大家
郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[大家]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[Injustice as the root of terrorism: Social political and economic fact]
郭国汀律师专栏
·彻底揭露批判中共极权专制流氓暴政本质的奇书
·极权专制暴政的根源/郭国汀
·共产极权专制暴政的典型特征——简评陈泱潮的《特权论》
·论共产极权专制政权的本质——三评陈泱潮天才著作《特权论》
·何谓“无产阶级专政”
·陈泱潮论马克思主义的无产阶级专政 郭国汀
·论初级无产阶级专政 /新南郭点评
·论高级无产阶级专政 郭国汀
·中国何往?——政治思想论战书 /新南郭
·陈泱潮论改良主义/郭国汀
·文化大革命是中国民主革命的序幕 郭国汀
·陈泱潮妙评邓小平的“瞎猫屠夫理论” 郭国汀
·陈泱潮精评毛泽东 郭国汀
·论共产党官僚垄断特权阶级 郭国汀
·共产党官员为什么普遍腐化堕落?郭国汀
·“三个代表”是个什么玩意? 郭国汀
·对抗性的社会基本矛盾 郭国汀
·为何中共官员多具有奴隶主和奴仆的双重人格? 郭国汀
·共产专制特权等级制 郭国汀
·人民“公仆”是如何变成骑在人民头上作威作福的老爷的? 郭国汀
·神化首要分子神化党与邪教 郭国汀
·宗教政治与人权灵本主义 郭国汀
·陈尔晋论今日中国社会主要矛盾及前途与命运
·陈泱潮先生在当代中国思想史上的地位 作者:曾节明
***(44)反中共极权专制暴政争自由宪政人权民主绝食抗暴民权运动
·南郭致涵习近平先生
·郭律师致高智晟女儿格格的公开信
·福布斯报导高智晟失踪事件
·胡锦涛必须对高智晟受酷刑负直接罪责!
·郭国汀 高智晟律师为何不发声?
·我眼中的高智晟
·郭国汀 从我的经历看中共当局诽谤高智晟的下流
·所谓高智晟公开声明及悔罪书肯定是伪造的
·真正的中国人的伟大怒吼!
·加拿大著名人权律师安世立支持声援全球绝食抗暴的声明
·闻律师英雄高智晟再遇车祸有感 郭国汀
·呼吁全球万人同步大绝食宣言
·全球接力绝食抗暴运动的伟大意义 郭国汀
·郭国汀声援和平抗暴 呼吁抛弃中共
·中国律师界应全力声援高智晟
·专家剖析高智晟煽动颠覆国家政权案
·抓捕关押高智晟的整个过程都是违法的/郭国汀
·中共迫害高智晟亲人丧心病狂,中共党魁胡锦涛难辞其咎
·绝食维权抗暴日记
·郭国汀 漠视大陆维权是一种自杀行为
·英雄伟人与超人高智晟
·告全体中国律师及法律人书----闻高智晟被秘密绑架感言
·郭国汀: 高智晟遭秘密绑架可能成为中共灭亡的导火索
·给真正的中国女人的公开信
·郭国汀:驳刘荻的非理性投射说
·决不与中共专制暴政同流合污--------第29个全球接力绝食抗暴日记 郭国汀
·一部见证当代中国社会现实的伟大纪实作品--序高智晟《中国民间企业维权第一案》
·郭国汀呼吁国际重视高智晟妻儿的遭遇
·将接力绝食抗暴运动进行至最后胜利
·我为中华律师英雄杨在新喝彩 郭国汀
·郭国汀向老戚致敬
·万众一心,众志成城——全球万人同步绝食抗暴日记 郭国汀
·责令中共当局立即无条件释放兰州大学学生刘西峰!郭国汀
·加拿大著名人权律师ANSLEY支持声援全球绝食抗暴运动的声明
·郭国汀:中国律师应当向高智晟,浦志强律师学习!
***(45)人权研究
***中国人权律师基金会
·郭国汀推荐黄金秋竞选[第三届中国自由文化运动政论奖]推荐函
·郭国汀提名陈泱潮为2009中国自由文化奖之文化成就奖获奖候选人
·郭国汀提名张博树为2009中国自由文化奖之法学奖获奖候选人
·推荐郭国汀先生参选2009年台湾民主人权奖书
·letter of recommendation of Guoting for 2008 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award
·提名郭國汀律師作為[第三屆亞洲民主與人權獎]候選人的推薦函
·支持郭国汀律师负责组建中国人权律师基金会
·第二届《中国自由文化奖》评奖程序的修改建议
·郭国汀提名张鉴康律师作为第二届自由文化奖之人权奖候选人
·关于提名陈泱潮竞选[中国自由文化运动文化成就奖]推荐函
·推荐郭国汀先生参选第三届「亞洲民主人權獎」推荐书
·Letter of recommendation of Guoting Guo for 2008 The Third Asian Democracy and Human Rights Award
***(46)关注西藏新疆少数民族人权
·解决西藏问题的最佳方案--宪政联邦体制
·中共政权对藏民族所犯下的罪恶
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?--西藏与中国关系简史
·什么是西藏问题?
·达赖啦嘛论解决西藏问题的原则
·中共宗教灭绝政策的实质是从精神心灵上扼杀藏人
·西藏自古以来属于中国吗?
·西藏问题的实质
·自由法治宪政民主联邦体制是解决西藏问题的最佳方案
·达赖啦嘛最常使用的词汇
·达赖啦嘛的使命与梦想
·达赖啦嘛论西藏问题的实质
·达赖啦嘛论西藏文明文化和历史
·达赖啦嘛论解决西问题的原则
·达赖啦嘛论爱同情怜悯与慈悲
·达赖啦嘛论藏传佛教的价值
·是中共暴政而非汉族奴役迫害藏民族!
·新疆暴亂是中共流氓暴政故意利用民族茅盾转嫁统治危机人为泡制的惨案
·坚决支持藏民维民争自由,平等,人权,民主的英勇抗暴运动
·从图片新闻看达赖喇嘛的国际影响力
·达赖喇嘛语录郭国汀译
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
Injustice as the root of terrorism: Social political and economic fact

Injustice as the root of terrorism: Social political and economic factors

   

   GuotingGuo

   

   3/12/2013

   

   Introduction

   

   After 911 terror attacked, the terrorism studies has expanded to become a field with its own dedicated journals, research centres, leading scholars and experts, canon of published works, research funding opportunities, conferences, seminars, and study programmes. As Jackson(2008:377) noted that a new book on terrorism appears nearly every six hours, while peer-reviewed papers have increased by approximately 300%. Between 1968 and 2003, there were more than 6100 transnational terrorist attacks, causing more than 36000 deaths and injuries. (Robison,Kristopher and Jenkins 2006:1) In 2001 alone there were 1,732 recorded incidents worldwide, and five years later the annual figure had risen to 6,659. (Qvortrup2012:503) However, states terror which have killed, tortured, and intimidated hundreds of millions of people over the past century (Rummel 1994, Sluka 2000b), and many states continue to do so today in places like Colombia, Haiti, Algeria, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, Tibet, North Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sudan, and China. Many of these states regularly employ extensive state torture, extra-judicial killings, disappearances, collective punishments, and daily forms of violent intimidation to terrorise opponents and enforce compliance to state rule(Jackson 2008:385). According to the experts of terrorism, the causes of terrorism are diversity including social, economic, political, religious, ideologies, cultural, ethnical factors. Some scholars believe the dictatorship states are less terrorism than democratic countries. Eubank and Weinberg (2001) and Lai (2007) suggest that more democratic countries generate substantially more terrorist activity, arguing that autocratic regimes are better prepared to suppress opposition. My argument is that the reason of the dictatorship states appear less terror attack, not because their political system are better than democracy, but for themselves become state terrorism which overwhelming any non-state group’s any demand for justice, and politics and economics connect with each other closely, political freedom and rights always company with economical freedom; therefore, the political injustice might be one of the important roots of terrorism which need pay more attention.

   

   I. The definition of terrorism

   

   Many scholars has made various definition of terrorism, majority of them are in narrow sense which except state as actor. Bruce Hoffman(1998:43) argues that terrorism involves violence ‘perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity’. Ehrlich and Liu (2002) defined terrorism as actions carried out by militarily-weak sub-or trans-national groups from developing nations to gain political ends through violence against private citizens or public property of militarily-powerful developed nations. Enders and Sandler (2006: 3) define that terrorism ‘is the premeditated use or threat to use violence by individuals or sub-national groups in order to obtain a political or social objective through the intimidation of a large audience beyond that of the immediate victims.’ Sedgwick(2007:110) noted that the important characteristic of terrorism is the use of violence for indirect political and psychological consequences by a group aiming to take political power. Pete Lentini(2008) suggested that the terrorism is a sub-state group or individual uses or threatens to use violence against innocent people or non-combatants or even property to effect political change and achieve political goals by creating an atmosphere of fear.

   Although vary in some elements, all above definitions have a common factor, that terrorism is perpetrated by non-state actors; in fact these definitions are highly influenced by the US State Department’s definition of terrorism, which conceives of terrorism as ‘premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience’ . According to these definitions, the essential elements of terrorism are: (a) using or threat use of violence; (b) by individuals or groups; (c) toward innocent civilians; (d) for political or social reason; (e) by instilling fear and terror.

   The fundamental nature of terrorism is use violence attack innocents for political purposes. Since who are actors, whether individual or a group or a state, do not change the nature of terrorism at all. Thus, it does not make sense to exclusion of state as the subject of terrorism. Richard Jackson(2008:383) argues that if terrorism refers to violence directed towards or threatened against civilians which is designed to instil terror or intimidate a population for political reasons, then broader definition should include state-sponsored terrorism and state terrorism – a broadly consensual definition of terrorism in the literature (Raphael 2007) . Therefore, for justice and fairness, the terrorism can be concisely defined as “using violence direct attack on innocents for political purposes”.

   

   II. Major causes of terrorism

   

   The causes of terrorism are very complicate involving many factors such as social, political, economic, ideological, religious, cultural, ethnic etc. Traditionally, studies of political violence and terrorism have focused on the social and economic causes of terrorism. Relative deprivation often measured as economic inequality and a low level of economic income has often been blamed for increased levels in the incidence of terrorist attacks. However, there is evidence to suggest that these causes do not account for the occurrence of terrorist incidents in Western Europe. According to Matt Haunstrup Qvortrup (2012: 505), the Major causes of contemporary transnational terrorism including inequality and social strains of transitional developments (Lake 2002); political repression (Hefez 2003); the cultural clash between Western and Islamist values (Huntington 1996), the pro-Israeli stance of US (Pape 2005) The fourth wave of international terrorism rooted in Islamist ideologies (Snow 1996) leftist terrorism traditionally used a national liberation framework.

   Many scholars recently pay much attention to study the relationship between the ethnic faction and terrorism. For instance, Kurrild-Klitgaard et al. (2006) report a weak, but nevertheless positive relationship between terrorist activity and the ethnic, linguistic, and religious fractionalization of countries on the receiving end of terrorist attacks. Enders and Sandler( 2006:76) suggest that heightened ethnic tensions in a country generally increase the number of transnational terrorist attacks by citizens of that country; and poorer countries also spawn more terrorists. Basuchoudhary & Shughart (2010:66) observed that ethnically polarized countries are more likely to be plagued by civil war and other domestic violence. The unleashing of ethnic and religious separatism in the Middle East and Central Asia in the wake of the colonial powers’ withdrawal from the scene and the collapse of the Soviet Union are central to the understanding of modern terrorist activity. But the fact of the Democratic Republic of the Congo – a hotbed of ethnic tensions – has no reported transnational terrorist incidents; while ethnic-tension-free Greece had 110 transnational terrorist events between 1982 and 1997. This suggests that a correlation between ethnic tensions and terrorism is plausible. (Enders and Sandler, 2006:79)

   The logic of the ethnic tension cause terrorism is base on that human nature. Mankind are both social and political animal. For the survival of the species has hinged on the evolution of cooperative interaction amongst rationally self-interested individuals and the strongest of mankind’s interpersonal bonds are nurtured by ties of blood. Kinship fosters trust, loyalty and adherence to other behavioral norms that help control free-riding. Amartya Sen (2006) emphasizes that while identification with a particular group can facilitate within-group cooperation , ‘excessive’ identification can also lead to inter-group conflict. Thus, while groups promote the creation of ‘social capital’ that allows their members to coexist peacefully, trading networks to emerge, and public goods to be produced, the asymmetrical relationships between insiders and outsiders can lead to polarization and violent confrontation. Such inter-group tensions may find expression in transnational terrorist activity. (Basuchoudhary & Shughart 2010:65)

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场