My apologies (again) for the late blog post - I was in Chicago on an Alternative Break without internet access for the past week and change. In hindsight, I should have posted before break.
http://www.academia.edu/3335627/_Weak_States_State_Failure_and_Terrorism_Terrorism_and_Political_Violence_vol.19_no.4_2007
The above article is incredibly long and, truth be told, I have not read it in its entirety. It is useful however for its abstract (italicized part in the beginning) as well as the evidence it presents in the first few pages in contrast of the traditional viewpoint that Weak and Failed States are a necessary condition from which terrorist groups emerge.
In class, we cited the 9/11 commission report. It stated that "they were more globalized than we were". It seems that terrorist groups are typically/traditionally viewed as being primitive, reactionary groups that ferment in poor, undeveloped regions of the world, angry at the 'Western utopia' that they believe is oppressing them. The argument that "terrorists come not from global rival powers but from weak states" (Newman, 464) is rather problematic in that it assumes a causal (rather than correlational) relationship that historical data does not back up. Thus, while it may be true that terrorist organizations operate in failed or weak states more often than they operate in strong ones (i.e. a correlation), the strength of a state is not a precursor or necessary condition for their existence (i.e. a causation). It should be noted that, however, failed or weak states are very conducive to terrorism. It is much easier for a terrorist organization to quite literally set up shop in a weak state than a strong state, and this is rather intuitive.
At its core, terrorism is about using violence to make political changes - the article points out that this is still a largely local phenomenon. International terrorism is not nearly as prevalent in actuality as it is in the media. Thus, terrorists are not exploiting an absence of state structure but rather are challenging the existing structure in an attempt to gain influence and legitimacy.
I think that you bring up a good point in the fact that terrorism thrive more in weak/failed states than in strong established ones. The reason in my opinion is that they do not have a stable government breathing down their necks to squash any of the violence, and in the end may become corrupt themselves. One can even argue that this phenomenon is nothing new, occurring in places such as Nazi Germany. That being said, why do you think that the media gives so much credit to these terrorist groups and blow their agenda in the limelight when it normally isn't an international issue?
ReplyDeleteI think your argument is an interesting alternative to traditional views because it points out not just how a weak state effects the growth of terrorist organizations and the correlational relationship between the two. I think Timothy posed an interesting question relating to the media. I'm not exactly sure of the answer but I think it is related to the sensationalized style of news we present. In addition to that, I wonder in a globalized world like this what kind of impact would giving less media coverage have on the international terrorist groups?
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned and I agree with you on this, terrorism does not happen only in weak states and terrorist organizations can operate in strong states as well. For instance, terrorist groups operate very successfully in France and commit many attacks there, and no one would argue that France is a weak state. I would argue that international terrorism is given more media coverage because it is seen as more of a threat and more of something we can deal with because it is separate from us. In the case of 9/11, there was a clear enemy that we could take the fight to and avenge the attack. However, in the case of a domestic attack by a US citizen, there is no clear enemy and no one we can take the fight to. It is much scarier because they were an American and Americans aren't supposed to attack the US, thus the media kind of neglects to report on it for that reason in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the point you make about how weak/failed states create an environment that makes it easier for terrorist groups to fester and grow. However that point makes we wonder about certain radical groups in the U.S. that could be considered terrorist organizations. Or even certain individuals who reside in democratic nations who leave their home to join terrorist organizations. I feel like these two examples oppose the article's example of "primitive groups" just being angry at the "Western utopia."
ReplyDeleteI like your idea that terrorism can flourish anywhere, but primarily in low-income/low socio-economic states. I said this in my last post, but I strongly feel that money is a way out or a way to provide for family. Many young kids are taught wrong about the west, many believe the west stands to go against them. It is important to recognize these kids and work to improve the younger generations' experience across state lines. Hopefully globalization will bring us together rather than divide us apart
ReplyDelete