Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Issue No. 32 September 23-29, 2001 Quezon City, Philippines |
News
Analysis “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
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 UnionRight
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 debtThe
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.
|