Bulatlat.com

News Analysis
‘Terrorism’: What’s In a Word?

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s fighter.” This old adage suggests how inconclusive the definition of terrorism is. But in today’s emotionally-charged global weather, who controls the propaganda war will become the final judge on what terrorism is all about.

By Edmundo Santuario III
Bulatlat.com

United States President George W. Bush last Friday finally gave his marching orders to American forces to deploy near Afghanistan and start what he called, “Operation Infinite Justice” or what is turning out to be the “global crusade” against “terrorism.” The likely targets of this US-led global yet “protracted” military reprisal is not only the forces of Osama bin Laden – the prime suspect in last Sept. 11’s unprecedented attacks on the belly of world capitalism – but also Iraq, Libya and other suspected hosts of international terrorism.

United States military strategists are talking about a war that would last for at least 10 years.

But before the bombs and missiles start raining on these likely targets, has anybody cared to ask Bush what the hell is he talking about – “terrorism”? Americans themselves are divided on what type of retribution is needed for the thousands of lives lost – to give justice to the Sept. 11 victims or exact revenge. Just who is the enemy – a stateless person like Bin Laden or states whom Bush suspects are “harboring” terrorists, namely, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North Korea and others?

In the search for an appropriate definition of “terrorism,” the easily available source is the United States. This is hardly surprising not only because the US controls the global information technology and enjoys a strong media mileage through its global communication villages (CNN, NBC, etc.). Over the past 10 years, with the demise of the “Cold War,” the US government has taken upon itself in pursuance of its “world policeman’s” role the task of fighting “terrorism.” In the early 1990s, Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency and the US state department, to name a few, began harping about the “new enemy” that would replace the Soviet Union – “terrorism” along with drug cartels and ethnic conflicts.

Until today, however, there is no universal acceptance of what “terrorism” means. The old adage, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” remains true. The Guardian newspaper reports about a book discussing attempts by the United Nations and other international bodies to define terrorism. After three volumes and 1,866 pages, no conclusion is reached.

‘Politically-motivated’

The US state department’s definition of terrorism is blunt and popular among its allies: “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” It also defines “international terrorism” as “terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.”

According to the state department, the United States’ counter-terrorist policy stresses three general rules: first, make no deals with terrorists; second, treat terrorists as criminals; and third, use maximum pressure on states that sponsor and support terrorists by imposing economic, diplomatic and political sanctions.

The suicide attack on USS Cole in Aden harbor in the Middle East last year killed 17 American soldiers and injured 39 others. The ship was armed and its crew on duty at the time, yet the attack was classified as “terrorist.”

This is because the state department also considers as acts of terrorism “attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the time, such as bombings against US bases.”

A major reason why the killers of Col. James Rowe, alleged members of the Alex Boncayao Brigade, have not been released by Philippine authorities despite being 10 years in prison is due to pressures from the state department. The state department believes that the 1988 assassination of Rowe was an “act of terrorism.” Yet Rowe was known among Philippine authorities as a JUSMAG intelligence agent and was advising the AFP at the time it was launching its “low intensity” counter-insurgency campaign against leftist guerillas. Arms and ammunition in the campaign were provided by the US.

Although most westerners agree that terrorism is politically-motivated, the motive in some incidents which could be considered “terrorist attacks” is not always clear, especially if no one has claimed responsibility.

Not Israel

According to the Guardian, Palestinian mortar attacks on Jewish armed settlements are counted as terrorism. But this state department rule does not apply on Israeli rocket attacks on Palestinian communities. Israeli attacks on unarmed Palestinian civilians are considered as a “human rights issue.” In the American definition, terrorism can never be inflicted by a state.

Although it considers its definition of terrorism in absolute terms and assumes global prescription, Washington’s own list of “terrorist organizations” looks confusing enough to make such definition full of incosistencies. The list compiled by the state department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other anti-terrorist agencies in the United States lumps suspected “terrorist” groups with guerilla and revolutionary organizations in many countries and whose objectives and modes of operations do not necessarily correspond to the American definition. Mentioned in the list are some 50 or so armed organizations with varying ideologies, political goals and modes of action.

For instance, in the Philippines, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), a kidnap-for-ransom group which traces its roots to the CIA-bankrolled anti-Soviet mujahideens in Afghanistan, is lumped with the New People’s Army (NPA), a Marxist-Leninist organization which relies on guerilla warfare against the Philippine armed and police forces. The list also includes the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a partisan organization which has been fighting for Irish independence over the past century; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which has already won recognition by several states; and ETA which has been fighting for an independent Basque state in Spain.

Likewise, the United States officially classifies seven states as sponsors of “terrorism” – Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba.

And if the threat of Bush that countries harboring “terrorists” would also be targets of “Operation Infinite Justice” is to be taken seriously, several countries in Europe whose liberal governments have been giving sanctuary to activists who are objects of persecution by their own governments would rethink about their policy on political refugees now. Under the American definition, such refugees – particularly leftist and anti-US imperialist ones - are fair targets of OIJ.

European Union

Right now – days following the Sept. 11 attacks - the European Union is speeding up legislation to make action against terrorism faster and more effective among its 15 member-states. The proposed measures include replacing extradition procedures with simple arrest warrants.

In Great Britain – America’s closest traditional ally come hell or high water – a bill was introduced in Parliament two years ago to broaden the scope of terrorism, including domestic and foreign-based groups. Critics said the bill’s targets included, among others, anti-capitalist activists, computer hackers and environmentalists such as those destroying genetically-modified (GM) crops. Pressed to confirm this, Home Secretary Jack Straw was silent saying only that only the courts can decide on the questions raised.

Citing Guardian again, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of the word’s original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as “government by intimidation.” Today, it usually refers to intimidation of governments.

In the United States’ political vocabulary, therefore, there is no such thing as “state terrorism” although states – usually its own allies – which do so can only be chided for “human rights violations” or receive token diplomatic pressures. Yet, through the years, state terrorism has committed far bigger and more vicious criminal acts compared to the acts of violence which the US government says international terrorists have committed.

Blood debt

The entire history of the United States, for instance, from the frontier days of its founding to the time it became monopoly capitalist and, today, the lone superpower is written in blood. And yet today, only those organizations or countries whom Washington considers its enemies are called “terrorist” while its continuing acts of interventionism, proxy or surrogate wars, covert and overt operations in any part of the world are fine and just.

Ernesto Garzon, the Spanish judge who was to try General Augusto Pinochet (who ruled Chile from the 1970s-late 1980s through American support) for atrocities, defines state terrorism “as a political system whose rule of recognition permits and/or imposes a clandestine, unpredictable, and diffuse application, even regarding clearly innocent people, of coercive means prohibited by the proclaimed judicial ordinance.”

Nowadays, state terrorism is again rearing its ugly head in the pretext of combatting domestic or international terrorism. Simply because of its monopoly of state violence, state terrorism is more brutal and tends to stifle legitimate causes simply by labelling these as “terrorist.”

The regimes that apply state terrorism, Garzon says, tend to justify it as transitory, as a cruel but necessary period that anticipates a return to, or guarantees protection for, constitution and democracy. In short, to paraphrase Bush, it is a necessary weapon to enable the “good” to conquer all “evil.” Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.