Introduction:介紹

據(jù)聯(lián)邦調(diào)查局（FBI）“恐怖主義”的定義，恐怖主義劃分為這樣兩種類型的“國(guó)際恐怖主義”和“國(guó)內(nèi)恐怖主義”（FBI2014年）。無(wú)論這兩個(gè)恐怖主義的一切表征所涉及暴力行為或行為危險(xiǎn)的違反聯(lián)邦或州法律人的生命（FBI2014年）的活動(dòng)。事實(shí)上，“恐怖主義”，這有其歷史根源和社會(huì)根源，成為整個(gè)世界上最上面的一個(gè)隱患。此外，它也是各種類型的真實(shí)世界之間的利益和病癥的產(chǎn)品最后反映復(fù)雜，艱巨和保護(hù)性的性質(zhì)。在當(dāng)今世界，它也帶來(lái)了一些危害到我們的社會(huì)和人類，尤其是發(fā)生在美國(guó)的9/11災(zāi)難。這個(gè)大的沖擊，人們?cè)诿绹?guó)目睹了2001年9月11日，直接導(dǎo)致“反恐戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)”，這是美國(guó)政府宣稱的創(chuàng)建。
According to the definition of “terrorism” from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it classifies terrorism into such two types as “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism” (FBI 2014). Both of the two terrorism all characterize the activity that is involved violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law (FBI 2014). In fact, “terrorism”, which has its historical and social roots, became the top one hazard around the entire world. Moreover, it is also the product of various types of interests and disorders among the real world, finally reflecting on its nature of complexity, arduousness and protractiveness.  In the contemporary world, it also brought about several dangers to our societies and human beings, especially the disaster happened in United States in 9/11. This big shock that people witnessed in United States on September 11, 2001 directly resulted the creation of “War On Terrorism”, which was claimed by US government. 
與此同時(shí)，911之后，，美國(guó)人民持續(xù)安全意識(shí)增強(qiáng)，以及有關(guān)了很多關(guān)于他們的自由和人權(quán)。這是可以理解的，但是，沒(méi)有理由過(guò)度延長(zhǎng)恐怖主義的覆蓋面。美國(guó)的過(guò)度敏感性制成其用于確定該活動(dòng)是恐怖主義的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，也可以擴(kuò)大。從文章“反恐戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)”行情，但在2002年6月描述的美國(guó)總統(tǒng)布什的聲明在畢業(yè)班西點(diǎn)軍校的是，打擊恐怖主義應(yīng)該是保持“人的尊嚴(yán)的不可轉(zhuǎn)讓的需求戰(zhàn)斗中，法治，對(duì)國(guó)家和平等正義的力量極限“（2013沙阿）。Meanwhile, after 9/11, American people sustained a heightened sense of security, and concerned a lot about their freedom and human rights. It is understandable, however, not reasonable to over extend the coverage of terrorism. America’s over-sensitiveness made the criteria, which was used to determine if the activity is terrorism, to be broadened. Quoted from the article “War On Terror”, it described President Bush’s statement in the graduation class of West Point Military Academy in June 2002 that, the fight against terrorism should be a fight to preserve “the non-negotiable demands of human dignity, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state and equal justice” (Shah 2013). However, the statement and persistence of the Bush Administration triggered the public to consider deeply about if the “war on terrorism” is a good way to against terror, and, if US government intended to extend the influence of “war on terrorism”? What is more, the public also is questioning about whether or not the time and efforts that people spend on counter-terrorism is not efficient and productive. Not least, what are the true measures that can be took in resolve “terrorism’ issue? The following two sections are sitting in analyzing these above questions.

Section One: Over-extending War On Terrorism第一部分：在延伸反恐戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)

Since 9/11, terrorist constantly occurred very often, and terrorist threats also increased unceasingly. According to “Issues-War On Terror”, up to the present time, the number of terrorists that caused over a hundred people to damage or dead is more than 50 (Discover the networks 2014). 7 of 50 were produced to over 500 people’s death or serious damage (Discover the networks 2014). Overall, the fact is that terrorists are increasing usual, often and intensive after 9/11. Severely, along with the furious occasions of terrorists, terror also becomes organized, global, connected, multiple, and secluded. So therefore, “war on terrorism” emerged at an urgent time to fight against terrors around the world. Even though “war on terrorism” is rolling on with full force, large-scale terrorists still appeared frequently. At this high time, US played an indispensable role in ruling the world order and protecting the world security. But the other issue is also occurred: overextending problem. Frankly saying, the main reason for US to taking over this responsibility is to firm the status of monopoly (Ledeen 2003, p.35). The following two parts can be used to state why the “war on terrorism” has been over-extended, and, what are the influences of overextending issue.
On one hand, talking about the inside reasons of the appearance of terrorists, it is hard to leave the divergence among different countries or cultures in politics, economy, culture, religion, etc. Importantly, poverty issue should be another significant factor in causing “terrorism”. Afterwards, different and extreme disparity in politics likewise made the occasion of terrorism. Finally, distinguished religions are very easy to create the opposite attitudes, which might bring about terrorism as well. Hence, the above elements that caused terrorism show that terrorism can be solved step by step based on the good associations, adjustments and communications. If the world can hold the attitude of resolving the “terror issue” in a peaceful way, “war on terrorism” should not be over-extended. Unfortunately, the current fact is United States, after suffering from 9/11, took over the duty of protecting not just US citizens, but the whole world in defensing terrorists. Thus, their carefulness and over-sensitiveness led the “terrorism issue” become more severe as well as increase the difficulties in releasing the seriousness of terrorist.
Taking Middle Asia as an example to discuss about the overextending of “terror”, US government, as a hegemony leadership status in the world, often strongly impart the American style of thinking and democracy into Middle Asians without considering their cultures and religions (Discover The Networks 2014). This behavior finally caused another new terrorist events in that area because of US’s monopolization, especially in the president Bush time. In this case, the terrorist should not be happened at that time and in this area, but it also happened lastly. This unique reason to explain is the disparity in different countries and the inappropriate attitude in extending the issue. The real and reasoning acts US and the whole world should do is to ensure the organization of terrorists, the purpose, as well as the proof, for avoiding hurting certain innocent citizens. 
On the other hand, the trend of overextending “war on terrorism” was created under the political influence of President Bush. The Bush Administration seized the opportunity to promote and emphasize US’s leadership status among the world through fighting against “terrorism”(Transcript 2006). Because of this, the Bush Administration often declared the importance of “war on terrorism”, reflecting on not only watching the Middle Asia area, but also shifting strongly to unilateralism and influencing living qualities of domestic citizens. 
From the perspective of shifting policy, President Bush went continuously the way of President Clinton, who was a supporter of unilateralism. However, the difference between these two governors is President Bush took a lot more tough acts in implementing this policy, but President Clinton did not (Malone &Khong 2003, p.3). In a sense, unilateralism is another stimuli to cause the overextending issue (Malone &Khong 2003, p.2). For instance, interrupting talks with North Korea, bombing Iraq, and Quitting Kyoto Protocol are US’s specific acts in extending hostility and dissatisfactory between poor areas and developed countries (Malone &Khong 2003, p.17). The result of extending is the increasing numbers of terrorists. 
Furthermore, from an elder named Harry Taylor, he stood out and complained about Bush’s improper acts in detecting citizens’ private calls and text messages in order to avoid the violence of terrorists (Yi 2006). During the Bush governance’s period, most Americans felt panic and intensive in living commonly and happily. Thus, from this perspective, overextending “war on terrorism” also affected Americans’ living qualities and happiness degree to some extents. 

Section Two: Assessment of if the level of the defense on counter-terrorism is unproductive第二節(jié)：如果對(duì)反恐防御水平是非生產(chǎn)性評(píng)估

With the mature functions and increasing improvement in drone airstrike, it becomes to play a key role in fighting, especially in counter-terrorism. However, the most recent news proved that drone strike is not that productive and effective, as previously imagining. From UN survey report that released on the 18th, said that US frequently deployed unmanned attack aircraft in the world shooter terrorists suspects insofar led at least 500 casualties killing in civilians (Dehan 2013). What is more, this report also show that in Afghanistan, the Argentine in the past 18 months there have been 31 common civilians died in the drone attacks (Dehan 2013). Same as Yemen, the drone strike in Yemen also killed up to 58 people (Dehan 2013). The above statistics can directly stand out drone strike’s ineffectiveness in counter-terrorism, because it will result to another unnecessary kills in common citizens. 

Even though United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights and counter-terrorism investigation blamed U.S that the movement in Yemen did violate international humanitarian law, U.S did not care much about the declaration (Dehan 2013). From the speech of White House Speaker: Jay Carney, the drone strike from U.S was not only followed by U.S Federal Laws, but also by International Laws (Hopkins 2013). The reason, provided by U.S, of using drone strike is to avoid other unnecessary kills, but not increase kills.
Drone strike, a so-called useful technique to protect the world, is actually not a real and effective way to maintain the world order and peace. What really matters in counter-terrorism is not using what types of weapons or technologies, but really adjusting the contradictions. Since “terrorism” is a deformed socially and politically phenomenon and insecure threats, it should be considered as a political issue, which requires the whole world tries to resolve it from a higher viewpoint, but not just a war or military issue. Therefore, the integrated counter-terrorism is created, when President Obama aware of the core of “terrorism” (Hopkins 2013). Overall, the world must make endeavors to relief the severe global situations, decrease the numbers of poor populations, and increase the anti-terrorism coordination. The above three measures should be treated as an efficient and productive way to protect the peace of the world.
From the perspective of decreasing populations of the poor, the primary issue should be concentrated on how to reduce the differences between the poor and the rich as well as the developing and the developed. Under the influence of 2008 financial crisis, the process of decreasing poor populations sharply slowed down. According to the article in Finance China, it describes that the fundamental solution in decreasing the economic inequality issue is to make reformations or transformations in economic growing model (Finance China 2014). This reformation should be a global activity, because only doing that it is possible to find a developing balance in developed countries and developing countries. For those developed countries, such as U.S and U.K, they should modify their economic growing model with largely relying on debts. Alternatively, for those developing countries, especially in China, India, Middle Asia countries, they should build up a type of model with perfectly relying on domestic demands. It is understandable that every transformation is tough and miserable to get through. However, this time, it is a must for the entire world on the ground it is the unique and beneficial method to solve the “terrorism” issue. After releasing the economic inequality pressure from developed countries, the order of their countries and the world would be more stable, firm, fair and healthy. So therefore, simply using drone strike should not be a smart and productive way to protect the world.
From the perspective of increasing the coordination of anti-terrorism, the main issue should be focused on getting rid of unilateralism, but choosing multilateralism. Indeed, the struggle between using unilateralism and multilateralism does exist for a while in United Nation. At the present time, the most voices are inclining to support multilateralism on the ground that the implement of unilateralism will increase the possibilities of overextending issue. 
According to Madrid Terror Talks, the world reached several agreements in the coordination of counter-terrorism some time, such as how to exert the function of United Nation, or, how to avoid the violation via Internet, media and religion (Malone &Khong 2003, pp.76-8). Based on realizing the importance of respect and coordination, in the future years, multilateralism will be a trendy in solving the “terrorism” issue. Multilateralism emphasizes more on the inclusiveness, diversity, openness and fairness, resulting it to achieve the goal of creating a new world peaceful order. So therefore, figuring out a new and firm world order is the other productive method in protecting the world’s security as well as fighting the terrorists. Unilateralism, mainly depending on weapon, should not be helpful in solving the issue, but hardening the problem.

Conclusion: 總結(jié)

“Terrorism” is not a fresh new issue, but a historical one. It is not ended in human conflicting, but standing in the stage of the world as a new form, which is more organized, connected, smart, etc. In fact, the main origin of “terrorism” was stemmed from the negative impact of globalization. Specifically, the organizations of “terrorism” are the losers during the process of globalization and civilization. Developed and poor countries or areas, as a primary group of “terrorist”, cannot look for the economic and social balance under the current ego, resulting the violations happened. 
Based upon the present situations of “terrorist” and “counter-terrorism”, the intensive condition was produced largely by the occasionally expansion of anti-“terrorist”. To U.S, they strongly and persistently using unilateralism policy to press the “terrorist” or related violations would unceasingly increase the difficulties in solving the “terrorist” issue. Moreover, because of the disparity of attitudes in “terrorist”, U.S did have a not harmony relationship in the whole world, which is not beneficial for both U.S and the global world.
Although “terrorism” brings the world a lot more kills and disorders, it still provides the world a timing and chance to build up a new global order and formation in order to well develop. After exploiting the insider of the occasion of “terrorism”, the solutions are becoming more and more clear, such as improving the global development both in economy and society, increasing the realization of different countries, and fostering the trusts among various countries or cultures. Apparently, fighting against the “terrorists” needs a big scale of world coordination and integration. This kind of integration does not only represent the coordination among developed countries, but also the long-term and close communications between developed areas and developing areas. Thus if they can try to truly associate and coordinate, the world will be more peaceful and ordered. And these above might be the last methods the world can use to reduce the appearances of “terrorism” and “terrorist” threats. 

Lists of Reference文獻(xiàn)

Dehan Y 2013, United States: the U.S Drone Airstrike Kills 500 Civilians, 20 October, Viewed 10 May 2014.
Discover The Networks 2014, War On Terror, Viewed 11 May 2014.
Finance China 2014, Global Inequality, Viewed 10 May 2014.
FBI 2014, Definition of Terrorism, Viewed 10 May 2014.
Hopkins N 2013, US Drone Attacks ‘Counter-Productive’, Former Obama Security Adviser Claims, 07 January, Viewed 10 Mayb 2014.
Ledeen M A. 2003, The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win. St. Martin’s Griffin. US
Malone D M &Khong Y F. 2003, Unilateralism & U.S Foreign Policy: International Perspective. LynnerRinner. USA
Shah, A 2013, War On Terror, 07 October, Viewed 10 May 2014.
Transcript 2006, President Bush’s Speech on Terrorism, 06 September, Viewed 11 May 2014.
Yi Z 2006, Bush’s Plan on Counter-Terror, 06 April, Viewed 10 May 2014.

本文編號(hào)：34895