Transnational Political Violence Flashcards
Definitions of Terrorism
US Department of State (2001): Premeditated, politically motivated violence by sub-national groups targeting noncombatants to influence an audience.
Wardlaw (1982): Use or threat of violence to induce extreme anxiety or fear for political coercion.
Higgins (ICJ): Terrorism lacks legal significance, a term for widely disapproved activities.
Terrorism is a debated and undefined phenomenon, with variations in defining state terrorism and the “terrorist” vs. “freedom fighter” debate.
Defining Terrorism
Varied perspectives on non-state actors, state actors, and the ambiguity of the term.
Four historical waves of terrorism: Anarchism (1880s), Decolonization movements (1920s-1960s), Radical Left (1960s-1970s), Islamic-inspired Movements (1980s-now).
Theories of Political Violence
Policy theories: “They hate our freedom,” “New Terrorism,” and radicalization stages models.
Terrorism as a social movement: Emphasis on violence as a political act, relational nature, framing importance, and the emergent aspect of violence.
Clandestine Political Violence: Differentiation from armed resistance, not civil wars, emphasis on media attention, and secrecy of actors.
Three Cases of Transnational Violence
Brigate Rosse:
National political opportunity structure, mobilizing structures, global framing (Marxism, anticolonialism), and repertoires (foco theory, targeted attacks, hostage taking).
KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army):
National and international political opportunity structures, mobilizing structures, national framing (Pan-Albanian ethnic nationalism), and repertoires (insurgency warfare, foco theory, organized crime financing).
Al Qaeda:
Transnational opportunity structures, mobilizing structures, global framing (transnational caliphate, near and far enemy), and repertoires (insurgency warfare, bombings, targeted killings).
Conclusion
Political violence experiences different waves, and terms like terrorism and radicalization are contested.
“Clandestine political violence” offers a more accurate definition.
Political violence is analyzable through regular social scientific methods as a specific repertoire of contention.
The global frame and empirical practices of political violence can vary from very local to transnational.
Objectives of the Article
Examine non-state political entrepreneurs in changing globalization conditions.
Illustrate how globalization challenges traditional notions of national security.
Main Argument
Globalization transforms the international security environment by empowering non-state political entrepreneurs with transnational and global political mobilization capacities.
Political vs. Religious Organization
Militant Islamist groups engaging in political violence are categorized as political, not religious.
Bin Laden’s grievances against the US are seen as largely political rather than cultural.
Suicide bombings are strategically chosen, emphasizing a political rather than arbitrary nature.
Globalization and Incentives for Mobilization
Migrant communities linked by transnational networks are activated during political mobilization.
Opportunities for transnational mobilization of economic resources increase through informal networks.
Global economic mobility leads to increased movement of ideas, information, and identities.
Transnational Political Mobilization and Networks of Violence
Push and pull factors contribute to a grand strategy combining non-violent and violent tactics.
Political entrepreneurs build cross-border organizational structures for loyalty and resource mobilization.
Globalization, Transnational Political Mobilization, and International Security
Transnational Networks of Violence blur internal and external security distinctions.
Responses to transnational political mobilization lead to a less distinct separation between internal and external security institutions.
Violent transnational networks contribute to weak states emerging as security threats.
Transnational mobilization “domesticates” the global security environment.
Conclusions
Non-violent and violent transnational social movements coexist on a continuum.
The international system adopts features of domestic political systems, impacting security realms.
New security strategies emerge, involving global policing, surveillance, and nation-building.
Future policy challenges include transposing factors for stable domestic political systems to the international level.
