Terrorism has been a longstanding feature of International Relations (IR) but only in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States has the issue come to the forefront. In an attempt to understand how terrorism affects state foreign policy behaviour (FPB), this essay will use role theory to posit that US Foreign Policy (USFP) was shaped by the aforementioned attacks, providing a platform from which to launch the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and giving terrorists the over(reaction) they so desired. It will be postulated that a sociological approach using role theory is well suited to analysing why US Foreign Policy shifted in the wake of 9/11 and sought a unilateral approach, hence rendering terrorism capable of triggering role change as well as being triggered by role-conception.
For the purposes of this essay, role theory will be defined as a state-level theory, linking agent and structure; focusing on how states conceive and adopt roles; and how policymakers’ decisions are constituted by role-conception and critical events such as 9/11 (Maull 2011). Role-conception is defined as: ‘the normative expectations that the role-beholder [ego] expresses towards itself’ and role expectation: how other actors (alter) expect ego to act (Elgström et al. 2006). Ego’s identity is, amongst other factors, constituted through the roles it conceives itself to play and identity affirmation reliant on role-playing by states (Harnisch et al. 2011; McCourt 2011). The term terrorism will be defined in US specifications as: ‘premeditated, politically motivated [emphasis added] violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents’ (US Code Title 22 §2656f). Al Qaeda will be referred t...
... middle of paper ...
... Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis. Edited by M. Schafer and Walker, S.G. . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
United Nations Security Council, . United Nations, "Resolution 1566 (2004)." Last modified 10 2, 2004. Accessed February 17, 2014. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/542/82/PDF/N0454282.pdf?OpenElement.
United States Department of State, United States Code, Title 22: §2656f, Washington, D.C.: 2004. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f (accessed February 18, 2014)
Wiktorowicz, Quintan, and John Kaltner. "Killing in the Name of Islam: Al-Qaeda's Justification for September 11." Middle East Policy Council. no. 2 (2003). http://www.mafhoum.com/press5/147S29.htm (accessed February 21, 2014).
Wilkinson, Paul. Terrorism versus Democracy: The liberal state response. Milton Park, Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 2001.
Jeffrey David Simon, The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism, 2nd ed. (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), 188-89.
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
Schweitzer, Y., & Shay, S. (2003). The globalization of terror: The challenge of al-qaida and the response of the international community. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
The Purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of the terrorist attacks that were launched against the United States of America on September the 11TH 2001. It will look at the way in which the state has since legitimized its capabilities of force and violence. From looking at the United States response to the attacks, with what is widely known as the “war on terror” it hopes to uncover evidence to suggest that the attacks permitted the United States and consequently, the United Kingdom to undergo a process of legitimization of previously illegitimate acts of violence and force, consequently, causing a breakdown of individuals civil rights and the unlawful killing of many innocent civilians. It is hypothesized that this war on terror may lay evidence to propose that Hannah Arendt’s claim that the act of war ever becoming violent is unlikely within a nuclear postmodern world and furthermore, that violence and the threat of it can no longer be used as a means to reach political goals or achieve power. It could also suggest that the war on terror has consequently led to support Weber’s theory of the “Violence Monopoly of the State” (1919:59), in which Arendt aimed to dismiss the strength of in modern times. Furthermore the apparent long-term financial gain that the United States have been said to make from the sale and export of weaponry arms used in this war on terror, alongside the monopoly of oil supplies could support Marxist theorists’ view that violence of the state is ultimately linked to the economic forces of capitalism.
Kash, Douglas A. “An International Legislative Approach to 21st-Century Terrorism.” The Future of Terrorism: Violence in the New Millennium. Ed. Harvey W. Kushner. London: Sage Publications, 1998.
The terrorist attacks of September 11 led to a lot of pressure from the public to find those responsible and bring them to “justice”. In order to do so, President Bush declared a war on terrorism just a few days after the attacks, but little did he know that this very decision would also bring devastating consequences to many countries. Over time, people have been losing faith in the war and in its purpose. Consequently, countries whose economies have fallen under the Military Industrial Complex have manufactured a societal fear against Muslims and jihadists. As a result, they are now being stigmatized and portrayed as the enemies of democracy, and of the United States in particular. To make matter worse, it has driven western countries to implement many extreme security measures that undermine the democratic principles they are attempting to spread over the world. The war on terrorism has had many negative consequences on modern society, which include a legitimization crisis of democracy, mainly in the U.S, and the manufacturing of moral panics over security risks that have led to the criminalization and stigmatization of the Arab world.
Miller, M. A. (2013). The foundations of modern terrorism: state, society and the dynamics of
After the tragedy and chaos of September 11th, 2001 there was an expectation for the United States to respond with aggression. In his address to the nation, President George W. Bush stated “The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts…We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” It became apparent that the perpetrators were affiliates of the radical Muslim group Al-Qaida, and with Al-Qaida as the espoused target the War on Terror in the Middle East began. War was presented as the only course of action. The attacks on the World Trade Center elicited fear in the US public and a post-9/11 state of emergency regarding homeland security made war … It started in Afghanistan and eventually transitioned into Iraq. I will discuss how an Orientalist discourse used by politicians and the media framed and justified the War on Terror . Through this discourse an inferior “other” was created and that alienated dehumanized the East and its people in the US public consciousness, internationally and within the United States.
Gilbert, P. (1994). Terrorism, security, and nationality an introductory study in applied political philosophy. London: Routledge.
My answer to these two questions is threefold: First, I assert that TSMs and INGOs can and have posed substantial normative challenges to state hegemony, most commonly the notion that the state enjoys a monopoly on representation of its citizens and their interests. Furthermore, TSMs and INGOs that employ the use of violence (particularly terrorism) breach the conventional notion that states...
United States Department of Justice. (1993). ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual § III-8-1000. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html/
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
Likewise, Goodwin illustrates how the use of categorical terrorism can be seem being used by Al-Qaida during the attacks of 9/11. Nonetheless, it is evident that Al-Qaida is unusual in terms of using terrorism to influence the rise of unity rather than trying to overthrow a standing state. For the purpose of instigating a pan-Islamic revolutionary movement, Al-Qaida tries to unite all Islamic people under one state to develop umma, or Muslim community. The logic of Al-Qaida remained that if their “revolutionaries” could illicit a reaction from the powerful US state, resulting in oppression of the middle-eastern region, that Al-Qaida could, as a result, unite all Muslims to counter this suggested oppression. Although the end goal of Al-Qaida clear failed, it does suggest the organization’s attempt at implementing categorical terrorism.
8) ?After the Attack?The War on Terrorism? (2001). Online at: <http://www.monthlyreview.org/1101edit.htm>, consulted on March 29th, 2004.
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.