IS TERRORISM A SERIOUS THREAT TO INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL

SECURITY?

Terrorism has become an issue at the forefront of security concerns for many nations
today. Felt virtually in every corner of the world, it has created a climate of fear.
Following the harrowing events of 9/11, the threat of terrorism has impacted major
governments decisions all over the world, with most governments enacting policies, laws
and investing a lot more on security than ever before. This essay will look at how serious
the threat of terrorism is to national and international security.

The definition of terrorism has been contentious for many years, with several scholars
attempting to define what terrorism is. Lutz and Lutz (2009) argued that despite the
difficulties in defining what terrorism is, there are however, common elements that can
be found in almost all the terrorist organizations, these elements includes and not limited
to, political agenda, use of violence or the threat of violence, involvement of non state
actors, struggle for power change, among other elements (2009:2). While arguing further,
Lutz and Lutz maintained that terrorism constitute a serious threat for many states,
evidential by the way the security has been undermined over the years in sates affected
and that even where it is not a major threat, failure to deal with a potential threat could
lead to serious insecurity in the future, in addition they observed that due to enormous
resources being pumped into countering terrorism, states fighting terrorism risk
undergoing through economic difficulties, that the threat of terrorism has significantly
increased the cost for government and private sector because of the need to provide
adequate ‘security for buildings, personnel and the general public’ (2012: 64). While the
governments spends so much money on security, counterterrorism policies and measures,
other sectors of the country suffers like the welfare of citizens, which includes basic
amenities, employment and general standard of living especially in developing sates
dealing with terrorism, as such much resources meant for such are diverted to fight off
terror, this invariably have an effect on the economy and national security. Rightly so,
because people will feel suppressed and ignored by the government, this can lead to
outburst of crimes and increase in insecurity. Accordingly, not only is terrorism a threat
to national and international security, but also takes another form of security challenge by
leading a nation into economic crises (Lutz and Lutz 2009: 7; Lutz and Lutz 2012).

In contrast to their arguments Mueller (2006) avers that the threat of terrorist has been
generally exaggerated, he points out that the reaction against terrorism has done more
harm than good because it has helped the terrorists more than it hurts them. He argues
further that the economic cost of reaction have been much higher than those inflicted by
the terrorist, this subsequently led to wasteful expenditures and policy overreactions,
which only succeeded in playing into the hands of the terrorist. Similarly Lustick (2012)
observes that terrorism is just like any other threat, not particularly serious, it just requires
a simple and proper response, he contend that if terrorism is classified as a serious threat,
then threats such as traffic accidents, accidental poisoning, suicides and homicides which
are 50-100 times greater than terrorism in terms of death caused, should be considered
cataclysmic.

Mueller (2006) highlighted that, research conducted in America from 1999 – 2007 shows
that the leading cause of nonviolent death is caused by: Traffic accident (385, 601),
Unintentional Poisonings (177, 973), Falls (159, 906). While the leading cause of violent
death is caused by: Suicide (273, 162 including 152, 056) and Homicide (150,878
including 106, 125, caused by firearm homicide), while the total number of those killed
by terrorism in that period is exactly the number (2, 973) killed on September 11, 2001
(Mueller, 2006; Lustick, 2012). Accordingly Mueller points out that based on that
statistics, the chances of being killed if 9\11 was to occur quarterly for five years is 0.02
percent (Mueller, 2006: 2). In the same vain, Lustick posits that although terrorism is a
problem, however, evidence and logic suggest that it is not much of a serious threat
enough to distract governments from other seemingly greater problems and opportunities
(2012: 67).

The events of 9/11 led to changes in policies and structures in many states around the
world. For example there were changes in the US foreign policy after 9/11, the changes
focused not just on preemptive action but also on Preventive action (Jones, 2015).
Accordingly Lutz and Lutz (2012) pointed out that some terrorist activities have not only
succeeded in threatening state security; it has also led to changes in the structure of some
states, they cited instances where groups such as the fascist in Italy and Nazis in Germany
were able to use terror and violence with other political methods to undermine
governments, while groups such as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka relied first on terrorism
tactics before engaging the use guerrilla warfare tactics, which eventually led to civil war
(2012: 62). Although they conceded that using terrorism as a tactic has not been entirely
successful, they nonetheless maintained that activities of terrorists have led to changes in
both national and international policies around the world (Lutz and Lutz, 2012). On the
contrary, Abrahms (2012) highlighted that the successes of several terrorist campaigns
were exaggerated (2012: 368). He explained further that terrorist groups were only able
to achieve their policy objectives in only 3 out of 42 cases. The only exception is with the
case of suicide terrorism where about 60 percent of such campaigns were highly
effective. It was able to effect ‘significant policy changes by the target towards the
terrorist major political goals’ (Abrahms 2012, 2006).

Similarly Jones and Libicki (2008) posits that only 10 percent of terrorist campaigns were
successful going as far back as 1968, they noted that terrorist do give up terrorism and in
some instances join political processes, which in effect shows they are capable of
compromising. As Held (2008) observed ‘it is possible for yesterday’s terrorist to become
tomorrow’s statesmen’ (2008: 52) she states that to some people, the activities of
terrorists maybe seen as reasonable and a justifiable war, especially during the anti
colonial movements in the early 1920’s, where those fighting to emancipate their people
from colonial rule were tagged as terrorists, however, same are seen as legitimate
representative of their people whenever they are successful, according to Held, terrorism
is not about instilling fear but a voice to freedom (2008: 53)

The level of technological advancement in the 21st century has put terrorism at the
limelight of global concern. The media coverage of the 9/11 attacks gave the world an
insight into the gravity of terrorism. Technological changes according to Lutz and Lutz
(2012) provides new opportunities for terrorists to cause more damage, they argued that
with the advancement of new technologies, the threat of terrorism also increases with
innocent people being ever more vulnerable (2012). Similarly, Colarik (2006) avers that
the Internet and the new media has made it possible for terrorist to access materials and
instructions for making weapons of mass destruction. Many scholars share this view,
Hoffman (2006) maintained that the Internet has revolutionized they way terrorists
operate, arguing further, he avers that terrorists no longer rely solely on guns and bombs,
they have added a new dimension to their operations by employing the use of the world
wide web, Mini-cams and video tapes (2006: 197).

In the same vain, Weimann (2006) points out that the new media has not only given
terrorist the scope to reach a large number of people, it has also given them the chance to
narrow cast their messages to a targeted members of the society, this according to him
enables them to achieve maximum propaganda effect, Weimann further noted that they
use the internet to recruit, radicalize and plan attacks (2006). Although this assertions
may not be entirely unfounded, because of the fact that the Internet has shattered the
monopoly on accessible information formerly wielded by traditional media houses,
however, Benson (2014) is of the view that the threat pose by terrorists using the internet
is overly exaggerated, Disputing Lutz and Lutz, Colarik and Weimann, Benson
maintained that the internet is not as useful to the terrorist as it seems, he points out that
not every information on the internet is true and useful, and the fact that there is
availability of weaponry manuals and practical guides on how to carry out attacks or
warfare doesn’t necessary translate to action because it is not a substitute for having
actual experience, whilst one can afford making mistake in trying out a new cooking
recipe, same cannot be said of one who is trying to follow instructions on how to make a
weapon such as bombs , because the slightest mistake can kill off the inexperienced and
amateur maker (2014).

Likewise Torres Soriano (2012) pointed out that the Internet is a playground for both
security agencies and the terrorists, he argued further that law enforcement agencies now
infiltrate and create fake websites in order to create confusion and spread disinformation
among the terrorists, this according to him has undermined the feeling of impunity
enjoyed by them when using the internet thereby significantly reducing the threat pose by
them (2012). Similarly, Lustick (2012) observed that the politicians and mass media
(which includes the news and the internet) are to be blamed for exaggerating issues
relating to terrorism, in contrast to Colarik assertions of terrorists using the internet to
learn and create weapons of mass destruction, he explains further, that the idea of terrorist
using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was only used as a justification to invade Iraq
by the Bush administration (2012: 71).

Accordingly, Benson (2014) highlighted that the exaggeration by politicians and mass
media alike on the threat pose by terrorists using the Internet has come at a heavy price;
governments all over the world today are using that as an excuse to infringe on people’s
privacy, the united states congress has over the years considered on several occasion a
bill to “off switch” the internet (2014: 327). The UK government also made a similar
move, when the prime minister proposed a policy to ban encryption in order to enable
security agencies to monitor the activities of people online (The Guardian, 2015). Such
counter terrorism policies and practices adopted by the western countries according to
Wolfendale (2007) pose far greater threat than terrorism, she argued that terrorism must
be fought just like all other crimes. Similarly Guelke (2006) avers that, the way
government handles terrorist attacks poses more threat to security. Equally, Wilkinson
(2006) posits that, rather than pointing the finger at terrorism, the government should be
seen as a serious threat to security.

In conclusion, while the threat of terrorism cannot be ignored, the scale at which it is
made out to be today is blown out of proportion. There are far more serious and
challenging threat to national security and international security which are not accorded
the same attention like the threat of terrorism, existential threat such as climate change,
diseases such as Ebola and HIV/AIDS, genocide, poverty and hunger are given much less
attention
Politicians on one hand are sensationalizing it and making it look apocalyptic just to gain
votes, the media on the other hand magnifies and exaggerate reports on terrorism and
terrorists attacks, this invariably makes terrorism looks like existential threat to national
and international security at large. The exaggeration has done more harm than good, with
governments investing more funds in fighting off terrorism, while neglecting other
important sectors of the state, This leads to people being marginalized and frustrated
thereby creating more problems for the state. The seemingly threat of terrorism has only
given governments all over the world the excuse to control people by enact policies and
laws which infringes on citizen’s civil liberties.
Reference

Abrahms, Max. 2006. “Why Terrorism Does Not Work.” International Security 31(2): 42-78.

Abrahms, Max. 2012. “The Political Effectiveness of Terrorism Revisited.” Comparative Political Studies
45(3): 366-393.

Benson, D. C. (2014) 'Why the Internet is Not Increasing Terrorism'. Security Studies 23 (2), 293-328

Colarik, A. (2006) Cyber Terrorism. London: IGI Global

Guelke, A. (2006) Terrorism and Global Disorder. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd

Held, V. (2008) How Terrorism is Wrong: Morality and Political Violence. New York: Oxford University
Press

Hoffman, B. (2006) Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press

Jones, S. G. and Libicki, M. C. (2008) How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering Al Qa'Ida.:
Rand Corporation

Jones, (2015) How Did US Foreign Policy Change After 9/11? [online] available from
<http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/defense/a/Us-Foreign-Policy-After-9-11.htm> [12 June 2015]

Lustick, I. S. (2012) ‘Is Terrorism a Serious Threat to International and National Security?’ in
Contemporary Debates On Terrorism. ed. by Jackson, R. and Sinclair, S. London: Routledge

Lutz, J and Lutz, B. (2012) ‘Is Terrorism a Serious Threat to International and National Security?’ in
Contemporary Debates On Terrorism. ed. by Jackson, R. and Sinclair, S. London: Routledge

Lutz, J. and Lutz, B, (2009) Forum On Public Policy: Spring 2009 Terrorism Table Of Contents [online]
available from <http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/spring09papers/terrorismspr09.html> [7 June 2015]

Mueller, J. E. (2006) Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security
Threats, and Why we Believe them.: Simon and Schuster

The Guardian (2015) Cameron wants to ban encryption [online] available from
<http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron-ban-encryption-digital-britain-online-
shopping-banking-messaging-terror> [15 June 2015]

Torres Soriano, M. R. (2012) 'The Vulnerabilities of Online Terrorism'. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 35
(4), 263-277

Wilkinson, P. (2006) Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Routledge

Weimann, G. (2006). Terror on the Internet. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Wolfendale, J. (2007) 'Terrorism, Security, and the Threat of Counterterrorism'. Studies in Conflict &
Terrorism 30, 75-92