Is there something new about ‘New Terrorism’ ?

The 9/11 attacks have been presented by the Medias as unprecedented in the history of terrorism. Having caused one the highest number of fatalities, the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon were also unparalleled in their coordination, synchronization, and planning. Considered as a turning point in contemporary world history, 9/11 has been perceived as the opening event of an era of ‘new terrorism’, the latter comporting new characteristics, motives and means (Laqueur, 1999). Yet, the validity of this conceptual distinction must be questioned as it could be used dangerously in the political arena. If such ‘novel’ threat exists, governments could easily justify the adoption of extraordinary counter-terrorism techniques.

World Medias constantly propagate an image of today’s terrorism as being dominated by religious motivations. In fact, it is interesting to note how attacks are often immediately assumed to have been perpetrated by Islamist terrorist organizations (a good example can be drawn from this summer’s attack by a Christian terrorist in Norway; the New York Times had instantly declared that an unknown Muslim group, Ansar al-Jihad-Aalami (‘Supporters of Global Jihad’) was very likely responsible for the attack).

The advent of the new terrorism

‘New (religious) terrorism’, in contrary to traditional terrorism, would not carry clear political or social goals, but fight instead for vague and unrealistic ends (Laqueur, 1999). In fact, terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and the Right Christian Supremacists both project a dual vision of their struggle: it is the good fighting the evil, and this fight either ends in victory or in defeat (Morgan, 2004). In so, ‘new terrorism’ is perceived as more extreme, with its actors refusing to compromise or negotiate. Having no constituencies but God, fanatic terrorists appear unrestrained, seeking indiscriminate killing. For example, Bin Laden had expressly let known that he was trying to acquire Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and he had also called for the ‘killing of Americans and their allies-civilians and military’ in a declaration made in 1996 (Cronin, 2002). Under ‘new terrorism’, violence becomes an end in itself; killing is seen as a necessary and righteous act, and extreme actions such as suicide bombing are carried out in the name of faith.

However, if religious terrorism has recently been on the rise, to suggest that politically motivated terrorism has been replaced by religious terrorism is simply wrong. First of all, it is too simplistic to portray terrorist actions as having a unique motivation. On the contrary, it appears very difficult to separate religious from political motives in terrorist organizations since the language of religion is used as a legitimizing force for their actions (Duvesteyn, 2004). For example, al-Qaeda does focus on clear strategic political goals such as the removal of foreign troops in the Middle East (ME), but when reading Bin Laden’s declaration of war (1996), one can see that religious vocabulary is used as a legitimizing neutral cover of such political aims so as not to be categorized with the corrupted and secular political actors of the region.

The political, journalistic but also academic discourses that acknowledge the existence of a ‘new terrorism’ convey a message to its (mostly western) audience that the terrorism of the 21th Century is not only novel in its characteristics, but is also a new (and in so more dangerous) threat to world’s security. Being predominantly religiously motivated, ‘new terrorism’ appears irrational and uncontrollable. Yet more than that, terrorist organizations are untraceable: flat, loose and transnational network organization seems to have replaced the traditional structures of terrorism from the 20th century (Spencer, 2006).

Al-Qaeda is in fact the first terrorist group to draw its recruits from more than a single national base. It uses internet as a new self enrollment path, whereby ‘amateurs’ fully integrated in societies become members of the terrorist movement (Greenberg, 2005). Plus, the Islamist organization has not only expressed its ambition to fight on a global scale [Bin Laden had defined al-Qaeda’s enemy as ‘anyone deviating from the Sharia’ (Kometer, 2004)]; it actually proved its capabilities to do so on 9/11: attacking the WTC had an impact on many other foreign countries tied economically to the US.

World Trade Center Attack – Kevinalbania

The new terrorism: a true-false distinction ?

However, one must question the perspicacity and validity of such artificial distinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ terrorism, since it could easily be used (and has been) politically to argue in favor of new counter-terrorism measures that disregard fundamental rights and freedoms.

Firstly, there is no such thing as ‘a new terrorism’ since there are many terrorisms. In fact, the United Nations have not yet been able to agree on a single definition of terrorism. If categorizing the concept could help in defining more clearly the concept, it cannot turn a blind eye on such realities. Secondly, academics such as Rapoport have reminded that the phenomenon of terrorism is cyclical by nature; the beginning of another wave of terrorism should not be interpreted as novel, and characteristics described by some as essential to ‘new terrorism’ (such as suicide bombing), can actually be found in earlier waves (Rapoport, 2006). Thirdly, one must reminds itself that change is the only survival strategy of terrorism against counter-terrorism measures. Following these remarks, can one say that the characteristics described above are solely part of an evolution of terrorism? Are terrorist groups not simply adapting their strategies to their surrounding environment of the 21th century?

Some have argued that ‘new terrorism’ was more lethal because of their irrational motivations. However, it seems more probable that as symbolic and political personalities became more and more intensively protected, terrorist actors choose to reverse their actions towards reachable targets such as anonymous civilians whose security cannot entirely be guaranteed by governments (Morgan, 2004). Some have argued that ‘new terrorism’ was a global threat. We point instead at the fact that internet was a revolution for all actors in the 21th century, and unsurprisingly, it did not spare politically violent groups! New technologies provided terrorist groups with new means to coordinate operations from all over the world, but such changes should be portrayed more as an adaptation to the available technologies rather than a characteristic of new kind of terrorism (Duvesteyn, 2004).

Terrorism is a global threat today, but not because it is unrestrained in its goals, nor because it appears to see its struggle as a cosmic fight for the good: terrorism is global because the phenomenon of globalization in itself conferred a new scale to terrorist attacks. With the easing of border controls, but also with Medias reaching a worldwide audience, terrorism does have a global impact, but so as other political, economic and social movements (just look at the Wall Street marches!).

Coming out of our argument is the conclusion that it is not so sure that there is much novelty in ‘new terrorism’. Instead, let us change our angle of study to focus on the counter-terrorist proponents, knowingly governments. We find that, in opposition to non-governmental actors (terrorist groups included) which have adapted their means and tactics to the global environment of the 21th century, national governments have neither adjusted their structures nor their strategies in tune with today’s world and challenges (Newman, 2009).

A perfect motto for the influence of our Western governments ?

In fact, why not rephrase the debate: what is new in ‘new terrorism’ is the ‘global war on terrorism’ launched by the United States and its allies. Rousseau had defined war as ‘[being] constituted by a relation between things, and not between persons (…) a relation, not between man and man, but between State and State…” (1762). Such conception has now been surpassed: for the first time, a state is engaging a war against a non-governmental opponent. What is also new in ‘new terrorism’ is the use, by governments, of the argument of a ‘new (and in so more dangerous) threat’ to justify the passing of measures that constrain or even grossly breach fundamental liberties and human rights.

A good example would be how the United Kingdom, formerly described with admiration by Montesquieu as the birth place of political liberty, passed a law that made it possible to put into prison, without prior recourse to a trial, any non-British citizen suspected of terrorism (A v SSHD n°1 [2005]2 appeal 68: Belmarsh case). If Abu Qatada, an extremist religious (however free of any convictions) living on British territory has now been released from jail, it is not sure that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Right will always manage to balance and correct government’s disregards for rights and freedom in the fight for security. This is why one must be cautious with the idea of ‘new terrorism’: prone to be used politically, its raison d’être is even questioned objectively.

Comment(s)

Comment

New comment

an interesting analysis!

coralie

Le 27 février 2012