:Polisci Applied

Mandatory link to previous part of the series, refer back as necessary for definitions/context.

Now it is time to ask, assuming that the general tenets of institutionalism are true, how would this affect the issue of terrorism? Specifically, how would it shape our understanding of the causes of terrorism, and how would these problems best be solved? When examining terrorism through a neorealist lens, I generally argued that it should be seen as a strategic and purposeful (e.g. targetted) action, with self-preservation as a motivation (and Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” showing why that can still mean offensive action) and terrorist organizations essentially being pawns of actual states, allowing them to act with greater impunity. Neoliberalism and institutionalism share a number of the core concepts of neorealism, but draw significantly different conclusions from them.

The most important difference between institutionalism and neorealism is the belief that international institutions are not impotent. This has the potential to greatly change the issue of terrorism, as it opens the door to a real global solution. Just because it is theoretically possible, though, doesn’t mean it is feasible. Influencing states is one matter, but influencing non-state organizations is quite another.

One of the assertions I made when discussing neorealism was that, since in the neorealist view there are only states and no real overarching international system, terrorism cannot be seen as some sort of generic anti-status quo action but rather must be targetted against specific states. In institutionalism, however, this is not necessarily the case: given that it is possible for international institutions to foster genuine global cooperation, it is also possible that the chief objective of terrorism is to target efforts to that effect.

Given that institutionalism changes how we understand the goal of terrorism, let us now determine how it changes the possible solutions. One aspect is that, by recognizing the legitimacy of non-state institutions in the international arena, terrorist organizations are no longer so “shadowy” and can possibly be confronted, even through diplomatic means. While this may sound unorthodox (and certainly contrary to the common rhetoric of western leadership), it is still at the very least theoretically possible, and I believe even feasible.

Both the western world and the terrorist organizations wish to preserve a way of life (this is true both from an institutionalist and a neorealist point of view) - the west wants to have cheap oil, as well as the many things such an energy source permits. Many Muslims, however, want to keep western influences out of their homeland, and preserve their culture (as well as pursue their conflict with Israel unfettered). Superficially, these two goals contradict each other, and when you add in the religious and historical overtones you get the conflict we have today. However, I believe that it is possible to overcome all of this, if both sides seek appropriate reforms and advances.

The west needs to do two things - first, it needs to develop an alternative energy source (and preferably find ways to moderate energy demands as well). Whatever this source is, it needs to be reasonably clean and plentiful - human ingenuity will be needed, but I am no engineer so I can’t say much more than that. In any case, this will give us much needed leverage in the conflict, allowing us both to wean ourselves of oil and to act with a greater impartiality in the rest of the world.

The second thing we need to do is, well, act with a greater impartiality in the rest of the world. This is not to say we should unilaterally withdraw from the Middle East or anywhere else - however, it would be ideal for us to not use our influence exclusively in our own interest but rather in the interest of the common good. Such selfless actions are possible in an institutionalist world, and I believe they are necessary to solve the problem of terrorism. Rather than drop bombs and invade countries (actions which likely create as many terrorists as they kill), we need to support proponents of reform in Islamic countries while still respecting their history and culture.

And that brings me to what the Islamic side needs to do to help fix these issues - put simply, they need to reform. While this may sound incompatible with their goal of preserving their way of life, that is not necessarily the case. History and culture are important, but so is progress and change, and it is not only possible but quite preferable to mix the two. The biggest problem with the Islamic world is that it is largely controlled by its most radical elements (not too terribly unlike the Western world at the moment) - however, there most definitely are moderate Muslims who wish to pursue meaningful reforms of their laws and traditions.

I would say the most important issue is the treatment of women, and second is the general treatment and views of any religions other than Islam. Other problems include the sectarian violence and strife within the Islamic world, the stature and power of the Saudi royal family and other wealthy oil-controllers (a problem which would be greatly mediated by the west pursuing alternative energy), and the general lack of free press, free speech, and other important elements of democracy. Obviously this is quite a laundry list, and it’s important to keep in mind that this will not be accomplished overnight (and further that force, or at least external force, is not going to help the situation). However, I believe it is quite possible, and that it would be facilitated by the west doing its part and showing some real world leadership for once (e.g. pursuing alternative energy and acting with greater impartiality, as above).

And I believe that if both sides pursue these reforms, terrorists will become a dying breed, no longer able to recruit to their cause. It is difficult for states to directly affect non-state organizations, but it is quite possible for them to shape the world in a way that is either more or less conducive to their success, and that is what I am proposing here.

Ultimately, it’s clear that institutionalism paints a relatively rosier picture of the world, or at least the positive possibilities within it. However, this is not to say that institutionalism is the correct view - in fact, this optimism could be precisely what disproves it. And that is what awaits us in part 4, where I will attempt to find actual evidence to support or refute either the neorealist or institutionalist views. Thank you for reading.