
Privateering or piracy needed to end as trade was too valuable for every nation
in Europe to be the cause for war.
The decade of the
1720’s marked the end of the Golden Age of Piracy in the Atlantic. As a final
blow to piracy, the English enacted a policy defeating piracy once in for all.
“In March 1722 it was enacted that anyone who ‘’trade[d] with any Pirate, by
Truck, Barter, Exchange, or in any other Manner, or furnish[ed] any Pirate,
Felon or Robber upon the Seas, with any Ammunition, Provision or Stores of any
Kind’ might be punished with death” (Shirk, 2016,61). In this fashion not even,
the normal citizenry could interact with this group demonized by the English
Government. In 1726 William Fly hanged in Boston, bringing an end to this era
of naval history.
The
second case used in this analysis is that of the Rohingya people of Myanmar.
This group is found in western state of Rakhine located in Myanmar. During the
colonial period, the British tried to get a dynamic mix of labor, consisting of
farmers, merchants, and civil servants into the region, which would play later
into the current hostile situation.
In
the early 1970’s, however, Burma gained independence from the United Kingdom.
This was a period of peace which existed between the Buddhist Burman
ethnic-majority and the Muslim Rohingya population, extending over the next
decade. This is a period when the “.... Rohingya elite thrived. Rangoon University,
the country’s top institution, had enough Rohingya students to form their own
union. One of the cabinets of U Nu, the country’s first post-independence
leader, included a health minister who identified himself as Arakanese Muslim.
Even under Ne Win, the general, Burmese national radio aired broadcasts in the
Rohingya language. Rohingya, women among them, were represented in Parliament”
(Beech, 2017). No animosity existed between the two ethnic groups.
Things
changed starting in the 1980’s when the political environment started to churn,
giving rise to ethnic nationalism and forced removal of the Rohingya and the
burning of their villages to this day. According to Siegfried O. Wolf, he
argues that “... civil-military relations ever since gaining independence …
plus the experience of two military rules — Ziaur Rahman (1975-81) and Hussain
M. Ershad (1982-90) — as well as an extra-constitutional military-backed
caretaker government (2006-2008) [was
seen as] a hint for a traditional lack of civilian control over the armed
forces” (Wolf, 2017, 17). Weak institutions were the catalyst for the events we
see today.
Wolf
goes on to mention how the military operates in the country. He states. “...
since the deficiencies of the country’s governance architecture, the civilian
governments, and their administrations rely tremendously on the armed forces to
avoid internal insecurity. The growth of domestic disorder arising from
tensions between refugees and local communities, mostly due to conflicts over
resources….” (Wolf, 2017, 17). The military uses force to keep control over the
population, fearing the growing Muslim population.
In response to the
attack from government forces, the Rohingya have fought back. In September of
2017 for example “...a local police
officer filed a counterterrorism suit accusing Mr. Shwe Maung of instigating
violence through Facebook posts that called for an end to the security
offensive in Rakhine...[He noted that] “They want every Rohingya to be considered
a terrorist or an illegal immigrant,” he said. “We are much more than that”
(Beech 2017). Here we see the label of terrorist being used, even though the
people are fighting back against their government, do to demographic fears, by
the Buddhist majority in the country.
In the original
terrorism essay, I argued that definition of terrorism was the use of
illegitimate violence politically motivated by a force to promote and impose
its ideology upon others, operating outside the standard definition of war.
What I failed to do in this first essay was to engage with the theoretical
framework. This was due partly due to the lack of solidified examples, that we
have since studied in this course. In this revised essay, I examined two cases,
piracy and the Rohingya to bookend the class. Both forms of terrorism here, (as
my new argument) is socially constructed
concept to justify the use of violence for political purposes by the state
against non-state actors. In the case of piracy, the British Crown switch their
policy regarding actions on the high seas. This went from being a sanction and
encouraged activity, to one that was outlawed due to the changing nature of
trade. For the Rohingya, this is slightly different. After independence a
multiethnic culture existed peacefully in Burma. It was not until the
institutions weakened did the military use the guise of security to promote
Buddhist nationalism in the country, justifying the expulsion of the Rohingya
people in neighboring countries, such as Bangladesh. The label of terrorist is
used against groups that fight back for self-defense purposes.
Works Consulted
Shirk Mark. “Bringing the State Back In” to
the Empire Turn: Piracy and the Layered Sovereignty of the Eighteenth Century
Atlantic. International Studies Review. August 21, 2016. 1–23
Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent: The Wars
for the Twenty-First Century. Knopf. New York. 2008. 27-63.
Rapoport, David C. “The Four Waves of Rebel
Terror and September 11”. Anthropoetics
VIII, no. 1 Spring/ Summer 2002.
Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism,
Terrorists”. Sociological Theory,
Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of Terrorism: A Symposium. (Mar., 2004), pp. 5-13.
Wolf, Seyfried O. “Genocide, exodus and exploitation for jihad:
the urgent need to address the Rohingya crisis”
South Asian Democratic Forum. 2017 1-41
Beech, H. (2018). ‘No Such Thing as Rohingya’: Myanmar Erases a History. Nytimes.com.
Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/world/asia/myanmar-rohingya-denial-history.html
