Acts of Terrorism - Term Paper Example

Introduction Terrorism and other forms of violent conflict typically involve both property and personal damages. What distinguishes acts of terrorism from other forms of violent conflict is the intention and motives of the primary actors. For instance, terrorism is specifically designed to create a public crisis with the intent that public confidence in political and economic structures are lost.(Netanyahu, 9) Other forms of violent conflict are usually a response to a break down in political and economic structures. (Jaggar, 202-217) The discussion that follows examines these differences and greater detail and by doing so explains why terrorism can never be justified. Defining Terrorism and Other Forms of Violent Conflict Political Scientist seem unable to agree on a single or uniform meaning of the term terrorism, although they agree in principle that terrorism is a means to a political or social end.(Beinin, 12, 23) Perhaps the most dramatic definition of terrorism is provided by Netanyahu who describes terrorism as: “...the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends.” (Netanyahu, 9) Charles Kegley submits however, that the sensitive nature of terrorism lends itself to the difficulties with assigning it a precise and objective definition. (Kegley, 13) Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman examined a complex range of definitions of terrorism and isolated five common denominators. (Schmid and Jongman, 5) A common element that accounted for at least a 83.5 per cent consistency was the use of force or violence. (Schmid and Jongman, 5) At least 65 per cent of the definitions agreed that acts of terrorism were political in nature. (Schmid and Jongman,5) Another 52 per cent of the definitions agreed that acts of terrorism involved the use of fear or terror, 47 per cent agreed that threats were used in terrorism plots and 41 per cent agreed that terrorists aimed to product psychological impact. (Schmid and Jongamn, 5) Other forms of violent conflict are generally attributed to war, guerrilla activity, insurgency and crime in general. Crime itself is categorised under two distinct heads. It can either be committed on an individual basis or it can be a joint enterprise as often is the case in instances of organized crime. (Cunningham and others, 7) Crime involves the intentional breaking of the law and violent crime involves some sort or assault either with or without a weapon. Like terrorism, “violent crimes involve force or threat of force.” (FBI) In a very real sense, violent crime is similar to terrorism since it involves a degree of force. War too closely resembles terrorism. Professor John Guilmartin describes war as follows: “... the use of organized, socially-sanctioned, armed violence to achieve a political, social, or economic objective." (Guilmartin) The similarities between war and terrorism are obvious. Both forms of violent conflict have political or social aims and both involve the use of violence. Guerrilla warfare and activities are generally perpetuated during a formal or informal war either between citizens or nations. It is a term used to refer to unconventional war also involves violence for some political, social or economic end. (Tse-Tung and Mao, 41-50) The activities of guerrillas are therefore not unlike those of terrorists since they both use violence and are both intended to achieve some political or social end. Insurgency is perhaps more alike terrorism than any other form of violent conflict. Insurgency is defined by authors Steven Meltz and Raymond Millen as: “...a strategy adopted by groups which cannot attain their political objectives through conventional means or by a quick seizure of power.”(Metz and Millen, 2) Insurgency, like terrorism and all other forms of violent conflict involves the use of violence and is conducted in much the same manner as guerrilla warfare. Like terrorism, insurgency has as its aim some sort of political or social end. (Metz and Millen, 2) Based on these definitions and understanding of violent conflicts there are significant distinctions between terrorism and other forms of violent conflict. However, when one looks at the manner in which the acts of violence are committed in other forms of violent conflict these violent acts are easily distinguished from acts of terrorism. More importantly, as will be borne out, some other forms of violent conflict with the exception of crime can be justified. This conclusion is borne out of the manner in which these forms of conflict are committed, although the political and social motivations are the primary elements that make it possible to justify violent conflict that are not committed by criminals and terrorists. Distinguishing Terrorism from other Forms of Violent Conflict The most obvious difference between terrorism and traditional violent crime is found in the distinct motivations of the terrorist and the criminal. (Cunningham and others, 9) Although it is possible to argue that criminals, like terrorists “do terrorize their victims” it is their collective motives and purposes that set them apart. The criminal does not generally intend to terrorize their victims, the do so inadvertently by trying to coerce property or some other favour from the victim either for some personal “enrichment or satisfaction.” (Cunningham and others, 9) On the other hand: “Terrorism is motivated by larger political causes and the acts are symbolically carried out in order to further the cause.” (Cunningham and others, 9) While it is certainly true that terrorism, like ordinary crime invariably involves the infringement of statutory or common law, it is the primary motivation of the offender that separates terrorism from ordinary criminal conduct. (Cunningham and others, 9) The distinction between terrorism and other forms of political violence such as war, insurgency and guerrilla warfare is far more pronounced than the distinction between terrorism and traditional crime. War in any form and insurgency encompass entirely different targets than those of terrorist activists. (Cunningham and others, 8) While terrorist typically target civilians who do not have the means to defend themselves, war and insurgency generally involve military targets who are armed and far from defenceless. (Cunningham and others, 8) In general: “Terrorists do not usually target armed police or soldiers who have the capability to fight back, although some groups have been known to do so.” (Cunningham and other, 8) Terrorists are not usually “recognized combatants,” in the sense that they are not attached to a government sponsored military department. Unlike the military engaged in warfare, terrorists are not openly armed nor to they wear distinguishing uniforms. (Cunningham and other, 8) Moreover, those engaged in warfare are bound by the rule of law contained in the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Times of War 1949 whereas terrorist conduct are direct violations of the Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Times of War 1949. (Cunningham and others, 8) It is interesting to note at this juncture, that guerrillas themselves are usually associated with groups and more often than not observe the international laws regulating war and war crimes. (Cunningham and others, 8) Bruce Hoffman points out that theoretically at least: “...the rules of war...not only grant civilian non-combatants immunity from attack, but also; 1. Prohibit taking civilians as hostages; 2. Impose regulations governing the treatment of captured or surrendered soldiers; 3. Outlaw reprisals against either civilians or POWs; 4. Recognize neutral territory and the rights of citizens of neutral states; and 5. Uphold the inviolability of diplomats and other accredited representatives.” (Hoffman, 34) Another salient distinction between terrorism and war is that the actions taken by terrorist are “symbolic” rather than “instrumental”. (Cunningham and others, 8) The action taken by terrorist as opposed to those who are engaged in warfare is “sufficient to bring about the desired change.” (Cunningham and others, 8) Moreover for the terrorist’s agenda: “The immediate victims of the attack are not necessarily the intended targets-the intended target is the wider audience.” (Cunningham and others, 8) Terrorists are motivated by the response which is anticipated to be “fear and terror” with a view to prompting “governments to bring about the desired change.” (Cunningham and others, 8) Warfare between nations is a legally recognized activity. Under international laws, nation states are at liberty to declare war on one another under the just cause doctrine and may engage in warfare. (Cunningham and others, 8) Terrorists are not nation states and have no lawful authority to engage in the violent conflict that they elect to so engage. (Cunningham and others, 8) In fact: “Most terrorist groups are sub-national organization units and not nations-states.” (Cunningham and others, 8) The tactics employed by terrorist also represents a striking distinction between terrorism and other forms of violent conflict. It is generally accepted that terrorists are predisposed to use a limited range of violent acts. They typically confine themselves to assassinations, kidnappings, hijacking, hostage taking, bombings and armed assaults. (Kegley, 36) The number of actors are usually quite small although behind the scenes faciliators can be as much as 100. (Cunningham and others, 10) Justifying Terrorism Terrorism has become automatically subjected to harsh judgment and is immediately characterized as indefensible and incapable of justification. (Gearty, 11) Scott Lowe argues however that there might be a double standard at play by the public. The public according to Lowe is prepared to indorse acts of political violence committed by the state but are not prepared to indorse the violence of terrorist although both actors can be said to have just cause under the doctrine of just cause. (Lowe, 46-51) However, Lowe goes onto explain that the only means by which terrorism can be justified by the just war theory is if one narrowly defines terrorism. (Lowe, 46-51) One would necessarily have to construe terrorism as a purely politically motivated course of conduct. In dissecting the theory of just war, Lowe points out that just war recognizes that war should be “the last resort” and should only be engaged in when there are reasonable prospects of success. (Lowe, 46-52) As previously stated, one of the distinguishing factors between terrorism and other forms of violent conflict is that the acts of terrorism do not have any reasonable expectation of achieving its goals. It therefore follows that terrorism cannot by any definition of the term terrorism rise to the level of just cause under the doctrine of just war. Joel Beinin makes the most effective argument, one that many can identify with. Beinin maintains that attacks on civilians can never be “morally justified” and in any case it is “counterproductive”. (Beinin, 12-23) It is counterproductive because the political change that terrorists hope to provoke is further complicated by a shift in priorities. The only political change that attacks on civilians can muster is a shift in national security policies which invariably means taken further action to stifle and shut down terrorists. Conclusion While terrorism and other forms of violent conflict result in vastly similar damages to the person and the property, they are distinguishable by their motives. Taking criminal conduct out of the equation, other forms of violent conflict anticipate relief for oppressed citizens who generally want to rescued. Moreover, the other forms of violent conflict do not target civilians and when they do they are unjustified acts of terrorism. There are far more productive and legal means of changing governments and their policies. Lawful protests have a far more likelihood of success since in most cases other citizens will support it. In any case, those wishing to advocate change can obtain far more satisfactory results by putting the energy and money it requires to plan and carry out violent attacks on gaining public support. The mere fact that those engaging in terrorist activities are generally aware that there are no prospects of achieving their ultimate goal speaks to revenge. Revenge itself is never justifiable. In a civilized society, it is imperative that social control is institutionalized and this invariably means a collective intolerance for any form of violent revenge. Therefore it is for the better good of mankind that terrorism is always perceived as distinct from other forms of violent conflict, save for traditional crime. It is necessary for maintaining order and control. Works Cited Beinin, Joel. “Is Terrorism a Useful Term in Understanding the Middle East and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict?” Radical History Review, 2003 Issue No. 85, pp 12-23 Cunningham, William and others. Terrorism: Concepts, Causes and Conflict Resolution. Fort Belvoir, Virginia: Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2003 FBI. (2002) Crime in the United States. Available online at: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nviolent02.html Retrieved February 23, 2008 Gearty, Conor. The Future of Terrorism. London: Pheonix, 1997 Guilmartin, John. (n.d.) Professor John Guilmartin’s ‘Working Definition of War.’ Available online at: http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/h380/guilmart.htm Retrieved February, 22 2008 Jaggar, Alison. “What Is Terrorism, Why Is It Wrong, and Could It Ever Be Morally Permissible?” Journal of Social Philosophy. 2005, Vol. 36 Is. No. 2, pp 202-217 Kegley, Charles. International Terrorism: Characteristics, Causes, Controls. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990 Lowe, Scott. “Terrorism and Just Cause Theory.” Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness. 2003, Vol. 1, No. 2, 46 Metz, Steven and Millen, Raymond. Insurgency and Counterinsurgency in the 21st Century: Reconceptualizaing Threat and Response. Diane Publishing, 2004 Netanyahu, Benjamin. Terrorism: How the West Can Win. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1986. Tse-Tung, Mao and Mao, Zedong. On Guerrilla Warfare. IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000 Read More