Week 2: Terrorism and 'regressive globalisation'

This week's lecture was based on Mary Kaldor's online article about 'regressive globalisation', which I hope you'll read (the URL is in the Unit Handbook). To look at it another way, this week's lecture started to tackle the question Did September 11th change the world?; it did this by asking the more specific question Is Al-Qaida a new form of terrorist organisation?

The answer, if you want to skip to the end, is Yes, it is. But it's not as simple as that. Lots of terrorist groups have had international networks of supporters and funders; lots of terrorist groups have made anti-American, anti-Western, anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist statements. Even the idea of a terrorist group which is itself international - a group which doesn't have a fixed 'base camp' in any country, and can move its operations from one place to another as necessary - isn't all that new: this is precisely the way that the Palestine Liberation Organisation operated, before they gained a base on the West Bank.

What is new about Al-Qaida is that it has all these characteristics - international organisation, international support, anti-American politics - together with two more key features. Firstly, the group's goals are international - it has demands which cannot be satisfied by any one nation, and which in fact would require the overthrow of several governments. Secondly, and most importantly, the group's goals are regressive: it aims to turn the clock back, taking the world (or at least the Muslim world) back to a lost past.

Most of us would see that lost past as mythical. It remains a powerful image for those who believe in it, though. Believers would say that it was lost twice over. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, imperialist nations such as Britain and France - sometimes polemically labelled 'Crusader' nations, because of their historical connection with the original Crusades - re-drew the map of Arab and Muslim lands to suit their purposes. In the late twentieth century, secondly, the forces of globalisation transformed the cultures and economies of those countries.

Globalisation is a profoundly destabilising process and can also be profoundly disempowering, both for individuals and for nation states: it makes the national government less important in everyday life while giving more prominence to unaccountable international businesses. In poorer countries, in particular, this can lead to a complete hollowing-out of the state. This experience can give credibility to reactionary forces, which offer the perceived security of a return to the 'old ways' and a break with the modern innovations which are associated with globalisation.

The phenomenon of Al-Qaida can thus be seen as both an exploitation of globalisation and a reaction against it. Where globalisation promotes democracy, secularism, equality and modernity, Al-Qaida champions authoritarianism, religion, hierarchy and tradition. At the same time, Al-Qaida exploits the material conditions created by globalisation - it would not have been able to operate as it does in a "pre-globalised" world. This is the paradox of "regressive globalisation", and this is what is genuinely new about Al-Qaida.

Also this week, we did some work on defining terrorism. How many of these would you classify as a "terrorist act"?

1. A bomb planted in a police station, with a telephoned warning and a published statement claiming responsibility. It turns out to be a dummy.
2. A bomb planted in a police station, no warning, no statement. It goes off while being defused.
3. A bomb planted in the hotel where the Prime Minister is staying.
4. Three men talking about planting a bomb in the hotel where the Prime Minister is staying.
5. One man looking for bomb recipes online and writing handwritten notes about carrying out a bomb attack on the Prime Minister.
6. A violent attack on a senior police officer, carried out by two masked men carrying guns.
7. A violent attack on a senior police officer, carried out by an unarmed man.
8. A violent attack on a soldier on patrol.
9. An attack on an undefended town in wartime.
10. A night attack on an army camp in wartime, killing off-duty soldiers.
11. The kidnapping of a government minister by a group who threaten to subject him to a "people's trial".
12. The kidnapping of a government minister by a group who demand a ransom.

Can you define "terrorism" in a way that fits all the examples you selected, and doesn't fit any of the others?