W

ave theory in international relations refers to four waves to explain modern terrorism and how the concept of terrorism and political violence has developed over time from being an anarchist concept (associated with political activism) to being associated with religion (such as suicide bombings that harm civilians). The theory attempts to provide an understanding of terrorist groups based on studying the history of terrorism over four 40-year-long phases and the use of tactics, theology, shared characteristics, and the future vision of terrorist groups. Introduced by David C. Rapoport at the University of California in 2004, wave theory has gained much weight since its first appearance.

Four Waves of Terrorism

Rapoport argues that the first wave of modern terrorism emerged in Russia. Known as the Anarchist Wave, it started on January 24, 1878, when Vera Zasulich, an anarchist, wounded General Trepov, the governor of St. Petersburg, over his role in flogging political prisoners. The Anarchist Wave extended to 1919. Zasulich was not convicted following her trial, where she claimed, “I am a terrorist, not a killer.” Zasulich’s memorable words suggest that the concept has gone through structural changes from being “almost acceptable” and open to debate, to being extremely negative today.

The fact that Zasulich was not convicted speaks of this change. The Anarchist Wave spread to countries such as China and the United States, and was known for its use of assassinations of political figures, police officers, and state officials such as U.S. President William McKinley who was assassinated in 1901. The globalization of the Anarchist Wave left its marked on this period as Russian anarchists were able to spread their propaganda to other countries and change the characteristics of traditional terrorism as it existed before.

World War I marked the end of the Anarchist Wave and the rise of nation-states, which translated into a gradual disappearance of anarchism from public spaces. At the same time, many nations, especially in the Balkans, hoped to rid themselves of the rule of traditional colonialism – a hope that vanished with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. At the same time, groups such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which adopted a liberation discourse against British colonialism in Ireland emerged. At the same time, towards the end of the 1940s, the Zionist paramilitary group Irgun appeared in British Mandate Palestine, carrying out terrorist attacks including targeting the King David Hotel in 1946, killing hundreds of British and Palestinians.

In the 1940s, the term “terrorism” gained more negativity over targeting civilians and using excessive violence unlike the Anarchist Wave that was centered around targeted assassinations. The second wave, the Anti-Colonial Wave, was centered on a discourse based on national histories and cultures, focusing on the local rather than the global. The mid-1960s saw the end of the Anti-Colonial Wave, with most non-state actors gaining their independence, such as the National Liberation Front (FLN in French) in Algeria in 1962.

The Third Wave, also known as the New Left Wave, began in the mid-1960s, kicking off in the midst of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the Western Bloc, led by the United States. The Vietnam War saw the mobilization of the global left against the war. The Cold War allowed the Soviet Union to support anti-West forces and allowed the West to support anti-Soviet forces, which was translated into giving weapons, and political and financial support to different non-state actors, thus making the sponsorship of non-state actors involved in terrorism a state policy.

The Third Wave of terrorism was more about propaganda rather than harming people and it saw the rise of plane hijacking to send political messages or to release prisoners held by specific state actors through swaps. Tools such as radio and television were important elements in spreading the message of terrorism and political violence at the time, and terrorism was still able to maintain its global, but not globalized aspect. Assassinations, inspired by the First Wave of terrorism, were also revised during the Third Wave.

The Fourth Wave of terrorism, known as the Religious Wave, was largely inspired by the Iranian Revolution. The targeting of U.S. marines by Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1982 and the American hostage crisis in Iran which ended in 1981 following an Algerian mediation are two important examples from this wave. Although the Fourth Wave is largely associated with the Muslim world, it has also taken place in other parts or targeted Muslims such as the use of nerve gas by Aum Shinrikyo in Japan, the Ibrahimi Mosque massacre in Palestine, and the Tamil Tiger violence in Sri Lanka.

Unlike the three previous waves which were led by intellectuals, the Fourth Wave includes people of all backgrounds. This wave is ongoing and includes groups such as Al-Qaeda and Daesh, which has almost disappeared after its defeat in Iraq and Syria.

The Cold War and the Arab Spring 

The Cold War has played a major role in providing a political, military, and financial cover for non-state actors classified as terrorist by certain state actors such as the FLN in Algeria. Thanks to the politics of the Cold War, the FLN was more accepting of terms such as “revolutionary terrorism.” In the words of an FLN leader, “Urban terrorism like guerrilla warfare is the only method of expression of a crushed people.”

Yet, with the end of the Cold War, the excessive use of violence against civilians, the rise of the United States as the only superpower, the impact of 9/11 and the momentousness of harming so many civilians at once, and the politics of labeling, terrorism has become an all-negative concept. Non-state actors became preoccupied with removing themselves from terror lists by offering concessions or adopting a discourse that is more acceptable to state actors that deem them terrorist.

The Arab Spring and the sectarian politics it brought along has only emphasized the role of labeling in the terrorism debate, where regional politics, in addition to global politics, became effective in identifying a group as terrorist or not. The politics of the Cold War and the Arab Spring have contributed to making terrorism an exclusively negative concept, especially following 9/11 and the shock waves it sent across the world.

Looking at the concept of terrorism, over the span of 125 years, we see that it has emerged from being “almost acceptable” to being rejected as purely and extremely negative. Today, terrorism is a negative label and with the end of most anti-colonial struggles, it will become harder for non-state actors using violence as a tool of political expression to market their agenda to the rest of the world, especially in light of regional and global politics.

The hegemonic interpretation of the Cold War has been a struggle between a capitalist and liberal democratic Western bloc led by the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on the one hand, and a communist Eastern bloc led by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact on the other. It is certainly true that this depiction covers the two most significant alliances of the Cold War in terms of their military and economic capabilities.

However, this interpretation writes off a third category of countries, which constituted a much larger group than either the Western or the communist bloc in terms of their population: the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Inspired by the Bandung Conference in Indonesia in 1955, and formally established in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1961, it was initially spearheaded by a number of Third World leaders including Nasser, Nkrumah, Nehru, Sukarno, and Tito, the leaders of Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia, respectively.

Only three years later, led by the NAM, the “Group of 77” (G77) was established on June 15, 1964 by 77 developing countries signatories of the “Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Developing Countries” issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva. These countries already then represented, and even more so represent today, a very sizeable percentage of the world’s population. They included dozens of recently decolonized African and Asian countries as well as a few Latin American countries, but almost no European ones with the notable exception of Yugoslavia.

The NAM was not at all a one-off attempt by a group of developing, and mostly postcolonial, African and Asian countries trying to justify their refusal to ally with the Soviet Union or the United States. Rather, it was a notable step in a series of systematic and recurrent attempts and designs to chart a “third way” for what came to be known as the Global South.

These efforts continued with a call for economic justice and the need for a New International Economic Order (NIEO), culminating in the United Nations General Assembly’s (UNGA) “Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Order” on May 1, 1974.

The NAM, G77, and NIEO stoked the idealism of those who aspired to a world government.

The NAM, G77, and NIEO, launched by the same group of countries, represented the “third way” during the Cold War, and claimed the mantle of an activist kind of “neutrality.” Their activism brought energy and symbolic relevance to the UNGA in particular, with a flurry of UNGA resolutions condemning various gross violations of human rights. The NAM, G77, and NIEO also stoked the idealism of those who aspired to a world government based on the United Nations (UN), while also motivating spirited calls for a reform of the UN.

This was a sign of how seriously the UN was taken by some political and social actors at the time, especially in the Global South. These efforts contrast with the widespread cynicism vis-à-vis intergovernmental organizations, and especially the UN, at present.

In a special issue of Perceptions, the academic periodical of Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs that debated Turkey’s grand strategy, which I edited, I suggested that Turkey’s role should be that of a “third power,” supporting the independence and territorial integrity of its neighbors that have been occupied by the two rival global and regional alliances spearheaded by the United States and Russia.

The United Arab Emirates and Iran are the countries spearheading the regional operations of these U.S.-led and Russia-led global alliances, respectively, and the disastrous consequences of their interventions are observable most clearly in Syria and Yemen.

Middle powers and some former great powers are looking for a third way since the end of the US-led liberal international order and unipolarity.

Many other middle powers and even some former great powers are looking for a “third way” at present, especially since the end of the U.S.-led liberal international order and unipolarity, for which 2016 is often considered as the turning point with Brexit and Donald Trump’s election in the United States. Brazil under Lula da Silva could be considered another such example of a rising regional power that sought a third way in the emerging multipolar world order.

The efforts of Muslim countries to get together to defend their common interests and to stop genocidal massacres or the mass internment of Muslim minorities from Bosnia to Myanmar, and Kashmir to Xinjiang are yet another such example.

Having moved from a world order of liberal-socialist bipolarity (1945-1991) to one of a liberal unipolarity for about a quarter century (1991-2016), we arguably inhabit a post-socialist, post-liberal, and multipolar world order today. This is an environment, both geopolitically and ideologically, which is very propitious for the flourishing of a “third way” thinking, not (only) of the Tony Blair-Anthony Giddens variety, but along the lines of South-to-South cooperation as previously observed.

The experience of the NAM, however, also provides cautionary tales about the hijacking of such attempts at international solidarity by one or the other of the two great power alliances (such as the Soviet bloc) as well as benefiting autocratic regimes that deny the basic right to vote and competitive elections to their own citizens at home in the name of progressivism.

The Protagonist- ‘We live in a twilight world…’

Neil- ‘…no friends at dusk.’

Clandestine Russian influence in global affairs, arms dealing and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, private getaways for the super-rich, pan-national intelligence communities, private armies, free-ports (and lockdown) and the ‘science’ of using masks- these are news cycles from the past year and some of the themes both explicit and implicit that are handled in Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster film Tenet (2020). The biggest film release of last year is in many ways a mirror to the times we live in.

Nolan’s latest film develops many of his trademark styles from previous films. The ‘Protagonist’ (who has no other name and is played by American actor John David Washington) is a CIA agent who early on begins to work for the larger intelligence-type organisation Tenet which ‘transcends’ the other agency (in the words of his superior) and is trying to prevent World War III.

This lone character bears some resemblance to the theme of anonymity from Nolan’s early film Following (1998) while the structure of Tenet weaves the viewer in and out of time and often the same scene is played more than once from differing perspectives, movements and ‘temporal’ places- something first seen in his film Memento (2000) where the story unfolds backwards with the character of Leonard having amnesia and not remembering meeting the same people multiple times (although the audience is given this information); this is taken a step further in Tenet with relationships between characters (such as the Protagonist and Neil) mysterious to both themselves and the audience.

Misplaced identity is explored in Tenet in ways that hark back to The Prestige (2006) and the action sequences are fast, furious and comparable with the Batman/Dark Knight trilogy that Nolan made from 2005-2012. The dreamy theme(s) of moving back and forth through temporal space was most notably explored in Inception (2010) and Interstellar (2014) in varying ways while the attention to scientific details (including nuances of quantum physics) is again given to us but this time at even greater breakneck speed.

Tenet is a film which plays at action, science fiction and thriller while demanding rigorous work from its audience to keep up with the fast-moving and detailed parcels of information that are thrown our way; it is also a film with several political storylines that go into greater detail than the murky shadows of Gotham City, the international espionage in Inception or the near-future climate apocalypse of Interstellar. Nolan’s previous film Dunkirk (2017) addresses specific historical-political events with an accurate and dramatic flair and proves to be a bridge to Tenet’s more contemporary socio-political zeitgeist.

Temporal Cold War

Many of the nagging residuals from the cold war (1950’s-1980’s) such as the Chernobyl disaster or the rise of the super Russian Oligarch businessman are at the forefront of the film. The villain is called Andrei Sator (played by Northern Irish actor Kenneth Branagh) and is referred to by his last name which has historical connections as an ancient palindrome with magical and temporal associations; this word puzzle also includes the word Opera (which is the setting for the opening of the film), Arepo (an unseen character who is a master forger/painter of Goyas) Rotas (the name of the security firm that is central to the plot) and of course Tenet (a belief in something as well as the name of the secret organization).

The fictional ‘secret’ Soviet city of Stalsk-12 in Northern Siberia proves a perfect setting to explore the (real) repercussions of nuclear waste as well as a final battle scene. The private army reflects the increasing use of specialized forces (as well as drones) without national allegiance to cross borders/territories for their mission- in this case the highly traditional-looking armies use a ‘temporal’ pincer move and run repeated and monotonous attacks through time and space.

Science Class

Wheeler to the Protagonist ‘You are inverted- the world is not.’

Nolan has long used (real) cutting edge scientific advisors to give an authenticity to his outlandish plot narratives (most prominently in Inception and Interstellar); this continues in Tenet but takes on a level of detailed information that is less meant to be understood and used more as a presentation to make something plausible. This fits into the current political narrative which uses science less as an area that ‘builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe’ but something that convinces the general public about the benefits and plausibility of what is happening.

At a time when the general public is constantly hearing about ‘the science’ of the pandemic from experts (who have unwittingly become part of the political narrative) Tenet offers a masterclass in suspending disbelief through a mix of stunning action, superb practical effects and seamless visual effects while characters give a running commentary and tutorial on how the ‘temporal’ things are actually working.

This begins in an early scene where the scientist Barbara (played by French actress Clémence Poésy) gives a quick class in how bullets and other objects can be inverted and move backwards through time. Fellow Tenet member and companion Neil (played by English actor Robert Pattinson) fills in the knowledge gaps throughout the film as the Protagonist (and audience) try to understand the (non) narrative; by the time of the final scene at Stalsk-12 in Northern Siberia the viewer has become accustomed to the multiple and continuous inversions that feel less like ‘time travel’ and more like a scientific experiment that we don’t quite understand but know can and is happening (similar to most of the scientific laws of the world to non-scientific minds).

Incidents like wearing masks to breath your own air and protect oneself (and avoid the air of another moment in time) seem like obvious things while narrative clues like the pendent on Neil’s backpack (which was earlier glimpsed in the opera scene) are given focused audio-visual prominence to piece the story together.

International Elite

A major theme running through Tenet is how and why a small group of international jet- setters can use the globe for their own purposes. The viewer is constantly bombarded with images of the super-wealthy and the trappings of this life but finds virtually no pleasure from it at all. Scenes of extreme racing yachts to start the morning (with a near death), elite restaurants (with a brutal kitchen fight), expensive clothes (which are used by the Protagonist to look like he is part of a different ‘class’) and priceless paintings stored in warehouses (where no one can see them) abound; the tone of these moments is always fraught with anxiety and suggests more a critique of the pointless pursuit of pleasure than a celebration of it.

Free Ports also figure prominently as tax-free points across the globe that can be used to hide wealth and offer a network of entry areas for the temporal war that is taking place. Most tellingly Sator is ready to destroy the entire world (and possibly its own past?) when he (plans to) ceremoniously takes his own life in what represents the ultimate act of narcissism and which has no higher purpose (sacrifice) nor any lower purpose (conquer other nations) but simply exists out of a mix of extreme vanity and a kind of boredom experienced by those that can and do have everything material that is on offer. He describes his position to Kat as a kind of ‘…god of sorts…’

Big-Budget Experimental

Tenet is a film that asks a lot from its audiences while also belonging to a tradition of science-fiction films from Hollywood such as Terminator (1984 J. Cameron) which grapple with the narrative logistics and action of going back in time and Art Cinema such as La Jetee (1962 C. Marker) which offer a philosophical puzzle of the morals of the future helping its own past.

Some scenes such as the ones half-way through the film where Sator both shoots his wife Kat (played by Australian actress Elizabeth Debicki) and demands to know the location of the ‘plutonium 241’ (which is the final piece of the algorithm and the films’ ‘McGuffin’) are presented more like an experimental video art installation with multiple red-stained images and deliberately distorted sound to be absorbed by the viewer rather than viewed as a traditional narrative.

Classic masterpieces such as Double Indemnity (1944 B. Wilder) and Vertigo (1958 A. Hitchcock) are notorious examples of films which have been written about and canonized with confusing narratives that are still debated; Tenet may join this exclusive club as a film that offers tantalizing ruminations on the socio-political world we live in overtop a science-fiction thriller. As military commander Ives states to the Protagonist ‘stop thinking in linear terms…’

Tenet was released on DVD, Blu-Ray and Ultra HD 4K as well as VOD in December 2020

The decision by the African Union Commission, on July 22, to grant Israel observer status membership in the AU was the culmination of years of relentless Israeli efforts aimed at co-opting Africa’s largest political institution. Why is Israel so keen on penetrating Africa? What made African countries finally succumb to Israeli pressure and lobbying?

To answer the above questions, one has to appreciate the new Great Game under way in many parts of the world, especially in Africa, which has always been significant to Israel’s geopolitical designs. Starting in the early 1950s to the mid-70s, Israel’s Africa network was in constant expansion. The 1973 war, however, brought that affinity to an abrupt end.

What Changed Africa

Ghana, in West Africa, officially recognized Israel in 1956, just eight years after Israel was established atop the ruins of historic Palestine. What seemed like an odd decision at the time – considering Africa’s history of western colonialism and anti-colonial struggles – ushered in a new era of African-Israeli relations. By the early 1970s, Israel had established a strong position for itself on the continent. On the eve of the 1973 Israeli-Arab war, Israel had full diplomatic ties with 33 African countries.

“The October War”, however, presented many African countries with a stark choice: siding with Israel – a country born out of Western colonial intrigues – or the Arabs, who are connected to Africa through historical, political, economic, cultural and religious bonds. Most African countries opted for the latter choice. One after the other, African countries began severing their ties with Israel. Soon enough, no African state, other than Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland, had official diplomatic relations with Israel.

Then, the continent’s solidarity with Palestine went even further. The Organization of African Unity – the precursor to the African Union – in its 12th ordinary session held in Kampala in 1975, became the first international body to recognize, on a large scale, the inherent racism in Israel’s Zionist ideology by adopting Resolution 77 (XII). This very Resolution was cited in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in November of that same year, which determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. Resolution 3379 remained in effect until it was revoked by the Assembly under intense American pressure in 1991.

Since Israel remained committed to that same Zionist, racist ideology of yesteryears, the only rational conclusion is that it was Africa, not Israel, that changed. But why?

Since Israel remained committed to that same Zionist, racist ideology of yesteryears, the only rational conclusion is that it was Africa, not Israel, that changed. But why?

First, the collapse of the Soviet Union. That seismic event resulted in the subsequent isolation of pro-Soviet African countries which, for years, stood as the vanguard against American, Western and, by extension, Israeli expansionism and interests on the continent.

Tellingly, Washington does not only serve as Israel’s benefactor in Palestine and the Middle East, but worldwide as well, and Israel is willing to go to any length to exploit the massive leverage it holds over the US government. This stifling paradigm, which has been at work in the Middle East region for decades, is also at work throughout Africa. For example, last year the US administration agreed to remove Sudan from the state-sponsored terror list in exchange for Khartoum’s normalization with Israel.

In truth, Sudan is not the only country that understands – and is willing to engage in – this kind of ‘pragmatic’ – read under-handed – political barter. Others also have learned to play the game well. Indeed, by voting to admit Israel to the AU, some African governments expect a return on their political investment, a return that will be exacted from Washington, not from Tel Aviv.

Unfortunately, albeit expectedly, as Africa’s normalization with Israel grew, Palestine became increasingly a marginal issue on the agendas of many African governments, who are far more invested in realpolitik – or simply remaining on Washington’s good side – than honoring the anti-colonial legacies of their nations.

Netanyahu the Conqueror

However, there was another driving force behind Israel’s decision to ‘return’ to Africa than just political opportunism and economic exploitation. Successive events have made it clear that Washington is retreating from the Middle East and that the region was no longer a top priority for the dwindling American empire. For the US, China’s decisive moves to assert its power and influence in Asia are largely responsible for the American rethink.

The 2012 US withdrawal from Iraq, its ‘leadership from behind’ in Libya, its non-committal policy in Syria, among others, were all indicators pointing to the inescapable fact that Israel could no longer count on the blind and unconditional American support alone. Thus, the constant search for new allies began.

For the first time in decades, Israel began confronting its prolonged isolation at the UNGA. America’s vetoes at the UN Security Council may have shielded Israel from accountability to its military occupation and war crimes; but US vetoes were hardly enough to give Israel the legitimacy that it has long coveted. In a recent conversation with former UN human rights envoy, Richard Falk, the Princeton Professor Emeritus explained to me that, despite Israel’s ability to escape punishment, it is rapidly losing what he refers to as the ‘legitimacy war’.

Palestine, according to Falk, continues to win that war, one that can only be achieved through real, grassroots global solidarity. It is precisely this factor that explains Israel’s keen interest in transferring the battlefield to Africa and other parts of the Global South.

On July 5, 2016, then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, kick-started Israel’s own ‘scramble for Africa’ with a visit to Kenya, which was described as historic by the Israeli media. Indeed, it was the first visit by an Israeli prime minister in the last 50 years. After spending some time in Nairobi, where he attended the Israel-Kenya Economic Forum alongside hundreds of Israeli and Kenyan business leaders, he moved on to Uganda, where he met leaders from other African countries including South Sudan, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Within the same month, Israel announced the renewal of diplomatic ties between Israel and Guinea.

The new Israeli strategy flowed from there. More high-level visits to Africa and triumphant announcements about new joint economic ventures and investments followed. In June 2017, Netanyahu took part in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in the Liberian capital, Monrovia. There, he went as far as rewriting history.

“Africa and Israel share a natural affinity,” Netanyahu claimed in his speech. “We have, in many ways, similar histories. Your nations toiled under foreign rule. You experienced horrific wars and slaughters. This is very much our history.” With these words, Netanyahu attempted, not only to hide Israel’s colonial intentions, but also rob Palestinians of their own history.

Moreover, the Israeli leader had hoped to crown his political and economic achievements with the Israel-Africa Summit, an event that was meant to officially welcome Israel, not to a specific African regional alliance, but to the whole of Africa. However, in September 2017, the organizers of the event decided to indefinitely postpone it, after it was confirmed to be taking place in Lome, capital of Togo, on October 23-27 of that same year. What was seen by Israeli leaders as a temporary setback was the result of intense, behind-the-scenes lobbying of several African and Arab countries, including South Africa and Algeria.