Commentary Regarding Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America
The discussion catalyst:
Fieldmann, Andreas E. and Maiju Perala. “Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America”. Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 46, No. 2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 101-132. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177176, accessed 9 Jul 2011.
The Issue, a Macro View.
The central problem addressed in Fieldmann’s and Perala’s piece, “Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America”, pertained to the identification of the driving factors associated with terrorism, specifically nongovernmental terrorism. It was hypothesized by a number of scholars that terrorism in Latin American was a derivative of the Cold War. During the Cold War it was well known that the two major driving forces for these efforts were the United States and the former Soviet Union. Both nations reportedly supported activities that often involved terrorism in order to disrupt the ideological and political influences of the other party in Latin America. As a result, it was assumed by these scholars that terrorism would cease once the Cold War ended- that did not happen. Instead terrorism continued, and even increased in parts of Latin America.
Okay, Now What?
Caught off-guard, scholars decided to address the issue. They wanted to determine what conditions were conducive for the creation, development and sustainment of nongovernmental terrorism. This approach resulted in a five-part piece, of which, the last piece concludes with the most significant findings resulting from the research effort.
How Was This Done?
As noted previously, the articles consisted of five parts. The first part provides readers a common baseline before moving further into the problem by establishing a definition for terrorism and how it is addressed in the piece. The scholars intentionally separated nongovernmental terrorism from guerilla/insurgent warfare and politically driven conflicts. Second, the part referred to historical records to identify and gauge the growth associated with nongovernmental terrorist movements. Some of this data derived from statistical/quantitative findings. Third, causes were identified and addressed. This data was used to test their assertions. Finally, an analytical conclusion was made. Of note, data sets pertaining to drug-trafficking were not included.
The End Result
Many scholars and government institutions widely disagree with definitions of terrorism. However, this piece basically concluded that terrorist acts deliberately target “noncombatants” and their environmental needs (e.g. water, electricity, police, etc.) that tie to their “well-being” for the purposes of spreading fear and instability.
Several key findings were identified. States with poor human rights records, and poor governance, appeared to have a significant number of nongovernmental terrorist incidences. Ironically, nations that improve civil liberties and improve local conditions found themselves victim to nongovernmental terrorist attacks one year after such changes were made. Scholars assessed that such incidences were a result of political opposition, and that terrorist actions resulted when peaceful means of oppositions were prosecuted unsuccessfully. Terrorist attacks tended to be cyclic. This meant that terrorist attacks seemed to happen in clusters and seemed to follow suit of the original attack.
Of note, the data collection and data sets were limited. This means the findings were not conclusive and further data collection, data processing and analysis is needed.
So What?
The piece highlighted several key facts that can skew terrorism analysis, particularly the reference to the possibility of eradicating narco-terrorism in Latin America as noted on page 34 of Global Issues: Selections From CQ Researcher by Pine Forge Press 2010. First, terrorism has existed since the birth of man, yet there still continues to be debate regarding the substance and universal meaning of terrorism. Analysis, problem identification and mitigation will be hampered by lack of agreement. Second, the data sets specifically ignore narco-terrorist incidences. Terrorism impacts systems; states consist of a system of systems; meaning that terrorism in whatever form impacts society at large, and not one specific segment. That said, answer to the question on page 34 asking “Can narco-terrorism be eradicated?” will remain no. Why? Words shape policy, and policy controls money, will, resources and force. The value of the piece was its lack of recognition of narco-terrorism as a form of nongovernmental terrorism worth studying. Ergo, the problems will continue.
Social Science for Counterterrorism: Putting the Pieces Together
