Terrorism main book chapter by ogbaji

THIS WORK IS PUBLISHED IN BOOK OF READINGS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BY NNAMDI AZIKIWE

UNIVERSITY, AWKA. FOR CITATION, CONTACT ME TO SEND YOU THE FULL DETAIL TO HELP YOU EASILY.

ORIGIN OF TERRORISM

BY

OGBAJI UDOCHUKWU A.O

LECTURER,

DEPT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL POLYTECHNIC OKO

ANAMBRA STATE

08033486531

INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF TERRORISM

The history of terrorism goes back to Sicarii Zealots, Jewish

extremist group active in Iudaea Province at the beginning of CE. After

Zealotry rebellion in the 1st century AD, when some prominent

collaborators with Roman rule were killed, (Hoffman, 1988 and Chaliand,

2007), according to contemporary historian Josephus, in 6 AD Judas of

Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the

Sicarii(Chaliand, 2007). Their terror also was directed against Jewish

"collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other

wealthy elites (Hoffman, 1988)

The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actions

of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution.

"Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible," said

Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke

denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-hounds called

Terrorists...loose on the people" of France (Burke, 1795 cited in www.

econlib.org).

In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an

attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon III (Crenshaw, 1995).

Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured. The incident played a crucial

role as an inspiration for the development of the early Russian terrorist

groups. Russian Sergey Nechayev, who founded People's Retribution in

1869, described himself as a "terrorist", an early example of the term being

employed in its modern meaning.

Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear for

bringing about political change. All terrorist acts involve violence or equally

important, the threat of violence. These violent acts are committed by non-

governmental groups or individuals, that is, by those who are neither part of

nor officially serving in the military forces, law enforcement agencies,

intelligence services, or governmental agencies of an established nation-

state.

The word “terrorism” was then used in France to describe a new

system of government adopted during the French Revolution (1789 –

1799). The regime ‘de la terreur’ i.e. Reign of Terror was intended to

promote democracy and popular rule by ridding the revolution of its

enemies and thereby purifying it. However, the oppression and violent

excesses of the ‘terreur’ transformed it into a feared instrument of the state.

From that time on, terrorism has had a decidedly negative connotation. The

word, however did not gain wider popularity until the late 19th century when

it was adopted by a group of Russians revolutionaries to describe their

violent struggle against tsarist rule. Terrorism then assumed the more

familiar anti-governmental associations it has today.

The world of the 21st century, in which we are today, is more

precarious, unpredictable and more dangerous than at anytime in the

history of mankind. The spectre of terrorism is haunting the world. The

times have changed throughout the world as a result of the activities of

people, who willingly destroy, maim and kill in order to score political, or

social points or goals. Terrorism, therefore, has become such a world-wide

phenomenon that only recently, a respected and highly placed Vatican

official, Cardinal Renato Martino, described terrorism as the 4th world war,

the 3rd world war being the cold war, which ended with the demise of the

former Soviet Union. Martino, who was the Pope John Paul’s Ambassador

to the United Nations, and the head of the Vatican’s Council for Justice and

Peace said:

“We have entered the 4th World war…. I believe we are in the midst of

another world war… and it involves absolutely everyone because we

don’t know what will happen when we leave a hotel, when we get on

a bus, when we go into coffee bar, war itself is sitting down right next

to each and everyone of us” (Okeke, 2005).

However, terrorism challenges the assumption that any nation could

guarantee absolute security to its citizen without collaboration with the

larger international community. The bombing of vacationing youth in Bali in

Indonesia, the bombing of train stations in Madrid, Spain and hostage

takings which led to over 300 people among them several school children

in Baslam, Russia, years ago, the bombings in Abuja-Nigeria and the

kidnaps especially in the Niger-Delta region of Nigeria are clear

demonstrations of this fact.

Inspite of the fact that terrorism is generally accepted as a world wide

problem, more than any other terrorist incident so far, either in terms of

casualty or weapon used, the September 11, 2001 attack on the United

States of America will remain a turning point in the history of terrorism. It

was after it that the issue of terrorism acquired greater attention and

created necessary awareness among the populace and governments all

over the world, and this made everybody to know that the issue of security

is not only the business of the security agents alone, but requires concerted

efforts of everyone to effectively deal with.

MEANING, DEFINITION AND CONCEPT OF TERRORISM

The first analytical fact facing commentators on terror is to define

their subject matter. Because terrorism engenders such extreme emotions,

partly as a reaction to the horrors associated with it and partly because of

its ideological context, the search for a definition which is both precise

enough to provide a meaningful analytical device yet general enough to

obtain agreement from all participant in the debate is fraught with difficulty.

Many experts believe that there is no need laboring to define terrorism.

According to Jonathan Barker, a leading researcher in Political Science,

“people understand that the planners of the political violence carried out by

non-groups or by government agencies or their proxies claim their cause is

just”. Similarly, regimes that employ murder and sabotage never admit that

what they are doing is terrorism.

Thus, at various times in history and even today, most state

government overtly or covertly support and even aid illegal use of force

groups to achieve some objective in a manner that would otherwise be

regarded as terrorism by those opposed to it. In the 1980’s, the CIA

attempted to overthrow President Fidel Castro of Cuba, at the same time

too, it attempted to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Also on many occasions, America used right-wing elements in those

countries to illegally kill a lot of people. In Angola, the US actively

supported the UNITA rebels against the MPLA and it was only a few years

ago that such support stopped and UNITA was defeated.

On the other hand, many African, Arab and East European Countries

supported the Liberation Movement that fought the Apartheid regime in

South Africa, the white minority government in now Zimbabwe and the

Portuguese colonial administration in Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau,

Mozambique and Sao Tome and Principe. They also supported and some

still support Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in its struggle for

self-determination. In Africa, like Cote d’Ivoire, since December, 1999 to

2011, there have been political killings (terrorism). Gbagbo and Quattara’s

self interest have taken a lot of lives and property.

It is on this account of these contradictions that some observers

argue that a comprehensive definition of terrorism does not exist and

cannot be found in the foreseeable future. Because of these problems,

many analysts have tried to shrug them off with an obligatory reference to

that famous phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’.

This phrase, trite though it may be, does encapsulate the difficulties facing

those who wish to delimit the boundaries of terrorism either for purposes of

international action or academic research. Reference to it should not,

though, persuade the reader of the futility of searching for a working

definition of terrorism. Without a basic definition it is impossible to say the

whether the phenomenon (terrorism) is a threat at all, whether it is a

phenomenon of a different nature to its predecessors, and whether there

can be a theory of terrorism.

According to the United Kingdom legislation titled Terrorist Act 2000;

terrorism means the use or threat of action…. designed to influence the

government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public for the

purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological course.

On the other hand, the United States Federal Statutes defines

terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that appear to be

intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the

policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to effect the

conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping “(US Code, title

18, section 2331).

Canada’s anti-terrorism Act (Bill C-36) designates terrorist activity as

“an act or omission…. that is committed in whole or in part for a political,

religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause and in whole or in part

with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public with

regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a

person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do

or to refrain from doing any act, whether the person, government or

organization is inside or outside Canada….”.

CONCEPTUALIZING TERRORISM AS A MORAL PROBLEM

A major problem to the study of terrorism is that, at base, terrorism is

a moral problem. This is a major reason why the concept faces much

definitional problem. Attempts at definition often are predicated on the

assumption that some classes of political violence are justifiable whereas

others are not. For a definition to be universally accepted, it must transcend

behavioral description to include individual motivation, social milieu, and

political purpose. The same behavior will or will not be viewed as terrorism

by any particular observer according to differences in these other factors

(Wardlaw, 1989).

According to Wardlaw, just as an increasing number of commentators

seem to be able to even-handedly apply the term “terrorist” to non-state

and state actors they will have to apply it even-handedly to those groups

with whose cause they agree and those with whose cause they conflict. He

affirmed that the difficulty is that different groups of users of definitions find

it more or less easy to utilize definitions which focus on behaviors and their

effects as opposed to those factors tempered by considerations of motives

and politics. Thus, many academic students of terrorism seem to find little

difficulty in labeling an event as “terrorist” without making a moral judgment

about the act. Many law enforcement agents, government officials,

politicians, citizens, and analysts find themselves unable to take such a

detached view. For this reason, it may not be too difficult to construct an

acceptable definition within a given reference group. The problem arises

when that group attempts to engage in dialogue with others. The definition

of terrorism on moral grounds rests, then, on moral justification. Grant

Wardlaw warned that the proper study of terrorism should seek to explain a

phenomenon, not justify it. And it must be realized by all that explanation

does not entail justification.

THE SOCIAL DEFINITION/MEANING OF TERRORISM

Greisman (1977) used this to analyze the way in which social

meaning is assigned to terrorism. He argued that to make the term

“terrorism” useful, it is necessary to see how moral meanings are ascribed

to terrorist acts so that we can see what variables make one act terrorist

and another a mere function of foreign policy. It is however easier for

governments than for terrorists to legitimate their activities, terrorists often

strive for legitimacy. Often, though, such an endeavor is as much an

attempt to legitimate their activities in their own eyes as it is to convince the

public of their worthiness. In such cases, according to Wardlaw (1989), the

motivation for legitimation is more psychological than tactical.

In order to appreciate the nature of terrorism, it is necessary to look

at the definitions and concepts of terror, and terrorism and examine their

often ambiguous relation to other forms of civil, military, and political

violence and to criminal behaviour. Wilkinson (1977) notes that one of the

central problems in defining terrorism lies with the subjective nature of

terror. Due to the complex interplay of the subjective forces and of

frequently irrational individual responses it is very difficult to accurately

define terror and to study it scientifically.

Thornton (1964) defines terrorism as the use of terror as a “symbolic

act” designed to influence political behaviour by extra normal means,

entailing the use or threat of violence. The emphasis here is on its extra

normal quality. To Wilkinson (1977), political terrorism is the systematic use

of murder and destruction, and the threat of murder and destruction in other

to terrorize individuals, groups, communities or government into conceding

to the terrorist political demands.

In summary therefore, we submit that terrorism is violence for effect,

the threat of violence, individual acts of violence or a campaign of violence

design primarily to instill fear. The violence is aimed at the people watching.

The fear is the intended effect, not for the victims but the people watching.

Infact the victim may be totally unrelated to the terrorist cause. Fear is the

intended effect not by the product. It must be understood that terrorism is a

means to an end and not an end in itself. It has objectives although those

who carry out acts of terrorism may be so dedicated to the violent action

that even they, sometimes seem to miss the point. Unless we try to think

like terrorist, we are also likely to miss the point. The objectives of terrorism

are often obscured by the fact that specific terrorist’s attacks may appear to

be random and directed at targets whose deaths or destruction does not

appear directly to benefit the terrorist’s cause.

TYPES OF TERRORISM

Different types of terrorism have been defined by lawmakers,

security professionals and scholars. Types differ according to what kind of

attack agents an attacker uses (biological, for example) or by what they are

trying to defend (as in eco-terrorism).

Researchers in the United States began to distinguish different types

of terrorism in the 1970s, following a decade in which both domestic and

international groups flourished. By that point, modern groups had began to

use techniques such as hijacking, bombing, diplomatic kidnapping and

assassination to assert their demands and, for the first time, they appeared

as real threats to Western democracies, in the view of politicians, law

makers, law enforcement and researchers. They began to distinguish

different types of terrorism as part of the larger effort to understand how to

counter and deter it. They classify the forms or types of terrorism as thus:

(i) State Terrorism or State-Sponsored Terrorism

Two forms of state-sponsored terrorism exist at the beginning of the

twenty-first century: governments that carry out terrorism acts against their

own citizens, and government support of groups who carry out terrorism

against other governments. Many definitions of Terrorism restrict it to acts

by non-state actors. But it can also be argued that states can, and have,

been terrorists. States can use force or the threat of force, without declaring

war, to terrorize citizens and achieve a political goal. Germany under Nazi

rule has been described in this way. It has also been argued that states

participate in international terrorism, often by proxy. The United States

considers Iran the most prolific sponsor of terrorism because Iran arms

groups, such as Hizballah, that help carry out its foreign policy objectives.

The United States has also been called terrorist, for example through its

covert sponsorship of Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s. Iran accused

Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria of supporting terrorism.

The Abu Nidal organization is an example of state sponsored terrorism.

(ii) Bio-terrorism

Bio-terrorism refers to the intentional release of toxic biological

agents to harm and terrorize civilians, in the name of a political or other

cause. The U.S. Center for Disease Control has classified the viruses,

bacteria and toxins that could be used in an attack. Category A Biological

Diseases are those most likely to do the most damage. They include:

Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis)

Botulism (Clostridium botulinum toxin)

The Plague (Yersinia pestis)

Smallpox (Variola major)

Tularemia (Francisella tularensis)

Hemorrahagic fever, due to Ebola Virus or Marburg Virus

(iii) Cyber-terrorism

Cyber-terrorists use information technology to attack civilians and

draw attention to their cause. This may mean that they use information

technology, such as computer systems or telecommunications, as a tool to

orchestrate a traditional attack. More often, cyber-terrorism refers to an

attack on information technology itself in a way that would radically disrupt

networked services. For example, cyber-terrorists could disable networked

emergency systems or hack into networks housing critical financial

information. There is wide disagreement over the extent of the existing

threat by cyber terrorists. Cyber-terrorism is a type of terrorism that uses

computers and network. Usually, small terrorist groups use cyber terrorism.

Experts have only identified Aum Shinrikyo and the Tamil Tigers of using

cyber terrorism so far. These two terrorist groups usually use cyber-

terrorism to fail the computer security, or to show off their technical abilities.

Cyber-terrorism can allow disruptions in military communications and even

electrical power. Some ways cyber-terrorism can be used is by destroying

the actual machine that contains the electronic information. Experts

recommend individual computer users to use virus protection software and

also to stay away from strange emails and computer programs will lessen

the vulnerability to cyber-terrorism.

(iv) Environmental Terrorism or Eco-terrorism

Environmental terrorism is commonly referred to as "eco-terrorism,"

a combination of the terms ecology and terrorism. Eco-terrorism is a

recently coined term describing violence in the interests of

environmentalism. In general, environmental extremists sabotage property

to inflict economic damage on industries or actors they see as harming

animals or the natural environment. These have included, for example fur

companies, logging companies and animal research laboratories.

(v) Nuclear Terrorism

"Nuclear terrorism” refers to a number of different ways nuclear

materials might be exploited as a terrorist tactic. These include attacking

nuclear facilities, purchasing nuclear weapons, or building nuclear weapons

or otherwise finding ways to disperse radioactive materials. Two chemicals

associated with terrorist activity that was in the news worldwide in the late

1990s and early 2000s were sarin and ricin. Sarin is a man made

chemical warfare agent that acts rapidly against the nervous system,

making breathing difficult or impossible. Ricin is a clear, colorless, tasteless

liquid that does not smell and tiny amounts are deadly.

(vi) Narcoterrorism

Narcoterrorism has had several meanings since its coining in 1983. It

once denoted violence used by drug traffickers to influence governments or

prevent government efforts to stop the drug trade. In the last several years,

narcoterrorism has been used to indicate situations in which terrorist

groups use drug trafficking to fund their other operations.

INCIDENCE/ EFFECTS OF TERRORISM

Terrorism has had some obvious effects in the country or countries

of the world. The most common is that it diverts resources into internal

security functions instead of diverting such into developmental projects.

These resources are used also in protecting political leaders,

guarding vital locations, screening people at airports, and hardening targets

all require increasing amounts of money, labour and time. The screening of

passengers at airports, apart from the time and inconvenience costs to the

public, the financial costs of screening precautions have been enormous.

However, for clarity and proper understanding, we will discuss this

subheading under three different subtitles: The social/psychological effect,

the political effect and the economic effect.

The Social/Psychological Effect

The incidence and changing significance of terrorism culminates into

loss of life and property. In Nigeria, the bomb blast of October 1st 2010

killed a lot of people at Abuja. In the September 11 attack of the United

States of America killed more than three thousand people (3,000). The

Kenyan and Tanzanian attacks killed more than two hundred people (200).

The October 12, 2002 bombing of a night club in Bali, Indonesia killed (200)

two hundred people. The Baslam school siege in September 2004 in

Russia ended tragically with the death of about three hundred (300)

persons, half of who were children. Affected people and victims who

escaped with injury from the terrorist act may live with psychological trauma

for the rest of their lives.

All over the world, the greatest concerns and fears that exist is that

terrorists could go beyond ordinary explosives and find a way to deploy

nuclear weapons (uranium and plutonium bombs), biological and chemical

weapons which we now call Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The

fear of the outcome of this act of terror has a serious social and

psychological impact on the citizenry.

The Political Effects of Terrorism

The political effects of terrorism can be long-term or short term

depending on the nature. The ruling party in Spain lost power two days

after the march 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings which killed one hundred

and eighty one innocent souls (Okeke, 2005). The set back recorded by

U.S and its allies by the decision of the newly elected Prime Minister to pull

Spain out of the coalition forces in Iraq is another political incidence of

terrorism. The problem encouraged others, including the Philippine

government, a close American ally, to pull out their non-combatant troops.

Although the withdrawal by the Philippines was in exchange for the release

of a Filipino taken hostage by a group of Islamist militants who threatened

to behead him, the Filipino action did not please the United States and its

allies (Okeke, 2005).

The Economic Effect of Terrorism

The analysis on the incidence of terrorism in the first paragraph of

this part fall under the economic effects of terrorism. However, with the

ever-present fear of attacks from terrorists, governments and organizations

are compelled to spend huge amounts of money to develop anti-terror

infrastructure. Such monies could otherwise be used for more beneficial

infrastructural and developmental services to the people. Since the

September 11 attacks and the subsequent responses by the international

community, including the use of military force and full scale war in

Afghanistan and Iraq, the cycle of violence that the situation has

engendered, governments, companies and organizations have had to take

painful economic measures. These range from reorganizations leading to

retrenchments of workers, increase in air fares, and withdrawal of

subsidies, which also invariably lead to inflation and further insecurity.

Moreover, Investors stay away from targeted states or regions

perceived as potential source of terrorist activities. In Nigeria for example,

the Niger-Delta areas has been deserted by the oil companies and

construction companies due to the terrorist attacks. The increasing high

cost of oil as direct consequence of terrorist activities and the unending

insurgency against the coalition forces in Iraq is another blow on world

security in its entire ramification (Okeke, 2005).

On the whole therefore, terrorist attacks have scaled back in number

in recent year, even though more casualties have occurred. The late 1980s

were a high point for the number of terrorist attacks, with the incidence of

attacks exceeding 600 annually in the year 1985-1988

(http://library.thinkquest.org). With the exception of 1991, the number of

terrorist attacks after 1988 decreased to fewer than 450 every year,

reaching their recent low point in the years 1996-1998, when the number of

attacks was about 300. The number of attacks has increased slightly since

1998, when there were 274 attacks, but the level has not reached the

number realized in any of the years of the 1980s. This report is not a linear

progression from a large number to a small number of attacks, but the

trend revealed is one of the decreasing incidence. Yet even if the frequency

has decreased, the danger has not.

The practice of terrorism has undergone dramatic changes in recent

years. The categorical fanaticism that is apparent in terrorist organizations

across a spectrum of belief systems is a major part of this change. In the

past, terrorists were more likely to be dominated by pragmatic

considerations of political and social change, public opinion, and other such

factors. Today, a phenomenon that was a minute rarity in the past terrorists

bent on death and destruction for its own sake is more common place than

ever. In addition, the statelessness of today’s terrorists removes crucial

restraints that once held the most extreme terrorists in check or prevented

them from reaching the highest levels in their organizations. Terrorists can

still enjoy the funding and shelter that only a national economy can

mobilize, but they are on their own to a greater degree in greater numbers

than in the past. Organizationally, terrorists are using the non-hierarchical

structures and systems that have emerged in recent years. Finally, the

potential availability of nuclear, chemical and biological technology provides

the prospect that these trends could result in unprecedented human

disasters.

SOLUTIONS AND THE WAY FORWARD

Different organizations, with help from terrorism consultants, have

been able to develop terrorism solutions. Many agencies that are charged

with fighting terrorism have reviewed the way they operate and share

intelligence. This change has opened the communication between these

agencies and has reduced the chances of another attack happening due to

lack of communication. There is therefore need to move towards a

comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism. Okeke (2005) has advanced

three broad approaches against terrorism so that the so society and its

state institutions could be protected against terrorist attacks. These are:

a. Anti-terrorist measures to ensure that people, public life, buildings

and infrastructures are less vulnerable.

b. Counter-terrorist measures to prevent terrorists from attacking by

identifying and neutralizing or stopping them.

c. Crisis-management aimed at resolving and stabilizing the situation.

The measures advanced above could be carried out through the

under listed (Okeke, 2005).

i. International Cooperation: it is evident that no single nation can

fight international terrorism successfully without the cooperation of

others. Hence, there is need for cooperation among all nations at

all levels, namely global (UN) continental (AU) regional

(ECOWAS) etc, multilateral and bilateral levels, by way of

exchange of information on the movements, profiles, methods, and

plans etc of terrorists to facilitate their neutralization.

ii. Strengthening of intelligence organization to procure timely and

credible intelligence: International terrorism organizations operate

in a clandestine nature akin to intelligence organizations. It is far

better and safer to neutralize terrorists’ plots than to reach to them

and this can only be achieved through empowering and enhancing

the capacity of intelligence and security services.

iii. Cooperation among intelligence and security outfits at National

organizational levels: There is need for cooperation among various

intelligence and security outfits in every nation, so that the bits and

pieces of information available to each could be well harnessed

and analyzed towards combating terrorism. Analyses and

assessment should however be objectives and not be influenced

by motives, prevailing wisdom and pressures from governments

for information. As much as possible, governments should tailor

their actions based on available intelligence rather than on a

predetermined desired contrary to available intelligence as this

may embarrass the nation and cause more problems.

iv. Continuous capacity building for intelligence and security

operatives and agencies.

v. Concerted international efforts to combat drug, arms and people

smuggling: These are crimes that are often committed to prop up

terrorism. With regard to money laundering for instance, individual

government could oblige their banks to disclose to authorities all

financial transactions, that exceed certain amounts in respects of

individuals and corporate organizations. Banks and governments

should also create more effective financial intelligence units.

vi. Strengthening of national statutes, laws and regulations against

terrorist offences and strict enforcement of existing laws.

vii. Enhancing physical security around facilities and infrastructure that

are commonly targeted for terrorist attacks.

viii. Provision of effective protection of VIPs and their movements at all

times.

ix. Control of sale of dual-purpose devices or substances that can, for

instance be used to fabricate bombs, dynamites etc.

x. Monitoring the activities of religions organizations to curb the

emergence of religious fundamentalism, which often breed

terrorism.

xi. Eradication of poverty and unemployment particularly in Africa

which often lead the youth to embrace religious extremism or

make them amenable to recruitment by criminal groups.

xii. Creating anti-terror awareness among the citizenry.

xiii. Introduction of strong domestic measures: where strong measures

are demanded, governments many introduce regulations that are

akin to the U.S “Patriotic Act” which, among other things,

empower security and intelligence agencies to monitor the use of

internet by citizens, telephone lines, etc to detect untoward

exchanges that may be prejudicial to national security.

xiv. Enhancement and enforcement of aviation security and

immigration control: It is important for countries to adopt and

where applicable, reinforce global airport and aviation security and

safety standards. Airlines should also share passengers

information with authorities especially in suspicious circumstances.

Immigration control at all borders must also be strengthened.

xv. Institutionalization of good governance: individual governments,

especially in emerging democracies, should endeavour to manage

the affairs of their states in accordance with democratic tenets of

fairness, justice, equity and the rule of law, so as not to tensions or

conditions that lead to the emergence of dictatorships, civil crises,

armed opposition and resistance. These could be exploited by

terrorists.

xvi. Settlement of the Middle East crisis: One of the grouses of

international terrorists, particularly the Al-Qaeda, is the role the

U.S plays in the Middle East crisis. In order to take the wind out of

the soil of the terrorists, and more so as unilateral military options

have failed to address the issue, it is imperative for the

international community and the U.S in particular to seek for a

diplomatic solution to the lingering crisis in the region.

xvii. Establishment of efficient national emergency response

mechanism: It is imperative for individual states to establish or

strengthen existing national emergency response mechanisms to

adequately and efficiently respond to emergencies including and

particularly those arising from terror attacks.

xviii. There should be strict adherence to commitments made at world,

continental regional and bilateral levels. In this respect, all

countries should implement measures put in place by the U.N as

well as continental and regional bodies. Faithful implementation

will help make the world safer from the criminals and terrorists that

want to destabilize it.

CONCLUSION:

John Cage, the great composer, was once asked if there is too much

suffering in this world. This response was that there is just the right amount.

In a similar vein, one could argue that there is just the right amount of

terrorism, especially in Nigeria. While a number of states in west African

sub-region have been affected by the specter of international terrorism and

devastation wrought by it, Nigeria has not suffered as much as others. The

cases of sierra Leone and Liberia whose foreign adventurist mercenaries

ad illegal gold and diamond merchants combined with local bandits to bring

the countries to ruin are examples.

Following our analysis of terrorism in a world view, it would be clear,

we would hope, that terrorism, if not dealt with, could have a serious and

devastating impact on development approaches and on global security.

The above measures need to be considered in order to combat terrorism. It

is equally necessary to find out the major cause of terrorist acts which will

help the war against terrorism to thrive. For us in Nigeria, we have our own

peculiar problem. We need a sustainable agenda to deal with out problem.

We must be very vigilante about the infiltration of terrorist groups. The

threats from ethnic militias must be dealt with in a firm but just way so that

the havoc they are committing does not continue.

REFERENCES

Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkley: University of California

Press.

Canadian Anti-Terrorist Act Bill (Bill-C36).

Greisman, H.C. (1977). Social Meanings of Terrorism: Reification, Violence

and Social Control. Contemporary Crises Vol. I, 304.

Hudson, R.A. (2002). Who Becomes A Terrorist And Why: The 1999

Government Reports on Profiling Terrorists. Federal Research

Division: The Lyons Press.

Okeke, U. (2005). Terrorism and Global Security in Foreign Policy in

Nigeria’s Democratic Transition. A Publication of the Presidential

Advisory Council on International Relations (ACIR).

Purpura, P.P (2007). Terrorism and Homeland Security: An Introduction

with Applications. Butterworth: Heinemann.

Scheider, B. and Davis, J. (2009). Avoiding the Abyss: Progress, Shortfalls

and The Way Ahead In Combating WMD Threat. Greenwood:

Publishing Groups.

Thornton, T.P (1964). “Terror as a Weapon of Political Agitation” in H.

Eckstein (ed), Internal War. London: Collier Macmillan.

United Kingdom Legislation Act-Terrorist Act 2000.

United States of American Federal Statutes.

Wardlaw, G. (1989). Political Terrorism: Theory, Tactics and Counter-

Measures. Cambridge: University Press.

Wilkinson P. (1977). Terrorism and The Liberal State: London: Macmillan.

National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals

(1976). Disorders and Terrorism. Washinton D.C. “13 Beagles stolen

from researcher” the New York times February 2, 1988.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/02/science/=/. Retrieved 2010-01-

11.

“Freedom squelches terrorist violence: Harvard Gazette Archives”

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/ 05terror,

http://hsyhome.harvard.edu/aabadie.academic.ksg/ povterr.pdf.

Retrived 2008-12-28.

“Poverty political freedom, and the roots of terrorism” (PDF). 2004.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/2aabadie.academic

ksg/povterr.pdf.Retrieved 2008-12-28.

“Unemployment, inequality and terrorism: Another look at the relationship

between economics and terrorism” (PDF).2005. Archived from the

orginal on August 3, 2008.

http://web.archive.org/web/2008080302219.http://titan.

Iwu.edu/2econ/uer/articles/Kevin-goldstein.pdf. Retrieved 2008-12-

28.

Bruss Hoffman (June, 2003). “The logic of suicide terrorism”. The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2003/hoffman. Retrieved 2010-01-11

“the terrorist appear to be deliberatelt homing in on the few remaining

places where Israelis thought they could socialize in peace.

Pape, Robert A. “The strategic logic of suicide terrorism” “American political

science review, 2003.97 (3): pp 1-19.

“Basque Terrorist group marks 50th Anniversary with new attacks”. Times

magazine. July 31, 2009.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599.1913931,00 html

retrieved 2010-01-11. “Europe’s longest-enduring terrorist groups.

This week, ETA (the initials stand for Basque Homeland and

fereedom in Euskera, the Basque language).

“1983: Car bomb in South Africa kills 16” .BBC. 2005-05-20.

http://news.bbc.co.uk.onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/20/newsid43260

00/4326975. retrieved 2010-01-11.

Shabad, Goldie and Franciso Jose IIera Ramo. Political Violence in a

Democratic State, “Terrorism in context (ed) Martha Glenshaw.

University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1995 pp. 467.

http://www.ram,org/ramblings/philosophy/terrorism/html.

http://library.thinkquest.org/tq0312031/hs/totinfo.html.

http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterrorism1/tp/definingterrorism.html