Search

Realists currently do not have a lot to say about terrorism.‘New terrorism’ and the asymmetric threats posed by it show the shortcomings of realism as states are being forced to react to non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations, in order to defend their own homeland. New threats to international security are posed by non-state actors through their use of global mechanisms as military weapons of destruction. As a result, past national strategies of deterrence and/or intervention have become outdated and inadequate in meeting the challenges from hardly visible threats which cross multiple boundaries. That is why it is necessary to renew realism in a way that is not contrary to its core assumptions and that would allow for it to take into account the role of non-state actors played in the realm of international security. This paper shows how realism fails to explain ‘new terrorism’ as a threat to international security. We examine current theories of asymmetric threats (that ‘new terrorism’ relies on for methods of attack) which currently are not applied to non-state actors. We examine the accuracy of current asymmetric threat theories. It is our contention that existing theories of asymmetric threats alone do not appropriately explain why the weak can defeat the strong. Therefore, we will examine terrorist attacks committed by Al Qaeda, using our theory of asymmetric threats that will stem from the synthesis of two existing theories. Finally, we will offer a modification to realism by suggesting that while states remain the dominant actor on the international arena, the role of the violent non-state actors must be acknowledged, eventually leading to policies effectively counteract and combat the asymmetric threats posed to international security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]