Statement of the problem:
Terrorism has hit many nations on a global front. Nations always engage in many wars against terrorist acts and many policies are always set to counter terrorists. The main issue that affects nations is that they have inadequate diplomacy towards terrorism. This means that they are less prepared to face such attacks. The fact that terrorists never warn or provide any alarm for an impending attack, nations need to prepare adequately to face the terror acts. Suicide terrorists have been on the rise and hence call for preparedness and alertness. International organizations should also be given a place in the nations’ policies towards combating terror acts in order to realize the goals for peaceful states and networking (Ludwig 400).
Purpose of statement one
The Non%u2010state actors refer to any groups of individuals that are always out to cooperate with each other in order to achieve a given common and also political objective and goal. Non%u2010state actors are known to have been in existence long before the commencement of the renowned new realm of this non%u2010state actor. Non state actors such as terrorist are changing the landscape for international relations. Sovereign States are no longer at war with one another and are now left with an outdated doctrine to use against the non-state actors.
Purpose statement two
To improve the Sovereign State’s doctrines by always identifying the shortcomings of their doctrines against non-state actors.
Background to the problem
Terrorism refers to a known strategy and also a tactic of any violent activity that has always been on the rise in the recent past. This stance makes it completely imperative for one to not only better understand the nature of the issue but also the main strategies of all non%u2010state actors and also their perceived weak points. These Non%u2010state actors refer to any groups of individuals that are always out to cooperate with each other in order to achieve a given common and also political objective and goal. Non%u2010state actors are known to have been in existence long before the commencement of the renowned new realm of this non%u2010state actor. Many terrorist activities, almost by all definition, are an affair of a non%u2010state. Transnational ties evident between these actors stand out as a continual feature of the armed conflict. However, ever since the current world changed its view and new means and ways of communication have been devised and also exchange have been necessitated, transnational ties and bonds have come out as even more intense. They have gone further to manage superseding the state.
When two social groups that have different believes and also ideologies interact, terrorism gets its grounds and sets in. This is a scenario that applies even to nations that have different ways of looking at a certain issue. The issue may be political, religious, economical or even social. On religious grounds, which have always been a major cause of terrorism acts, the varied ideologies and beliefs take centre stage in the whole issue. Nations or even groups of people that do not have similar grounds of worship and belief in certain Supreme Being may tend to disagree on those grounds. This has been witnessed in many nations where the religious leaders may even lead people against each other. Suicide terrorists are also common in line with this kind of act.
The second factor that may elicit terrorism is a scenario when a given social group will end up feeling that their rights and also beliefs are not being taken into consideration by the other party or social group. This means that they have been short changed in their bid to achieve equality in all the dealings. They may never settle down unless their issues are also attended to at the top most level in the society. Their voices have to be heard.
The third fact that may lead to terrorism act is when the wronged social group does not have the power or authority to contend to the other or match the social groups’ power. This is when one group feels inferiors than the other party. They may decide to act on it by fighting back in order for their voices to be heard or also to get their portion of the cake. They feel that they should also possess equal rights and there is no reason whatsoever to be despised. They may retaliate in all positions in order to get their representation in the society.
The primary issue in this setting is the fact that Sovereign States doctrine is always designed to greatly contend with other sovereign states not non-state actors like terrorist. They have no policy to deal with terrorist or social groups that are not bound to one nation. This means that no matter what impact or policy that they set will not bring a solution to the terrorism problem. Terrorists are known to inhabit a nation without claiming to belong to it. They have well trained followers who can strike from any front and harm another nation. Most of them normally take vows and oaths that will make them stick to their goal and objectives of terrorism. Nations harboring terrorist groups can claim that the terrorist groups are not part of their state and can condemn them from being there; but that does not mean they have the means to eradicate them either. These nations normally live under the fear of being harmed whenever they counter act the given terrorists. They are always out to ensure that they do not fall victim to the terrorist attacks.
Most of the known supranational organizations that always govern the states have extremely little influence on the given non-state actors. The UN for example would not do much good by imposing sanctions on a terrorist organization. This means that they have less power over the effects of terrorism. They have less influence on the nations since all nations have their own governing bodies. Many nations do not allow these international organizations to meddle in their affairs and have their own rules and regulations that govern them. International bodies have their areas of operation and are not expected to go beyond their boundaries, lest they risk losing some of their member states. They, therefore, have to operate within their jurisdiction and can only advise at extremely severe situations.
These problems both hold water but the lack of jurisdiction that gives international organizations power to intervene terrorist attacks is less important. This is because for a solution to be sought there is need for an amicable way to solve the terrorism issue. International organizations are locked out in the whole solution seeking issue, and they can only advise at a minimal level. This also elicits the fact and insinuation that these international organizations have little power over the terror issues.
The main problem that exists in solving these problems has been the focus of Sovereign States on other states as their major competitors. Since the 19th century Sovereign states have focused on their competitors being other sovereign states and this has led to a system of policies and doctrines that are in adequate for the 21st century where non-state players are taking a more leading role. There is need for a shift in focus, since the world is evolving and hence people need to adopt new policies. Those policies that applied during the 19th century may not hold much water in the 21st century. All nations must be ready to adopt new policies that will fit into the current system. Terrorists are ever changing their tactics. Technology is also evolving on a daily basis and nations should never be left behind in their bid to combat the terrorist acts. Nations that are out to fight the terrorism scourge should be ready to engage themselves in a war of both intellect and power (Ludwig 400).
Another reason that may greatly affect these nations is that the Sovereign states themselves must take a united stance in order to contend and abolish the terrorist group. This means that they must set policies towards their main goal of ensuring that they combat the terrorism activities. They should not relent in their quest for having peaceful nations and networks. They should involve each and every party in a bid to find a lasting solution. If there is need for combining forces in order to achieve their targets, then they ought to do that (Ludwig 400).
A lasting solution is being hit hard by many factors. As long as there are Sovereign states with power and position to dictate unto lower social groups there will always be another chance for another terrorist group to form. They should ensure that they move out extremely fast to curb this problem of terrorism. Nations should always work as a unit and not despise each other. Unity is strength and no single group should look at itself as the most superior state. This means that they should involve all groups in decision making and also policy formulation at all levels. There should be no disparity in this quest (Ludwig 400).
The first solution is where Sovereign states will have to involve themselves less in other states and social groups as a way to deter terrorist groups from wanting revenge because of their influence. This will give them an edge over their targets. They should set policies that will put them at a better position that they can tackle all issues amicably and do away with the terrorists.
The second solution Sovereign states will be less likely to contend with other sovereign states and instead look to have allegiance with them against the terrorist groups. This will deny the terrorists room to attack and carry out their plans. Unity is strength and once these nations come together they will be better placed to handle the whole issue of terrorism. The moment they realize that they need each other, they will have extra power over the terror groups. Terror groups always work and look onto any weaknesses that exist for them to strike. They base their attacks on the main weaknesses that nations have. Therefore, all nations should realize that they need to come together in order to handle all the stresses that the terrorists bring forth.
The third solution is where Sovereign states will eventually deteriorate down to social groups and then International relations will become a mix of social groups each vying for their cause in the midst of turmoil and confusion. This will be a scenario where the nations will have to depend on each other to realize their goals of free and fair states. They should never look back and avoid all the terror attacks. Terrorists will keep on adopting new techniques in their bid to attack Sovereign states but the latter should always ensure that they have enough policies to counter these terror threats and attacks. That will be the only way that these nations will end up getting their desires and goals on the best track.
These terminologies of war and also terrorism have always been obfuscated. In order for a nation to vehemently fight war, it should be ready to employ several methods in a bid to win its quest. Among these methods are those dealing with terrorism and also insurgency strategies. Economics, culture, religion, and ethnicity have always been awarded with a large and explanatory role in a bid to understand the violent conduct (David 120). Despite the significance and also the force of these existing alternative arguments that are experienced, politics always remains a strong and valued explanatory factor whenever one is out to understand both the insurgency and also terrorism. The most significant targets within the strategies talked about are the vast minds of the known direct opponents, the state, wider population and also its representatives. Terrorists always pursue their desired political goals and objectives, not by the perceived acts themselves, but often by gearing towards provoking a known response from the given state that will always achieve that desired goal (David 120).
- There is hope in both insurgency and also terrorism as they have been proven to work. This can be achieved by gearing towards provoking one’s opponent into a state of over%u2010reacting. Thereafter the non%u2010state actors will get closer to the desired goals of yearning for de%u2010legitimization and also political change.
- Existence of any large insurgency campaigns always end up affecting the prevailing commitment of the feared opponent, which ends up becoming eventually questioned as a given prelude to the political change. Terrorism’s acts success definitely relies entirely upon achieving the deemed kind of responses and advises that all terrorists anticipate. Suicide terrorism has always come out to be greatly linked to the desired political change.
- The talked about insurgencies always take a religious, organizational, political, and also ideological approach in a bid to pursuing their goals and aims. Based on all actual empirical evidence that is brought out, however, the nations’ ability to conduct the desired metamorphosis depends upon as much on the competent leadership as on any objective factors. These include the degree of known weakness whereby the state and also its armed forces are always deemed to have been brought and also the existing level of popular support that is attained by use of the insurgency movement. The success of insurgency mainly depends upon two factors which include: legitimacy and also support of the general population.
- The sought hard and also convincing empirical evidence that exists of any successful workings that deal with counter%u2010terrorism instruments have never been ever brought forward. The increase in the activities of police forces against terrorism has not been proven to possess a causal relationship with a reduction in terrorist violence. Rather it has been linked to substitution behavior of terrorist actors.
Suggestions for focusing on political strategy aspects have been more promising than military ones. However, the effectiveness of negotiation and mediation has also shown contradictory results. Since war is about politics, it is ultimately politics that would seem to hold the key to the resolution of war. A feasible political agenda is a sine qua non for the termination of conflicts where terrorism or insurgencies are present.