Do terrorist organisations threaten traditional notions of’ ‘national security’?

1

D Wildman IRPG831 International Security

International Relations

IRPG 831 International Security Semester 2, 2014

Essay assignment Question 5 Traditional notions of’ ‘security’ focus on external threats to the state’s survival. To what extent does the threat posed by global terrorist organisations challenge this traditional notion of ‘security’? Submitted by: David Wildman MSc MA Total word count ex. footnotes and bibliography: 2,985 Introduction

2


Former US Central Intelligence Agency Director, James Woosley, was quoted in 1993 as saying, 'We have slain a large dragon, but now we find ourselves living in a jungle with a bewildering number of poisonous snakes. And in many ways, the dragon was easier to keep track of. ‘1 Woosley was referring to the end of the Cold War and future security intelligence challenges; certainly, over 20 years later, these words still resonate with many as a succinct metaphor for many of the complex challenges to the traditional notions of ‘security’. Perspectives on global insecurity have been influenced from an ever-‐increasing constructivist spectrum and challenges of what ‘security’ may actually entail; whilst certainly not a new or particularly post Cold War phenomena, ‘terrorism’, is one of these challenges. Terrorism has undergone considerable reshaping itself in terms of its nature and form, actual and perceived capacities, competencies, effectiveness and its ‘global’ reach and propensity to damage or do harm. Meaning different things to different people it is however, now almost also synonymously associated with most notions of ‘international security.’ 2 As this essay will demonstrate however, there are ‘terrorists’ and there are ‘global terrorist organisations’. Traditional ‘state’ security concerns still abound with billions of dollars expended on hardware typically only appropriate to protect the traditional ‘state security’ form and apparatus from similarly armed state adversaries; not always that presented by terrorist outfits using relatively more localised bombings, assassinations and random attacks. Strategic studies analysts may therefore see that domestic or local ‘terrorism’ does not fit completely within the definition or sit as a particular challenge to the underpinning principals or traditional notions of ‘security’. This essay will therefore discuss the extent to which threats from particularly defined ‘global terrorist organisations’ do challenge the paradigms normally reserved in the domain of traditional security analysis. In addition to community safety fears for example, these traditional notions include, rendering political mechanisms and responses to existential threats ineffective, bringing about other state-‐to-‐state tensions, weakening and creating uncertainties and fuelling the escalation of the overall global security dilemma. Despite the challenges to the traditional paradigm however, this essay considers that this does not warrant the complete dismissal of the analysis or potential conclusions as to deal with ‘global terrorist organisation’ threats with other neo-‐liberal, constructivist or emergent models that may be suited to more localised, domestic terrorist issues. Traditional and Modern Notions of ‘Security’ 1 WOOLSEY J (1993) James Woolsey former US CIA Director, in testimony before the SSCI, 2 February 1993 – sourced from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-‐for-‐the-‐study-‐of-‐intelligence/csi-‐publications/books-‐and-‐monographs/directors-‐of-‐central-‐intelligence-‐as-‐leaders-‐of-‐the-‐u-‐s-‐intelligence-‐community/chapter_12.htm#_ftn1 accessed 23 September 2014. 2 Lecture Terrorism Macquarie University – Connor Keane 18 September 2014 Connor Keane PhD – other definitions by Crenshaw, Reich, Laquer, Poland etc also noted.

3


The traditional notion of security, both from realist and liberal perspectives, focuses on the centrality of the state. In writings dating back to Hobbes [1651] notions of fear and insecurity were held as the basis upon which sovereign communities formed with the capacity to enforce order, obedience and provide defense.3 Whilst realist and liberal views differ with aspects of normative values, contrasting ideas explaining how states relate, compete or cooperate in an anarchic world, 4 they nevertheless share some commonalities. Traditional security studies tend to focus on more narrow and rigid definitions concerning statecraft, security, military issues5 and commonalities such as strategies and methodologies for responses and conserving the status quo.6 A key development, is said to have occurred in stages in the 1980s-‐1990s with Buzan’s publications7, the Copenhagen School and others variously challenging and broadening ‘security’ to encompassing actors and referent objects in sectors spanning across political, economic, societal and environmental spectrums.8 In this respect ‘security’ is seen as a socially constructed phenomena and when an issue is presented as posing an existential threat to any one of above designated referent objects, then it may be dealt with as a ‘security’ threat.9 These notions differ substantially form traditional paradigms that may limit the concerns to war, death and the actual survival of the sovereign county and hence the responses developed.10 Realist notions concerning defensive and offensive security continue11 and challenge core aspects such as neo-‐liberal notions of globalisation and trade reducing conflict between states.12 Realists for example, counter that fears of globalisation may bring a sense of injustice, grievance and immiseration which are behind rebellions and radicalization.13 So too, realists blame the 2014 Crimea/Ukraine crisis directly on earlier Western neo-‐liberal ideals expanding Eastward and threatening Russia.14 As Mersheimer has noted, spheres of influence, ‘realpolitik’, concerns of existential interference and tensions remain alive and States that ignore it do so at their own peril.15 Continuing to feature in debates therefore, traditional 3 HOBBES (1651) 1985 p 186 quoted in LAWSON S (2012) International Relations Second ed. Polity Press Cambridge p31 4 LAWSON S (2012) International Relations Second edn. Polity Press Cambridge p5-‐10, 5 BALDWIN, D. (1995) Security studies and the end of the Cold War -‐ review in World Politics Vol 48, No.1(Oct 1995) pp 117-‐141 Cambridge University Press 6 WILLIAMS P (2008) Security Studies – An introduction Routledge London p 3 7 BUZAN (1983) People States and Fear – the national security problem in international relations, Wheatsheaf Brighton Sussex First and Second Editions 8 EMMERS R quoted in COLLINS An Ed. (2013) Contemporary Security Studies -‐ Ch 10 Securitization -‐ Third Edition Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. 9 EMMERS R also citing BALZAQ quoted in COLLINS An Ed. (2013) Contemporary Security Studies – Chapter 10 Securitization -‐ Third Edition Oxford University Press, United Kingdom P135. 10 BIGO D in in WILLIAMS P (2008) Security Studies – International Political Sociology Routledge London p 118 11 BAYLIS J, SMITH S & OWENS P (2014) The Globalization of World Politics – Sixth Edn Oxford University Press , United Kingdom p 101-‐106 12 IKENBERRY GJ (2014) The Illusion of Geopolitics, Foreign Affairs, May 2014 Vol 93, Issue 3, p 80-‐90 13 POKU N & THERKELSON J quoted in COLLINS An Ed. (2013) Contemporary Security Studies -‐ Chapter 16 (p 222-‐ 236) Globalisation, Development and Security, Third Edition Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. 14 KENNAN G (1998) interview quote following US approval for NATO expansion quoted in MEARSHEIMER JJ (2014) Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2014, vol 93, Issue 5, p77-‐89. 15 MEARSHEIMER JJ (2014) Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2014, vol 93, Issue 5, p77-‐89

4


notions of security are not wholly unchallenged in the analysis, policy responses and practical approaches societies may take to complex security problems. Terrorism and Global Terrorist Organisations The definition of terrorism is a highly debatable concept and like security requires examination prior to evaluating the extent to which it may (or may not) challenge traditional notions of security. The basic elements of terrorism may be succinctly identified as the use (or threat) of violence, by an organized group, against a target audience to achieve political objectives. A common ground of agreement seems to be that whilst a government can be either the perpetrator or the target, it is considered an act of terrorism only if one of both actors is not a government.16 We continue to see exceptions, exclusions, emerging or unique permutations of terrorism however, such as the ‘lone wolf’ phenomena or non-‐state terrorist actors attacking other non-‐state actors; these issues continue to both defy and also define notions of ‘terrorism’. What has also changed is the setting in which terrorist influences may now occur. They are less deterred by state boundaries and defences, with electronic communications, widespread travel, the connection through media and the internet and globalization.17 So too, a ‘global terrorist organization’ can be a difficult concept to define and may take a number of varying structural and functional forms. The term is perhaps used as interchangeably as those used for global, transnational or multi-‐national corporations. As such, examination requires an understanding of key differences such as whether control is exerted centrally or disseminated to local groups (like subsidiaries or franchises), whether each group acts as part of a ‘global’ chain, partaking in the same objectives, activities and strategies or whether they merely contribute in some way to the wider ‘value chain’; as a sub-‐contractor, vendor or supplier might be in a business sense. Examination of the various structures, functions, control, leadership, objectives and geographic reach of terrorist groups may substantially reduce the individual number that may actually be, ‘global terrorist organizations’. For example, some terrorist groups may be seen as being domiciled and controlled in one location with ‘global’ subsidiary organs subservient to and producing ‘one-‐brand’ of terrorism from the ‘headquarters’; such an example may be as Al Qaida (“AQ”), which certainly has wide recognition as being a ‘global terrorist organization.’ Groups may also undertake specific logistics, recruitment, training or administrative roles, such as the Jamaat-‐ud-‐Dawa, the fundraising organ for the Pakistan militant group Lashka-‐e-‐Taiba (“LeT”) or small groups seen in Australia

16 LUTZ B and LUTZ J quoted in COLLINS An Ed. (2013) Contemporary Security Studies -‐ Chapter 19 – Terrorism, Third Edition Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. p 273 17 CHALK P (2000) Non-‐military security and Global Order: The Impact of Extremism, Violence and Chaos on National and International Security Macmillan Press Limited Great Britain

5


supporting Jemaah Islamiyah or the Tamil Tigers in the early 2000s.18 Many Islamist terrorist organizations may only be affiliated through very loose ideological connections or bonded more formally through a ‘bayat’ or oath. One example being the Abu Sayyaf Group (“ASG”) in the Philippines; not commonly seen as a ‘global terrorist organization’ but which has aligned itself to and has stated support for AQ (and Islamic State, as outlined below) 19. AQ itself in fact provides a pledge of allegiance to remain subordinate to Afghanistan’s Taliban ruler yet there remain many extremist Islamic groups without formal ties to either AQ or the Taliban.20 It is also important to note that it is difficult to differentiate terrorists from ‘insurgents’; often there is a fine line, with terrorists becoming insurgents and insurgents becoming terrorists. 'Victory' may not be final, defeated insurgents may transform into terrorist groups21 and vice versa. Nigeria’s Boko Haram, for example evolved from a rag-‐tag band of fighters conducting sporadic raids into a force seizing and holding territory with military weaponry.22 The latest widely publicised ‘terrorist’ threat, the Islamic State (“IS”), can no longer be considered just as an extremist or terrorist organisation, nor an insurgency but a serious military threat.23 Deriving out of elements once associated with AQ affiliated groups24 it has emerged as the world’s second jihadi ‘super-‐power’ and attracts pledges and oaths of affiliations from the likes of ASG, the spiritual leader of Indonesia’s Jemaah Islamiyah and (reportedly) Boko Haram. 25 IS has secured possession of military equipment, territory and is generating revenues from seized assets;26 it is clearly challenging, as an existential threat, the territorial integrity of bordering countries and eroding the mechanisms, functional abilities and governance of Iraq and Syria.27 Therefore, groups such as AQ and IS through their affiliates and array of global operations, recruitment, funding and common ideological mandates are what constitutes truly current and capable ‘global terrorist organizations’. The extent of the challenges posed by global terrorist organisations to notions of security

18 This section drawn from author’s own notes and recollections from counter-‐terrorism studies and previous work in the Australian Federal Police 1998-‐2008 and application to International Business studies completed in 2012 with London University. 19 Deutsche World News ‘Abu Sayyaf 'seeking global attention' with hostage kill threat seeking http://www.dw.de/abu-‐sayyaf-‐seeking-‐global-‐attention-‐with-‐hostage-‐kill-‐threat/a-‐17954921 accessed 28 Sept 2014 20 BERGER JM (2014) Who’s winning the war to become the jihadi superpower? Foreign Policy 2 September 2014, accessed at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/02/islamic_state_vs_al_qaeda_next_jihadi_super_power on 29 Sept 2014. 21 KILCULLEN D (2006) Counter-‐insurgency Redux. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 48:4, 11-‐130. Routledge UK. 22 The Economist (2014) Nigeria’s jihadists – the other caliphate. The Economist 6 September 2014 Middle East and Africa page 52. 23 WAKI Y (2014) ASIAN NIKKEI REVIEW 11 September 2014 “Security risks spreading as extremists regain power, take to Internet” http://asia.nikkei.com.magazine/20140911-‐the-‐long-‐shadow/cover-‐story 24 It has now been reportedly disavowed by AQ 25 BERGER JM (2014) Who’s winning the war to become the jihadi superpower? Foreign Policy 2 September 2014, accessed at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/02/islamic_state_vs_al_qaeda_next_jihadi_super_power on 29 Sept 2014. 26 The Economist (2014) Confronting Islamic State – the next war against global jihadism – p 47-‐49. 27 The Australian quoting remarks attributed to US National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers in August 2014 – US misjudged Islamic State threat, Iraqi army: Obama –The Australian 29 September 2014-‐ Accessed at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-‐misjudged-‐islamic-‐state-‐threat-‐iraqi-‐army-‐obama/story-‐e6frg6so-‐1227073474310

6


Unlike realists, liberal theory includes individuals and private groups as fundamental actors in world politics; hence placing terrorist organisations clearly as actors that can (and do) threaten states. There is also little argument that terrorism threatens broader, constructivist notions of security affecting the lives, society, the economy and environment through their murder and bombings. They may also become part of the configuration of a state and project their menace into the international system.28 From these perspectives therefore, there do appear to be substantial grounds challenging the traditional notion of security because of the emergent capacities, competencies and organization of global non-‐state actors threatening states and international security. Notwithstanding the above examples, terrorists however still do not fit the traditional realist perspectives about security centring around the State and State actors, threats being existential, the anarchy of the international domain, the use of traditional military force, security dilemmas and the potential for war. As realists claim survival is the goal of every state and invasion is the most pressing threat,29 there are many situations where terrorism may well threaten communities, livelihoods, economies and instil terror but, they are not always existential nor do they in many cases directly threaten the actual existence of the State itself.30 So too, the patchwork of approaches, ranging from the ‘war on terror’, intelligence agencies, police, justice systems and preventative detention regimes through to treating terrorism as a disease has been open to criticism and debate from the proponents of notions of traditional security.31 As such, there may exist several areas in which domestic or localised terrorism still does to present challenges to some core tenets of the traditional notions of security. The following section will however, detail several areas where ‘global terrorist organisations’ can do this by: projecting their interests in such as way as to render traditional political mechanisms and responses to existential threats ineffective; bringing about other state-‐to-‐state tensions, weakening and creating uncertainties; and fuelling the escalation of the overall global security dilemma. a) Rendering traditional state diplomacy and actions ineffective

The unpredictable nature, lack of identities, leadership or clearly defined structures, territory or other dimensions, are but some of the real challenges to dealing with global terrorism. Traditional liberal or diplomatic overtures, such as seeking cooperation or using coercive diplomacy, which might be used against a State actor or conventional military force, does not work if one party believes there will be an ever increasing danger of future demands or if the other party consistently seeks the others’ complete destruction.32

28 SLAUGHTER AM (2011) International Relations, Principal Theories -‐ Princeton -‐ accessed at https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf 29 ELMAN C quoting MEARSHEIMER J (2001:30-‐31) in WILLIAMS P (2008) Security Studies -‐ Realism Routledge London p 22 30 BIGO D in in WILLIAMS P (2008) Security Studies – International Political Sociology Routledge London p 118 31 LUTZ B and LUTZ J quoted in COLLINS An Ed. (2013) Contemporary Security Studies -‐ Chapter 19 – Terrorism, Third Edition Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. p 273 32 JAKOBSEN PV quoted in COLLINS An Ed. (2013) Contemporary Security Studies Chapter 17 Coercive Diplomacy Third Edition Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. p239

7


Certainly in the case of global terrorist groups such as those of AQ and IS their ideological opposition to ‘the West’, 33 decentralized, leader-‐less networks, combined with continued uncertainty as to the group’s future specific targets and geographical span makes cooperation, concessions and negotiation an impossible or futile endeavor. Similarly, limited military action (a component of coercive diplomacy), including drone strikes, no-‐fly zones or even ‘rapid deployment forces’ may be largely in-‐effective against entrenched terrorists with support networks providing long term support, funds and trained replacement recruits. b) Bringing about state-‐state tensions, weakening and creating uncertainties

As indicated earlier, IS does threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq, Syria and potentially other neighbouring states. Other terrorist groups are also threatening third party state-‐state security relationships. India and Pakistan’s peace-‐making efforts for example are reportedly often hindered by threats arising from the activists of Lashka-‐e-‐Taiba.34 Domestic politics are also being seriously affected, as the appetite for foreign investment and infrastructure projects lags, the country’s sovereignty and ability to govern wholly in its own right is eroded.35 Terrorists benefit from instability and weak governments36 and also perpetuate in order to further destabilize state relationships. For example, against a backdrop of weakening US engagement major powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran have started making political moves driven by geopolitical developments. Extremist religious factions are being pitted against one another, dissident groups in some countries are being backed by States such as the Sunnis by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, whilst the Syrian government is supporting Shiites, with Iran and Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia remains alarmed by the possibility that extremists might become a threat to itself if they gain strength37. In China also, ethnic tensions in the North Western Xinjiang province has involved hundreds of deaths is reported by China as being attributed to Uighur terrorists. Recent domestic attacks attributed to Uighurs have spread far to cities such as Beijing, Kunming in the south with car bomb and knife attacks against Han Chinese. Importantly, it appears the Chinese are concerned that militant Islam in neighbouring countries (Pakistan and Afghanistan) may be fuelling the Uighur’s objective to break from China and create a separate identity.38 33 After 9/11 AQ was said to be opposed to ‘the West’, ‘because it sees them as pursuing modernization, which it deems as diametrically opposed to authentic Islamic identity BILGIN P in WILLIAMS P (2008) Security Studies -‐ Critical Theory Routledge London p 91 34 SHAH B (2014) The rise and fall of Lashkar-‐e-‐Taiba: A Q&A with Arif Jamal, Foreign Policy accessed at http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/26/the_rise_of_lashkar_e_taiba_a_qa_with_arif_jamal 28 Sept 2014 35 YAMADA G (2014) Terrorism looms over South Asian economies – Asian Nikkei Review – 11 September 2014. 36 LUTZ B and LUTZ J quoted in COLLINS An Ed. (2013) Contemporary Security Studies -‐ Chapter 19 – Terrorism, Third Edition Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. p 273 37 WAKI Y (2014) ASIAN NIKKEI REVIEW 11 September 2014 “Security risks spreading as extremists regain power, take to Internet” http://asia.nikkei.com.magazine/20140911-‐the-‐long-‐shadow/cover-‐story 38 The Economist (2014) Ethnic unrest – spreading the net – China The Economist 9 August 2014.

8


c) Fuelling the escalation of the overall global security dilemma. Against the above backdrop, when localised terrorism is dealt with as a national security or strategic security issue, it can create insecurity, uncertainty around motives or the intentions of neighbouring countries and raise far broader international security dilemmas. The ‘war on terrorism’ approach can be seen in many theatres of conflict, not just those involving the United States. In Xinjiang for example, China’s deployment of drones has been reportedly ‘to help in the search for terror suspects’. 39 China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan also recently conducted another annual ‘anti-‐terrorism drill’ in Inner Mongolia said to involve fighter jets, heavy aircraft and thousands of military personnel to ‘facilitate the exchange of terrorism intelligence and increase joint anti-‐terrorism combat capability’.40 Countries in the Middle East and East Asia are now reportedly spending increasingly more on arming themselves with traditional military hardware and substantial increases in defence procurement spending is forecast. 41 This expenditure is often claimed to be in response to building terrorism capacity but it is also noted that many of these same countries have increasingly assertive territorial claims42 and are being driven by the search for energy, minerals and commercial resources associated with their sovereignty.43 Structural realists such as Waltz (2000) acknowledge that competition in today’s multipolar system is complicated and uncertainties about intentions and comparative capabilities of other states multiply.44 As such, the substantial growth and procurement of traditional security hardware and alliances, predicated in ‘anti-‐terrorism’ motivations, may also fuel wider suspicions, tensions, increase the security dilemmas and regional arms races.

39 CHEN S (2014) South China Morning Post -‐ Rainbow 4 unmanned aerial vehicle ready for use by military after successful missile test, published Monday, 01 September, 2014, accessed 27 Sept 2014 at http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1582514/next-‐generation-‐rainbow-‐drone-‐ready-‐pla-‐delivery 40 ZHOU L (2014) South China Morning Post -‐ Five Kazakh fighter jets make emergency landings at Yinchuan airport 1 September 2014 accessed at http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1582870/five-‐kazakh-‐fighter-‐jets-‐make-‐emergency-‐landings-‐yinchuan-‐airport on 27 September 2014. 41 The Economist 19 July 2014 – Business – Weapons Makers, The case for defence – page 55. 42 The Economist 19 July 2014 – Business – Weapons Makers, The case for defence – page 55. 43 IKENBERRY GJ (2014) The Illusion of Geopolitics, Foreign Affairs, May 2014 Vol 93, Issue 3, p 80-‐90 44 WALTZ K (2000) Structural Realism after the Cold War in International Security Vol 25, No 1 (Summer 2000) (p 5-‐41) p6 accessed at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/U6800/readings-‐sm/Waltz_Structural%20Realism.pdf

9


Conclusion Fukuyama (2014) writes that violence produced political order and underpinned territorial boundaries, bureaucracies and modern political institutions; in short that, ‘the state made war and war made the state.’45 At the end of the Cold War ‘security’ was seen to be in abundance and it was thought a time had come to shift resources from security to other goals of public policy. Nevertheless, politics shape memories and different perceptions of security derive from different outlooks that allowed different perceptions of threats to manifest.46 Many 'new' problems have therefore been added to the notion of 'national security' such as issues concerning the environment, human rights, democracy, poverty and economic growth. ‘Security’ therefore has taken on overlapping roles with often ill-‐fitting partners in the realms of sociology, economics, the environment and international affairs as well as on-‐going strategic and war studies.47 This essay has shown that one of the most ‘securitized’ threats, ‘terrorism’, can erode of the integrity of borders, the sovereignty of the state, the safety of citizens and also the ability and legitimacy of governments. This essay also examined some key areas of traditional security paradigms such as, political mechanisms, coercive diplomacy, other state-‐to-‐state tensions, uncertainties and state security dilemmas; then examined the extent to which threats from global terrorist organisations also challenged those core traditional security notions. It is important to note that it is networked nature of ‘global terrorist organisations’ that can challenge these later fundamental components of traditional security and not all domestic or localised terrorism can challenge these tenets. In conclusion, whilst traditional notions of security may be deeply challenged, the analysis, positioning and range of responses to security issues generated by traditional security paradigms must still not be dismissed nor replaced completely by liberal, modern, constructivist or other models. This is especially the case when seen in light of the differentiation exhibited by ‘global terrorist organizations’ as shown in this essay. Liberal or constructivist notions are not themselves without challenge and so approaching problems with a mind set seeking a like constructed outcome may have unintended consequences; particularly when those constructed outcomes are not shared by opponents. As noted by CRONIN (2014) the pursuit of policies and the myriad of other attempts to deal with global terrorism has caused its own risks. In analysing the effectiveness of drone strikes against terrorists for

45 FUKUYAMA F (2014) Political Order and Political Decay – from the French Revolution to the Present. Profile books -‐ from excerpt printed in the Australian Financial Review 19 September 2014. 46 BILGIN P in WILLIAMS P (2008) Security Studies -‐ Critical Theory Routledge London p 91 47 BALDWIN, D. (1995) Security studies and the end of the Cold War -‐ review in World Politics Vol 48, No.1(Oct 1995) pp 117-‐141 Cambridge University Press

10


example48 she warns, means may become the ends, tactics become strategy and ‘…the search for a perfect peace replaces reality.’49 Traditional notions of security are therefore challenged by threats from global terrorist organizations but not to the same extent by all ‘terrorist’ groups. It remains important to still consider traditional security analysis and responses when faced with the capacities and competencies presented by global terrorist organizations and not dismiss the utility of the traditional paradigms in favour of models that may appear to more generally fit more local or domestic ‘terrorist’ threats.

48 A potential component of coercive diplomacy discussed earlier in this essay 49 CRONIN AK (2014) Is this How to Win the "War on Terrorism"? Foreign Policy Essay in Lawfare -‐ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/09/the-‐foreign-‐policy-‐essay-‐is-‐this-‐how-‐to-‐win-‐the-‐war-‐on-‐terrorism/accessed 16 Sept 2014

11


Bibliography ASIAN NIKKEI REVIEW -‐ http://asia.nikkei.com.magazine – see footnotes AUSTRALIAN, THE http://theaustralian.com.au -‐ see footnotes BAYLIS J, SMITH S & OWENS P (2014) The Globalization of World Politics – Sixth Edn Oxford University Press , United Kingdom p 101-‐106 BALDWIN, D. (1995) Security studies and the end of the Cold War -‐ review in World Politics Vol 48, No.1(Oct 1995) pp 117-‐141 Cambridge University Press BERGER JM (2014) Who’s winning the war to become the jihadi superpower? Foreign Policy 2 September 2014, accessed at http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/02/islamic_state_vs_al_qaeda_next_jihadi_super_power on 29 Sept 2014 BUZAN (1983) People States and Fear – the national security problem in international relations, Wheatsheaf Brighton Sussex BYMAN D (2013) Why Drones Work -‐ The Case for Washington's Weapon of Choice. 92 Foreign Aff. 32 2013. CHALK P (2000) Non-‐military security and Global Order: The Impact of Extremism, Violence and Chaos on National and International Security Macmillan Press Limited Great Britain CRONIN AK (2013) Why Drones Fail -‐ When Tactics Drive Strategy 92 Foreign Aff. 44 2013. CRONIN AK (2014) Is this How to Win the "War on Terrorism"? Foreign Policy Essay in Lawfare -‐ http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/09/the-‐foreign-‐policy-‐essay-‐is-‐this-‐how-‐to-‐win-‐the-‐war-‐on-‐terrorism/accessed 16 Sept 2014 Deutsche World News http://www.dw.de ECONOMIST, THE (2014) -‐ various editions as cited in footnotes. FUKUYAMA F (2014) Political Order and Political Decay – from the French Revolution to the Present. Profile books -‐ from excerpt printed in the Australian Financial Review 19 September 2014. FREEMAN CW (2014) Speech – Obama’s Foreign Policy and the Future of the Middle East – presentation to the Middle East Policy Council’s 77th Capitol Hill Conference Ambassador Chas W Freemen Jr (USFS, Ret) accessed at http://mepc.org/articles/commentary/speeches August 2014. IKENBERRY GJ (2014) The Illusion of Geopolitics, Foreign Affairs, May 2014 Vol 93, Issue 3.

12


KEANE (2014) – Lecture given on Terrorism at Macquarie University – Connor Keane 18 September 2014 -‐ Connor Keane PhD – other definitions by Crenshaw, Reich, Laquer, Poland etc also noted. KENNAN G (1998) interview quote following US approval for NATO expansion quoted in MEARSHEIMER JJ (2014) Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2014, vol 93, Issue 5, p77-‐89. KILCULLEN D (2006) Counter-‐insurgency Redux. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 48:4, 11-‐130. Routledge UK. LAWSON S (2012) International Relations Second edn. Polity Press Cambridge MEARSHEIMER JJ (2014) Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2014, vol 93, Issue 5, p77-‐89 TOOHEY B (2014) Australia plays dangerous game with defence shift – The Long Shadow -‐ Asian Nikkei Review http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20140911-‐the -‐long-‐shadow/viewpoints/brian-‐toohey WAKI Y (2014) ASIAN NIKKEI REVIEW 11 September 2014 “Security risks spreading as extremists regain power, take to Internet” http://asia.nikkei.com.magazine/20140911-‐the-‐long-‐shadow/cover-‐story YAMADA G (2014) Terrorism looms over South Asian economies – Asian Nikkei Review – 11 September 2014. SAGAN, S (1996-‐7) Why do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb. International Security Vol 21, No 3 (Winter 1996-‐7). SHAH B (2014) The rise and fall of Lashkar-‐e-‐Taiba: A Q&A with Arif Jamal, Foreign Policy accessed at http://southasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/26/the_rise_of_lashkar_e_taiba_a_qa_with_arif_jamal SLAUGHTER AM (2011) International Relations, Principal Theories -‐ Princeton -‐ accessed at https://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST articles – see footnotes WILLIAMS P (2008) Security Studies – An introduction Routledge London p 3 WOOLSEY J (1993) James Woolsey former US CIA Director, in testimony before the SSCI, 2 February 1993 – sourced from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-‐for-‐the-‐study-‐of-‐intelligence/csi-‐publications/books-‐and-‐monographs/directors-‐of-‐central-‐intelligence-‐as-‐leaders-‐of-‐the-‐u-‐s-‐intelligence-‐community/chapter_12.htm#_ftn1 accessed 23 September 2014.

13


Date post:	22-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	mq
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Do terrorist organisations threaten traditional notions of’ ‘national security’?

Documents