Thursday, October 1, 2015

Terrorism - a paradise for double standards

Terrorism - a paradise for double standards
Becoming a victim of a terrorist act - a personal tragedy, but it is also a social matter, speaking of trouble very foundations of society


The approach to terrorism can not be sustained in a paradigm of value neutrality - attempts to go beyond the compressed definition of terrorism is difficult to achieve the result of the deep contradictions of the phenomenon

On Wednesday, Sept. 30, the Federation Council voted unanimously for the use of the Russian Armed Forces abroad - for an appropriate solution to the senators asked Vladimir Putin. Head of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation Sergei Ivanov,addressing the deputies of the upper chamber of the Russian parliament, said: "I want to inform you that the President of the Syrian Arab Republic appealed to the leadership of our country with a request for military assistance. Thus, we can say that terrorism, Of course, we must fight, we must join forces. " Later, the head of the state, commenting on a meeting with members of the government decision, said: "The only true way to combat international terrorism - and in Syria and in neighboring countries with her ​​rampant just gang of international terrorists - is to act on pre-emption, fight and destroy insurgents and terrorists have captured territories they do not wait for them to come to our house. " So Russia will struggle against international terrorism is not only in its territory. But, generally speaking, is this terrorism? What are we going to fight on the territory of the Arab Republic?

Terrorism has increased its negative impact on the development of international relations and domestic life, leaving almost the most dangerous challenge not only international security, but also the humanity.
Among a number of global issues for the first time in the history of the beginning of the XXI century to the fore the problem of joint struggle of different states against terrorism, against new, unprecedented cycle of violence motivated by political aims. Since the 60-ies of XX century, terrorism has sharply increased its negative impact on the development of international relations and domestic life, leaving almost the most dangerous challenge not only international security, but also the humanity.
The word "terrorism" immediately attracts attention. Becoming a victim of a terrorist act - a personal tragedy, but it is also a social matter, talking about the troubles the very foundations of society. Terrorism is, by and large, not a very common thing - very few of us have ever come face to face with the terrorists. But, despite this relative rarity, an act of terrorism - an important social event. In fact, in each case, it generates two kinds of victims - both the victims, their families and friends and all of us, because we are losing a sense of security and confidence in the very foundations of social order. Senseless seemingly random violence against people for the sake of politics makes you think: instead of falling apart if in a sense, our very society?

Terrologiya - a complex subject that requires a cross-disciplinary approach, because terrorism crosses the boundaries of disciplines as easily as the border states. Let's try to capture the essence of this phenomenon.

It is clear that the mere fact of an event does not define terrorism. For example, the explosion of the aircraft may be an act of terrorism, and the unfortunate mistake (remember the hit Ukrainian missiles to civilian aircraft TU-154 air defense exercises during the fall of 2001). The United States, as we know the same of Syria are able to strike at suspected terrorist targets, citing the threat of national interests and international peace, but they can condemn another country for such actions. The double standards and contradictions notwithstanding that show that the term "terrorism" of the problem at its core. 

Firstly, the term "terrorism" is emotionally charged, particularly pejorative, connotation.The label "terrorist" brings individuals or groups beyond the sanctioned social and political interactions. For example, a politician accused of terrorism is eliminated from participation in the political dialogue and political movements if their followers believe terrorists may be suppressed on a legitimate basis.

Secondly, this interweaving of the terms "terrorism" and "terror" (from the Latin terror - the fear, the horror). For example, the main purpose of any regular army - to sow fear in the hearts of opponents, and fear as a deterrent has been a powerful weapon in military conflicts throughout the history of mankind. Supporters of anti-militarist ideas argue that the use of military force and terrorism - related concepts. From this perspective, nuclear missiles in a state of readiness for launch - also terrorism. Others, following the same logic, talking about street thugs who are terrorizing everyone in the neighborhood. Thus, the term "terrorist" over-extended.

Third, in the essence of this concept influenced by changes in the social and historical context. Terrorism as crime, has social roots and is not some undifferentiated integrity.
Terrorists are able to produce a chronic state of fear by using violence outside the world of normative behavior - it expands the audience is striking and has the effect of changing people's actions and reactions.
American political scientist March Crenshaw has done an attempt to distinguish between terrorists and freedom fighters. She particularly pointed to the fact that terrorism can not be determined until it reviewed the act, its object and the possibility of success. According to this position, the freedom fighters legitimately use military tactics to defeat the political "target." Their actions receive more legitimacy when they have a chance to win. When it comes to terrorism, it may not meet at least one of the conditions: the presence of military tactics, military target and a chance to win. Crenshaw also suggests not to confuse terrorism and revolutionary violence. Terrorism in its interpretation - socially and politically unacceptable violence directed at the civilian facility to achieve a psychological effect.

But this analytical approach has a soft spot: who has the power to determine what is legitimate, and that - no, he can decide what to call terrorism. For example, the radical left nationalist Basque organization ETA was not originally focused on the violence in the struggle for national autonomy. Active terrorist campaign she started in the second half of the 60s, when Generalissimo Francisco Franco Bahamonde made ​​an attempt to eliminate the movement, carrying out the state policy of incorporation of the Basque region by force.

It should also put on a number of modern terrorism and the repression of the state. It is undeniable that the latter have brought no less than death and suffering than terrorist groups (in fact, incomparably more), but it seems to be a separate problem in the first place to the nature and specifics of the functioning of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.Terrorism - a method of struggle where victims serve as symbolic targets. Terrorists are able to produce a chronic state of fear, using violence outside the world of normative behavior - it expands the audience is striking and has the effect of changing people's actions and reactions.

It is worth noting that the word "terrorism" is often used as a synonym for any media of political and physical violence in order to increase the audience. Uniform Code of Corporate Journalists and reporters in this regard does not exist, but some companies are introduced in this area limitations. For example, the international news agency Reuters instructs its staff to "refrain from judgment" and, therefore, avoid using the word "terrorist" in text and video. Instead, it proposes to use "more general" or "more specific" terms: "Adventure", "bombers", "armed men", "hijackers". In 2001, the British corporation BBC has also publicly renounced use of the term "terrorism". According to its management, it is subjective, but its use harms the image of the corporation, which claims to objective coverage of events. In any case, the treatment of terrorism in the media can "lose" its shape.

In general, attempts to go beyond the compressed definition of terrorism are unlikely to be fruitful because of the deep internal contradictions of the research object. The approach to terrorism can not be sustained in a paradigm of value neutrality.

Irina Kudryashov

No comments:

Post a Comment