Political and Criminal Objective - Term Paper Example

Politics and Terrorism Terrorism is perpetrated to achieve political, religious and other objectives, and involves violence and threats of violence against target groups. The objective of terrrorism is to create fear in some targeted community, and such engendering of fear extends considerably beyond the immediate victims. Futhermore, terrorist organisations often declare in public that they had perpetrated the violence. There are two main entities in the use of violence, namely the perpetrator of the violence and the victim of the violence. In certain situations, entities that lack power, employe violent acts to garner power (Lutz and Lutz 2008: 9). Terrorists aim to achieve their goals by generating abject fear. In some definitions of terrorism, it is specified that the targets should be civillians. Most of the guerrilla groups focus their attacks on the police and military. This differentiates them from terrorists, who have no such qualms. Thus, guerilla attacks are not to be considered as terrorist attacks. For instance, in Iraq, the insurgent attacks on the allied forces were treated as guerrilla attacks and not as terrorist activities (Lutz and Lutz 2008: 11). However, in certain situations, guerrilla attacks transform into terrorist attacks. This situation usually arises when the attacks are aimed at civillians If the attacks are targeted against civilians, they are considered as terrorist attacks. The incorporation of this civillian element into the definition, increases its complexity. Consequently, the question arises as to whether the off duty police and reserve military personnel have to be treated as civillians. This situation generates confusion when there are deaths of both civillians and military personnel (Lutz and Lutz 2008: 11). Under these circumstances, it becomes difficult to understand whether civilians alone had been targeted. Thus, the intention behind the attacks has to be examined closely, in order to determine whether it is a terrorist attack. Therefore, the inclusion of the targeting of civilians in the definition of terrorism does not seem to be essential. In most terrorist attacks, the targets are civillians and the intention behind the attacks is to kill as many civillians as possible. This engenders fear among the target population. Moreover, the term terrorism admits of a number of meanings. It is very difficult to establish a proper definition of terrorism, and it was used with a variety of connotations throughout the history. It was employed for the first time, in 1798, during the French Revolution, when the Académie française employed the term terrorism to denote a system or rule of terror. This proved to be grim reminder of the fact those dictatorial governments frequently used terror to cow down and control their hapless citizens (Can we define terrorism?). The word terror is often used in the context of repressive governments and dictators. Some of the notorious entities that practiced dreadful terrorism were Stalin in the Soviet Union and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. In the past, the word terrorism had been chiefly used to refer to instances of assassination of political leaders or heads of state (Can we define terrorism?). Subsequent to the end of the Second World War, the scope of terrorism extended and encompassed a broad classification of events that went beyond simple assassinations. For example, there were numerous instances in South-East Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, wherein policemen and local officials of the state had been indiscriminately killed by terrorists. This activity also included the acts of hostage – takings, hijackings, and bombings. (Can we define terrorism?). Whatever the form, in most cases, terrorism resulted in the death of civilians. Terrorism has emerged as an international problem, and several nations are experiencing the effect of terrorist activities. The governments of democracies in the West are actively engaged in countering terrorism. These entities spare no effort to prevent terrorist attacks against their country. Terrorism, per se, defies an unambiguous definition. Research studies have disclosed that the currently available definitions of terrorism incorporate inconsistencies and inadequacies (Meisels 2009: 331). The research scholar Coady had declared that there were more than a hundred definitions of terrorism, whilst Fletcher had contended that there were dozens of definitions. Nevertheless, none of these definitions describes terrorism accurately (Meisels 2009: 331). This indicates the absence of a universal and explicit definition of terrorism. According to Igor Primoratz, the term terrorism generates a significant amount of confusion as it refers to a variety of activities. Consequently, it is very difficult to describe terrorism and the political and legal questions that it generates. The Oxford Student’s Dictionary defines terrorism as an act of violence and intimidation, especially for promoting political objectives (Meisels 2009: 331). Undoubtedly, it is difficult to define terrorism; and it has been suggested in some quarters that the term politically motivated violence offers a better description. Terrorism is a despicable tactic that is difficult to fight against. Richard Clarke of the US National Security Council had categorically stated that declaring a war against terrorism would be akin to waging a war against a tactic. There are a large number of definitions regarding terrorism. In 2002, the foreign ministers of more than 50 Islamic nations were unanimous in their condemnation of terrorism (Krueger 2008: 14). However, there was no consensus among them regarding the definition of terrorism. The difficulty associated with defining terrorism, is due in part to the interdisciplinary approach that has to be adopted in its study. In addition to this, there are contrasting views regarding terrorism, which further complicates the issue. Furthermore, terrorism is not limited to any single nation, and constitutes a global problem. Nevertheless, the national governments had made no attempt to provide a legal definition of terrorism that could be applied everywhere (Ozeren, Dincer Gunes, & Al-Badayneh 2007: 311). In fact the governments utilise definitions that suit their national objectives. Terrorism proved to be a means of acquiring power, in order to restructure society and engender a favourable political system. There is no uniformity, across the nations, regarding terrorism. Consequently, in some countries, acts of terrorism are not classified as terrorism. Moreover, many countries punish terrorists, under the provisions of ordinary criminal law. At the international level, this problem assumes alarming levels (Ozeren, Dincer Gunes, & Al-Badayneh 2007: 311). Furthermore, the connotation of the term terrorism undergoes frequent change with time. In general, the targets of the terrorists are civilian populations .This ensures the creation of an atmosphere of insecurity in the state or targeted community. Designation a movement as terrorist is contended by some scholars to be subjective. Thus, many terrorists enjoy the status and respect of freedom fighters, in their community. Sometimes a freedom movement can degenerate into terrorism, and this was witnessed in Northern Ireland and Kosovo (Mythen & Walklate 2006: 381). Terrorism assumes different forms with different goals. Moreover, terrorism is a mechanism for compelling governments to change their policies. There have been a number of such groups, and instances that generally come to mind are the Irish Republican Army, which sought the ouster of the British from Northern Ireland; the ETA, which forced Spain to leave the Basque region; and the al – Qaeda, which perpetrates heinous terrorist attacks, in order to force the US and its allies to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan (Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism 2008: 96). Terrorism is always coercive, and the targets are ordinary civilians or identified communities. The use of terror against such people helps in generating an environment of terror, which in turn forces the state to heed to their demands. In other instances, an authoritarian state, may unleash a reign of terror against its own citizens, in order to perpetuate its unjust reign (Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism 2008: 96). The existing definitions of terrorism revolve around the common element of politically motivated initiatives. Moreover, there is an increasing trend to depict terrorist activities as religiously motivated acts. At present, Islamic terrorism has assumed alarming proportions, in the international arena. There is a perceptible increase in the number of Islamic terrorist groups; and the pride of place is occupied by Al Qaeda (Fitzgerald 2007: 22). These terrorist organisations employ their religious ideology to perpetrate unbridled violence against the innocent. The number of terrorist organisations is overwhelmingly on the increase. These organisations operate at the international level with the active collaboration and participation of other criminal organisations. The range and scale of their operations are also on the increase. Consequently, terrorist perpetrate widespread criminal violence. The true aim behind these activities is to obtain money and power. The current definitions of terrorism do not consider the use of violence for monetary benefits by the terrorist organisations (Fitzgerald 2007: 22). There is no unambiguous definition of terrorism at the international level. The reason behind this seeming lapse is that quite frequently, the terrorist is viewed as a freedom fighter or person attempting to establish the pure form of Islam. Several nations have enacted anti-terrorism laws, which classify acts of kidnapping, detonating bombs, and hijacking of airplanes as crimes. The 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism had almost succeeded in arriving at a universally acceptable definition of terrorism (Fitzgerald 2007: 22). This convention declared it a crime to collect or provide funds to organisations that intended to kill or injure civilians. The term terrorism came into prominence after the Second World War. Several revolutionary organisations had come into operation with the objective of achieving freedom from foreign rule. This appellation was frequently employed by the foreign masters, in the context of the freedom movements in their vassal states. Such freedom movements were chiefly observed in the enslaved nations of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (Hoffman 1998). These movements fought against their colonial oppressors and in many instances were successful in getting rid of their tyrannical masters. For instance, Israel, Kenya, Cyprus, and Algeria successfully opposed the occupation of their nation by colonial powers (Hoffman 1998). These movements were recognised as legitimate struggles for achieving freedom from the colonial yoke, by the international community, which described them as national liberation or self – determination movements. These movements received the support of the newly independent countries of those regions. In addition, the support of the communist bloc countries was forthcoming. These communist countries contended that the fight against colonial powers and western domination was not to be designated as terrorist movements. On the other hand, these groups were to be treated as freedom fighter .In November 1974, the PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, whilst addressing the UN General Assembly, firmly stated that these groups should be treated as freedom fighters (Hoffman 1998). He stated in his address that the sole difference between revolutionary groups and terrorist groups was the reason behind their engaging in violent acts. As such, till the late 1960s and 1970s, terrorism was viewed as revolutionary movements, with a cause. Subsequently, this view was expanded to cover several other groups such as nationalist, ethnic separatist, radical, and ideologically motivated organisations. The once revolutionary groups, like the PLO, FLQ, Basque ETA, and Moluccan irredentist group had resorted to terrorism in their operations (Hoffman 1998). These groups perpetrated violent terrorist attacks to gain international attention and support for their cause .In Western Europe and the Americas, radical student organisations adopted terrorist tactics. These groups adopted the ideologies of Marxist, Leninist, and Maoist movements. They opposed American military intervention in Vietnam, and the irredeemable socioeconomic factors and inequalities inherent in modern democracies (Hoffman 1998). The term terrorism denotes unbridled violence against the innocent, in order to gain politically or to enforce some dubious religion. Some of its sub – divisions are narco-terrorism and cyber-terrorism. According to Professor Louise Richardson of the Harvard University, the employment of the term terrorism in a wide range of contexts has significantly detracted from its specific connotation. An article by Leonard Weinberg, Ami Pedahzur, and Sivan Hirsch – Hoefler had disclosed in the journal Terrorism and Political Violence that there were many definitions of terrorism. The academic consensus definition of terrorism deems the latter to be a politically motivated tactic. This intervention entails the use of violence or a threat to do so (Schmid 2004: 380). Morevoer, considerable importance in attached to deriving the maximum possible publicity for these despicable act. From the perspective of a country’s foreign policy, terrorism constitutes an extremely evil and harmful strategy. It cannot be construed as a group of inimical persons or their objectives. Thus, terrorism can be deemed to be the outcome of the actions of entities, and it does not connote their ambitions or their identity (Pillar 2001: 18). Hence, Osama bin Laden is of interest to the US, solely for the reason that he employs and supports terrorism. If this had not been so, the US would have paid scant regard to his activities, and at the most would have marked him for his involvement in Afghanistan and his diatribe against the Saudis (Pillar 2001: 18). As such, terrorism assumes significance for a nation, not on account of the social or political values that it seeks to support or destroy. In a similar vein, counter terrorism can be understood as an attempt to transform political strife into a civilised struggle. It is not tantamount to a war against an explicit and hostile entity (Pillar 2001: 18). What is deemed to be terrorism by a national government is considered to be a freedom struggle by the terrorists and their sympathisers. Furthermore, any violent movement by terrorists that culminates in their establishing a new nation or the eradication of foreign rule transforms the process into one that achieves sovereignty. There are numerous instances in the past two hundred years, wherein violent struggles resulted in either freedom or the creation of new states. Some of these are the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the revolution spearheaded by Mao Tse Tung in China (Definition of Terrorism 2002). These national movements involved large scale violence that led to the loss of many lives and the destruction of a considerable amount of property. Many of the victims of these movements were innocent civilians. Although, the established governments viewed these movements as terrorist activities, the terrorists themselves considered their movement to be a struggle for liberation, and therefore justified in every sense (Definition of Terrorism 2002). Scholars like Taylor have described terrorism in detail. In particular, Taylor had expatiated upon a triad of perspectives that the populace was likely to adopt, whilst classifying a violent act as a terrorist act. His definitions establish that people adopt that perspective that is most congenial to their way of thinking. The first perspective is one where the observer considers an act to be a terrorist act if it is unlawful (Ruby 2002: 11). Most governments have adopted this perspective, while defining terrorism. However, this definition depends on the government that deduces. The legality or otherwise of any act varies from one country to another. Consequently, there is every possibility that the same act may be considered in a widely differing manner, by two different governments (Ruby 2002: 12). In addition, there is a moral perspective, according to which an act is construed to be one of terrorism, only when it does not have moral justification. This situation is exploited by some terrorist groups, which perpetrate politcally motivated violence and justify their actions on the grounds that their activities were founded on some morally justifiable cause. For instance, the IRA justifies its terrorist attacks on the ground that its ultimate aim is to eliminate British rule in Northern Ireland. The IRA paints British rule in Northern Ireland as an immoral act (Ruby 2002: 12). Terrorists employ different kinds of violence in their attacks. According to Lacquer, terrorism involves the illegitimate use of force to achieve political considerations. There are diverse activities in terrorism, and this definition does not provide adequate information to determine whether the use of force is legitimate (Lutz and Lutz 2008: 9). Thus, there is a signal absence of clarity in this definition. A number of governments have also provided a definition of terrorism. However, these definitions were prejudiced, as they sought to promote the interests of that particular government. Some governments have designated their opponents as terrorists, and this has led to the establishment of various standards for defining terrorism (Lutz and Lutz 2008: 9). The United States and the United Kingdom had prepared their separate lists of terrorist groups. The UK’s list contained eight organisations that were not on the US’ list. Similarly, the US had included fifteen terrorist groups, which were not to be found on the UK’s list. This example clearly indicates that these governments had classified violent acts as terrorist acts, on the basis of their vested interests (Lutz and Lutz 2008: 9). It has been the reprehensible practice of sevaral governments across the globe, to employ the services of death squads and other such organisations to create panic among their citizenry. These governments do not utilise the services of their police or armed forces for this despicable purpose. This type of terrorism is termed as state sponsored terrorism (Lutz and Lutz 2008: 15). The strategies and tactics of such terrorism are similar to that of any other terrorist group, and the intention behind this type of terrorism is to instill fear in the target population, by using violence against them. The objective behind these terrorist acts is to enhance the power position of the government. It is an undeniable fact that many governments had participated or supported acts of terrorism, on several occasions. Terrorists justify their activities on the grounds of revolutionary socialism and nationalism. However, a recent and disturbing trend has been the inclusion of terrorism on grounds of religious causes. This is an extremely dangerous development, as the religious terrorist is very highly motivated. As such, terrorists have scant respect for the law and humanness. These veritable monsters leave no stone unturned in their effort to realise their goals (Can we define terrorism?). Terrorism takes on different characteristics, and this serves to render the situation all the more intricate. The situation is made all the more muddling, due to the absence of a clear demarcation between criminal activity, conventional and guerrilla warfare, and terrorism. At times of war, it is not uncommon for the adversaries to indulge in terrorist activities. Analogously, the acts of violent criminals are usually akin to what the terrorist does (Griset and Mahan 2003: xiii). It is commonplace for the repressive regimes to dub all opposition to their rule as terrorist activity. On the other hand those who oppose these governments, usually call themselves freedom fighters. Moreover, it has been observed that the term terror is employed interchangeably with the term terrorism (Griset and Mahan 2003: xiii). This further lends to the general confusion prevailing, in respect of the term terrorism. A number of strategies are employed against an enemy, in order to terrorise the latter. Some of these are wars and rampages by youth. Thus, definitions regarding terrorism are seemingly endless. An assessment of the complexity of this problem can be arrived at by noting that some definitions of terrorism include the notion of religious motivation; whereas there are other definitions that include groups that preach the end of the world, which are millenarian and groups based on hate (Griset and Mahan 2003: xiii). There are a number of definitions of terrorism that specifically refer to non-state entities, whilst there are others that include terrorism emanating from the state. Such is the complexity involved in defining terrorism. Several of the definitions regarding terrorism, essentially incorporate group violence. Nevertheless, there are some definitions that also include violence by individuals. This leads to the conclusion that terrorism is interpreted in accordance with the philosophy of individuals or a nation. (Griset and Mahan 2003: xiii). In other words, the available definitions of terrorism are subjective. In general terms, terrorism is the perpetration of violence against a government or a particular community in order to coerce it to conform to the aspirations of the terrorists. It is not ordinary criminal violence, and on occasion constitutes a violent opposition to governments or specific communities. The motivation behind terrorist acts is to achieve some political or religious aim. Terrorist organisations use violence to achieve their coercive goals by targeting civilians and governments. These acts result in the creation of overwhelming fear. Terrorism is unlike traditional forms of violence, such as conventional or guerrilla warfare. The distinguishing feature of terrorism lies in its reliance on the psychological effects of violence, for achieving its objectives. As such, terrorism is an act of violence employed for achieving political, religious and other goals. Non – violent political opposition does not constitute terrorism, and violence is an essential ingredient of terrorism. The extant definitions of terrorism are extremely intricate and include several elements. The common factor to all these definitions is that terrorism is perpetrated by individuals, groups or states for accomplishing coercive goals. Terrorist attacks may be random or selective, and their objective is either propaganda or intimidation. Moreover, these objectives could be political or criminal. The definitions of terrorism have been observed to change with time and locality. Thus it can be surmised that terrorism, per se, defies an accurate definition and that the various descriptions of it in vogue, are at best subjective contemplations. List of References Definition of Terrorism. (2002, July 22). Retrieved October 25, 2010, from http://www.shamsali.org/taj/defterror.html Can we define terrorism? (n.d.). Retrieved October 25, 2010, from http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/2001-02/v14n2/04.shtml Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism. (2008). Organizational and psychological aspects of terrorism. IOS Press. Fitzgerald, A. L. (2007). Terrorism and national security. Nova Publishers. Griset, P. L., & Mahan, S. (2003). Terrorism in perspective. SAGE. Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside Terrorism. Retrieved October 21, 2010, from The New York Times on the Web: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/h/hoffman-terrorism.html?_r=1 Krueger, A. B. (2008). Who Becomes a Terrorist? Characteristics of Individual Participants in Terrorism. Lutz, J. M., & Lutz, B. J. (2008). Global terrorism. Taylor & Francis. Meisels, T. (2009). Defining terrorism – a typology. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 12(3): 331 – 351. Mythen, G., & Walklate, S. (2006). Criminology and Terrorism: Which Thesis? Risk Society or Governmentality? British Journal of Criminology, 46: 379 – 398. Ozeren, S., Dincer Gunes, I., & Al-Badayneh, D. M. (2007). Understanding terrorism: analysis of sociological and psychological aspects. IOS Press. Pillar, P. R. (2001). Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Ruby, C. L. (2002). The Definition of Terrorism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1): 9 – 14. Ruby, C. L. (2002, P12). The Definition of Terrorism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Volume 2, Issue 1. Schmid, A. (2004). Terrorism -- The Definitional Problem. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 36(2/3): 103 – 147. Read More