Content uploaded by Ese Ujara
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ese Ujara on Oct 23, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
International Terrorism and the Middle East:
An Expository Approach
By
Jide Ibietan, PhD
Department of Political Science & International Relations,
Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria.
jidebetan@gmail.com
Felix Chidozie, PhD
Department of Political Science & International Relations,
Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria.
felix.chidozie@covenantuniversity.edu.ng
&
Ese Ujara
Department of Political Science & International Relations,
Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria.
eseujara@yahoo.com
Abstract: This paper interrogates the role of the Middle East in international terrorism
and the spillovers of this on global security. The narrative traces the roots of terrorism
to the Middle East, noting the volatility of the issue and susceptibility of some countries
within that region to terrorism, zeroing-in on Iran as misconstruing this vice for foreign
policy instrument. Essentially, the paper relied on secondary data, statistical tools
backed by the analytical approach, leading to the inference that the terrorist network
and activities have wider international ramifications and reverberating effects on
developing countries, including Nigeria. The adoption of more proactive measures and
pragmatic security-building strategies by the United Nations towards a deceleration in
international terrorism were canvassed.
Key Words: International Terrorism, Global Security, Middle East
Introduction
Terrorism is often linked with the
Middle East. This is because the
region has proved to be the hotbed
and fertile ground for Islamic
extremism. Terrorism in the Middle
East is a challenge with global
implications. The early stages of
terrorism played out as nationalist
movements and other worthy causes
became a menace not peculiar only
to the Middle East where terrorism
have gained roots, but has also
become a global issue.
Scholars and writers in this field
have traced the roots of terrorism to
66
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
the Jewish Zealot‟s movement (66-
73 AD) when the group known as
the sicarii, in their attempt to drive
the Romans out of Palestine used
unorthodox means of violence like
murder, forcing the Jews into a more
fierce opposition against occupation
and forcing the Romans to leave
(Maskaliunaite, 2002:40).
Several other groups had before the
millennium, emerged all around the
world that carried out terrorist acts;
however, there was a close similarity
between most of the groups and
majority of them were motivated by
nationalist goals until they lost the
true purpose of their original intent
and became tagged as „terrorists‟
(Shuhghart, 2005:14).
Some of the groups included:
Narodnaya Volya, first heard of
in 1878, which assassinated
Tsar Alexandar II in Russia on
March 1, 1881. Their aim was to
replace „propaganda of ideas‟ by
„propaganda of deed‟.
Front de Liberation Nationale
(FLN) emerged in 1954,
running an anti-colonial terrorist
campaign. By 1956, their
strategies changed and evolved
into acts of terror.
Irgun in Israel, called the Stern
Gang by the British, used the
strategy of political
assassinations to secure
independence.
Red Army Faction (RAF) in the
1960s engaged in bank
robberies and murders as a form
of revolution.
Italian Red Brigade engaged in
14,000 terrorist attacks in 10
years under the guise of political
reformations.
The Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
in 1968, which engaged in
hijacking of planes and training
of groups from Japan, Jordan
and Germany.
Japanese Red Army, though
brief in their existence, also
engaged in plane hijacks,
murders and sabotage.
In the 1960s, the USA suffered
attacks from the Weathermen,
Black Panthers and the
Symbionese Liberation Army.
The list goes on to include
terrorists such as the Armenian
Army for the Secret Liberation
of Armenia; Justice
Commandoes of the Armenian
Genocide (in Turkey); the ETA
in Spain; the Irish Republican
Army; the Black September and
many others (Shuhghart, 2005:
3-36).
In the United States of America
particularly, before the September 11
attacks, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) came up with a
couple of recorded terrorist
incidents:
March 1999 - the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF), an
extremist Animal Rights group
was responsible for several
incidents like the incendiary
bombing of vehicles belonging
to the Big Apple Circus; two
arson attacks in New Jersey
67
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
against Fur factories; malicious
destruction and theft.
July 1999 – Benjamin Smith,
member of the World Church of
the Creator (WCOTC)
embarked on the killing of
religious and racial minorities in
Chicago, Shokie, Northbrook,
all in Illinois and Bloomington
in Indiana
December 25, 1999 – arson was
carried out by a group known as
the Earth Liberation Front
(ELF) fighting against the
production of Genetically
Modified Organisms (FBI,
1999:3-6)
At a point too, the white supremacist
group, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was
regarded as a terrorist group because
of its nefarious and violent acts
against the black section of the
American society. However, all of
these developments did not come
close to the activities of the Al-
Qaeda group, particularly the
September 11, 2001 attacks. The
activities of the ALF, ELF, KKK and
Mr. Smith of WCOTC, could only be
referred to as a „tip of the iceberg‟.
The 9/11 attacks on the USA, with
the masterminds being Mideast
Islamist kingpins, marked a turning
point in the course of terrorist
movement in the world.
This paper therefore seeks to
interrogate the nature of terrorism in
the Middle East, which has become a
global security threat. The paper
discusses concepts with the view to
clarifying them, identifies the
dimensions of international terrorism
and its linkage to the Middle East
and makes recommendation.
Concept of Terrorism
Terrorism is an ambiguous concept
that has been argued to mean
different things. However, the
arguments of different scholars may
help form a basis to describe the
concept of terrorism. Following the
events of the September 11, 2001
attacks, former President George
Bush declared that the “War on
Terror” was the number one priority
of the United States. This “war”
went ahead to eventually change the
nature of their domestic, national and
international policies. It was
recorded also that President Bush
used the terms “terror”, “terrorism”
and “terrorist” thirty two times
without ever defining what it meant
(a source would have been useful
here)
Best and Nocella (2004:1) however
try to define the term as they
regarded the word to be abused by
all as it was “applied to actions
ranging from flying fully loaded
passenger planes to rescuing pigs
and chickens from factory farms”.
They posited that, “all terrorism
involves violence, but not all
violence is terrorism” and defined
terrorism in the body of the work as
“…the institutional use of physical
violence directed against innocent
persons – human and/or inhuman
animals – to advance the religious,
ideological, political, or economic
purposes of an individual,
organization, or state government”.
Their definition gives this paper a
68
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
good start as it helps to establish that
the violence is directed at innocent
persons, but it might as well also
include targeted persons who may
not be exactly “innocent” in the
sense of the word.
Al-Thagafi (2008:3) defines
terrorism as the use of either
organized or random violence
against innocent people in order to
intimidate them for political reasons.
This definition can be said to be
limited as the definition does not
explain the nature of the perpetrators
of these violent acts regarded under
the concept of terrorism.
United States Department of Defence
(in Al-Thagafi, 2008:3) viewes
terrorism as “the calculated use of
unlawful violence or threat of
unlawful violence to inculcate fear;
intended to coerce or to intimidate
governments or societies in the
pursuit of goals that are generally
political, religious or ideological”.
This definition, though carefully
stated by the US Department of
Defence, gives cause to wonder if
there is any concept in existence
considered as lawful violence that
can be carried out by civilians in the
state.
An interesting definition of terrorism
given by the Arab Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorism (in Al-
Thagafi 2008:4) goes that terrorism
is:
Any act or threat of violence,
whatever its motives or
purposes, that occurs in the
advancement of an individual
or collective criminal agenda
and seeking to sow panic
among people, causing fear by
harming them, or placing their
lives, liberty or security in
danger, or seeking to cause
damage to the environment or
to public or private
installations or property or to
occupying or seizing them, or
seeking to jeopardize national
resources
The above definition is quite
detailed owing to the fact that, it
seemingly describes the nature of
terrorism that emanates from the
Middle East region. The definition
adequately captures the overt
nature, intent and mechanisms of
terrorism. This clarity is necessary
in both conceptualization of
terrorism and engagement in
counter-terrorism. A proper
definition of a possible problem is
important in determining its combat
mechanism.
Compared to the foregoing
definitions, the US Department of
State (in Al-Thagafi, 2008:4) defines
it as “premeditated, politically
motivated violence perpetrated
against non-combatant targets by
subnational groups or clandestine
agents, usually intended to influence
an audience”. It is pertinent to note
at this point that of all the foregoing
definitions; only Best and Nocella
(2004) noted that states also, can
organize terrorist activities in their
definitions.
Shuhghart (2005) elaborates the
concept of terrorism to include four
distinctive characteristics namely:
terrorism is violence for political
69
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
effect; it is a planned, calculated
and systematic act; the terrorists are
not bound by established rules of
warfare or codes of conduct and;
terrorism is designed to have far-
reaching psychological
repercussions beyond the immediate
victim or target.
Defining terrorism is not an exercise
in futility as, even though there may
be differences in the definitions
posited by scholars, these definitions
provide good stands through which
reasonable progress can be made to
determine pre-emptively what looks
like terrorism in times to come
(Cooper, 2001:882).
A very dynamic view on the concept
of terrorism was advanced by
Chomsky (2002) who posits thus:
“It‟s very simple. If they do it, it‟s
terrorism. If we do it, its counter-
terrorism” Chomsky‟s view here
validates the earlier argument in this
work that terrorism is nebulous and
can be elusive in an attempt to grasp
the concept. Terrorism, like beauty,
can also be said to be in the eyes of
the beholder as it is commonly said,
one man‟s terrorist is another man‟s
freedom fighter.
Concept of Security
Baldwin (1997:13) defines security
as “low probability damage to
acquired values”. His
conceptualization of security is
encompassing as it does not border
only on the „presence and absence of
threats‟, but also on the preservation
of acquired values. This definition
explains why the concept of
preservation of acquired values is
what changes the nature of security
threats that range from country to
country; and how the various
countries react to these threats.
A much clearer definition of security
has been given by Buzan (in Stone,
2009:1) to mean “…the pursuit of
freedom from threat and the ability
of states and societies to maintain
their independent identity and their
functional integrity against forces of
change, which they see as hostile”.
His definition is more detailed as it
breaks down the nature of „value‟ as
Baldwin put it and emphasized the
maintenance of „functional integrity
against forces of change‟. This
definition is also particularly peculiar
as it emphasizes the perception that
states reject all forms of terrorism
because it tampers with their
functional integrity through
unacceptable forces of change.
In recent scholarship however, the
concept of security has widened in
scope and form. According to
Nwolise (2012:14) security in
contemporary usage has expanded
horizontally and vertically. He
posited that horizontally, security has
gone beyond the military to
encompass economic, political,
environmental, social and other
aspects. He stressed that vertically,
security has gone beyond the state to
incorporate and emphasise the
individual, social groups, (ethnic,
religious, professional), the state, and
humanity at large. Thus, there is a
dramatic shift in the concept of
national security, to human security.
70
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
Hubert (2001:3) offers a clear
distinction of human security.
According to him:
In essence, human security
means safety for people from
both violent and non-violent
threats. It is a condition or state
of being characterized by
freedom from pervasive threats
to people‟s rights, their safety or
even their lives... It is an
alternative way of seeing the
world, taking people as its point
of reference, rather than focusing
exclusively on the security of
territory or governments
(Hubert, 2001:3)
In view of this, George and Hilal
(2013:51) opines that human security
paradigm adds a new dimension to
traditional security by focusing on
the human being rather than the
state. According to them, whereas
traditional security is state-centric
and concerned primarily with
interstate security, the protection of
borders and sovereignty, with human
security “non-military/non-
traditional threats to security have
led to the broadening of the reference
object of security to include
individuals, non-state actors and sub-
national groups”. They concluded
that this paradigm shift has profound
implications for not just inter-state
relations in contemporary politics,
but much more for regime survival.
International Terrorism and the
Middle East: A Review
The events of the September 11,
2001 magnified the Middle East in
global politics because the terrorist
attacks were perpetrated by a group
that emerged from the region known
as the Al-Qaeda. Traditionally,
threats to global peace and security
ensued from wars and crises among
regional states which thereby
engaged the international system.
Presently, threats to global security
are considered in the context of
global terrorism. The aftermath of
September 11, 2001 has introduced a
new approach to dealing with
terrorism, since global terrorism is
argued to emanate from the Middle
East, it is important to examine the
correlation between the Middle East
Region and the international
terrorism issues (Barzegar,
2005:113).
As opposed to Barzegar (2005) who
is of the opinion that terrorism stems
from the Middle East, Fahmy
(2002:28) has a different view on the
issue. He averred that even if
security is to be redefined to include
the general threat of terrorism, post-
9/11 does not necessarily reveal a
new security landscape for the
Middle East, in the sense that
terrorism threat has been part of the
regional security situation for
decades (Fahmy, 2002:28). This
notion of his seems convincing
because Shuhghart (2005) in his
work made reference to the rise of
Islamic terrorism dating back to the
Iranian Revolution of 1979. The
revolution was unexpected and led to
the seizure of the American Embassy
in Tehran.
Consequently, Ayatollah Khomeini
toppled the Shah leadership which
led the Shi‟a theocracy into power in
Iran. This revolution paved the way
for the new wave of terrorism.
71
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
Khomeini‟s regime inspired and
assisted Shi‟a terrorist groups in Iraq,
Saudi, Kuwait and Lebanon, and also
the Hezbollah (party of God) came
into existence via this regime. This
regime did not only begin to spread
terrorist groups around the
aforementioned countries, an even
greater issue arose (Shuhghart,
2005:38). “Terrorism had a new
„able and active state sponsor‟”, a
role that Iran played throughout the
1990s (Shuhghart, 2005:38; Pillar,
2001:46).
Another factor that contributed to
Islamist terrorism was the Afghan
War. According to Shughart (2005:
38-39), the war “provided terrorist
related skills and experience to large
members of non-Afghan militants”;
it launched Osama bin Laden to
prominence as a “terrorist
entrepreneur”; inspired the
remaining members of the Arab
World that participated in that war
who suffered humiliation from the
Soviet Union; and the fact that the
exit of the Soviet Union left
Afghanistan rich in resources (both
money and artillery) available for
deployment in support of Islamic
terrorism whenever the opportunity
came by (Shuhghart, 2005:38-39).
This seemingly simple emergence of
Islamic terrorism has become one of
the major sources of terror to various
countries of the world.
Bazergar (2005:114) gives a
thorough and detailed explanation of
the nature of old and „new‟ terrorism
as propagated by the Middle East
stating their major reasons and aims
that the new terrorism seeks to
achieve around the World.
According to him, terrorism has
always existed throughout the world.
What is new is that terrorism has
acquired an international dimension
with its own specific definition,
which increases its importance
within the global community.
Introducing a new nature and
definition, September 11
undoubtedly marked a turning point
in terrorist activities. Old terrorism
had internal or regional dimensions,
functioning in specific spatial and
time domains, and had less negative
impact on the international
community. In contrast, new
terrorism acts beyond national and
regional boundaries, has global
impact and constitutes a direct threat
to global peace and security.
International security, long
threatened by wars and tensions
among nations, is presently
endangered by an unknown,
complex, and unconventional force.
This by no means suggests an easy
resolution. In contrast with old
terrorism, the new kind of terrorism
has no individual, nationalistic, or
state-sponsored characteristics. It
occurs in many countries and is
supported by a global network. The
hub of new terrorism is the Middle
East, its driving force is Sunni
Islamic radicalism, and its
representative is Al-Qaeda. Its main
aims are as follows:
1. To destabilise international
security;
72
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
2. To de-legitimise Western culture
and values; and thereby,
3. To create a new balance of power
between the West and the Islamic
World.
The above views are quite detailed,
informative and almost
incontrovertible. A Country Report
on Terrorism done by the US
Department of State in (2011) states
that:
Iran, the world‟s leading state
sponsor of terrorism, continues
to undermine international
efforts to promote peace and
democracy and threatens
stability, especially in the Middle
East and South Asia. Its use of
terrorism as an instrument of
policy was exemplified by the
involvement of elements of the
Iranian regime in the plot to
assassinate the Saudi
Ambassador in Washington, a
conspiracy that the international
community strongly condemned
through a UN General Assembly
resolution in November.
The above assertion validates
Shuhghart‟s contention that Iran has
played state sponsorship roles from
the 1990s till date. It seems logical to
infer that Iran is a state sponsor of
terrorism from the above quotation,
and this underscores the activities of
the other terrorist networks and
organizations in the Middle East.
Bazergar (2005) categorically
mentioned the Al-Qaeda in his work
as the “representative hub” of new
terrorism in the Middle East. The
Country Report on Terrorism
validates that assertion and further
asserts that:
Despite the counterterrorism
successes in disrupting and degrading
the capabilities of al-Qaeda and its
affiliates, al-Qaeda and violent
extremist ideology and rhetoric
continued to spread in some parts of
the word. For example, while not a
formal al-Qaeda affiliate, elements of
the group known as Boko Haram
launched widespread attacks across
Nigeria, including one in August
against the United Nations
headquarters in Abuja, which
signalled their ambition and
capability to attack non-Nigerian
targets (US Department of State,
2011:6)
Not only did the statement validate
the fact that the Al-Qaeda terrorist
group is a major proponent of the
tenets of Islamic terrorism, it also
established that their activities had
gone beyond just the Middle East,
but had spread across regions and
with special reference to the
developing world. It referred to the
network system that the Middle East
based terrorism runs on. Tables 1-3
and Figure 1 below reinforce the
above arguments and present graphic
illustration of the nature of terrorism
in the Middle-East and other
flashpoints around the globe.
73
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
Table1: Terrorism Attacks Worldwide (2013)
Month
Total
Attacks
Total Killed
Total
Wounded
Total Kidnapped/Taken
Hostage
January 669 1022 2043 986
February 567 991 1840 118
March 639 1027 1881 145
April 804 1123 2533 148
May 924 1557 3448 172
June 685 1542 2326 313
July 898 1862 3151 176
August 842 1918 3683 126
September 761 2034 3296 199
October 934 1639 2702 199
November 1007 1448 2649 144
December 977 1728 3025 264
Total 9707 17891 32577 2990
Source: US Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism in 2014
74
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
Table 2: Top Ten Terrorist Flashpoints (2013)
Country Total Attacks Total Killed Total Wounded
Average Number Killed per
Attack
Average
Number
Wounded
per
Attack
Iraq 2495 6378 14956 2.56 5.99
Pakistan 1920 2315 4989 1.21 2.6
Afghanistan 1144 3111 3717 2.72 3.25
India 622 405 717 0.65 1.15
Philippines 450 279 413 0.62 0.92
Thailand 332 131 398 0.39 1.2
Nigeria 300 1817 457 6.06 1.52
Yemen 295 291 583 0.99 1.98
Syria 212 1074 1773 5.07 8.36
Somalia 197 408 485 2.07 2.46
Source: US Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism in 2014
Table 3: Top ten perpetrator groups of terrorist attacks in 2013
Perpetrator Group Name
Total
Attacks
Total Killed
Average Number
Killed per Attack
Taliban 641 2340 3.65
Al-Qa'ida in Iraq/Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant
401 1725 4.3
Boko Haram 213 1589 7.46
Maoists (India)/ Communi st
Party of India-Maoist
203 190 0.94
Al-Shabaab 195 512 2.63
Tehrik-i -Taliban Pakistan
(TTP)
134 589 4.4
New People's Army (NPA) 118 88 0.75
Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian
Peninsula
84 177 2.11
Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia (FARC)
77 45 0.58
Bangsamoro Islamic
Freedom Movement (BIFM)
34 23 0.68
Source: US Department of State, Country Report on Terrorism 2014
75
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
Figure 1: Tactics used in Terrorist Attacks Worldwide (2013)
Source: US Department of State, Country Report on Terrorism 2014
In Tables 1-3 and Figure 1 above, it
can be deduced that over 20,000
people are casualties of terrorist
attacks worldwide and these attacks
(though they) occur in several
countries of the world, but the target
locations are the Middle East and
Africa. The terrorist groups
mentioned in Table 3 secure their
bearing and support from the Middle
East region where the new wave of
terrorism seems to have originated
from. They engage several modes of
attack as shown in Figure 1 namely:
bomb explosions, armed attacks,
assassination, facility/infrastructure
attack and hostage taking. These
activities carried out by the terrorists
have had effects not only on the
victims (mostly innocent civilians),
but also on the governments of target
countries.
The countries mentioned in Table 2
can be categorised as developing
countries. This is one of the major
reasons why the countries remain
susceptible to terrorist attack. Apart
from the Middle East countries
involved, the other countries are
disadvantaged due to challenges
ranging from conflicts; weak
governance; collapsed state
institutions; porous borders (thus
allowing the free movement of
illegal arms and uncontrolled
movement of people); extremism
based on religious ideology; and the
76
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
radicalisation of vulnerable groups
by more equipped ones. Coupled
with poor socio-economic conditions
in these countries, it creates a
platform for fertile growth of
terrorism (Kimunguyi, 2011:2-3).
Each year, terrorism advances,
particularly in the African region. If
left untamed, there is the possibility
that it may transform into a fertile
breeding avenue for launching
larger-scale terrorist attacks around
the world (Alexander, 2014:3).
Nigeria, for example is the most
affected African country in terms of
terrorist attacks in 2013. The country
is constantly terrorized by the Boko
Haram insurgents (meaning
“Western Education is a Sacrilege”
in the local Hausa language). These
attacks are significant not only
because of the amount of damage
done, but also due to the realization
that the country is the continent‟s
most populous. This group seeks to
impose its version of strict Islamic
law in the country through constant
terrorist attacks. They have been
involved in attacks in Mali also and
noted to gain support and co-
operation from Al-Qaeda in the
Islamic Mahgreb, Hizballah and Al-
Shabaab (Alexander 2014:3). They
operate through kidnappings,
killings, bombings and attacks on
civilian and military targets in the
Northern parts of Nigeria, thus
resulting in numerous deaths,
injuries and destroyed properties.
They also escape to neighbouring
countries such as Cameroon, Chad
and Niger to evade pressure,
establish hide-outs and engage
smooth conduct of operations (US
Department of State 2014:10).
The spread of terror is not only
evident within the African continent,
but also beyond the African
continent. The activities of Al-Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula were visible
in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere
in Asia and the Pacific. These attacks
all over the world are orchestrated
mostly with the support of affiliate
terrorist groups and similar motive-
based terrorist groups (Alexander,
2014:4). However, it is important to
identify the role that some countries
play in the perpetration of terrorist
attacks around the world.
Some countries have been designated
as state sponsors of terrorism
because they repeatedly provide
support for acts of international
terrorism. Such countries include:
Cuba (designated as a state sponsor
of terrorism since 1982); Iran
(designated as a state sponsor of
terrorism since 1984); Sudan
(designated as a state sponsor of
terrorism since 1993); and Syria
(designated as a state sponsor of
terrorism since 1979). These states
encourage the spread of international
terrorism through funding of terrorist
related acts, equipping terrorist
groups with needed arms and proper
training of the members of the
perpetrator groups (US Department
of State, 2014:228-232). Where
states have not been designated as
terrorist or sponsors of terrorist acts,
certain groups within certain
77
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
sovereign states have been
designated as terrorist groups and
bounties have been put on their
leaders because of the persistent
violent acts calculated at collateral
damage to the internal politics and
external community, as well as their
links to known international terror
groups. Examples include Boko
Haram menacing around Northeast
Nigeria and Northern Cameroon and
Al Shabab, perating in Somalia,
Kenya and Uganda.
Among the countries involved in
state sponsorship of terrorism, Iran‟s
involvement can be seen as most
significant. Iran uses terrorism as a
tool of foreign policy however; this
is not a recent phenomenon as it
dates back to the 1979 Islamic
Revolution. Iran‟s support for
terrorism is with the aim of
furthering her national interest. It
also stemmed from the clerical
perception “that it has a religious
duty to export its Islamic revolution
and to wage, by whatever means, a
constant struggle against the
perceived oppressor states” (Levitt,
2013:4).
The disturbing fact about Iran‟s
support for international terrorism is
not only because Iran voices support
for terrorist groups, but because of
the influence Iran wields in the
Middle East politics, thus projecting
power into Arab countries and
disrupting the Middle East peace
process. Iran‟s support for terrorism
is unique because little has been
done to hide it. Other countries that
support international terrorism by
using proxy terrorist groups deny
association with the groups like the
case of Pakistan and Pakistan‟s Inter-
Services Intelligence (ISI).This is
unlike Iran which shows open
support for organizations like
Hezbollah, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.
This is a threat to global peace, and
the implication is that Iran endorses
the use of violence on civilians as a
proper way of achieving political
goals (Manni, 2012:34-35).
Conclusion and Recommendation
The data which formed the pivot of
this paper, and the analysis that
followed gave vent to the conclusion
that the source of new terrorism is
traceable to the Middle East and the
effects and casualties extend beyond
this region with wider ramifications
and consequences on global peace.
The reverberating and panoramic
contort of these on developing
countries deserve special attention
due to their technological level and
resource mobilization for
surveillance and security
management endeavours. However,
developed countries can over time
build enough security apparatus to
deal with this challenge and continue
with this “war on terrorism” as
announced by the former US
President, George W. Bush.
The developing countries face issues
that make them vulnerable such as:
proximity; political and economic
instability; poverty; porous borders;
civil conflicts emanating from
ethnic, racial and religious
alignments and ideologies; human
rights infringements and; insecurity
78
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
on a large scale. Such issues make
them a target for terrorist groups
seeking places to establish their
presence. The terrorist groups that
also emerge from countries
indigenously form alliances with
terrorist networks for financing,
support and supply of weapons used
in terrorizing the populace.
The phenomenon of terrorism is one
that can be reduced, but not totally
eradicated. The means through
which countries can curb the spread
of terrorism are: intelligence
gathering; political and economic
stability; improved security
measures; citizen reorientation with
emphasis on curtailing all forms of
religious bigotry, zealotry,
fundamentalism/extremism, and
collective security systems in
combating terrorism.
There is need also for the
international system to consider
ways in which state sponsors of
terrorism can be adequately dealt
with on a sustainable basis. The
United Nations can serve as a
veritable tool in combating
international terrorism through more
proactive measures and pragmatic
confidence-building strategies.
References
Alexander, Y. (2014). Terrorism in
North Africa and in the Sahel in
2013, being a Fifth Annual
Report published at the
International Center for
Terrorism Studies at the
Potomac Institute for Policy
Studies, January, USA.
Al-Thagafi, A. (2008). Causes and
Possible Solutions to the Middle
East Terrorism. Strategy
Research Project, US Army
War College, Carlisle Barracks.
Baldwin, D. (1997). The Concept of
Security. Review of
International Studies, 23, pp. 5-
26
Barzegar, K. (2005). The Middle
East and the New Terrorism.
Journal on Science and World
Affairs, 1 (2), pp. 113- 121
Best, S. and A. Nocella (2004).
Defining Terrorism. Animal
Liberation and Philosophy
Journal, 2 (1), pp.1-18
Cooper, H. (2001). Terrorism: The
Problem of Definition Revisited.
American Behavioural Scientist,
44(6), February, pp.881-893
Fahmy, N. (2002). Implications of
September 11 for Middle East
Security, in Barletta M. (ed.)
After 9,11: Preventing Mass-
Destruction Terrorism and
Weapons Proliferation,
Occasional Paper, No. 8,
Centre for Non-proliferation
Studies, Monterey Institute of
International Studies.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
(1999). Terrorism in the United
States: 30 Years of Terrorism A
Special Retrospective Edition.
Counterterrorism Assessment
and Warning Unit, US
Department of State
George, E. and Hilal, N (2013).
Africa in Search of (In)Security:
79
Covenant University Journal of Politics and International Affairs (CUJPIA) Vol. 2, No. 1, June, 2014.
Beyond the Bondage of
Boundaries, in Sabelo J.
Ndlovu-Gatsheni & Brilliant
Mhlanga (eds.) Bondage of
Boundaries and Identity Politics
in Postcolonial Africa: The
„Northern Problem‟ and Ethno-
Futures. South Africa: Africa
Institute of South Africa. Pp.
45-60
Good Reads “Noam Chomsky”.
Retrieved from
http://www.goodreads.com/quot
es/559241-it-s-only-terrorism-if-
they-do-it-to-us-when; Data
accessed on 6th October, 2013.
Hubert, O (2001). Small Arms
Demand, Reduction and Human
Security. Ploughshares Briefing
Kimunguyi, P. (2011). Terrorism
and Counterterrorism in East
Africa, Global Terrorism
Research Centre, Monash
University, Australia
Levitt, M (2013). Iranian Support for
Terrorism and Violations of
Human Rights, Being a
Testimony before the Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs
and International Development,
International Human Rights
Subcommittee, House of
Commons, Parliament of
Canada, May 30th. Published by
The Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, pp.1-9
Manni, N. (2012). Boko Haram: A
Threat to African and Global
Security. Global Security
Studies, Fall, Volume 3, Issue 4,
pp.44-54
Maskaliunaite, A. (2002). Defining
Terrorism in the Political and
Academic Discourse. Public
Defence Review, 2 (8), pp. 36 –
50
Nwolise, O.B.C (2012). Spiritual
Dimension of Human and
National Security. A Faculty
Lecture by the Department of
Political Science, Faculty of the
Social Sciences, University of
Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Held
on Thursday, April 26
Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism (2014).
Country Report on Terrorism
2013, July, US Department of
State Publication. Retrieved
from
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/
2012/210017.htm, Data
accessed on 29th September,
2013.
Pillar, P. (2001). Terrorism and U.S.
Foreign Policy. Brookings
Institution Press, U.S.A
Shuhghart, W. (2005). An
Analytical History of Terrorism,
1945 – 2000., pp. 1-65.
Stone, M. (2009). Security
According to Buzan: A
Comprehensive Security
Analysis. Security Discussion
Papers Series 1, Spring, pp. 1-
11
80
