全球化与国际恐怖主义

3.全球化与国际恐怖主义　Behind the Curve:Globalization and International Terrorism^[70]

本节导读

2001年9月11日，这是载入史册的一天——以美国为目标的“9·11”恐怖袭击事件对刚刚步入21世纪的人类社会造成了巨大的震动和深远的影响。用时任美国国家安全顾问的赖斯的话说，“像‘9·11’事件这样强度的‘大地震’足以改变国际政治的构造板块”。由来已久的恐怖主义在全球化进程的催化下已经更新换代，成为对21世纪国际安全和稳定最大的威胁之一。

《曲线的背后：全球化与国际恐怖主义》正是将国际恐怖主义放置于全球化的时代背景下，对恐怖主义这一现象的定义、历史、根源、类型、新趋势、新特点、应对策略等等进行全面的梳理。“一人的恐怖主义分子是另一人的自由战士”，作者认为，关于恐怖主义的定义众说纷纭、莫衷一是，究其原因，恐怖主义具有较强的主观性和政治性。文中特别突出了“宗教恐怖主义”对国际安全的危害性，并聚焦于美国、全球化、恐怖主义三者的关系，对全球化背景下恐怖主义活动的手段、目的进行深入的分析。最后，作者根据美国等国家反恐现状有针对性地提出政策建议：必须短期军事行动和长期战略谋划双管齐下，特别要注重长期的、非军事性的政策工具的运用，否则治本无从说起。

2011年5月1日，美国总统奥巴马通过电视讲话宣布“基地组织”头目本·拉登被美国军方击毙，这是美国反恐战争自2001年以来取得的最重大的胜利。但其意义更多是象征性的，国际反恐形势依然严峻，与国际恐怖主义的斗争仍然任重而道远。

＊＊＊

Definition,Origins,Motivations,and Types of Modern Terrorism

＊＊＊

Definition of Terrorism

Terrorism is notoriously difficult to define,in part because the term has evolved and in part because it is associated with an activity that is designed to be subjective^[71].Generally speaking,the targets of a terrorist episode are not the victims who are killed or maimed^[72]in the attack,but rather the governments,publics,or constituents among whom the terrorists hope to engender^[73]a reaction—such as fear, repulsion,intimidation,overreaction,or radicalization.Specialists in the area of terrorism studies have devoted hundreds of pages toward trying to develop an unassailable definition of the term,only to realize the fruitlessness of their efforts:Terrorism is intended to be a matter of perception and is thus seen differently by different observers.

Although individuals can disagree over whether particular actions constitute terrorism,there are certain aspects of the concept that are fundamental.First,terrorism always has a political nature.It involves the commission of outrageous acts designed to precipitate^[74]political change.At its root,terrorism is about justice,or at least someone’s perception of it,whether man-made or divine.Second,although many other uses of violence are inherently political,including conventional war among states,terrorism is distinguished by its nonstate character—even when terrorists receive military,political,economic,and other means of support from state sources.States obviously employ force for political ends:When state force is used internationally,it is considered an act of war;when it is used domestically,it is called various things,including law enforcement,state terror,oppression,or civil war.Although states can terrorize,they cannot by definition be terrorists.Third, terrorism deliberately targets the innocent,which also distinguishes it from state uses of force that inadvertently^[75]kill innocent bystanders.In any given example,the latter may or may not be seen as justified;but again,this use of force is different from terrorism.Hence the fact that precision-guided^[76]missiles sometimes go astray and kill innocent civilians is a tragic use of force,but it is not terrorism.Finally, state use of force is subject to international norms and conventions that may be invoked or at least consulted;terrorists do not abide by international laws or norms and,to maximize the psychological effect of an attack,their activities have a deliberately unpredictable quality.

Thus,at a minimum,terrorism has the following characteristics:a fundamentally political nature,the surprise use of violence against seemingly random targets,and the targeting of the innocent by nonstate actors.All of these attributes^[77]are illustrated by recent examples of terrorism—from the April 2000 kidnapping of tourists by the Abu Sayyaf^[78]group of the Philippines to the various incidents allegedly committed by al-Qaeda,including the 1998 bombings of the U.S.embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the September 11 attacks.For the purposes of this discussion,the shorthand(and admittedly imperfect)definition of terrorism is the threat or use of seemingly random violence against innocents for political ends by a nonstate actor.

＊＊＊

Leftist,Rightist,Ethnonationalist^[79]/Separatist,and“Sacred”Terrorism

There are four types of terrorist organizations currently operating around the world, categorized mainly by their source of motivation:left-wing terrorists,right-wing terrorists,ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists,and religious or“sacred”terrorists. All four types have enjoyed periods of relative prominence in the modern era,with left-wing terrorism intertwined with the Communist movement,right-wing terrorism drawing its inspiration from Fascism,and the bulk of ethnonationalist/separatist terrorism accompanying the wave of decolonization^[80]especially in the immediate post-World War II years.Currently,“sacred”terrorism is becoming more significant.Although groups in all categories continue to exist today,left-wing and rightwing terrorist groups were more numerous in earlier decades.Of course,these categories are not perfect,as many groups have a mix of motivating ideologies—some ethnonationalist groups,for example,have religious characteristics or agendas—but usually one ideology or motivation dominates.

Categories are useful not simply because classifying the groups gives scholars a more orderly field to study(admittedly an advantage),but also because different motivations have sometimes led to differing styles and modes of behavior.Understanding the type of terrorist group involved can provide insight into the likeliest manifestations of its violence and the most typical patterns of its development.At the risk of generalizing,left-wing terrorist organizations,driven by liberal or idealist political concepts,tend to prefer revolutionary,antiauthoritarian,antimaterialistic agendas.(Here it is useful to distinguish between the idealism of individual terrorists and the frequently contradictory motivations of their sponsors.)In line with these preferences,left-wing organizations often engage in brutal criminal-type behavior such as kidnapping,murder,bombing,and arson,often directed at elite targets that symbolize authority.They have difficulty,however,agreeing on their longterm objectives.Most left-wing organizations in twentieth-century Western Europe, for example,were brutal but relatively ephemeral^[81].Of course,right-wing terrorists can be ruthless,but in their most recent manifestations they have tended to be less cohesive and more impetuous in their violence than leftist terrorist groups.Their targets are often chosen according to race but also ethnicity,religion,or immigrant status,and in recent decades at least,have been more opportunistic^[82]than calculated.This makes them potentially explosive but difficult to track.Ethnonationalist/ separatist terrorists are the most conventional,usually having a clear political or territorial aim that is rational and potentially negotiable,if not always justifiable in any given case.They can be astoundingly violent,over lengthy periods.At the same time,it can be difficult to distinguish between goals based on ethnic identity and those rooted in the control of a piece of land.With their focus on gains to be made in the traditional state-oriented international system,ethnonationalist/separatist terrorists often transition in and out of more traditional paramilitary structures,depending on how the cause is going.In addition,they typically have sources of support among the local populace^[83]of the same ethnicity with whom their separatist goals(or appeals to blood links)may resonate.That broader popular support is usually the key to the greater average longevity of ethnonationalist/separatist groups in the modern era.

All four types of terrorist organizations are capable of egregious^[84]acts of barbarism.But religious terrorists may be especially dangerous to international security for at least five reasons.

First,religious terrorists often feel engaged in a Manichaean^[85]struggle of good against evil,implying an open-ended set of human targets:Anyone who is not a member of their religion or religious sect may be“evil”and thus fair game.Although indiscriminate attacks are not unique to religious terrorists,the exclusivity of their faith may lead them to dehumanize their victims even more than most terrorist groups do,because they consider nonmembers to be infidels^[86]or apostates^[87]—as perhaps,for instance,al-Qaeda operatives may have viewed Muslims killed in the World Trade Center.

Second,religious terrorists engage in violent behavior directly or indirectly to please the perceived commands of a deity.This has a number of worrisome implications:The whims of the deity may be less than obvious to those who are not members of the religion,so the actions of violent religious organizations can be especially unpredictable.Moreover,religious terrorists may not be as constrained in their behavior by concerns about the reactions of their human constituents.(Their audience lies elsewhere.)

Third,religious terrorists consider themselves to be unconstrained by secular^[88]values or laws.Indeed the very target of the attacks may be the law-based secular society that is embodied in most modern states.The driving motivation,therefore,is to overturn the current post-Westphalian state system—a much more fundamental threat than is,say,ethnonationalist terrorism purporting to carve out a new secular state or autonomous territory.

Fourth,and related,religious terrorists often display a complete sense of alienation from the existing social system.They are not trying to correct the system, making it more just,more perfect,and more egalitarian^[89].Rather they are trying to replace it.In some groups,apocalyptic^[90]images of destruction are seen as a necessity—even a purifying regimen—and this makes them uniquely dangerous,as was painfully learned on September 11.

Fifth,religious terrorism is especially worrisome because of its dispersed popular support in civil society.On the one hand,for example,groups such as al-Qaeda are able to find support from some Muslim nongovernmental foundations throughout the world,making it truly a global network.On the other hand,in the process of trying to distinguish between the relatively few providers of serious support from the majority of genuinely philanthropic groups,there is the real risk of igniting the very holy war that the terrorists may be seeking in the first instance.

In sum,there are both enduring and new aspects to modern terrorism.The enduring features center on the common political struggles that have characterized major acts of international terrorism.The newest and perhaps most alarming aspect is the increasingly religious nature of modern terrorist groups.Against this historical background,the unique elements in the patterns of terrorist activity surrounding September 11 appear starkly.

Key Trends in Modern Terrorism

By the late 1990s,four trends in modern terrorism were becoming apparent:an increase in the incidence of religiously motivated attacks,a decrease in the overall number of attacks,an increase in the lethality per attack,and the growing targeting of Americans.

＊＊＊

Reflecting all of these trends,al-Qaeda and its associated groups(and individuals)are harbingers^[91]of a new type of terrorist organization.Even if al-Qaeda ceases to exist(which is unlikely),the dramatic attacks of September 2001,and their political and economic effects,will continue to inspire similarly motivated groups—particularly if the United States and its allies fail to develop broad-based,effective counterterrorist policies over the long term.Moreover,there is significant evidence that the global links and activities that al-Qaeda and its associated groups perpetuated are not short term or anomalous^[92].Indeed they are changing the nature of the terrorist threat as we move further into the twenty-first century.The resulting intersection between the United States,globalization,and international terrorism will define the major challenges to international security.

The United States,Globalization,and International Terrorism

Whether deliberately intending to or not,the United States is projecting uncoordinated economic,social,and political power even more sweepingly than it is in military terms.Globalization,in forms including Westernization,secularization^[93],democratization,consumerism,and the growth of market capitalism,represents an onslaught^[94]to less privileged people in conservative cultures repelled by the fundamental changes that these forces are bringing—or angered by the distortions and uneven distributions of benefits that result.This is especially true of the Arab world.Yet the current U.S.approach to this growing repulsion is colored by a kind of cultural naïveté^[95],an unwillingness to recognize—let alone appreciate or take responsibility for—the influence of U.S.power except in its military dimension.Even doing nothing in the economic,social,and political policy realms is still doing something,because the United States is blamed by disadvantaged and alienated populations for the powerful Western-led forces of globalization that are proceeding apace,despite the absence of a focused,coordinated U.S.policy.And those penetrating mechanisms of globalization,such as the internet,the media,and the increasing flows of goods and peoples,are exploited in return.Both the means and ends of terrorism are being reformulated in the current environment.

＊＊＊

The Means

First,the use of information technologies such as the internet,mobile phones,and instant messaging has extended the global reach of many terrorist groups.＊＊＊

Second,globalization has enabled terrorist organizations to reach across international borders,in the same way(and often through the same channels)that commerce and business interests are linked.＊＊＊

Third,terrorist organizations are broadening their reach in gathering financial resources to fund their operations.＊＊＊

This is by no means a comprehensive presentation of global interpenetration of terrorist means,and some of the connections described above have existed for some time and in other contexts.The broad strategic picture,however,is of an increasing ability of terrorist organizations to exploit the same avenues of communication,coordination,and cooperation as other international actors,including states,multinational corporations,nongovernmental organizations,and even individuals.It would be naïve to assume that what is good for international commerce and international communication is not also good for international terrorists—who are increasingly becoming opportunistic entrepreneurs whose“product”(often quite consciously“sold”)is violence against innocent targets for a political end.

The Ends

The objectives of international terrorism have also changed as a result of globalization.Foreign intrusions and growing awareness of shrinking global space have created incentives to use the ideal asymmetrical^[96]weapon,terrorism,for more ambitious purposes.

The political incentives to attack major targets such as the United States with powerful weapons have greatly increased.The perceived corruption of indigenous customs,religions,languages,economies,and so on are blamed on an international system often unconsciously molded by American behavior.The accompanying distortions in local communities as a result of exposure to the global marketplace of goods and ideas are increasingly blamed on U.S.-sponsored modernization and those who support it.The advancement of technology,however,is not the driving force behind the terrorist threat to the United States and its allies,despite what some have assumed.Instead,at the heart of this threat are frustrated populations and international movements that are increasingly inclined to lash out against U.S.-led globalization.

As Christopher Coker^[97]observes,globalization is reducing tendencies toward instrumental violence(i.e.,violence between states and even between communities),but it is enhancing incentives for expressive violence(or violence that is ritualistic,symbolic,and communicative).The new international terrorism is increasingly engendered by a need to assert identity or meaning against forces of homogeneity^[98],especially on the part of cultures that are threatened by,or left behind by,the secular future that Western-led globalization brings.

According to a report recently published by the United Nations Development Programme,the region of greatest deficit in measures of human development—the Arab world—is also the heart of the most threatening religiously inspired terrorism. Much more work needs to be done on the significance of this correlation,but increasingly sources of political discontent are arising from disenfranchised^[99]areas in the Arab world that feel left behind by the promise of globalization and its assurances of broader freedom,prosperity,and access to knowledge.The results are dashed expectations,heightened resentment of the perceived U.S.-led hegemonic system,and a shift of focus away from more proximate targets within the region.

Of course,the motivations behind this threat should not be oversimplified:Anti-American terrorism is spurred in part by a desire to change U.S.policy in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions as well as by growing antipathy^[100]in the developing world vis-à-vis^[101]the forces of globalization.It is also crucial to distinguish between the motivations of leaders such as Osama bin Laden and their followers.The former seem to be more driven by calculated strategic decisions to shift the locus of attack away from repressive^[102]indigenous governments to the more attractive and media-rich target of the United States.The latter appear to be more driven by religious concepts cleverly distorted to arouse anger and passion in societies full of pent-up^[103]frustration.To some degree,terrorism is directed against the United States because of its engagement and policies in various regions.Anti-Americanism is closely related to antiglobalization,because(intentionally or not)the primary driver of the powerful forces resulting in globalization is the United States.

Analyzing terrorism as something separate from globalization is misleading and potentially dangerous.Indeed globalization and terrorism are intricately intertwined forces characterizing international security in the twenty-first century.The main question is whether terrorism will succeed in disrupting the promise of improved livelihoods for millions of people on Earth.Globalization is not an inevitable, linear^[104]development,and it can be disrupted by such unconventional means as international terrorism.Conversely,modern international terrorism is especially dangerous because of the power that it potentially derives from globalization—whether through access to CBNR^[105]weapons,global media outreach,or a diverse network of financial and information resources.

＊＊＊

Conclusions and Policy Prescriptions

＊＊＊

The prescriptions for countering and preventing terrorism should be twofold^[106]: First,the United States and other members of the international community concerned about this threat need to use a balanced assortment of instruments to address the immediate challenges of the terrorists themselves.Terrorism is a complex phenomenon;it must be met with short-term military action,informed by in-depth, long-term,sophisticated analysis.Thus far,the response has been virtually all the former and little of the latter.Second,the United States and its counterterrorist allies must employ a much broader array of longer-term policy tools to reshape the international environment,which enables terrorist networks to breed and become robust.The mechanisms of globalization need to be exploited to thwart the globalization of terrorism.

In the short term,the United States must continue to rely on capable military forces that can sustain punishing air strikes against terrorists and those who harbor them with an even greater capacity for special operations on the ground.This requires not only improved stealthy,long-range power projection^[107]capabilities but also agile,highly trained,and lethal ground forces,backed up with greater intelligence,including human intelligence supported by individuals with language skills and cultural training.The use of military force continues to be important as one means of responding to terrorist violence against the West,and there is no question that it effectively preempts and disrupts some international terrorist activity,especially in the short term.

Over time,however,the more effective instruments of policy are likely to remain the nonmilitary ones.Indeed the United States needs to expand and deepen its nonmilitary instruments of power such as intelligence,public diplomacy,cooperation with allies,international legal instruments,and economic assistance and sanctions.George Kennan^[108],in his 1947 description of containment,put forth the same fundamental argument,albeit against an extremely different enemy.The strongest response that the United States can muster to a serious threat has to include political,economic,and military capabilities—in that order;yet,the U.S.government consistently structures its policies and devotes its resources in the reverse sequence.

The economic and political roots of terrorism are complex,increasingly worrisome,and demanding of as much breadth and subtlety in response as they display in their genesis.The United States must therefore be strategic in its response:An effective grand strategy against terrorism involves planning a global campaign with the most effective means available,not just the most measurable,obvious,or gratifying.It must also include plans for shaping the global environment after the socalled war on terrorism has ended—or after the current political momentum has subsided.

The United States,working with other major donor nations,needs to create an effective incentive structure that rewards“good performers”—those countries with good governance,inclusive education programs,and adequate social programs—and works around“bad performers”and intervenes to assist so-called failed states^[109].Also for the longer term,the United States and its allies need to project a vision of sustainable development—of economic growth,equal access to basic social needs such as education and health,and good governance—for the developing world.This is particularly true in mostly Muslim countries whose populations are angry with the United States over a perceived double standard regarding its long-standing support for Israel at the expense of Palestinians,policies against the regime of Saddam Hussein at the expense of some Iraqi people,and a general abundance of American power, including the U.S.military presence throughout the Middle East.Whether these policies are right or wrong is irrelevant here;the point is that just as the definition of terrorism can be subjective and value laden^[110],so too can the response to terrorism take into account perceptions of reality.In an attempt to craft an immediate military response,the U.S.government is failing to put into place an effective longterm grand strategy.

＊＊＊

The globalization of terrorism is perhaps the leading threat to long-term stability in the twenty-first century.But the benefit of globalization is that the international response to terrorist networks has also begun to be increasingly global,with international cooperation on law enforcement,intelligence,and especially financial controls being areas of notable recent innovation.If globalization is to continue—and there is nothing foreordained^[111]that it will—then the tools of globalization,including especially international norms,the rule of law,and international economic power, must be fully employed against the terrorist backlash.There must be a deliberate effort to move beyond the current episodic interest in this phenomenon:Superficial arguments and short attention spans will continue to result in event-driven policies and ultimately more attacks.Terrorism is an unprecedented,powerful nonstate threat to the international system that no single state,regardless of how powerful it may be in traditional terms,can defeat alone,especially in the absence of longterm,serious scholarship engaged in by its most creative minds.

思考题

1.What are the characteristics and the author’s definition of terrorism?

2.What are the reasons that religious terrorism may be especially dangerous to international security?

3.In times of globalization,how are the means of terrorism being reformulated?

4.What general advice is offered by the author to the US in its fight against terrorism?

5.What are the broad-based,long-term counter-terrorist policies expounded by the author?