The issues surrounding terrorism have gained global recognition propelling nation-states to institute stringent measures and policies to curtail any occurrence of terrorist acts. There is the argument that terrorist behaviour ought to be analysed as rational in the sense that terrorist organisations possess sets of values, beliefs and images that are internally consistent with the people (Crenshaw, 1981). The discussion surrounding terrorism appears to have gotten another twist that is, influenced by the origin of the perpetrators, race and faith, compounded by the multifaceted nature of the act has made a single accepted definition cumbersome to arrive at. For instance, Bouchet-Saulnier (2016), espoused that terrorism means different to different people largely based on where one stands hence one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It is significant to note that irrespective of the debate surrounding terrorism, its explanation and composition, its repercussions extend beyond the area where it is committed.
Terrorism poses a serious threat to the globe irrespective of its definition as argued by Owusu (2024), terrorism and its effects affect not just the countries involved but globally every country receives its share of the consequences since no country is an island due to international trade and cooperation. Owusu (2024) argues further that the term terrorism is mostly abused by tagging people who hold dissenting opinions on some established order. This is supported by the argument by Jackson (2008), that the definitional challenges have resulted in a tendency of selection bias where terrorism is tagged solely to non-state groups opposed to Western interests. In contrast, those supported by Western states are tagged not same even when committed identical acts of civilian-directed violence. As quoted by Albert Camus, “Calling things by the wrong name adds to the affliction of the world”, hence the need to be straight with the definition of terrorism. The lack of a comprehensive definition has significant direct and indirect ramifications for individuals and groups labelled as terrorists as they may be legally subject to torture, rendition and incarceration without trial (Jackson, 2008). This in effect could create chaos among those who feel ill-treated and degenerate into conflict on a larger scale.
In light of the above, Primoratz (1990) opined that terrorism is the thoughtful use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, to intimidate them, or other people, into a course of action they otherwise would not take. Terrorism in its holistic sense is the premeditated use of violence to create fear and thereby realize political goals, especially in instances where straight military victory is not feasible. This indicated that terrorism is a weapon employed by nation-states, chauvinistic and sacred groups, and even revolutionaries to champion their course, be it legitimate or illegitimate (Jenkins, 2023). In the view of Krieger & Meierrieks (2011), terrorism is the thoughtful deployment of violence and intimidation targeted at a large audience to coerce a community (government) into conceding politically or ideologically induced demands.
According to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999) cited in Bouchet-Saulnier (2016) terrorism is “any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” The U.S. Department of Defence, cited in United States Institute of Peace, (n.d) argues that terrorism is “The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” Similarly, Owusu (2024) posits that terrorism is the use of violence, coercion and intimidation to realise political, religious, or ideological goals by targeting civilians through bombings, shootings, or other violent means. He argues that the goal of terrorists is to create fear and panic, by upsetting the normal functioning of society, to promote a particular agenda or ideology.
The problems associated with terrorism necessitated comprehensive measures to stem the tide however; the approach adopted i.e. war on terrorism, explained by Fayyaz (2009) as an international military operation against terrorism which according to Dobrot (2007), started as Operation Enduring Freedom was aimed at dismantling the Taliban regime of Afghanistan to eliminate the future threat of terrorism. In the opinion of Owusu (2024), the war on terrorism suggests a war on terrorists in every part of the globe, however many argue it is a “war in error” largely based on how it has exacerbated an already precarious situation. For instance, Engelhardt (2020) described the whole war on terrorism as a war of error, recounting the stories of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia etc. and the damages that occurred in those places. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, the war on terrorism has exacerbated existing issues causing more complications than previously existed (Owusu, 2024).
Citing the Afghanistan and Pakistan examples, the war on terrorism has resulted in substantial economic and social costs, and civilian casualties due to the deliberate and unintentional aerial bombardment. This, leading to the displacement of people, infrastructure destruction, and human rights violations resulting from the arbitrary detention and torture, coupled with the increased militancy as a reaction, are generally the repercussions in every area where the war has been waged (Khan, 2009; Ali, 2010; Bird & Marshall, 2011; Butool, 2013). The dependence on military intervention and foreign aid always creates long-term obstacles to economic development and self-sufficiency in such areas (Centre for Research & Security Studies, 2014). These developments (terrorism and the war on terrorism) have exacerbated the already precarious nature of conflict.
Conflict, according to Nelson and Quick (1997) cited in Obeng (2015) is any situation in which incompatible goals, interests, attitudes, emotions or behaviours lead to incongruity or opposition between two or more parties. It is a situation where two or more parties or groups clash over a set of incompatible demands or interests leading to strained relations. Similarly, Wrench, Punyanunt-Carter, and Thweatt, (2022) simplified the concept of conflict as an interactive process that occurs when conscious beings that is individuals, groups, nations etc. are caught up in contrasting or incompatible actions, beliefs, goals, ideas, motives, needs, objectives, interests, obligations over resources and or values. A typical example is the seemingly subtle conflict in values such as the issue of homosexuality among some Western countries, Arab States and some African countries which when not handled carefully could degenerate into violent conflict. Conflict as has been explained above comes in two forms, that is violent and non-violent but the reality is that every violent conflict starts as non-violent hence it is important not to downplay non-violent conflict.
The conflicts around the globe are argued to have motivated terrorism, a major reason mechanism ought to be employed to resolve these conflicts. This is supported by the United Nations report, which states that conflict serves as the basic driver of terrorism, indicating that more than 99 per cent of all terrorist-induced deaths occur in countries involved in violent conflict or political terror. For instance, the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa, with Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, and Syria, experience the heaviest deadly attacks and burdens due to the protracted and recurring nature of the conflicts in those places. The report further indicates that countries with sustained economic development also experience terrorist attacks as a result of social alienation, lack of economic opportunity, and state involvement in an external conflict. This has necessitated conflict resolution, which is a process of ending a dispute and arriving at an agreement accepted by all the disputing parties (North Central College, 2022). Though conflicts are facts of life, and therefore inevitable as an essential part of life, violent conflict is not inevitable therefore the resolution is designed not to avoid disagreement but to promote understanding and control of emotional responses to prevent non-violent conflict from escalating to violent conflict (Obeng, 2015). In the opinion of Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall, (2011: 62) cited in Toros (2015), conflict resolution is “a search for ways of transforming actually and potentially violent conflict into peaceful processes of political and social change”. The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict Report (1997) cited in Otunnu (1997), espoused that preventing conflicts before they develop into violence is the most desirable and least costly method of conflict resolution that requires effective and comprehensive early warning systems.
In effect, conflict resolution is the procedures or mechanisms put in place to resolve or settle misunderstandings, disputes, disagreements, and clashes among people or groups in society. It is the process of attempting to resolve a conflict. Conflict resolution usually involves two or more groups with opposing views regarding specifics and another group or individual who is considered to be neutral in the opinion on the subject and employs various measures to resolve the misunderstanding, disagreements or disputes. The efforts to resolve these conflicts appear to be experiencing obstacles from terrorism or the war on terrorism. For example, as indicated by the United Nations, terrorism has been an instrument used in violent conflict in the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa etc.
This paper explores the literature to establish how terrorism or the war on terrorism poses a new challenge for conflict resolution. However, to give context to the study, the paper will establish the causes of terrorism, followed by how terrorism or the war on terrorism poses a new challenge for conflict resolution.
The Causes of Terrorism
The discussion on the question “Does Terrorism (Or the War on Terrorism) Pose a New Challenge for Conflict Resolution?” cannot be advanced without examining the causes of terrorism. After all, as long as the causes of terrorism exist, terrorism will still be the reaction (Matić, Dremel, & Šakić, 2018). This necessitates the need to address the cause of terrorism in the discussion surrounding its knock-on impact on conflict resolution. In the view of Crenshaw (1981), terrorism occurs in two forms, that is the use of violent confrontation with the state as well as in the service of state interest. This indicates that individuals or groups use violent resistance to the state and the state uses violence against civilians. The United States Institute of Peace (n.d) states that the cause of terrorism varies based on the motivation behind why people engage in acts of terror. For instance, some of the causes of terrorism are argued below.
According to Crenshaw (1981), one root cause of terrorism is the presence of actual grievances among an identifiable subgroup of a larger population, for instance, an ethnic minority discriminated against by the majority. Similarly, the United States Institute of Peace (n.d) identified the failure of politics as a major cause of terrorism. They argue that when peoples’ grievances go unresolved by the government or fail to win the attention of the government to their plight, violence becomes the resort. This phenomenon often generates a social movement to redress their grievances to gain either equal rights or a separate state; terrorism then becomes the option of an extremist faction of this broader crusade (Crenshaw, 1981). However, Yamamoto (2017) disputes the assertion that the failure of the government to resolve the grievances of groups results in terrorism. This is because the fact that very few groups with grievances have chosen the use of terrorism does not justify it as a cause of terrorism. After all, some groups with similar grievances chose non-violent action or no action at all. According to Yamamoto (2017), the Basque group ETA in Spain engaged in acts of terrorism as a means to get their grievances addressed while many other ethnic groups resorted to non-violent means.
Contrary to the position of Yamamoto (2017), Crenshaw (1981) established a firm view that terrorism has repeatedly arisen as a means to seek redress to grievances in modern states citing separatist nationalism among Basques, Bretons and Quebecois as the motivation behind terrorism. Similarly, Krieger, & Meierrieks, (2011) share the view that groups resort to terrorism to seek redress to their grievances associated with socioeconomic and demographic strain. However, Crenshaw (1981) admonishes that the existence of a dissatisfied minority or majority ought not to be a justification, a necessary or a sufficient cause for terrorism. He argues that not all those who face discrimination turn to terrorism, nor does terrorism always reflect objective social or economic deprivation. He cited the case of then-West Germany, Japan, and Italy, where the privileged employed acts of terrorism and not the downtrodden. It is true, not all groups resort to terrorism to seek redress but others resort to it. That is not to justify, acts of terrorism but the reality is that people’s emotional responses are not the same hence the reason some groups may resort to terrorism but others may not. This is what the United States Institute of Peace (n.d) classified as the strategic perspective of the cause of terrorism.
The need to institute a political and institutional order in a state is arguably one major cause of terrorism (i.e. state-sponsored terrorism). This is in tandem with the argument by Krieger, & Meierrieks (2011) that normally autocratic and even democratic states in an attempt to exert control over the people employ acts of terrorism to consolidate their power and create fear in opposition groups or groups with dissenting views. This development further generate grievances linked to political disenfranchisement and furthered terrorism (Crenshaw, 1981). Similarly, Krieger, & Meierrieks (2011) strongly argue that terrorism develops in response to the political and institutional order pursued by the state using state-sponsored terrorism. This suggests that in some cases, terrorism is caused by the government’s deliberate attempt to exert power or control over groups that are purported to oppose the position of the government by using acts of terrorism. This development motivates such groups to equally resort to terrorism as stated that “violence begets violence”.
Another cause of terrorism that has generated diverse debate is the school of thought that terrorism is the result of economic inequality and poverty (Hegay, 2006). That is economic disparity and extreme poverty trigger thoughts of acts of terrorism in people who feel marginalised. Similarly, Krieger, & Meierrieks (2011) argue that terrorism is rooted in economic inequality that occasioned poverty. This is supported by Abdul-Salam (2023), that inequality, poverty and social injustice in many cases contribute to violent conflict which could occasion the use of acts of terrorism as a response to seek redress. Osewa, (2019) equally contend that terrorism is partly caused by bad governance leading to economic inequality and poverty. For instance, in the case of Nigeria, Osewa (2019) argues that the executive head is self-seeking and hence governs to favour itself, its party and godfathers whereas the legislatures make laws to suit itself, the judiciary is at the mercy of the executive to adjudicate in favour of the executive head, fuelling hardship and poverty. The development generates violent opposition and motivates groups to resort to acts of terrorism to communicate their displeasure with the system. Newman (2006) cited in Butler (n.d), asserts that poverty causes terrorism in the sense that when people are deprived of resources and opportunities, it creates resentment and motivates them to resort to terrorism to express their outrage. Similarly, Taspınar (2009) established that even in countries that are relatively wealthier like Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Morocco, Tunisia, and Lebanon, pockets of poverty have become fertile grounds for terrorist recruiters.
Contrary, Yamamoto (2017) argues that economic inequality and poverty do not necessarily lead to terrorism. Yamamoto (2017) posits that the history of terrorism indicates that terrorists have come from all levels of wealth citing the situation of West Germany, Japan and Italy in the 1960s and 70s as examples of how the well-to-do chose terrorism. The Saudis who were reported to have hijacked the four aeroplanes in the United States on September 11, 2001, were from a wealthy country, educated, and from the middle and upper middle class. Still, they resorted to acts of terrorism (Yamamoto, 2017). However, the fact remains that not all terrorist groups are self-seeking, as indicated by Yamamoto, (2017) sometimes terrorist groups who are neither oppressed nor poor employ acts of terrorism on behalf of the marginalised who themselves cannot champion such course. Therefore, economic inequality and poverty can be argued as one of the causes of terrorism though not to justify the act. This is because whenever groups of people have reason to believe that they are been short-changed they may act violently, for instance, the acts of terror that engulfed Sierra Leone in 1985 were attributed to the unfair distribution of revenue.
It appears injustice is equally fuelling terrorism around the globe, that is international and domestic terrorism. For instance, the partition of Palestine after WWII into an Arab state and, a Jewish state while placing the city of Jerusalem under the United Nations administration is seen as an injustice that has occasioned acts of terrorism among the two states (Azar, 2003). Wojciechowski (2017) contends that not only does a sense of injustice cause terrorism, but related issues of prejudices, stereotypes, hatred, hostility, intolerance etc. contribute immensely to acts of terrorism by individuals by triggering psychological reactions, which induce suicidal attacks and extreme acts of terrorism. This is because when a group of people have reason to believe that they are not been treated in a just manner, be it with regards to the existing arrangement for sharing of national resources, or injustice with the adjudication of conflicts, they may resort to extremism when acts of terrorism is seen as the potent option. As argued by Woodhouse, Ramsbotham & Cottey (2003:44) cited in Toros (2008) generally a common influence in most incidences of terrorism is a sense of injustice, frustration and humiliation, coupled with the loss of trust in non-violent channels of redress.
The new challenges imposed by terrorism or war on terrorism for conflict resolution
According to Raga, Lemma, & Keane (2023), conflict can have a direct impact on growth through capital destruction, as well as knock-on impacts through capital flight. They argued further that conflicts negatively affect income as they often lead to the deterioration of investment and financial flows, trade and supply chains, tourism and transport. These effects affect not only the host country, but the impacts have indirect effects on neighbouring countries. Studies suggest that conflict results in enormous human suffering and significant economic and social costs (Rodrik, 1999) cited in (Le, Bui, and Uddin, 2022). This is due to the loss of human life, displacement of people, destruction of infrastructure, and disruption of the labour force and human capital by way of loss of professionals or brain drain. These are coupled with the weakening of government institutions, political instability, increased uncertainty, outbreak or spread of diseases, abuse of women and children and the emergence of poverty and hunger (Obeng, 2015; Le, Bui, and Uddin, 2022).
The effects of conflict are argued to persist for a longer period even in the aftermath of the conflict, thereby rendering the population handicapped to escape the repetition of the conflicts (Cerra and Saxena, 2008) cited in (Le, Bui, and Uddin, 2022). In the opinion of Raga, Lemma, & Keane (2023), conflict affects inflation. This is supported by a study by Caldara et al. (2022) cited in Raga, Lemma, & Keane (2023), which reveals that the Russia–Ukraine war resulted in an estimated 1.3% increase in average global inflation in the second half of 2022. Also, with an increase of approximately 17% in oil prices and 10% in commodity prices, stock prices are argued to have declined by approximately 7%.
Though it could be argued that non-violent conflicts are not harmful, the issue is that violent conflicts do not start violently. For instance, the Sierra Leone war in 1985 is argued to have been caused by the disagreement over the unfair distribution of the revenue generated from the sale of the country’s diamonds (Obeng, 2015). Violent conflicts usually start as non-violent conflicts and hardly to predict which non-violent conflicts will escalate to violent conflicts hence the need to see conflicts in general as inimical to societal development and do the very best to prevent, avoid or resolve conflicts promptly before escalation. The more complicated is the use of acts of terrorism to advance and perpetuate conflicts while the action to combat terrorism (global war on terror) on the other hand has brought setbacks to conflict resolution. That is, it has brought novel challenges that mediators had not dealt with before (Haspeslagh, 2020). The paragraphs beneath establish how terrorism or the war on terrorism provides challenges for the resolution of conflict. That is the decision to use terrorism as a tool to advance a desired goal in a conflict and reacting to terrorism with a war on terror provides among others the following challenges to conflict resolution;
The complexity of the actors involved in terrorism makes engagement in traditional diplomacy and negotiation for conflict resolution very complicated (Toros, 2015). Toros (2008) argues that the complexity of actors of terrorism, which is based on their contemporary and non-traditional structures founded on a loose network of cells and like-minded groups, is a key hurdle to conflict resolution. Das (2023) contends that the challenge of the complex nature of the actors bedevilling the conflict resolution partly emanates from the war on terrorism due to the presence of complex or irregular actors such as mercenaries spreading across countries and behaving like a double-edged sword for the citizens of the affected state.According to Toros (2008), identifying who to talk to and who speaks for the terrorists in resolving such conflicts is very complex partly due to the complexity of the actors. This often thwarts the resolution efforts as activities of these mercenaries as argued by Das (2023) could lead to more danger for the locals and peacekeeping forces. For instance, in the case of the Central African Region, where Russian mercenaries called the Wagner Group were deployed it is argued that altercations ensued with the UN peacekeeping forces thereby thwarting the conflict resolution process as a result of the atrocities committed by the Wagner Group. The presence of these irregular actors is seen as a grim path to conflict resolution (Das, 2023).
The use of violence and fear as tactics by terrorist groups appears to pose a huge impediment to the resolution of conflict as the indiscriminate use of violence on opposing group escalate tensions occasioned by retaliation thus making it challenging to compromise or negotiate to give way for conflict resolution. This is corroborated by Toros (2012) that violence has a very deep impact or implication on negotiation especially in terrorist conflicts by obstructing conflict resolution. She argued with an example that the conflict resolution process/peace process between the British government and the Irish nationalist groups such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) delayed due to the use of violence. For instance, the Warrington bombings are argued to have delayed the start of the peace process by a year hence posing a challenge to the conflict resolution (Toros, 2012). Similarly, Hoglund (n.d) contends that in terrorist conflicts or conflicts involving the use of acts of terrorism, some groups employ violence even amid the peace process to attain certain goals, this development obstructs the peace process. Hoglund (n.d) argues further that aside from the personal suffering caused by acts of violence, which in itself impede conflict resolution, it may escalate the tension and threaten a reversion to war or at least halt the conflict resolution process. The Isreal-Palestinian conflict is a typical example of how violence escalates tension and the recurrence of war. In the current case of the Israeli-Palestinian war, the October 7, 2023 attack launched by Hamas on Israel is argued to have resurrected the war rendering all the years of conflict resolution null and void. The continuous use of violence has also made it challenging for a conflict resolution to take place. However, in the argument of Aggestam & Jonsson (1997), violence does not necessarily impede conflict resolution because it appears to motivate parties to go into negotiation to resolve the conflict. This is on the premise that when the parties realise that violence is hurting them and are on a hurting stalemate they are motivated to negotiate for peace. It must however be noted that in as much as the violence motivated the peace process, as argued by Aggestam and Jonsson (1997) the use of violence especially amid conflict resolution breeds mistrust and does not help in building confidence and trust among the belligerents. Trust in this case is a requirement for conflict resolution hence absence of it in a conflict resolution process due to continuous acts of violence by either side makes it challenging for a successful resolution of the conflict.
The transnational nature of terrorism appears to have had impacts that have a global reach, which largely complicates any approach towards resolving conflicts that employ acts of terrorism while the presence of terrorist groups in a conflict zone also makes resolution of conflict very challenging due to their incessant creation of instability. This is justified by the position of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (2022) that “transnational violent extremist groups operate across the recognised borders of States. This may reflect tactical spread (e.g. expansion in search of areas in which to recover, retrain or re-equip) or it may reflect a cross-border theatre of operations.” The presence of such groups alone raises tension in a conflict environment, which obstructs the peace process. The assertion is in tandem with the report by the United Nations Security Council (2023) which established that terrorist groups remain a significant threat in conflict zones citing the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan as typical examples of how terrorist groups have and are creating instability in conflict zones. The report again indicates the expansion of the frontiers of terrorist groups like Da’esh and Al-Qaeda occasioned by the transnational nature of it puts the world at risk. Similarly, Artinano et al (2014) identified the transnational or global reach and scope of operations of networks of terrorist groups as presenting a more discouraging challenge to the peace process considering how geographically bounded their focus is. This development creates obstacles for conflict resolution because the expansion of the terrorist groups has networks that spin across countries therefore resolving conflicts involving such groups requires a well-coordinated and multilateral approach whereas the instability created in conflict zones generates tension which hardly augurs well for conflict resolution.
The position of Artinano et al (2014) corroborates with the above that actively dealing with the threat of these networks requires regional and international coordination and all-inclusive regional approaches, which appears challenging. The complexity of regional rivalries (for instance, Congo and its neighbours, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Nigeria and Cameroon, Rwanda and Uganda, Egypt and Ethiopia etc.) and the lack of capacity and consensus from regional and sub-regional actors make it challenging to fight transnational terrorism (The Economist, 2022). This by extension promotes terrorism once the environment is ripe for its expansion and fuels more conflict, especially in conflict-prone areas making it extremely difficult to embark on a successful conflict resolution, because the process will then require a coordinated and multilateral approach amid the complexity of regional rivalries. More challenging to the resolution of conflicts is the external support received by the transnational violent extremist groups. As argued by Karlén (2017) a lot of civil wars are motivated from behind through the provisions of weapons, training, funds, safe havens, intelligence, logistics and other critical resources as support from external parties goes a long way to prolong the conflict and makes it extremely difficult for conflict resolution to transpired.
The war on terrorism creates a complex militarization landscape, which erodes civilian liberties and creates an unconducive environment for conflict resolution (Owusu, 2024). Military operations of drone strikes, the use of excessive force, arbitrary detentions, indiscriminate raids, and torture occasioned by war of terrorism results in civilian casualties and violation of human rights, which fuels resentment leading to social unrest and hinders efforts to gain civilian support (Khan, 2009; Feyyaz, 2009; Ali, 2010). This occurrence erodes trust in government institutions while fuelling resentment and social unrest creating the environment for militancy and gradual militarization of civilians as a way of defending their rights hence creating obstacles to conflict resolution (Ali, 2010).
For instance, using the Afghanistan-Pakistani situation, Basit (2017) argued that the presence of international forces resulted in increased insurgency and a surge in militancy in the AfPak region. This situation creates tension and instability in the environment rendering conflict resolution extremely difficult because for a smooth conflict resolution a conducive environment i.e. tension-free, stability, and trust are required. In the view of Basit (2017), terrorist groups exploit instability to carry out attacks and establish strongholds, which in itself can be a dagger in the heart of conflict resolution. This correlates with Bird and Marshall’s (2011) assertion that the war on terrorism and its approach (military force) as it is well known, results in civilian casualties and collateral damage causing bitterness and anger among affected communities, and nurturing radicalization and extremist recruitment. This development (radicalization and violent extremist recruitment) amid the conflict resolution process can diplomatically, be said challenging.
The use of technology by terrorist groups to recruit, radicalize and coordinate attacks introduces a novel element to the processes of conflict resolution which requires mechanisms to address terrorists’ use of digital and internet technology to champion their propaganda efforts and communication (Van der Veer, 2019). Similarly, the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), (2023) contend that terrorists and violent extremist groups leverage advances in information and communication technology to facilitate their acts of terrorism through inciting, recruiting, radicalising, training, planning, receiving and sharing information, preparing, financing and propaganda. This is an indication that the deployment of technology in this manner to advance the course of terrorism demands the adoption of new strategies of conflict resolution to help address the situation. To buttress the use of technology by terrorist groups and its challenges to conflict resolution, West (2021) confirmed that acts of terrorism in recent times have been with the aid of technology. A trend that reflects the willingness and desire of terrorists to embrace technology for strategic operations. West (2021) argued citing how the Islamic State’s (IS’s) employed technology (social media) to launch a campaign that brought tens of thousands of fighters across countries to Syria and Iraq to commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islamic State’s. This is in tandem with the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), (2023) statement that terrorist groups like Da’esh with the use of social media skilfully recruited women by adapting their messages to appeal to the women tapping into the women’s experience of gender inequalities. This may not appear to be a direct challenge to conflict resolution but the reality is that such development adds new dimensions to the conflict resolution process making it difficult for parties to sail through the peace process successfully.
Conclusion
Terrorism and the war on terrorism both have had a devastating effect (both direct and rippling effect) on the globe. That is the perceived solution (war on terror) to the problem (terrorism) happens to have caused equal problems if not the former causing extreme problems than the latter. As argued by Owusu (2024) the war on terrorism has exacerbated existing issues causing more complications than previously anticipated.
The study established that terrorism and the war on terrorism obstruct conflict resolution because the complexity of the actors involved in terrorism makes engagement in traditional diplomacy and negotiation for conflict resolution very complicated. The use of violence and fear as tactics by terrorist groups also pose a huge impediment to the resolution of conflict as the indiscriminate use of violence escalate tensions occasioned by retaliation thus making it challenging to compromise or negotiate to give way for conflict resolution. Terrorism’s global impact too complicates conflict resolution, and its presence in conflict zones creates instability, making resolution challenging due to its transnational nature. The war on terrorism on the other hand leads to a militarized landscape, causing civilian casualties and human rights violations. This fuels resentment, and social unrest, and hinders conflict resolution efforts. Terrorist groups’ use of technology for recruitment, radicalization, and coordination of attacks also introduces a new element to conflict resolution processes, necessitating mechanisms to address their propaganda efforts.
These challenges can be curb by investing in conflict prevention and peacebuilding while strengthening diplomatic efforts in addressing conflict. Most importantly identifying the root causes of terrorism and finding lasting solutions to it. This is because the discussion of how terrorism or war on terrorism affects conflict resolution becomes relevant when the underlying issues such as poverty, injustice, inequality political, economic and social grievances etc. are left unresolved. This is because without terrorism, there would be no war on terrorism and it challenges, conflict resolution.
Author: Owusu Eric | A student of Lancaster University, U.K.
REFERENCES
Abdul-Salam, S. (2023). Inequality, Poverty and Social Injustice in Ghana: Barriers to National Development. Retrieved on March 09, 2024 from https://salamkuundaa.net/inequality-poverty-and-social-injustice-in-ghana-barriers-to-national-development/
Aggestam, K. & Jonsson, C.. (1997). (Un)Ending Conflict: Challenges in Post-War Bargaining. Millennium-Journal of International Studies – MILLENNIUM-J INT STUD. 26. 771-793. 10.1177/03058298970260030301. Retrieved on March 18, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249837807_UnEnding_Conflict_Challenges_in_Post-War_Bargaining
Ali, M. (2010). Strategy for Peace: Af-Pak and Beyond. Pakistan Horizon, 63(1), 47–61. Retrieved on February 22, 2024 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711020
Artiñano, M., Blair, P., Collin, N., Godefroy, B., Godfrey, C., Marticorena, B., McCurdy, D.,McDougall, O. & Ross, S. (2014). Adapting and Evolving: The Implications of Transnational Terrorism for UN Field Missions. Retrieved on March 19, 2024 from https://spia.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/content/docs/591c_Adapting_and_Evolving_The_Implications_of_Transnational_Terrorism.pdf
Azar, K. (2003). Causes of Terrorism. Retrieved on March 11, 2024, from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/iusburj/article/view/19747
Basit, A. (2017). IS Penetration in Afghanistan-Pakistan: Assessment, Impact and Implications. Perspectives on Terrorism, 11(3), 19–39. Retrieved on November 30, 2023 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26297839
Bird, T., & Marshall, A. (2011). THE PAKISTAN PROBLEM. In Afghanistan: How the West Lost Its Way (pp. 185–216). Yale University Press. Retrieved on November 22, 2023, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nprjb.9
Butler, T. (n.d). What Causes Terrorism? Retrieved on March 09, 2024, from https://www.mckendree.edu/academics/scholars/butler-issue-25.pdf
Butool, S. B. (2013). Pakistani Responses to AfPak Policy: Local Narratives and an Ending Global War? Asian Survey, 53(6), 1005–1036. Retrieved on November 30, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2013.53.6.1005
Bouchet-Saulnier, F. (2016). The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law. Retrieved on March 02, 2024 from https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/terrorism/
Crenshaw, M. (1981). The Causes of Terrorism. Comparative Politics, 13(4), 379–399. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/421717 on February 17, 2024
Centre for Research & Security Studies (2014). The Cost of Conflict in Pakistan. Retrieved on February 16, 2024, from https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/resource/cost-conflict-pakistan-0
Das, P.P. (2023). Does terrorism (and the war on terrorism) pose a new challenge for conflict resolution? Retrieved on March 16, 2024b from https://dapp.orvium.io/deposits/64a6e36d4aa391ec3ea02839/view
Dobrot, L. A. (2007). THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM: A RELIGIOUS WAR? Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College. Retrieved on February 28, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11778
Engelhardt, T. (2020). Welcome to the Global War of Error. Retrieved on March 02, 2024, from https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/global-war-of-error/
Feyyaz, M. (2009). The Global War on Terror in South Asia. Pakistan Horizon, 62(4), 39–53. Retrieved on March 01, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711052
Haspeslagh, S. (2020). The Mediation Dilemma of (Not) Talking to Terrorists. Swiss Political Science Review, 26(4), 506-526. Retrieved on March 06, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12418
Hegay, O. (2006). ‘Meanings and Causes of Terrorism and its Implications for International Peace and Stability. Retrieved on March 01, 2024 fromhttps://archives.kdischool.ac.kr/bitstream/11125/30076/1/Meanings%20and%20causes%20of%20terrorism%20and%20its%20implications%20and%20threats%20for%20international%20peace%20and%20stability.pdf
Hoglund, K. (n.d). Violence — Catalyst or Obstacle to Conflict Resolution? Seven Propositions Concerning the Effect of Violence on Peace Negotiations. Retrieved on March 18, 2024, from https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1451987/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Jackson, R. (2008). An Argument for Terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, 2(2), 25–32. Retrieved on March 01, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26298330
Jenkins, J. P. (2023,). Terrorism. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved on November 30, 2023 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism
Karlén, N. (2017). Sponsors of War: State Support for Rebel Groups in Civil Conflicts. Retrieved on March 19, 2024 from https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1150424/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Khan, A. (2009). Obama and Afghanistan. Strategic Studies, 29(2/3), 1–26. Retrieved on December 02, 2023, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/48527378
Krieger, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2011). What causes terrorism? Public Choice, 147(1/2), 3–27. Retrieved on February 17, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483643
Le, T.-H, Bui, M.-T, & Uddin, G.S. (2022). Economic and social impacts of conflict: A cross-country analysis. Retrieved on March 06, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2022.105980
Matić, R., Dremel, A. & Šakić, M. (2018). Terrorism: social causes and perspectives. 17. 46-61. Retrieved on March 01, 2024, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327844205_Terrorism_social_causes_and_perspectives
North Central College (2022). What is Conflict Resolution and Why is it Important? Retrieved on March 04, 2024 from https://www.northcentralcollege.edu/news/2022/09/13/why-conflict-resolution-important#:~:text=Conflict%20resolution%20is%20the%20process,not%20designed%20to%20avoid%20disagreements.
Obeng, I. J. (2015). Introduction to Conflict and Peace Studies. Accra: Derisco Company Limited
Osewa, O. (2019). Terrorism In Nigeria: Causes, Consequence and Panacea. International Journal of Legal Studies (IJOLS), 6(2), 341-366. Retrieved on March 11, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.7423.
Otunnu, O. (1997). Conflict and Conflict Resolution. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees / Refuge: Revue Canadienne Sur Les Réfugiés, 16(6), 1–5. Retrieved on March 04, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/45411600
Owusu, E. (2024). What Impact Has The Global War On Terror Had On The AfPak Region?
Primoratz, I. (1990). What Is Terrorism? Journal of Applied Philosophy, 7(2), 129–138.Retrieved on March 02, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24353583
Raga, S., Lemma, A., & Keane, J. (2023). Conflict and channels of impacts. In The Sahel Conflict: economic & security spillovers on West Africa (pp. 12–19). ODI. Retrieved on March 01, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep50720.7
Taspınar, Ö. (2009). Fighting Radicalism, not ‘Terrorism’: Root Causes of an International Actor Redefined. Retrieved on March 11, 2024, from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/summer_fall_radicalism_taspinar.pdf
Toros, H. (2015). Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Conflict Resolution: Building Bridges. Retrieved on March 06, 2024, from https://www.coedat.nato.int/publication/researches/02-ConflictResolution.pdf
Toros, H. (2008). “We Don’t Negotiate with Terrorists!”: Legitimacy and Complexity in Terrorist Conflicts. Security Dialogue, 39(4), 407–426. Retrieved on March 11, 2024 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/26299800
Toros, H. (2012) Terrorism, Talking and Transformation: A Critical Approach Abingdon: Routledge.
The United Nations. A New Era of Conflict and Violence. Retrieved on March 04, 2024, from https://www.un.org/en/un75/new-era-conflict-and-violence#:~:text=Conflict%20remains%20the%20primary%20driver,high%20levels%20of%20political%20terror.
The Economist (2022). A resurgence of regional rivalries imperils eastern Congo. Retrieved on March 19, 2024, from https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2022/06/30/a-resurgence-of-regional-rivalries-imperils-eastern-congo
United States Institute of Peace (n.d). Teaching Guide on International Terrorism: Definitions, Causes, and Responses. Retrieved on March 08, 2024 from https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/terrorism.pdf
United Nations Security Council (2023). Terrorist Groups Remain a Significant Threat in Conflict Zones, Neighbouring States, Senior Official Tells Security Council, Noting Force Alone Can Exacerbate Matters. Retrieved on March 18, 2024 from https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15396.doc.htm
United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), (2023). Cybersecurity and New Technologies: Guide for Establishing Law Enforcement Cooperation with Technology Companies in Countering Terrorism. Retrieved on March 22, 2024, from https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/sites/www.un.org.counterterrorism/files/unoct_establishing_law_enforcement_web.pdf
Van der Veer, R. (2019). Terrorism in the age of technology. Retrieved on March 22, 2024 from https://www.clingendael.org/pub/2019/strategic-monitor-2019-2020/terrorism-in-the-age-of-technology/
West, L. J. (2021). The impact of technology on extremism. In L. Close & D. Impiombato (Eds.), COUNTERTERRORISM YEARBOOK 2021 (pp. 29–32). Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Retrieved on March 22, 2024, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep31258.9
Wojciechowski, S. (2017). Reasons for Contemporary Terrorism.: An Analysis of the Main Determinants. In A. Sroka, F. C.-R. Garrone, & R. D. T. Kumbrián (Eds.), Radicalism and Terrorism in the 21st Century: Implications for Security (pp. 49–70). Peter Lang AG. Retrieved on February 29th, 2024 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2t4bgx.6
Wrench, J.S., Punyanunt-Carter, N.M., Thweatt, K.S. (2022). Interpersonal Communication:A Mindful Approach to Relationships. Retrieved on March 03, 2024 from https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Interpersonal_Communication/Interpersonal_Communication_-_A_Mindful_Approach_to_Relationships_(Wrench_et_al.)
Yamamoto, M. M. (2017). The Cause and Threat of Terrorism. In Terrorism Against Democracy: Based in Part on Stansfield Turner’s University of Maryland Course, “Terrorism & Democracy” (pp. 56–70). Center for International & Security Studies, U. Maryland. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05041.7
