Can Terror Be Legitimately Employed in Conflict - Essay Example

Can Terror be legitimately employed in Conflict? Discuss with Reference to Examples. Introduction The use of terror has raised an international debate; the chief debate lies on determining whether there is any legal justification to the use of terror in conflicts. Terror can be defined as the capacity to instill immense fear or violence threatened or committed by a group in order to coerce or intimidate a population for political or military reasons (Coady 2010, p. 18). Terror has been used by different groups or states as a fighting weapon. Most individuals, groups or governments use terror in order to promote their self interests. Individuals or groups can use terror in order to make their grievances known while the government can use terror in order to maintain its power. During World War II, both the Allies and the Axis used terror as a weapon of winning the war. Different debates have questioned the legitimacy of using terror as a weapon for ending conflicts. Terrorism is viewed to bring negative effects to a nation; this is because in attaining its main objective, the central target is the civilians (Herman 2008, p. 13). Although it brings negative impacts to a nation, sometimes use of terror benefits the nation. For instance, it can assist in the acquisition of freedom. This was the case in South Africa during the time of Apartheid. Apartheid was abolished through the use of terror. Although war is thought to be associated with vast negative effects, sometimes violence can bring positive results to a group or a nation. In this paper, I will discuss whether terror can be legitimately employed in conflicts. Can Terror be legitimately employed in Conflict? According to different researchers, legitimating of terror is justifiable in some cases. In extreme cases, where democratic and peaceful methods have been exhausted, it is justified and legitimate to resort to terror. In situations of suffering and repression, with a ruthless, oppressive state and no possibility of having international relief, it is necessary to resort to violence in order to defend the citizens. A state engaging and using terror in order to fight and rescue its citizens uses terror in a legitimate and justified manner (Coady 2010, p. 21). It is the function of a state to protect its people without fear; hence, if the use of terror remains the only option for the state to use in order to fight for its people, it would be interpreted as necessary and justifiable. Each person or minority group has a right in expressing discontentment in a certain issue of concern. The state has the role of representing its people and should make facilitation of this possibility. In addition, it is the role of the state to support the rights of the minority groups. This prevents the interests of the majority from interfering and suppressing the rights of individuals having other interests (Herman 2008, p. 24). When the state does not support the rights of the minority, it fails to function and loses legitimacy. This may create inequalities and other injustices among the citizens of a state and lead to conflicts. The minority may feel threatened due to denial or infringement of their rights, and may opt to use terror in order to influence the state to act in accordance to their rights. If terror is used in this way to defend ones rights, it would be taken as necessary and justifiable. For example, Umkhonto we Sizwe, which was a liberation organization, linked with the A. N. C. of South Africa and under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, opted to turn to violence so as to abolish the Apartheid and attain liberation. This was deemed necessary, and since the reason was a positive one; therefore, the violence could be justified. Most policy makers and scholars are of the opinion that holding negotiations with terrorist groups legalizes them, their methods and goals. They affirm that such negotiation with terrorist groups incites violence, weaken the norms of non-violence, and weaken democratic states (Herman 2008, p. 27). However, legitimating of terrorist groups using negotiations can draw a conflict away from violence, especially if both groups have to renounce violence in order to engage in peaceful talks. The negotiations also assist the groups to air their grievances and reinforce factions interested in non-violent solutions. On the other hand, terming groups as terrorist in order to fulfill the intention of delegitimizing the groups can radicalize the groups and curtail any attempts to resolve conflicts in a non-violent manner (Nathanson 2010, p. 88). Mindanao and Northern Ireland are two case studies, which highlight these issues of violence and terrorism. Northern Ireland can provide a rare example of a peace process, which emerged successful. The process involved a group using terrorist violence. The legitimating of the terrorist group and beginning of talks with Sinn Fein were key steps to the peace process. The recognition of Sinn Fein’s grievances as legitimate by the British Government assisted the republicans to contemplate a negotiated outcome (Nathanson 2010, p. 92). The recognition of Gerry Adams as a Republican leader by the government strengthened his dealings with headliners. In addition, this also strengthened factions, which favored talks instead of violence. This offered Sinn Fein an opportunity to become a potentially influential political party. The example of Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) of Mindanao depicts that complexity can be used as a conflict resolution principle. The MILF had loose transitional links, which facilitated local level negotiations to take place. However, there was a central command dialogue from Al-Qaeda, which favored rejection of the dialogue. Since MILF associated with Al-Qaeda, it had to engage in peace talks with the Philippines Government in order to solve local grievances (Miller 2009, p. 108). In addition, due to the complexity of Al-Qaeda network, the government could choose not to classify MILF as terrorists, which implied that negotiations had the possibility of being continued. The nonhierarchical, loose coalitions allow policy makers to engage in peaceful negotiations with several groups without being associated to the leadership. Therefore, issues of complexity and legitimacy of terrorist groups should not rule out negotiations. It is necessary for states or governments to give terrorist groups a negotiation window since the negotiations may help in ending conflicts. Although the use of terror has led to some positive results such as achievement of freedom or rights by the minority group, it also affects individuals and governments negatively. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing led to death of innocent citizens. In various instances, use of terror usually leads to loss of innocent victims (Held 1991, p. 72). There is hardly any terrorism that does not lead to loss of lives of the innocent citizens. In most occasions, terrorists seek to destabilize or overthrow an existing political regime. This usually destabilizes the economy of a country since when there is no political stability, an economy is destabilized. In other cases, dictatorial governments and totalitarian governments can also use terror in order to maintain their power. In such a case, it is the citizens of the states applying terror who suffer because the political gains of individuals in power deprive the citizens of their political freedom. In situations where citizens do not have any political freedom, they suffer due to lack of democracy. Democracy helps citizens to become more productive as compared to when there is no democracy. In addition, terrorism can result to severe damage of crucial buildings and destroy the view of a town or city. For example, the September 11 attacks led to the destruction of World Trade Center and destruction of Pentagon. These destructions led to ruin of Washington, D.C. and New York City. Morality of Terrorism The scope of moral assessment of terrorism usually depends on the meaning given to terrorism. Some policy makers and researchers have different definitions of the term, which leads to defining of the morality given to terrorism. According to philosophers, terrorism refers to violence that aims at intimidation (Held 1991, p. 77). However, philosophers disagree on determining whether terrorism is meant to target civilians or can also be aimed at members of the security services and military or senior government officials. Held (1991) observed that there is a broad difference in what can be taken as terrorism and what is not taken as terrorism. For example, Marine barracks attack in Lebanon of 1983, and much of the Palestinian violence directed to Israeli soldiers may not count as terrorism while Dresden and Hiroshima bombings would constitute terrorism. Primoratz (2004, p. 57) concludes that this view as to what constitutes terrorism emanates from the chief target of the terrorist attacks. According to some researchers, they view terrorism as legitimate if it is targeted towards combatants while terrorism is wrong if the target is the civilians. This is morally wrong since it is difficult to define who innocent victims are. If terrorism is viewed in terms of the target, where some individuals are viewed as innocent while others are not, it would give a morally wrong intuition. Terrorism will remain to be terrorism, no matter the target. Hence, whether targeted towards combatants or noncombatants, terrorism will remain morally wrong. However, in some cases, terrorism targeting military or high government officials can be justified. Terrorism geared towards common citizens will never be justified at any moment. Justification of terrorism can be based on the issue of human rights. It is essential to respect the human rights (Viner & May 2005, p. 43). When the rights of humans are not respected, there may be disagreement between individuals, which would lead to conflicts. If terrorism is used in such situations by individuals, whose rights are abused or infringed, it would be viewed as justified. Where individuals use terror in order to force the state to listen to their grievances or to achieve freedom, the use of terror will be justified. In this case, terrorism is taken as a necessity in achieving the human rights (Viner & May 2005, p. 50). However, use of terror can violate the human rights. For example, in the case of totalitarian and dictatorial governments, the governments use terror in order to maintain their power (Bulter 2006, p. 14). The use of terror to maintain power forces citizens to act in accordance with the government interests. In such cases, dictatorship is employed, forcing people to do things that they do not deserve or against their democratic rights. This leads to violation of citizens’ rights, which is morally wrong. In such a scenario, use of terror cannot be justified. The political effectiveness of terrorism is essentially determined by the psychological effects of violence on audiences. The destructive nature of terrorism physically is remarkably minimal despite the tragedy it can cause to individual victims. In some situations, there is an opinion that the implication of terrorism has been embellished due to international concern of the issue. Physical destructions caused by use of terror are usually less than the psychological effects on individuals (Primoratz 2004, p. 64). Such effects of terror include torture, death and infringement of personal rights. These effects make use of terror unacceptable and unjustifiable. It is unethical to treat human beings in a crude and alienated manner; this represents immorality. Each person has an ethical responsibility of treating fellow individuals according to accepted norms of the society. This implies that carrying out any activity, which goes against the societal norms regarding treatment of human beings, will be morally unacceptable. Activities associated to the use of terror such as hijacking and use of torture goes against the societal norms (Orend 2004, p. 33). Because of this reason, these actions are taken as unacceptable, which renders terrorism illegal and, therefore, unjustifiable. In cases of deprivation and suppression of human rights, there is no justification to harm others outside the rules guiding a society. Considering the acts of terror, there are three principal targets; civilians, political representatives and military or high government officials and buildings. It is illegitimate to harm the innocent civilians since killing them will not undo the cause for killing them, but only perpetuates the harm, which was the cause for violence initially (Crimmins 2010, p. 57). By attacking the authorities, individuals using terror can eliminate dictator leadership and promote prevalence of justice on the issue being presented by terrorist individuals or groups. However, this can result to backlash, where factions of the authorities operate against the insurgents, which can result to causing more harm than before. For example, this is what happened with the Kurdish revolt, which was against the Turkish authorities. Because of attacking the authorities through the Kurdish revolt, the authorities declared guerilla war, which led to over 30, 000 casualties (Orend 2004, p. 40). On the other hand, targeting the infrastructure of a society implies disabling population from accessing basic facilities such as healthcare. Hence, there is no justification to the legitimization of terror; terrorism will never be justified. Democratic and peaceful means should always be used by individuals, groups and states in order to solve any conflict. Hence, terror should not be legitimately employed in conflicts. Conclusion Justification of terrorism can be based on the issue of human rights. It is essential to respect the human rights. When the rights of humans are not respected, there may be disagreement between individuals, which would lead to conflicts. If terrorism is used in such situations by individuals, whose rights are abused or infringed, terrorism would be viewed as justified. Where individuals use terror in order force the state to listen to their grievances, in order to achieve freedom, the use of terror will be justified. Although the use of terror has led to some positive results, it also affects individuals and governments negatively. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing led to death of innocent citizens. In various instances, use of terror usually leads to loss of innocent victims. There is hardly any terrorism that does not lead to loss of lives of the innocent citizens. In most occasions, terrorists seek to destabilize or overthrow an existing political regime. This usually destabilizes the economy of a country since when there is no political stability, an economy is destabilized. References List Bulter, J. (2006). Precarious life: the powers of mourning and violence, London, Verso. p. 14. Coady, A.C. (2010). Morality and Political Violence, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 17-30. Crimmins, K. (2010). The Reason of Terror: Philosophical Responses to Terrorism, London, Peeters Publishers. pp. 57-60. Held, V. (1991). How Terrorism is wrong: Morality and Political Violence, London, Oxford University Press. pp. 70-78. Herman, J. (2008).War, Conflict and Human Rights, London, Taylor & Francis. pp. 12-30. Miller, S. (2009). Terrorism and Counter-terrorism: ethics and liberal democracy, London, Blackwell Publishers. pp. 108-110. Nathanson, S. (2010). Terrorism and the ethics of war, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 87-94. Orend, B. (2006). The Morality of War, New York, New York University Press. pp. 32-43. Primoratz, I. (2004). Terrorism: the philosophical issues, London, Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 55-65. Viner & May, L. (2005). The Morality of War: classical and contemporary readings, London, Pearson Education. pp. 42-50. Read More