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.