ISSN 1392-9321 © Institute of International Relations and Political Science Vilnius University, 2002 CONTENTS PREFACE ...................................................................................................7 TERRORISM AS A CHALLENGE TO THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD Asta Maskoliûnaitë. Definition of Terrorism: Problems and Approaches .................................................................................. 11 Egdûnas Raèius. Sacred Violence: in Search for Justification of Violence in the Holy Texts ............................................................ 26 POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY Alvydas Jokubaitis. Postmodernism and Politics ...................................... 43 Zenonas Norkus. Academic Science and Democracy ............................... 53 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS Vitalis Nakroðis, Ramûnas Vilpiðauskas. Implementation of Public Policy in Lithuania: Europeanization through the “Weakest Link” ............. 93 Haroldas Broþaitis. Dismantling Political-Administration Nexus in Lithuania ........................................................................... 113 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND EURO-ATLANTIC INTEGRATION PROCESS Èeslovas Laurinavièius, Raimundas Lopata, Vladas Sirutavièius. Military Transit of the Russian Federation through the territory of the Republic of Lithuania....................................................................... 131 Klaudijus Maniokas. Concept of Europeanisation and its Place in the Theories of the European Integration ................................... 159 Lithuania’s Security and Foreign Policy Strategy ................................. 181 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ................................................................... 255 6 7 PREFACE We are happy to present the third volume of the Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook. The Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook is a continuous political science publication issued by the Institute of International Rela- tions and Political Science of Vilnius University and the Lithuanian Politi- cal Science Association. It is, first of all, intended for the foreign readers who are interested in the achievements of the Lithuanian political science as well as in the present developments in the domestic and foreign policy of the Lithuania. We are glade to mention that the previous issues of the Yearbook were met with great interest and attracted favourable comments from our foreign colleagues. The present volume of the Yearbook is based on the previously em- ployed principles. Nevertheless, the focus of this volume is on terrorism as a challenge to the contemporary world. What are the roots and causes of the international organised terrorism? What were the security implications of September 11 to Lithuania? What kind of science does Lithuania need, and how much of it? Implementation of decisions is the most complicated stage of policy process in Lithuania. What are the main reasons of this situation? EU enlargement and europeanization: results for accession countries and member states. These are some of the questions that the Yearbook 2001 is trying to answer. The Yearbook 2001 also presents a research project prepared by the Institute of International Relations and Political Science of Vilnius Univer- sity together with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Lithuania’s security and foreign policy strategy, the so-called “White Paper”. This policy paper assesses Lithuania’s qualifications for NATO and EU accession and underscores the country’s increasing role in European security and economic development. It also offers several recommendations for the U.S and Lithuanian governments to further develop bilateral rela- tions while enhancing Lithuania’s role as a generator of security in the Nor- dic-Baltic-Central European Region. The Editor of the present publication would like to express special thanks to the Sponsors whose financial assistance enabled this project to be realised. TERRORISM AS A CHALLENGE TO THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD DEFINITION OF TERRORISM: PROBLEMS AND APPROACHES Asta Maskoliûnaitë Introduction In the 1970s, after a great majority of the world states had experienced terrorist attacks, terrorism came to be considered as one of the global prob- lems. Although the tactics resembling terrorism is traced as far back as the Jewish struggle against the Roman empire1 , it is the end of the 1960s that marks the beginning of the contemporary terrorist activities, an era of what has been called “age of terrorism”2 . Several events of that time influenced both the increasing usage of terrorist tactics to influence the political agenda and the appearance of the word “terrorism” in everyday language, especially in the media. These events include death of Che Guevara in 1967, which revealed the shortcomings of guerrilla warfare, student uprisings of 1968, which had a similar influence on shaping the view of impact of revolts, and the Six Day War of June 1967, which gave an impetus for an increasing use of the term “terrorism” by the Western media3 . According to Schmid and Jongman, from these years the “authors have spilled almost as much ink as the actors of terrorism have spilled blood”4 in trying to assess different features of the phenomenon and of the state’s re- sponse to it. However, its increased usage in the most various spheres of activities (media, politics, sciences) sometimes seemed to add more to the confusion than to the explanation of the phenomenon. Actually, the word itself has recently received so much attention that, as Adrian Guelke put it, “there seems to be virtually no limit to what could be described as terror- ism”5 . Anything that is intimidating, violent or threatening to various ex- tents is described as terrorism. Up to a ridicule. Even a dog, as one British newspaper put it, can be called a “terrorist on four legs”. Of course, it could be said that many notions flow in between the scientific and everyday life discourses, but not many of them are in such a 12 Asta Maskoliûnaitë great need of division, as strict as possible, between the two spheres of us- age: between professional usage and that of everyday life. Terrorism is one of the best examples of such notions. There are several arguments that can be provided in order to justify the need for, at least, a working definition of terrorism. First of all, contrary to many politicians and a few political scientists who claim that the assumed need of a definition of terrorism is exaggerated, that terrorism, as pornogra- phy, is impossible to define, but one can tell them when one sees them, it could be argued together with Alex Schmid that: … “we-know-it-when-we-see-it” attitude ... easily leads to double stan- dards which produce bad science and also, arguably, bad policies6 . Another important reason for finding a definition for terrorism is a highly emotional charge that the word carries in it. As Guelke puts it: ... the word ‘terrorism’ cannot possibly be treated as if it were a neutral technical term for a particular category of violence. The term carries a mas- sive emotive punch. Indeed, it is probably one of the most powerfully con- demnatory words in the English language. ... In fact, the very emotive power of the word has helped to shape the more specific application of the term. In particular, its judgmental character has strongly influenced the political context in which it is applied.7 Such a normative connotation does not allow one to leave the under- standing of the term for an arbitrary assessment of a reader or listener. A good example of the hazard of such a common sense “definition” has come these days from the descriptions of the actions of Palestinians and the Israeli state. While in the West there was a great controversy over how to call the actions of Sharon and Palestinian suicide bombers, for the leaders of Islamic nations, gathered in Kuala Lumpur at the beginning of April, Israel is clearly a terrorist. The view of Palestinian actions, however, is more ambiguous. On the one hand, it is stated that all the attacks against civilians should be considered terrorism. As Mohamad Mahathir, Malaysian Prime Minister, stated: Whether the attackers are acting on their own or on the orders of their government; whether they are regulars or irregulars, if the attack is against civilians then they must be considered terrorists. On the other hand, Palestinians are fighting for the right cause as an- other statement, that of Kamal Kharrazi, the Iranian Foreign Minister, im- plies: The Palestinians are resisting the occupation of their land. It is quite different from the terror attacks that were carried out in New York, which the Organization of the Islamic Conference and most of Muslim countries in the world condemned. Definition of terrorism: problems and approaches 13 These two statements are a good example of how violence tends to appear more legitimate if its ends are emphasized, while it seems to be less legitimate if only means receive the attention. This usage of different em- phasis can be very well employed both trying to justify some people in their attacks and to condemn the others. This fact is again related to the emo- tional charge of the term. It is often argued that the whole idea of terrorism, given its condemnatory charge, is used to describe violence, which is not appreciated. As Richard Drake put it: As a rule, terrorism is the name we give to the violence of people we do not like or support; for the violence of people we do like or support, we find other names8.