Does globalization support terror?: Difference between revisions

From VCSEwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with '''6. Is terror a direct or indirect effect of globalization? Does globalization support terror in the sense that through interaction between countries and higher technological pr…')
 
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
===Answer by Jana Hybášková:===
===Answer by Jana Hybášková:===


Terrorism uses fight against civilian population as a tool for gaining political power. Terrorism was used thru centuries in different parts of the world. Very often civilians belonged to different religions, or different ethnic groups. Was massacre through which Abbasid dynasty gain power in Damascus terrorism?  Was this connection to globalization? Abbasid created world large, global emporium. The yeni ceri hordes in Balkans…And wars of modern nations for independence, from Greeks to Algerians FLN, from Jewish Hagana to Indian Muslims, to PLO. We can never in fully satisfactory way decide the line between the war for independence, resistance and terrorism. The movements, which were glorified by our Marxist teachers in past would reveille all signs of organized terrorist movements. These days Europe has to decide if Iranian Revolutionary Guards are or are not terrorist organization. The same holds true for Hezbollah and Hamas. Can we say that IRA or ETA, or Tupaku Amaru is reactions to interaction between countries and higher technological processes, different moral concepts and different social values and standards?  Definitely we can not. Terrorism as such has no direct linkage to globalization; it is not its result, nor its part.   
Terrorism uses war against the civilian population as a tool for gaining political power. Terrorism was used over the centuries in different parts of the world. Very often civilians belonged to different religions, or different ethnic groups. Was massacre through which the Abbasid dynasty gained power in Damascus terrorism?  Was this a connection to globalization? Abbasid created a worldwide, global emporium. The yeni ceri hordes in the Balkans…And wars of modern nations for independence, from Greeks to the Algerian FLN, from Jewish Hagana to Indian Muslims, to the PLO. We can never define in a fully satisfactory way the line between war for independence, resistance and terrorism. The movements which were glorified by the Czech Marxist teachers in the past would reveal all the hallmarks of organized terrorist movements. These days Europe has to decide if the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are or are not a terrorist organization. The same holds true for Hezbollah and Hamas. Can we say that the IRA or ETA or Tupaku Amaru are reactions to interaction between countries and higher technological processes, different moral concepts and different social values and standards?  Definitely we can not. Terrorism as such has no direct linkage to globalization; it is not its result, nor its part.   


Can globalization enhance terrorism? Here we have to be very careful. Your question suggests often repeated misunderstanding: the difference between globalization and industrial modernization. Modernization came as result of industrial revolution; globalization of world prize was one of processes accompanying industrial revolution. We have to make precise differentiation between them.
Can globalization enhance terrorism? Here we have to be very careful. Your question suggests an often repeated misunderstanding: the difference between globalization and industrial modernization. Modernization came about as a result of industrial revolution; the globalization of world prices was one of the processes accompanying the industrial revolution. We have to make a precise differentiation between them.


The issue in modern Islam is its limited ability to cope, or better to come to terms with modernity as such. Contrary to Christianity, Islam as much more complex way of live finds it much more difficult to open itself to modernization. Many issues, which needs answer in industrial and post industrial societies remains not answered to religious Muslim. The pious man than turns to religious roots, follows either teaching of Egyptian Muslim brothers or Saudi Wahhabis. Turn to the roots, so often happening in Islamic world should not be misinterpreted for violent reaction. Many pious Muslims, among them scholars and intellectuals are true fundamentalists. The first act they will ever deny and oppose is the use of violence. Modernity causes fundamentalism, not terrorism.  
The issue in modern Islam is its limited ability to cope, or better to come to terms with modernity as such. Contrary to Christianity, Islam is a much more complex way of living which finds it much more difficult to open itself up to modernization. Many issues which need an answer in industrial and post-industrial societies remain unanswered for religious Muslims. The pious man then turns to religious roots, follows either teaching of Egyptian Muslim brothers or Saudi Wahhabis. Returning to the roots, as so often happens in the Islamic world should not be misinterpreted as a violent reaction. Many pious Muslims, among them scholars and intellectuals are true fundamentalists. The first act they will ever refuse and oppose is the use of violence. Modernity causes fundamentalism, not terrorism.  


Globalization, creating world prize, world trade benefit and world trade losses, if mismanaged amplifies social differences, destructs equal chances. Those left behind globalization benefits, marginalized uneducated Shiite population of southern Beirut, pre industrial slums of Egyptian poverty in Cairo suburbs, millions of poor Saudis left in medieval environmental and social conditions seek for change, for political change, for political representation. If their demand for change is not met by educated urban elites who run their states, they seek for other political representation. Very many of them would not do so, if they can achieve share in globalization benefit, very many of them would never follow violent leader, or terrorist. Incredible corruption of ruling elites is very often the real final reason for active turn to “other” political representation. As much as globalization supports corruption, we can agree. It is not globalization; it is corruption what leads to search for political alternative. Even in Hamas victory, animosity towards Israel was not the real reason behind. It was Fattah s corruption. Fatah has nothing to do with globalization.
Globalization creates world prices, world trade benefits and world trade losses, and if mismanaged it amplifies social differences and destroys equal chances. Those left behind by globalization's benefits, marginalized uneducated Shiite population of southern Beirut, pre-industrial slums of Egyptian poverty in Cairo suburbs, millions of poor Saudis left behind in medieval environmental and social conditions seek change, political change and political representation. If their demand for change is not met by educated urban elites who run their states, they look for different political representation. Very many of them would not do so if they can achieve a share in globalization's benefits, and very many of them would never follow violent leaders or become terrorists. Incredible corruption of ruling elites is very often the real final reason for an active search for “different” political representation. As much as globalization supports corruption, we can agree. It is not globalization; it is corruption what leads to a search for political alternatives. Even with the Hamas victory, animosity towards Israel was not the real reason behind it. It was Fatah's corruption. Fatah has nothing to do with globalization.


So who are terrorists? This question is not usually answered properly. Terrorist, those who use attacks against civilian public are not those who die in attacks. They are those, who seek political power, which they can not obtain in democratic elections. Hamas, terrorist movement tried in Palestinian elections, and it was not internationally recognized. It did not gain power. Hezbollah did not win elections. Muslim brothers can under democratic conditions in Egypt win election.  
So who are terrorists? This question is not usually answered properly. Terrorists, those who use attacks against civilians are not those who die in attacks. They are those who seek political power which they can not obtain in democratic elections. Hamas, a terrorist movement tried in Palestinian elections and it was not internationally recognized. It did not gain power. Hezbollah did not win elections. The Muslim Brotherhood can under democratic conditions in Egypt win elections.  


So who are terrorists? Those, who want to gain participation in oil revenues, those who want to gain participation in religious funds and charities, those who want to control drug trafficking in Gulf region, and those who participate in illicit arms trade in the Greater Middle East. The connection towards globalization is loose.
So who are terrorists? Those who want to gain part of oil revenues, those who want to gain part of religious funds and charities, those who want to control drug trafficking in Gulf region, and those who participate in the illicit arms trade in the Greater Middle East. The connection towards globalization is loose.

Revision as of 13:52, 4 December 2009

6. Is terror a direct or indirect effect of globalization? Does globalization support terror in the sense that through interaction between countries and higher technological processes different moral concepts and different social values and standards are more visible and terror is a reaction to these differences?

Answer by Jana Hybášková:

Terrorism uses war against the civilian population as a tool for gaining political power. Terrorism was used over the centuries in different parts of the world. Very often civilians belonged to different religions, or different ethnic groups. Was massacre through which the Abbasid dynasty gained power in Damascus terrorism? Was this a connection to globalization? Abbasid created a worldwide, global emporium. The yeni ceri hordes in the Balkans…And wars of modern nations for independence, from Greeks to the Algerian FLN, from Jewish Hagana to Indian Muslims, to the PLO. We can never define in a fully satisfactory way the line between war for independence, resistance and terrorism. The movements which were glorified by the Czech Marxist teachers in the past would reveal all the hallmarks of organized terrorist movements. These days Europe has to decide if the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are or are not a terrorist organization. The same holds true for Hezbollah and Hamas. Can we say that the IRA or ETA or Tupaku Amaru are reactions to interaction between countries and higher technological processes, different moral concepts and different social values and standards? Definitely we can not. Terrorism as such has no direct linkage to globalization; it is not its result, nor its part.

Can globalization enhance terrorism? Here we have to be very careful. Your question suggests an often repeated misunderstanding: the difference between globalization and industrial modernization. Modernization came about as a result of industrial revolution; the globalization of world prices was one of the processes accompanying the industrial revolution. We have to make a precise differentiation between them.

The issue in modern Islam is its limited ability to cope, or better to come to terms with modernity as such. Contrary to Christianity, Islam is a much more complex way of living which finds it much more difficult to open itself up to modernization. Many issues which need an answer in industrial and post-industrial societies remain unanswered for religious Muslims. The pious man then turns to religious roots, follows either teaching of Egyptian Muslim brothers or Saudi Wahhabis. Returning to the roots, as so often happens in the Islamic world should not be misinterpreted as a violent reaction. Many pious Muslims, among them scholars and intellectuals are true fundamentalists. The first act they will ever refuse and oppose is the use of violence. Modernity causes fundamentalism, not terrorism.

Globalization creates world prices, world trade benefits and world trade losses, and if mismanaged it amplifies social differences and destroys equal chances. Those left behind by globalization's benefits, marginalized uneducated Shiite population of southern Beirut, pre-industrial slums of Egyptian poverty in Cairo suburbs, millions of poor Saudis left behind in medieval environmental and social conditions seek change, political change and political representation. If their demand for change is not met by educated urban elites who run their states, they look for different political representation. Very many of them would not do so if they can achieve a share in globalization's benefits, and very many of them would never follow violent leaders or become terrorists. Incredible corruption of ruling elites is very often the real final reason for an active search for “different” political representation. As much as globalization supports corruption, we can agree. It is not globalization; it is corruption what leads to a search for political alternatives. Even with the Hamas victory, animosity towards Israel was not the real reason behind it. It was Fatah's corruption. Fatah has nothing to do with globalization.

So who are terrorists? This question is not usually answered properly. Terrorists, those who use attacks against civilians are not those who die in attacks. They are those who seek political power which they can not obtain in democratic elections. Hamas, a terrorist movement tried in Palestinian elections and it was not internationally recognized. It did not gain power. Hezbollah did not win elections. The Muslim Brotherhood can under democratic conditions in Egypt win elections.

So who are terrorists? Those who want to gain part of oil revenues, those who want to gain part of religious funds and charities, those who want to control drug trafficking in Gulf region, and those who participate in the illicit arms trade in the Greater Middle East. The connection towards globalization is loose.