Differing Viewpoints: Realism, Liberalism and the Phenomenon of Terrorism

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to examine the political theories of Realism and Liberalism with respect to the phenomenon known as Terrorism. The paper will begin with a brief discussion of terrorism, including some accepted definitions, the reasons why some individuals, groups, or states choose terrorism, the traditional treatment of terrorism as a crime, and why the treatment of terrorism as a criminal act is insufficient for dealing with terrorist activity. The paper will then discuss the key concepts and basic logic of the political theories of Realism and Liberalism, including their strengths and weaknesses and how each theory explains terrorist activity. The discussion of each political theory will also include the theory’s guidance for dealing with terrorism. Finally, the paper will conclude with an assessment of the utility of each theory’s explanation of and guidance for dealing with terrorism.

INTRODUCTION

Few would argue that the greatest danger faced by Western nations, and in particular the United States, manifests itself in the form of terrorism. Terrorism has traditionally been treated by Western governments as a criminal matter rather than a political one. However, this treatment of terrorist activity has proven insufficient for dealing with what is, in reality, a political problem. Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recognized terrorism as a political problem when, shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, he said, ” What is at stake today is nothing less than the survival of our civilization” (Netanyahu, 2001).

For an answer to a political problem, it is necessary to examine some political theories and their treatment of the subject at hand. Realism and Liberalism offer differing viewpoints on terrorism and how it should be dealt with. This paper will argue that the realist approach to international relations offers the best guidance for explaining and dealing with terrorism because it recognizes that terrorism is a sort of proxy war being fought as part of the struggle for power and self-preservation among states. However, before we can embark on an examination of the theories of Realism and Liberalism, it is first necessary to understand just what terrorism is.

TERRORISM

Terrorism has many definitions, but only one generally accepted meaning. Caleb Carr defines terrorism as “âÂ?¦warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable” (Carr, 2002). Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, “Terrorism is the deliberate and systematic assault on civilians to inspire fear for political ends” (Netanyahu, 2001). Andrew Fiala tells us “The terrorist is interested in using the threat of pain in order to antagonize a people and destabilize a social structure” (Fiala, 2002). Finally, the United States’ statutory definition of terrorism is “âÂ?¦premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Pillar, 2001). All of these definitions have a common thread: that terrorism is typically violence directed against civilians for the purpose of achieving some political aim or aims.

Individuals or groups that practice terrorist activity do so for a variety of reasons. Paul Pillar lists these reasons as follows: leverage for bargaining, political or diplomatic disruption, influencing the behavior of a fearful population, provoking a government into reacting harshly and indiscriminately, showing the flag, revenge, simple hatred, and the carrying out of a divine mandate (Pillar, 2001).

Individuals or groups that practice terrorism as a type of leverage for bargaining could be bargaining for any number of things, including the release of prisoners or the withdrawal of military troops, scenarios which recently occurred in Iraq. Other individuals or groups use terrorism to disrupt political or diplomatic activity, such as when terrorists used a train bombing in Spain to send a political message about Spanish troop involvement in Iraq to the Spanish government just before a national election.

The Israelis have experienced terrorism that was designed to instill fear in the Jewish population and to provoke the Israeli government into harsh and indiscriminate retaliation. Bombings and sniper attacks on Jewish settlements in traditional Palestinian areas were, and still are, intended to modify settler behavior and force an Israeli withdrawal. Additionally, Palestinian factions use suicide bombings to provoke severe military responses that inflame Palestinian public opinion and create resentment and hostility toward the Israeli government and the Israeli people.

Hamas has of late begun to use terrorism to “show the flag.” That is, Hamas has launched some recent attacks on Israeli military personnel and civilians to show that the group is still a force to be reckoned with, despite Israeli successes in the targeted assassinations of successive Hamas leaders.

Several terrorist groups have used terrorism as a means for revenge against a real or perceived injustice. Palestinian factions such as Fatah or the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade use terrorist attacks to exact a measure of revenge for Israeli attacks in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, creating a perpetual cycle of violence in the region. Similarly, Al Qaeda has launched recent attacks as a method of revenge for the United States’ attack on Iraq. Finally, Al Qaeda uses terrorism because of a hatred of the West and all that Western culture embodies, and because Islamic fundamentalists believe that they are executing God’s will and carrying out a divine mandate.

No matter what the reason for the terrorist activity, Western governments have traditionally treated terrorism as a criminal matter and not a political one. According to Carr, “Over the past forty years, American and other world leaders have generally identified terrorism as a type of crime, in an effort to rally global indignation against the agents of such mayhem and deny them the more respected status of actual soldiers” (Carr, 2002). The problem with identifying terrorism as a criminal matter is that it limits the range of options available for combating it to those available to law enforcement agencies. Before the launching of the global war on terrorism, Carr tells us, “âÂ?¦almost all federal funds for antiterrorist efforts were targeted at detective and intelligence work, while preemptive military strikes against terrorist leaders, networks, or bases were ignored” (Carr, 2002).

Treating terrorists as criminals ignores the fact that many terrorists are well trained and are actively engaged in military-type campaigns against multiple nations and cultures. As Benjamin Netanyahu says, “Each one of us today understands that we are all targets, that our cities are vulnerable, and that our values are hated with an unmatched fanaticism that seeks to destroy our societies and our way of life” (Netanyahu, 2001). Further, Andrew Fiala states “Terrorism is an international problem involving international victims and perpetrators as well as targets involved in international activities such as airliners and embassies” (Fiala, 2002). Terrorists are conducting military operations for political gains and a political response is the only solution. In searching for an appropriate political answer, it is time now to turn to an examination of two of the leading political theories in international relations today.

REALISM

The realist approach to international relations was the dominant political theory during the Cold War, represented by the struggle for power and dominance between two ideological camps: a democratic camp led by the United States and a communist camp led by the Soviet Union. According to the realist approach, international affairs is “âÂ?¦a struggle for power among self-interested states and is generally pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict and war” (Walt, 1998).

In other words, the conduct of international affairs by nations is embodied in the concept of power, with each state seeking to enhance its position on the world stage relative to the positions of other nations. According to Hans Morgenthau, “Power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man. Thus power covers all social relationships which serve that end, from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls another. Power covers the domination of man by man, both when it is disciplined by moral ends and controlled by constitutional safeguards, as in Western democracies, and when it is that untamed and barbaric force which finds its laws in nothing but its own strength and its sole justification in its aggrandizement” (Morgenthau, 1978). Ultimately, states seek to preserve their power through the use of military force, or war. According to Fiala, “From a realist perspective, war is a necessary expedient for preserving power” (Fiala, 2002).

With the concept of power in mind, it is necessary to discuss the core elements of the realist approach to international relations. First, according to realists, the state is the key actor and there is no actor above the state. Second, governments are engaged in a constant effort to ensure the survival of their respective states. This means that states are constantly acting to prevent any one state from becoming dominant on the world stage. When there is a single, dominant state, such as the United States since the end of the Cold War, smaller, weaker states join together in an effort to counterbalance the power of the leading nation.

Realist theory provides an easily understood approach for examining the behavior of states in the conduct of their international relations. Realism accurately portrays the struggles of states for power and dominance, and ultimately for self-preservation. However, there are a couple of weaknesses with the realist approach to international relations. Robert Farkasch agrees that the state is important for understanding international relations, but that “âÂ?¦realists appear to be so preoccupied by the state that they ignore other actors and other issues that are not directly related to state security” (Farkasch, 2004). Additionally, according to Farkasch, “The idea of balance of power is rather vague and what about the transition from imbalance to balance?” (Farkasch, 2004). With a basic understanding of realist theory established, it is time to turn to Realism’s explanation of and guidance for dealing with terrorism.

REALISM AND TERRORISM

Terrorism has been defined as acts of violence committed against civilians or noncombatant targets for the purpose of achieving some political aim. For realists, it is important to determine just who is responsible for committing the acts of violence. Because realists view the state as the key actor in international relations, a connection between acts of terrorism and a state responsible for the acts of terrorism must be established. As Benjamin Netanyahu says, “International terrorism is the use of terrorist violence against a given nation by another state, which uses the terrorists to fight a proxy war as an alternative to conventional war” (Netanyahu, 2001). Netanyahu expands on this by saying “The first and most crucial thing to understand is this. There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states. International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it. Terrorists are not suspended in midair. They train, arm, and indoctrinate their killers from within safe havens on territory provided by terrorist states” (Netanyahu, 2001).

Realist theory also views international relations as a struggle for power and self-preservation among states. It is not hard to imagine that realists would consider the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers as an act of war by a group seeking power. Realists would agree with Fiala that “The goal of self-preservation supersedes all other concerns; from this perspective, terrorism might be justified in the struggle against a political power that is viewed as a threat to one’s way of life in the same way that a no-limits war against terrorism might be justified as an attempt by the other side to preserve power and its way of life” (Fiala, 2002).

For realist theory to provide guidance for dealing with terrorism, it is necessary for governmental leaders to view terrorism as part of the struggle for self-preservation and power among states. The designation of terrorists as agents of a state is important for realist theory to be applied. As David Masci and Kenneth Jost assert, “Supporters of targeting states in the war against terrorismâÂ?¦say that a strategy that only focuses on groups and individuals is doomed to fail because terrorists depend upon government support” (Masci & Jost, 2001). If terrorists were treated as non-state actors, what country would we attack in response to an Al Qaeda attack now that the Taliban has been removed from power in Afghanistan? As Carr says, “One can refuse to call such people an army, if one wishes; yet they are organized as an army, and certainly they conduct themselves as an army, giving and taking secret orders to attack their enemies with a variety of tactics that serve one overarching strategy: terror” (Carr, 2002).

By treating terrorists as agents of a state that supports or sponsors terrorism, and by viewing terrorism as part of the overall struggle among states for power and self-preservation, Realism offers a plausible approach for states to deal with terrorism by using military force to exert power and defeat the terrorist enemy. Having examined the realist approach to the problem of terrorism, it is now time to turn to another leading political theory of international relations: Liberalism.

LIBERALISM

The liberal approach to international relations emphasizes cooperation between states to promote economic interdependence and global harmony. Additionally, liberals reject the notion that war is an inevitable product of international relations and stress economic, societal, environmental, and technological issues in addition to military power when discussing national interests.

Unlike Realism, Liberalism believes that non-state actors are important players in international relations and must be considered along with the state actors. While states may be considered sovereign, in reality other actors such as multi-national corporations, terrorist groups, non-governmental organizations, and other transnational actors are all important and relevant. Liberalism stresses that many factors are at work in international relations, and that the many interactions among state and non-state actors can be managed only by an international institution where members agree on accepted norms and rules for international relations. As Stephen Walt says, “âÂ?¦international institutionsâÂ?¦could help overcome selfish state behavior, mainly by encouraging states to forego immediate gains for the greater benefits of enduring cooperation” (Walt, 1998).

Liberalism also stresses that increased cooperation between states will foster economic interdependence. This shared economic interest could reduce the likelihood of conflict. According to Walt, “Economic interdependence would discourage states from using force against each other because warfare would threaten each side’s prosperity” (Walt, 1998). Walt goes on to say, “As societies around the globe become enmeshed in a web of economic and social connections, the costs of disrupting these ties will effectively preclude unilateral state actions, especially the use of force” (Walt, 1998).
Perhaps Liberalism’s greatest strength is that it stresses the possibilities for cooperation in relations between states. While war will never fade from the face of the earth, the consideration of economic, environmental, societal, and technological issues and the promotion of shared interests between states, may lead to increased cooperation and a reduction in the haste of states to use war as a method for achieving international objectives.

One of the problems with Liberalism, according to Robert Farkasch, is that liberals tend to be too optimistic and tend to place too much faith in humans (Farkasch, 2004). The problem is that liberal thought has a hard time accepting the fact that not everyone shares the same beliefs or has the same values. Another weakness, Farkasch says, is that “âÂ?¦the application of reason and science to politics has not brought communities together. Arguably, it has shown the fragmented nature of the political community which is regularly expressed in terms of ethnic, linguistic, or religious differences” (Farkasch, 2004).

LIBERALISM AND TERRORISM

So, how would Liberalism explain terrorism and what guidance would it offer for dealing with terrorist activity? Liberalism has great difficulty explaining terrorism because terrorists are not part of the overall liberal approach to international relations: terrorists do not want to foster economic and security cooperation and do not wish to create of world of economic interdependence. Terrorists seek to achieve whatever political objective is represented by their particular group. According to Andrew Fiala, “The fact of terrorism seems to indicate certain limits to the idea that international politics can become stable and peacefulâÂ?¦” (Fiala, 2002). For liberals, terrorists would be criminals committing criminal acts, not central actors in the arena of international relations. Finally, Liberalism has great difficulty explaining terrorism because, as Randall Parker tells us, “For the great indispensable faith of all liberalismâÂ?¦is the tenet that all men have the exact same proportionate fear of violent death, and that because such a fear is equally distributed, men all have the exact same motive to renounce violence, namely their equal fear of violent death at the hands of their neighbors” (Parker, 2003).

What liberal thought does not recognize is that not all men are equally afraid of death, either at the hands of their neighbors or by their own hands. Suicide bombers in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and the United States have consistently demonstrated that not only are they not afraid to die, but that in some cultures it is considered an honor to do so.

In addition to its difficulty in explaining terrorism, Liberalism offers little in the way of guidance for dealing with terrorists and terrorist activity. According to Andrew Fiala, “A liberal response to terrorismâÂ?¦would demonstrate its commitment to liberal values by holding on to its utopian hopes for the triumph of progressive values, while resisting the urge to slip toward realism and a war on terrorismâÂ?¦(Fiala, 2002). Because liberal thought would consider terrorists international criminals, it is likely that liberals would promote the idea that terrorists should be dealt with in a judicial manner by an international institution. However, past treatment of terrorists as criminals had virtually no effect on terrorist activity. As previously discussed, treating terrorists as criminals has proven ineffective and insufficient by limiting the range of options available to those that can be exercised by law enforcement agencies.

Overall, liberal thought is not well prepared to deal with terrorism. As Conor O’Brien states, “At the level of logic, the liberal mind is in the grip of a fallacy: that terrorism can be rooted out by concessions and compromise, without any need to resort to inconvenient and painful emergency measuresâÂ?¦” (O’Brien, 1996). He goes on to say, “This is a fallacy because the terrorist mind is absolutist and unappeasable. Irish terrorists want to destroy Northern Ireland, and will not voluntarily stop anywhere short of that. Arab terrorists want to destroy Israel, and will not voluntarily stop anywhere short of that. Both sets of terrorists are interested in concessions and efforts at compromise only as evidence that the bombings are moving the enemy in the right direction, however slowly” (O’Brien, 1996).

By holding on to liberal values, the liberal approach to international relations treats terrorists as criminals and disregards the fact that states support and sponsor terrorist activity for the purpose of achieving political objectives. Doing this severely limits Liberalism’s ability to explain the phenomenon of terrorism and to offer substantial methods for dealing with those who practice violence against civilians for political purposes.

CONCLUSION

This paper has provided an overview of terrorism, the reasons for its use by individuals, groups, or states, and its past treatment as a criminal matter. Additionally, the paper has described two leading theories of political thought, Realism and Liberalism, and their explanations of and guidance for dealing with terrorist activity.

This paper argues that the liberal approach to international relations is insufficient for explaining and dealing with the terrorism problem. Liberalism stresses the need for cooperation between states and non-state actors on the world stage and promotes economic interdependence as a way to reduce international conflict. Liberal thought treats terrorists as criminals and fails to recognize the relationship between the terrorists who commit the acts of violence against civilians and the states that support and sponsor them as part of a struggle for power and self-preservation in the international arena. As Andrew Fiala says, “One wonders whether the fact of terrorism undermines hope for the completion of the liberal political project” (Fiala, 2002).

Unlike Liberalism, the realist approach to international relations offers an explanation of and guidance for dealing with the problem of terrorism. Realists focus on the role of the state as the key actor on the international political stage and recognize that all states are locked in a constant struggle for power and self-preservation. As demonstrated earlier, terrorists cannot sustain their activities without support from a network of states that aid them as part of their struggle for power. Realists recognize the relationship between the people committing acts of terror and the states that support and sponsor them. Terrorism is part of a larger battle, and war can only be answered with war. As Carr says, “The successful answer to the terrorist threatâÂ?¦lies in the formulation of a comprehensive, progressive strategy that can address all terrorist threats with the only coercive measures that have ever affected or moderated terrorist behavior: preemptive military offensives aimed at making not only terrorists but the states that harbor, supply, and otherwise assist them experience the same perpetual insecurity that they attempt to make their victims feel” (Carr, 2002).

Realism provides the answer to the terrorist threat. Realists, unlike their liberal counterparts, recognize that there can be no accommodation with terrorists or terrorist states. Violence of this sort can only be met with violence, a fact that Liberalism is ill prepared to accommodate. As Walt surmises, “Although many academics (and more than a few policymakers) are loathe to admit it, realism remains the most compelling general framework for understanding international relations” (Walt, 1998).

WORKS CITED

Carr, C. (2002). The Lessons of Terror. New York: Random House.
Farkasch, R. (2004). Online Lectures on Realism and Liberalism. Political Science 5551. Available on the World Wide Web: http://troyst.blackboard.com.
Fiala, A. (2002). Terrorism and the Philosophy of History: Liberalism, Realism, and the Supreme Emergency Exemption. Essays in Philosophy, Vol. 3, April 2002. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.humboldt.edu/~essays/fiala.html.
Masci, D. and Jost, K. (2001). War on Terrorism. In G.P. Hastedt (Ed.), American Foreign Policy 02/03 (pp. 10-17). Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin
Morgenthau, H. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978, pp. 4-15). Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
Netanyahu, B. (2001). Fighting Terrorism. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
O’Brien, C. (1996). Liberalism and Terror. National Review, 4/22/96, Vol. 48 Issue 7, p29. Retrieved from Ebscohost database on the World Wide Web: http://ebscohost.com.
Parker, R. (2003). Terrorism and the Assumptions of Classical Liberalism. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.parapundit.com/archives/000970.html.
Pillar, P. (2001). Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Walt, S. (1998). International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Available on the World Wide Web: http://spectrum.troyst.edu/~teemu/.