Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

State terrorism is often a neglected phenomenon in terrorism studies. Discuss how terrorism has been used as a weapon by states over the past 50 years. Is state terrorism fundamentally different from non-state terrorism?

Introduction

State terrorism constitutes violent acts against humanity and pose a host of security problems to nation states. It compromises territorial integrity, state sovereignty as well as the military and political structure of the affected states. In the previous fifty years, the world has experienced an increase in terrorist activity. Arguably, this has been employed by the nation states as a weapon to further their interests. There are two main types of terrorism; state and non state terrorism. Both are violent and destructive acts that have far reaching implications on national and global security. Nonetheless, there are underlying differences amongst them.

It is against this background that this paper reviews how terrorism has been used by nation states as a weapon for over fifty years. In addition, it underscores how state terrorism differs from non state terrorism in detail. Notably, various definitions have been put forth by scholars in a bid to understand the meaning state terrorism and non state terrorism. Due to the varied environmental perceptions and the dynamic and complex nature of state terrorism, there is no single definition that has been agreed upon.

Terrorism according to Robin (2004) constitutes the unlawful employment of violence or force by an individual or group with certain connections to any foreign power against property or persons to coerce or intimidate the civilian populace, a government or a section of these in an effort to further social or political objectives. State terrorism is defined by Blakeley (2007) as a violence threat and employment of fear to persuade, coerce as well as gain public attention. Non state terrorism constitutes the use of violence by particular sub state groups to instill fear by attacking certain symbolic targets and civilians for various purposes including drawing attention to grievances, effecting political change and provoking severe response amongst others.

Literature Review

The world has experienced increased incidences of terrorism in the past fifty years. Seemingly, the terrorist attacks are directed at both the economically endowed states as well as the poor states. Nevertheless, the poor states often suffer the most because of their inability to cushion themselves against the negative implications associated with the attacks. They are vulnerable and hence easily manipulated by the super powers. States that pursue terrorist activities often have vested interests in the target states. In his review, Martin (2003) analyzed the 1980s terrorist attacks and concluded that increasingly, nation states are organizing terrorism and using the same as a weapon against other states. A classic example of this pertains to the terrorist attacks experienced by Paris in 1986. Relative research indicated that they were propagated by fanatics that were controlled by Iran.

The world super powers reportedly use terrorism as a weapon against other states as well as to justify their military activities. In his research, Becker (2006) found out that America and Russia have employed this threat to justify their military interventions. This is well exemplified by their bombing of Moscow in 1999. According to media reports, the explosives that were used were found to belong to be reserved to the military. America’s pursuit of ‘operation unlimited justice’ in Afghanistan is also an ideal way of asserting its position as a superpower. According to Robin (2004), this operation was characterized by terror attacks in Afghanistan. In this consideration, the world superpower uses terror as its weapon against the weak state.

In their consultative review, Zulaika and Douglass (1996) indicate that in their use of terrorism as a weapon against other states, most super powers sell weapons to a host of foreign regimes. In addition, they train foreign governments that support their policies and equip them with military machines. To a great extent, this empowers the states that are supportive of their policies and makes them depended on the superpower. At this point, they are able to manipulate them for their individual benefit. According to Byman (2005), this is a weapon on its own because it garners support for the super power and enhances its global influence. In addition, they engage in outright military interventions in almost all foreign countries that are affected by way. In this they are able to assert their military power but fail to put in consideration the far reaching implications that their activities have on the affected populations. All these efforts are aimed at attaining power that enables it to control the world. Using this, they can also manipulate the nation states to pursue their interests with ease.

Various theories have been suggested to explain this trend. A hypothesis put forth by Stohl (2006) explains that the ruling elites in most instances opt for terror whenever they perceive it to be efficient, useful and an un-costly approach of meeting their desired ends. The model further stipulates that in a bid to attain their political gals, they use terrorism especially when the political environment encourages or permits its use. Notably, the preceding presumption is persuasive and reasonable.

In his research, Kassimeris (2005) ascertains that Moscow attacks that were pursued by America and Russia paved way for effective invasion of the Chechnya that was propagated by Russian troops. Nonetheless, it is also worth appreciating that the presumption is relatively insufficient. From a rational point of view, it is unlikely for elites to bother about utility calculations. Also worth acknowledging is the fact that potential risks and costs associated with terror attacks are immense. For this reason, super powers cannot venture in this malpractice because of the fact that it is un-costly.

Townsend (2002) presumes that terror is pursued by nation states for discovery purposes. In this respect, terror activities are in most instances pursued by the military and respective governments are often unconcerned about the treatment that their populations are exposed to. This according to this hypothesis can be used to explain why they do not take measures in understanding the pain that individual persons experience especially when they are detained or tortured. This presumption is faced by various limitations. Byman (2005) found out that with increased humanitarian activities, it is unlikely for the affected states to shy from intervening accordingly.

From the preceding review, it s certain that both state terror and non state terror have a similar fundamental aim of inducing fear in the populace in order to achieve certain political and social objectives. Nonetheless, there are distinct differences amongst the two conceptions. The fist difference pertains to the varied forms that state terror and non state terror assume. In state terrorism, states use terrorism against their own populations regardless of having a duty not to harm non citizens and to protect its citizens. States in this respect are perpetrators of the violence and further this through intelligence services, their police, security agents or armed forces. Besides, they cooperate with other groups to terrorize on their behalf and sponsor terrorist organizations for individual reasons. Non state terrorism on the other hand assumes four different forms that are ethnic, religious, ideological and national.

The second difference pertains to the varied objectives that the respective actors pursue in the state and non state terrorism. Usually, the respective objectives are consistent with the interests of the terrorist actors. The interests of terrorist states according to Olivero and Lauderdale (2005) are inclined towards maintaining the control of their colonies, counteracting their political opponents, employing terror as an instrument of foreign policy and making illegal detentions for particular reasons. Non state terrorism on the other hand is pursued in order to demand for regional independence, establish new states, push for structural changes in government or review some national rights.

The scale of damage of state terrorism also differs considerably from that of non state terrorism. In state terrorism, Byman (2005) found out that the state of damage tends to be widespread. Unlike non state terrorism, state terrorism results in a higher number of civilian deaths and instills deeper fear in the civilians. In the long run, the negative implications tend to be more than those experienced by non state terrorism. Violence in state terrorism is not used explicitly, rather terror is instilled implicitly. Comparatively, the effect of state terrorism on its populations is deeper and more lasting than that of non state terrorism. At this point, it is certain that besides both being characterized by terror, there are distinct differences between state terror and non state terror.

Findings and Analysis

Current trends ascertain that in the past fifty years, states have pursued state terrorism as a weapon against other states. Seemingly, relative activities have culminated in various deaths and destruction of property. From the literature review, state terror is pursued by nation states and besides its populace; the impacts are targeted at other states. The main aim for this is to assert their positions as superpowers and be able to control the victims accordingly. From the review, the less economically endowed states suffer the most because they are unable to cushion themselves against the negative implications. In addition to directly engaging in terrorism attacks such as bombings, nation states engage in terrorist activities indirectly by empowering their supporters through training and capacity building, providing them with military equipment and intervening whenever there are terrorist activities. This way, the empowered states pledge their loyalty to the super powers and engage in terrorist activities on their behalf.

At this point, it cannot be disputed that state terrorism as a concept is indeed very complex. Nation states are using state terror to fight other states and justify their imperialistic positions in the society. This can be used to explain why incidences of terror have increased in the recent past. Notably, terror offers them the best option through which they can further their foreign policy with ease. Using it, they are able to weaken other states and find a hub through which they can pursue their political interests. With regard to interventions in other terrorist attacks, the super powers such as America pursue this after their followers have initiated the attacks (Robin, 2004). On the outset, it is seen as if they are helping out but deep within, they know that they are pursuing this for their own interest.

The nation states use both state terror and non state terror to pursue their interests. With non state terror, they are able to weaken their targets and compromise any development efforts. There are distinct differences between state and non state terror. As it has come out from the literature review, the scale of damage of state terror is more than that of non state terror. This implies that state terror leads to more deaths and destruction of more property as compared to non state terror. The forms that the two types of terror assume also differ considerably. While state terror uses the law enforcement agencies and sponsors terrorist groups to pursue their interests, non state terror uses religious groups, national groups and ethnic groups. Further, the latter tends to be ideological in nature.

The objectives of state terrorism and non sate terrorism are also different. Objectives of terror states tend to be broader and directed at regions and other nations. Those of non state terrorism are narrow, pursued by particular domestic or foreign terrorist groups and directed at the state. Relatively, the instrumentation used to further terrorist activities by the two parties also differs. Arguably, the instrumentation used by state terrorists is more sophisticated than that used by non state terrorists. This is best explained by the recognition that state terrorism is in most cases pursued by the super power states while non state terrorism is pursued by weaker states. Also worth acknowledging is the recognition that most weak states that engage in terrorism rely on the stringer states for funding and sustenance.

Implications and Conclusions

The findings of this research ascertain that state terrorism has proliferated in the past fifty years. This indicates that increasingly, nation states are using terrorism as a tool against other nations. Notably, this presents the best way through which they can further their social, economic and political interests. The fact that state terror requires use of significant resources explains why the practice is in most cases mostly pursued by the super powers. This has various implications on the global security.

To begin with, it implies that global security is greatly influenced by the military capability of nation states. Arguably, most states can decide to venture into military activities against other states in order to assert their economic and social position in the global society. In this respect, power is defined by the military capacity of a given nation. This implies that the weak states are likely to liaise with the more economically endowed states in engaging in terrorist activities. The main aim for this would be to attain a desirable social status and be able to benefit in different ways from the help they would be given by their supporters.

This research was solely based on secondary sources and findings of researches that have already been done in this field. In order to ensure knowledge generation, future research should consider employing primary data in critical decision making. Also, it would be vital for future research to expand the topic and review the causes of state terror. This would go a long way in understanding the major contributory factors to increased state terror. Using this, viable intervention measures can be undertaken to curb the issue and promote sustainable living.

Summary

State terrorism has been used by various nation states as a weapon against other states in the past fifty years. This trend has had far reaching implications on the quality of life of the entire global population. State terrorism is pursued in different ways. From the preceding study, nation states not only engage in violent activities, but they also empower other states through training and education to perpetrate terrorism on their behalf. The main reason for this is to be able to assert their political, social and economic positions in the society. With this, they are able to control global activities and manipulate weaker states to meet their interests. From a theoretical point of view, state terror enables countries to pursue their political interests with ease.

There are various differences between state terror and non state terror. Although all of them are characterized by terrorist and violent activities, state terrorism is more pronounced than non state terrorism. In his respect, the damages that are caused by state terror are more as compared to those caused by non state terror. Unlike state terrorism, non state terrorism is inclined on ideological, national, religious and ethnic lines. State terrorism on the other hand employs law enforcement agencies and other terrorist groups in pursuing its interests. Finally, the objectives of the two types of terrorism are different. In order to enhance objectivity, future research should use primary as opposed to secondary data. This will also contribute to generation of knowledge in this particular field of study. Subsequent research should also underscore the causes of state terror. Relative findings can go a long way in curbing the malpractice.

References

Becker, T. (2006). Terrorism and the state: rethinking the rules of state responsibility. USA: Hart Publishing

Blakeley, R. (2007). Bringing the state back into terrorism studies. European Political Science, 6 (3), 228-235

Byman, D. (2005). Confronting passive sponsors of terrorism, Analysis Paper, No. 4, The Saban Center for Middle East Policy, The Brookings Institution.

Kassimeris, G. ed. ( 2005). Playing politics with terrorism: a user’s guide. New York: Columbia University.

Martin, G. (2003). Understanding terrorism: challenges, perspectives, and issues. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Oliverio, A. & Lauderdale, P. (2005). Terrorism as deviance or social control: suggestions for future research. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46 (1-2), 153-169

Robin, C. (2004). Fear: the history of a political idea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stohl, M. (2006). The state as terrorist: insights and implications. Democracy and Security, 2, 1-25.

Townsend, C. (2002). Terrorism: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Zulaika, J. & Douglass, W. (1996). Terror and taboo: the follies, fables, and faces of terrorism. London: Routledge