What is the significance of international terrorism?

Since 9/11 it has been argued that the significance of international terrorism has increased, with some claiming that it would define global politics in the 21st century, citing the advent of the war on terror as evidence for this. It is argued that there are two ways in which terrorism has become more significant: due to its new global reach and that its potential for destruction has increased.

Global reach
Terrorism having international reach is not a new concept and can be traced back to the advent of airplane hijackings in the 60s by groups such as the PLO. However since the advance of globalisation it could be argued that terrorism has gained a genuinely transnational, if not global character. This has been made easier by a growth in political militancy as a result of globalisation - backlash against cultural globalisation and the spread of western values has encouraged international and not merely domestic terrorism. However globalisation is not the only reason for the increasingly international character of terrorism - for example Islamist or jihadist terrorism has largely been the result of Muslim states experiencing a crisis in governmental legitimacy. There was a growing religious movement to remove 'apostate' leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Terrorism is therefore a violent response to political conditions that has been expressed in politico-religious ideology. However when these apostate regimes proved more stable than estimated Islamist groups turned their attention to the west, especially US policy in the Middle East. This was when al-Qaeda emerged as the clearest example of global terrorism. It had transnational goals and sought to purify the Muslim world by overthrowing apostate leaders and expelling western influence. Al-Qaeda was involved in terrorist attacks in varying states such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, the USA, Spain and the UK, meaning terrorism now had an international reach.

However the global character of terrorism may be overstated in that although terrorism has affected many countries, the majority of attacks take place in a small number of the countries such as Israel, Afghanistan and Algeria leaving much of the world relatively unaffected by terrorism. Additionally the establishment of a 'war on terror' may have created the idea that there is such a thing as global terrorism - rather than being due to increasing terrorist attacks, the idea that international terrorism is becoming increasingly significant may stem from the fact others have overreacted to attacks.

Increased potential for destruction
Terrorism is also thought to have increased in significance due to its increasing impact. 3000 people died as a result of 9/11, making it the most costly terrorist attack in history. However the scale of death was relatively low compared to other forms of warfare, for example 1.5 million soldiers were killed on the battle of the Somme and 200,000 died as a result of the Hiroshima attack. Nevertheless 9/11 was significant in that it highlighted the potential destruction and death that international terrorism could cause. The notion of nuclear terrorism is no longer dismissed - whereas MAD prevented nuclear war between states it does not apply to terrorist networks whose identities are unknown. Terrorists have access to WMD and a greater willingness to use them compared with states and so the significance of international terrorism has increased in that terrorists are more likely to use WMD than ever before.

However the threat of new terrorism has been overstated in some cases - the number of casualties from terrorist attacks is usually small compared to warfare, with only 20 attacks since 1968 having resulted in more than 100 casualties. Terrorism cannot overthrow a government or destroy a society, and fears about a civilisational conflict between Islam and the west  are misplaced because Jihadist groups are a perversion of orthodox Islam and their actions can not be used to justify the idea of a conflict between Islam and the west. Critical theorists have argued the war on terror rhetoric is used to legitimise the US' attempts to maintain its global hegemony and to justify its presence in the oil rich Middle East.

Overall
The significance of international terrorism has increased in the last century as terrorism has spread and in some cases adopted a global nature, as well as due to its increased potential for destruction as terrorists have access to more destructive weapons. However its increased significance should not be overstated as its global reach is limited and attack to not often result in many casualties, especially when compared to the casualties of WWII. It has been argued that the rhetoric of a 'war on terror' has been used by western states to create internal cohesion in societies no longer afraid of communists. In this view, the elites consolidate their position by creating myths about a threatening or hostile other, in this case, terrorists.

In what ways is there a civilisational conflict between Islam and the West?

Samuel Huntington theorised that in a post cold war world, the main source of global conflict would be culture, and talked of a 'clash of civilisations'. This clash would take place between the Muslim and Western worlds especially.

There can be seen to be an ideological conflict between radical Islam (for example groups which practice Salafism or Wahhabism and want the establishment of shari'a law and an Islamic caliphate) and the West in that such groups view Western intervention in the Middle East as undesirable due to the culture of secularism, materialism and individualism and seek to purge their societies of such values. However it should be understood that groups whose values are at odds with the west are not 'civilisations', nor can the entire Islamic religion be termed its own civilisation as it is diverse and multifaceted, much like Christianity. Similarly, the western world is not one 'civilisation' and should not be treated as such - it is extremely diverse in terms of religion, culture, and ideology and therefore unless there is homogenisation of the entire western 'world' there can never be a civilisational conflict between Islam and the West.

Despite some prominent groups in Muslim countries favouring Shari'a law and scriptural literalism, there are many that seem to want to embrace 'western' values such as democracy and pluralism. This is exemplified in the case of turkey, which while largely Muslim is secular in nature (religion and government are kept separate). Turkey's continued attempts to join the EU despite being a Muslim country is further evidence that there is not a civilisational conflict between Islam and the West. Additionally the 2011 Arab Spring radically reshaped the political complexion of the Muslim world after four dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen were removed in favour of western style democratic reforms including free and competitive elections and protected civil liberties. It could be said that the Muslims world is in the process of Westernising, or in the very least is in the process of becoming more democratic and so Huntington's thesis is becoming less relevant. Moreover, the close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US despite the former's Wahhabi monarchy demonstrates that conflicting ideologies do not equal conflict.

What is the nature of the EU as a political entity?

As a political entity the EU has evolved massively over time, beginning with a series of treaties and the creation of the'European coal and steel community' (ECSC) by five member states. A few years later the European community was created by the merging of the ECSC with the EEC (European economic community) and Euratom (European atomic energy community). At this point the 'EU' was little more than a loosely made community, and a first attempt at economic integration in Europe. More member states continued to join the EC, and in the late 80s it began to expand into a monetary union. It did this through SEA (single European act) which prepared for the establishment of a common market, as well as well as the Maastrict treaty which made the EC into an official institution (the EU), and further paved the way for the creation of a single currency. National currencies were replaced with the Euro in 2002 for some member states, while others such as the UK chose to opt out. At this point the EU had evolved from a first attempt at economic integration to a fully fledged institution with international law making abilities. The next step was to create a constitution however this failed in 2004 when referendums in France and the Netherlands indicated the public were not in favour of its ratification. Instead, the Lisbon treaty was created, implementing many of the constitutions changes in the form of amendments to existing treaties. This came into force in December 2009.

As a result of widening and deepening integration, the EU has been seen by some as a European superstate, going further than the idea of  federalised Europe and ultimately destroying state sovereignty. Such people also view the EU as a rival superpower to the US, in terms of its economic and potential military power. While I would argue that the EU is no longer the intergovernmental institution of independent states that it once was, I would disagree with the idea that the EU has become a superstate. The sovereignty of member states is enshrined in the Luxembourg compromise of 1966, which gave each member state a veto on matters threatening vital national interests. However, it cannot be ignored that the ability of the EU to create laws that its member states must abide to does erode some state sovereignty, as does the introduction of qualified majority voting.

Despite the increasing centralisation within the EU there are checks in place to ensure it cannot be described as truly 'federal' - it is more accurate to talk of a federalising Europe. An example of this is the principle of subsidiarity, which ensures decisions are made as close to citizens as possible, essentially devolving power from the centre outwards.

The current nature of the EU as a political entity is an institution of economic, (and to a lesser extent, political) governance. While it is no longer confined to intergovernmentalism, it cannot be said to be a purely supranational body and as such is a blend of the two. It extends far beyond other intergovernmental institutions in that European citizens have free movement (as a result of the Schengen agreement) and many share the euro as their currency, but does not go as far as to completely erode state sovereignty or to have a common security and defence policy. While the EU has become more than the confederation of independent states it once was, it has not and may never become the 'united states of Europe' as visualised by Churchill.

ARE NATION STATES STILL THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ACTORS IN GLOBAL POLITICS?

When the Nation state was established in 1648, it was the most significant global actor and remained so for some 300 years. A nation state is an autonomous (independent) political community bound together by citizenship and nationality, meaning that political and cultural identity coincide. 'Nation state' has been used as a synonym for 'state' or 'country' although this is not necessarily true. The first and second world wars were very much wars of and between nation states however by the end of WW2 and the start of the cold war, emerging globalisation and the rise of NGOs and TNCs have brought into question whether or not nation states are still the most significant actors in global politics.

The growing importance of global governance institutions such as the UN suggests that nation states are not as significant as they once were. The UN has 193 member states and is able to deploy peacekeepers to state territory after a conflict, in an attempt to maintain newly established peace. It's members (general assembly) and more significantly its security council and the P5 can approve or condemn invasions and wars - a recent example saw P5 members deciding to work together to defeat ISIS (another non state actor) which has ultimately led to airstrikes in Syria. The UN security council is also able to impose sanctions and embargoes on nation states if it feels they have acted 'illegally', as with Russia's annexing of the Ukraine.

However, the UN as well as other significant global governance institutions (the three sisters), are made up of nation states and so cannot exist without the pre established member states. If significant nations states withdrew their UN membership, the UN's legitimacy and authority as a global governance institution would be severely diminished. Additionally the UN has no real sovereignty or law making power (it cannot make laws that apply to all nation states, but it can pass resolutions which have power over member states only), whereas nation states have governments with full law making power and the authority to impose these laws. The UN had no say over the US' 2003 invasion of Iraq which it saw as an illegal war, implying the US as a nation state is more powerful than the UN.

Regional institutions like the EU and NAFTA are arguably more significant than nation state actors. While the EU is made up of nation states, its members pool their state sovereignty. This effectively results in the EU having more sovereignty than its combined members and being able to assert its opinions as an influential global actor. It is able to influence trade and even fishing regulations and so has influence over the economies of nation states. The EU could be seen as an erosion of state sovereignty but its members are able to opt out and so its power is limited.

The growth of TNCs (which have become supranational in some cases) has seen corporations having enormous wealth and as a result, power as actors on the world stage. Some companies have a GDP higher than that of a nation state  - Wal-mart, for example, has a higher GDP than Austria and South Africa. Moreover, TNCs create jobs wherever they decide to open stores or offices, and so the governments of nation states are forced to give them tax breaks to prevent them moving to an area which will make them more profit. TTIP, a trade deal which is currently being negotiated, would allow companies to sue national governments for imposing laws which do not allow them to optimise their profits, and would be a huge blow to state sovereignty. Additionally corporations are able to lobby governments as they have enormous wealth which can be used to influence lawmaking.

Nation states, however, provide the conditions of social order and security which TNCs need to operate so can be seen as significant actors in this way.

Informal forums like the G20 are also significant global actors, with the G20 influencing the world economy arguably more than any individual nation state would be able to. The G20 is made up of the governments of major economies (Finance Ministers) as well as Central Bank Governors and so is partly separate from the nation state.  It formulated the response to the 2007-9 financial crisis and as such can be seen as having a huge influence on global politics.

The rise of terrorist organisations like ISIS and Boko Haram is another factor which suggest nation states are no longer the most significant actors in global politics. ISIS has control over vast territories in Iraq and Syria, controlling areas with 2.8 million and 8 million people, despite not being a nation state. It has gathered huge wealth and economic power as a result, with nation states such as Turkey buying its cheap oil and essentially funding the operation. The lack of success of nation states such as the US, Russia and now the UK in taking down ISIS is a testament to its power as a global actor and has worrying implications for the fate of the nation state in global politics.

Has an effective system of global governance now become a reality?

Global governance is the management of global policies in the absence of a central government. States in a global governance system co operate because they see that it is in their interest to do so - global governance has therefore emerged out of an acceptance by states that in a growing number of policy areas, the problems they face cannot be solved by individual states acting alone. Global governance differs from global hegemony and world government in that each of these must have a supranational authority (authority higher than that of the nation state, that is capable of imposing its will on nation states) - it therefore implies that international anarchy can be overcome without founding a world government or having to endure a world hegemonic order.

The emergence of the Bretton Woods system in 1944 can be seen as the start of global (economic) governance.The Bretton Woods system is a good example of multilateralism which has become increasingly prominent post 1945. However it must be noted that the US heavily influenced the system  - it led the negotiation and effectively dictated some of the outcomes.

 While global governance encompasses a wide range of multilateral agreements, networks, norms and formal institutions, the three institutions set up in the wake of the Bretton Woods conference can be seen as the most important. They are: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and GATT, which was replaced by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995.

The IMF is one institution which can be used to argue that an effective system of global governance is in place - initially it was successful in overseeing the system of fixed exchange rates put in place by the Bretton Woods system, and after this system was abandoned in favour of floating exchange rates in 1971 it took on a new role, increasingly lending to the developing world and transition countries after the 1990 collapse of communism. Its structural adjustment programmes, which impose neoliberal values such as (privatisation of industries and austerity) on countries that receive its loans, can be seen as part of an effective system of global governance as they ensure the spread of neoliberalism and the values of the Washington consensus as a global policy. It could be argued that this is less an example of global governance, however, and more an example of US hegemony and its spreading ideology. A criticism of the IMF has been that it is systematically biased in favour of developed countries in the global north, and has been used as an instrument of US policy.

The IMF and the World Bank both have similar weighted voting systems that take into account countries strength in the global economy, so cannot be considered the most democratic example of global governance. Through its IMF style structural readjustment policies and a stress on export led growth rather than protectionism, it has often seen an increase, rather than a reduction in poverty in developing countries. It could be argued that this is an example of an effective institution of global governance, if the aim of global governance was to widen development disparities and to disadvantage developing countries. However reform of the world bank has seen an additional seat allocated on its board of directors for sub-Saharan Africa, as well as an increase in the voting power of developing countries to 47%, making it far more democratic as an institution of global governance.

GATT's contribution to global governance was as a set of norms and rules, and while its role was limited as it fell short of becoming an institution, it was successful in reducing tariffs on manufactured good from 40% in 1947 to just 3% by 2000. This can be viewed as an example of global governance in that countries successfully negotiated an agreement that would benefit all. By comparison, the WTO has been far more successful, especially in settling disputes between trading partners - settlement judgements an only be rejected if they are opposed by all members of the dispute settlement body, to which all members states belong. This has effectively made the WTO the primary instrument of international law in terms of trade.  The WTO is also a far more democratic constitution than the IMF and the world bank in that decisions are made on a 'one country, one vote' basis, giving considerable weight to the views of developing countries which make up 2/3 of its members. However, developing countries are often disadvantaged as they have been excluded fro the club-like meetings held by developed countries and the bulk of unfair trading allegations are made against them - this has led to the WTO being labelled a 'rich man's club' and not a representative or effective means of global governance.

Lastly, while trading blocs like the EU and NAFTA can be seen as effective organisations of regional economic governance, the three main institutions of truly global governance have arguably been ineffective - they are usually unable to extend their influence to non member states and so are limited in their ability to 'govern' on a global scale. They are also unable to control the US, which has used its hegemonic status to tailor these institutions to impose its neoliberal ideology on the rest of the world. So while I would argue that an effective system of global governance is not a reality, I do think that a system of neoliberal values (the Washington consensus) is fast becoming a global norm.

How far has the UN been effective in its peacekeeping role?

While peacekeeping is not technically in the UN charter, it has become the primary way through which the UN has fulfilled its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Peacekeeping is defined by the UN as ' a way to help countries torn by conflict create conditions for a sustainable peace'. It can also be defined as ' a technique to preserve the peace when fighting has been halted, to assist in implementing agreements achieved by peacemakers'

Essentially, peacekeeping occurs after a conflict and UN peacekeepers are often deployed after a ceasefire has been negotiated in an attempt to maintain the peace. Between 1948 and 2013, the UN has carried out 67 peacekeeping operations, and the 2012-2013 budget for UN peacekeeping operations was about $7.33 billion.

                                          THE CHANGING NATURE OF PEACEKEEPING

At first,  peacekeeping involved the placing of a UN force between the parties of a dispute once a ceasefire had been negotiated. Examples of this include 1948, when UN peacekeepers were used to monitor the truce after the first Arab-Israeli war, and in 1949 a UN military observer group was deployed to the Kashmir region to monitor the ceasefire after the separation of Pakistan and India and consequent large scale killings. 

However, the traditional approach to peacekeeping became increasingly unsustainable in the post cold war period due to the increase in peacekeeping operations. This has been caused by increased civil strife and humanitarian crises as a result of a lessened focus on 'the enemy ideology' and more on the internal ethnic divisions. Therefore the task of peacekeeping become more difficult as interstate war became less frequent and civil war more common - more conflicts are due to ethnic and cultural rivalries and endemic socio economic divisions. 

After the cold war peacekeepers were increasingly dispatched to areas where violence was an ongoing threat or a reality and  so there was a greater emphasis on robust peacekeeping (the use of military force), sometimes portrayed as peace enforcement. As conflict situations became more complex, there was a recognition that the focus of peacekeeping operations must change also. This led to multidimensional peacekeeping which along with the implementation of a peace agreement, includes the use of force to achieve humanitarians ends, the provision of emergency relief and steps towards political reconstruction.

                                                   DOES PEACEKEEPING WORK?
A 2007 study of 8 peacekeeping operations found that seven of them had succeeded in keeping the peace and six of them had helped to promote democracy. These included the Congo, Cambodia, Sierra Leone and El Salvador.

However, some major peacekeeping missions have failed.
UN peacekeepers were little more than spectators to the Rwanda Genocide in 1994 and UN backed US intervention in Somalia led to humiliation and withdrawal in 1995 and the conflict continued. Another failure saw the Bosnian-Serb military carry out the worst mass murder in Europe since the second world war in an area which had been under the protection of Dutch peacekeepers.

The UN's reliance on deterrence by presence has not worked in such cases, not to mention its reluctance to use force in the face of peace breakers who use force freely and criminally. The inconsistency in the success of peacekeeping missions can be explained by the varying quality of peacekeeping forces, and failings at a higher level are due to conflicting priorities and agendas in the security council and P5.

Further evidence that UN peacekeeping has not been effective can be seen in the 1992 UN report, 'An agenda for peace', which acknowledged that peacekeeping alone is not enough to ensure lasting peace. This is also reflected in the growing emphasis on peace building , which along with military force, uses economists, police officers, legal experts, electoral observers and human rights monitors to promote peace in peacekeeping operations.

Overall, while the UN has been successful in some earlier peacekeeping operations, more recently its operations have been in countries with civil war rather than conflicts between two states. This makes its mission more complicated and inevitably has led to some failures. While the UN has not been entirely successful in its peacekeeping role it has evolved to include peace building in its activities which has been and will likely continue to be more successful.

In what way did the war on terror affect US hegemony?

Since the cold war ended, America has become a global hegemon - however in recent years the war on terror has threatened its position as ideological leader. 

The war on terror was launched after 9/11, its first mission being the removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (October 2001), which it accomplished in a matter of weeks. Shortly after, President Bush laid out his plans for the war on terror by identifying Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Syria as the 'axis of evil' which, it was implied, America would confront. Controversy began when the US made plans for regime change in Iraq, leading to the 2003 Iraq war. The Afghan war had been regarded as self defence since Afghanistan had effectively provided al-Qaeda with a home base, and there were links between al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime, however in the case of Iraq, the war was justified using 'pre-emptive attack' which is seen as an illegal and illegitimate cause for a war in the eyes of the UN. 

Despite the disapproval of the UN after having waged an illegal war, the US managed to keep favour within the global community and remain a hegemon which presided over all other global actors. However, when it became evident that its strategy for the war on terror was not as foolproof as it had initially been thought, the US's image as the all powerful hegemonic hyperpower was threatened. The US had overestimated the efficiency of its military power - for its opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan, guerrilla tactics proved effective against a more powerful and better resourced enemy, resulting in an asymmetrical war which the US struggled to win. Suicide bombings and terrorism in these wars also drew attention to the limitations of the US' military power. These asymmetrical wars undermined America as a global hegemon as it looked to be unable to win wars using its military power. 

While its hard power has become useless in some instances, the soft power of the US has also been eroded. The use of military intervention in the middle east damaged America's soft power, reducing its ability to influence the will of other states, as well as damaging its reputation in the middle east, which was now wary of the oil plundering hegemon. In the fight against militant Islam, America has unintentionally alienated moderate Muslim opinion, not only in the middle east but also within itself. It could be argued that by waging the war on terror in the middle east, America has created the very arc of extremism it sought to destroy. The damage done to america's soft power means its hegemonic status is threatened since other states may no longer subscribe to its ideology willingly.

However, the US has been at least semi-successful in achieving its war on terror aims - it has imposed democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq to an extent, or in the very least toppled what it had seen as authoritarian or terrorist-harbouring regimes. The US' ability to go into less powerful states, change their entire structure and impose its own ideology makes it appear to be a far more powerful and threatening hegemon, prompting other states to support its actions. In this way it could be said that the war on terror has strengthened us hegemony. 

Additionally the war on terror has led the US to develop new ways of influencing other states. The Obama administration introduced 'smart power', This involves using soft and hard power, a more comprehensive approach to tackling global  terrorism. However some have seen need to combine different types of power as a weakness, ans a sign that US hegemony is coming to an end. 

The USA's foreign policy in recent years has caused other states to view it as a troublemaker, or a cause of terrorism in itself. After all, the 9/11 attack was a protest against US hegemony and Americanization - could it be that if America did not have such an aggressive foreign policy, there would be less instances of terrorism? Certainly, its actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as its support of Israel have strengthened support for militant Islam. 

Finally, the actions of the US have arguably led to it being seen as a malign hegemon (a source of chaos and injustice in the world). Anti-Americanism peaked in 2003 when the US decided to go ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite the lack of UN approval. Realists are able to explain the malign nature of the US as a hegemon in terms of its inevitable pursuit of power and concern for the national interest - critics such as Noam Chomsky would agree with this as they suggest the US entered into the war on terror not for the benefit of those under authoritarian rule but to gain resources such as oil and so its corporations could make money through extortionate defence contracts, boosting its economy. In Chomsky's radical realist view, the US is a rogue superpower and the principal source of terrorism across the globe. 

The war on terror has led  America's ability to exercise power to be questioned, as well as having damaged its reputation (so much so that it has been seen by some as a source of terrorism, and a malign, self seeking actor), suggesting that the war on terror has in fact weakened US hegemony. It could be that in the coming years, the US will no longer be considered a hegemon, but a terrorist state.