The War against Terrorism - Coursework Example

Terrorism Introduction Earlier this year , the whole world came together in mourning as it sent off the iconic and much loved Nelson Mandela who is internationally renowned for having spear headed the fight for independence and the end of apartheid in South Africa. Even as world leaders from the west congregated and paid tribute to a hero touted as one of the noblest men of modern times, one thing was conspicuously unmentioned and for rather obvious reasons. For most of the time in which he did the things he was being honoured for, the international community, more so the US and much of Europe had labelled him a terrorist and he was considered to be probably as much as many of the Al Qaeda terrorist on the most wanted list (Boehmer, 2005). How does one then make the transformation from being an international terrorist to the father of freedom? This real life analogy represents the warped perceptions and subjective understandings that have underlined the definition of terrorism in the contemporary world. Given that international terror is one of the main security threats today, it would be expected that in the quest to collectively fight the vice, there would be a clear-cut definition that would easily isolate and facilitate taking of actions on terrorists. The difficulty in defining terrorism is because it is both challenging to be specific in as far as the motives of the actors are concerned. In addition, the objectives targets and methods are so varied that the task of untangling them from each other and aligning them with those of their universal contemporaries is all but impossible. Background The entomology of the word terrorism can be traced back to the French word, terrorisme, and it was initially used in reference to actions by the state perpetrated by the French government between 1793 and 1794 during a period later termed as the reign of terror (Baudrillard, 2002). The French word originated from the Latin verb, terreo which implies to frighten; evidently, the word terrorism was initially used to refer to government actions but today it is normally considered, among other things, the killing of innocent people for political purposes and to create a media spectacle (Baudrillard, 2002). The most widely accepted and used definition albeit not universally accepted nor was encompassing the actions propounded by the UN secretary general in 2004 when he declared that terrorism is: “Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". (Reuveny & Thompson, 2010, p.351) One approach through which the term has been described can be titled politics of labelling, this is based on the notion that definitions of terrorism always carry a political purpose, ergo definition regardless of if they are academic or political tend to reflect the subjective views of their originators. This underlying subjectivity has in many cases resulted in distinct difficulties when it comes to realizing a tacit definition of terrorism. According to Richard Jackson, definitions on terrorism are inherently political in that using them makes it difficult for the society to explore alternative explanations of the concept and it essentially precludes other interpretations of “acts of terror” as criminal acts that would be in his opinion a more desirable state of affairs (Jackson, 2005. Politically, the contemporary definition of terrorism as a crime is that it is uniquely and inherently evil and subhuman, this definition naturally encompasses both the acts and the actors. By painting them as evil irrational and morally unsalvageable, the political definition succeeds to a great extent in dehumanizing terrorists (Simons et al, 2000). For this reasons, counter terrorism responses such as through torture and detention without trial as is the case for many incarcerated in the infamous Guantanamo bay prison is justified (Fitzpatrick, 2003). The people are made to understand that by the nefariousness of their acts, terrorists should not be considered as humans deserving of “privileges” such as fair trial or humane treatment (Priest, 2005). The notion of labelling is also reflective of the fact that terrorism is a given rather than take term, most of the groups that are labelled as terrorist have very different and often opposing self-identities which are recognized by them and their backers. Many international terror organisations such as the Al Qaeda and Taliban do not see themselves as terrorists but rather freedom fighters; a tag that has inspired the adage, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. IN this sense, one can see the late Osama Bin Laden being viewed by his followers as a man out to liberate them from western domination, exploitation and subjugation. According to them he was justified in his attacks on innocents because even the Americans and British soldiers were killing innocent middle easterners in their occupation. While there may be variations to the different understandings of the motives of such individuals, the connection between the likes of Mandela who are considered hero’s is undeniable since there are those that perceived the likes of Osama in the same way Mandela was viewed by the people he fought for when the world still thought he was a terrorist. The use of the word terrorism in a political sense has largely been responsible for lack of a singular and universal definition and consequently it is normally defined at the convenience of those who use it in line with their subjective aims (Bhatia, 2005). Governments have been known to often disagree with each other in the labelling of terrorism which is evident in the fact that there appear to be various definitions of terrorism that vary based on the organisations and context (Young, 2006). For example the 9/11 attacks despite their being not carried out by a country but rather a group of individuals were defined by the George Bush administration as an act of war by Afghanistan and consequently used as a basis for the US to invade the country. According to studies carried out by a subcommittee on terrorism in the US, it emerged that there were different definitions of terrorism by most of the security and intelligence organs. In the 80s, the term was often used politically by the US and her allies such as Israel to label their political enemies based on their activities while actions by the naming organisations were sanitized to make them appear legitimate (Schmid, 2004). For example, aggressive actions by cold war rivals of the US were termed as terrorism or acts of war while the same from the US and its allies were labelled using less pejorative terms: counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, low-intensity conflict, self-defence or war. Taking to account that the terror label is given to by powerful nations, one must take cognizance of the fact that there is a distinct bias against western actions being defined as terrorism and this is one of the main challenges to getting a universal definition since the current ones are not based on actions but perpetrators (Ruby, 2002). During the cold war, the US and her western allies widely used repression that essentially involved actors that from the other side could have been labelled terrorism. Even in the colonial period when for example the British and French colonized parts of Africa and Asia, most of the guerrilla fighters who were opposed to the imperialism and exploitation by foreigners were labelled as terrorist and treated with brutality to match the name. Over half a century later, these “terrorist” who went on to form the government in their respective nations after the departure of the British have sued them for human rights abuse and in Kenya, a group of former freedom fighters have won a case against the crown government on the same. Evidently, from a modern perspective, the people that can be considered as having being the real terrorist at the time are the colonizers but since they were in charge of writing the definitions and subsequent histories this was never applied to them. The political definition of terrorism has been characterized by western powers precluding their actions from the scope of the definition and they prefer to assume a propagandist approach in which terrorist can only be groups or individuals that antagonize them. This overt bias makes the definition of terrorism immensely complex since argument that terrorism should be based on actions rather than ad homier, as proposed by academics have largely been ignored. If this were the case, then definitions of terrorism would include actions by the US and UK governments, which would greatly undermine the soverisnity and autonomy of their actions more so against, rival governments. If in a situation where actions where massive civilian casualties are incurred as part of an aggressive offense meant to bring about say political change or in pursuit of enemies one would be warranted to label the actors as terrorists, many of the western governments would answer to the name. However given their power portfolios, the only time such actions can be described as terrorism is when they are perpetuated by traditionally hostile states such as Iran, or Iraq, when carried out by the west they are referred to as collateral damage. Despite the eloquence of arguments explaining how contemporary definitions of terrorism are biased and one sided, there is another angle to consider which is the fact that terrorism can be thought of as a particular knowledge or a sort of claim that is a result of the social result of particular political and social cultural contexts. Essentially, it would be difficult if not impossible to prove the claim that there can be such a thing as a value free definition of terrorism since this would be based on the misguided presupposition that terrorism is static and its actions remain unchanged over time. In the contextual setting where political violence is discoursed, this would be an empirically doubtful way of thinking. Therefore, even as one considered that labels are often misguided in the quest to define terror, it would be fallacious to claim that an objective definition can exist since it would imply delineating the labels from their political contexts. The versatility and dynamism of the issue of terror has unequivocally being a singular cause of confusion and multiple contradictions to those who seek an informed and conclusive definition of terrorism. Another way the challenge of a conclusive definition can be explained is using Gus Martins outline in which he lists the participants in a terrorist environment; he proposes that the challenges in definition can be attributed to ones proximity to the terror event (Martin, 2006). He provided four perspectives on the terrorism issue and suggests that how one defines it is based on their connection to each or any of them. The participants of a terror environment are the terrorist; the supporter; the victim; the target; the onlooker; and the analyst (Martin, 2006, p.51). The terrorists who are the perpetrator of the activities will see them as justifiable act or war and will rarely view themselves as a terrorist, which as aforementioned is a given rather than taken name. Once again, the sentiment one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter is applied; their definition of the event is reflective of the ideological, political or religious beliefs that motivate them to carry out the acts. To a significant extent, the supporters who share in the ideologies the terrorists stand for mirror these view, they will agree that the terrorist is a freedom fighter and to them the victims are unfortunate casualties in a fight for a greater cause. Looking at it from these perspectives, one cannot help but notice the similarities between the western powers in their justification of war to those of terrorist in justifying their causes. It is important while on this that one also considers that the supporters of terror and of cause the terrorists believe what they are doing is just and right with the same single-mindedness and conviction with which their victims deem them to be heartless and diabolical monsters. Naturally, the victim’s perspective will be very different from the perpetrators with the former rarely sympathizing with the terrorist whom to them is the embodiment of terror and evil. Their definition of terrorism is directly connected to their victimized state and their views will often be reflective of a target perspective. Then there is the onlooker category, which is the most populated category since most people are only indirectly affected by terror and are therefore only part of a wider audience in the theatre where terrorism is being perpetrated (Martin, 2006). Their perceptive is usually based on their direct or indirect witnessing with the latter being more common as it indicates the perspectives they form from being informed about terror incidences by the media. Depending on their point of view, the onlooker may or may not approve of a particular incidence, Bowyer Bell reinforces this in his claim that the very word terrorism is used as a yardstick for the different beliefs that people hold. Moreover, so much so that a personal discourse on terror with nearly anyone will elicit a unique individual viewpoint on matters of morality politics and humanity. Evidently, the fact that onlookers who form the popular opinion and who by extension influence policy makers through democratic process hold divergent views on the subject serves to underpin the subjectivity with which the matter is looked upon. Further underscore the difficulty in coming up with specific and universal definitions which should by extension determine the action that should be taken to counter or prevent terror. Once again, it is made clear that an objective definition of terrorism cannot be logically arrived at since it would at the end of the day fail to account for the viewing of the subjects values, perceptions or beliefs about the larger world and these are the constituent elements of the world’s condition. Martin as that through which perspectives on the other hand describe the analyst point of view, incidences are discourses, and perspectives on the terror events are created. The participant in this discourse will frequently include politicians, journalists and media personalities and academics, in most cases these will attempt to define for others what a terrorist is in an event. The fact that these participants are very separate from the event makes whatever definition, irrespective of the empiricism and logic applied to be potentially subjective and misleading. These groups could just as easily be fitted in the same categories as the victim, supporter or even terrorist based on the interpretation of the audience, in the 9/11 attack the US government acted as the analyst giving using terror by middle east attackers to justify invading Iraq. However, the objectivity of this description is eroded by the fact that they were also victims and according to some conspiracy theorist perpetrators of the attack indirectly or directly through being complacent. In addition there are claims they retrospectively funding the same Taliban elements that turned around to attack them such as Osama with whom it is claimed the US government worked with during the desert storm and shield operations in the 90s (Coll, 2004). Conclusion At the end of the day, it is clear that the absence of consensus in within the academic and political spheres in as far as a universal definition poses a challenge in not only the understanding but also the addressing of issues that relate to or emerge from it. Bearing in mind the intricacies involved in definition, several academics have posited the question, is an objective definition of terrorism really necessary? In as much as some concede that such is a frivolity that can be dispensed with, there are those who insist that without a definition, the issue will never be sufficiently addressed and argue that if one existed, terror would not pose as much a threat as it does. On contemporary discourse, many appear to be content with the crude description of Potter Stewart who said that like pornography, one recognizes terror when they see it. The UK Ambassador to the UN on an equally crude note proposed that “What looks, smells and kills like terrorism is terrorism” (Schmid, 2004. 375), this is evidence of his opinion that in respect to terror, there are more urgent matters than definitions such as apprehension of suspects. While this paper has indeed found that an objective definition is not logical given the dynamic nature of terror and the factors that motivate and inspire it, it is important that attempts are made to unite the divergent divinations which according to many are some of the factors likely to inspire it in posterity. The absence of a definition is what quintessentially allows some parties to use sanctioned terror in the name of fighting the “real” terror while the result is simply more intensified enmity and negative feelings that breed even more terrorism. References Baudrillard, J., & Valentin, M. (2002). Lesprit du terrorisme. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101(2), 403-415. Bhatia, M.2005 ‘Fighting Words: Naming Terrorists, Bandits, Rebels and other Violent Actors’. Third World Quarterly, 26:2, pgs.5-22 Boehmer, E. 2005. Postcolonial terrorist The example of Nelson Mandela.Parallax, 11(4), 46-55. Coll, S. 2004. Ghost wars: The secret history of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001. London: Penguin. Fitzpatrick, J. 2003. Speaking law to power: the war against terrorism and human rights. European Journal of International Law, 14(2), 241-264. Jackson, R. 2005. Writing the war on terrorism: language, politics and counter-terrorism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Martin, G.2006. ‘The Nature of the Beast: Defining Terrorism’, in Martin, G., Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues, 2nd ed. California: Sage Publications. Priest, D. 2005. CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons. Washington Post, 2, A1. Reuveny, R., & Thompson, W. R. (Eds.). (2010). Coping with Terrorism: Origins, Escalation, Counterstrategies, and Responses. New York: Suny Press. Ruby, C. L. 2002. The definition of terrorism. Analyses of social issues and public policy, 2(1), 9-14. Schmid, A. 2004 ‘Terrorism: The Definitional Problem’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 36, no. 375. Simon, S., et al., (2000) ‘America and the New Terrorism’.Survival , 42:1, pgs.59-75 Young, R. 2006. Defining Terrorism: The Evolution of Terrorism as a Legal Concept in International Law and Its Influence on Definitions in Domestic Legislation. BC Intl & Comp. L. Rev., 29, 23. Read More