Introduction
The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), also known as IS/ISIL/IS, is a well-known terrorist group which emerged in 2014 after a series of military successes, posing a substantial challenge to world security.
At its largest, the ISIS gained control over two failed states: Syria and Iraq, a territory ‘more than the size of Belgium’, stretching from the Palmyra in the north to the Turkish border in the South, with over 8 million population under its rule.
The ISIS is embodied by al-Qaeda movement but having a fundamental difference, being a ‘catch- all’ organization in nature in comparison to al-Qaeda’s elitist rule, contributing to a hybridized structure. The Sunni in Iraq lost power after the American intervention, facilitating large groups of ex-soldiers joining radical terrorist groups into the rank of ISIS, with universalist jihadists, including the founder of ISIS, Abu Baku al-Baghdadi being another major fraction in the ISIS.
The ISIS aims to establish a Caliphate to wage international jihad in the territory of Muslim settlements. ISIS promoted their belief to expand its territories through aggressive and violent means, with its propaganda though full of dreadful images, still being an important recruitment tool to attract worldwide individuals. The ISIS, after declaring Caliphate, being admitted to have shocked the world through terrorist attacks, kidnapping, and suicide attacks outside Syria and Iraq, killing more the 1300 people, seriously disrupting the world security, with the United Nations and various countries designated ISIS as a terrorist organization.
In what follows, this paper interweaves the threatening movement of ISIS from a realist and constructivist point of view, in an attempt to address the differences between realism and constructivism in explaining terrorism under international relations theory.
Realism on this Issue
As one of the most prominent and diverse schools in international relations theory, realism views global politics as a stage, where actors vie for power in an anarchic international system. States, above individuals or international organisations, are the key players on this world stage, who seek self-interest and preservation through power. With no higher authority above the state to enforce rules, the sphere of global politics is one of perpetuating anarchy and ever-shifting games of influence (Goodwin, 2010). The core tenet of realism is that above all else, power is what drives international relations. Actors must always be prepared for challenges to their power and be prepared to exert their own, creating a cycle of paranoia and aggression. It is through these ideas that the rationale and outcomes of so-called Islamic State can be explained.
The prospects and visions of ISIS are violence-oriented, upholding the belief of Islamic religions and use massive violence towards the citizens who is under the control of ISIS, ranging from death sentencing and beating. In order to maximize its influence, ISIS is always on the war conditions with its neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria, or even to the political coalition unit such as the European Union and NATO.
ISIS is a regime that it goes beyond states, that it comprises a wide range of non-state actors with the mix of players in the stage of the world. Classical realism illustrates that political actors are the driven force, while the concept of post-realism is laid out, that state is not the main actor anymore but more expanded to multiple other drivers of the political action (Rice, 2008), since ISIS is a trans-territorial regime, post-realism applies into the field of realism, that global actors are joined in a network of thoughts and actions (Beer and Hairman, 1996), prevailing the importance of sovereignty as a political actor.
However, if we are to understand the importance of power to how international relations are conducted, we must first understand what is meant by ‘power’. As Morgenthau defines it “Power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the power of man over man… from physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind controls another” (Morgenthau, 1948). In the pragmatic sense though, this power is mainly physical and tied to a state’s ability to exert military and political standing and action that solidifies a state’s ability (Kaufman, 2013). Power and balance of power in the international system are all about capability. (Waltz 1979)
In ISIS’ long term goal of an international caliphate and establishing itself as a legitimate state, they focused on the importance of gaining physical and material resources of power, as well as acquiring both tangible and intangible means of influence in order to achieve these ends. By securing the strategically and economically crucial Iraqi oil fields, which gave them a serious economic advantage, as well as their unprecedented success in establishing a massive network of online propaganda that facilitated their ability to exercise soft power on a global scale.
In a sense of irony though, neorealism conversely also argues that this build up of power as a means of security ends of perpetuating the anarchy it seeks to end. Kenneth Waltz argues that with the nature of states and the international system, the only thing that is permanent in their view of the world is the anarchy of war (Waltz 1979). The core of Waltz’s observation was that states live in a veil of ignorance about the intentions of the other states, hence the only real goal that a state can have is to not only also to expand its power. This, however, leads states into the perpetual trap of the security dilemma; as one state takes measures to increase its security (e.g. through military strength, alliances etc.), another will take similar reactive measures to close the shift in the balance of power, thus creating a cycle in which both parties will continually take these measures, and in turn escalating tensions, potentially to the point of conflict.
When considering the necessity of the state to expand in order to survive, as well as the cyclical consequences, this cyclical spiral plays well into the history of ISIS and the wider context of the consequences of the NATO intervention, and the wider situation in the Middle East. This spiral can be seen in the response to ISIS’ (legitimately offensive) buildup of power. But to add another, more contemporary angle to the dilemma, Barry Posen observed the role of the security dilemma in ethnic conflict, noting how tensions between ethnic groups (take, for example, Sunni and Shia Muslims) can follow the same patterns of offensive/defensive reaction that states follow, which Posen suggested will be gauged by the history, rather than modern state, of these groups (Posen 1993). Alongside the classic understanding of the dilemma in approaching the Islamist response to the War on Terror, Posen’s adapted outlook further help us to explain the rise of ISIS through the lens of ethnic relations in Iraq and the wider region by understanding the history of the Sunni-Shia divide, and its role in Iraqi governance. A predominantly Shia nation, the post-Hussein Iraq made little effort to form an inclusive government that respected the Sunni minority, who in turn accused the Maliki regime of marginalisation. Such grievances and fears would then lead Sunnis vulnerable to the message of the Sunni Islamic State (sway seen with the ease ISIS were able to capture predominantly Sunni territory like Mosul) (Prasad 2015). Thus, tensions and the potential for violence were only exacerbated. In the same vein that states would react to a shift in the international balance of power, so too have the Sunni and Shia communities responded to major changes in their position. Posen’s application of the model to non-state actors ergo has important implications for intra-state conflicts like the fight against ISIS.
However, although realism provides a fascinating analysis on the international state of anarchy and the dynamic of power and tensions that are crucial to understanding how the power vacuum that ISIS was able to fill first came to be, ultimately realism is limited by its own scope. Especially in classical realism, its presumption of the state as the endgame of international affairs limits itself when approaching a radical, ever-changing issue like the rise of non-state, non-territorially bound actors like ISIS, who have been able to exert a level of influence on politics almost on parallel with that of states.
John Mearsheimer, a prominent contemporary realist, although he concedes that realism does not necessarily focus on non-states actors like terror groups, still argues for its relevance in explaining and understanding them. Speaking on realism’s relevance to the War on Terror, Mearsheimer argues that for terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS etc., such groups serve as transnational actors, with influence not confined to a single nation or region the way states are, and so have been able to exert an influence on the international stage on par with that of states (UCTV, 2002). Because terrorism is a phenomenon that ever more presents itself in the context of the international system, it will inevitably transpire into the state arena, leaving these two stages intrinsic to understanding the response to one another. Furthermore, because of how realism concerns itself with the logic and rationale of state behaviour, it carries significant weight in understanding how states have approached counter-effort against ISIS and the War on Terror as a whole. Furthermore, ISIS’ end goal is to establish itself as a state in the form of the caliphate, and so its actions should be looked at through the logic and rationale of such.
Realism under the religious perspective
By examining its religious policy under ISIS administration, ISIS is a fanatic proponent of Wahhabiyah, one of the branches of Sunnah Muslim, it will consider religious out of Muslim as apostasy and being brutalized sentenced to death by extreme cruelty, compelling them to yield surrender to Wahhabiyah. Anti-religious acts are carried out such as burning Christian Cross and burning bible. Under the thought of realism, states have little intention of what the other nations are contemplating, states are living under struggling of survival that relies on self-helping as to develop its capabilities, including its advocate on religions and political stance. ISIS feel suspicious of other religions and it is under the survival state that they choose to establish their religious influence by resorting to violence and inhumanity. This echoes with the stances from the representatives, Kenneth Waltz and Morgenthau, saying that surviving is the state’s ultimate motivation and the ways to ensure vested interests of states are power maximization and greediness.
John Mearsheimer: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
The proposal of John Mearsheimer advocates offensive realism is effective to explain the motives of ISIS. It is the political ideology that derives from the defensive realism that question about the states whether they want to preserve their status-quo or maximize their powers or influences. (Mearsheimer, 2001). Offensive realism also regards security is scarce that increases the likelihood of occurring international competition and warfare, where Lynn-Jones (1998) further points out that the anarchic international system fosters aggression and competition. Under the anarchy, states will continually maximize their relative powers to diminish fear and perceived threats. ISIS feel their security threat after series of collapsing of Muslim regimes in the millennium era such as the resentment from the Iraq Republican Army and the religious quarrel between Sunnah and Shi’an Muslims also demonstrate fear to ISIS that unless military action is taken, their security threat will not be erased easily. On the other hand, to some of the states like Saudi Arabia, ISIS as a Muslim state is a threat to their security that ISIS denounced Saudi throne and the authority of other states (Zambelis, 2015). The conflict of security issues put them into a dilemma situation that armaments are needed to maintain the balance of power and peace in the long run. ISIS in response to the external threat, involved in the event of destruction of cultural heritage, justifying their actions is embracing the value of Sunni Islamic tradition and opposing any heritage that symbolizes any historical significance out of Muslim beliefs. By conquering Mosul, the major city in Iraq in 2015, ISIS promote their Muslim religious superiority by bombing and destroying the entire heritage of Nimrud’s Great Mosque and Ruins of Baalshamin in Syria during its annexation to Syria in 2017.
Under the interpretations of offensive realism, ISIS aligns with the illustration in this schools’ thoughts of realism that they insist on striving to maximize their relative powers and securities in its controlled regions. Their aggressiveness of continuous armaments, provoking regional terrorism activities, advocating absolute control with Muslim beliefs and continuous recruit militants’ members globally demonstrate their strong feelings of insecurity and disbeliefs to other civilizations. Driven by the suspiciousness towards other religious regimes, the only thing ISIS to ensure its religious discourse power is expansion and annexation, such increase in relative power align with the principle of maximizing security, proving Mearsheimer’s offensive realism in ISIS ideologies more obvious.
Robert Kaplan: The Coming Anarchy
Writing his observations on the state of world affairs post-Cold War, Robert Kaplan warned that the conflicts to come would not be neatly ideological the way the Cold War was, but motivated more and more by cultural, historical and economic lines. With western liberal democracy now effectively the sole hegemonic political ideology, the issues of the common citizen; poverty, disease, religion and economic inequality etc. will become the drivers of resentment and conflict over clean-cut political ideologies. This resentment breeds radicalism, and in turn, anarchy and violence, and thus the cycle perpetuates itself (Kaplan 1994) - perfect conditions that have allowed the rise of radical groups like ISIS to facilitate. Though originally Kaplan uses Sierra Leone as an example of a government that had lost control over its nation, his analogy of the failed state can just as equally be used to describe the lawlessness of Iraq and the wider Middle East immediately prior to and after ISIS’ emergence.
The current positions of state boundaries and geopolitical borders run contrary to the political and cultural realities of the Middle East and neglect the religious tensions of its Islamic communities. This colonial legacy left the region in a precarious position of balancing order and power, in effect bringing the concerns of Posen previously discussed to fruition – what Kaplan observes as reflections of the realities of geopolitics that maps leave out. Just as the anarchy of the international system makes security and power the main concern of actors, Kaplan demonstrates that the internal threat is just as crucial to understanding terror.
Samuel Huntingdon: The Clash of Civilisations
Among realism discourses of the realism, Samuel Huntington’s <Clash of Civilization>, addressing different civilizations, instead of states, will end up with insecurity can result in prolonged conflicts in the millennium era. ISIS representing the religious identity of Muslim are confronting to civilizations of Western Christianity and Sunnah Muslims. According to the discourse of Huntingtin, economic globalization minimizes the mentality between civilizations, where one finds the needs to defy the others. (Huntington, 1996). The examples he laid is the confrontation between Western and civilizations. The discourse proposed by Huntington developed his stance by the western international societies are incapable to accept ISIS as its proposal of violence and contradiction to universal values pose a great threat to international security under the cultural divisions nowadays, while ISIS consider western is the barrier for it to exercise religious power expansion. This leads to the allies’ form NATO and American allies including Saudi Arabia and the Turkish army to confront ISIS in response.
ISIS consider themselves as the Muslim hegemony, yet after the separation from Al-Qaeda, there is an urgent need that they need to establish their civilizational identity. ISIS is a regime body that their intention is not to increase its global political discourse power but to establish an Islamic state with the principle of Caesaropapism, combining the power of secular government with the religious power, where hadith (Muhammad wisdom of words) as the law of the Caliphate state (Dilegge, 2016). The intention of ISIS establishes its influence to search for its civilizational identities also reveal its ambitions that advocates “absolute devotion of Muslim” by Jihadism. To erase their concerns of the uncertainty raised from globalization and modernization that cause shrinking of national identities, they believe annexation with violence is justified. The current case included the bombing in Sri Lanka and Marseille, France. ISIS is eager to expand into global terrorism in an attempt to establish a great Muslim regime. Where <Clash of civilization> is a good illustration of ISIS ambitious of leveraging its religious value as to influence the globe by violence and enmity towards the western democratic and Christianity.
Constructivism on this Issue
How Constructivism Interprets Terrorism and ISIS
Constructivist would consider themselves as the best IR theory in explaining the idea of Terrorism and the ISIS issue happened throughout the years (Krishnaswamy, 2012). The major idea of Constructivists stresses the importance of identities in shaping and formulating state’s foreign policies; stresses the influences on identities using the concept of International Cultural Environment (ICE) as proposed by Jepperson, Wendt, and Katzenstein; Highlight Process of Socialization among states in forming norms and identities of “normal” states.
Scholars like Jacob Stump would comment that the ISIS issue is unique from other past terrorist activities because there are variances in the available physical and cultural resources which creates differences in the identities formed in the process of socialization (Stump, 2009).
The Idea of International & World Society
Constructivist scholars will agree with the idea of International & World Society that Barry Buzan and the English School Scholiasts proposed in understanding ISIS (See Graph in Appendix) (Katzenstein, 1996). They will argue that the ISIS issue is a series of actions performed by a group of non-state actors seeking for a universal identity realization and a recognition to become a constituted state ultimately (Durra, 2015).
With further interpreting the ideas of Katzenstein and Durra, constructivist would treat the extreme Islamists, who see themselves as the successor of Al-Qaeda, as individuals in the Middle East Area, that aim to create and spread the more pluralistic, universal Islamic identities among the interhuman society. They, as with the growth in scope and supporter base later, formed the transnational terrorist group (TNA) of ISIS to promote and deliver their Islamic values and identities, to facilitate the pluralistic Islamic Identities recognition among different non-states actors which include both individuals and organizations in the Interhuman Society & TNA Level. On one hand, they hope to achieve the goal of enhancing the influences & importance of Islamic Identities in foreign policies addressing across the Interstates society by changing the identities and ideas shared in the world society, by increasing the number of non-state actors that believe and uphold this idea.
On the other hand, as they are considered as TNA but not a constituted state in the International society, ISIS indeed is not regulated by the shared norms, institutions and rules that are commonly agreed among states within the international system. This loophole rationalized ISIS in using other means that are not agreed in the Interstate level such as Excessive Violence and Militarized actions in promoting their pluralistic Islamic values and expand their territories in the world society. They hope to get recognized as a “True constituted Islamic State” in the interstate society by threatening with direct violence and military actions in expanding territories, and indirectly and brutally universalize identities in the world society and recolonize individuals to support and uphold their extreme Islamic values.
These ISIS activities didn’t directly bring up changes to the international society as they are not constituted, they could not change the minds of states as they are excluded in the system. The indirect attempts that target to change identities and values in the world society, ironically, fails too. Despite being successful in the violence used and recolonization of extreme Islamic values brought to certain areas, their series of actions produced momentum changes, which shapes new identities of fear and hatred against these Islamic Values among Individuals and TNAs. The new risen identities, however, change the foreign policies among constituted states, in which they responded by implementing Anti-ISIS militarized actions to appease the fear identities.
Process of Structuration
Scholars like Ben Yehuda would say the series of terrorist issues happened with ISIS is a form of non-stop social construction, and it would be a social fact produced under different discourses shaped by various states & non-states actors (Yehuda, 1993).
To further elaborate, in Constructivists view, the ISIS issue would be considered as an ever-continuing process of socialization, in which both states and non-states actors learn what to respond during their interactions (See Figure in Appendix). For this case, the world society’s positions and the interhuman identities and values are challenged by the rise of ISIS, and it's bloody actions aiming to unify world identities. In responses, the interstates society reacts to the change in World Society Identities by reshaping their state policies in the system, by introducing military actions in Anti-ISIS warfare. Based on these feedbacks, ISIS would then again react with a new round of actions such as increasing bombing and suicidal attacks to claim their target. This process of structuration will continue until either one party is eliminated, or stop reacting to the actions, norms, values and resource that the other party has done.
What shape & construct the radical identities of ISIS?
Religious Nationalism
The Islamic Religious Nationalism rise when there is a “intertwine between religious and political ideologies” (Juergensmeyer, 2001). The Islamic belief has served as the fundamental motivator and unifier in shaping up the identities of ISIS. The Islam Religion as well serves as an invisible bond and ideology that rally and unify the ISIS community in deeper levels, leading to their political actions and activism (Juergensmeyer, 1996). They will also gain the mindset that they have to “unite across national boundaries and to place Islam above all other political allegiances in their everyday lives (Nasr, 1999).
There is a common identity & goal for ISIS followers: To eliminate the influence of Western Values and Modernity in the lands of Muslim, by defending Islam and destroying its opponents. Deeper identities of Religious Nationalism were delivered to ISIS members, which strengthens ISIS supporters in believing their actions would be responsible for “bringing about the end of days”, and the idea that they were “foreordained to usher in the apocalypse and the end of days as the servants and warriors of Allah and defenders of Islam” (Wood, 2015).
Sunni-Shia Conflict
Another identity that builds up the identities of ISIS, which later motivates the organization in committing bloody disagreed militarized actions, comes from the cleavages and conflicts from the two Islamic Factions: The Sunnis and Shias. The Sunni-Shia split on the Islam Origin has been existed for centuries which separate Muslims into 2 camps. ISIS has upheld their identities of Sunnis and Anti-Shias, which is a crucially important tool for the organization in recruiting new blood (Beauchamp, 2015).
Although Sunnis have been the majority identities among the Islamic States and Individuals, some do get ruled under the control of Shias (Iraq, Bahrain etc.). As with cleavages in core beliefs, some Sunnis would feel as underrepresented and not being fairly treated by their respective states. The situation became even worse in Shias country like Iraq, where former Sunni president Saddam Hussein spread the “fake news” that Sunnis as the majority within the country, raising further dissatisfaction from the Sunnis against the Shias (Beauchamp, 2015). These Cultural elements shaped the enmity levels of some Sunnis against the Shias. Some of them become radical and identities of “Pro-Sunnis, Anti-Shias” are thus constructed, and turns out strengthen the power and recognition of ISIS and its ideas.
Enmity Against the West & United States
A certain level of enmity identity against the United States and the Western States have been existed after the end of British / French Colonization period and got deepen during the Gulf War & Iraq War. This has become the tool for ISIS in recruiting and spreading their radical identities and actions.
ISIS criticizes that it is the Western society that erased their original Muslim identities, stole their key resources and wealth, drew borders to segregate different Muslims into different nationalities during colonization (Mikami, n.d.); meanwhile, blew the prosperity, established & well-run systems and the autonomy of the Islamic Middle East Region in both wars. They thus believe that the only solution to deal with it would be maximizing Islamic Power and Territories through military expansion.
In the Post-Colonial Middle East, the constituted states are largely influenced by the western institutions in shaping their values, identities, ideas and systems. In view of Islamic extremists, these are significances of evils and corrupt nature of modernity, which harms the Islamic principle of “ummah”, meaning “Holy Community” (Nasr, 1999). They then blamed the British/French for harming the Islamic National Interests during the Colonial/ Post-Colonial periods. The first layer of enmity against the west shaped as a result and the identity of being radical Muslims started to form.
Later, Middle East Regions, especially in Iraq, the base of ISIS, was one of the wealthiest and developed state within the region before the Gulf War started. Sanctions made by the west caused fiscal deficits and currency depreciation in Iraq, leading to some Iraqis’ blame and hatred to Western societies, and the rise of ISIS’s precursor, Al-Qaeda. 10 years later, with the United States and its allies declaring Warfare against the dictatorship of the Hussein Iraq, the economy and society of the states were destructed and “rebuilt” in the region under leadership from the U.S., giving the chances to radical Muslims in promoting the enmity against the west, and the identity of building up a “true” Islamic State like ISIS (Chulov, 2015). Together with the political takeover of Shias in Iraq, these radical Muslims step-by-step shaped an identity that the western society has taken away their existed wealth & suppressed the civil & political of the Sunnis (Carothers, 2002). They then structured an enmity against western cultures and societies that they must arm themselves and deny the invasion of western values and interferences.
Analysis in Individual level :
There are several shared norms and identities between jihadists and Baathists to include in the individual level of analysis, the personal security and survival from the American foreign policy, their desire for revenge to U.S. , and their motivation to participate in a global jihad to against on the U.S.
Firstly, following the invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S., America and its allies labelled most of the escaped Jihadists as highly wanted terrorists. Therefore, those escaped Jihadists need to find a safe haven for living. In addition, the American-administered de-Baathification policy in Iraq angered the Sunnis in Iraq. The two orders in de-Baathification policy eliminate the top tiers of Saddam’s Baath party from the public services and the Iraqi military respectively. The Sunnis got furious about the American policy and want revenge. (Ibrahimi,2018)
Overall, the wanted Jihadists and discriminated Baathists have both affected by the U.S. policy, anger with US policy, and they also have the common purposes of personal security and survival. The US oppression on these two groups shaped their identity as the Victim of U.S. foreign policy. (Ibrahimi,2018)
In addition, The Baathists and Jihadi group leaders shared the same norms, interest, and identities. They both want to revenge on the U.S. (Ibrahimi,2018)
Thirdly, the U.S. government has supported the Shiite-led government in Iraq and leads to the fall of Saddam’s regime, Sunnis Jihadist had lost their power, jobs, and political influence to a Shiite-led government. They want to fight back the American and take back control of their country. The Sunnis linked the U.S. as evil, the destroyer of Iraq.(Ibrahimi,2018)
Overall, Jihadist and Baathist militant groups both changed their sense of personal security to a sense of glory toward the formation of ISIS and revenge to the US.
Ideational Factors
According to John Ruggie, he believed that “ideational factors such as norms, rules, identities, and forms of representation play a central role in world politics.” (Ruggie, 1998)
Identity
According to Wendt(1999), “we cannot know what we want unless we know who we are.” The interest of states is shaped by their identities. The action of a state or non-state actors will define their identity. (Wendt,1999)
According to Makami (2017), “ISIS has sought to reestablish the prestige and power of the caliphate through at least two avenues: the accumulation of wealth and a display of military might.” Makami (2017) They have displayed their military through violent.
ISIS shows their violent identity by frequent kidnappings and public beheadings of civilians. For example, ISIS gained widespread attention in the Western world after killing the American journalists in 2014. The killing of American journalist projecting an identity that they are challenging the world.
In addition, ISIS showed their extremist identity by adopted a ‘scorched earth policy’. The ‘scorched earth policy’ that adopted by ISIS is to destroy all the thing in the city if they lose or collapse. When ISIS has started losing in Iraq and Syria, they have started to burn a lot of crops and trees in Iraq. Also, they have poured the gasoline on the farmland to make the food not suitable to eat. They will do the thing with no rules. (Barbarani, 2018). The West labelled ISIS interest is to revenge the West with an identity of violent.
On the other hand, for the believers of ISIS, ISIS has another identity. ISIS has used social media to spread they are fighting for justice, they are inclusive and willing to take care of every member in ISIS, it is just like a family. For the believers of ISIS, ISIS is a warm and harmony family. Moreover, ISIS strategic plan is to take over a specific region with clear geographic borders covering Middle East North Africa in addition to some part of Europe to become the largest Islamic state of the 21st century the border of the Islamic. They have spread this idea on the video to convince the watcher of the video to follow them and to build the Islamic Caliphate; to let the watcher believe this is the only mission in their life. Makami (2017). It has attracted people around the world to join ISIS. According to the United Nations (2017), in 2017, ISIS has more than 40,000 foreign terrorist fighters from 110 countries (United Nations, 2017)
Overall, the interest of ISIS is to build the caliphate state and different people view ISIS in different identities. For the West, they are evil, violent, and against the world; for the Westerner who believed ISIS, ISIS is a spirit, ideology, group of people who want to make the world better and fight for their religious.
Norms
In constructivism, different social interaction will create norms. The Paris attack from ISIS created a norm that different states should treat terror attack seriously.
Before the Paris attack, different states see ISIS as a terrorist group but they did not think the terror attacks from ISIS will spread and penetrate to Europe. Many European states think ISIS will just hold different terror attacks in the Middle East. Therefore, before the Paris attack, there is mainly the U.S. use different tactics against ISIS. Different countries have announced that they support the U.S. to attack ISIS. However, they did not really use a lot of military power to attack ISIS. They just want to do it for their citizens and the voters because the national security is very important. A nation-state should let their citizen feel safe, or else, they will lose public support. For the West, the announcement to attack ISIS is just to show the citizen and the world that they have the intention to go against ISIS but it does not mean their attack is really effective to combat the terrorism. (Vidino et al., 2017)
After the Paris attack in 2015, international society shows sympathy to the lost that France suffers. Mass media has to keep repeating to project the images of the Paris attacks, it has victimized the image of France strongly. In addition, a lot of world iconic buildings have illuminated in the colours of the French flag. After the Paris attack, ISIS has become the world enemy. The world has to be extremely alert on ISIS. France has immediately changed its anti-terrorism policy towards ISIS. They immediately sent out aircraft carrier to attack ISIS base, a lot of different countries in the globe also support it. It has arisen a norm of Strong anti-ISIS sentiment in the West. For example, Germany has sent out troop and aircraft carrier to attack ISIS base. (Vidino et al., 2017)
In addition, the Antalya G20 meeting in November discussed to take action to cut ISIS financial support, strengthen the communication between different countries on ISIS actions, strengthen the safety and monitor on the verge and aircraft, and identify members of ISIS are come from which countries. In addition, different countries have more rigorous screening and security checks on refugees from Syria. They are more alert. (Vidino et al., 2017)
Overall, it showed that after the Paris attack, different countries have armed themselves and hold more serious military attacks toward ISIS.
Comparison between two ideologies on Islamic State
Although in the real world, many political theorists would say that the realism approach would best suit in the explanation of the formation of ISIS and the counter ISIS responses that proposed by many other western countries, later on, it would be more reasonable to consider constructivism as the better theory in explaining the ISIS crisis.
In real-world, it may seem like realism is still the main discourses dominating international relations and states actions in foreign policies, which most of the states react to the security dilemma and stress the importance of the balance of power. However, in theory, constructivism takes a much wider spectrum in the formation of ISIS and the global terrorism issue, as well as the explaining the rationale behind why states want to so call “maximize state power” and perform various militarized actions in the middle east. The key behind the constructivist ideas is the process of socialization which structured and rationalized the actions done:
As the classic realism has explained that ISIS is an example that an organization strike for their bargaining powers to improve relationships on an international scale. In a realism point of view, the Islamic State was successfully drawing attention internationally. Different from state/ national power, Islamic State is an exceptional case in which their influence was more than a country, but they were only on behalf of an international organization.
Despite the fact that how realism treats Islamic State as an individual terror group, constructivism attempted to explain the origin of Islamic State which give more sights on how Islamic State do to strike for their wants. Islamic State aims not only drawing attention but also the agreement on their identities as a real state. However, the Islamic State was counted as a failure due to the attention earned not able to constitute a change to international society and the mind of the states.
Despite the theoretical view on Islamic State as terror group as to how they emerge and rationale behind their actions, constructivist provide evidence and assumptions to explain not only the current situation but also their thought and the underlying preference by giving macro views on an international scale.
By explaining the issues and how Islamic State was constructed, constructivist give better structures on complex problems before Islamic State, linking to other terror groups like Al-Qaeda and Shia Islamic group and conflict between Middle East Regions and Western Countries.
Also, Constructivist, unlike neorealists and other traditional IR discourses, rejects the prevailing idea that the defining actors’ properties are intrinsic to states, that they are all power-seeking and (material) interest-maximizing rational actors.
In the view of Realist, they would consider state are the undoubted and only factor that could drive state policies and their relations with other communities. They would interpret that there would not be any other factors that will affect how the world works and international society works.
The Realist also proposed an idea that state would only react to actions that could be “Power Maximized” and “Most Beneficial to states”, which has been later proved wrong by constructivist. In fact, in the case of ISIS, the real-world issue has shown us that states are not the only and major factor affecting international relations and states.
In explaining the main idea of the ISIS crisis, what drove the radical actions is never a “constituted state”, which the formally recognized states are never the primary actor to lead this terrorist revolution. The governments in middle east Islamic regions such as Iraq and Bahrain, never proposed the use of military actions or declaring war against western cultures.
In fact, during the post-colonial period in the middle east, the ruling classes in these countries are actually enjoying the fact of the consequences of introjection of western civilization and western capitalization and modernization, because of the wealth and prosperity that capitalism has brought to these states. As the ruling class could somehow considered as crucial factors and representative affecting the “state”, there is no reason why “states” would like to “maximize” their interests through creating wars, overthrowing the current systems that may indeed harm the so-called “states interests”. This explanation from real facts will actually overthrow one of the ideas that realist proposed.
In comparison, constructivist, used the idea of world society of non-states actors, which would be more appropriate in explaining the formation of ISIS. ISIS is more a non-state driven issue, which further affects states’ action. There has been an undeniable fact that western influences have still been crucial even in modern days middle east. These countries rely heavily on trading activities with the western world to gain their revenues (Mikami, n.d.).
Similar to the idea of communists, by stressing & falsely shaping the working & lower Islamic class are being crashed and bullied by the capitalist and the current western dominated system, radical Islamic fanatics build up a populist identity that hopes to unify the world society with violence.
It would thus be more reasonable to explain as the constructivist that the ISIS issue is “a world society movement that aim to promote religious equality or a.k.a. religious unity identity” in a global scale. Therefore, constructivist seem more rational in explaining the series of rebellions in Islamic society because of the absence of state drivers.
Moreover, it would be illogical to use the realist approach of international cooperation in explaining the facts of anti-ISIS military actions performed by the global communities.
For the realist, they would say that international cooperation is impossible and hard to achieve under anarchy; and even corporation is established, similar to the stag hunt situation, states themselves will seek for relative gains during the corporation. Applying to the ISIS issue, in fact, states themselves quickly react after a series of bombing events have happened. The United States, the initial sufferer of ISIS terrorist activities, quickly unite with other NATO allies, in establishing anti-terrorism activities in their respective state territories. There has been cooperation later on, with US-led army, declaring war on ISIS and undertook peace-seeking and anti-terrorism actions in the Middle East Areas. Nevertheless, a majority of member states in the UN council also united together and declared their “as-one” identity in battling against the extreme terrorist activities. The UN also hold meetings such as the Security Council Resolution 2249 in discussing possible collaboration solutions in dealing with this crisis. With these facts, it is proved that International cooperation against terrorist activities is indeed not that difficult and conflictual as proposed by the Realists.
Also, looking to the Stag hunt perspective, it seemed irresponsible and illogical if we use the Realists’ approach of relative gain to interpret the issue. In the real world, regarding anti-terrorism issues, it will be naive if states calculate and compare their relative gain using the number of terrorists eliminated in each operation. The only measuring scale in international society would be the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations. It is meaningless for states to compete and have a race in the number of terrorists killed each time. Moreover, by performing such actions, the minds of states would not be in a relative gain scale, which thinks about “I could receive less attack than others”; instead, what states think would be universal as “to completely eliminate ”. Therefore, the realist is less powerful in the explanation process.
Comparatively, Constructivists could be seen as more powerful in explaining the international cooperation fighting against ISIS and sharing tactical information. Cooperation becomes easy if interdependence is needed among individuals: An invisible universal identity & value, fear & terror, are shaped during the ISIS event and their series of attacks. This force states to react because the survival of individuals are challenged by the powerful ISIS, and the state would be eventually negatively affected in the end if their people are continuing to be harmed. Therefore, cooperation could be established in unifying states to overturn this bad global identity more easily, which means military actions against ISIS here. As a result, it could be a more reasonable explanation in drawing why constructivism is once again the more powerful approach.
Comments