10 Translate from Russian into English:

1 Членами негосударственных организаций являются граждане каких-либо нескольких стран, которые образуют организации для достижения своих целей, влияя на политику правительств и межправительственных организаций.

2 Негосударственные организации рассматривают различные проблемы глобального масштаба, они действуют вместе с государствами и межгосударственными организациями, и они установили ряд правил, помогающих регулировать многие международные проблемы.

3 Многие люди считают, что, в первую очередь, они – представители национальной группы, и, лишь во-вторых, они члены государства и подчинены своему правительству.

4 Многонациональные государства состоят из различных политически активных групп, которые стремятся к большей автономии и более весомому голосу в социальной и внешней политике государства.

5 Подсчитано, что сейчас в мире приблизительно 300 млн людей 4-го мира, принадлежащих к 6 тысячам национальностей, имеющих свой язык и культуру и бывших когда-то политически независимыми и экономически самодостаточными.

6 Во многих странах так называемого 4-го мира очень активно освободительное движение, целью которого является создание собственного государства или своего правительства.

11 Questions for discussions:

1 The most active ngOs and their role in the world politics.

2 Nationalism and ethnicity in the contemporary world.

3 The 4^th World and indigenous peoples, their position and role in the contemporary world.

Unit 10 religious movements

In theory, religion would seem a natural worldwide force for global unity and harmony. Yet millions have died in the name of religion. The Crusades between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries were originally justified by Pope Urban II in 1095 to combat Muslim aggression, but the fighting left millions of Christians and Muslims dead and, "in terms of atrocities, the two sides were about even [as both religions embraced] an ideology in which fighting was an act of self-sanctification" (Economist). Similarly, the "not-so-holy wars" in the religious conflicts during the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) between Christian Catholics and Protestants killed nearly one-fourth of all Europeans.

A large proportion of the world's nearly 6 billion people is estimated to be members of religious movements - politically active organizations based on strong religious convictions. At the most abstract level, a religion is a system of thought shared by a group that provides its members an object of devotion and a code of behavior by which they can ethically judge their actions. This definition points to commonalities across the great diversity of organized religions in the world, but it fails to capture that diversity. The world's principal religions vary greatly in the theological doctrines or beliefs they embrace. They also differ widely in the size of their followings, in the geographical locations where they are most prevalent, and in the extent to which they engage in political efforts to direct international affairs.

These differences make it risky to generalize about the impact of religious movements on world affairs. Those who study religious movements comparatively note that a system of belief provides religious followers with their main source of identity, and that this identification with and devotion to their religion springs from the natural human need to find a set of values with which to evaluate the meaning of life and the consequences of choices. Unfortunately this need sometimes leads believers of a religious creed to perceive the values of their own religion as superior to those of others, which often leads to intolerance. The proponents of most religious movements believe that their religion should be universal – that is, accepted by everyone throughout the world. To confirm their faith in their religious movement's natural superiority, many organized religions actively proselytize to convert nonbelievers to their faith, engaging in evangelical crusades to win followers of other religions over to their beliefs. Conversion is usually achieved by persuasion, through missionary activities. But at times conversion has been achieved by the sword, tarnishing the reputations of some international religious movements.

In evaluating the impact of religious movements on international affairs, it is important to distinguish carefully the high ideals of their doctrines from the activities of the people who head these religious bodies. The two realms are not the same, and each can be judged fairly only against the standards they set for themselves. To condemn what large-scale religious movements sometimes do administratively when they abuse the principles of the religions they manage does not mean that the principles themselves deserve condemnation. Moreover, although many students of international relations draw a causal linkage between the activities of religious movements and the outbreak of political conflict and violence, this does not apply to all religions. Consider the Hindu ideology of tolerance of different religions, which teaches that there are many paths to truth, and accepts pluralism among diverse populations. Similarly, Buddhism preaches pacifism, as did early Christianity, which prohibited Christians from serving in the armies of the Roman Empire (later, by the fourth century, only Christians were permitted to serve, as church and state became allies). But the propensity for religious institutions to subordinate their beliefs to the state in order to survive and increase public popularity notwithstanding, many observers maintain that otherwise pacificist and humanitarian religions at times are inclined to oppose each other violently, despite their professed tolerant doctrines. When they do, religious movements become sources of international tension, especially when they become radical – heavily involved in political action on a global scale and fanatically dedicated to the promotion of their cause. The leaders of extreme militant religious movements are convinced that those who do not share their convictions must be punished, and that compromise is unacceptable. Richard Shultz and William Olson explain:

While not all radical religious movements involved in politics are alike, they share certain similar characteristics:

1. Militant religious political movements tend to view existing government authority as corrupt and illegitimate because it is secular and not sufficiently rigorous in upholding religious authority or religiously sanctioned social and moral values.

2. They attack the inability of government to address the domestic ills of the society in which the movement exists. In many cases the religious movement substitutes itself for the government at the local level and is involved in education, health, and other social welfare programs.

3. They subscribe to a particular set of behavior and opinions that they believe political authority must reflect, promote, and protect in all governmental and social activities. This generally means that government and all of its domestic and foreign activities must be in the hands of believers or subject to their close oversight.

4. They are universalists; unlike ethnic movements, they tend to see their views as part of the inheritance of everyone who is a believer. This tends to give them a transstate motivation, a factor that then translates their views on legitimacy of political authority into a larger context for action. In some cases, this means that international boundaries are not recognized as barriers to the propagation of the faith, even if this means the resort to violence.

5. They are exclusionists; they relegate all conflicting opinions on appropriate political and social order to the margins, if they do not exclude them altogether. This means second-class citizenship for any nonbeliever in any society where such a view predominates.

6. Finally, they are militant, willing to use coercion to achieve the only true end. (Shultz and Olson 1994)

Although militant religious movements are not the only nonstate actors whose ideologies and activities may contribute to violence, many experts believe that they tend to stimulate five types of international activities. The first is irredentism – the attempt by a dominant religion or ethnic group to reclaim territory in an adjacent region once possessed but later lost from a foreign state that now controls it. Force is often rationalized for this purpose. The second is secession or separative revolts – the attempt by a religious (or ethnic) minority to break away from an internationally recognized state. Here, again, force is sometimes used, often with arms and aid supplied by third parties that support the secessionist goals. When these separative revolts succeed, states disintegrate into two or more new political units. The third type of international activity that militant religions tend to incite is migration – the departure of religious minorities from their countries of origin to escape persecution. Whether they move by force or by choice, the result – a fourth consequence of militant religion – is the same: The emigrants create diasporas or communities that live adroad in host countries but maintain economic, political, and emotional ties with their homelands. Finally, a fifth effect of militant religions is international terrorism in the form of support for radical coreligionists abroad.

If we critically inspect the compound consequences of the activities of militant religious movements, we come away with the impression that religious movements not only bring people together but also divide them. Religious movements often challenge state authority, and religious-driven separatism can tear countries apart. The possible result, some predict, is that over time the world may fracture into 500 states from the current 200. Others put the ultimate number lower but talk of a new kind of state – something akin to "a corporate holding company – with the central government little more than a shell and power residing in the regions" (Davis).

Against this prophecy, we must contemplate another dimension of the sometimes close connection between religions and states: Many states actively support particular religions while repressing minority religions. It is important to recognize just how closely states and religions are allied in many countries, with each reinforcing the other's power. And this observation, in turn, leads us to consider how terrorist groups sometimes influence the relationships between states and militant religions.

International terrorists

Terrorist groups are another kind of nonstate actor on the global stage, whose activities exacerbate international tensions and undermine the state’s authority and power. Like ethnopolitical national movements and religious groups, terrorist groups are difficult to identify because their motives, tactics, and membership differ widely. However, there are similarities. Terrorism is commonly defined as seeking to further political objectives through the threat or use of violence, usually in opposition to state governments.

Terrorism was known in ancient times, as seen in the assassination of tyrants in ancient Greece and Rome, and by the Zealots of Palestine and the Hashashin of medieval Islam. In the nineteenth century, terrorism became associated with anarchist bombings and with murders and destruction of property by nationalist groups such as the Armenians and Turks. Today terrorism is a strategy practiced by a diverse group of movements. The religious, ethnic, or political movements and minorities now practising terrorism seek to obtain the advantages of the majority, and to extract revenge against those states and majority populations that the terrorist groups perceive as oppressors. Terrorist groups seek the political freedom, privilege, and property they think persecution has denied them.

Whereas religious fanaticism is responsible for approximately 20 percent of international terrorist incidents, the primary goals of most terrorist groups are independence and statehood. Terrorists are often "international homeless," whose main objective is to obtain for themselves a territory and state they can control. But it would be a mistake to lump all terrorist movements together; although they share violent tactics, often crossing national borders, terrorist movements are more diverse than they are similar.

One increasingly active category of terrorist group is international organized crime (IOC). In the "borderless" globalized world, organized crime sindicates can easily use sophisticated computer and telecommunications technology to network with one another to expand their operations and profits. Global gangsters are succeeding in the use of terror and death in pursuit of wealth. The drug cartels dealing in the illegal sale of cocaine are an example of the inability of law enforcement agencies to thwart these terrorist activities.

Another attribute of modern or "postmodern" terrorism has to do with the relationship of terrorists to the state. When viewing the activities of contemporary terrorist groups, it is safe to conclude that the actions of most of these nonstate actors undermine the authority and sovereignty of existing states. However, state terrorism must also be included in any objective assessment, for some of the most ruthless acts of violent terrorism have been practised by states' governments against people within their own borders. Historical examples of state terrorism include the "reign of terror" by the French revolutionary government in 1793 against the counterrevolutionary opposition, the violence practised by Russian Bolsheviks after 1917 against their opponents (especially by the repressive regime of Joseph Stalin), and the actions of the genocidal Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler in Germany, which killed millions in the 1930s and 1940s. The state, in short, can and has fought back against opposition to its sovereign authority with terrorist tactics sometimes more militant and destructive than those used by insurgents and revolutionaries, and has used state-sponsored terrorism to support the governments' foreign policy goals against foreign adversaries. We should therefore not underestimate states' capacity and willingness to combat by force challengers to their sovereignty and perceived national interests.

Exercises: