The Problem of Terrorism - Assignment Example

?Terrorism Terrorism is usually described as a planned, systematic or methodical use of terror as a means of intimidation, although it currently has no universally agreed definition. Many legal definitions focus on the creation of terror by individuals generally working for some kind of greater political, religious or ideological cause, although some definitions include all unlawful warfare or violence. The reason for these differing definitions of the word terrorism stem from the fact that is an incredibly emotionally and politically charged word which many suggest is used only in a xenophobic context. The purpose of this paper is to cover some of the controversies and debates surrounding the use of the word terrorism in a number of context to highlight some of the difficulties in defining and using this word. The etymology of the word terrorism is a good starting place as it is much simpler than defining terrorism in current usage. It is thought to have come from the French terrorisme which has origins in the Latin terror, meaning great fear or dread. The first use of the word in the English language is dated to the later parts of the 18th century and it was used without having any political subtext. It then evolved in usage and was associated with the French ‘Reign of Terror’ and other governmental situations where terror is used as a policy. Although terrorism is still used to describe some government regimes, it is more commonly used to describe non-governmental acts of violence which are normally considered to be unlawful in a national or international context. The need to define terrorism arose as a way of addressing violations of human rights and threats to national and international peace and safety. Perhaps the one aspect on which all definitions of terrorism have consensus is that it is a public form of violence and should be distinguished from violence against an individual or small group of individuals. It is also important to make this distinction for the purpose of criminal law, as terrorism charges require different modes of address in the courts. Perhaps the main problem with finding a true definition of terrorism is that it should be created without bias, which is incredibly difficult when considering that the differing definitions usually stem from a political context, Using terrorism in a political context means that it is likely to change definition to reflect the current political climate and the interests of the party using the word. One extremely good example of this concerns the Taliban and Osama bin Laden, who are now considered the very highest order of terrorists because they pose a threat to Western values. However, when the Taliban were fighting against USSR occupation of Afghanistan, they were considered to be freedom fighters because it was relevant to the political context of the time. Due to this reliance on the current political context, terrorism is usually used to refer to some kind of ‘other’ and therefore could be said to be the use of terror when it is against the values of the party using the word. It therefore carries with it some social stigma and is pejorative; it singles out the terrorist party as being immoral. A more modern example of this is the fact that terrorism is often used to describe radical Islamist parties, particularly when their acts of terrorism are in Europe and the US. The recent example of the 2011 Norway massacre masterminded by Anders Breivik is less commonly referred to as a terrorist attack perhaps because his ideological anti-immigration and anti-Islam standpoint is not uncommon in Europe. The most striking thing about the use of terrorism to describe these attacks is that it is highly dependent on the standpoint of the media describing the incident, again highlighting the importance of politics and ideology in usage. The importance of politics recurs again and again in definitions and re-definitions of the term. Almost all scholarly discussions of the usage refer to both violence and political ideology in the definition. Another important element which is less common in many definitions but perhaps implied by the word ‘terror’ itself is that terrorism is often an act which is supposed to have long-lasting psychological effects on the victim and the society within which the attacks occurred. This psychological effect, or fear, is the main motivation for these attacks as it is from this fear that political change stems. The theory is that if the government or the majority is afraid for their safety it will bring about long-term changes protecting the right of the terrorist. Perhaps the most controversial of the meanings of terrorism is that it is strongly linked to Islamism, as previously mentioned. We can see this in any mainstream media use of the term. This is controversial because it places Islam itself in a position of discrimination, whereas the terrorist groups associated with this type of action are radical in nature. Although no formal use of the term is associated with Islam specifically, colloquial and media use is, which is perhaps more significant in many ways. Again, it highlights the fact that terrorism is usually used to describe the political or ideological ‘other’, a group with considerably different aims to the general population and the government. Conclusions Evidently, there are a huge number of problems in using the word terrorism. Some scholars have suggested that it be replaced with the word ‘militancy’ as this has less emotional and political considerations. The problem with this word is that it does not encompass the psychological repercussions of the action and does not necessarily implicate violence; a militant group may be peaceful in their actions. The legal definitions are generally simpler, but the more common use of the term by individuals and the media and sometimes even governmental representatives have more weight in the mind and therefore should be more careful in their considerations of use. The debate on the use of the word ‘terrorism’ is likely to continue as long as it is in mainstream usage and will therefore need to be held under careful consideration in times to come. References O'Kane, Rosemary H. T. (2007) Terrorism. Harlow: Pearson Longman. Oehmichen, A. (2009) Terrorism and anti-terror legislation, the terrorised legislator? : a comparison of counter-terror legislation and its implications on human rights in the legal systems of the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany and France. Antwerp; Portland [Or.]: Intersentia. Read More