Terrorism main book chapter by ogbajiDocument Transcript
THIS WORK IS PUBLISHED IN BOOK OF READINGS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BY NNAMDI AZIKIWEUNIVERSITY, AWKA. FOR CITATION, CONTACT ME TO SEND YOU THE FULL DETAIL TO HELP YOU EASILY. ORIGIN OF TERRORISM BY OGBAJI UDOCHUKWU A.O LECTURER, DEPT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC OKO ANAMBRA STATE 08033486531INTRODUCTIONHISTORICAL ORIGIN OF TERRORISM The history of terrorism goes back to Sicarii Zealots, Jewishextremist group active in Iudaea Province at the beginning of CE. AfterZealotry rebellion in the 1st century AD, when some prominentcollaborators with Roman rule were killed, (Hoffman, 1988 and Chaliand,2007), according to contemporary historian Josephus, in 6 AD Judas ofGalilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, theSicarii(Chaliand, 2007). Their terror also was directed against Jewish"collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and otherwealthy elites (Hoffman, 1988)
The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actionsof the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution."Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," saidJacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burkedenounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-hounds calledTerrorists...loose on the people" of France (Burke, 1795 cited in www.econlib.org). In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in anattempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon III (Crenshaw, 1995).Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured. The incident played a crucialrole as an inspiration for the development of the early Russian terroristgroups. Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded Peoples Retribution in1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term beingemployed in its modern meaning. Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear forbringing about political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or equallyimportant, the threat of violence. These violent acts are committed by non-governmental groups or individuals, that is, by those who are neither part ofnor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies,intelligence services, or governmental agencies of an established nation-state. The word “terrorism” was then used in France to describe a newsystem of government adopted during the French Revolution (1789 –1799). The regime ‘de la terreur’ i.e. Reign of Terror was intended topromote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its
enemies and thereby purifying it. However, the oppression and violentexcesses of the ‘terreur’ transformed it into a feared instrument of the state.From that time on, terrorism has had a decidedly negative connotation. Theword, however did not gain wider popularity until the late 19 th century whenit was adopted by a group of Russians revolutionaries to describe theirviolent struggle against tsarist rule. Terrorism then assumed the morefamiliar anti-governmental associations it has today. The world of the 21st century, in which we are today, is moreprecarious, unpredictable and more dangerous than at anytime in thehistory of mankind. The spectre of terrorism is haunting the world. Thetimes have changed throughout the world as a result of the activities ofpeople, who willingly destroy, maim and kill in order to score political, orsocial points or goals. Terrorism, therefore, has become such a world-widephenomenon that only recently, a respected and highly placed Vaticanofficial, Cardinal Renato Martino, described terrorism as the 4 th world war,the 3rd world war being the cold war, which ended with the demise of theformer Soviet Union. Martino, who was the Pope John Paul’s Ambassadorto the United Nations, and the head of the Vatican’s Council for Justice andPeace said: “We have entered the 4th World war…. I believe we are in the midst of another world war… and it involves absolutely everyone because we don’t know what will happen when we leave a hotel, when we get on a bus, when we go into coffee bar, war itself is sitting down right next to each and everyone of us” (Okeke, 2005).
However, terrorism challenges the assumption that any nation couldguarantee absolute security to its citizen without collaboration with thelarger international community. The bombing of vacationing youth in Bali inIndonesia, the bombing of train stations in Madrid, Spain and hostagetakings which led to over 300 people among them several school childrenin Baslam, Russia, years ago, the bombings in Abuja-Nigeria and thekidnaps especially in the Niger-Delta region of Nigeria are cleardemonstrations of this fact. Inspite of the fact that terrorism is generally accepted as a world wideproblem, more than any other terrorist incident so far, either in terms ofcasualty or weapon used, the September 11, 2001 attack on the UnitedStates of America will remain a turning point in the history of terrorism. Itwas after it that the issue of terrorism acquired greater attention andcreated necessary awareness among the populace and governments allover the world, and this made everybody to know that the issue of securityis not only the business of the security agents alone, but requires concertedefforts of everyone to effectively deal with.MEANING, DEFINITION AND CONCEPT OF TERRORISM The first analytical fact facing commentators on terror is to definetheir subject matter. Because terrorism engenders such extreme emotions,partly as a reaction to the horrors associated with it and partly because ofits ideological context, the search for a definition which is both preciseenough to provide a meaningful analytical device yet general enough toobtain agreement from all participant in the debate is fraught with difficulty.Many experts believe that there is no need laboring to define terrorism.
According to Jonathan Barker, a leading researcher in Political Science,“people understand that the planners of the political violence carried out bynon-groups or by government agencies or their proxies claim their cause isjust”. Similarly, regimes that employ murder and sabotage never admit thatwhat they are doing is terrorism. Thus, at various times in history and even today, most stategovernment overtly or covertly support and even aid illegal use of forcegroups to achieve some objective in a manner that would otherwise beregarded as terrorism by those opposed to it. In the 1980’s, the CIAattempted to overthrow President Fidel Castro of Cuba, at the same timetoo, it attempted to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.Also on many occasions, America used right-wing elements in thosecountries to illegally kill a lot of people. In Angola, the US activelysupported the UNITA rebels against the MPLA and it was only a few yearsago that such support stopped and UNITA was defeated. On the other hand, many African, Arab and East European Countriessupported the Liberation Movement that fought the Apartheid regime inSouth Africa, the white minority government in now Zimbabwe and thePortuguese colonial administration in Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau,Mozambique and Sao Tome and Principe. They also supported and somestill support Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in its struggle forself-determination. In Africa, like Cote d’Ivoire, since December, 1999 to2011, there have been political killings (terrorism). Gbagbo and Quattara’sself interest have taken a lot of lives and property.
It is on this account of these contradictions that some observersargue that a comprehensive definition of terrorism does not exist andcannot be found in the foreseeable future. Because of these problems,many analysts have tried to shrug them off with an obligatory reference tothat famous phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’.This phrase, trite though it may be, does encapsulate the difficulties facingthose who wish to delimit the boundaries of terrorism either for purposes ofinternational action or academic research. Reference to it should not,though, persuade the reader of the futility of searching for a workingdefinition of terrorism. Without a basic definition it is impossible to say thewhether the phenomenon (terrorism) is a threat at all, whether it is aphenomenon of a different nature to its predecessors, and whether therecan be a theory of terrorism. According to the United Kingdom legislation titled Terrorist Act 2000;terrorism means the use or threat of action…. designed to influence thegovernment or to intimidate the public or a section of the public for thepurpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological course. On the other hand, the United States Federal Statutes definesterrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that appear to beintended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence thepolicy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to effect theconduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping “(US Code, title18, section 2331). Canada’s anti-terrorism Act (Bill C-36) designates terrorist activity as“an act or omission…. that is committed in whole or in part for a political,
religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause and in whole or in partwith the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public withregard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling aperson, a government or a domestic or an international organization to door to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government ororganization is inside or outside Canada….”. CONCEPTUALIZING TERRORISM AS A MORAL PROBLEM A major problem to the study of terrorism is that, at base, terrorism isa moral problem. This is a major reason why the concept faces muchdefinitional problem. Attempts at definition often are predicated on theassumption that some classes of political violence are justifiable whereasothers are not. For a definition to be universally accepted, it must transcendbehavioral description to include individual motivation, social milieu, andpolitical purpose. The same behavior will or will not be viewed as terrorismby any particular observer according to differences in these other factors(Wardlaw, 1989). According to Wardlaw, just as an increasing number of commentatorsseem to be able to even-handedly apply the term “terrorist” to non-stateand state actors they will have to apply it even-handedly to those groupswith whose cause they agree and those with whose cause they conflict. Heaffirmed that the difficulty is that different groups of users of definitions findit more or less easy to utilize definitions which focus on behaviors and theireffects as opposed to those factors tempered by considerations of motivesand politics. Thus, many academic students of terrorism seem to find littledifficulty in labeling an event as “terrorist” without making a moral judgment
about the act. Many law enforcement agents, government officials,politicians, citizens, and analysts find themselves unable to take such adetached view. For this reason, it may not be too difficult to construct anacceptable definition within a given reference group. The problem ariseswhen that group attempts to engage in dialogue with others. The definitionof terrorism on moral grounds rests, then, on moral justification. GrantWardlaw warned that the proper study of terrorism should seek to explain aphenomenon, not justify it. And it must be realized by all that explanationdoes not entail justification.THE SOCIAL DEFINITION/MEANING OF TERRORISM Greisman (1977) used this to analyze the way in which socialmeaning is assigned to terrorism. He argued that to make the term“terrorism” useful, it is necessary to see how moral meanings are ascribedto terrorist acts so that we can see what variables make one act terroristand another a mere function of foreign policy. It is however easier forgovernments than for terrorists to legitimate their activities, terrorists oftenstrive for legitimacy. Often, though, such an endeavor is as much anattempt to legitimate their activities in their own eyes as it is to convince thepublic of their worthiness. In such cases, according to Wardlaw (1989), themotivation for legitimation is more psychological than tactical. In order to appreciate the nature of terrorism, it is necessary to lookat the definitions and concepts of terror, and terrorism and examine theiroften ambiguous relation to other forms of civil, military, and politicalviolence and to criminal behaviour. Wilkinson (1977) notes that one of thecentral problems in defining terrorism lies with the subjective nature of
terror. Due to the complex interplay of the subjective forces and offrequently irrational individual responses it is very difficult to accuratelydefine terror and to study it scientifically. Thornton (1964) defines terrorism as the use of terror as a “symbolicact” designed to influence political behaviour by extra normal means,entailing the use or threat of violence. The emphasis here is on its extranormal quality. To Wilkinson (1977), political terrorism is the systematic useof murder and destruction, and the threat of murder and destruction in otherto terrorize individuals, groups, communities or government into concedingto the terrorist political demands. In summary therefore, we submit that terrorism is violence for effect,the threat of violence, individual acts of violence or a campaign of violencedesign primarily to instill fear. The violence is aimed at the people watching.The fear is the intended effect, not for the victims but the people watching.Infact the victim may be totally unrelated to the terrorist cause. Fear is theintended effect not by the product. It must be understood that terrorism is ameans to an end and not an end in itself. It has objectives although thosewho carry out acts of terrorism may be so dedicated to the violent actionthat even they, sometimes seem to miss the point. Unless we try to thinklike terrorist, we are also likely to miss the point. The objectives of terrorismare often obscured by the fact that specific terrorist’s attacks may appear tobe random and directed at targets whose deaths or destruction does notappear directly to benefit the terrorist’s cause.TYPES OF TERRORISM
Different types of terrorism have been defined by lawmakers,security professionals and scholars. Types differ according to what kind ofattack agents an attacker uses (biological, for example) or by what they aretrying to defend (as in eco-terrorism). Researchers in the United States began to distinguish different typesof terrorism in the 1970s, following a decade in which both domestic andinternational groups flourished. By that point, modern groups had began touse techniques such as hijacking, bombing, diplomatic kidnapping andassassination to assert their demands and, for the first time, they appearedas real threats to Western democracies, in the view of politicians, lawmakers, law enforcement and researchers. They began to distinguishdifferent types of terrorism as part of the larger effort to understand how tocounter and deter it. They classify the forms or types of terrorism as thus: (i) State Terrorism or State-Sponsored Terrorism Two forms of state-sponsored terrorism exist at the beginning of thetwenty-first century: governments that carry out terrorism acts against theirown citizens, and government support of groups who carry out terrorismagainst other governments. Many definitions of Terrorism restrict it to actsby non-state actors. But it can also be argued that states can, and have,been terrorists. States can use force or the threat of force, without declaringwar, to terrorize citizens and achieve a political goal. Germany under Nazirule has been described in this way. It has also been argued that statesparticipate in international terrorism, often by proxy. The United Statesconsiders Iran the most prolific sponsor of terrorism because Iran arms
groups, such as Hizballah, that help carry out its foreign policy objectives.The United States has also been called terrorist, for example through itscovert sponsorship of Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s. Iran accusedCuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria of supporting terrorism.The Abu Nidal organization is an example of state sponsored terrorism. (ii) Bio-terrorism Bio-terrorism refers to the intentional release of toxic biologicalagents to harm and terrorize civilians, in the name of a political or othercause. The U.S. Center for Disease Control has classified the viruses,bacteria and toxins that could be used in an attack. Category A BiologicalDiseases are those most likely to do the most damage. They include: • Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) • Botulism (Clostridium botulinum toxin) • The Plague (Yersinia pestis) • Smallpox (Variola major) • Tularemia (Francisella tularensis) • Hemorrahagic fever, due to Ebola Virus or Marburg Virus (iii) Cyber-terrorism Cyber-terrorists use information technology to attack civilians anddraw attention to their cause. This may mean that they use informationtechnology, such as computer systems or telecommunications, as a tool toorchestrate a traditional attack. More often, cyber-terrorism refers to an
attack on information technology itself in a way that would radically disruptnetworked services. For example, cyber-terrorists could disable networkedemergency systems or hack into networks housing critical financialinformation. There is wide disagreement over the extent of the existingthreat by cyber terrorists. Cyber-terrorism is a type of terrorism that usescomputers and network. Usually, small terrorist groups use cyber terrorism.Experts have only identified Aum Shinrikyo and the Tamil Tigers of usingcyber terrorism so far. These two terrorist groups usually use cyber-terrorism to fail the computer security, or to show off their technical abilities.Cyber-terrorism can allow disruptions in military communications and evenelectrical power. Some ways cyber-terrorism can be used is by destroyingthe actual machine that contains the electronic information. Expertsrecommend individual computer users to use virus protection software andalso to stay away from strange emails and computer programs will lessenthe vulnerability to cyber-terrorism. (iv) Environmental Terrorism or Eco-terrorism Environmental terrorism is commonly referred to as "eco-terrorism,"a combination of the terms ecology and terrorism. Eco-terrorism is arecently coined term describing violence in the interests ofenvironmentalism. In general, environmental extremists sabotage propertyto inflict economic damage on industries or actors they see as harminganimals or the natural environment. These have included, for example furcompanies, logging companies and animal research laboratories. (v) Nuclear Terrorism
"Nuclear terrorism” refers to a number of different ways nuclearmaterials might be exploited as a terrorist tactic. These include attackingnuclear facilities, purchasing nuclear weapons, or building nuclear weaponsor otherwise finding ways to disperse radioactive materials. Two chemicalsassociated with terrorist activity that was in the news worldwide in the late1990s and early 2000s were sarin and ricin. Sarin is a man madechemical warfare agent that acts rapidly against the nervous system,making breathing difficult or impossible. Ricin is a clear, colorless, tastelessliquid that does not smell and tiny amounts are deadly. (vi) Narcoterrorism Narcoterrorism has had several meanings since its coining in 1983. Itonce denoted violence used by drug traffickers to influence governments orprevent government efforts to stop the drug trade. In the last several years,narcoterrorism has been used to indicate situations in which terroristgroups use drug trafficking to fund their other operations.INCIDENCE/ EFFECTS OF TERRORISM Terrorism has had some obvious effects in the country or countriesof the world. The most common is that it diverts resources into internalsecurity functions instead of diverting such into developmental projects. These resources are used also in protecting political leaders,guarding vital locations, screening people at airports, and hardening targetsall require increasing amounts of money, labour and time. The screening of
passengers at airports, apart from the time and inconvenience costs to thepublic, the financial costs of screening precautions have been enormous. However, for clarity and proper understanding, we will discuss thissubheading under three different subtitles: The social/psychological effect,the political effect and the economic effect.The Social/Psychological Effect The incidence and changing significance of terrorism culminates intoloss of life and property. In Nigeria, the bomb blast of October 1 st 2010killed a lot of people at Abuja. In the September 11 attack of the UnitedStates of America killed more than three thousand people (3,000). TheKenyan and Tanzanian attacks killed more than two hundred people (200).The October 12, 2002 bombing of a night club in Bali, Indonesia killed (200)two hundred people. The Baslam school siege in September 2004 inRussia ended tragically with the death of about three hundred (300)persons, half of who were children. Affected people and victims whoescaped with injury from the terrorist act may live with psychological traumafor the rest of their lives. All over the world, the greatest concerns and fears that exist is thatterrorists could go beyond ordinary explosives and find a way to deploynuclear weapons (uranium and plutonium bombs), biological and chemicalweapons which we now call Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Thefear of the outcome of this act of terror has a serious social andpsychological impact on the citizenry.The Political Effects of Terrorism
The political effects of terrorism can be long-term or short termdepending on the nature. The ruling party in Spain lost power two daysafter the march 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings which killed one hundredand eighty one innocent souls (Okeke, 2005). The set back recorded byU.S and its allies by the decision of the newly elected Prime Minister to pullSpain out of the coalition forces in Iraq is another political incidence ofterrorism. The problem encouraged others, including the Philippinegovernment, a close American ally, to pull out their non-combatant troops.Although the withdrawal by the Philippines was in exchange for the releaseof a Filipino taken hostage by a group of Islamist militants who threatenedto behead him, the Filipino action did not please the United States and itsallies (Okeke, 2005).The Economic Effect of Terrorism The analysis on the incidence of terrorism in the first paragraph ofthis part fall under the economic effects of terrorism. However, with theever-present fear of attacks from terrorists, governments and organizationsare compelled to spend huge amounts of money to develop anti-terrorinfrastructure. Such monies could otherwise be used for more beneficialinfrastructural and developmental services to the people. Since theSeptember 11 attacks and the subsequent responses by the internationalcommunity, including the use of military force and full scale war inAfghanistan and Iraq, the cycle of violence that the situation hasengendered, governments, companies and organizations have had to takepainful economic measures. These range from reorganizations leading toretrenchments of workers, increase in air fares, and withdrawal ofsubsidies, which also invariably lead to inflation and further insecurity.
Moreover, Investors stay away from targeted states or regionsperceived as potential source of terrorist activities. In Nigeria for example,the Niger-Delta areas has been deserted by the oil companies andconstruction companies due to the terrorist attacks. The increasing highcost of oil as direct consequence of terrorist activities and the unendinginsurgency against the coalition forces in Iraq is another blow on worldsecurity in its entire ramification (Okeke, 2005). On the whole therefore, terrorist attacks have scaled back in numberin recent year, even though more casualties have occurred. The late 1980swere a high point for the number of terrorist attacks, with the incidence ofattacks exceeding 600 annually in the year 1985-1988(http://library.thinkquest.org). With the exception of 1991, the number ofterrorist attacks after 1988 decreased to fewer than 450 every year,reaching their recent low point in the years 1996-1998, when the number ofattacks was about 300. The number of attacks has increased slightly since1998, when there were 274 attacks, but the level has not reached thenumber realized in any of the years of the 1980s. This report is not a linearprogression from a large number to a small number of attacks, but thetrend revealed is one of the decreasing incidence. Yet even if the frequencyhas decreased, the danger has not. The practice of terrorism has undergone dramatic changes in recentyears. The categorical fanaticism that is apparent in terrorist organizationsacross a spectrum of belief systems is a major part of this change. In thepast, terrorists were more likely to be dominated by pragmaticconsiderations of political and social change, public opinion, and other suchfactors. Today, a phenomenon that was a minute rarity in the past terrorists
bent on death and destruction for its own sake is more common place thanever. In addition, the statelessness of today’s terrorists removes crucialrestraints that once held the most extreme terrorists in check or preventedthem from reaching the highest levels in their organizations. Terrorists canstill enjoy the funding and shelter that only a national economy canmobilize, but they are on their own to a greater degree in greater numbersthan in the past. Organizationally, terrorists are using the non-hierarchicalstructures and systems that have emerged in recent years. Finally, thepotential availability of nuclear, chemical and biological technology providesthe prospect that these trends could result in unprecedented humandisasters.SOLUTIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD Different organizations, with help from terrorism consultants, havebeen able to develop terrorism solutions. Many agencies that are chargedwith fighting terrorism have reviewed the way they operate and shareintelligence. This change has opened the communication between theseagencies and has reduced the chances of another attack happening due tolack of communication. There is therefore need to move towards acomprehensive approach to fighting terrorism. Okeke (2005) has advancedthree broad approaches against terrorism so that the so society and itsstate institutions could be protected against terrorist attacks. These are: a. Anti-terrorist measures to ensure that people, public life, buildings and infrastructures are less vulnerable. b. Counter-terrorist measures to prevent terrorists from attacking by identifying and neutralizing or stopping them.
c. Crisis-management aimed at resolving and stabilizing the situation. The measures advanced above could be carried out through theunder listed (Okeke, 2005). i. International Cooperation: it is evident that no single nation can fight international terrorism successfully without the cooperation of others. Hence, there is need for cooperation among all nations at all levels, namely global (UN) continental (AU) regional (ECOWAS) etc, multilateral and bilateral levels, by way of exchange of information on the movements, profiles, methods, and plans etc of terrorists to facilitate their neutralization. ii. Strengthening of intelligence organization to procure timely and credible intelligence: International terrorism organizations operate in a clandestine nature akin to intelligence organizations. It is far better and safer to neutralize terrorists’ plots than to reach to them and this can only be achieved through empowering and enhancing the capacity of intelligence and security services. iii. Cooperation among intelligence and security outfits at National organizational levels: There is need for cooperation among various intelligence and security outfits in every nation, so that the bits and pieces of information available to each could be well harnessed and analyzed towards combating terrorism. Analyses and assessment should however be objectives and not be influenced by motives, prevailing wisdom and pressures from governments for information. As much as possible, governments should tailor their actions based on available intelligence rather than on a
predetermined desired contrary to available intelligence as this may embarrass the nation and cause more problems.iv. Continuous capacity building for intelligence and security operatives and agencies.v. Concerted international efforts to combat drug, arms and people smuggling: These are crimes that are often committed to prop up terrorism. With regard to money laundering for instance, individual government could oblige their banks to disclose to authorities all financial transactions, that exceed certain amounts in respects of individuals and corporate organizations. Banks and governments should also create more effective financial intelligence units.vi. Strengthening of national statutes, laws and regulations against terrorist offences and strict enforcement of existing laws.vii. Enhancing physical security around facilities and infrastructure that are commonly targeted for terrorist attacks.viii. Provision of effective protection of VIPs and their movements at all times.ix. Control of sale of dual-purpose devices or substances that can, for instance be used to fabricate bombs, dynamites etc.x. Monitoring the activities of religions organizations to curb the emergence of religious fundamentalism, which often breed terrorism.
xi. Eradication of poverty and unemployment particularly in Africa which often lead the youth to embrace religious extremism or make them amenable to recruitment by criminal groups.xii. Creating anti-terror awareness among the citizenry.xiii. Introduction of strong domestic measures: where strong measures are demanded, governments many introduce regulations that are akin to the U.S “Patriotic Act” which, among other things, empower security and intelligence agencies to monitor the use of internet by citizens, telephone lines, etc to detect untoward exchanges that may be prejudicial to national security.xiv. Enhancement and enforcement of aviation security and immigration control: It is important for countries to adopt and where applicable, reinforce global airport and aviation security and safety standards. Airlines should also share passengers information with authorities especially in suspicious circumstances. Immigration control at all borders must also be strengthened.xv. Institutionalization of good governance: individual governments, especially in emerging democracies, should endeavour to manage the affairs of their states in accordance with democratic tenets of fairness, justice, equity and the rule of law, so as not to tensions or conditions that lead to the emergence of dictatorships, civil crises, armed opposition and resistance. These could be exploited by terrorists.xvi. Settlement of the Middle East crisis: One of the grouses of international terrorists, particularly the Al-Qaeda, is the role the
U.S plays in the Middle East crisis. In order to take the wind out of the soil of the terrorists, and more so as unilateral military options have failed to address the issue, it is imperative for the international community and the U.S in particular to seek for a diplomatic solution to the lingering crisis in the region. xvii. Establishment of efficient national emergency response mechanism: It is imperative for individual states to establish or strengthen existing national emergency response mechanisms to adequately and efficiently respond to emergencies including and particularly those arising from terror attacks. xviii. There should be strict adherence to commitments made at world, continental regional and bilateral levels. In this respect, all countries should implement measures put in place by the U.N as well as continental and regional bodies. Faithful implementation will help make the world safer from the criminals and terrorists that want to destabilize it.CONCLUSION: John Cage, the great composer, was once asked if there is too muchsuffering in this world. This response was that there is just the right amount.In a similar vein, one could argue that there is just the right amount ofterrorism, especially in Nigeria. While a number of states in west Africansub-region have been affected by the specter of international terrorism anddevastation wrought by it, Nigeria has not suffered as much as others. Thecases of sierra Leone and Liberia whose foreign adventurist mercenaries
ad illegal gold and diamond merchants combined with local bandits to bringthe countries to ruin are examples. Following our analysis of terrorism in a world view, it would be clear,we would hope, that terrorism, if not dealt with, could have a serious anddevastating impact on development approaches and on global security.The above measures need to be considered in order to combat terrorism. Itis equally necessary to find out the major cause of terrorist acts which willhelp the war against terrorism to thrive. For us in Nigeria, we have our ownpeculiar problem. We need a sustainable agenda to deal with out problem.We must be very vigilante about the infiltration of terrorist groups. Thethreats from ethnic militias must be dealt with in a firm but just way so thatthe havoc they are committing does not continue.REFERENCES
Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkley: University of California Press.Canadian Anti-Terrorist Act Bill (Bill-C36).Greisman, H.C. (1977). Social Meanings of Terrorism: Reification, Violence and Social Control. Contemporary Crises Vol. I, 304.Hudson, R.A. (2002). Who Becomes A Terrorist And Why: The 1999 Government Reports on Profiling Terrorists. Federal Research Division: The Lyons Press.Okeke, U. (2005). Terrorism and Global Security in Foreign Policy in Nigeria’s Democratic Transition. A Publication of the Presidential Advisory Council on International Relations (ACIR).Purpura, P.P (2007). Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction with Applications. Butterworth: Heinemann.Scheider, B. and Davis, J. (2009). Avoiding the Abyss: Progress, Shortfalls and The Way Ahead In Combating WMD Threat. Greenwood: Publishing Groups.Thornton, T.P (1964). “Terror as a Weapon of Political Agitation” in H. Eckstein (ed), Internal War. London: Collier Macmillan.United Kingdom Legislation Act-Terrorist Act 2000.United States of American Federal Statutes.
Wardlaw, G. (1989). Political Terrorism: Theory, Tactics and Counter- Measures. Cambridge: University Press.Wilkinson P. (1977). Terrorism and The Liberal State: London: Macmillan.National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1976). Disorders and Terrorism. Washinton D.C. “13 Beagles stolen from researcher” the New York times February 2, 1988. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/02/science/=/. Retrieved 2010-01- 11.“Freedom squelches terrorist violence: Harvard Gazette Archives” http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/ 05terror, http://hsyhome.harvard.edu/aabadie.academic.ksg/ povterr.pdf. Retrived 2008-12-28.“Poverty political freedom, and the roots of terrorism” (PDF). 2004. http://ksghome.harvard.edu/2aabadie.academic ksg/povterr.pdf.Retrieved 2008-12-28.“Unemployment, inequality and terrorism: Another look at the relationship between economics and terrorism” (PDF).2005. Archived from the orginal on August 3, 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/2008080302219.http://titan. Iwu.edu/2econ/uer/articles/Kevin-goldstein.pdf. Retrieved 2008-12- 28.Bruss Hoffman (June, 2003). “The logic of suicide terrorism”. The Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2003/hoffman. Retrieved 2010-01-11
“the terrorist appear to be deliberatelt homing in on the few remaining places where Israelis thought they could socialize in peace.Pape, Robert A. “The strategic logic of suicide terrorism” “American political science review, 2003.97 (3): pp 1-19.“Basque Terrorist group marks 50th Anniversary with new attacks”. Times magazine. July 31, 2009. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599.1913931,00 html retrieved 2010-01-11. “Europe’s longest-enduring terrorist groups. This week, ETA (the initials stand for Basque Homeland and fereedom in Euskera, the Basque language).“1983: Car bomb in South Africa kills 16” .BBC. 2005-05-20. http://news.bbc.co.uk.onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/20/newsid43260 00/4326975. retrieved 2010-01-11.Shabad, Goldie and Franciso Jose IIera Ramo. Political Violence in a Democratic State, “Terrorism in context (ed) Martha Glenshaw. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1995 pp. 467.http://www.ram,org/ramblings/philosophy/terrorism/html.http://library.thinkquest.org/tq0312031/hs/totinfo.html.http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterrorism1/tp/definingterrorism.html