Download Understanding Terrorism: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis and more Summaries Political Science in PDF only on Docsity!
Terrorism: A conceptual Analysis
Terrorism is violence. But all violence is not terrorism. To understand this, the need is have a ground on the basis of which acts of terrorism can be identified separately from other forms of violence. Attempt is not made here to develop a definition to capture either the entirety of the issues involved into terrorism or which could be universally/generally acceptable. In social sciences the meaning of any term does not remain static and constant. It changes as the politics and society change. Generality or universal consensus in this field is a rarity. It is rather not possible. Most often, concepts and terminologies are essentially contested. Every definition necessarily reflects some position.i^ All seeing as Friedrich Nietzsche argues is from some perspective or another.ii
This paper approaches the subject technically/objectively rather than moralistically. It tries to analyze the subject from the perspective that a terrorist is a terrorist for everyone. For so doing, the subject is approached in the light of the understanding of the past and the present usages and conceptualizations of terrorism. It does not reject the earlier studies on the subject but builds on them. It seeks to establish common ground whereby terrorism can be distinguished from other forms of violence/struggles by identifying its organizing features. In this paper, an attempt is made to develop a common ground for distinguishing it from other forms of violence. It is here that attempts are made to construct a functional/working definition of terrorism.
Terrorism is a term of convenience. No one appears to be speaking neutrally about it. It is applied across the spectrum of violence. It is applied to times of war and peace, to the actions of the states, groups and individuals. Countries define it according to their own beliefs and national interests. International institutions try to define it in the interests of their powerful states. Academics do so invariably injecting their values into their efforts. Those who side with terrorists openly or tacitly approve it as people’s warfare. And the media gives it its own meanings and colors. Virtually any act of violence that is perceived as directed against
state/society whether it involves the activities of anti-government dissidents/separatist or governments themselves, organized crime syndicates or common criminals, rioting mobs or persons engaged in militant protest, individual psychotics or lone extortionist is commonly labeled as terrorism. These generals use of the term terrorism devoid it of any credible and useful meaning. It becomes synonymous to describing violent conflicts of all sizes and shapes carried out throughout human history both by governments and against them and in between different sections of the society. The vagueness with which it is commonly used makes it indistinguishable from other forms of violence so it is imperative here to limit it to a specific type of phenomena/activity distinguishable from other forms of violence not only in order to understand it but also to develop both political and legal responses to it.
History of Terrorism. Terrorism is not a modern invention. It is as old as the human civilization. It can be traced back to antiquity: from Babylonian, Byzantine, Greek, Hindu, and Christian to Islamic civilizations.iii^ Tyrannical regimes used terror as an instrument of repression and control. They used to terrify their opponents into submission. At the same time, individuals or groups also assassinated tyrants. Terror, in ancient times, was used as a means for achieving ends both by regimes and opponents of regimes. However during the period, the term terrorism; neither acquired any specific meaning nor was given any conscious recognition as a means to an end.
It was during Middle Ages that a sect/group known as the Assassinsiv^ used violence to terrorize through means of selective assassinations of their enemy leaders. Through the use of selective killings, they spread fear and terror throughout the Middle East.v^ Terrorism continued after the demise of the Assassins but it was not given any conscious treatment and so no specified meaning. The next significant period in evolution of terrorism was the aftermath of French Revolution, which gave birth to the very term terror, derivative of the French word “terrere”. Terror was seen as a method of rooting out the opponents of the regime to encourage others to give their support to the revolutionary government.vi^ From French Revolution, it acquired a specific meaning that was/is official use of terror for control and submission of the
The very question of definition of terrorism is highly contentious. Its multiple meanings, the rapid change of meaning in the vernacular and the different emotional responses or perhaps prejudices, create difficulties in defining and understanding terrorism. A major part of the problem stems from the semantically and terminologically differences resulting from the varying interpretations given to terrorist actions by academics, politicians and mass media. The important issue is the question of morality involved with violence. For humans there comes a point/time when violence is regarded as justified. Almost as a corollary, justifiable violence in the eyes of one group is unjustified in the eyes of another. We regard certain violence as bad and certain other as good. Does the morality of violence depend on who starts it? Does it depend on culture, religion or other social values and norms? Does it depend on the methods and/or ways of waging it? When it is sanctioned and who sanctions it. Is it law or the society that decides it? Calling an act violent is tantamount to an acknowledgement that it does require justification. And judging violence inevitably involves interpretation, and differences of interpretation may be as important in accounting for conflicting reactions to particular episodes of violence as differences in basic norms about what is right or wrong. One scholar in this regard points out that what is called terrorism seems to depend upon one’s point of view. Use of term implies a moral judgment and if one group can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponents, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral and political point of view, or at least reject the terrorist’s view. Terrorism is what bad guys do. This drawing of boundaries between what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, between the right way to fight and the wrong way to fight, politically/morally problematic to define definition. This subjectivity, ethics or morality of terrorism is summed up in the dictum that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.xi This question of morality is the question of position. And the position is related to perspective. Those involved in terrorism and those who support terrorists have a very different viewpoint from others.xiiThis gives birth to a situation where mostly a person who identifies himself/herself with the target community or the government thinks that terrorists are criminals while a person who identifies himself/herself with the terrorist thinks of them as soldiers at war risking their lives for their community or the cause. To avoid this position that if you disagree with my position you are a terrorist and if you agree with my position you are not a terrorist, terrorism ought to be defined by the nature of the act itself. In matters of morality states claim that they have right to use violence/force under different pretext and circumstances. The fact is states do
not operate in a moral vacuum. International community has evolved the rules of conduct and behavior. And states seek to justify their actions by reference to these norms and values.xiii Besides- this, states in their internal/territorial domain justify their actions in the context of interest of the states and their citizens.xiv^ Moreover state is conceptualized in terms of force and violence. Weber, for example, identifies the state as that human community, which, within, a given territory claims for itself the legitimate monopoly of physical violence.xv^ In the origin of state, in its growth, in its present control over its members, and in its relation to other states, force is proclaimed to be not only its last resort, but also its just principle, not only its special weapon, but inherent in its very being.xviConceptually state and violence are intimately bound up with one another.
Defining Terrorism
With the passage of time and new investigations carried out on the subject, it is seen, more and more, as a planned, calculated, systematic and well thought out act of violence. The underlying assumption that runs through virtually all of the literature on the subject is that terrorism is a special form of violence. One very significant at defining terrorism was made Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman who collected 109 academic and official definitions and analyzed them in search for their main components.xvii^ Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman in their work used both official and non-official (academic) definitions. What is interesting is that the official definitions of terrorism are fairly similar and their common elements are the use of violence, political objectives, and the intention of creation of terror in a target population. And in comparison of official definitions, the non-official ones are more diverse, although most of them contain the three elements of official definitions.xviii^ These three delineated elements together do not make a useful working definition, as they do not provide the ground to distinguish between terrorism and other forms of violence. The outcome of their contribution is that terrorism is seen as political violence intended to produce fear.xix^ They provide no common ground on the basis of which inclusion and exclusion of acts of violence different from terrorism can be done. For building an organizing concept of terrorism it is essential to identify its distinguishing characteristics so it could be delineated from forms of violence.
Definitional Characteristics
Terrorism is not a synonym for violence in general. It denotes a special mode of violence, which may be distinguished conceptually and practically from other forms of violence. It is a means used to pursue a variety of ends. It is calculated to alter the attitudes and behavior of multiple audiences. It comes in variety of ways.. Despite debate and controversy over the definition, the core characteristics of the term are agreed upon within the literature. These include the presence
iii (^) Crenshaw, Martha, and John Pimlott. Encyclopedia of world terrorism. Vol. 2. Sharpe Reference, New York, 1997. P.97; Hoffman, Bruce. Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press, 2013; Chaliand, Gérard, and Arnaud Blin. The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda iv. Univ of California Press, 2007. Crenshaw, Martha, and John Pimlott. Encyclopedia of world terrorism. Vol. 2. Sharpe Reference, New York,
- P.38; Taheri, Amir. Holy terror: Inside the world of Islamic terrorism. Adler & Adler Publishers, 1987. Pp. 36-
- The Assassins was a fanatical and murderous sect active in the Middle East from the eleventh century to thirteenth century. They were members of the Ismaili branch of Shia Islam. The Ismailis seized power in Egypt in the tenth century and founded the Fatimid dynasty. At the end of eleventh century, a schism occurred in the Fatimide leadership. The Ismaili missionaries living in Iran supported Nizar in the ensuing power struggle, which became known as Nizari Ismailis. When Nizar was defeated, the leader of the Nizari Ismailis in Iran, Hasan-i Sabbah seized the castle of Alamut in A1burz Mountains South of Caspian Sea. There he dedicated himself to spreading the Ismaili Islam and formed a group of terrorist to help him in his quest. They saw themselves as the missionaries of God and spreading His massage was a divine and sacred mission for them. Hashish was allegedly their most widely used narcotic and dagger their weapon. Nizaris rarely made any attempt to escape after carrying out the mission, which led to belief that they acted under the influence of drugs. However it is due to the widespread stories of drug taking that earned Nizaris their name, as Assassins. But the stories of drug taking are probably not true as drugged person would hardly be an effective missionary to kill. The sect became known as Hashishiyya, Hashishiyyin or Hashishin. The Christian Crusaders carried these words with them to Europe in the form of Assassins, which later became common in many European languages. v vi Bernard, Lewis. The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam. Octagon, New York,1980. Pp.30, 130, 134. Calvert, Peter. “Terror in the Theory of Revolution.” Terrorism, Ideology & Revolution: The Origins of Modern Political Violence vii (1986): 31-36. This is not a precise term. This imprecision is due to the wide variety of political and social theories under this heading. The popular meaning of anarchism is that society exists without the government. Harmony is obtained not by submission to law or by obedience to established authority but by free agreement between the various groups of society. This is based on the belief in the existence of a dormant revolutionary popular energy, which could be unleashed by propaganda or by terror. However by definition it stands for fixed belief in the rejection of all ruling authority. For details see: Tuchman, B W, The Proud Tower: A History of the Populist and Socialist Movem 19th ents inCentury Russia, 1960, Knopf; New York. As a result of this movement, six heads of state lost their lives in the two decades that preceded the World War 1; among them were President Mckinley of the United States and Czar Alexander of Russia. See Harold J. Vetter and Gary R. Perlstein, no. 8. Pp.31-32. viii (^) Laqueur, Walter. The age of terrorism. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1987. pp.48-51; Wardlaw, Grant. Political terrorism: Theory, tactics and counter-measures. Cambridge University Press, 1989. P.21; Malik, Omar. Enough of the Definition of Terrorism ix. Royal Inst. of International Affairs, Great Britain, 2000. pp.26- The use of the term terrorists was not uniform in every case. In Malaya, they were usually referred to as bandits and elsewhere by another name. x Guelke, Adrian. The Age of Terrorism and International Political System, I.B. Tauris Publishers, London, 1975. p.2. It is therefore not surprising that the overwhelming majority of books and articles with the term terrorism in their titles should date from 1970s and 1980s. It also does not mean that the term itself is the invention of the same period. xi (^) Aiken, Sharryn J. "Manufacturing'Terrorists': Refugees, National Security and Canadian Law, Part 1." National Security and Canadian Law, Part 1.19 (2000): 54-127; Simon, Jeffrey David. The terrorist trap: America's experience with terrorism. Indiana University Press, 2001. p. 44; Joe Rogaly, Financial Times, 12 November 1987; Ahmad, Eqbal. Terrorism: theirs & ours. Seven Stories Press, 2011; United States Department of State, Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1987, 1988, Washington D.C. pp.41 and 65. In the World War Second, the German occupation forces labeled all members of resistance groups as terrorist, the latter, however, thought of thcmselvcs as patriots and freedom fighters. The Jews formed their own militant groups, including the Irgun Zvai Leumi, or the National Military Organization, under the command of the future Israeli Prime Minister Mehachem Begin. By 1944, the terrorists of Palestine, who were Zionists, suddenly began to be described as freedom fighters. At least two Israeli
Prime Ministers, Mehachem Begin and Yizhak Shamir, appearing in Wanted posters saying TERRORIST FOR REWARD. The highest award offered at the time was 100,000 British pound for the head off Mehachem Begin. British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher and American State Department branded African National Congress (ANC) as terrorist organization that was the expression of their subjective biases and prejudices. President Reagan called Afghan Mujahedeen, the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. In 1985, they were battling the “Evil Empire”. Thirteen years later, they were on the Americas hit list. xii In nineteenth century many Russian anarchist had no objections on being labeled as terrorist. They felt proud to be labeled as terrorists. This is not the case with contemporary terrorists and their sympathizers. xiii Yoram, Dinstein. "The interaction of international Law and justice." Israel Yearbook of Human rights 16 (1986): 9-42. xiv Palmer, Robert Roswell. Twelve who Ruled: The Committee of Public Safety, During the Terror. Princeton University Press, 1941. P.226; Crenshaw, Martha, and John Pimlott. Encyclopedia of world terrorism. Vol. 2. Sharpe Reference, New York, 1997. P.21. For Robespierre, terror was viewed as the only way to save the Revolution from anarchy at home and threat of invasion from abroad by the European monarchs. He justified his actions in his February 1795 declaration by saying that "terror is nothing else than immediate justice, severe, inflexible, it is therefore an outflow of virtue, it is not so much a specific principle as consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to most pressing needs of the motherland". Even when these threats subsided, he continued to use terror to stay in power and to mold the people into single will. xv Mills, Charles Wright, and Hans Heinrich Gerth, eds. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Oxford University Press, 1958. P.78. xvi xviiMacIver, Robert Morrison. The modern state. Oxford University Press, New York. (Reprinted in 1960). P. 221. Schmid, Alex, and Albert Jongman. "Political Terrorism: A New Guide to Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, and Literature .Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N Jersey, 1988; Simon, Jeffrey David. The terrorist trap: America's experience with terrorism. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2001. ). There exits more than 200 definitions of terrorism across the world, 90 of them are used by Governments and other institutions. xviii xix Merari, Ariel. “Terrorism as a Strategy of Insurgency.”^ Terrorism and Political Violence^ 5.4 (1993):215. Jongman, Albert J. Political terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts, data bases, theories, and literature. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N Jersey, 1988. P.28. Within the 109 definitions they identified 22 word categories. Given that 19 of these 22 elements were cited in less than 50 percent of the 109 constituent definitions, it would strain logic to derive a definition from them. Only three elements were included more often than they were omitted.
