Biopolitics Understanding of Terror - Essay Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Biopolitics Understanding of Terror Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx @ 2009 Biopolitics understanding of terror Introduction Biopolitics is generally a political advocacy that deals with the well fare of all life forms. In reference to Michel Foucault’s sentiments biopolitics revolves around the impact and application of political power on all the aspects pertaining to human life. Terror basically refers to the act of imposing fear by using violent means to counter noncombatants in order to achieve a specific cause, publicity or even for material gains. Terror generally entails unlawful war or violence this in turn imposes both emotional responses and political responses. This essay generally seeks to present a critical and introspective understanding on terror from the biopolitics perspective. It provides an incisive and proportionate arguments relating to the understanding of terror from the biopolitics perspective (Morton & Bygrave 2008). Internationally and from the biopolitics lenses terror is regarded as a domestic and foreign security threat. The tragic terror occurrences of September 11th in Washington DC, Pennsylvania and New York have over the course of time invigorated resolve and focus on terrorism. Nations with strong economical, infrastructural and political basis such as the United Kingdom, Israel and the United States among many others have been in the fore front in the fight against terrorism. These nations have come up with policies that aim on resolving the impending threat of terror. The delegated policies include international cooperation, military force, diplomacy, economic sanctioning, security enhancement and constructive engagement. The passing on of these policies have inciting mixed reactions from different political spheres. These organizational mechanism and policies have been continually questioned on whether they are effective enough to deal with the terror threats. Moreover, the origins of these approaches and policies have been questioned on whether they are state sponsored or proposed by independent groups (Rivas& Windrem 2004). Biopolitics understanding on terror Terror activities, according to a biopolitical perspective is not only limited to acquisition and use of unconventional weaponry. In reference to biopolitical perspectives terror entails logistics and sophisticated planning. From this perspective terror can come in the form of civil disorders which essentially involves collective violence that interferes with the community’s security and peace. Biopolitical understanding of terrorism as well encompasses on terror in the political form. This form of terror generally involves violent behaviors which are primarily instigated to cause fear for political purposes. Additionally, the Biopolitical understanding of terrorism acknowledges a modern trend of terrorism which comprises of self-financed, loosely organized and international network systems of terrorism. Moreover, another trend of terror from the perspectives of biopolitics is that terror can be motivated ideologically and religiously. For instance, radical Islamic groups use religion as a key pretext of instigating threats to nations such at the United States. Lastly, a biopolitical understanding of terrorism recognizes that there is evident growth of cross- national terror networks that have integrated military training, political training, improvisation of technology and funding (Perl 2000). In the biopolitical context, the entire concern of international terrorism is generally a trend that is geared towards the acquisition and usage of weapons of mass destruction. For example, Iran is viewed an active participant of terrorism mainly due to the fact that it has over the course of time aggressively sought the capability of nuclear weapons. Iraq has been suspected for establishing programs of nuclear weapons, stock piling biological and chemical agents. Consequently, the war against international terror has over the course of time been heightened. Correspondingly, combinations of instrumental policies and margins have been set out to enhance the fight against terror (Reid 2006). Anti-terror policies essentially centers on preventing and punishing sponsors of terror or terror groups. The perceptions of biopolitics regarding anti terror policies is that it is imperative that landmark legislation against terror should be formally legislated. The legislated Act creates a legal and authorized base of preventing and punishing terror related activities. In a bid to prevent terror the legislated laws proposes that restrictions should be imposed. In order to discourage states that sponsor terror the biopolitics view point is that funding, material support and granting of visas should be banned to such states or organizations. These measures should be executed collectively by nations that are against terror. Biopolitics perspective of combating terror recognizes that nations are faced with conflicting strategies and approaches of addressing terror related issues. Nations have different approaches of handling terrorism. Some nations take the approach of giving security from terror attacks they realize this by restraining the freedom of suspects or individuals in terrorists groups (Mullard & Cole 2008). The biopolitics perspective distinguishes the approach taken by some nations of combating terrorists activities. This approach generally advocates for democracy, freedoms and basic human right for every individual irregardless of their acquaintances. However, when the suspected individuals are proven guilty of participating in terror activities their rights and freedom are restricted by the state. Through a biopolitical lense, it is evident that efforts or approaches of combating terror acts are complicated. Factors that impede the fight against terror from the same view point activities include expanded commercial attachment with states that sponsor terror activities, open borders and constitutional limits. Policy markers are as well faced with the challenge of identifying the offenders of certain terrorist acts and the alleged sponsors. The international community has increasingly demonstrated a solid ability in joining hands and imposing sanctions against states that have violated the international code of combating terror activities. Moreover, biopolitics understanding on terror acknowledges the application of a high level of intelligence in combating terrorist activities (Closs& Williams 2008). Biopolitics understanding of terror recognizes that terror has occurred throughout history however there has been an elusive rebirth of terror activities. Terror activities not only affect small societies it has over the course of time become a global issue since its effects are felt globally. Terror is a major problem that has reoccurred around the globe in different forms. The strategies set out to combat terror consume a lot of funds that could be otherwise used for other developmental projects. For instance, the United States spends over $5 billion dollars yearly in efforts of combating terror activities. A lot of efforts and technical mechanisms are well exhausted in the processes of preparing against terror attacks. Funds are spent in the acquisition trained personnel and weapons of combating terror. Many nations set aside huge sums of money for preparing for the uncertain terror attacks. The effects of manufacturing biological and chemical weapons by terror group or states have brought about baffling and incurable illnesses. For instance, subsequent to the Persian Gulf War thousands of United States war troop deployed at the battle fronts were immensely affected by the hurled chemical weapons such that when they came from the battle fronts they were suffering from baffling and incurable illnesses. This illness was later referred to as the “Gulf war syndrome” This syndrome posed hazardous effect to the affected troops and their immediate contacts. The affected troops experienced memory loss, chronic fatigue, internal bleeding, severe headaches and intestinal problems. Iraq has continuously shown acute behavior against other nations this has bought about a lot of suspicion such that the Unite States strongly believes that Iraq has been creating chemical and biological weapons aimed at mass destruction. The suspicion that the United States has toward Iraq is bound to cause confrontations in the near future (Mullard & Cole 2008). One of the most critical effects of terror attacks according to a biopolitical out look revolves around the loss of lives. In the past decades the executed terror attacks have greatly contributed to the loss of innocent lives. For instance, according to a conducted biopolitical analysis, over 1,500 people die in Iraq yearly as a result of terror attacks (Rivas& Windrem 2004). The historical occurrence of terror attacks in the United States, Israel, Kenya, the United Kingdom and Afghanistan is a clear indication of how terror attacks has contributed to the loss of innocent lives. Terror attacks have also caused loss of valuable property and resources. When these attacks are executed, properties, business premises are destroyed this in turn causes a number of people to loose their investments and their means of livelihood. Furthermore, terror attack in reference to perspectives of biopolitics instigates fear, worry and uncertainty in people thus they are unable to enjoy freedom to express their opinions and freedom of movement. The instigated fear also impedes on the productivity of individuals (Bigo& Tsoukala 2008). Critical analysis of biopolitics understanding on terror A thorough analysis of the biopolitics understanding of terror causes us to question whether these perceptions and understanding comprehensively represents the application of political power on all the aspects pertaining to human life. This is mainly due to the fact that terrorism is considered as the greatest threat in the 21st centaury, however this sentiment can only be according to the economically established nations such as the United States, Israel and United Kingdom among many other nations. The corporate media has over the course of time put emphasis on terrorism issues while neglecting other key issues and challenges facing the world today. Terrorism can be considered as a symptom of controlled mass media which does not give a platform of airing alternative views (Newman 2005). Whereas biopolitics perspectives term terror as a key threat to human life, other issues essentially pose great danger to the human life. For instance, 1.2 million people die each year as a result of road accidents. 3 million people die yearly of HIV/AIDS. In America, 11, 000 people die yearly as result of armed robbery. When these death figures are compared to the deaths rates that come as result of terrorist attacks, it is evident that the highlighted issues pose greater danger to human life than terror attacks (Newman 2005). (Bayatrizi 2008). Moreover, the emphasis laid on combating terrorism in reference the biopolitics perceptions has drained funds that could be used in more critical issues. It is imperative that advocates of biopolitics perception of spending huge sums of money on combating terror should consider the fact that 780,000,000 people are currently starving to death.1.2 billion persons live below $1 per day. Moreover, 513,000,000 people do not have access to safe drinking water. Due to the fact that biopolitics is generally a political advocacy that deals with the well fare of all life forms it is imperative that financial priority should be given to basic issues such as starvation and access to water rather than the acquisition of weapons (Amoore & Geode 2008). No nation has gained more from terrorism than the U.S., Israel and the U.K. These nations have used terrorism as a justification of changing laws and policies, thus giving more power to the authorities whereas the freedoms of people are impeded. The approaches of combating terror have been used as excuses of attacking and conquer foreign lands. Moreover, the biopolitics understanding of terror exploits the fears of people in order to gain support. Conclusion Biopolitics entails the impact and application of political power on all the aspects pertaining to human life. Terror basically refers to the act of imposing fear by using violent means to counter noncombatants in order to achieve a specific cause, publicity or even for material gains. In reference to the biopolitics lenses terror is regarded as a domestic and foreign security threat. Nations have come up with policies that aim on resolving the impending threat of terror. The delegated policies include international cooperation, military force, diplomacy, economic sanctioning, security enhancement and constructive engagement. By analyzing the biopolitics understanding of terror we caused to question whether these perceptions and understanding comprehensively represents the application of political power on all the aspects pertaining to human life. This mainly because issues such us poverty, starvation and sickness pose to more critical than fears terror attacks. Bibliography Amoore, L & Geode, M, 2008, Risk and the War on Terror, Rutledge Publishers. New York. Bayatrizi, Z, 2008, Life sentences: the modern ordering of mortality, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Bigo, D & Tsoukala, A, 2008, Terror, insecurity and liberty: illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11, Rutledge Publisher. New York. Closs, A. & Williams, V, 2008, Terrorism and the Politics of Response: London in a Time of Terror, Taylor & Francis Publisher, New York. Morton, S & Bygrave, S, 2008, Foucault in an age of terror: essays on biopolitics and the defence of society. Palgrave. New York. Mullard, M & Cole, B, 2008.Globalisation, citizenship and the war on terror, Edward Elgar Publishing, New York. Newman, S, 2005, Power and politics in poststructuralist thought: new theories of the political Volume 17 of Routledge innovations in political theory. Routledge Publisher. New York. Perl, R, 2000, Terrorism, the future and U.S. Foreign Policy. Retrieved on September 22, 2009, http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:kNXRCfMuEDEJ:www.fas.org/irp/crs/IB95112.pdf+us+policy+terrorism&hl=en&gl=ke Reid, J, 2006, Biopolitics of the war on terror: liberal modernity, life struggles, and the defense of logistical societies, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Rivas, R & Windrem, R, 2004, World wide terrorism. Retrieved on September 22, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/. Read More