Terrorism, where are the definitions?

Terrorism is a frightening reality, but then so is the way our political leaders use the term to protect their grip on power. It is difficult to fight a situation that lacks shape and definition, a characteristic of real terrorism but increasingly a characteristic of the term itself.

Our democracies and even marginal democracies have been guilty of cynically employing terrorism to introduce dubious suppression laws and/or strengthen support through creating needless fear.

Terrorism and democracy

The Bush administration, leaders of the great democracy, have also been masters of subverting democracy through its misuse of terrorism, as have some allies. Terrorism has been the justification for questionable laws used to suppress opposition to the government It has justified spying on its own citizens; it has justified a war of greed in which many thousands of young Americans have died.

Worst of all, misuse of the term has created a situation whereby even asking the question, doubting the honesty of the Bush regime became unpatriotic and un-American. That’s great, we give you freedom to keep your mouth shut, follow us without question and re-elect us.

Pakistan of course is only a marginal democracy, so few really question it when Musharaff uses the terror threat to jail political opponents in the lead up to an election. After all, Pakistan is on the front line of terrorism, supposedly keeping them at bay. We can afford to sacrifice the freedoms there to save our sorry arses.

Time to define terrorism

I admit there are people out there better qualified to define terrorism and its meanings, but I’ll jump in here and start at least. One acknowledged problem is that there is no accepted general definition, and perhaps worse, no uniform legal definition of terrorism.

The danger of that is thee is no sound base from which to debate the issues; lack of consistent accepted universal legal definition, with prescribed limitation, ‘the state’ can extend draconian laws at a whim, indefinitely.

A major factor inhibiting any consistent definition of terrorism is that countries invariably find themselves potentially guilty of various acts which come under any reasonable description. So rather than dealing with strict definitions we are restricted to looking at terrorism on the basis of understandings of right and wrong.

Under various names and guises terrorism seems to have existed for millennia, either as a threat or laudable behaviour, depending on which side you are on. I would posit that espionage is a form of terrorism and that nation states such as the USA and Israel were born out of acts of terrorism.

The modern sense of terrorism comes to us from regime de la terreur, the Reign of Terror of the revolutionary government in France from 1793 to 1794. But revolutionary leader, Robespierre, as did Washington, styled their acts of terror as noble and worthy responses.

“Terrorism aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible.” Encyclopædia Britannica

So terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Though is now more generally used as a pejorative.

The United States Department of Defense defines terrorism as “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

The problem the US faces with that definition is how unlawful might be defined in respect to their actions. If the Bush regime imposed a reign of terror on Iraq solely to install a ‘democratic’ government, mindless of the ‘collateral damage’ to the civilian population, and without International consent that could well be a terrorist activity. If they did it to gain control of Iraqi oil fields it is a criminal act by any standards.

Faces of Terrorism

There is a real distinction between local/regional and global terrorism, at least so far as the most general definitions. Admittedly regional can flow wider through immigration from, or tourism to, trouble spots. Like disease, easy travel now allows the spread of the terrorist scourge well beyond local targets.

In fact local/regional terrorists will target tourist destinations purely to gain coverage of their cause and activities. Immigration is more problematic, and the ‘Irish Troubles’ are probably still the best case study for that. While the bulk of ‘terror’ activities have been historically confined to the UK associated criminal activities have followed immigration.

This also connects the terrorism Vs criminal aspects of our definitions and again, the US falling short on the action/ rhetoric equation. Criminal activity has been associated, originally, with fund raising and arms buying. The organised crime culture of the US provided a readymade base for these fanatics.

In later years, as political solutions began to take the heat out of the issues, IRA cells at home and abroad turned to selling their wares to other terrorist and criminal groups. Cognizant of these issues, and the terror created within the UK, the US still failed to act against Irish terrorists based on their soil. Only two years ago the US refused to ratify an extradition treaty with the UK for fear that Irish suspects would have to be returned to Britain.

But they are the big boy’s games, the real terror threat if you like. Inspired by the activities of the big blokes young wannabes are causing their own havoc, devoid of any real cause beyond the general dissatisfaction of youth.

The major difference is that these kids are being used in the terror argument to warrant greater controls, when their behaviour is clearly straight criminal; rape, violence and crime in the name of some half understood cause.

My fear is that while governments shrink away from defining terrorism, for fear of implicating themselves, they continue to push through anti-terrorism laws. On what basis? For what purpose? Yet many of those laws are little more than tougher criminal law, tougher in the sense of police powers, or more often designed to impede voices of dissent.