Terrorist: who's, who's not
By Iqbal Jafar
The war on terrorism, declared last autumn, has raged through the winter, spring, now summer, and shall not cease, we are told, for years to come. In fact, as US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld mused before the press very early on, the war on terrorism being a clash between good and evil could go on for ever.
No one can say for sure how the future would unfold, but for the present the world has been divided neatly into those who are against terrorism and those who are not; the forces of good reign supreme and the forces of evil are at bay. But since we are not living in the best of the possible worlds, our worries are not over. There is, despite overwhelming success against 'evil', an annoying little problem: no one is quite certain what terrorism is, who is a terrorist, and what do the terrorists want. In fact, the last question is not even expected to be raised in polite society.
The extent of the difference of opinion on these questions is reflected in the fact that there are, according to Walter Laqueur, more than one hundred definitions of terrorism. Can it be that an honest, all-inclusive, and impartial view of terrorism is not possible in today's polarized and angry world? Could one suggest that terrorism, or at least its intensity, cannot be reduced until the international community accepts and applies a fair and true definition of terrorism?
But even before making an attempt to propose a fair definition of terrorism one should, perhaps, mention that terrorism is not a recent invention of Muslim fanatics. It is an interesting fact of history, and should be a sobering thought for more enthusiastic critics of Palestinians, that in Palestine itself, supposedly the hub of present-day terrorist activities, the history of terrorism can be traced as far back as 2000 years when a group of Jewish holy warriors (zealots) rose in revolt against the Romans in 66 AD. The Romans called them sicarri (the bearers of dagger) as they went about slitting the throats of Romans and their collaborators with their hidden daggers, publicly in crowds, especially at festival times. The zealots did finally manage to invite the wrath of the then superpower, as others have in our times.
The rebellion was savagely crushed with the second destruction of Jerusalem when the 'end of days' came in 70 A.D. The remnants of the Zealots made their last stand against the Romans at Masada where, in a moment of despair, all 970 of them killed themselves rather than surrender. The legitimacy of terror, when other forms of protest fail, was hotly debated then as it is being today, and the protestors were hailed as martyrs then, as they are now. The self-destruction of the Zealots at Masada was praised as a heroic act then, as that of others is now. Thus, neither terrorism, nor martyrdom, nor even suicide for a cause, are Islamic inventions.
And now the definition itself. We can do no better, to begin with, than look at three leading official definitions to understand what the problem with the definition is. First, the definition formulated by the US State Department: 'premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience'.
This definition raises more questions than it answers. It refers to political motivation only, and ignores religious and ideological motivations. It refers only to sub-national groups as the perpetrators of violence, implying that all terrorism is perpetrated by the separatists trying to break up nation states. It does refer to 'clandestine agents' also as perpetrators of terrorism, but doesn't disclose who those agents could be working for. Could this be a reference to intelligence agencies?
Next, there is the definition by the US Department of Defence: 'the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives'. This is a much better formulation, but it does create some apprehension in one's mind when it begins with the words 'the unlawful...use of force.' Does it mean that there can be lawful use of force to coerce governments or societies for political religious or ideological objectives? Does it mean that use of force can be lawful for a purpose other than self-defence? These questions remain unanswered in this definition.
The third definition is the one given by Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of CIA's Counter terrorist Centre. He argues that there are four key elements of terrorism: it is premeditated; it is political; it is aimed at civilians, not military targets; and it is carried out by sub-national groups, not by the army of a country. This definition, as the one by the State Department, recognizes only the sub-national groups as terrorists, and excludes those motivated by religious or ideological objectives. Next, it explicitly excludes (not impliedly as in other definitions) the army as an instrument or target of terrorism. This definition is, thus, too arbitrary and selective a formulation to help our understanding of terrorism.
The common elements in these definitions to which one could agree unhesitatingly are: terrorism is use of force to intimidate or coerce governments or societies; it is for political, religious, or ideological objectives; it is not for ordinary criminal purposes. The other two elements of these definitions that are unjustifiably restrictive are: terrorists are always a band of civilians and their targets are also invariably civilians. Neither of these two propositions is consistent with the reality of today's world.
State terrorism, overt or covert, through military forces or through other agents or agencies, is a well-documented and well-known fact of life today. Excessive and extensive use of force and human rights violations by the Israeli, Indian, Russian and Iraqi armed forces against Palestinians, Kashmiris, Chechens and Kurds, are only the more well-known and more enduring instances of state terrorism among numerous other examples of state terrorism all over the world. This form of terrorism is so widespread that it cannot be defined out of the discourse without making the discourse meaningless.
By the same token, the victims of terrorism need not be only civilians. An attack on a military target, which is not posing a threat to the attackers, is also a terrorist act. Thus, attack on the US Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen, on Pakistani peace-keeping troops in Somalia, and on the American peace-keeping troops in Lebanon, are examples of terrorist attacks on military targets. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that the perpetrators or the victims of terrorism need not be only civilians. Whenever or wherever force is used to create fear to achieve objectives other than self-defence, it should be condemned as a terrorist act, regardless of the identity of the perpetrator or of the victim of violence.
So how do we define terrorism? We can begin with the premise that there are the three major manifestations of violence, and we must make a clear distinction between them. First, conflict between the armed forces of two or more countries, or between the armed forces and any guerilla forces. This is war. Second, violence committed for material gain or any other private purpose either by an individual or a band of individuals, such as a mafia. This is ordinary crime, defined in the penal codes of all the countries of the world.
Third, terrorism that remains an undefined form of violence. Here is a definition that one would like to propose: Terrorism is a premeditated act of violence against any person or persons, civilian or military, who are not engaged, or planning to engage, in any act of repression or persecution, if that premeditated act of violence is perpetrated by persons, civilian or military, to coerce or intimidate a government or society for political, religious or ideological reasons.
This definition of terrorism is consistent with the growing global commitment to human rights and to opposition to all forms of violence against those who cannot defend themselves against a brute majority or the coercive arm of the state. In fact, the human conscience has evolved to a degree where we do feel responsible not only for the weak and the oppressed human communities, but even for the wildlife and endangered species of plants and animals. No group of persons, whether political or religious, national or subnational, can be allowed to indulge in killing and destruction even in the name of freedom or justice, least of all in the name of God.
Also, no state can be allowed to indulge in acts of terrorism by use of force and violence to advance its political objectives or to suppress a section of its own population through its armed forces operating under the cover of sovereignty. If the world is now a global village for promoting, even enforcing, trade and profit without barriers, so it should be for promoting, even enforcing, justice without any barriers or exclusions. This is the only way to deal with terrorism, unless we wish the war on terrorism to go on for ever.
|
