TERRORISM AND GLOBALIZATION

“Terrorism has rarely been absent from history, and over centuries has appeared in many guises”1. Referring to Walter Laqueur, no state or international system has been exempted from this form of non-state violence. However, the major shifts carried by globalization, that is to say the transformation from a state-centric world to a global system, seem to have perturbed the way violent non-state actors act, claim, interfere, and wage war in the new international system. If we follow the vision of Carpenter, we can talk about a “new world disorder”2 because of the multiplicity of new actors supported by international markets and transnational links. But, should we use the adjective “new” to describe nowadays’ terrorist organizations and attacks? Since 9/11 attacks, world seem to have toggled in major insecurity and fear of those modern organization that can act wherever and whenever they want at any place in the world. Undeniably, terrorists’ forms of violence have evolved by taking advantage of criminal organizations’ and illegal trades’ favourable trends. But this method, more than a political doctrine, represents a non-state use of violence or threat of violence to spread fear and bring political reform or revolution. Therefore, it should be reconsidered with the former violent actors and the disintegration of states. Moreover, the subject comprehension have to be reinforced in order - for great power or American superpower - to prevent those criminal organization from jeopardizing the modern structure of international system. Then, to what extent is terrorism linked and influenced by globalization? In a first time, we will deepen the positive dynamics and logics of globalization that help terrorism to get to a higher degree of violence, and then we will show in a second time that this link have to be put in perspective regarding to old forms of terrorism and to neo-medievalist theories on the question.

***

I. Globalization install new bases for a modern terrorism Here, we will process by deduction. Actually, globalization implies a lot of major shifts in the trend of new war theories and state evolution. We will analyse principally its effect on state’s authority and monopoly of violence, thus on the emergence of one particular violent non-state actor: terrorism. Using a logic scheme, we can easily show how globalization can impact the emergence of terrorism.

A. The amplification and the rise of terrorists organizations’ motivations

Globalization has provoked the emergence of new motivations for terrorist organizations and intensified the existing ones. We can talk of new identity factors for violent non-state actors. If we refer to a military analysis, the main 5 reasons for the development of violent non state actors are, and we can acknowledge them, resource scarcity, demographic pressure, socio economic deprivation, organized crime and corruption and pre existing identity cleavages3. Globalization led by great powers has an impact on each of them, increasing, for instance, the exploitation of southern countries by developed and rich powers (resource scarcity), offering support to authoritarian regime such as Libyan, Egyptian, or Tunisian political headquarters, and indirectly supporting socio economic inequalities. However, the main influence of globalization applies on the identity cultural cleavages: with the development of international information and communication, developing countries’ culture is hurt by the weight of globalized culture. In its last book “Le diplomate et l’intrus”, Bertrand Badie underlines the development of an international civil society and of a globalized culture carried by international changes4. He refers to an American globalized culture, using the famous theory of soft power (Joseph Nye). However, what can be its impact on terrorism?
Since the appearance of modern terrorism, we can observe a form of opposition to this occidental culture carried by goods and international markets. On the one hand, this culture is seen as evil for traditional defenders in Middle East or in Asia. The ethnic minorities and religious groups express their fear concerning the possible loss of their cultural identity, their roots. This way, it is easy to see the emergence of a source of motivations for terrorists organizations in the name of economically disadvantaged people: the cultural oppression carried by globalization is amplifying directly or indirectly some phenomenon of separatism such as Tamils tigers in Sri Lanka, independence in Northern Ireland or even nationalism in Northern Spain5. Radical Islamic movements also illustrate this last example with their wish to create a formal state, protected from foreign influence brought by international consumer society. On the other hand, globalization offers the possibility to middle class people from developing countries to study in modern occidental state and to benefit from the advantages of European or American culture. Many of actual terrorist leaders were well educated in western countries. We can notice that western educated people led many of terrorist’s attacks against those countries during the last decade. For instance, the most famous 9/ 11 attacker on the world trade centre, Muhammad Atta, studied in Germany6.

Therefore, this new cultural background caused by globalization offers new motives for criminal organization to spread fear in the international relations. Moreover, it also boosts the economic and political factors for the development of terrorism. Firstly, as we can observe in Susan Strange’s book, The retreat of State, globalization was the first cause of state’s disintegration and the development of an economic-ruled world: “The impersonals forces of world markets are now more powerful than states, to rule on national societies and economies.”7 It provoked an increase divergence between North and South as well as a rise of economic difficulties for these developing states. Then, regarding to the spreading factors of VNSA, under development is one of the main motives for rebellion8. It generates the apparition of informal groups, which are looking to reduce their poverty and higher their standards of living by using political violence. Not only it gives terrorists motivations to act, but it also permits to those organizations hiring people. In a Stockholm international peace research institute’s report, Ekaterina Stepanova says that intra and supra national cleavages, amplified by globalization, give some “identity entrepreneur” chance to manipulate and recruit some populations in violent groups9.

Secondly, economic factors imply the lack of abilities of the state to answer to new problems caused by globalization. Those insufficiencies are a motive of revolt: when the state is not fulfilling its mission (security, order, power of coercion), the monopoly of violence is no longer legitimate. That gives actors reasons to refuse state political authority and try to gain legitimacy by using violence. Therefore, the political and social claims of needy populations are stimulated by globalization and the state’s incompetency in regulating world change. As reminds Patrick Cullen, the main target of Al Qaeda is not the United States of America but the secular and dictatorial regimes of Middle East and Israel: “The primary terrorist targets of radical Islamists today continue to be others Muslims”10. For many authors, the ‘resurgence of fundamentalist religious identities’ has been carried by globalization as an answer to oriental states’ inabilities and weaknesses. In its article ‘Questioning the new concept of terrorism’, Alexander Spencer cleverly shows that terrorists’ claims are political: he talks about goals such as the spread of political Islam, the withdrawal of foreign influence, the overthrow of the existing governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the creation of a worldwide pan Islamic caliphate11.

This perturbation of international relations related to the disintegration of the state and the amplification of motivations for terrorist’s organization is also accompanied by the emergence of new means for violent non-state actors.

*

B. The diffusion of powers and of technology: rise of new means for terrorism

Actually, as we have seen that globalization and the diffusion of world economy were the main factors of the retreat of the state (as defended by Susan Strange), we can suppose that this new economy will furnish non-state actors possibilities to affirm their self in front of “weak states”. In this part, we will analyse three consequences of globalization and the retreat of state on terrorists’ means: the diffusion of technology, the emergence of globalized markets and the diffusion of power and violence.

The technologic revolution and the financial change induced a modern networked cooperation between informal actors. Technique has been a way to increase political violence and fear: for instance, cyber-terrorism is one of the main threats for western developed countries nowadays. If we think about terrorists’ instruments in the traditional meanings of terrorism, we can see the impact of globalization on terrorism. First, violence is recognized by specialist as the core way employed by terrorists to reach their goals. Globalization has an exceptional influence on the diffusion of violence in the world referring to Susan Strange: we assist to a networking of many informal actors like private security companies or drug cartels which can challenge the violence’s monopoly normally reserved to states12. The informal industries – weapons – and traffics – drugs – are promoted with the birth of transnational organizations: for example, drug cartels in Colombia are linked directly with criminals’ organizations such as Chinese triads. Consequently, new weapons and new capacities are distributed after the end of the cold war. For instance, weapons unused by USSR power were integrated in a huge traffic and then redistributed to peripheral conflicts such as Chechens’, Afghans’, Talibans’13. Furthermore, the trade of mass destruction weapons added a dimension to terrorism - and fight against terrorism - in the twenty first century, point demonstrated by the American intervention in Iraq. On the other hand, weakened by globalization and the development of new transnational actors, vulnerable states’ authority becomes marginalized because of the disappearance of boundaries. In Terrorism and Neo Medievalism, Patrick Cullen shows that the notion of state disintegration is one of the core aspect of the subject: referring to him, proliferation of fail and weak state have a link with transnational terrorism, choosing for example, Somalia, Yemen or Afghanistan14. In this case, globalization has an indirect effect: terrorists manipulate the absence of well-demarcated borders and the emergence of international markets. Consequently, we assist to the use of weakened states as bases, targets or sources of recruitment, by terrorist organizations. For instance, we know that one part of Al Qaeda’s members have settled down in Yemen because this place provides a large desert, that is to say a suitable environment in which terrorists are free to operate. Specialists consider these countries as “breeding grounds” for terrorism, or “magnet” for terrorism14. In the same article, Chris Berzins tells us the importance of new technologies diffusion such as Internet or Satellite phones as organizations’ means.

This changes deserves terrorists’ means on a second point: fear. The possibility of seeing terrorists possessing arms of massive destruction and the huge capacities of funding provided by globalization and the propagation of illegal network and companies provoke a rise in the capacity of using fear for terrorists. By amplifying this feeling of insecurity after 9/11, globalization helped terrorism in the diffusion of fear to its enemies. This phenomenon was clearly illustrated by the huge amount consecrated to security after those attacks in each western country – Terrorism Act 2000, Terrorism Act 2006. This climate was mainly developed with the help of information and communication technologies. With one attack in a country, or one hostage-taking, every medias bring the attention on those organisations. This extreme mediatisation and publicity is the third mean boosted by globalization: it directly relates to the objectives of terrorist acts and their means. Ekaterina Stepanova shows that publicity of terrorist’s organization was a main part of their development strategies based on the attraction of public attention to the group’s motives, encouraging sympathy for the cause, demonstrating the inability of the state to ensure its mission, and finally provoking civil will to change the government.16 “Terrorist don’t want a lot of people dead, they want a lot of people watching.”17

Actually, considering all these points, we may use Clausewitz definition of war as “politics with other means” and transfer it for modern terrorism as “war with other means”. However, regarding to the evolution of terrorism with globalization and the influence of this phenomenon on one of the most important security issue of twenty first century, can we really talk about a “new” form of terrorism, simply a “developed terrorism”, or maybe just the same? This question is important because it can help to understand international reaction and policies against those criminal organizations and may give some new ways of intervention for states’ authorities.

**

II. A renewed and neo-medieval terrorism: limit of globalization impacts

Because of the influence of globalization, it’s easy to conclude on a modern and globalized form of terrorism, strongly different from a pre Cold war organizational scheme of violent organizations. The new technologies disposable, the weakening of the state authority, or even the emergence of transnational culture accompanied the necessity of terrorism’s transformation. In this part, we will give a head on new and old terrorism and conclude on a possible agreement on the question, in order to show that globalization has only limited effect on terrorism.

A. “Old terrorism” VS “New terrorism”

Regarding to undeniable globalization impacts, we can acknowledge the concept of “new terrorism” involving new motivations, aims, tactics and actions. Referring to Walter Laqueur: “there has been a radical transformation, if not a revolution, in the character of terrorism”18. After the 9/11 attacks, many specialists made the observation of a far more important threat with bigger motivations and oppositions. Regarding to “old terrorism” characteristics, they seem to be opposed on some things.
Modern terrorism have is intensively related to religious motivations that are illustrated especially by the call for jihad against Occident, from Osama Ben Laden in 2001. In the New face of terrorism, Nadine Gurr and Benjamin Cole shows that only two out of sixty four international terrorist organizations in 1980 could be identified as religious whereas, in 1995, the number has risen to twenty five out of fifty eight by 199519. This can be the main difference explaining the concept with also excessive indiscriminate violence, independence from state sponsoring and new network’s structures with the diffusion of modern communication technologies. But, the concept of “new terrorism” should describe something that never existed before.

Considering old terrorism, Alexander Spencer takes for example left wing terrorism that used violence to politicize the working classes and make them drive into resistance against the capitalist system. We can also refer to nationalist terrorism which claim independence, such as ETA in Basques Country or IRA in Ireland that exist for decades now. Both examples show that terrorism, as political violence, is not a new phenomenon. He adds that these demands were often negotiable, and that use of excessive violence was by no means a solution claimed by those organizations because of their need of legitimacy. For instance, Basque region obtained a particular political and cultural autonomy from the central government. They were cleverly organized in order to prevent from a popular opposition, and also often sponsored by some states especially during the cold war, for example American sponsoring of mujahidin in the eighties in Afghanistan20. Those details must bring us to reconsider the meanings of “new terrorism” notion in modern war theories.

Because of the same basic political and cultural motivations, old and modern terrorism can’t be separated. John Gray remarks the similarities between nowadays’ terrorism perpetrated by organizations like al Qaeda and anarchism in Russia at the principle of the twentieth century. Bergesen and Omar Lizardo in ‘International terrorism and the world system” agree: the anarchist period could be considered as international and global as modern terrorist organization because of political influence and echoes over the boundaries in Europe at the end of nineteenth century21. Moreover, public opinion has always played a core role in terrorism either before and after the cold war and the massive change carried by globalization. Referring to Spencer, “Terrorism still is a theatre, maybe just more spectacular because of new means such as weapon of mass destruction”22. The massive diffusion of information and communication technologies did not provoke a major shift in terrorism strategies: information between criminal organized groups already circulated fifty years ago. In addition, state sponsorship still is an important mean for terrorist organizations if we observe the link between some government’s members of Middle East countries and some leaders of terrorists groups (links between Taliban and Pakistanis state). Finally, the flexibility is not a modern characteristic of violent non state actors, and modern terrorism is organized the same way as paramilitaries groups such as Colombian FARCs or older terrorist groups such as Tamil tigers in Sri Lanka with a charismatic leader and different sections. Both ETA and Al Qaeda have a hierarchic structure with specialists in different sectors such as human resources, public relations, or finances. Those “terrorist firms” has not consistently evolved from a former exhausted form to modern and powerful organizations: the fact is that post cold war and “not new” terrorism, symbolized by Islamic radicalism, represents an evolution of existing terrorism adapted to globalization, because of new trends and international unprecedented context. Therefore, globalization can’t be considered then as the mother of “new terrorism”. That’s why we can immediately put in perspective its impact on the shift in terrorist forms of violence. To precise, we should prefer the term of neo-medievalist violence, referring to new analysis on the subject.

*

B. A neo medieval violent sub state actor

Principally basing itself on the resurgence of radical religious identities, the notion of neo medievalism can be defined as “a system of overlapping authorities and “criss crossing” loyalties which eliminate the absolute authority claimed and exercised by sovereign states” (Bull, 1977)23. We can acknowledge this theory by observing firstly the international relations transformation with globalization, and in a second time, the identity implications for those movements.

Philip Cerny adopted the concept of neo-medievalism to show the effect of globalization on state organization24. For him, globalization has increased the dimension of neo medievalism because of the new challenges met by modern states. Actually, we assist to the renovation of old and medieval strategies of violence mainly due to the states’ transformation for twenty years, and the weakening of its monopoly on “legitimate use of violence” (Weber). It was effectively accompanied by plural loyalties, new allegiances and the emergence of sub state and non-state actors. Considering this, globalization consequences appear to renew former war theories. On the one hand, states’ authorities have to challenge different phenomenon such as regional integration, its own retreat, the return of private global violence, the growth and increased projection of transnational organizations and a rise in international technological independence. States are sharing their authority with multiple and different characters like the power structure in the Middle Ages. The retreat of state induces the rise of general insecurity and fear, climate that can be compared to the pre Westphalia situations. “A new sense of general insecurity has emerged, not only from above (…), but also from below by the rise of civil wars, tribal and religious conflicts, terrorism, civil violence in developed countries, the international drug trade and so on” notices Cerny in Globalisation as durable disorder25. For example, Islamic terrorism - that symbolizes perfectly a new form of insecurity “from below” - has acquired the power of violence and is nowadays competing with formal state powers in the fight for authority.

On the other hand, this struggle can be compared to a medieval fight because of its main objectives: the reject of secularism and the will of reestablishing a religious political authority in Middle East. Effectively, Terrorism also appears to have some similarities with medieval and late religious identities. Chris Brown analyzes that jihad members seem to have throw themselves back in an earlier time, defending medieval theology and former notions of societal organization26. This identity issue of terrorism can find an explanation: allegiance to the nation state is strongly decreasing because of globalization. It is going in the sense of community and religion, as well as “sub state forms of political identity” either at a local, regional or global level. Actually, this analogy can easily be illustrated by the Bush doctrine describing the United States of America mission in front of the rest of the world and legitimizing its superpower rank on the international scene. In the United States and the Great Powers, Barry Buzan shows that American foreign policy led by Bush could be compared to a call for crusades: the preponderant use of a theoretical “Just war” by its means and its ends, and the constant critic of religious fundamentalism27 could make us figure ourselves in a former age of eleventh and twelfth centuries. Buzan states that USA assigned to them selves the role to establish democracy in the Middle East by fighting against Islamic powers and terrorism, that is to say an inherent superiority in front of some exhausted traditional and religious actors. In addition, James Wasserman makes the comparison between modern terrorists such as 9/11 attackers with “assassins” of the twelfth century, a secret Islamic sect willing to establish an Islamic Arabic caliphate28.

Both of those analogies seem to be exaggerated by the authors but, regarding to state transformation with globalization and the diffusion of power in the international system, it is clearly showed that neo medievalist theories must be considered at their right place to understand actual occident/ orient conflict, somehow perpetrating an infinite clash of civilization (Sam Huntington).

***

To conclude, the concept of new because globalized terrorism is to review. Globalization have had and still maintain a major influence on terrorist’s organizations motivations and means with the diffusion of information and communication technologies, as well as the boosting effect on economic inequalities and the retreat of the state. Therefore, the concept of neo-medievalism is really efficient to describe the evolution of this violent sub-state actor. However, it is important to keep in mind that this renewed phenomenon of violence has not entirely disrupted international relations in the XXIth century: Kenneth Walz highlights the fact that America is still the sole superpower, nuclear weapons still rule the relations between nation that have them, and global crises are maintaining and accumulating29. Then, it is desirable to ask ourselves if countries considerate terrorism more than it should be and if this violent actor should be judged at its original value: an act of the weak in front of strong states.

Footnotes:

1. Laqueur, The new terrorism, pp. 4 2. Barry Buzan, the united states and the great powers 3. Captain Jason Bartolomei, Major William Casebeer, Modelling violent non-state actors, pp. 32 4. Bertrand Badie, Le Diplomate et l’Intrus, Chapitre les sociétés dans l’arène 5. Globalfocus.org, International Terrorism; http://www.globalfocus.org/GF-Terrorism.htm 6. Patrick Cullen and Chris Berzins, Terrorism and Neo Medievalism 7. Susan Strange, The retreat of the state 8. See note 3 9. Ekaterina Stepanova, Stockholm international peace research institute’s report 10. See note 6 11. Alexander Spencer, ‘Questioning the new concept of terrorism’, pp.14 12. See note 7 13. Here is to note that US also alimented those strategic places in weapons and training, before the end of Cold war 14. See note 6 15. See note 6 16. Note 9 17. Globalfocus.org, International Terrorism, http://www.globalfocus.org/GF-Terrorism.htm 18. Laqueur, The new terrorism 19. Nadine Gurr, Benjamin Cole, The New Face of Terrorism: Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction, pp. 28-29. 20. Alexander Spencer, ‘Questioning the new concept of terrorism’pp.6 21. Albert J. Bergesen and Omar Lizardo, “International Terrorism and the World-System”, pp. 38-52 22. Note 11 23. Note 6 24. Phillip Cerny, Phillip Cerny, Neo Medievalism, Civil wars, and the New security Dilemma : Globalization as durable disorder, pp 36-64 25. Note 23 26. Note 6 27. Note 2 28. Note 6 29. Note 6

Bibliography:

• Globalfocus, http://www.globalfocus.org/GF-Terrorism.htm
• Bertrand Badie, Le Diplomate et l’intrus, 2008
• Walter Laqueur, The new terrorism, 1999
• Philip Cerny, Neo Medievalism, Civil wars, and the New security Dilemma: Globalization as durable disorder, 1998, pp 36-64
• Questioning the concept of “New terrorism”, Peace Conflict & Development, Issue 8, 2006, Alexander Spencer
• Modeling Violent Non-State Actors: A Summary of Concepts and Methods, Institute for Information Technology Applications United States Air Force Academy, Colorado, 2004
• Patrick Cullen and Chris Berzins, Terrorism and Neo-Medievalism,
• Ekaterina Stepanova, Stockholm international peace research institute’s report, report n°23, Terrorism in Asymmetrical conflict
• Barry Buzan, the United States and the great powers: World politic in the XXIst century, 2004
• Susan Strange, The retreat of the state: the diffusion of power in the world economy, 1996