Anak Agung Banyu Perwita , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Thu, 07/23/2009 10:45 AM | Opinion
The latest terrorist attacks, on the Ritz-Carlton and JW Marriott hotels in Jakarta, highlight the fact that containing the global threat of terrorism remains crucially important.
Global terrorism spreads with globalization. By making the world’s borders more porus, communications faster and the transfer of funds easier, globalization facilitates terrorism. Morover, globalization creates more fertile ground for international terrorism by exacerbating ethnic and religious conflicts. In this era, the relationship between terrorism and globalization is indeed complex.
As a result, the issue of terrorism affects security at national, regional and international levels.
Terrorism has taken the center stage away from conventional security issues in the post-Cold War era. The realities of current global politics have re-emphasized the potential calamity of terrorist threats – which is greater than ever before.
In most cases, terrorist threats have emerged from the revival of ethnic and religious nationalism (ethnic-religious terrorism). These threats, according to Peter Chalk, a political analyst from the Australian National University, can be largely attributed to the outbreak of new conflicts in multi-ethnic states and the intensification of separatist wars.
Vamik Volkan, a political analyst, also from Australian National University, argues that these threats
refer “to situations in which terrorist leaders have excessive attachment to their large-group identity and seek to enhance it through widespread violence and to perpetuate it under improved political conditions”. Other analysts elaborate that terrorism is about “the pursuit of power, the acquisition of power, and the use of power to achieve political change”.
The term terrorism is comprised of five interrelated elements: it is “ineluctably political in aim and motive”; it is “violent acts or the threat of violence”; it is “designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target”; it is “conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspirational cell structure”; and, finally, terrorism is “perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity”.
The above description clearly shows that terrorism has several inherent characteristics. The first characteristic that should be kept in mind is its sheer lethality. The total number of casualties of terrorism worldwide in 2002, for example, is estimated at 735, with a further 2,043 wounded.
The next important characteristic is its relation to religious movements. In 2003, for instance, the US Government issued a list of the world’s 46 most dangerous terrorist groups; over half of them were religious in nature. Religious terrorist groups are much more emotional and dangerous than secular ones due to the fact religious terrorist believe that the religion has provided the motivation and justification for acts of violence.
The third key characteristic of global terrorism is its networked organizational structure. In December 2001, for example, the governments of Singapore and Malaysia arrested 28 alleged terrorists, believed to have transnational links to al-Qaeda. This was followed by other arrests in the Phillipines and Indonesia in January 2003.
Security expert Rohan Gunaratna shows the intense transnational network of global and national terrorist groups share a complex relationship. The recent examples of suicide bombings by the terrorists in Jakarta clearly shows the existence of trans-national terrorism. There is no “terrorist free-zone” in the world today.
The fourth characteristic is the ability of terrorists to acquire and use Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
The other key characteristic is that terrorist threats can be classified as a “grey area phenomena”.
Non-state actors and non-governmental processes and organizations can broadly define these phenomena, according to Peter Chalk, who further argues that these threats manifest in an aggressive manner and are usually associated with the activities of nonstate actors. A different scholar argues that terrorism is “private violence where nonstate actors challenge the state’s claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence”.
The primary acitivity of terrorist groups in to prepare and execute limited and sporadic acts of violence that: use the psychology of fear, are inexpensive but can achieve relatively effective results, and are designed to invite optimum publicity.
The phenomenon of transnational terrorism marks a new era of nontraditional global security and political issues. This phenomenon cannot be contained domestically but it should be responded to regionally and even globally.
Furthermore, an appropriate comprehensive response should be developed that takes into account the fact that transnational terrorism involves many nonmilitary, social factors. Nationally, this is the “real challlenge” that the incoming administration should deal with comprehensively.
The writer is Professor of International Relations at the Parahyangan Catholic University and the Director of the Division of Global Affairs at the Indonesia Institute for Strategic Studies in Jakarta.
Comments