Terrorism: The Biggest Threat To International Relations?

Terrorism: The Biggest Threat To International Relations? Contemporary international relations refer to the state of affairs during the period that began in the late 1980s with the end of the Cold War. The fall of communism and the assumed victory of liberal democracy had many, such as Francis Fukuyama, hopeful for an End of History and a New World Order of peace and collective security between all states. The truth of the international situation revealed certain issues and threats -new and old that much of the international community have since had to face. This essay will aim to assess the extent to which terrorism is the most significant threat to contemporary international relations, whilst also suggesting other factors that have created danger; such as climate change ,the proliferation of nuclear arms. It will conclude that whilst the prolonged and unknown potential danger that climate change poses to the planet is arguably the most catastrophic, the strain and instability of the acquisition of nuclear arms and the difficulty of contr olling who has access to them, causes it to be the biggest threat that the international community has to face. Terrorism, defined by Douglas Lackey, is, the threat of the use of violence against non-combatants for political purposes.  [2]  The very characteristics of terrorism makes it a threatening prospect for any state, as any violent act, [where] the civilian is the direct and intentional target of attack,  [3]  causes a great deal of difficulty in its prevention. Globalisation, the advancement in technology and the growth of cities whilst improving living standards for many civilians has made more locations prime targets for terrorists. Terrorist acts have become more sophisticated and increased the risk of multiple casualties using many forms of attack; arson, suicide bombers and remote detonated bombs, hacking into a states infrastructure and intelligence networks. Terrorism itself is not a new or recent phenomenon; the problem that the international community faced, and still faces in the Post Cold War period, is a change in the nature of terrorism. During and prior to the Cold War, terrorism was often an intra-state occurrence and a symptom of political separatism and instability within a country. Examples of this are the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the Tamil Tiger rebels; both of which caused civil wars in Ireland in the 1920s and in 1983 in Sri Lanka. Whilst this is still mainly the case for many African, Middle and Far Eastern countries, the western world has seen an increase in inter-state terrorism. Arguably intra-state terrorism is easier to combat, due to the fact that intra-state terrorists tend to have a clearer and more precise focus; such as the police or members of the entrepreneurial class; which makes it easier for the state authorities to target and track down. On the other hand, terrorist organisations with a religious objective give a broader scope of the enemy. This may lead to a perception in which every member of a different religion or creed becomes a potential enemy or a potential target. It is this re ligious variant of terrorism that has increased after the Cold War and is at the centre of current international discussions. According to Europols EU Terrorism Report carried out in 2007  [4]  and 2008,  [5]  there were almost 500 acts of terrorism across the European Union in 2006, with a 24% increase in the next year. Whilst most of these attacks were intra-state related an increased amount were by Islamist terror groups from outside the EU. The US and parts of Russia and North Africa have seen similar patterns occurring, showing that this form of terrorism is not a matter for individual states to deal with, but acts that are aimed at the global community . whilst arguably this can, and has, strengthened the relations between co-operating countries, it has placed strains on relations between other states, and subsequently hinders the progression towards international peace and collective security agreements; which is key in current international relations. This is because for certain states, terrorism and its prevention are not high on their foreign policy agenda. In some severe cases there are instances of the support of global terrorism. The US Department of State recognises four countries to be state-supporters of terrorism;  [6]  Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. All are known to have been terrorist safe havens for several terrorist groups, whilst some such as Iran and Syria have politically and financially supported groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. By failing to take action against the threat of terrorism to the international community and in some cases promoting it these states become isolated as enemies of the counterterrorism Global Initiative  [7]  and the United Nations. The effects of this are sanctions, such as restrictions on foreign aid, controls on exports and financial restrictions, placed on these enemy states by the members of the initiative; isolating them further and, , causing a sense for more terrorist action to be taken against the international community. If these state-supported terrorist groups successfully carry out an attack against another state, this action has the potential to become a trigger or catalyst for state military retaliation against the supporter; as seen with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan after the 9/11 bombings in New York. This clearly causes a step backwards for UN peace agreements which clearly states the need to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.  [8]   As well as state support of terrorism hindering international relations, so too does the expansion of the grey-areas of where the roots of terrorism lie. Recruitment and training grounds are now vast, with evidence now suggesting that there is a reason for a, fear of the enemy within  [9]  . Data from multiple sources has pointed towards an increase in terrorist organisations recruiting from within the states at the heart of the terrorist aggression. The global reach of Al-Qaeda is a source of great concern as more than 3,000 of its members have been arrested in 98 countries since the 9/11 attack; evidence that this group exists in at least half the worlds countries. This factor challenges previously accepted state-intelligence, that inter-state terrorism can be location specific to rogue or failing states outside the targeted state itself. This increases the threat levels, as no clear idea of who the enemy is creates instability and a need for increased defence levels. It is als o difficult to establish the source of the terrorists finance. As previously mentioned this can be acquired from the governments of terrorist-supporting states, but can also be acquired by the groups themselves setting up commercial businesses that provide a flood of sources of finance for its operations. Hence, law enforcement and intelligence agencies must now identify these sources of funding in order to destroy their ability to operate. But with some organisations such as Jemaah Islamiah connected to around 50 commercial businesses, this is a complex and expensive process for states to carry out.  [10]   Some cynics such as Daniel Wagner have stated that, no matter how good security becomes, it will never be good enough to thwart all of the terrorist threats we face.  [11]  To an extent this is true. Even if collectively the international community does manage to discover the sources of terrorism, it is not likely that they would be able to put a stop to terrorism altogether due to the fact that it has now become something of an ever-changing ideology. Al Qaeda is an example of this. During the Cold War the group aimed at expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan. Once this was achieved, attentions focused on fighting what they thought was the corruptness of the Arab world. Recently, the objective has changed to fighting and targeting those who are considered to be the main outside supporters of these corrupt regimes a clear reference to the US with its very substantial strategic interest in that part of the world.  [12]  This aggressive fight for a continually shifting goal su ggests that no matter how hard states battle against groups like Al Qaeda, it is unlikely the war on terror will ever end. However threatening and incessant terrorism is to international affairs, it is arguably within state power and resources, especially in the western world, to singularly or collectively combat it. Governments have the advantage of finance and institutions, such as Counter-Terrorist Units and federal bureaus, with extensive resources especially to deter terrorist acts. Through the use of international relations and international organisations such as the UN and NATO, the amount of resources and expertise can be jointly used in order to overcome the problems faced by terrorism. It could therefore be argued that terrorism in some respects supports the idea of collective security as it forces good international relations and links states with a common goal: to destroy its threat potential, even if it cannot destroy terrorism altogether. Due to the power that states have in accordance with their state sovereignty, arguably the proliferation of nuclear arms is a threat more potent than that faced from rebel terrorist forces. The catastrophic capabilities of nuclear weapons of any kind are highly threatening for any state, but in the past this had led to a stalemate that was the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. This has come to be known as the first nuclear age and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent relinquish of nuclear arms by the Ukraine and other former soviet states to the primary control of Russia. Whilst splitting the international stage in two and with the threat of nuclear war hanging over the world, it was, on the whole, a rather stable conflict fought between two superpowers. Many critics are now suggesting that the second nuclear age, which had begun subsequently, will be notoriously unstable and carry with it a greater threat of nuclear war. This age is far more complex, as countries such as Israel, India, Pakistan, China, Iran and North Korea now all have their own nuclear programs; and with countries such as Iran and North Korea both having deep nationalistic feelings, they are arguably prone to destructive visions of national dominance;  [13]  having access to nuclear arms places a great strain on relations with these states with others such as the US. The fact that Iran is known for supporting some terrorist groups increases the threat of nuclear terrorism against the west and Israel. Many other states that wish to obtain nuclear weapons, especially those in Africa, are now choosing to spend state funds on their acquisition rather than their conventional military forces. This can often lead these states to become dependent upon their nuclear weapons; which makes all-out nuclear war all the more likely. However what creates the most strain on relations arguably is the fact that it would appear that there is the consensus among a few that it is acceptable for certain states to retain their nuclear programs but others cannot even start or continue their own. Whilst arguably in support of the UNs non-proliferation program, todays emerging nuclear states have a great difficulty in getting the international institutions to allow them to have any nuclear capabilities. States are forced to give up their programs under international pressure, but also due to the influence of the US. This often causes animosity between the nuclear-weapon states and those seeking a nuclear program. As seen recently with the case of Iran, the US and European Union has tried to persuade other countries such as Russia and China to start placing sanctions against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for refusing to relinquish its nuclear program. Whilst some would say that this is hypocritical of the nuclear-weapon stat es, it would appear they are seeking to set an example. On 8th April 2010, the two former Cold War Superpowers, and the current two largest nuclear powers in the world, the US and Russia, signed a new treaty that promised the 30% reduction of their nuclear armoury. President Obama stated himself that, By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities; a clear sign to other states that they do have the right to a moral high-ground placing pressure on Iran and the like. The issue of climate change came to the forefront of international politics towards the end of the Cold War with the first UN Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm in 1972. Since then the threat that climate change poses to the modern world has been a top priority for all UN member states. Perhaps what makes this issue so threatening is the lack of control and the influence climate change can have within our societies. Atmospheric pollution can lead to the degradation in biodiversity which in turn threatens our food supplies, fossil fuels are set to deplete severely within the next fifty years; all of which are going to place enormous pressure on international relations. It is likely to affect the poorer countries first increasing the need for international aid on already stretched resources. This could lead certain states into pull out of the idea of collective security and focus on their own survival, thereby tearing through the international agreements and treaties put in place to prevent the affects of climate change. The community is already witnessing the reluctance of some states such as the US and China to cut down on their carbon emissions, as stated in the Kyoto Agreement, due to the adverse repercussions on their respective economic performance. This sets a precedent that makes collective action by all UN states extremely difficult as a lack of trust in the collective initiative depleats. It would appear therefore that some environmental policies are more popular than others. Whilst the fact that the world is running out of the natural resources , that we as humans have come to depend on, is a cataclysmic notion, the threat of climate change has arguably brought many parts of the international community together towards a common goal: the protection of the entire planet and therefore the continuation of the human race. Despite the fact that many of the summits held to voice the issues facing the environment has sometimes been ineffective, as seen with the Copenhagen summit in 2009, and caused rifts between states, there have been breakthroughs that suggest that progression can be made. The fact that climate change can cause so many repercussions into our manmade issues, such as the distribution of resources and the population problem, there is very little that the international community can do to stop it. It can only hope to slow its progression down. The global society faces far bigger threats within human control with the proliferation of nuclear weapo ns that could lead to the premature destruction of the world if placed in the wrong hands. Improving Student Engagement | Literature Review Improving Student Engagement | Literature Review Warwick, P., Hennessy, S. Mercer, N. (2011) Promoting teacher and school development through co-enquiry: developing interactive whiteboard use in a dialogic classroom. The authors reason for conducting the study was to show that an interactive whiteboard (IWB) can be a key classroom tool and that it can be used as a vital instrument in dialogic manor. The authors, Paul Warwick, Sara Hennessy and Neil Mercer, report on the works of three classroom teachers, who confidently use an interactive whiteboard (IWB) in their classrooms. The authors clearly state that they wanted to conduct their study because Given the pervasiveness of IWBs in the UK, we wished to explore the development of its uses in the classroom where there was a dialogic pedagogy. (Warwick, Hennessy and Mercer, 2011, p. 303). It is obvious from the start that the authors firmly believe that IWBs play a major part in a childrens learning and that an IWB is a crucial resource when it comes to teaching practices today. Their argument is reinforced by their suggestions in the hypothesis. The authors also state that an IWB plays a key part in maintaining a childs engagement during their learning. However this is the first point of the research where the authors can be criticised for not recognising that there are a number of different factors and methods that can influence a childs commitment and engagement to learning. Some different examples of other factors that can have an influence on a childs engagement with their learning can be seen in the Four aces of effective teaching Ace 3: Engagement (Walls, 1999). One method mentioned is that a class teacher should limit a discussion to no more than 30 minutes before introducing a learning activity (Walls Cather, 1987). This learning activity doesnt need to be one using an IWB; it can be done on paper etc. All the way through this research paper Warwick, Hennessy and Mercer make numerous claims about IWB and the way teachers use them. However, there are studies that have shown that teachers have only been considered capable when they have grasped specific technological skills, such as using an IWB. An example of an article that states this is one conducted by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992), they state that technology is a teachers liberator to help re-establish the role and value of the classroom teacher. Teachers must enter into collaboration or partnership with technology in order to create a community that nurtures, encourages, and engages the learning processes. Nevertheless, Warwick, Hennessy and Mercer (2011) dispute this by stating that it is in fact the classroom teacher that is vital in stimulating dialogic approach not the IWB. However they do state that the IWB does have an important role in the classroom, but this is only correct when it is used in an engaging and suitable manner in the classroom. To conclude, the information gathered from the research shows that IWB play a key role in the classroom, but they shouldnt be seen as being a replacement for teaching or the classroom teacher. This study highlights the need of a teacher and that they need to develop relationships with children in their class so that they can conduct solid lessons that will engage their pupils, which will then lead onto developing dialogical pedagogy. I believe that additional studies are needed when it comes to the outcomes of the use of IWBs in the classroom. Simon et al. (2008) Puppets promoting engagement and talk in science. The impacts of using puppets in classrooms has become a popular research point for writers. During the same time period of Simon et al. (2008) writing about the impacts of puppet use in the classroom, there was also a similar research going on with the impact of puppets in Maths lessons. However, the main focus of the authors writing this article was to conclude whether or not the use of puppets in science lessons, stimulated the pupils to be more actively involved in their science lessons and also to see if the puppets could encourage childrens talk in science lessons. The research was designed to conclude weather the use of large puppets would help teachers to change their whole class discourse (Simon et al., (2008), p.1229) in their science lessons. A key strength of the research for the article was that it focuses on a vast amount of different ideas. The research was carried out by a mixture of teachers, across two different regions, interviewing two different age groups; 7-9 and 10-11, and the teachers had the option of using one or two puppets. From the research of Neil Mercer and Lyn Dawes (2008) about exploratory talk, the authors of this article discuss the importance of communication with other children, so that the children have the skill to critically participate with their peers and their peers ideas. Simon et al. (2008) claims that the use of puppets assists in this area. When children start to enter a more in depth conversation with the puppet, the puppet can provide encouragement or interest in the childs responses, which then generates talk which involves the whole class, or talk on a peer to peer level. Therefore, from using the puppet can promote reasoning, problem solving and explanations, which are all key factors in science lessons. The research that was carried out for this article was strong in various ways. Firstly, the focus wasnt just in a single school, it was in two different areas of England; Manchester and London. Secondly, there were two different age groups that were examined, and both of these groups had pupils who had a different response to the puppets. Thirdly, the teachers had the option to introducing a single puppet to the class, or they could introduce two puppets to the class. Some teachers used two puppets in a lesson whilst others used only one. Though using two puppets enabled teachers to set up discussion by getting the puppets to put forward opposing views, teachers found that one puppet was much simpler to use whilst still making it possible to present problems and to set up cognitive conflict. (Simon at al., (2008) p. 1243) Finally, the use of the pilot study to find out more information and gain more of an understanding into the use of puppets helped finalise the main study for the ar ticle. Therefore, because of the strong research strategy, the final research produces remarkable but rigorous results. One of the main disadvantages of this study was that training the teachers to correctly and effectively use the puppets acquired a lot of time. Even though this was good for the research side, the amount of time spent of training the teachers wouldnt be practical for every teacher, especially teachers in larger schools. This then brings up an issue; if teachers dont have experience with puppets and havent had training would the puppets be as effective as they were during the research stage. Overall, this article has proven that using a puppet during science lessons has been effective when trying to create talk. This has been backed up from the interviews, with pupils and teachers. The interviews also revealed that pupils who are often more shy and dont contribute as much in lessons, were more confident during lessons where a puppet was used as they felt at ease talking to a puppet. In my own practice, I will be using a puppet throughout the curriculum as I feel that the use of a puppet will engage the children and improve class and pupil discussions. However, before I feel fully confident in using a puppet, I will practice with a smaller group and build up to using the puppet in front of the whole class. Brown K Kennedy H (2011) Learning through conversation: exploring and extending teacher and childrens involvement in classroom talk School Psychology International 32 (4) pp377-396 This article discusses the professional development progression over a twelve week period, that six teachers in the UK, who work at a school with children who have been recognised has having social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. The main research area for the article is focused on how teachers use conversation in their class to help integrate childrens ideas and link these to the learning progression. Through reflective and exploratory discussion, enhanced by videos of interactive sequences within classes, teachers explored and developed aspects of their interactional styles. Brown K Kennedy H (2011) One of the key strengths of the research is that two educational phycologists (EPs) were also heavily involved with the researched and they worked alongside the six teachers. With reference to Schoà ¡Ã‚ ¹Ã¢â‚¬ ¦s model of reflective teaching (1983), the class teachers and the EPs intended to reflect on the teachers interactional methods that happened within the teaching. They also wanted to be able to work together to discover and extend classroom conversations. Therefore, through reflective and exploratory conversation with the EPs and with the help of recordings of interactive sessions that happened within the class, teachers watched back their lessons and were then able to explore and develop aspects of their interactional methods of teaching that they used with their class. At the end of the twelve weeks, the videos and recordings taken were compared. The main focus was to see the changes between the beginning sessions to the sessions at the end of the project. Brown K Kennedy H (2011) stated that from the teachers looking back at their lessons, and working alongside the EPs they were able to adapt a change in their lessons to promote talk. Changes included the teachers using conversation to build more on childrens ideas and actively support the cooperation between children. Changes in the nature of talk amongst children showed evidence of building more on ideas within conversations and making less new initiatives. The changes in conversations are considered with reference to childrens participation and learning. Brown K Kennedy H (2011) Given the importance of childrens metacognitive awareness of interactive processes within the class (Mercer, 2000), I feel that one of the main weaknesses of this article and its research was that it would have been useful to have a greater insight into the changes that occurred throughout the lessons, from the points of view of the children that were involved with the study involved. All the children who participated did so voluntarily, however, they were not included in the ongoing preparation, development, and evaluation. The children involved might have provided valuable insights into how the learning procedure seemed from their point of view, and how they felt that changes the teachers made worked for them, especially when the teachers developed their interactional styles. I would be interesting to see what extent the children felt the changes had on their incentive, contribution and learning. Overall, this research has shown that looking back and watching how you have interacted with the children and what interaction styles you use can have an impact on childrens learning. The article has also proven Schoà ¡Ã‚ ¹Ã¢â‚¬ ¦s model of reflective teaching (1983) to be effective, as the if the teachers hadnt looked back and reflected on their interactional styles, there wouldnt have been any progression in talk. I will now use different interactional styles during my lessons, and I also feel that it would be beneficial for me to record myself teaching and watch this back to help me improved on my own teaching skills.