Defining Terrorism

Amidst the recent controversy surrounding terrorism and its meaning for our society, I feel that this piece can help people to find a better understanding.

A critical evaluation of Cooper’s (2001: 83) definition of terrorism as “the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over other human beings”.

 Terrorism is a massively contentious issue which many analysts look at from differing viewpoints. Perhaps one of the most prominent questions is how to define terrorism. This alone is debatable, with many definitions using the same words as others but taking on a slightly different meaning due to the context in which they were written and the opinion of the writer. Despite Cooper’s definition appearing both broad and easy to apply, terrorism is nevertheless an essentially contested concept. In order to critically evaluate the statement, it will be first important to assess its credibility by cross referencing it with other standpoints on defining terrorism. There are many standpoints when it comes to defining terrorism; many even conflict with each other due to their ideologically driven nature. For example there are state and non-state definitions and also, new and traditional theories on what terrorism is. It will also be worth considering, in context of Cooper’s definition, what the idea of state terrorism means for defining terrorism. Most importantly, for a definition such as Cooper’s, the quote must be applicable to contemporary examples of terrorism such as the war in Iraq. All such questions must be asked of Cooper’s definition in order to perform a critical evaluation and as such, attempt to come to a considered and amicable conclusion of what terrorism could be defined as.

The main issue for governments or analysts trying to define terrorism is that terrorism is an essentially contested concept and contains no truth. It then in turn becomes difficult to analyse all the aspects of terrorism and create a meaningful sentence which looks at all the aspects evenly. It is impossible therefore to develop the perfect definition as there will always be opposition regarding legitimacy, rendering every definition untrue. As Laqueur explains, “There is no authoritative systematic guide to terrorism – no Clausewitz, not even a Jomini – and perhaps there will never be one, simply because there is not one terrorism but a variety of terrorisms and what is true for one does not necessarily apply to others” (Laqueur, 2003, p. 8). There is however, a need for an international definition to be created in some form due to the increase in terrorist activities concerning the western world in recent times. As Hoffman says, “An analysis of political violence is particularly important, given the fact that authoritarian regimes may find it convenient to label all manifestations of violent opposition as terrorist in nature” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 451). Cooper’s definition is an interesting take on terrorism and does lend itself slightly to a certain aspect of terrorism, that being state terrorism. State terrorism is not terrorism as it is immediately thought of but is for sure a very dangerous and malicious variation. Whittaker says that, “The high costs of modern warfare, and concern about non-conventional escalation, as well as the danger of defeat and the unwillingness to appear as the aggressor, have turned terrorism into an efficient, convenient, and generally discrete weapon for attaining state interests in the international realm” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 37). Although it could be argued that state terrorism does not exist at all. This is due to thoughts that terrorism is most often brought about due to a group wanting change rather than a government trying to maintain the status quo. There have however been many examples of where states have used military force to keep its population in line. Such as in Argentina where a government funded organization known as the AAA squad (Argentinian Anti-Communist Alliance) killed in total over one thousand five hundred people who opposed the government. During the mid seventies, the group was at its most brutal and was ordered to kill many political activists but also senior officials such as police officers and judges (Valente, 2007). This was, as Cooper’s definition states; an intentional generation of massive fear which in theory allowed the government to ‘maintain control’.

However, Cooper’s definition stretches beyond just state terrorism and could be used to describe both new and traditional theories. New terrorism is what we see from Al Qaeda today, with tactics such as suicide missions which draw their thought from religious persuasion. Muslim extremism and its aims very much befit the aims and ideas of new terrorism, as it sees violent destruction as an end in itself. As field states, “Proponents of the concept argue that contemporary terrorist groups are operating in an unprecedented manner and pose an entirely new type of terrorist threat” (Field, 2009, p. 1). Again this would be the intentional generation of fear which Cooper’s quote defines. Looking at Al Qaeda, it would appear that its members cannot be reasoned with whilst performing their acts of terrorism as they believe they are doing what is right in accordance to their religion. This mentality gives them the power to generate, as the title definition states, massive fear. More traditional forms of terrorism see destruction and violence as simply a pathway to advantages regarding political ends. According to Field, “The ‘traditional terrorism’ of the past was linked to a predominantly nationalist or separatist agenda and was usually concerned with the political situation within a specific region or country” (Field, 2009, p. 3). Cooper’s quote covers this as well when it communicates the ‘securing’ of power for those enacting terrorism. This differs from the example of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers, who of course cannot secure power from beyond the grave. Therefore Cooper’s definition can show, when taken in context of a given situation, two differing variations of what terrorism is at the same time without necessarily undermining the other.

Alongside contemporary thinkers and analysts such as Cooper, many states have attempted to define what terrorism is. State definitions have often been seen to have conflicted with other non-state definitions in their assessments of terrorism even when they came from the same country. For example, the US State Department has a different interpretation from Brian Jenkins, a former US government advisor. Jenkins codifies terrorism as, “The use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). Whereas the US State Department defines terrorism as the, “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). These two definitions take on similar areas of terrorism but the state definition appears more official, accommodating more specific circumstances. There are many other conflicting definitions of terrorism circling the US system, all of which throws up confusion for both the public and senior officials dealing with terrorists. However, it could as easily be argued that the more definitions the world has, the easier it will be to pin point a violent act as terrorism.

Looking at the above statements, perhaps the only reason why Cooper’s definition cannot fully explain terrorism is because it lacks two key areas or words which show up in many others, that is violence and politics. The two go hand in hand when evaluating terrorism especially concerning traditional theories on terrorism which explains that one often leads to the other. This is all despite the title statement itself being subject to much change over time as Cooper states, “This definition evolved over some 25 years of teaching about the topic of terrorism in a university setting, and during that time, it has undergone a number of small refinements as experience has suggested” (Cooper, 2001, p. 883). Importantly however, in the critical evaluation of Cooper, the definition has shown through the cross referencing of other notions of terrorism, that it can certainly be used to describe varying types of terrorism and could run closely alongside many other definitions and theories. All this meaning that Cooper’s definition is easily justifiable as an evaluation of terrorism.

 

In order to truly assess Cooper’s claims however, they must be analysed in relation to a case study. The Iraq war broke out due to a reaction to the terrorist attack on September 11^th 2001 in New York. The twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York were destroyed by Al Qaeda suicide bombers aboard two aeroplanes; it was believed that terrorist leaders such as Osama Bin Laden were responsible. The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush along with other allies agreed to join forces and invade Afghanistan for fear that they possessed weapons of mass destruction. “Testifying in front of the inquiry into the UK’s participation in the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Blair said he had stated publicly that Iraq needed to be confronted over its ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction” (CNN News, 2010). This war later spread into other parts of the Middle East including Pakistan. There are perhaps two instances of terrorism during this period which Cooper’s definition can cover. The first is obviously the malicious attacks on the UK and US. More significantly the world trade centre attacks on September 11^th but also the terrible London bombings in July 2005 where civilians were targeted on public transport. Over seven hundred people were injured during the London attacks with fifty two more killed (One India News, 2010). This would be an example of new terrorism, where death and destruction were the sole aims which Cooper defines as the ‘generation of massive fear’. The other instance of terrorism would be the relentless tactics being used by the Taliban in the war which followed and is still ongoing today. Hoffman, speaking of the Taliban, continues, “…once more is marshalling its forces to continue the struggle against the United States, which Osama Bin Laden formally declared thirteen years ago” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 1). Road-side bombs and suicide bombers have caused many western casualties over the years with the war proving very difficult for either side to win.

It is clear that the Iraq war and the actions preceding it can all be assessed as examples of terrorism in accordance with the title statement. This much is true but it could be interesting to look at the war from a different standpoint, where Cooper’s definition can take on different meanings. Perhaps it is the western allies who are also war criminals in the case of Iraq and are often seen to be committing terrorist acts themselves. Little is mentioned of the deaths of the largely innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who are often caught up in the conflict. Considering Cooper’s definition, this could be seen as a state, or several more powerful states, aiming to ‘secure’ the control of another when initial fears of the possession of nuclear weapons was somewhat misguided. Schmid suggests that, “By placing narrowly defined acts of terrorism in the context of ‘war crimes’, the dilemma of attributing a given act of violence to the criminal or political sphere disappears” (Schmid, 1993, p. 13). It could be argued therefore that the Taliban is simply trying to defend its own territory by forcing allied troops out of the area despite its violent threats to the Western world. However even this, according to Cooper, is a form of terrorism and can be positioned within the definition when it talks of the ‘maintaining’ of control over other human beings.

Terrorism is an essentially contested concept and it has throughout the ages been difficult to define as it continuously proves today. There are no set rules when defining terrorism, with many definitions using alternative words even when coming to the same conclusions. There have been many attempts at it however, with most definitions covering broadly similar areas even if they do vary in emphasis on different issues. Cooper’s definition stands in my view as a very credible alternative to even those from government departments. It can be applied to varying aspects of terrorism including state terrorism and even war; it is comparable with state definitions, other non-state definitions but also new and traditional thoughts on terrorism. Cooper’s quote also offers up an interesting debate with regards to the War on Terror and how it can be viewed from differing perspectives. In conclusion, although there have been a vast amount of attempts to define terrorism, indeed it is often thought of as an impossibility, in my opinion Cooper’s definition stands up as well as any other.

Bibliography

Books

Hoffman. J (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Laqueur. W (2003), No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty First Century, Google Books, Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uXn6UYh9JUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false,

Schmid. A P (1993) Western Response to Terrorism, London: Frank Cass Publishers.

Whittaker. D J (2001) The Terrorism Reader, New York: Routledge Ltd.

Web Articles

CNN World (2010), Blair: No ‘covert’ deal with Bush over Iraq, available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-29/world/england.iraq.blair.inquiry_1_john-chilcot-tony-blair-iraq?_s=PM:WORLD,

One India News (2010), July 7 2005 London bombing inquests to begin, available at: http://news.oneindia.in/2010/10/11/july7-2005-london-bombing-inquests-to-begin.html,

Journals

Cooper H. 2001, ‘The Problem of Definition Revisited’, Terrorism, pp.881-892.

Hoffman B. 2009, A Counterterrorism Strategy for the Obama Administration, Terrorism and Political Violence, 21 (3), p. 359, [online]. Available from: Taylor Francis Online. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546550902950316,

Field A. 2009, ‘The ‘New Terrorism’: Revolution or Evolution?’, Politics Studies Review, 7, pp.195-207.

Luis de la Calle, 2011, ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Terrorism’, Politics and Society, 39 (3), pp.451-472.

Schmid A P. 2004, ‘Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (2), pp.197-221.

Weinber L, 2004, ‘The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (4), pp.777-794.

Global Power

Where does the power lie in today’s global order?

There are vast amounts of power held by many sectors of today’s global order. It can easily be argued that States are the key players, although one must also consider the power of which individual world leaders have and that of multinational corporations also. These major players all have power on the world stage but crucially, in different areas. Before looking into where power lies in today’s global order, it is important to first reflect upon what power is and which description of it best fits those with the greatest influences. Power in a global sense could be economic, military or political. Central to the argument is to consider which form has the most significance and in turn, who possesses it. In the present global climate, it will be important to look into the notions of global governance and state intervention and how therefore this could affect the perceptions of States and their power. It will also be vital to look into globalisation as a whole, as this could influence the way in which power is distributed. There is perhaps most prominently the military power of states to consider too, as many conflicts both in the past and present have revealed this to be a crucial factor. In order to assess where power lies within today’s global order, it is crucial then to consider firstly what power is but then which sector wields the most before coming to a definitive conclusion.

Before asking where power lies, it is perhaps first important to determine what power is or at least, what it could be described as. There are many differing perceptions on this and what it could mean for our global order. As Hoge states, “The transfer of power from west to east is gathering pace and soon will dramatically change the context for dealing with international challenges – as well as the challenges themselves.” (Hoge, 2007, p. 3). Power then, could be described as economic, political, military or even technological. The most common definition comes when looking at the economy and how this affects the global hierarchy. This issue is particularly prominent today especially considering the world wide recession and economic downturn. This has meant that many nations have lost significant amounts of power on the global scene and therefore many world industries are taking a turn for the worse. Looking at the UK, what became obvious, a little time after the hysteria surrounding the credit crunch, was that the motor industry was becoming less and less profitable. People had stopped buying new cars due partly to many companies cutting back on expenses but also private buyers becoming wary of what the recession could mean for their job security. Many commentators believe that the recession was hyped up by the media which became half the problem itself. Nevertheless, the Labour government introduced a scheme in which to help get the motor industry back up and running and, despite scepticism, the scrappage scheme seemed on the most part to be successful. Macalister writes, “The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said the scheme was “a great success”, boosting commerce and meeting environmental criteria by being concentrated around smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles” (Macalister, 2009). Any car over ten years old was to be given a minimum of two thousand pounds worth of scrappage allowance when part exchanging at a dealership for a new car. This meant that for people who owned a car worth less than two thousand pounds and were in the market for a new car, the system was financially beneficial. Although the scheme achieved further success for the motorist and for the economy as a whole as this was incentive enough for people, who were not in the market for a new car before, to become tempted. Subsequently, car dealerships often became tempted to add their own deals on top of the scrappage scheme for buyers to become even more tempted by a new car. If a country’s economy is thriving, it can have a hugely influential effect on global markets and therefore establishing its power on the global scene. Although measures like these have helped the UK economy, today the UK is still not in the strongest position and has much inferior economic power compared with other world nations. In terms of economic power and how the global hierarchy sits at the moment, it is China who are making the largest strides. An idea presented by Hoge also, “Today, China is the most obvious power on the rise. But it is not alone: India and other Asian states now boast growth rates that could outstrip those of major Western countries for decades to come” (Hoge, 2007, p. 3). Soon it is expected for China to overtake even the USA as the world’s greatest superpower but for now they are second, recently surpassing Japan with a GDP of $5.8786tn, compared with Japan’s $5.4742tn (McCurry, 2010).

Political power and the power of world leaders, is an area which concerns both domestic and international issues. Political power in many states can internally be described as the power the leadership has or maybe the power with which the electorate can hold them to account. Another area could be in individual constituencies as in the UK, or indeed States in the US. Although, it is the leadership which controls the country and thus is expected to have the most power, it is not necessarily the case especially in the US as I believe. The President of the United States is restricted massively by his Congress in all decisions he makes due to the way in which the constitution is written. Watts argues, “The President needs congressional support, and in the more assertive mood of Congress in recent years’ incumbents have found this difficult to achieve even with their own party in control” (Watts, 2005, p.82). Due to the doctrine of the separation of powers, the leader of the executive, or indeed any member of the executive for that matter, is not allowed to sit in on legislative proceedings in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The President can of course choose to override any proceedings with the power of veto, though even this action can be overridden by a two thirds majority in congress. A President can even be impeached or removed from office. In comparison, the UK Prime Minister David Cameron has no such troubles and although he can be removed through a vote of no confidence, his powers are not quite so limited as is the nature of a fusion of powers. Seymour-Ure states, “Some of the Prime Minister’s formal tasks get called ‘powers’ precisely because there is no challenge to the Prime Minister’s right to perform them, although he obviously has to follow correct procedures” (Seymour-ure, 2003, p.16). Also, whilst it is the constitution that is sovereign in the US, it is Parliament which is sovereign in the UK, thus giving the UK Prime Minister more authority. In addition to this fact, the UK constitution in comparison is uncodified as opposed to the codified in the US, thus allowing for amendments to be made far easier. This is something which can be quite advantageous particularly when combined with the influence with which can be had in the Judiciary. Despite this, due to the economic positions of world states, it is the US President who is seen to have the greatest power on the global front even if his position domestically is somewhat limited. This trail of thought is apparent because, at the moment, it is the US state which wields the most economic power and is therefore seen to have the most influence. Though as Ferguson states, “The United States may boast a massive economy and whopping defence budget, but wielding true global power takes more than just greenbacks and green berets.” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 18). Nevertheless Barack Obama is looked upon as being the individual who has the most power at his disposal. Whether this is true or not is debateable and even if he does hold this title, it does not necessarily mean it is of any greater significance than the other factors considered.

There are of course other ways in which we can determine what global power is. Many consider military power to be the most generic answer, particularly in the post-war period where military power was everything. Ferguson argues, “Yes, but military dominance depends on other factors. The German thinker Max Weber once characterized the modern state as claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Although such a monopoly is impossible in the global arena, international power sometimes seems to depend on monopolizing the most sophisticated means of perpetrating violence” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 18). In the lead up to the Second World War there was an arms race which eventually led to war. Due to dramatic losses of life in the First World War, both Britain and France were reluctant to go to war again and therefore proceeded to perform a process of appeasement with Germany which should have guaranteed peace. This delay in action only allowed Adolf Hitler to rebuild Germany’s defences and military power, enough for it to become a significant threat to Europe and indeed, the world. Today the greatest military power belongs, according to studies, again to the USA. This is decided upon by recent activity and this could be in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite many perceptions being that the war is indeed, unwinnable. Or maybe the recent happenings in Libya and the support of rebel forces allows for this conclusion. The idea of state intervention is also a critical factor when examining global power. Rozeff says, “The U.N. is intervening to take down the Gaddafi administration and replace it by another, of undetermined nature. This means that the U.N. places its power over that of the Libyan state. The U.N. makes itself the Supreme Governor in the sense that it decides on a critical feature of a State, namely, who has “consent,” or who is entitled to rule that State when protests against the existing rule emerge” (Rozeff, 2011). This power of intervention is in the hands of states only and does lead to thoughts that without common sense prevailing in cases such as Libya, the world could be a much darker place. It is no secret however, that despite these thoughts, China must again be considered as the country making the biggest strides in terms of military power. They are leading the way on new technologies and as such, have the most nuclear power plants planned for future development. China can manage such feats because of the finances they have to fall back on, as Burn summarises, “Because of the inherent difficulties and the dangers involved, the development – still in important aspects incomplete – has been very long and very costly” (Burn, 1978, p. 1). Leading on from this point is that many new technological advances are also coming from China. Technology in and of itself can wield great power on the global scene, as many industries are crying out for new ideas, thus creating prosperous economies. Microsoft and Apple are leading the way when it comes to introducing new popular innovations. Whereas we might not think that this a direct control of world power or that they necessarily do anything with it, it is becoming increasingly obvious that many domestic industries and thus economies are becoming dependent upon new easy to sell products. Furthermore, in order for an industry to thrive, the machinery, the workers and the investment must come together as one or risk losing their place in the market. As Sawyer explains, “The withdrawal of resources from the industry under consideration is assumed to lead to the use of those resources elsewhere in the economy.” (Sawyer, 2005, p. 164). We are beginning to see a trend as to where power may lie specifically in the global order or where it certainly may in the future. China is quickly becoming the world’s most powerful state.

However, although there are differing interpretations as to what global power is, all these factors concern States and their impact. In order to determine where power lies in the global order, it is important to note that state power is simply one of many entities controlling power in the global order. In contrast to state power and their influences, it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the advancements being made by huge multi-national corporations. Whereas states may influence where power is distributed, particularly in an economic sense, it is arguably the corporations who use it and have little or no political boundaries to abstain to. Shah states, “Today we know that corporations, for good or bad, are major influences on our lives. For example, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations while only 49 are countries. In this era of globalization, marginalized people are becoming especially angry at the motives of multinational corporations, and corporate-led globalization is being met with increasing protest and resistance” (Shah, 2002). Climate change is vastly becoming the most prevalent issue in today’s society and it is corporations such as Shell and BP who can take advantage of this. With ever increasing worry over whether we have reached the notion of ‘peak oil’, oil companies can seemingly charge whatever they like, as society continues to believe that oil is becoming harder to come by in the middle east. Although it is true that politicians can use this methodology also, to increase fuel duty taxes. Though this is just the literal power with which corporations have, what must also be viewed are the staggering amounts of money being turned over by some of these businesses. Indeed, some smaller country’s have less GDP than some of the larger corporations and arguably even less global influence. In turn, a corporation usually specialises in only one area and therefore can concentrate its efforts in making the most money from this area and therefore commanding the most influence. Whereas states must take an overview over all global issues and try to find compromise and this, if they want a booming economy, hands power back to the corporations. Indeed, Dawson explains, “An open economy engages in a wide range of transactions with the rest of the world, with a wide range of different factors affecting them” (Dawson, 2006, p. 458).Although, this argument is easily contested as many larger states have the authority to create laws which can limit the activities of corporations. The market potential which the larger states hold is very attractive to the multi-national corporations such as Shell and therefore growth within it is vital. It can therefore easily be argued that corporations need states, more than states need the corporations. Though even if this argument can be flipped, especially from the point of view of smaller nations who may need the economic growth benefits.

In order to contrast together the two arguments of where power lies in the global order, it is important to apply theory from contrasting ideological perspectives as to whether these clashes of power are leading us to cooperation or conflict. There are many differing theories surrounding global governance but the four most prominent are, Realism, Liberal Institutionalism, Neo-liberalism and Marxism. Two of these theories believe that states control power in the global order; with the other two believe that it is non-state actors which are key. Realists believe that states are the building blocks of international society because they have national interests at heart. Due to these desires, a realist would believe that they only way forward for states is to push them through at all costs which is thus believed to lead to conflict between states. As Smith argues, “World politics represents a struggle for power between states each trying to maximise their own interests” (Baylis & Smith, 1997, p.4). Such is the competitive nature of domestic economies or indeed, world leaders. Indeed, when treaties are signed, they are done so with only consideration for the national interest and therefore, from a Realist’s perspective, they must have some benefit for the domestic market or politics. Interestingly, Realists also take the view that there is no absolute global order and that the international system is in a state of anarchy. In contrast, a Liberal Institutionalist perspective argues that although states are key to the global order, they can interact without the need for there to be conflicts. Indeed, without cooperation no treaties or negotiations would ever succeed thus affecting a country’s economy and trade markets. The relationship between different states is one that is built on compromise, as is politics in general and as such, as the theory of liberal institutionalism would suggest, is vital for the stability of a global order. Though Realists are unconvinced by this argument, as Roggeveen explains, “…Ikenberry’s liberalism is ambitious and utopian, and only encourages the kind of neo-conservative adventurism that got the US into so much trouble in the Bush era” (Roggeveen, 2009). In stark contrast to both these views however, a Neo-Liberal would argue that non-state actors are the most important part of an international system. This is an argument which stems from the perceived power which multi-national corporations are looking increasingly likely to have. Furthermore, a capitalist global order would, according to Neo-Liberalism, provide jobs in both rich and poor countries as people will always move to find work which is best suited to them. Therefore, in essence, the state becomes partly irrelevant as it is the world’s companies and businesses which provide the money for families. So whereas in the previous two theories, it is the idea that the state is concerned only with its domestic issues, this particular theory takes this a step further as here it is the individual who looks after his own interest at the expense of the state’s preferences for its economy. A Neo-Liberal trail of thought also believes that cooperation, like the Liberal Institutionalist perspective, is the way forward. Indeed the argument is clear, states which interact with each other regularly on a trade or political basis, rarely go to war thus creating an international society which can be mutually beneficial. Although as Burchill states, “Neo-liberalism is largely concerned with the critique of liberal approaches” (Burchill & Linklater, 2005, p. 25). The remaining theory is that of Marxism. Originating from the ideas of Karl Marx, Marxism is an ideology which is often made reference to in contemporary politics. Gamble argues, “The areas in which Marxists have shown most interest are also subject to change. At different times history, political economy, philosophy, political science or sociology have commanded most attention (Gamble, 1999, p. 6). It does indeed have a stance on the way in which the global order is being run and agrees with Neo-Liberals that it is non-state actors which are key but yet still argues for sure, that cooperation is unlikely. A Marxist would say that multi-national organisations exploit the less fortunate in order to generate its finances. Indeed, it is class struggle with which Marxist theory is centred and here it could be argued that it is the workers in today’s society’s that are taken advantage of. Marxism points to capitalism as the main blame for this exploitation but does accept that states are not redundant in the global order, as capitalists need state action to support international trade. Indeed, Capps explains, “In this sense, globalisation represents the crisis of state capitalism on a world scale” (Capps & Panayiotopoulos, 2001, p. 211). Although these theories do overlap at times, they do all provide coherent arguments as to which way the global order could be heading.

There are many differing opinions on where the power lies in the global order. There are of course many contrasting ideas as to what power is, or rather, which type has more significance in contemporary society. It was easy in the past to point to political power and the power of leaders, as they seemed to control more of what a specific country’s ideological position was on the world stage. This in particular concerns both world wars and what this meant for each country involved. Today however political leaders, such as the UK Prime Minister and the US President, struggle to have maximum influence over their own country, leave alone any influence on the global scene. Such is the nature of modern governmental systems and in turn, checks and balances on power. Leading on from the same vein as this is military power and its effect and although we are seeing military action in the Middle East, this concerns mostly the US and is therefore difficult to judge a comparison between states in this area. What is more prominent today are the new technologies being developed, this is where China leads the way. In contemporary society however, it is my opinion that economic power is what is most important, particularly concerning the recent economic downturn. The comparisons between world states and multi-national corporations are difficult to finalise. It could be argued that multi-national corporations, due to their massive GDP’s and more specific influences on the global market, hold the most world power. In my opinion however it is the power of states which hold the most power in this area, as they can dictate the actions of corporations through the introduction of new laws and trade restrictions such is the benefit of having political power also. To conclude, it is states that have what in my opinion are the four greatest examples of world power; the power in politics and economics in addition to military and technological advancements.

Bibliography

John Baylis & Steve Smith, (1997), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scott Burchill, (2005), Theories of International Relations, Third Edition, Hampshire: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

Duncan Burn (1978) Nuclear Power and the Energy Crisis: Politics and the Atomic Industry, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.

Prodromos Panayiotopoulos & Gavin Capps, (2001), World Development: An Introduction, London: Pluto Books.

Graham Dawson, (2006), Economics and Economic Change: Macroeconomics, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Andrew Gamble, (1999), Marxism and Social Science, London: MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.

James F. Hoge, Jr. (2007) World Politics: A Global Power Shift in the Making, 27^th Edition, Dubuque: The McGraw-Hill Company.

Macalister T. (2009) ‘Scrappage Scheme sells 50,000 new cars’ The Guardian12^th June 2009 [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/12/uk-car-scrappage-success

McCurry, J. (2011) ‘China overtakes Japan as world’s second-largest economy’ The Guardian 14^th February 2011. [online] available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/14/china-second-largest-economy

Roggeveen S. (2009) Liberal Institutionalism and its Critics [online] Available at: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2009/05/12/Liberal-institutionalism-and-its-critics.aspx

Rozeff M S. (2011) On UN Intervention in Libya and World Government [online] Available at: http://empirestrikesblack.com/2011/03/on-un-intervention-in-libya-and-world-government/

Malcom Sawyer, (2005), The UK Economy, 16^th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seymour-Ure (2003) Prime ministers and the media: issues of power and control Google Books [online] available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=bjB31HKtiSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=prime+minister+power&hl=en&ei=9T-0TYb8KYSi8QOU7eyVDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prime%20minister%20power&f=false

Shah A. (2002) The Rise of Corporations [online] Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/234/the-rise-of-corporations

Duncan Watts, (2005), Understanding American Government and Politics, Second Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Journals

Ferguson N. (2003) ‘Power’ Military Dominance makes the United States the world’s greatest power p. 18

The American Presidency

A piece I wrote analysing the power of the American President.

Has the office of the American President has become too powerful?

The office of the President is an area of American politics which has come under much scrutiny and question in the past and equally so today. The President’s powers are often misunderstood as being either too powerful or in some cases too weak. As the President is in sole charge of arguably the world’s greatest superpower, it could be considered that he or she is the world’s most powerful political and economic figure. However, when looking deeper into the specific powers of the presidency and the limits imposed on it by the American Constitution, these thoughts are easily contested. The relative strengths and weaknesses of the President can be assessed by comparing the US system with that of the UK and by looking at the President’s excessive exposure in the media. All these major factors and more will be assessed, before coming to a definitive conclusion.

When looking into the powers of the American Presidency, a case can easily be made that the President is in fact, weak. On the global front, the President of America is seen as one of the single most influential figures in the whole world. Domestically however, there have been many examples where Presidents, or any American politicians or governors, have failed to deliver their promises. In some cases the fault has not been with the leadership but simply the state of the economy or other domestic affairs. Perhaps ironically, the current President Barack Obama is seen at the moment to be failing to deliver his pre-election promises. Ironic because, prior to the 2008 election, Barack Obama seemed to have a wealth of support from all across the political spectrum and seemed to attract the world’s attention as he portrayed a new way forward for America. Leslie writes, “Obama was a vivid embodiment of difference at a time when the country needed something new” (Leslie, 2009, p.21). There were even those from the Republican party of who showed support, they became known as the ‘Obamacans’. Today he is much criticised and recently in the mid-term elections, lost control of the House of Congress to the Republican Party. In February 2009, he signed the ‘American recovery and reinvestment act’, a policy which aimed to help the ever declining economy which has seen many parts of the world plummet into recession. Looking at the election results, this clearly failed to have any effect. Those supporting Obama believe that, following the mid-term elections, one of the reasons for failure was because not enough Americans had seen any changes in the economy. This brings up perhaps the most important factor when arguing for this case. Barack Obama has as much power vested to him as any other previous President. He however, has failed to utilise them to its fullest effect. Ryan Lizza, writing in ‘The New Yorker’ sums up the critical view of Obama and his Presidency so far, when he says,”[Obama] campaigns on reforming a broken political process, yet he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist” (Lizza, 2010).

It could therefore be argued that Obama has not taken significant enough steps to ensure an effective and successful reform of the economic situation. Similar thoughts could also be applied to President Herbert Hoover, who is criticised for his poor handling of the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Bowles says of Hoover, “Herbert Hoover was a moderate, but the Democratic landslide of 1932 swept him from the White House” (Bowles, 1993, p.26). Hoover’s successor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had great success in dealing with the bad economic situation and used his Presidential powers to good effect. Following the turmoil of the Wall Street crash, he is credited as one of the greatest American presidents of all time, thanks largely to a reforming policy that was both radical and inspiring, the New Deal. Williams says, “In his inauguration speech of 1933 Roosevelt pledged ‘a new deal for the American people’. Since then his proposals for economic recovery have been known as the New Deal. On assuming office Roosevelt summoned Congress on 9^th March and it sat for ‘100 days’ in order to enact the provisions of the New Deal” (Williams, 1998, p.20). This shows what can be achieved by a President willing to use all his authority necessary to move the economy forward.

At this time the Presidency could have been seen to be out growing the limits set upon it by the Founding Fathers of the constitution. The Presidency was beginning to dominate Congress, something which the Founding Fathers feared. Though despite the risk of a tyrannical leader, they accepted that to get things done; one sole figure needed ultimate authority. Walt gives his account of the Founding Fathers, “For Americans, the nation’s rise to world power is often portrayed as a direct result of the political genius of the Founding Fathers” (Walt, 2005, p.171). In order to control the Presidency, the Founding Fathers designed a doctrine of a Separation of Powers which divided the government into three parts, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. American politics then is often seen as simply a notion of compromise between the Presidency and Congress, although Roosevelt’s dominant and extended time in office was in exceptional circumstances.

Furthermore, even today the President can be seen as too powerful, not only because of the single powers vested in him but also by an over exposure in the media. The media drives politics and without it, many successful presidential campaigns would have been severely affected. Obama is perhaps the best example of this. Through the media he was able to construct a fantastic campaign, with television channels broadcasting a thirty minute advertisement for his case. Leslie goes on, “He became a cultural phenomenon in a way few politicians ever do, adorning magazine covers, T-shirts and websites before he’d even announced his candidacy” (Leslie, 2009, p.21). As the media industry grows, politics becomes far more accessible to the public thus further increasing a President’s impact and influence over the electorate. Often the President becomes the figurehead of American politics on the world stage, casting aside other issues.

It is true also that the President does have a vast array of powers consigned to him by the US constitution. He or she can have massive influence in all three branches of the American government, particularly in the legislature. Although the President is not seated in Congress, and cannot directly enforce legislation, the President does of course have influence aplenty over his or her party. This becomes especially useful if the Presidential party has a majority in Congress. He can then also outline legislative proposals in his State of Union Address, which can be very beneficial, giving the President indirect power over the legislature. In the twentieth century Presidents have used this provision to expand the legislative role of the presidency (Williams, 1998). It is the power of veto however, which is considered to be one of the most useful legislative powers the President has. Indeed, Roosevelt used this tactic six hundred and thirty five times in his time as President, further proof either that a truly powerful Presidency can exist or simply that politics were much more unstable at the time.

Clearly, where the President wields most power is within the Executive as, to a point, he is the sole executive figure. He does also however, have a presidential cabinet of which the members are chosen, thereby removed from congress if they were previously members and can be consulted on any important issues the president has. Unlike in the UK though, the president has full control over his or her cabinet and can overrule its decisions. The cabinet members then are seen merely as close advisors in their respective quarters and policy is rarely discussed. Bowles states, “Of all the politicians who sit around the table in the White House Cabinet room, only the President has an electoral base” (Bowles, 1993, p.103). Therefore, in contrast to UK cabinet politics, there is no notion of a collective responsibility. Crucially then, the President can make big decisions without cabinet approval. This also means that he has sole control over the armed forces and is deemed the Commander in Chief. This war power gives the President the authority to command US armed forces (Williams, 1998). In times of war the President ultimately has control over military strategy and foreign policy which could lead to crucial treaty negotiations. The President also has significant powers within the Judiciary as he can appoint federal judges to both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. This would not be without purpose, as this enables the President to shape the ideological nature of the Judiciary to his benefit. Williams outlines a way in which the President can therefore gain power over the constitution, “The Supreme Court is able to review the work of the other branches of government and, in so doing, becomes the interpreter of the Constitution” (Williams, 1998, p.95).

However, the President falls victim to many constitutional and congressional restrictions. The power of the Presidency can easily be questioned and is often not as powerful as first perceived. Although he has a crucial role to play in all three branches of government, the office of the American President has many checks and balances on it which can limit its role. In the Judiciary for example, the Presidents appointments first have to be ratified by the Senate before it can become official. Furthermore a court can damage a President and negate a particular activity (Watts, 2005). In the legislature, it is Congress which proposes and passes bills not the President. Even the Presidential Veto can be overridden by a two-thirds majority in Congress. Watts says, “The President needs congressional support, and in the more assertive mood of Congress in recent years’ incumbents have found this difficult to achieve even with their own party in control” (Watts, 2005, p.82). The Presidents executive powers are not complete either. Although the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he cannot declare war without the approval of Congress nor can he sign treaties without the Senate’s approval. Perhaps the most crucial weakness the President has is that he can be impeached and ultimately removed from office. The impeachment process must be brought by a majority vote in the House of Representatives (Williams, 1998). This has happened on two relatively recent occasions, in 1868 though Andrew Johnson was acquitted by the Senate and in 1974 when Richard Nixon resigned, allowing the impeachment process to stop (Williams, 1998). So although the President is powerful and is intended to be, he or she is relatively well restricted by Congress. This is exactly the type of framework the Founding Fathers intended to set out.

To conclude, many see the President of the United States of America as perhaps the most powerful single figure in world politics. The office of the President has many powers on the global front and much authority over other countries and its own. Furthermore, the President has many significant influences in the three branches of government, the Judiciary, the Legislature and of course the Executive. This is the way the Founding fathers intended the powers of the President to be. It could be argued however, that on many occasions the office of the American President has overreached its power and has begun to dominate, not just congress, but the media and other global affairs. In my opinion though, the Presidency is far too restricted by the vision the Founding Fathers set out in the constitution. There are a series of checks and balances on his political powers and although the media has sometimes meant the President is allowed much influence, this is a far cry from a dictatorship or authoritarian rule. The media can both make or break politicians based on their performance and as such, the Presidents control is only as good as he or she can justify. Ultimately the office of the American Presidency is not too powerful as the American Constitution is sovereign.

Bibliography

Nigel Bowles, (1993), The Government and Politics of The United States, Hampshire: THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD.

Ian Leslie, (2009), To Be President, London: Politico’s Publishing.

Ryan Lizza, (2010), The Political Scene: Making It [Online], Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=15

Stephen M. Walt, (2005), Taming American Power, First Edition, London: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd.

Duncan Watts, (2005), Understanding American Government and Politics, Second Edition, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Andy Williams, (1998), US Government & Politics, Second Edition, Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.