To deal with terrorism, a state needs to arm and secure itself for its defense against it, because they are existing threats. Extraordinary measures, which are nothing else than counter-terrorism policies, are important and necessary for fighting against terrorism in order to be secure. The fact that terrorism occurs worldwide and is becoming more important for states it is necessary to have effective counter-terrorism policies. But states response differently towards threats and especially to terrorism acts. The interesting question that will be discussed is: how can the divergence of counter- terrorism policy be explained?
Terrorism as a threat primarily to states can occur internationally or domestically, and by defining terrorism, a state can respond to and combat terrorism in its own way, and this can be a potential factor for explaining a divergence of counter.-terrorism policy, but this will be not the emphasis of this term paper. The theoretical framework for explaining a divergence of counter- terrorism policy is the theory of securitization by Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde, which contains assumptions of the theory of social constructivism. Inasmuch social constructivism by Alexander Wendt tells something about political culture. It neither tells much about security nor how to deal with threats especially to terrorism acts; that is why a widening analysis for the term security is needed in order to explain a divergence of counter-terrorism policy and the theory of securitization. Theory of securitization exactly explains everything about how a security term becomes a relevant issue. The frame for securitization, as written before, are core assumptions of social constructivism and those are necessary to discuss, in order to understand further explanations. This is why this term paper begins with the theoretical framework of constructivism. After the theoretical framework has been discussed, two states as empirical examples, which are the USA and Spain, shall give a better view of how states differs from their counter-terrorism policies, regarding to their different facing on terrorism acts, that are taken place. At the end, a conclusion shall repeat the core assumptions of the theoretical framework and explanations and in addition gives further impulses on other fields of analysis.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theoretical frameworks
2.1 Core assumptions of social constructivism
2.2 Copenhagen School with the theory of securitization
3 Empirical Examples
3.1 Political culture and counter-terrorism of USA after 9/11
3.2 Political culture and counter-terrorism of Spain after 11-M
4 Explaining divergence of counter-terrorism policy of USA and Spain
5 Conclusion
6 References
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines why the counter-terrorism policies of the United States and Spain have diverged despite both nations facing threats from the same terrorist organization, al-Qaeda. By applying the theory of social constructivism and the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization, the research explores how distinct national political cultures and historical experiences shape the way states define, securitize, and respond to terrorism.
- Theoretical application of social constructivism in international relations
- The Copenhagen School's theory of securitization as an analytical framework
- Comparative analysis of U.S. political culture and post-9/11 responses
- Comparative analysis of Spanish political culture and post-11-M responses
- The influence of national identity on counter-terrorism strategies
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Political culture and counter- terrorism of USA after 9/11
The case that is focused on in this term-paper is the international terrorism act of 9/11 and the response (counter-terrorism strategies) after 9/11 by the USA. To begin with, a short brief on what happened on 9/11 shall explain details. On September 11, 2001, a coordinated hijacking of four planes by 19 hijackers resulted in 2.752 deaths at the World Trade Center, where two of the four planes crashed into the twin towers in New York, 184 deaths at the Pentagon Arlington (Virginia), and the deaths of all 246 passengers on the four planes (cf. Roach 2011:174). This terrorism act was committed by an external terrorism organization called al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden.
This terrorism act was carried out, because Osama bin Laden claimed that the United States is going on a “crusade” against the Islamic world, and therefore USA and its allies, especially the Israelis needed to be destroyed (cf. Blanchart 2007: 3ff). The response to 9/11 has much to do with U.S. foreign policy and its political culture that shapes the country´s behavior in international matters. Foreign policy in the USA has two orientations, which are isolationism and internationalism and they can vary from periods. These two orientations of foreign policies are pointing out the national interest. From an isolationist perspective, the national interest is to steer clear of permanent alliances, meaning they do not participate in events of other states. In contrast, the internationalist perspective perceives that USA cannot escape the world, and that events abroad may impinge upon their interest, therefore an active foreign policy is required. Currently USA operates in an internationalism way (cf. Hastedt 2011: 58f). These two orientations are constituent parts of the political culture of the United States, which is called the “American national style” (cf. Hastedt 2011: 60).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter outlines the motivation for the study, establishing the core problem of why states respond differently to terrorism and introducing the theoretical frameworks used to explain this divergence.
2 Theoretical frameworks: This section details social constructivism, specifically the role of identity and political culture, and explains the Copenhagen School’s securitization theory regarding how threats are elevated to political or military action.
3 Empirical Examples: This chapter examines the specific case studies of the United States after 9/11 and Spain after 11-M, analyzing how their respective political cultures shaped their specific counter-terrorism policy responses.
4 Explaining divergence of counter-terrorism policy of USA and Spain: This analytical chapter synthesizes the theoretical and empirical findings to explain the divergence, citing differences in political culture, history, and the way each state securitizes external threats.
5 Conclusion: This chapter summarizes the findings, reiterating that while both states share commonalities, their distinct identities and historical experiences lead to fundamentally different approaches to combating international terrorism.
6 References: This section lists all academic sources and literature used to support the research findings.
Keywords
Counter-terrorism, Social Constructivism, Securitization, United States, Spain, Political Culture, 9/11, 11-M, Identity, Foreign Policy, International Terrorism, Security, National Interest, Existential Threat, Divergence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary objective of this research paper?
The paper aims to explain why the United States and Spain exhibit divergent counter-terrorism policies despite being targeted by the same terrorist organization.
What are the main theoretical lenses used in this study?
The study utilizes social constructivism, specifically the concepts of identity and political culture, and the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization.
How is terrorism defined within the framework of this paper?
Terrorism is analyzed through the lens of securitization as an existential threat that compels states to move beyond normal policy and implement extraordinary measures.
Which countries serve as the empirical case studies?
The research focuses on the United States following the September 11 attacks and Spain following the March 11 (11-M) Madrid train bombings.
What is the role of political culture in the author's argument?
Political culture is argued to be the key determinant in how a state defines its national interest and subsequently shapes its behavioral responses to external security threats.
What does the author conclude about the divergence?
The author concludes that national identity and historical experiences are crucial in shaping unique counter-terrorism strategies, resulting in different institutional and legal responses.
How does the U.S. response to terrorism differ from Spain’s according to the text?
The U.S. adopted a more military-oriented, aggressive posture based on internationalism, whereas Spain, influenced by its history of domestic terrorism, relied more heavily on legal reforms and intelligence restructuring.
Why did the Spanish government initially blame ETA for the 11-M attacks?
The former government under Jose Maria Aznar initially attributed the attacks to the domestic terrorist group ETA due to Spain's long-standing struggle with Basque separatism, though later investigations confirmed the involvement of Islamic networks.
- Quote paper
- Christian Graf (Author), 2012, How can the divergence of counter-terrorism policy of USA and Spain be explained?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/278819
