Terrorism as the Use of Violence or Force - Essay Example

? Defining Terrorism Introduction “If you can’t define terrorism, you can’t begin to tackle terrorism, let alone defeat it”. Terrorism is intimidating activity around the world and governments have been on alert since the beginning of this hostile phenomenon. Terrorism can be described by various terms, such as tactic and strategy, crime and a holy duty, subjection to oppression and abomination that cannot be forgiven. Different terrorist organizations are pursuing intimidating goals around the world. It is really hard for different terrorist groups to realize the essence of their intimidating activities, as well as for fighters against terrorism to understand these extreme goals in the world. The simplest definition of terrorism is the following one: “Terrorism is the use of violence or force, or the threat of such, directed upon innocents, civilians, or noncombatants, in order to achieve political objectives” (Thackrah 2004, p. 18). There is a vivid discussion about the fact whether to justify terrorism or not. Some academicians and scientists underline that it is impossible to justify the essence of terrorism. In the very essence terrorism is unjust and illegitimate. Nevertheless, this assumption is rather emotional and it is relevant to consider this phenomenon from moral perspective. Thus, there is no moral background for the governments to sponsor terrorists, but they really do that. There is nothing more than intimidation of people in the name of reaching the goals of a group of people or the whole nation–this is the way terrorists are perceived by many states. Media positions terrorist acts as if they stem from political grievances, though the essence of these actions can be rooted not in political concerns, but rather in religious or social issues. Definition arguments The US Department of Defence defines terrorism as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (Thackrah 2004, p. 32). Intimidation, fear and violence are three basic pillars of terrorism. The government’s reaction to terrorist acts has been always developed in accordance with the essence of the main goals of terrorists. For example, one of the most scaring acts of terrorism committed by the Black September Organization in October 1983, when 241 U.S. military personnel were killed and many people were wounded. In reality, the main target of their terrorist actions was the whole American nation and the Congress. The government withdrew the Marines from Beirut and this factor was rather impressive for terrorists and they considered it to be success. First ad foremost concern for different governments should be focused on the fact that terrorists position themselves not as the servants of the Devil or evil, but they position themselves as fighters for freedom and their rights. They are interested in promoting liberating images or images, “supporting” public interests. In other words, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (Burkoff 2005, p.49). In accordance with modern researches and studies, definitions of terrorism are developed in different terms. Thus, Schmidt and Youngman refer to 109 different definitions of terrorism, where three equal words were present: violence, force; political; fear (Boaz). Generally speaking, terrorism is considered at international level, because the targets of terrorist attacks can be found in different countries. There is a very thin boundary between terrorism and crime. Thus, for example, political motivation of terrorism cannot be denied and it is often positioned as the first and foremost underpinning for terrorist acts commitment. It can be defined as “politically motivated attacks on non-combatant targets” (Fields, 2001). The activities of terrorist organizations are often described with the use of such concepts, as “guerrilla movements”, “underground movements”, “national liberation movements” etc (Boaz). These concepts are used and based on certain political implications. On the one hand, it is impossible to correlate terrorist acts with the concepts of revolutionary actions and crimes, but on the other hand, it is necessary to position terrorist acts as acts, based on religious beliefs and influenced by political factors. Very often, Islamists correlate their terrorist acts with their religion in general and the Qur’an in particular. The main problem for the world’s governments is that they do not know what terrorism is, because they do not have the only one definition, agreed upon. When the League of Nations Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism was acclaimed in Geneva in 1937, it has never entered into force. The countries agree that terrorism should be positioned not only as a political problem, but also as a military problem. Terrorism in political terms, supposedly, would evoke such wave of intimidation and social turmoil in the country, but terrorists would be supported by their nation in case they are oppressed by attacked country. Both Bush and Obama do not realize the fact that terrorism cannot be dealt at once. It is a gradual fighting against terrorism and when they claim that war on terrorism is over, they are at risk. As a rule, the officials do not pay a proper attention to finding a single right definition of terrorism. They choose global actions, but they do not have a global understanding of terrorism, actually. Ahmad (2002) claimed: "There is no question about our ability to use force where and when it is needed to counter terrorism" (Ahmad 2002, p. 47). There is a global reach of anti-terrorist campaigns and the U.S. missiles struck Afghanistan and Sudan (Fields, 2001). To fight against terrorism effectively is to focus on the issues of terrorism in different contexts, political, economic or social ones. Essence of terrorism There are many attempts to justify the essence and actions of terrorists. For example, liberation and self determination attempts of terrorist groups cannot be justified even if these are focused on dealing with oppressive national leaders. These features justify the real essence of means of terrorism in the name of a final goal. Very often terrorism and national liberation are compared and positioned as forms of legitimate violence. This is a wrong assumption, because revolutionary fighters have never murdered innocent people in the name of their goal, but terrorists do. This violence is the most intimidating factor for further malpractice against humanity. In accordance with Kapitan & Schulte (2002) terrorism is “premeditated use or threat of use of extranormal violence or brutality by sub national groups to obtain a political, religious, or ideological objective through intimidation of a huge audience, usually not directly involved with the policy making that the terrorists seek to influence (Kapitan & Schulte, 2002). Freedom fighters have never killed innocent children or civilians. These actions are prohibited. Therefore, fighting for freedom and for pursuing group or individually oriented goals are two different things. So, fighters for liberation and terrorists can never be compared. Fear among innocent people or civilians, elaborates a process of promotion of governmentally pursued political goals. The essence of terrorist activities can be explained in the following terms: to use violence or threat; to have a political background; changing political regime et cetera (Boaz). If there is no political background, there is no terrorism. This assumption can be also argued. Civilians are targeted by terrorism. It means that different nations are intimidated by unseen hazard, which can take away their lives at any moment. Civilians are unprotected and they can be attacked by the terrorists. This act is purposely focused on destruction of a certain nation. Terrorist acts are properly considered from the very beginning. The legislation and international conventions are focused on definition of terrorism, because there is an urgent need to unite efforts in the name of international cooperation against it. The international society is focused on differentiation between “soldiers” or militants, who intentionally target members of rival armies and “war criminals”, who intentionally harm civilians. Thus, terrorism should be differentiated from guerrilla warfare. The latter form of military protest is considered as a more tolerant one. Therefore, scientists around the world are looking for development of the only one appropriate definition of terrorism. All countries are focused on taking operative actions against terrorism. It is appropriate for the governments to be focused on development of appropriate strategies and measures in this challenging fight. A lacuna exists in international conventions, because it is forbidden for the states to take violent measures against humanity or commit “crimes against humanity”. Therefore, it is forbidden to use violence against civilians. How to deal with terrorism? Thus, the modern states can have certain templates for development of preventive measures against terrorism. One of the most dramatic and striking examples is 11 September 200, when the world’s society was reassured in the stability of their lives. 3,000 Americans and foreigners were killed because of terrorist attack by terrorist group Al-Qaeda (Weiss, 2002). The American Government chose to fight against terrorist acts by the like means–they chose war against war. No one counted the exact number of lost lives, but everybody waited for eradication of terrorism from the face of the Earth. Supposedly, military intrusion and destruction of terrorist groups is the most effective way of fighting against terrorist groups. To initiate war against terrorist groups is justified in terms of “ancient traditions of humanity, military chivalry, and internationally agreed-upon customary norms of behavior for belligerents” (Burkoff 2007). War on Terrorism is chosen by the world’s community as the only one effective measure against this type of cruelty and violence. It is relevant to claim that terrorism is based on a clear political aim. Thus, al Qaeda intended to remove Western control from the Middle East. Political objective of terrorist groups should be resolved in terms of appropriate international policies and preventive strategies. Different governments around the world should try hard to develop a certain code of law, which will be focused on measures taking against terrorist organizations: “What matters is not the label one uses but the substance of the laws, conventions, or ‘modi vivendi’ that arise-or that ought to arise-as states and terrorist organizations struggle with each other” (Posner 2005, p. 427). Very often, terrorist groups are interested in intimidation of another nation and they do not even have to fight, but only scare off different people by their wrong actions. A scope of revenge is a challenging issue, because terrorist attacks take thousands of human lives of innocent people, but the members of these groups can be counted on fingers of one hand, supposedly. Therefore, the issue of revenge of terrorist attacks is rather complicated. Terrorists are hostile individuals, who may not have even clearly set goals or objectives, but their actions can be intimidating for other, innocent people. There are different strategies among states in their fighting against terrorism. Thus, they can support terrorist organizations or they can fight against them. Currently, terrorism is considered from the global perspective. Thus, it is relevant to look for a global response against terrorism. The global society should agree upon the essence of terrorism and develop a single right definition. International agreements cannot be enforced in case there is no exact definition of terrorism. There are many examples, when the countries had difficulties in fighting against terrorism. For example, in America Abed El Atta took part in attack against a bus in the West Bank in April 1986 and 4 people were killed. He was not accused and claimed that this attack was a “political act” (Wallace, 2007). Therefore, it is relevant to take the following steps: first of all, it is relevant to accept equal international regulations in legislation and punishment. An exact definition of terrorism is required for development of legislating laws focused on terrorism banning. The international conventions should be focused on “forbidding the perpetration of terrorist acts, assistance to terrorism, transfer of funds to terrorist organizations, state support for terrorist organizations, commercial ties with states sponsoring terrorism–and conventions compelling the extradition of terrorists” (Halwani, 2006, p. 290). Therefore, the scope of international concern is huge and different states should be interested in promotion and support of taking measures against terrorism. Moreover, the definition of terrorism should be focused on needs of the terrorist organizations. For example, in case of distinction between guerrilla warfare and terrorist organizations’ activities, both moral and conceptual values were taken into account. Currently, there are no international conventions considering the differences between strategic means of these two types of organizations. Thus, there is no clear distinction, what is forbidden and what is allowed; what type of activities are related to terrorist acts and what type of them are related to guerrilla warfare. Equal punishments are applied for terrorists and guerrilla fighters (Halwani 2006, p. 290). On the one hand, terrorist activities are hazardous for the lives of innocent people and children. Terrorists do not take into account a destructive power of their hazardous activities. In terms of moral consideration – terrorist organizations are focused on the moral question bearing on their right to destroy the lives of civilians. For example, Walid Salam, an activist of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, claimed in 1996 that “among activists of the Popular Front, more and more are opposed to military activities against civilians, as the one near Ramallah on Wednesday. They do not say so publicly because of internal discipline and to preserve unity” (Boaz). They clearly realize that their religion, like any other, forbids killing a woman or a child, but, from another perspective, if “they” kill their family members and relatives, terrorists fell no patience and tolerance to their victims. Conclusion It is evident that war against war really works in the context of terrorist attacks. Therefore, once international conventions against terrorism are acclaimed, the members of terrorist groups will lose legitimacy, involving harsh and specific punishments, facing international opposition, and lacking of international financial support. The definition of terrorism is the first and foremost step in development of strategies against terrorism. Legislation of specific punishments against terrorism will lead to development of a codex of international conventions and laws against terrorism, possible support of terrorist groups by the states and economic firms trading with them. Moreover, definition of terrorism can ensure terrorist organization that it is relevant to get involved into alternative activities, such as guerrilla warfare. At the same time, the international community should be focused not only on definition of terrorism, but also on the struggle against terrorism. The sooner the countries of the world define terrorism, the better results in fight against terrorism they gain. References Ahmad, E.l, 2002. Straight Talk on Terrorism. Monthly Review, January, pp. 46+. Boaz, Ganor. Is One Man’s Terrorist another Man’s Freedom Fighter? [online]. Available from: http://www.ict.org.il/ResearchPublications/tabid/64/Articlsid/432/Default.aspx [Accessed June 27, 2012] Burkoff, J.M, 2005. Defeating Terrorism without Fighting a War. Criminal Justice Ethics, 24 (1), p. 47+. Fields, S., 12 Nov. 2001. Culture Wars and Terrorism. The Washington Times, 19. Halwani, R., 2006. Terrorism: Definition, Justification, and Applications. Social Theory and Practice, 32, p. 289+. Howell, L. D., Mar. 2001. Terrorism: The 21st-Century War. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), 29. Kapitan, T., and Schulte, E., 2002. The Rhetoric on 'terrorism' and Its Consequences. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 30, p. 172+. Posner, E.A., 2005. Terrorism and the Laws of War. Chicago Journal of International Law, 5 (2), p. 423+. Thackrah, J. R., 2004. Dictionary of Terrorism. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Wallace, D., 2007. Battling Terrorism under the Law of War. Military Review, 87 (5), p. 101+. Weiss, P., 2002. Terrorism, Counterterrorism and International Law. Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ). Read More