Freedom-Fighter Vs Terrorist Debate Essay
Account for the persistence of the ‘terrorist versus freedom fighter’ debate as we approach the 40th anniversary of international terrorism.
I will argue that to account for the persistence of the ‘terrorist versus freedom fighter’ debate more fully as we approach the fortieth anniversary of international terrorism we need to look at the central issues through different conceptual lenses. I will incorporate in this account the ‘Social Constructionist’ views championed by the ‘Copenhagen School’, along with more traditional analysis. I will show that the ‘Securitization’ of concepts, like ‘Terrorism’, is important when accounting for the persistence of this debate.
I will initially explain ‘Social Constructivist’ approaches to international relations theory and then, more specifically to this debate, the ‘Copenhagen School’ and their ‘Securitization Model.’ I will explore the different levels of importance attributed to having a definitive definition of what constitutes an act of terrorism. Following this I will look at the linguistic resonance of the names of previous ‘terrorist’ groups and how the understanding of the concept of ‘terrorism’ has changed throughout time. I look at how the confusion within this debate is caused by the blurring of means and ends. The right of self-determination is accepted but it is interesting to look at the political and media usage of the two terms when describing different organisations to see that they can have political consequences. Another factor for the persistence of this debate is the direct relationship ‘terrorists’ have with the media. I will look at some of the perceived successes of ‘terrorism’ in this area that could also account for the persistence of this debate. Finally, I will look at the role of civilian deaths and the strongly contested concept of State Terrorism as another important factor in the persistence of this debate.
‘Social Constructivism’ is a relatively new approach to international relations theory that stresses ‘how ideas define, and can transform the organisation of world politics, shape the identity and interests of states, and define what counts as legitimate action. ’ Constructivism is not a substantive theory of international relations but instead a social theory that is ‘broadly concerned with how to conceptualise the relationship between agents and structures, ’ with its central observation being ‘the social construction of reality. ’ Constructivism as an approach to international relations ‘concerns itself with the centrality of ideas and human consciousness [and] how the structure constructs the actors’ identities and interests, how their interaction are organised and constrained by that structure, and how their very interaction serves to either reproduce or transform that structure. ’
The concept of ‘Securitization’ is also new, brought to the field of international relations by a group of Constructivist thinkers known as the ‘Copenhagen School.’ They regard ‘security as a socially constructed concept ’ and this sociological approach considers ‘how the world is made and re-made through human action and intervention. ’ For them ‘what constitutes an existential threat is regarded as a subjective matter. It very much depends on a shared understanding of what constitutes a danger to security. ’ ‘Securitization’ is where ‘Securitizing Actors’ (government, political elites, military, even members of civil society) use ‘Speech Acts’ to attempt to ‘Securitizes issues by declaring something, a ‘referent object,’ existentially threatened, ’ the referent object being ‘things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival. ’ This may not work but it is done because a ‘successful act of securitization provides the securitizing actors with the special right to use exceptional means. ’
Traditional International Relations theory might suggest that definitions of the two terms used in this debate are important but the Copenhagen School would focus on how these concepts are ‘socially constructed’ within each society. Western leaders are today in a ‘War on Terrorism’ but do not work from a definitive definition of what constitutes a terrorist act, rather, ‘academics, politicians, security experts and journalists, all use a variety of definitions of terrorism. ’ The conceptualisation of the two terms is the cornerstone of the ‘Terrorist Versus Freedom Fighter’ debate and from here we must progress with caution because ‘the matter of definition and conceptualization is usually a purely theoretical issue’ and ‘defining our terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussion.’ Constructivists agree about the importance of the understanding of the words ‘Terrorist’ or ‘Freedom Fighter’, but, unlike a more traditional approaches it would not be concerned with dictionary definitions but more to do with the way influential actors like, for example, the President of the United States, use ‘speech acts’ to influence the way that the concept of ‘Terrorism’ is created in our minds.
Although the term ‘terrorism’ may not have been used, acts very similar to our current conceptions have been committed almost since we have any historical record and it is interesting to that some of the names of these groups are still used today. Most of these early proponents of ‘terrorist’ acts were millenarian but not from any one particular faith. There was a Jewish group called the ‘Zealots’ in the first century A.D. that would murder Romans (or fellow Jews that they judged to have colluded with the Romans) in public places by slashing their victim’s throat with a knife called a ‘Sica’. Starting in the seventh century A.D. there was a group of Indian religious fanatics called the ‘Thugs’ that murdered passing travellers as a sacrifice to the Hindu goddess of terror and destruction, Kali. The ‘Thugs’ operated for just over one thousand years and the term is still used today as an adjective to mean someone excessively violent or threatening. The way the names of these groups end up in popular usage is interesting and this is again true for a group of radical Muslim Shi’as called the ‘Assassins’ who after the turn of the first century A.D. murdered their Christian enemies in acts that they believed were sanctioned by a higher power. The thing that this highlights for a ‘Constructivist’ is the resonance linguistically of proper nouns that become adjectives could be to do with the power of pre-modern Securitization.
The terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terror’ have changed meaning regularly and dramatically throughout the past two hundred years and this illustrates that there is a certain amount of fluidity to our understanding of a concept, and this is constructed by factors that can be located in a particular time. The term ‘Terror’ was first popularised after the French Revolution of 1789 in what was known as a ‘reign of terror’, and did not have the pejorative connotations that it has now; it was in fact, ‘an instrument of governance wielded by the recently established revolutionary state. ’ By the middle of the twentieth century the meaning had changed again to represent the oppression of totalitarian states against its own people like in Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Fascist Italy or Stalin’s Communist Russia. After the Second World War ‘terrorism’ was once again associated with revolutionary movements, but, this time as only a likely stage in a greater campaign. During the 1960’s and 70’s the meaning changed yet again when ‘terrorist’ tactics were used not just by nationalist and ethno-separatist and iridescent groups within a guerrilla war but by ideologically driven or disenfranchised nationalist groups to publicise their cause. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation is said to have introduced the era of ‘International Terrorism’ hijacking planes using the ‘theatre ’ of terrorism to highlight their cause. Since then many diverse groups and organisations have used ‘terrorism’ for a wide variety of reasons but the terrorist attacks on the United States of America on September 11th 2001 illustrated the massive destruction that could be caused by ‘suicide’ terrorism and led people to examine this phenomena and conceptualisation of the words like ‘terrorism.’
As is highlighted by the problems around definition, ‘terrorism’, like most concepts in the social sciences, is contentious and never really escapes ‘relativist’ and ‘viewpoint’ considerations. Terrorism is a ‘complex phenomena open to subjective interpretation ’ so it is understandable that a person’s ‘viewpoint’ needs to be understood at the same time as their definition and conceptualisation of ‘Terrorism.’ It is also important to consider that ‘using relativist arguments, critical theorists suggest that Western states cannot claim moral superiority, and its associated legitimacy, on the basis of their willingness to contravene international norms as it suits them. If anything, the historical track record of Western states as colonial and/or imperial powers only legitimizes the acts of the disenfranchised who have no other option to combat their continued oppression and poverty. ’ It is no surprise then that ‘the concept of terrorism is deeply controversial. It has generally been used as a term of abuse against groups who engage in violent behaviour, by people who oppose the goals of the group’ In the ‘securitization’ model of the Copenhagen School it is the lack of objectivity of things like the ‘security threat’ of terrorism that is used to explain the use of extraordinary powers when a concept is successfully ‘securitized.’
Problems have been caused within this debate by people placing an emphasis on the ends or goals of a group rather than looking at both the ends and the means applied in achieving these. This is where the term ‘Freedom Fighter’ becomes very vague; the end that someone is ‘Fighting’ for is ascribed to be ‘Freedom’ but no further information is discernable about the methods applied in attempting to achieve this. It is also quite likely that both sides in a conflict are going to claim to be fighting for the positive notion of ‘Freedom’ but can this can not be objectively judged. Within this debate it is also important to accept that ‘much confusion occurs in the debate about the morality of terrorism because of a failure to distinguish ends and means. Terrorism is a method that can be used for an infinite variety of goals. ’ Constructivists would argue that the distinction between means and ends is not of central importance and that the more important thing is the way that issues like terrorism are ‘Securitized’ to add to the breadth of the range of possible responses.
Once the ‘aims’ or objectives of a group have been accepted the next step is to look at the ethical acceptability of methods or ‘means’ they use to achieve these goals. This is important to the persistence of this debate because ‘reaching consensus on what constitutes terrorism is difficult and one of the foremost reasons for disagreement relates to different interpretations of the legitimacy of terrorist means and methods. ’ In Palestine ‘terrorism’ can be seen as the only option, and they have a ‘martyr concept’ where they believe that due to the uneven distribution of armed force it is acceptable to use any means necessary, even suicide bombing by women and children. This again feeds into the fact that ‘using relativist arguments, critical theorists suggest that Western states cannot claim moral superiority, and its associated legitimacy, on the basis of their willingness to contravene international norms as it suits them. If anything, the historical track record of Western states as colonial and/or imperial powers only legitimizes the acts of the disenfranchised who have no other option to combat their continued oppression and poverty. ’ It could be said in this debate that both sides attempt to ‘Securitized’ their respective struggles to justify the use of extraordinary ‘means’ because they consider themselves to be existentially threatened.
After the Second World War and with the creation of the United Nations Charter the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples ” was codified in international treaties and this gave extra credibility to anti-colonial struggles and peoples battling against oppressive dictators. This then led to the thorny issue around labelling independence movements that is central to this debate. After the official destruction of the ideological dominance of Imperial nations this left ‘competing political and religious value-systems [that] are not subordinate to overarching authority. ’ Within the ‘Cold War’ there was ‘stability through nuclear fear ’ but with that came any distinctions between independence movements being dictated more by ‘Cold War’ politics than objective analysis. In the post Cold War era it is more obvious than ever that the ‘dream’ of an ‘international consensus order, based on agreed values and laws ’ has not been established and international relations theories based more on power like ‘realism’ or ‘neo- realism’ are as dominant as ever.
It is interesting to look back at the last forty years to assess the way that the two terms have been used politically by Presidents of the United States of America to help us understand what has been driving the distinction for the current world hegemonic power. When Ronald Reagan took control of the White House in 1980 the Iranian Hostage Crisis was quickly resolved but he was under no illusions about the new revolutionary Islamic Republic’s threat to the interests of the United States of America. This revolution in Iran roughly coincided with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Reagan’s plans for a more aggressive foreign policy aimed at taking the fight back to the soviets, overcoming ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ and recreating the important role on the international scene the Americans had enjoyed since the second world war. He overtly supported the ‘Afghan Freedom Fighters ’ that would later evolve into the Taliban and in some cases Al Qaeda. He also supported the ‘Contras’ in Nicaragua in response to “an unusual and extra ordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. ” It is accepted that powerful politicians have an advantage as a securitizing actor but ‘moves of securitization can fail. This results from the audience rejecting the speech act articulated by the securitizing actor. ’
Terrorism and the media have a direct relationship because ‘terrorism by its very nature is a psychological weapon that depends upon communicating a threat to the wider society. ’ That is not to say that terrorism was not possible before the advent of mass media as the earlier exponents of such tactics murdered their victims in crowded places like markets and relied on simple word of mouth to ‘communicate a threat to the wider society.’ That being said the necessity of communicating the message via news agencies is not lost on the actors wanting the media attention or in fact on news stations that compete for market share and use ‘terrorist’ activity to bolster their advertising revenues. This strange relationship has led people to suggest that ‘terrorism and the media enjoy a symbiotic relationship. ’ British PM Margaret Thatcher thought that some sort of censorship should be employed to stop [the ‘terrorists’] getting ‘the oxygen of publicity.’ The problems of implementation made this policy unravel without considering the central issue of this debate, who is a ‘Terrorist’ and who is a ‘Freedom Fighter?’
The lack of definition and obvious implications of the usage of the term ‘terrorist’ became something of a discussion forum for different media outlets before 9/11. It was recognised that ‘the term ‘terrorist’ has a pejorative value ascribed to it that further complicates understanding of the subject. ’ How could respectable News outlets use a term that ‘is highly pejorative, [and] tends to be used selectively and subjectively? ’ This led to different policies being implemented by different media out lets from never using the terms except in direct quotes etc and then this also ignited a debate again after 9/11. This debate still persists because of exactly these types of intellectual enquiry. Without definitive definition these terms can only be used selectively and subjectively and for any self respecting news agency this raises serious issues. In using these terms media organisations could be said to be helping the Securitization of the concepts.
It is hard to argue that terrorism has not had a certain amount of success in the area of publicising their causes but at the same time it is dramatically less successful on its own at recruiting support from the wider audiences they target. It has been said that ‘for terrorists, media coverage of their activities is, as we have seen, something of a double-edged sword, providing them with the attention and publicity that they invariably seek, but not always in a particularly useful or even helpful manner. ’ I would also agree that ‘the relationship between publicity and terror is indeed paradoxical and complicated. Publicity focuses attention on a group, strengthening its morale and helping to attract recruits and sympathizers. But publicity is pernicious to the terrorist groups too. It helps an outraged public to mobilize its vast resources and produces information that the public needs to pierce the veil of secrecy all terrorist groups require’ David Rapoport
Although terrorist may not have direct success in recruitment after a ‘terrorist’ attack, the situation for them can change dramatically when the same ‘target’ audience feels that the response in counter-terrorism terms is disproportionate and as indiscriminate as the original attack. In fact ‘many terrorist leaders hope that their actions will lead to disproportionate reactions by a state that in turn disaffects public or international opinion and increases support for their cause. ’ Looking at this issue we could come to the conclusion that the broad scope and hard to understand links between the western ‘War on Terror’ and the threat from Al Qaeda could be the greatest single factor in the apparent success of terrorism in the modern age. A national/ international police response to ‘terrorist’ attacks no matter how dramatic would not revitalise the ‘terrorist versus freedom fighter debate’ like the US Securitization of Terrorism after 9/11 has.
One of the most contentious issues is whether ‘states alone have a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. ’ The successful securitization of terrorism by governments is important because within this paradigm, the use of violence by non-state actors is illegitimate so excluding the possibility of acts of ‘State Terrorism’. Many people associate civilian deaths with ‘terrorism’ and this leads to another related issue confusing this debate and keeping it alive. Can states can commit ‘acts of terrorism?’ I mentioned earlier the previous conception as ‘terror’ being exclusively the reserve of the state in Fascist states but this was in relation to its actions towards its own people. The exemption of states from being able to commit terrorist acts is one near constant when looking at the way in which states have attempted to define terrorism. Official definitions often state that the perpetrators have to be non-state, sub-state or extra-legal entities but without this distinction it is hard to argue against the possibility of state terrorism. Within the Second World War British politicians argued against the bombing of whole urban populations in Germany due to it being ‘terrorism.’ British World War Two leader Winston Churchill admitted when stopping the policy that it had been aimed at ‘terrorising the German people into submission.’ Along similar lines the dropping of atomic bombs on cities in Japan should also be seen as ‘terrorism’ as it could be argued that this was done not simply to win the war but also to communicate a political message to the Soviets about the post war ‘balance of power’. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq some claim that the necessary UN resolutions were not obtained in advance and therefore ‘actions by the coalition should be considered as an act of terrorism’ conducted by states ’. All these considerations are illuminated by social constructivist approaches; it is more to do with the competing forces constructing our understanding of the terms than any objective reality.
Conclusion
To account for the persistence of the ‘terrorist versus freedom fighter’ debate more fully as we approach the fortieth anniversary of international terrorism it is important to consider Social Constructionist views of international relations alongside more traditional approaches. The Copenhagen School help us to understand the importance of Speech Acts in creating Securitized concepts, and when this is successfully done it allows the use of methods that are normally considered outside the range of acceptable responses to a threat. It is for these reasons that this alternative conceptual lens helps us account for the persistence of the terrorist versus freedom fighter debate. Traditional analysis would suggest that having a definitive definition of what constitutes an act of terrorism is important but Constructivist would be more concerned with the way this is constructed or conceptualised in people’s minds after competing Speech Acts have been articulated. It is interesting to look at the linguistic resonance of the names of previous ‘terrorist’ groups and how the understanding of the concept of ‘terrorism’ has changed throughout time thus illustrating the social construction of these concepts. The confusion within this debate caused by the blurring of means and ends is based in more traditional analysis as Constructivist do not place much importance in this issue. The right of self-determination is accepted but it is interesting to look at the political and media usage of the two terms, when describing different organisations, to illustrate that there is awareness that the mental construction of these terms is important. Another factor for the persistence of this debate is the direct relationship ‘terrorists’ have with the media, they need to communicate their message and this battle ground is important in the construction of these concepts. The perceived successes of ‘terrorism’ are around the amount of publicity that they can generate but this can be used by securitizing actors to help convince their audience of a threat and allow extra ordinary methods to be used in response. The final issue I looked at was the role of civilian deaths and the strongly contested concept of State Terrorism and this is important to the persistence of this debate because, as Social Constructivists would say, it is a barometer of the success or otherwise of the securitization of terrorism.
Sebastian O’Brien
November 2007 .
Bibliography
Books
John Bayliss and Steve Smith. ‘The Globalisation of World Politics; An introduction to International Relations.’
Paul Wilkinson ‘Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response’
Hoffman, Bruce. ‘Inside Terrorism: Revised and Expanded Edition’
‘Introductory Sociology’ 4th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan,
Andrew Haywood ‘Politics’ Palgrave Macmillan
Edited by Alan Collins. ‘Contemporary Security Studies.’
Noam Chomsky. ‘Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance’ Penguin
Journal Articles
Boaz Ganor, Definining Terrorism: ‘Is One Man’s terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?’ Journal. Page 1
Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism
I will argue that to account for the persistence of the ‘terrorist versus freedom fighter’ debate more fully as we approach the fortieth anniversary of international terrorism we need to look at the central issues through different conceptual lenses. I will incorporate in this account the ‘Social Constructionist’ views championed by the ‘Copenhagen School’, along with more traditional analysis. I will show that the ‘Securitization’ of concepts, like ‘Terrorism’, is important when accounting for the persistence of this debate.
I will initially explain ‘Social Constructivist’ approaches to international relations theory and then, more specifically to this debate, the ‘Copenhagen School’ and their ‘Securitization Model.’ I will explore the different levels of importance attributed to having a definitive definition of what constitutes an act of terrorism. Following this I will look at the linguistic resonance of the names of previous ‘terrorist’ groups and how the understanding of the concept of ‘terrorism’ has changed throughout time. I look at how the confusion within this debate is caused by the blurring of means and ends. The right of self-determination is accepted but it is interesting to look at the political and media usage of the two terms when describing different organisations to see that they can have political consequences. Another factor for the persistence of this debate is the direct relationship ‘terrorists’ have with the media. I will look at some of the perceived successes of ‘terrorism’ in this area that could also account for the persistence of this debate. Finally, I will look at the role of civilian deaths and the strongly contested concept of State Terrorism as another important factor in the persistence of this debate.
‘Social Constructivism’ is a relatively new approach to international relations theory that stresses ‘how ideas define, and can transform the organisation of world politics, shape the identity and interests of states, and define what counts as legitimate action. ’ Constructivism is not a substantive theory of international relations but instead a social theory that is ‘broadly concerned with how to conceptualise the relationship between agents and structures, ’ with its central observation being ‘the social construction of reality. ’ Constructivism as an approach to international relations ‘concerns itself with the centrality of ideas and human consciousness [and] how the structure constructs the actors’ identities and interests, how their interaction are organised and constrained by that structure, and how their very interaction serves to either reproduce or transform that structure. ’
The concept of ‘Securitization’ is also new, brought to the field of international relations by a group of Constructivist thinkers known as the ‘Copenhagen School.’ They regard ‘security as a socially constructed concept ’ and this sociological approach considers ‘how the world is made and re-made through human action and intervention. ’ For them ‘what constitutes an existential threat is regarded as a subjective matter. It very much depends on a shared understanding of what constitutes a danger to security. ’ ‘Securitization’ is where ‘Securitizing Actors’ (government, political elites, military, even members of civil society) use ‘Speech Acts’ to attempt to ‘Securitizes issues by declaring something, a ‘referent object,’ existentially threatened, ’ the referent object being ‘things that are seen to be existentially threatened and that have a legitimate claim to survival. ’ This may not work but it is done because a ‘successful act of securitization provides the securitizing actors with the special right to use exceptional means. ’
Traditional International Relations theory might suggest that definitions of the two terms used in this debate are important but the Copenhagen School would focus on how these concepts are ‘socially constructed’ within each society. Western leaders are today in a ‘War on Terrorism’ but do not work from a definitive definition of what constitutes a terrorist act, rather, ‘academics, politicians, security experts and journalists, all use a variety of definitions of terrorism. ’ The conceptualisation of the two terms is the cornerstone of the ‘Terrorist Versus Freedom Fighter’ debate and from here we must progress with caution because ‘the matter of definition and conceptualization is usually a purely theoretical issue’ and ‘defining our terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussion.’ Constructivists agree about the importance of the understanding of the words ‘Terrorist’ or ‘Freedom Fighter’, but, unlike a more traditional approaches it would not be concerned with dictionary definitions but more to do with the way influential actors like, for example, the President of the United States, use ‘speech acts’ to influence the way that the concept of ‘Terrorism’ is created in our minds.
Although the term ‘terrorism’ may not have been used, acts very similar to our current conceptions have been committed almost since we have any historical record and it is interesting to that some of the names of these groups are still used today. Most of these early proponents of ‘terrorist’ acts were millenarian but not from any one particular faith. There was a Jewish group called the ‘Zealots’ in the first century A.D. that would murder Romans (or fellow Jews that they judged to have colluded with the Romans) in public places by slashing their victim’s throat with a knife called a ‘Sica’. Starting in the seventh century A.D. there was a group of Indian religious fanatics called the ‘Thugs’ that murdered passing travellers as a sacrifice to the Hindu goddess of terror and destruction, Kali. The ‘Thugs’ operated for just over one thousand years and the term is still used today as an adjective to mean someone excessively violent or threatening. The way the names of these groups end up in popular usage is interesting and this is again true for a group of radical Muslim Shi’as called the ‘Assassins’ who after the turn of the first century A.D. murdered their Christian enemies in acts that they believed were sanctioned by a higher power. The thing that this highlights for a ‘Constructivist’ is the resonance linguistically of proper nouns that become adjectives could be to do with the power of pre-modern Securitization.
The terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘terror’ have changed meaning regularly and dramatically throughout the past two hundred years and this illustrates that there is a certain amount of fluidity to our understanding of a concept, and this is constructed by factors that can be located in a particular time. The term ‘Terror’ was first popularised after the French Revolution of 1789 in what was known as a ‘reign of terror’, and did not have the pejorative connotations that it has now; it was in fact, ‘an instrument of governance wielded by the recently established revolutionary state. ’ By the middle of the twentieth century the meaning had changed again to represent the oppression of totalitarian states against its own people like in Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Fascist Italy or Stalin’s Communist Russia. After the Second World War ‘terrorism’ was once again associated with revolutionary movements, but, this time as only a likely stage in a greater campaign. During the 1960’s and 70’s the meaning changed yet again when ‘terrorist’ tactics were used not just by nationalist and ethno-separatist and iridescent groups within a guerrilla war but by ideologically driven or disenfranchised nationalist groups to publicise their cause. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation is said to have introduced the era of ‘International Terrorism’ hijacking planes using the ‘theatre ’ of terrorism to highlight their cause. Since then many diverse groups and organisations have used ‘terrorism’ for a wide variety of reasons but the terrorist attacks on the United States of America on September 11th 2001 illustrated the massive destruction that could be caused by ‘suicide’ terrorism and led people to examine this phenomena and conceptualisation of the words like ‘terrorism.’
As is highlighted by the problems around definition, ‘terrorism’, like most concepts in the social sciences, is contentious and never really escapes ‘relativist’ and ‘viewpoint’ considerations. Terrorism is a ‘complex phenomena open to subjective interpretation ’ so it is understandable that a person’s ‘viewpoint’ needs to be understood at the same time as their definition and conceptualisation of ‘Terrorism.’ It is also important to consider that ‘using relativist arguments, critical theorists suggest that Western states cannot claim moral superiority, and its associated legitimacy, on the basis of their willingness to contravene international norms as it suits them. If anything, the historical track record of Western states as colonial and/or imperial powers only legitimizes the acts of the disenfranchised who have no other option to combat their continued oppression and poverty. ’ It is no surprise then that ‘the concept of terrorism is deeply controversial. It has generally been used as a term of abuse against groups who engage in violent behaviour, by people who oppose the goals of the group’ In the ‘securitization’ model of the Copenhagen School it is the lack of objectivity of things like the ‘security threat’ of terrorism that is used to explain the use of extraordinary powers when a concept is successfully ‘securitized.’
Problems have been caused within this debate by people placing an emphasis on the ends or goals of a group rather than looking at both the ends and the means applied in achieving these. This is where the term ‘Freedom Fighter’ becomes very vague; the end that someone is ‘Fighting’ for is ascribed to be ‘Freedom’ but no further information is discernable about the methods applied in attempting to achieve this. It is also quite likely that both sides in a conflict are going to claim to be fighting for the positive notion of ‘Freedom’ but can this can not be objectively judged. Within this debate it is also important to accept that ‘much confusion occurs in the debate about the morality of terrorism because of a failure to distinguish ends and means. Terrorism is a method that can be used for an infinite variety of goals. ’ Constructivists would argue that the distinction between means and ends is not of central importance and that the more important thing is the way that issues like terrorism are ‘Securitized’ to add to the breadth of the range of possible responses.
Once the ‘aims’ or objectives of a group have been accepted the next step is to look at the ethical acceptability of methods or ‘means’ they use to achieve these goals. This is important to the persistence of this debate because ‘reaching consensus on what constitutes terrorism is difficult and one of the foremost reasons for disagreement relates to different interpretations of the legitimacy of terrorist means and methods. ’ In Palestine ‘terrorism’ can be seen as the only option, and they have a ‘martyr concept’ where they believe that due to the uneven distribution of armed force it is acceptable to use any means necessary, even suicide bombing by women and children. This again feeds into the fact that ‘using relativist arguments, critical theorists suggest that Western states cannot claim moral superiority, and its associated legitimacy, on the basis of their willingness to contravene international norms as it suits them. If anything, the historical track record of Western states as colonial and/or imperial powers only legitimizes the acts of the disenfranchised who have no other option to combat their continued oppression and poverty. ’ It could be said in this debate that both sides attempt to ‘Securitized’ their respective struggles to justify the use of extraordinary ‘means’ because they consider themselves to be existentially threatened.
After the Second World War and with the creation of the United Nations Charter the “principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples ” was codified in international treaties and this gave extra credibility to anti-colonial struggles and peoples battling against oppressive dictators. This then led to the thorny issue around labelling independence movements that is central to this debate. After the official destruction of the ideological dominance of Imperial nations this left ‘competing political and religious value-systems [that] are not subordinate to overarching authority. ’ Within the ‘Cold War’ there was ‘stability through nuclear fear ’ but with that came any distinctions between independence movements being dictated more by ‘Cold War’ politics than objective analysis. In the post Cold War era it is more obvious than ever that the ‘dream’ of an ‘international consensus order, based on agreed values and laws ’ has not been established and international relations theories based more on power like ‘realism’ or ‘neo- realism’ are as dominant as ever.
It is interesting to look back at the last forty years to assess the way that the two terms have been used politically by Presidents of the United States of America to help us understand what has been driving the distinction for the current world hegemonic power. When Ronald Reagan took control of the White House in 1980 the Iranian Hostage Crisis was quickly resolved but he was under no illusions about the new revolutionary Islamic Republic’s threat to the interests of the United States of America. This revolution in Iran roughly coincided with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Reagan’s plans for a more aggressive foreign policy aimed at taking the fight back to the soviets, overcoming ‘Vietnam Syndrome’ and recreating the important role on the international scene the Americans had enjoyed since the second world war. He overtly supported the ‘Afghan Freedom Fighters ’ that would later evolve into the Taliban and in some cases Al Qaeda. He also supported the ‘Contras’ in Nicaragua in response to “an unusual and extra ordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. ” It is accepted that powerful politicians have an advantage as a securitizing actor but ‘moves of securitization can fail. This results from the audience rejecting the speech act articulated by the securitizing actor. ’
Terrorism and the media have a direct relationship because ‘terrorism by its very nature is a psychological weapon that depends upon communicating a threat to the wider society. ’ That is not to say that terrorism was not possible before the advent of mass media as the earlier exponents of such tactics murdered their victims in crowded places like markets and relied on simple word of mouth to ‘communicate a threat to the wider society.’ That being said the necessity of communicating the message via news agencies is not lost on the actors wanting the media attention or in fact on news stations that compete for market share and use ‘terrorist’ activity to bolster their advertising revenues. This strange relationship has led people to suggest that ‘terrorism and the media enjoy a symbiotic relationship. ’ British PM Margaret Thatcher thought that some sort of censorship should be employed to stop [the ‘terrorists’] getting ‘the oxygen of publicity.’ The problems of implementation made this policy unravel without considering the central issue of this debate, who is a ‘Terrorist’ and who is a ‘Freedom Fighter?’
The lack of definition and obvious implications of the usage of the term ‘terrorist’ became something of a discussion forum for different media outlets before 9/11. It was recognised that ‘the term ‘terrorist’ has a pejorative value ascribed to it that further complicates understanding of the subject. ’ How could respectable News outlets use a term that ‘is highly pejorative, [and] tends to be used selectively and subjectively? ’ This led to different policies being implemented by different media out lets from never using the terms except in direct quotes etc and then this also ignited a debate again after 9/11. This debate still persists because of exactly these types of intellectual enquiry. Without definitive definition these terms can only be used selectively and subjectively and for any self respecting news agency this raises serious issues. In using these terms media organisations could be said to be helping the Securitization of the concepts.
It is hard to argue that terrorism has not had a certain amount of success in the area of publicising their causes but at the same time it is dramatically less successful on its own at recruiting support from the wider audiences they target. It has been said that ‘for terrorists, media coverage of their activities is, as we have seen, something of a double-edged sword, providing them with the attention and publicity that they invariably seek, but not always in a particularly useful or even helpful manner. ’ I would also agree that ‘the relationship between publicity and terror is indeed paradoxical and complicated. Publicity focuses attention on a group, strengthening its morale and helping to attract recruits and sympathizers. But publicity is pernicious to the terrorist groups too. It helps an outraged public to mobilize its vast resources and produces information that the public needs to pierce the veil of secrecy all terrorist groups require’ David Rapoport
Although terrorist may not have direct success in recruitment after a ‘terrorist’ attack, the situation for them can change dramatically when the same ‘target’ audience feels that the response in counter-terrorism terms is disproportionate and as indiscriminate as the original attack. In fact ‘many terrorist leaders hope that their actions will lead to disproportionate reactions by a state that in turn disaffects public or international opinion and increases support for their cause. ’ Looking at this issue we could come to the conclusion that the broad scope and hard to understand links between the western ‘War on Terror’ and the threat from Al Qaeda could be the greatest single factor in the apparent success of terrorism in the modern age. A national/ international police response to ‘terrorist’ attacks no matter how dramatic would not revitalise the ‘terrorist versus freedom fighter debate’ like the US Securitization of Terrorism after 9/11 has.
One of the most contentious issues is whether ‘states alone have a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. ’ The successful securitization of terrorism by governments is important because within this paradigm, the use of violence by non-state actors is illegitimate so excluding the possibility of acts of ‘State Terrorism’. Many people associate civilian deaths with ‘terrorism’ and this leads to another related issue confusing this debate and keeping it alive. Can states can commit ‘acts of terrorism?’ I mentioned earlier the previous conception as ‘terror’ being exclusively the reserve of the state in Fascist states but this was in relation to its actions towards its own people. The exemption of states from being able to commit terrorist acts is one near constant when looking at the way in which states have attempted to define terrorism. Official definitions often state that the perpetrators have to be non-state, sub-state or extra-legal entities but without this distinction it is hard to argue against the possibility of state terrorism. Within the Second World War British politicians argued against the bombing of whole urban populations in Germany due to it being ‘terrorism.’ British World War Two leader Winston Churchill admitted when stopping the policy that it had been aimed at ‘terrorising the German people into submission.’ Along similar lines the dropping of atomic bombs on cities in Japan should also be seen as ‘terrorism’ as it could be argued that this was done not simply to win the war but also to communicate a political message to the Soviets about the post war ‘balance of power’. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq some claim that the necessary UN resolutions were not obtained in advance and therefore ‘actions by the coalition should be considered as an act of terrorism’ conducted by states ’. All these considerations are illuminated by social constructivist approaches; it is more to do with the competing forces constructing our understanding of the terms than any objective reality.
Conclusion
To account for the persistence of the ‘terrorist versus freedom fighter’ debate more fully as we approach the fortieth anniversary of international terrorism it is important to consider Social Constructionist views of international relations alongside more traditional approaches. The Copenhagen School help us to understand the importance of Speech Acts in creating Securitized concepts, and when this is successfully done it allows the use of methods that are normally considered outside the range of acceptable responses to a threat. It is for these reasons that this alternative conceptual lens helps us account for the persistence of the terrorist versus freedom fighter debate. Traditional analysis would suggest that having a definitive definition of what constitutes an act of terrorism is important but Constructivist would be more concerned with the way this is constructed or conceptualised in people’s minds after competing Speech Acts have been articulated. It is interesting to look at the linguistic resonance of the names of previous ‘terrorist’ groups and how the understanding of the concept of ‘terrorism’ has changed throughout time thus illustrating the social construction of these concepts. The confusion within this debate caused by the blurring of means and ends is based in more traditional analysis as Constructivist do not place much importance in this issue. The right of self-determination is accepted but it is interesting to look at the political and media usage of the two terms, when describing different organisations, to illustrate that there is awareness that the mental construction of these terms is important. Another factor for the persistence of this debate is the direct relationship ‘terrorists’ have with the media, they need to communicate their message and this battle ground is important in the construction of these concepts. The perceived successes of ‘terrorism’ are around the amount of publicity that they can generate but this can be used by securitizing actors to help convince their audience of a threat and allow extra ordinary methods to be used in response. The final issue I looked at was the role of civilian deaths and the strongly contested concept of State Terrorism and this is important to the persistence of this debate because, as Social Constructivists would say, it is a barometer of the success or otherwise of the securitization of terrorism.
Sebastian O’Brien
November 2007 .
Bibliography
Books
John Bayliss and Steve Smith. ‘The Globalisation of World Politics; An introduction to International Relations.’
Paul Wilkinson ‘Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response’
Hoffman, Bruce. ‘Inside Terrorism: Revised and Expanded Edition’
‘Introductory Sociology’ 4th Edition, Palgrave Macmillan,
Andrew Haywood ‘Politics’ Palgrave Macmillan
Edited by Alan Collins. ‘Contemporary Security Studies.’
Noam Chomsky. ‘Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance’ Penguin
Journal Articles
Boaz Ganor, Definining Terrorism: ‘Is One Man’s terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?’ Journal. Page 1
Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism
posted by Seba at
10:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home