This one-sided nature of the discourse on the subject matter of terrorism is not something that could be dismissed as a mere accident or oversight on the part of those who view terrorism of non-state actors with much concern.

In a more specific sense, it can be argued that the dominance of this particular discourse shaped to some extent by the Sept 11 episode is rather reflective of the close interactive relationship between politics and economics in the global arena.

In others, as attested by Jameson and many other scholars, at this present juncture, the expansion and penetration of late capitalism across national boundaries, very often referred to as the globalisation process, needs a particular kind of political sustenance. Bordieu's latest piece provides an excellent discussion and how neo-liberal globalisation emanating largely from the American experience is not only providing a model of development for the lesser developing countries to emulate but imposes a myriad of political, economic, social and cultural demands.

In broad global terms, the unhindered development of capitalism requires a congruence between the economic and political realms, so that the system as whole can function without major interruptions. Thus, the need to establish a relevant political space to fulfill the needs of capital requires among other things that forces opposed to this hegemonic world order are contained or neutralised to a large extent.

Thus in this context, various strategies are adopted both conscious and unconscious to deal with forces that seek to resist and redefine developments in light of their national experiences. Few decades ago, it was the threat of communism that posed a major threat to the capitalist order, but this threat has gone, at least for the time being. Now it is the threat of global terrorism, basically a concept defined and articulated by the US and some of its key allies. American stand on the matter of global terrorism is very simple, either you are with them or against them.

Rise of radical Islam

The present global war against terrorism is not so much directed at non-state forces on grounds of their engagement with violence, but rather against those who are standing in the way of the expansion and penetration of capitalism.

The uneven nature of capitalist development, the close accommodation between elites in different regions, the pernicious nature of capital accumulation, marginalisation of certain social segments, authoritarian politics used to sustain a particular kind of economic development, lack of political participation, ethnic and religious discrimination organised by majoritarian segments and the use of state power repression are factors that have propelled non-state forces to adopt mechanisms and strategies to pursue certain political alternatives.

The anger expressed by radical Islam against certain Muslim regimes in general and the US in particular is not mainly directed at resolving the Palestinian issue, but rather related to the nature of economic and political developments in Muslim nations and how such developments have denied political, economic and social space for the vast majority of the populations.

Opposition to the Western imposed model in the form of radical Islam was the result of the decline of other forms of secular ideologies. In the Arab world, the decline of secular ideologies such as socialism and pan-Arabism was the result of the efforts undertaken by the US with its allies during the Cold War to wipe out the threat of communism.

Antidote to capitalism

With the decline of secular ideologies, the vacuum came to be filled by Islam. However, as recent events indicate, Islam that was supposed to function as an antidote to communism came to be appropriated and interpreted by certain radical forces to bring about certain political, economic and social changes.

Thus, in this respect, radical Islam was not something that developed overnight, but a movement that emerged to address the problems of the Muslim world, the nature of political leadership, lack of democratic participation, the role of the US, the issue of Palestinian statehood and the moral degradation of the Muslim society as result of the Westernisation.

While the tactics employed by radical Islam or any other non-state force might not be appealing to the international community, there is pressing need to investigate why there is an overwhelming tendency to resort to extreme violence.

Contrary to the prognosis of Samuel Huntington, the recent attacks against the US is not a civilisation warfare, but rather a product of the way in which development has been imposed on the non-European world.

Radical Muslims or others might have some abstract visions in the pursuance of some goals, but it cannot be denied that the development of alternative visions cannot be merely located in the political sphere. It is the particular relationship between economics and politics brought out by the expansion and penetration of the capitalist development that has brought about the present state of affairs.

A form of resistance

Political requirements at the global, regional and national levels to address the needs of global capital imposes all kinds of constraints on forces that seek to chart a more independent trajectory of development.

Nationalistic approach to development, suspicion with the Western inspired approach, the need to address the difficulties and woes of affected populations, and concern with a more independent developmental path that sows the seeds for the rise of different oppositional form, some might be contented to pursue a soft approach, whereas others would in course of time take a different but a more radical approach to correct the wrongs and to provide a new alternative.

In this context, violence resorted by non-state forces might be seen as form of resistance against the hegemonising tendencies of state forces at the global, regional and national levels. Here we are not talking about everyday forms of resistance popularised by the post-modern school, but rather overt forms of resistance in which great force is applied.

There is a dialectical relationship between the ideational and material sphere. The uninterrupted expansion of the material forces of capitalism requires not just an appropriate political sphere but also a particular kind of organisational politics.

In global terms, despite the prediction among some that the nation-state might wither away due to economic globalisation, evidence points in the contrary direction. In fact, it could be argued that the present expansion of the capitalist system needs the political assistance of the nation-state and more importantly appropriation of surplus requires the constant mediation of the state.

Different political order

Without the state as the form of political organisation, it would be difficult for capital to obtain the kind of assistance that it requires in terms of its location, production and reproduction. The need to maintain the sanctity of the nation-state is very much political. However, in the recent past, there are certain worrying elements in the global political arena that some non-states forces challenging the moral authority and legitimacy of nation-states might be envisioning a different kind of political order that goes beyond the political framework of the nation-state.

Here we are talking about some radical groups thinking about creating certain political orders that are based on non-secularist ideas and philosophies. Such developments pose a threat to the present division of the world on the basis of definite territorial states and more importantly the future implications of these models to the general sustenance of the capitalist system.

The application of the concept of terrorism at various levels is directed at curbing challenges to territorial states rather than curbing violence per se. The potential threat posed by the non-state forces to the nation-state is not merely in political terms, but also economic and social.

In this respect, the urgency given to deal with the problem of "terrorism" cannot be merely explained by recent events, but rather to see how it constitutes a potential threat to the world system that is organised on the basis of sovereign nation-states. Thus given the paramount importance of this organising principle, it is no surprise that the global war against terrorism has taken such ferocity and vigour; for those waging war on terrorism, it represents a fight to maintain intact and perpetuate the present world system in both its political and economic dimensions.

Broader perspectives

The question is really is how we conceptualise the phenomenon of terrorism. If we accept the political and ideological premises of those opposed to it, then there will be tendency to view the phenomenon as problematic and the resolution of this will require national, regional and global efforts in confronting and putting an end to this.

While there is some merit to the arguments against the use of extreme violence, that reference point should be broadened to include the actions of the nation-state, not such non-state forces. A broader perspective on the phenomenon of terrorism must go beyond the present phenomenological discourse to ascertain why certain groups are engaging in extreme forms of violence, what are the merits of their objective, how these groups have been constituted, and so on.

Again, as referred to earlier, the phenomenon of terrorism is very much political and ideological. Those affected by this phenomenon in one way or another, would naturally gravitate towards putting end to this. But there are others who might not be fully convinced that the label of terrorism is an appropriate concept, it might not do injustice to groups, movements and organisations committed to end certain kinds of oppression.

However, beyond the immediate level, the discourse on terrorism should also keep in mind the nature of the global political and economic system and how the phenomenon of globalisation has served to bring about certain degree of congruence between politics and economics.

While the focus of the oppositional non-state forces could be on certain selected targets, this does not mean, that they have not been affected by global developments over the last few decades. In fact, it could be argued that the activities of non-state oppositional forces that have predilection to engage in violent activates are very much related to the nature of national, regional and global economic development.

The need to homogenise capitalist economic development on the basis of certain neo-liberal politics provides the structural factors behind the rise of many non-state forces. As discussed, lop-sided economic development, class polarisation, the absence of democratic institutions, the close symbiosis between elites in the developing and developed world, and the failure of secular ideologies are factors that could have propelled the rise of forces with different kind of political agenda to address problems from a completely new perspectives.

P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.

All terrorists great and small