I Got the Blues

        Violent TANs, or terrorists, seek to change policy and social ideologies through violent actions directed toward civilian or governmental targets. Many people would not categorize the Sierra Club and Hezbollah together but both are TANs. Just as the Sierra Club seeks specific idealogical outcomes through political action, Hezbollah seeks to enact policies based on their ideologies through (violent) political action. Violence is detrimental to the terrorist, the target, and the terrorist's home country. Violence is detrimental to the terrorist because oftentimes their strategies are suicidal or their attacks incur serious repercussions on their own neighborhoods. Thus, the main reasons that a TAN would turn to violent political action is because the TAN does not have much power over a state and has had a previous bargaining failure. For instance, al-Qaeda failed to coerce the United States to remove its troops from the Holy Land with threats and diplomacy prior to 9/11, so they attacked civilian and governmental target instead. As a result of the attacks and subsequent retaliation, many Afghani lives were lost and many neighborhoods destroyed.

        Terrorists have four main strategies that they employ to try to change policy. Coercion induces policy change by threatening to impose costs on a state. These coercive threats are made credible by previous attacks. Separatists in Chechnya have used the strategy repeatedly-- demanding independence with the threat of yet another attack. Provocations is a strategy where a terrorist group attacks a target to provoke an uneven response. The response to the attack shows civilians in the home country that the target country is a greater threat than the terrorists hiding in their midst and thus raises support for the terrorist's cause. This strategy has worked for terrorists in Afghanistan. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States mounted a relatively massive response which killed many civilians in air raids and radicalized some of the population. Spoiling gives terrorists power over international negotiations. If a state and a terrorist group have negotiated a treaty, other terrorists can spoil the agreement by continuing violent attacks to discredit the promises made by the negotiating terrorist party. Spoiling has repeatedly happened when Israelis and Palestinians are at the negotiating table. The final notable strategy terrorist employ is outbidding, where one of two or more competing terrorists groups in a region carry out more vicious attacks than their rivals to show their home country they are the more dedicated faction. This outbidding happened in Israel between Hezbollah and Fatah, where an attack by Hezbollah would soon be followed by a similar attack by Fatah.

        Though terrorists and peaceful TANs operate according to different ideals, they both have affected international relations. Peaceful TANs facilitate cooperation and empower the weak. They can facilitate cooperation by providing information, being an independent third party in agreements, and being independent monitors. Peaceful TANs empower the weak by moving information to those who care across borders and through societies that can put pressure on their governments. Peaceful TANs make states communicate, cooperate and bargain by creating new interests and forcing new interactions. Terrorists, on the other hand, have changed international relations by dissolving cooperation and indirectly communicating with a state. Terrorists are weak TANs with small membership who seek to influence foreign governments. They, like TANs, empower the weak through international networks. Terrorists, though, do not interact directly with the state, for direct interaction would undermine their strategy of fear and surprise. This has led to decreased cooperation and new strategies between say a target state and the terrorists home country. The rise of TANs have accompanied and facilitated globalization and thus has changed the ways states interact on the international level. Though TANs do not replace states as the primary actors, TANs have had huge affects on state policy and agenda.

Bibliography

Frieden , Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz, International Relations: Interests, _        Interactions, and Institutions (New York: W. W. Norton, forthcoming 2009)