Terrorism - a Violent Alternative

Open image in new window

CC BY-NC-ND

Image

Discuss the following quote:

1. Explain what King means in your own words.
2. Martin Luther King made the above statement when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Considering what has happened since then, why do you think it has been difficult to follow his recipe?

There are several definitions of terrorism. Even though it may seem a bit confusing, this diversity is rather useful - it helps us formulate a set of important criteria that may help us identify this complex phenomenon.

1. “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” (US Department of Defense)
2. "Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (FBI)
3. "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience" (U.S. Department of State)
4. "An anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets." (UN)
5. "…the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear." (UK government)
6. "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes".
7. "a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government."
8. "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion"
9. "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal "
10. "the use of terror as a means of achieving a goal"
11. "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

[Sources - Terrorism Research (1-5), Dictionary Definition of Terrorism (dictionary.com) (6,7), Definition of Terrorism (merriam-webster) (8-10), Description of Terrorism (wikipedia)(11)]

There is a lot of focus on individuals and groups committing acts of terrorism. However, such strategies and tactics have also been used by states, for instance in the context of cultural revolutions – totalitarian attempts to homogenize the population ideologically (Examples: France during la Terreur, Stalinist USSR, China during Mao's Cultural Revolution, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc.)

There are also cases where states find it in their interest to fund terrorist groups.

There is no shortage of terrorist movements which claim that they merely and legitimately fight for freedom or resist oppression. Conversely, the word "terrorism" having such a negative connotation, it is often used rhetorically in order to discredit groups or individuals that one disagrees with. During the Second World War, for instance, the Norwegian resistance movement was qualified as terrorists by German propaganda.

CC BY-NC-SA

Image: Trond J. Strøm

Terrorism represents a dilemma for democratic societies. How should they react? In 2001, to protect America’s free, democratic society, George Bush chose to use America’s military might first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq to fight what he termed the Axis of Evil. He also introduced legislation which threatened the civil liberties of American citizens. In contrast, after Utøya, the Norwegian response has been openness and solidarity. As Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said on the first anniversary of the attacks in Norway, “The world has no better protection against terrorism than openness, democracy and humanity.” On the one hand, a democracy has to ensure its continued existence and to protect its inhabitants against aggression from without or within – if necessary by the use of force. On the other hand, they are defined by their commitment towards human dignity and the human rights that this belief entails. Terrorism may force them to choose between staying true to their ideals and using all means deemed necessary to fight attempts to harm their population and threaten their stability.

There are many ways to fight terrorism. Aiming at less hate and extremism at home and abroad, for example by education, debate and deserving the moral high ground, may be a good place to start. However, this will not always be enough, and in such situations one needs all the protection that the police and the intelligence community or, indeed, the armed forces are able to provide.

Since terrorism is a global phenomenon, it has been necessary to establish international cooperation in order to cope with it. Countries may work together case by case through the exchange of information, joint police or military operations, etc., may cooperate on the basis of formal bi- or multilateral agreements and may join forces by establishing and/or supporting international organizations.

The answer to this question depends upon which end one pursues. Indeed, if the goal is to create suffering and a cycle of violence, terrorism has been highly effective.

Gandhi once said: "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent". Indeed, it is difficult to find examples of situations where terrorism has actually contributed to build anything. When the temptation to lash out, kill one's enemies, seek vengeance etc. is strong enough, some sort of satisfaction might result from giving in to it. However, this kind of gratification comes at a very high price: the day one is taken by the desire to reach for what one loves and wants instead of destroying what one hates, chances are that there are only ashes, dried blood and corpses left to build on.