Foreign Policy and Terrorism: Ideologies in conflictThe relationship of states and different entities in world politics is determined by how well they have understood one another. More clearly put, even in the course of history, it is reflected that decisions pertaining to politics and foreign policy affects more than the state enacting it. This is attributable to the fact that politics has been treated synonymously with foreign policies, making it a yardstick to which harmonious relationships between and among states are at stake.
More often than not, foreign policies are also associated with the current head of state, interpreting it as his or her act, rather than a consensus of the senate or congress.Foreign policies and its binding power over sovereign states have always been a topic among conventions and international forums. Primarily this is due to the fact that many question the relevance and sometime the validity of its existence. One question that cannot be ignored is that, if states exist in their own sovereign right, what is the basis for having a foreign policy directly affecting other states and more so, the lives of people. This is termed as the “history-making individuals model”.
What it primarily means is that policies enacted by a state have always been linked with the “personal preferences” of the one occupying the highest positions in government. In effect, those espousing hatred, anger or disagreement, particularly terrorist groups, interprets policies enacted as yet again an act of the president or prime minister for personal reasons, worse, sometimes it is interpreted as a personal vendetta against groups who do not see eye to eye with these officials.This interpretation by various entities of foreign policies is not far off. On one hand, it is a state’s decision to enact such policies for the betterment of the country and their relation with other states. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that as ordinary human being, not involved in politics, a layman may interpret it as leaders taking lead, making a difference.
When analysed, if this is how men and women interpret the enactment of foreign policies, terrorist-associated groups can potentially view it as an act directly intended for them, to eradicate them and remove them from existence. A solid example for this is the 9/11 tragic event. Many believed that the reason for its occurrence is the fact that many groups have felt strongly against foreign policies of United States of America. Various entities have interpreted it as an act of the Americans as a whole. Many do not realize that not all Americans share the same ideals as that of President Bush or any other government official, yet, Americans as a whole suffered because of this. The reason for this is that the ideologies forwarded by American government have displeased others who do not share the same views and evidently, they took such displeasure to action and made a tragedy.Take for example, the conflict in Afghanistan and even in Iraq.
The fact that America attacks these countries while continuously feeding the citizens who are not included in the war will not make America the heroes. In the eyes of these people, they are suffering because the most powerful country likes them to suffer. Plain and simple, there are no considerations for what is behind the attacks and war. This interpretation is caused by suffering and it breeds hatred for America or any other country that share the same views with America.Therefore, the link between foreign policies and terrorism lies in the fact that there are multiple interests existing. This is the very reason why conflict cannot be eradicated.
As long as interests cannot come to a compromise, groups that harbor ill feelings towards, America or any other government will continuously interpret such policies as a personal attack against them and their beliefs and ideologies. This is a vicious cycle that would create more conflict and war, more attacks and tragedy.REFERENCES:Jensen, Lloyd.
Explaining Foreign Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982.
Fenwick, Charles., International Law, 3rd edition, 1945Paul, R. (2001). Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy would help prevent terrorism. http://www.quebecoislibre.org/011110-15.
htmMurphy, Sean. American International Politics. George Washington UniversityYoung, Oran.
System and Society in World Affairs: Implications for International Organizations. New York: Mc Millan