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
·《民族英雄蒋介石》
·《还原蒋介石》:身世
·《还原蒋介石》:辛亥革命中的蒋介石
·《还原蒋介石》:二次革命
·《还原蒋介石》:中华革命党
·《还原蒋介石》:袁世凯称帝与张勋复辟
·《还原蒋介石》:军阀混战
·《还原蒋介石》:南北军政府对抗
·《还原蒋介石》:辞职将军蒋介石
·《还原蒋介石》:孝子情深
·《还原蒋介石》:情深义重
·《还原蒋介石》:远见卓识 肝胆相照
·《还原蒋介石》:壮志未酬身先死
·《还原蒋介石》:列宁的对华政策
·《还原蒋介石》:中共的由来
·《还原蒋介石》:孙中山的“联俄容共”
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党篡夺国民党的领导权
·《还原蒋介石》:篡党夺权
·《还原蒋介石》:‘联俄联共,扶助农工’的骗局
·《还原蒋介石》:蒋介石领导北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:中山舰事件真相
·《还原蒋介石》:北伐雄师所向无敌
·《还原蒋介石》:中共恶意制造南京事件
·《还原蒋介石》:共产党阴谋操控反蒋运动
·《还原蒋介石》:上海三次起义
·《还原蒋介石》:汪(精卫)陈(独秀)联合宣言
·《还原蒋介石》:四一二清党真相
·《还原蒋介石》:恢复北伐
·《还原蒋介石》:宁汉政府相争
·《民族英雄蒋介石》33、汪精卫武汉政府清共
·《民族英雄蒋介石》34、南昌暴动
·《民族英雄蒋介石》35、蒋介石辞职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》36、蒋介石访日
·《民族英雄蒋介石》37、蒋(介石)宋(美玲)联姻
·《民族英雄蒋介石》38、广州暴动国民党与苏联决裂
·《民族英雄蒋介石》40、济南事件
·《民族英雄蒋介石》39、北伐第二阶段
·《民族英雄蒋介石》41、浩气长存的蔡公时
·《民族英雄蒋介石》42、忍辱负重
·《民族英雄蒋介石》43、北伐最后阶段
·《民族英雄蒋介石》44、日本关东军暗杀张作霖
·《民族英雄蒋介石》45、北伐军胜利汇师北京
·《民族英雄蒋介石》46、满洲易帜归国民政府
·《民族英雄蒋介石》47、关税自治,
·《民族英雄蒋介石》48、李宗仁及冯玉祥反叛
·《民族英雄蒋介石》49、南方战云--叛乱的瘟疫
·《民族英雄蒋介石》50 、中原大战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》51 周恩来的灭门惨案
·《民族英雄蒋介石》52、共匪红军的兴起
·《民族英雄蒋介石》53、剿共匪--攘外必先安内
·《民族英雄蒋介石》54、55、56 “九一八事变”
·《民族英雄蒋介石》57 日本侵华与国联
·《民族英雄蒋介石》58 忍辱负重
·《民族英雄蒋介石》59、上海“一二八”抗战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》60、皮肉伤与心脏病
·《民族英雄蒋介石》61儒雅绅士 基督情怀
·《民族英雄蒋介石》62、国家危机和国内政治
·《民族英雄蒋介石》63、国家团结会议,蒋介石再辞职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》64日本攻占锦州,蒋介石复职
·《民族英雄蒋介石》65、国军上海一二八抗战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》66、伪满洲国成立
·《民族英雄蒋介石》67、心慈手软
·《民族英雄蒋介石》68、福建平叛
·《民族英雄蒋介石》69、剿匪
·《民族英雄蒋介石》70、西安事变
·《民族英雄蒋介石》71、七七卢沟桥事变
·《民族英雄蒋介石》72、沪淞会战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》73、悲壮的南京保卫战
·《民族英雄蒋介石》74.南京大屠杀
·《民族英雄蒋介石》75.血战台儿庄
·《民族英雄蒋介石》76 英勇的太原保卫战
***(33)《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》
·《匪首毛泽东》郭国汀编译
·《匪首毛泽东》2、毛泽东滥杀政敌
·《匪首毛泽东》3、共匪滥杀无辜,十万红军将士地方党干魂飞魄散
·《匪首毛泽东》5、冷血毛泽东为权力疯狂滥杀红军将士
·《匪首毛泽东》6、毛泽东周恩来诱骗张学良发动西安事变
·《匪首毛泽东》7、受苏联指令张治中挑起八一三上海抗战
·《匪首毛泽东》8、中共假抗日真勾结日寇,狠打抗日国军
·《匪首毛泽东》9、平型关战斗和百团大战
·《匪首毛泽东》10、宛南事变:毛为争权借刀杀项英
·《匪首毛泽东》11、延安洗脑运动中共种植贩卖毒品
· 《匪首毛泽东》12、发动国共内战的罪魁是毛泽东!
·《匪首毛泽东》19.极度无知而狂妄自大的毛泽东
***中国问题研究
***(34)《论中共极权专制暴政的本质》郭国汀著
·共产党极权专制暴政的变革
·论中国共产党极权暴政的滔天罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》之二
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共夺取政权以前的杀人罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共盗国窃政后的滥杀罪孽
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共谋杀性大饥荒
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》毛共文革罪孽深重
·《论中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》六四天安门屠城
·《中共极权专制暴政的滔天罪孽》中共统治西藏罪孽深重
·《郭律师论中共极权流氓暴政》郭国汀著
[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