STILL MERCHANTS OF TERRORISM AND WAR?

IKHIANOSIME, Frankl

The present goings-on in the international scene have become too interesting and equally
arrest the concern of everyone that no one can feign disinterestedness and oblivion about
it. Many years ago, it was thought that the idea of terrorism will be illusive and probably
impracticable on a large scale, but its recurrent indices in the 20th century and the
following has debunked the hitherto shortsighted and narrow thought and prediction in
this regard. The prediction of the US Seer, Nostradamus in some of these regard seem to
be taken more seriously more than ever before. The September 11 saga which has had an
indelible punctuation on 21st century history of world peace has awakened every person
to his predictions. He foresaw a bleak, hostile and war-stirred years following the
September 11 incidence. The contending interrogative is: are some of the present somber
happenings the manifestation of his visionary adjunct or are they sheer historical
coincidence? Whether the answer to this disturbing probe is in favour of the former or
latter, one point that cannot be allowed to silence is that the issue of world peace and
security is certainly beyond rhetoric.
The invention of deadly nuclear weapons has boosted this apprehension and hoisted
terrorist chances. Nobel Bernard Alfred who was lost in the conflict of personality
between the advocate of war and promoter of peace held his technological philosophy to
produce a substance or machine with such terrible power of mass destruction that war
would thereby be made impossible forever. This idea was thought to be both viable and
pragmatic but it sadly stimulated the First World War. In 1945, the Second World War
saw an explosion of the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan where
over 300,000 lives were lost, not withstanding those deafened, maimed or left in some
other ghastly perpetual deformity. The production of nuclear weapons since then has
continued on a bumper swell. We have now over 60 million landmines which is attested
to have been buried across the globe; biological and chemical weapons have become
more toxic, small arms and light weapons and so on have been developed. The fear now
1

is, if these weapons fall into the wrong hands, what would happen? All these are
stimulants of terrorism.
The above is a modicum or a silhouette of what international terrorism is wielding into.
Similarly, there is also the culturizing of terrorism on the local level. The very many
intra-national cleavages, political upheavals and ethnic militancy are sure testimonies of
terrorism on the local level. This culture of terrorism extant in most local settings further
sediments into terrorism within the individual level. The barbarity of the human
conscience is the springboard of terrorism. The dog-eat-dog system of co-existence
creates a king of gulf that allows paradoxically for mutual unfriendliness. These socially
despicable and dastardly acts of terrorism leave for an unwelcome containment of its
psychological, social, economic and even ethical implications.
Be that as it may, the harvest of terrorism has hardened many who have experienced or
perpetuated it and arouse consequently in them viles of violence. It is precisely against
such backdrop that woefully lends support to the much disputed ideology that the best
way of defense or security is violence through terrorism. This is the igniting as well as the
extinguishing of terrorism.
On the social landscape, terrorism or war leads to the blatant disrespect for the
sacredness of life; an antithetical disabuse for life rather than its protection. Very often,
the innocent, weak and the less privileged are the victims of such inhumanities, what
Thomas Hobbes; the 17th century British philosopher on social contract, called, Homo
lupus homini (man being wolf to man). Basic freedom and human rights are unduly
infringed upon without fear of judicial consequences or penalties. This is because;
terrorism very often in its superlative level or when it has become too flagrant, for the
most begins by weakening and in most cases crumbing the enforcing will and conscience
of judicial structures and other institutions with the faculty to adjudicate. Terrorism
therefore, is the compound reality of what comes as minor intra-social cleavages. In the
event of such structural and institutional breakdown with an apparent despair on
governmental whims, people resolve to individual security mechanisms. And since there

is a structure of non-uniformity of purpose, terrorism proliferates. The adverse

consequence or hangover of terrorism is not far removed from the economics. Terrorism
as it were, foments and boosts degrading poverty and political repression. Outright and
unquestioned dehumanization is the level this menace will find its conclusion.
The ethical debate or say implication of terrorism is one that is even more dicy. Terrorism
some time is being hatched against a reaction which can be commonly called a just war.
Just war here is understood to mean a rightful retaliation in the form of war to consistent
injustice perpetuated to an individual, group or race. Just war then is a fight for a cause
which is claimed right. Here of, one may question, whether it is ethically viable to
achieve a good end with a wrong means. This is another debate altogether. It has been
argued by some war progressives and fore liners that it is the purpose and the
triumphalism of the end, that gives rightness or wrongness to a means and that a means
should not be judged in isolation or taken out of context. Similarly such proponents hold
that it is permissive in repelling an unjust attack only when the intention is in the
protection of human life.
Nevertheless, it seem a more plausible argument that following the principle of Minus
Malum (Lesser evil) and that of double effect, that the barbarity and woes war and
terrorism will wreak gives no justification to war however the blanketed argument put in
its favour. I opine strongly against this backdrop that the idea of just war intrinsically
connotes violence. No justification or convoluted syllogism or logic will warp right to
wrong, or wrong to right. I opine that the case in point can only be semantically
acceptable (just war) if just war is understood to be a resolutional dialogue and not
violence. That is, a dialogue that is aimed principally to achieve peace via discussion and
not violence. In all of these analyses, the idea of just war with its variegated
understanding is often a premise for terrorism and war. This clearly spells out the
complexity of the ethical analysis of terrorism and war. The Church Fathers have a fine
analysis in support of my argument here. The development of armaments by Modern
Science has immeasurably magnified the horrors and wickedness of war. Warfare
conducted with these weapons can inflict immense and indiscriminate havoc which goes

far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed if the kind of weapons now stocked
in the arseneals of the great powers were to be employed to the fullest, the result would
be the almost complete reciprocal slaughter of one side by the other, not to speak of the
widespread devastation that would follow in the world and the deadly after-effects
resulting from the use of such arms. All these factors force us to undertake a completely
fresh reappraisal of war (Cf. Gaudium et spes #80). From the foregoing, war by ethical
precincts does not allow for mutual peace and harmony and its devastation are so
gruesome that it may not sustain any peace that is desired to be achieved through war.
The Christian prescription of pacifism remains viable. This is the fresh reappraisal.
Let us take a look again at the theory of just war. In frankness to the theory, it does not
opine to an outright killing of individuals either they be offenders or thereabout. The
theory of just war as a matter of fact claims that it is a defense of the lives of the innocent
that prompts a response otherwise conceived as a war; a just war. For the exponents of
this theory, the preservation of basic freedom and human rights, liberation of persons
from situations of degrading poverty and political repression are precipitating factors for
a war. This position shares similitude with the Biblical sources of Christian faith to
support political-historical conviction that justice is a pre-condition for genuine peace.
The degenerating analysis is the fact that a war rightly conceived as just war in fighting
repressive structures is a fight in justice. Here, it is similarly in view that nuclear weapon
is morally permissive in repelling an unjust attack only when the intention is in the
protection of human life. Thus, to the exponents of a just war theory, the use of violence
to achieve peace or the defence of human life is justified. I have nevertheless s, argued in
some other works that, it is not ethically justifiable to achieve a good end through a
wrong means. This soils the goodness of the end and makes it far removed from being
good or better still makes it wrong altogether. This point spells the non-viability of war or
terrorism.
From the above analysis and my subscription in the case in point, one issue suggests itself
that if the diffusing adverse effects of terrorism and war are known and clearly
understood, the venture will not be a profitable one for anyone to embark on. I hold

strongly too that if the value of life is taken as sacred and primus interpares, every single
life will be valued and in fact not mortgaged in the face of a kind of peace whose peace
lacks permanence. I similarly hold that means are necessary in the value of ends. It is my
veritable opinion that world peace is a solemn obligation everyone must seek to achieve
both collectively and individually. In this light, the idea of global conscientization
through the communications networks is plausible alternative in checking terrorism and
war. Similarly, the forming and developing of a moral conscience is a non-negotiable
prelude to achieving this goal. Terrorism and war strictly speaking are in contradistinction
to a truly moral mind. This is where I admonish religious groups to step up their effort
and face the challenge of building in their followers, a truly moral conscience.
Beyond the frontiers of theory, so many factors militate against the achieving of world
peace. The development in science and technology for instance has as its hangover in the
exposure of people to both good and bad opportunities. The technologization of the world
through science allows the making for instance of chemical weapons even in ones garage
possible now but the introduction of monitoring policies and development of both
National and International statutory bodies bereft of influences can make the checking
and tracking down of terrorism and war possible. I equally recommend the relinquishing
of Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) to legitimate personnel and any such weapons or
fire arm for individual possession must be with legitimate right and permission. I
acknowledge too well the working of this latter recommendation in some part of the
world, only that in some other parts they have weaker enforcing power than others. Since
we cannot rule out completely the possibility of individuals being terrorists hand tools,
the possession of deadly weapons, or the weakness of such deterrent laws, I here
recommend the option of Non-violent resistance proposed by Mahatma Gandhi and
Martin Lurther King. I subscribe to the theory of deterrence though highly contested too
as another viable alternative. The theory allows the amassing of armaments in arsenals by
countries having the authority to do so to serve as threats to intending attackers.
In conclusion, terrorism and war in what ever variegated justification or convoluted
rationalization it may ever assume, one point is clear, that terrorism involves the

wrecking of havoc and leaves devastating effects at what ever time it is expressed. This
makes the submission that terrorism and war are intrinsically social evils which needs to
be averted and fought against. Can one still remain merchant of terrorism and war?