By proper definition, I would say that Terrorism is never justified, but when stepping back to look at past dubbed ‘terrorist attacks’ or ‘terrorists’, it can be seen that maybe at times, Terrorism is what is needed. You might read this and think that I’m crazy, but stick around till the end and you’ll understand. In Lecture, Aden outlined that Terrorism must encompass all of these to be considered a terrorist act.

• Violent Act
• Non-State Actor
• Deliberate targeting of civilians
• Political Message/Objective

From this definition, I am extremely against acts of terrorism and terrorist. No matter how terrible the situation, the harming of civilians to convey a message is completely wrong. Not only is the harming of civilians completely illegitimate, Terrorism also often creates a perpetual state of poverty and anxiety. People are less likely to want to carry out their daily tasks, if they are afraid of attacks against them. People are also less likely to plan for their futures if they are unsure where this future will be. Often times, people tend to save less and take less risks because of this, meaning that less businesses will open up and so on. Similarly, international organisations and companies are less likely to set up in this country if it is politically or socially unstable. This would only harm the country’s economy, and the insecurity of local economy will only emphasise this never ending cycle of poverty and anxiety. Lastly, a great point against terrorism would be that often times, the governments which stem from terrorist occupations end up being corrupt. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used. These people will also likely appoint people who will abide to their power, who may be ignorant towards the political processes. This will only make the entire political system inefficient and biased towards a minority or a fringe interest. An example of this would be Iraq. It started as a westernising one and shifted to an islamic one, and is now hostile to its dissidents.

On the other hand, Terrorism can both attract attention to an issue, and create a dialogue about it. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. In some cases, people who were previously named Terrorist, became world changing leaders. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause such as the hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s that brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world.  The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view – the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified.

A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars – all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.

The more narrow definition of Terrorism as mentioned above, is by not means justified under any circumstance, but the broader definition may be in certain situation.

The United Nations, in my opinion, has done more wrong than good to our global community, and like the League of Nations that it stemmed from, it is failing, and slowly lacking purpose.

The United Nations was created after WW2, seeking to maintain security and peace, whilst developing the relations amongst nations. It currently has 192 members and has been extremely successful in some of its endeavors, both in conflict and war. However, the amount of success they have had clearly does not measure up to the number of preventable catastrophes that they have witnessed and are accountable for. Here are 5 (of many) of these preventable catastrophes and other situations that the UN is not handling well that I am talking about.

5. Nuclear Proliferation

In 1945 when the United Nations first started, the United States were the only nation to own and test Nuclear Weapons. As a safety precaution, 190 nations sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1970, including the five nations (France, England, Russia, China and the US) that admitted to owning nuclear weapons. Despite this treaty, nuclear stockpiles are increasing and remain extremely high, and a number of countries continue to develop these weapons . This purely present the ineffectiveness of the UN and their inability to enforce crucial regulation on offending nations.

4. Child Sex Abuse Scandal [This one truly sickens me]

In times of desperation and war, many nations have looked to the U.N for assistance, and the U.N. peacekeepers in blue helmets are meant to represent safety and stability, but instead they have only caused greater internal problems. In cases such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia and many others, there was a trend of child prostitution where the peacekeepers were. Soldiers would reward children with candy or even money to claim that the sexual nature of their relationship was prostitution instead of rape… Senior Officials in the U.N haven’t condemned this in fear of public shaming.. If the U.N can’t do this simpler task, why bother having a U.N? Especially If they can’t own up to their own mistakes.

3. The Veto Power

The U.N security council holds 15 nations. 5 permanent seat (France Russia, China, US and UK), and the other 10 are elected to serve 2 year terms. These 5 permanent members have veto power to overrule any of the voting that is done within the Security council. Even if all 14 of the other members voted yes for something, the veto vote would rule and the Council resolution will not be adopted. How is that fair in any way? One, clearly not enough countries have a say if the security council is only 15 members. Two, why have the Veto power? The big 5 could technically just act in their own interest and out rule everyone any way.. Why bother having a security council then?

2. Khmer Rouge

In 1975-1979, The Khmer Rouge (an extreme form of Communism) was ruling Cambodia. Finally in 1979, the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia to oust the Khmer Rouge and end the massacre of Ethnic Vietnamese, Chinese and Christians. The Leader Pol Pot was forced to exile and a new government was put in place in Cambodia. Shockingly, the U.N refused to recognize the new government of Cambodia, purely because it was backed by Vietnam, and Vietnam had just ended a decade long conflict with the U.S. It is extremely unreasonable that up till 1994 (almost 15 years after), the U.N recognized the Khmer Rouge as the true government of Cambia, despite the fact that they killed 2.5 Cambodians, which is about 33% of their population.

1. Rwanda

And Lastly, but definitely not leastly, the most devastating (in my opinion) failure of the U.N. – The Rwandan Genocide.

Following the Rwandan Civil war in 1990’s, tensions between the two ethnic groups, The Hutus and Tutsis, were at a dangerous high. In 1993, the U.N peacekeeping forces entered Rwanda to secure capital and enable humanitarian aid, but were not authorized to use military maneuvers to achieve these goals. In 1994 when Romeo Dallaire sent a cable to the U.N headquarters, detailing the imminent genocide of the Tutsi’s by the Hutus. They simply ignored these warnings, and completely refused to acknowledge it as a ‘genocide’. As the genocide continued and the world watched in disgust, the UN continued to do nothing, when they had the resources to help. Almost 1 million Rwandans were killed in this genocide, amounting to 20% of their population. How could an international peacekeeping body refuse to assist in something like this? Since then, the Right to Protect Doctrine (which enables the U.N to other countries to Intervene when another country is under to uphold sovereignty) has been put into place which will hopefully prevent this in the future, but it definitely does not forgive the damage they allowed.

The United Nations theoretically is an extremely valuable entity in our world, but the way it is being run needs to be reevaluated. If the U.N continues down this path, it will continually fail and end up as a potentially great promise, as the League of Nations was.