TERRORISM by its very nature disrupts international peace and
security through premeditated, political violence.
I shall now use the
United States as a case study following the 11th September attacks on
the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon which disrupted the global
economy. The attacks spawned and facilitated widespread personal fear,
panic and economic dislocation.
According to the United Nations Security Council, one of the
objectives of terrorists was to create a state of global anarchy by
means of influencing the conduct of governments vis-a-vis intimidation
and coercion.
There are no efforts to integrate conflict and consensus paradigms of
social process, which are rooted in the intuitive insight that in all
human interaction, one can discover patterns of both collaboration and
conflict.
The task for government is to discover when people will collaborate
and when they will fight. In other words, the control and regulation of
collaboration and conflict in the common interest posed a significant
problem. Make no mistake, law is a major – indeed a massive – instrument
of social control.
The relationship of law to the process of effective power is an
entirely relevant datum. Critical, however, is the belief that the
formal foundations of the process of checks and balances of effective
power arc reflected in constitutive arrangements. The relevance of power
over constitutionalism was accentuated.
Since 2010 when a bomb was detonated in Abuja, political tensions
have heightened immeasurably throughout Nigeria. As the fear of
terrorism becomes a part of life for many around the world, various
nations have become implicated in these fears. Questions of the role of
Islam in terrorist activities have featured on the lips of many people –
those who profess other faiths. Particularly since 9/11, official
United States discourse , for example, has tended to deploy
simultaneously universal human rights rhetoric to justify actions
outside the United States and an idea about U.S. sovereignty as uniquely
(culturally) democratic or particular in its constitutional structure
to deny the legitimacy of international scrutiny of the actions of the
United States.
Economic liberalisation and subsequent inequality due to expanding
globalisation motivates terrorists by providing them with sufficient
preconditions for terrorism attacks. To name a few, faster and cheaper
communications, accessibility to informational resources, elimination of
trans-national borders, advanced transportation and transfer capacities
in fact enable the spread of powerful technologies. At that,
globalisation really worsens the threat of terrorism attacks – with
particular reference to the United States.
Subsequently, no single state in Nigeria calling to mind the recent
bombing at Apapa, a Lagos suburb has acquired immunity guarantee from
either overseas or domestic bio-terror attacks. Nigerian security
agencies certainly have a task here which is to permanently monitor
densely populated and highly visible targets to prevent any attempt of
possible terror attack . For instance, in recent years, anthrax hoaxes
consisting of letters with powdered substances enclosed, and mailed to
various facilities, endangered numerous US communities; this is what we
are all living witnesses to and would , in any case , never forget in a
hurry.
After September 9/11 attacks the security measures in the United
States are tougher than ever. One of the first measures taken by USA was
passing the USA Patriot Act on October 26, 2001, and later Homeland
Security Act of 2002, in response to the terrorist attacks against the
United States, which dramatically expanded the authority of American law
enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism at home and
abroad. It has also been used to detect and prosecute other alleged
potential crimes, such as providing false information on terrorism.
Nigeria must take her cue from this if the war on terror is anything to
go by. In other words, we must fight terror beyond our territorial
borders.
In the United States, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is deemed
unconstitutional, since it had imperiled a number of civil liberties,
including: the rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly and
privacy; the rights to counsel and due process; and protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures. But it has in deed become absolutely
necessary to forestall future terrorist attacks. Sometimes rights could
be infringed upon during emergencies. But we find President Jonathan’s
government wanting in this. Urgent step must be taken to correct this,
for a drastic problem , they say , requires a drastic solution, if we
all need reminding. Nigeria will not be the first country on the globe
that would be curtailing civil liberties in order to save lives and
property.
Consequently, the war on terror widely supported by international
community necessitated every country of the world to stay alert and
develop anti-terror measures in close cooperation with its counterparts.
Such measures cannot remain declarative for long as the threat is just
around the corner. Therefore, firm multilateral actions are much needed
to pursue and prevent the causes of global terrorism.
I shall conclude here by positing that economic liberalisation and
subsequent inequality due to expanding globalisation motivate terrorists
by providing them with sufficient preconditions for bioterrorism
attacks. Apparently, bioterrorism presents global threat to all world
countries, including domestic communities, households, and workplaces.
Politicians, especially those in the main opposition parties, need to
briddle their tongues and refrain from inciteful statements capable of
heating up the polity.
• Darlington writes from Turin, Italy. (jamestmichael2003@yahoo.com)
Source:
Tribune Newspaper
No comments:
Post a Comment