Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 25 March 2009

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) No issues specified. Please specify issues, or remove this template. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by governments.

Controversy

Like the definition of terrorism and the definition of state-sponsored terrorism, the definition of state terrorism remains controversial and without international consensus.

It is controversial whether the concept of terrorism can be applied to states. It is usually applied to non-state actors (VNSA's), especially by governments. The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to state terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If states abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law. Kofi Annan, at the time United Nations Secretary-General, has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law" However, he also made clear that, "...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism. And I think this we can all be clear on."

Definitions

Various analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, according to these analysts, a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors:

Terrorism is 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. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.

— Alex P. Schmid,

the purposeful act or threat of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat. ... this definition helps to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Not all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim.

— Michael Stohl, Professor of Political Science at Purdue University,

Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, described as pioneers in the concept of state terrorism, have argued that the distinction between state and non-state terror is morally relativist, and distracts from or justifies state terrorism perpetrated by favored states, typically those of wealthy and developed nations (Chomsky and Herman, 1979).

The traditional approach views terrorism as a form of random behavior perpetrated by international criminals, treating it as a special type of deviant behavior (Helen Purkitt, "Dealing with Terrorism.," in Conflict in World Society, 1984, p. 162.) In contrast, a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism has been increasingly discussed within the literature that establishes a meaning to account for the concept of state and state-sponsored terrorism. (Michael Stolhl, p. 14). The authors cite former US Secretary of State George Shultz who elaborates on this conceptual framework shift:

"What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984).

The term "Establishment" and "Structural terrorism" is sometimes used to describe state terrorism that posits the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. This includes policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. As such, state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreign policies (Michael Stolhl, p. 15). Academic Conor Cruise O'Brien argument is cited, as an example:

"Those who are described as terrorists...make the uncomfortable point that national armed forces, fully supported by democratic opinion, have in fact employed violence and terror on a far vaster scale...."("Liberty and Terrorism," International Security 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 56-57.)

In this view terrorism emanates from legitimate political institutions intent upon creating a state of fear for political ends, and therefore includes the activities of sovereign states themselves. Michael Stohl has argued:

“The use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents. Examples that come readily to mind include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. (M. Stohl, “The Superpowers and International Terror,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, March 27-April 1, 1984).

Prof. Stolhl and George A. Lopez designate three particular forms of state terrorism exhibited in foreign policy behavior (p.207-208):

• 1. Coercive terrorist diplomacy: (eg. discreet and controlled, and makes non-compliance intolerable)
• 2. Covert state terrorism:
  • a)Clandestine state terrorism (eg. direct participation of states, ex. to weaken a governments or intimidate government officials of another state etc)
  • b)State-sponsored terrorism (eg. "states or private groups being employed to undertake terrorist actions on behalf of sponsoring state."
• 3. Surrogate terrorism: (eg. assistance to another state or group that improves their capability to practice terrorism)
  • a)State-sponsored terrorism (eg. as above)
  • b)State acquiescence to terrorism (eg. group undertakes terrorism and is not explicitly backed by a state but not condemned either.)

Some scholars argue that a institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. In this analysis state terrorism as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. The argument is discussed by Professor of Political Science Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988.

The earliest use of the word terrorism identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is a 1795 reference to what the author described as the "reign of terrorism" in France. During that part of the French revolutionary period that is now known as the Reign of Terror, or simply The Terror, the Jacobins and other factions used the apparatus of the state to execute and cow political opponents. The Oxford English Dictionary still has a definition of terrorism as "Government by intimidation carried out by the party in power in France between 1789-1794".

The Encyclopedia Britannica Online defines terrorism as the "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police". The Encyclopedia Britannica also states that "Establishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state's support is always clandestine.."

Linguist and US policy critic Noam Chomsky, described by some as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism, has described low-intensity warfare as state terrorism. He writes: "The U.S. is officially committed to what is called 'low-intensity warfare'.... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same." See Low intensity conflict for the army definition.

Scholars Emizet Kisangani and Wayne Nafziger argue that democide is equivalent to state terrorism.

Analysis

Philosopher Igor Primoratz provides four reasons why he believes that state terrorism is typically morally worse than non-state terrorism. First, because of the nature of the modern state and "the amount and variety of resources" available even for small states, the state mode of terrorism claims vastly more victims than does terrorism by non-state actors. Secondly, because "state terrorism is bound to be compounded by secrecy, deception and hypocrisy," terrorist states typically act with clandestine brutality while publicly professing adherence to "values and principles which rule it out." Thirdly, because unlike non-state actors, states are signatories in international laws and conventions prohibiting terrorism, when a state commits acts of terrorism it is "in breach of its own solemn international commitments." Finally, while there may be circumstances where non-state actors are in such an oppressed situation that there may be no alternative but terrorism, Primoratz argues that "it seems virtually impossible that a state should find itself in such circumstances where it has no alternative to resorting to terrorism."

In his university-level textbook, "Understanding Terrorism:Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues", Gus Martin argues that the work of organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are among the "approaches to the analyses of state terrorism are useful for evaluating different types of state-sponsored violence" arguing further that during the late 1970s and 80's “in its annual global human rights reports Amnesty International has extensively documented the escalation in state terror…Amnesty International identified the main forms of state terror as arbitrary detention, unfair trial, torture, and political murder or extrajudicial execution."

See also

• State-sponsored terrorism

Notes

1. POLITICS: U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism
2. "Definitions of Terrorism". United Nations. Archived from the original on 2007-01-29. Retrieved 2007-07-10.
3. Stohl, National Interests and State Terrorism, The Politics of Terrorism, Marcel Dekker 1988, p.275
4. Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition, CD Version 3, 2002, Oxford University Press
5. Jenny Teichman (1989). "How to define terrorism". Philosophy. 64 (250): 505–517. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
6. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, Sluka, Jeffrey (ed), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, p.8
7. Barsamian, David (2001). "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State An Interview with Noam Chomsky". Monthly Review. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
8. Kisangani, E. (2007). "The Political Economy Of State Terror" (PDF). Defence and Peace Economics. 18 (5): 405–414. doi:10.1080/10242690701455433. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
9. Primoratz, Igor. State Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism, in Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Igor Primoratz, ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004,119-120
10. Martin, Gus. Understanding Terrorism: Understanding Terrorism. Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage Publications,2006, 83

References

• Sluka, Jeffrey A. (Ed.) (2000). Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1711-X.
• Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S. (1979). The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Vol. 1. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-090-0
• Alexander George (1991). Western State Terrorism. Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-0931-7.
• Mark Curtis (2004). Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses. Vintage. ISBN 0-09-946972-3.

Further reading

• Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner, eds. Terrorism : essential primary sources. Thomson Gale, 2006. ISBN 9781414406213 Library of Congress. Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms LC Control Number: 2005024002.
• Tarpley, Webster G. 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA -Progressive Press. ISBN 0-93085-231-1
• Chomsky, Noam. The Culture of Terrorism ISBN 0-89608-334-9
• Chomsky, Noam. 9/11 ISBN 1-58322-489-0
• George, Alexander. Western State Terrorism, Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-0931-7

External links

Prevention of terrorism

• The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
• Recognizing State Terror
• http://State Terrorism and Counterterrorism

• Political repression
• Terrorism
• Dirty wars