Political Systems and Global Terrorism

Asymmetric are very susceptible to incidents of terrorism, because of the extremely polarized relationship that exists between two nations. This kind of relationship produces a difficulty in creating an open communication among nations, thus making it hard to detect hostilities. Moreover, asymmetric relationship harnesses a feeling of vulnerability towards oppression, thus making people open in taking unnecessary risks in the attempt to disrupt the prevailing status quo.

(2) At the peak of terrorist activities, the use of the term “international” in describing terrorism has been such an effective tool in creating rallying point for human existence to become more vigilant against various threats. Nowadays, this internalization of terrorism has pushed people to become more aware of such activities. Moreover, media and government reports have gone to become specific on pointing “who the terrorists are. ” And somehow, this case has been that terrorist is being equated with Islamic terrorists. This in turn poses a greater threat towards human security.

Over qualification of Islam groups as terrorists made certain governments complacent on the existence of local terrorist groups or right-wing groups, creating larger danger on the community wherein they safely reside. (3. a) The idea of global terrorism goes beyond certain points, it also encompasses through the realms of guerrilla welfare, which at some point should not be considered as indeed terrorist activities. Guerrilla warfare stands on three main causes: first, as an attempt to liquidate colonial relationship; second, as a reaction against foreign occupation; and third, as a reaction against social injustice.

These three aspects of guerrilla welfare are done behind noble purposes, as such these aren’t supposed to be considered as terrorism. Moreover, guerrilla actions are supported with certain political principles that shall justify their fight for those above-mentioned reasons – that their existence shall not be hindered by political and economic invasion, and that every state must have the innate right for self-determination – these as such shall render guerrilla warfare as liberation movements rather than terrorist activities. (3.

b) Montenegro was the most recent state who declared their independence. On May 2006, Montenegrins voted on the issue of their independence and at least 55 per cent of the total votes were in favor of independence. Thus, they declared their independence from Serbia on June 3, 2000 and became a member of the United Nations formally in November 1, 2000. Part 2: Problems of World Politics (1) Constructivism is an international political theory which seeks to analyze international relations by studying the elements of a “social reality” such as goals, threats, identity and culture among others.

Neither contrasting nor consistent, constructivism is seen to be as an alternative of realism and liberalism. Realism on the other hand is a political theory which believes that states are mainly driven not by their ideals, but by the need to attain economic and military supremacy and security. Liberalism on the other hand, believes on the assumption that individual liberty is the most important goal that a society’s government must uphold.

Thus, constructivism seeks to look at different elements of society as integral to the progress in international relations, on the hand liberalism considers growth of an individual as integral to the state, and finally, realism gives importance to supremacy and security as necessities for success within the realms of international relations. (2) According to Waltz, there are three factors that are necessary in explaining the reasons why war occurs: first, nature of man; second, the structure of states; and third, the anarchy within the international system.

These three factors however are interrelated to one another, the change in the first causes a change in the second, and consequently though, it affects how international system is made. Moreover, according to Waltz, the behavior and nature of man is an important starting point for the causes of war. Man’s innate selfishness and aggressiveness directly results to the occurrences of war. Thus, human nature plays an integral part in the changes in social events.

Consequently, the continuous interrelationship amongst man constitute for the internal organization of states – that is, the behavior of man and how they interact with other people determines the formation of their state, and the values inculcated within it. The people who interacts, together forms a state. Thus the actions of individuals translate to how an organization should be formed. And generally, the goodness or the badness of the organization’s composition shall transcend to the occurrence of peace or war.

That is, the values organized altogether form the set of values that constitutes the basis on whether a state shall initiate occurrence of world peace, or shall constitute for the occurrence of war. And finally, the reaction of these states altogether and their interdependence is dictate whether relative peace shall be achieved, or war shall break out. The interplay of the group interests within states will follow a rational course of action, and in turn shall result to harmony or anarchy in international relations. (Chatterjee)

Reference Chatterjee, Manjari. (2000) Man, the State and War: Kenneth Waltz.