Introduction
and Background
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror
especially as a means of coercion or as a means of achieving political goals.
According to MacColn Shaw the use of terror as a means of achieving political
ends is not a new phenomenon. The term “Terrorism” was originally used to
describe the actions of the Jacobean Club during the “Region of Terror” in the
French Revolution. The Jacobian leader, Macmillan Robespierre stated that
“Terror is nothing other than justice prompt, severe, inflexible”. The
Jacobians successfully imposed a reign of terror in Paris and its environs
during the French Revolution. After the Jacobians lost power, the word
“Terrorist” became a term of nouse and derision.
The word “Terorrism” is politically and
emotionally charged and this greatly compounds the difficulty faced by scholars
political analyst and international law in providing a precise or universally
acceptable definition. Researcher has shown that there are over a hundred
definitions of terrorism. The concept of terrorism is controversial in that it
is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political opponents and
perceived dissisents while the same time it may be used to legitimize the use
of force by the state against other group or the opposition. Such use of force
may be described similarly as “terror” by opponents of the state.
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad
array of political organization, militants groups, religious extremist, merce
navy agents etc, for the furtherance of their objectives. It has been practiced
by both rightwing and leftwing political parties, nationalistic groups,
religious groups, revolutionary organizations and non combatants for the
purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause or individual.
At present, the international community has
not been able to formulate a universally acceptable legally building definition
of terrorism under criminal law. Common definition of terrorism refer to only
to those violent acts which are intended to create fear and are perpetrated for
an ideological goals. Such acts are carried out deliberately and with conscious
disregard for the safety of non combatants, the civilians populations and other
innocents.
Some simply define terrorism as acts of
unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorism organizations and their
activities suggest that they do not select terrorism for its political
effectiveness purse. Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a
desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by
political plat forms or strategic objectives. Some of these objectives are
often nurky and undefined.
In November 2004, a special UN report
issued by the office of the secretary general described terrorism as 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 dong an act….
Over the years, the world community has
continued to grapple with the problem of a definition of the term terrorism
which would be seen as acceptable or that would serve to situate the place of
terrorism under international law. It has been impossible for even the UN to
conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. In 1994, the UN
General Assembly described terrorism as “Criminal Acts intended or calculated
to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of person or
particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances
unjustifiable, whatever the consideration of political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked
to justify them … ref 22
Terrorism is carried out in a variety of
ways. Some of their tactics include assassination, hijacking, kidnapping,
bombing, arson, sabotage, and other forms of destruction. Terrorists activities
aim at producing fear among the civilian population and within the institution
of government either as a means of changing the existing order of things or to
draw attention to the demands of the group.
Since the end of the cold war, terrorism
and related activities have gained enormous prominence in the calculation of
the government of the United States. The state Department defined terrorism as
“political motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by
sub-regional groups or clandestine agents ..ref 23
Critics of United States foreign policy
argue that the US view of terrorism is narrow and self serving. They argue that
any group fighting against American interest and those of her allies are seen
as terrorist groups while those agreeable with American intentions are
considered “free fighters”. Several organizations which play important role in
the international system today could be branded terrorist organization on one
hand or freedom fighters on the other depending on whose view is being
espoused. The IRA, the Taliban, Al-qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, PLO etc are viewed
as terrorist group by the western democracies while others view them as freedom
fighters in the struggle to liberate their lands and people from various forms
of oppressions.
As a result, International law and indeed
the United Nations is faced with the serious problem of common agreement on the
common issue of definition, who is a terrorist, what constitutes terrorist act
and the legitimacy otherwise of terrorist activities. These political
differences not withstanding, reasonable progress has been made at both
international and regional levels, to establish basic rules in dealing with
terrorists activities and its perception around the world. The September 2001,
attack on the World Trade Centre in New York marked a turning point in the
desire to reach a common consensus and understanding in the perception of
terrorist activities. More than ever before September 11 drew global
condemnation because of the barbarism and sheer destruction of the attack. Even
countries and groups that previously maintained ambiguous position on the issue
of terrorism came out boldly to voice their condemnation of the act in addition
to moving previously dormant UN action on terrorism to higher level.
The UN adhoc committee on terrorism came up
with a Declaration in 1994 on measures to eliminate International Terrorism.
The declaration condemned “all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as
criminal and unjustifiable, whenever and by whoever committed ref 5.
The declaration to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group or
person or persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable,
whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial,
ethnic, religious or any other nature may be involve to justify them. The
declaration obliged states to refrain from organizing terrorist activities and
to take practical measures to ensure that their territories are not used for
terrorist installations, training camps or for the preparation of terrorist
acts against other states. States are further obliged to apprehend and
prosecute or extradite perpetrators of terrorist acts and to co-operate with
other states in exchanging information and combating terrorism6.
The controversial and emotional bases upon
which the issue of terrorism is ensconced explain why scholars, politicians and
the media deign to be careful in their use of the term in order achieve a level
of relatively acceptable impartiality.
Types of Terrorism
In 1975, the US government set up a task
force to study the issue of terrorism. In its report, the task force classified
terrorism into six main categories.
1. Civil Disorder: This is a form of
collective violence which has the tendency to interfere with the peace,
security and normal functioning of the community.
2. Political Terrorism: This is a violent
criminal behaviour designed primarly to generate fear in the community or
substantial segment of the community for political purposes.
3. Non-political Terrorism: An act of
terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits a
conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive
purpose but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the
achievement of a political objective.
4. Quasi-Terrorism: The activities
incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and
method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential
ingredients. It is not the main purpose of the quasi terrorist to undertake
terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the
quasi terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorists
and produces similar consequences and reaction. For instance, the fleeing felon
who takes a hostage or hostages is a quasi terrorist but while his method is
similar to those of the genuine terrorist, his purpose is quite different.
5. Limited Political Terrorism: Genuine
political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach while limited
terrorism refer to acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological and
political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture
control of the state.
6. Official or State Terrorism: This
refers to nations whose rules are based upon fear and oppression. Similar to
terrorism or such proportions, it may also be referred to as structural
terrorism which may be viewed broadly as terrorist acts carried out by
government in pursuit of political objectives of state as part of their foreign
policy.
Democracy
and Domestic Terrorism:
The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very complex.
Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom and
least common in the most advanced democracies. Some example of “terrorism” in
non-democracies include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco, the shining part
of Peru, under the Alberto Fujimore, the Kurdistan Workers Party in Turkey
under military rulers and the ANC in apartheid South Africa. Democracies such
as UK, US, Israel, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines etc have also
experienced domestic terrorism.
While a democratic nation
espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other
authoritarian regimes acts of terrorism within such states constitute serious
dilnma. The bone of contention have becomes whether to maintain the existing
civil liberties at the risk of being perceived as ineffective in dealing with
problems or to restrict its civil liberties at the risk of delegitimising its
claim of supporting civil liberties.
Terrorist Profile:
Terrorism is a clandestine activity. To work
successfully, a terrorist must avoid detection through his manner of neither
dress behaviour nor general outlook. While on a mission, a terrorist will look
casual, dress normally and put ordinary behaviour until the assigned mission is
executed. Some studies claim that attempts to profile terrorism based on
personality, physical or sociological traits are highly unsuccessful because
the physical and behavioural description of the terrorist does not deviate from
that of any normal human being. Most terrorist and highly intelligent and the
commitment and zealousness attached to their mission demands a commensurate
level of equavimity and emotional stability. Studies however, reveal that most
terrorist attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 16-40 years.
The
perpetrators of acts of terrorism could be individuals, groups or states.
Clandestine or semi-clandestine states actors may also carryout terrorist act
outside the framework of a state of war. However, the most common image of
terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells highly
motivated to serve a particular cause. Many of the highly successful and most
deadly operations carried out in recent years were carried out by unit cells
comprising of close friends and family members or other strong social networks.
These groups benefited form the free flow of information and efficient
communication skillfully managed.
State Sponsorship:
A state can sponsor terrorist activities by
providing funds in aid of terrorist operations or providing a safe haven for
terrorist organizations. State may also use its institutional apparatuses to
carry out terrorist activities. They may be the intelligence organization or a
special task force set up and trained for such purpose. This of course must be
highly clandestine. When states provide funding for groups considered to be
terrorist activities, they rarely acknowledge them as such. Opinions vary
widely as to which acts of violence by states consists of terrorist
sponsorship. State involvement in terror acts may also take a different scope.
According
to civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often
unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher up to those at the lower
wrung is nearly always sensible. Largely, it goes unnoticed, when it is
noticed, it is quickly and fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower in
the hierarchy to those higher up is unthinkable and when it occurs, it is
regarded with shock, horror and wide condemnation.
The
concept of “State Terrorism” is a controversial one. What constitutes self
defence or the protection national interest to one side may be viewed as
terrorist act or plain militarism by another side. Like most concepts in
international politics, consensus opinions is never easy to come by. It states
abused their power they should be judged against international conventions
dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international
humanitarian law. According to Koffi Anan, the world has reached a stage where
it must set aside debates on so-called “State Terrorism”. In his view, the use
of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law and
… regardless of differences between government on the question of definition of
terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is that any deliberate
attack on innocent civilians regardless of ones’ cause is unacceptable and fits
into the definition of terrorism…
State
terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts of governmental agencies or
forces. This involves the use of state resources employed by a state’ foreign
policies such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism.
Michael Stohl cites the exmples of Germany’s bombing of London and the US
atomic destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. He argues
that … the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the
states has been and remains a more likely employers of terrorism within the
international system, more than insurgents…
They
also cite the first strike option as an example of terror of coercive diplomacy
as form of this which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of suing
nuclear weapons in “crisis management”. They argue that institutionalized forms
of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following
World War II.
In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form
of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapon of mass
destruction and how the legitimizing of such violent behaviour led to an
increasing accepted form of this state behaviour. The concept of state
terrorism is also used to describe political repression by governments against
their won civilian population with the purpose of inciting fear. Execution of
civilian hostages or extra judicial elimination are commonly considered acts of
terror.
Conclusion:
Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare
and is more common when direct conventional warfare would not be effective
because of the varying degree of power allocation. The context in which
terrorist tactics are used is often a large scale, unresolved political
conflict. The type of conflict varies widely. Some historical examples include:
a. Secession
of a territory to form a new sovereign state.
b. Dominance
of territory or resources by various ethnic groups.
c. Imposition
of a particular form of government.
d. Economic
deprivation of a population.
e. Opposition
to a domestic government or occupying army.
f. Religious
extremision.
Terrorism
attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity often with the use of
explosives or poison. There is increasing concern about terrorist acquiring
weapons of mass destruction and using such in their attacks.
Terrorist organizations usually plan their campaigns
methodically and often ahead of time. Train participants, plant undercover
agents and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Terrorist
communicate through modern telecommunication techniques though this in some
cases increases their risk of possible detection and exposure. In many other
cases, they rely on the old fashioned method of communication such as couriers
and other person to person means of communication.
Responses
to terrorism are broad in scope. They include re-alignment of the political
spectrum and reassessment of fundamental values. Specific types of response
include.
a. Targeted
laws, criminal procedures, deportation and enhanced police activities.
b. more
elaborated and sophisticated defence measures and detection techniques.
c. Pre-emptive
or reactive military action. The drone aircrafts recently introduced by the US
government in fighting Al-qaeda militants in Afghanistan is a good example.
d. Increased
intelligence and surveillance activities.
e. pre-emptive
humanitarian activities aimed at reducing the sympathy or support of the local
population to the terrorists.
f. More
Strict interrogation and detention of policies.