On A Brighter Note...
It seems the IRA is giving up violence. Again. This time for good. I hope it works out this time. I've not really been influenced by terrorism to a greater extent than anyone else who hasn't been directly involved, for which I am very grateful. But I am affected by the same cynicism. I heard a former Northern Ireland Secretary (to the British Government) say that he thought one of the reasons the IRA could now be moving towards political change rather than violent change was that al-qaeda had given terrorism a bad name. Classic. I don't really know as much about the history of Northern Island as maybe I should, so I cannot say which cause is the more just. But terrorism seems to have done nothing to make the UK government allow re-unification, or even allow steps towards it.
So has it been self-defeating? I can't answer that. I can't say for sure that terrorist activities have had no impact on the political landscape. Maybe it makes both sides more willing to negotiate. But I can say as long as there is even a minority who don't like the outcome, there is a potential for trouble, not just in this situation, but in any dispute people feel strongly about. It's the difference between supporting the idea of democracy and majority rule, and actually living by it when you don't get the outcome you are after.
Terrorism doesn't seem to have a very good success rate. The IRA have been unable to force the re-unification of Ireland by violent means. Al-Qaeda have so far been unable to force the withdrawal of all Western troops from Iraq, let alone other Islamic nations. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians seem to have managed to further their causes in the 'disputed territories' with violence. The phrase "This Government does not negotiate with terrorists" is banded about a lot. And although it might not be entirely true, it does show the entrenchment that sets in when any group or individual feels the need to resort to terrorism.
So why do it? Why resort to terrorism? I'm not an expert. But it seems that terrorism is a way for a minority to try and affect change that either they cannot obtain (or change that is not happening fast enough) through political means. Or as a recruiting drive or demonstration for a minority that feels they serve a silent majority. I have to say (and I'm more than willing to admit that I might be talking rubbish) but it seems more than a little naive to believe that taking on the United States is a good way to get what you want. It seems a little like going up to the strongest kid at school, stamping on his foot and expecting him not to punch your lights out, but to suddenly see the error of his ways as you see them.
Can terrorism succeed? What outcome makes terrorism effective? If the terrorist group becomes the majority, or makes the majority bend to it's will. How often does that actually happen? How often to plane hijackers actually succeed in getting what they want? How often does the plane actually get to Acapulco?
Eventually all empires fall, the political landscape never stays the same and the balance of power is never stable for long. If politics doesn't evolve, the planet usually has a way of nudging things along (think earthquakes and the like). If we are to believe the changes that are occurring on the planet (in terms of global warming and our impact on the environment) it is the nations that are most technologically advanced that will suffer the most if fossil fuels run out and there are no viable alternatives. Then the societies less reliant on technology may be the new powerful.
There's a change coming. There's always a change coming. There will never be a time when there isn't a change coming. But odds are it won't happen through terrorism. It will happen despite it.
So has it been self-defeating? I can't answer that. I can't say for sure that terrorist activities have had no impact on the political landscape. Maybe it makes both sides more willing to negotiate. But I can say as long as there is even a minority who don't like the outcome, there is a potential for trouble, not just in this situation, but in any dispute people feel strongly about. It's the difference between supporting the idea of democracy and majority rule, and actually living by it when you don't get the outcome you are after.
Terrorism doesn't seem to have a very good success rate. The IRA have been unable to force the re-unification of Ireland by violent means. Al-Qaeda have so far been unable to force the withdrawal of all Western troops from Iraq, let alone other Islamic nations. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians seem to have managed to further their causes in the 'disputed territories' with violence. The phrase "This Government does not negotiate with terrorists" is banded about a lot. And although it might not be entirely true, it does show the entrenchment that sets in when any group or individual feels the need to resort to terrorism.
So why do it? Why resort to terrorism? I'm not an expert. But it seems that terrorism is a way for a minority to try and affect change that either they cannot obtain (or change that is not happening fast enough) through political means. Or as a recruiting drive or demonstration for a minority that feels they serve a silent majority. I have to say (and I'm more than willing to admit that I might be talking rubbish) but it seems more than a little naive to believe that taking on the United States is a good way to get what you want. It seems a little like going up to the strongest kid at school, stamping on his foot and expecting him not to punch your lights out, but to suddenly see the error of his ways as you see them.
Can terrorism succeed? What outcome makes terrorism effective? If the terrorist group becomes the majority, or makes the majority bend to it's will. How often does that actually happen? How often to plane hijackers actually succeed in getting what they want? How often does the plane actually get to Acapulco?
Eventually all empires fall, the political landscape never stays the same and the balance of power is never stable for long. If politics doesn't evolve, the planet usually has a way of nudging things along (think earthquakes and the like). If we are to believe the changes that are occurring on the planet (in terms of global warming and our impact on the environment) it is the nations that are most technologically advanced that will suffer the most if fossil fuels run out and there are no viable alternatives. Then the societies less reliant on technology may be the new powerful.
There's a change coming. There's always a change coming. There will never be a time when there isn't a change coming. But odds are it won't happen through terrorism. It will happen despite it.
posted by Rob Langley at 8:29 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home