Figuring out the Reasons

We have to face up to the challenge of international terrorism at the turn of the twenty-first century. Of course, we cannot expect to win this struggle without figuring out the ideas and motives of all those who engineer and/or carry out terrorist attacks, and without understanding the functional vehicles of this social phenomenon. Ivan Franko State University in Zhytomyr recently hosted an international scholarly conference entitled “Modern Terrorism: Philosophy, Ideology, and Manifestations,” organized with the aim of helping sociologists and researchers in related fields share their ideas and achievements thus far. Among the 112 reports presented at the conference (including those by Polish and Russian experts), the thesis that there is no philosophy of terrorism was like an intellectual time bomb. Volodymyr Yaroshovets, D.S. (Philosophy), the head of the History of Philosophy Department at Taras Shevchenko National University in Kyiv, arrived at this conclusion proceeding from the 1994 UN declaration, which states that terrorism cannot be justified by any political, ideological, or philosophical reasons. Dr. Yaroshovets further claimed that there are no philosophical coordinates for terrorism, but that antiterrorism can provide such coordinates. At first glance, this concept contradicts the fact that most terrorist leaders try to justify their acts by political and ideological considerations, often referring to noted philosophers. Dr. Yaroshovets told The Day that modern terrorist practices contradict the notion of man, his mission in this world, and his value as the most important objective and greatest asset of society. In this sense, Dr. Yaroshovets believes that terrorists’ ideological motives cannot be considered a philosophy, and that, generally speaking, for the individual and the entire human race, a philosophy of terrorism has zero meaning.

True, other researchers who spoke at the conference said that terrorists use any world outlooks to justify their conduct — be it in Asia, Europe, or elsewhere. In general, the topic of terrorism as a phenomenon, stemming from the world globalization process, obviously dominated the conference. Dr. Valentyna Panchenko, D.S. (Philosophy), head of the Department of Ethics, Aesthetics, and Cultural Studies at Kyiv National University, said that globalization is shaping the human race as such, although this process embraces a number of controversies; she further said that the process of dividing the world into so many polities, which commenced at the turn of the twenty-first century, has practically ended, and today there are diverse countries, each with its own political, economic, cultural, or religious traditions. At the same time, the inequalities in the development of various countries are regarded as injustice and serve as a stimulant for pressure attempts brought to bear on advanced countries by underdeveloped ones. In fact, such pressure is often practiced by so-called non-institutionalized social organizations. Considering the presence of many cultures in any given country, Prof. Panchenko feels sure that developing cultural pluralism is a must in combating xenophobia. This, in turn, will reduce the source of radicalism, the latter more often than not serving as the growing medium for terrorism.

Her colleague and academic Department member Prof. Tetiana Abolina believes that it is necessary to emphasize that terrorism, as an act of unlawful violence, never emerges without reason. In her opinion, responsibility for the emergence of terrorist manifestations in one country or another must be shouldered by the political elite of a given country, because by its actions this elite often provokes sharp conflicts in society. Prof. Abolina underlines that such legitimate violence on the part of the state is the source of illegitimate violence and terrorism, and that in this sense state terrorism cannot be a train moving in one direction. In general, conference participants focused mostly on the social factors of terrorism, rather than its psychological roots. Naturally, not all aspects of the extremely complex problem of modern terrorism could be covered by this conference. With respect to mass psychology, this author believes that the minimum action programs of terrorist organizations, like Al Qaeda, boil down to constantly increasing fear and a sense of insecurity on a global scale, or in separate large regions or individual countries, especially those that are regarded as being well-off in terms of living standards. No matter how one regards what has been happening in Iraq over the past couple of years, the terrorist attacks using kamikaze and hostage-taking techniques, currently a daily practice, and the inhuman cruelty with which Osama bin Laden’s supporters operate in this country are irrefutable proof of the importance that the most dangerous terrorist groups attach to Iraq. In view of this, the countries that have joined the US’s antiterrorist coalition have no alternative but to destroy such terrorist organizations in this country.

While I am not diminishing the importance of other papers that were heard during the conference (practically all the research fellows of Zhytomyr State University presented papers), I found the presentation of Prof. Ivan Varzar of Kyiv’s Mykhailo Drahomanov National University’s Department of Political Science, deserving special notice. In his view, a strong yet impoverished state and a disunited society are in a state of confrontation. If the state does not discharge its functions aimed at harmonizing the social interests that should unite the people, then favorable grounds are laid for the emergence of terrorism. In an interview with The Day he elaborated on his thesis, noting that in the functioning of human social institutions there is a little-studied pattern: the force of resistance on the part of a given entity (people or groups) acting against the pressure of the state, and the impossibility of calculating its degree. If the state is stronger than the people, there will always be political terrorism on its part, even if the state has the best of intentions. But in order to defend themselves, attempts on the part of the people or separate groups, aimed at forceful resistance, including extreme terrorist manifestations, may be observed. Prof. Varzar is generally inclined to define terrorism as forceful pressure on the part of some groups of people against others. This understanding is viewed as being too broad, because it includes practically the entire system of social relationships, most of which, whether we like it or not, are in one way or another built on pressure brought to bear by certain institutions and individuals. In these cases there emerges the inevitable problem of criteria needed to substantiate the forms of such mutual pressure. This researcher believes that such guidelines may be defined as respect for human rights. The matter under study clearly requires further discussion. It should not be forgotten that this concept is supported by John Paul II, who declared that violence and lack of respect for human life cannot be justified; where human rights are neglected, where there is injustice and oppression, there concealed hatred and violence will arise. The international community must grasp the reasons that cause people to fall prey to the temptation of revenge at all costs.