Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century Miryam Lindberg Análisis nº 7561 February 20, 2010 I. The Definition Issue: What is fining terrorism lies in its subjectiv- Terrorism? ity. There are clear contrasts in per- ception for those in authority, Describing the nature of a particular onlookers, public opinion, victims topic is commonly the path towards or perpetrators;1 for those who con- defining it. Attempting to outline demn or condone terrorism. It all what constitutes terrorism amounts “seems to depend on one’s point of to landing in the middle of a seman- view,” says terrorism expert Brian tic minefield where emotions run Jenkins; “if one party can success- very high and the criteria necessary fully attach the label ‘terrorist’ to its to describe the term are constantly opponent, then it has inherently evolving. Terrorism is a polemical persuaded others to adopt its moral word that has long provoked inter- viewpoint.”2 His formulation sum- pretation discrepancies in the inter- marizes the rationale behind the national community. Although controversy surrounding terrorism, definitions are short formulations which is epitomized in the relativis- used with the intent of conveying tic saw, “One man’s terrorist is an- clarity, we may be facing a case of other man’s freedom fighter.” Al- intended ambiguity, of a lack of though there are different reasons clarity in order to stifle the need to hindering international consensus, pronounce moral judgment about subjectivity remains a major obsta- terrorism. The results to attain a cle in defining the term. The interna- definition that elicits universal ac- tional community has pragmatically ceptance have been frustrating so chosen to tackle the issue by skip- far because the predicament of de- ping to use the word itself and fo- Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos GEES 1 Análisis nº 7561 cusing instead on the adoption of a of his particular political goals;6 he series of protocols and treaties that thinks out his objective and then deal directly with some of terror- carefully plans how best to achieve ism’s external features. Although it.7 In the taxonomy of violence, ter- this piecemeal approach may be rorism stands out as a policy tool of semantically insufficient, it has be- coercive intimidation whose ulti- come a successful effort in securing mate aim is to change “the system,” that a vast majority of states sign on through violent acts.8 An important these binding international agree- objective for those terrorists who ments for the prosecution or extradi- carry out the coercion strategy is to tion of the perpetrators of some des- influence the public not so much ignated acts such as aircraft hijack- through articulate appeal as through ing, hostage-taking and a variety of intimidation and fear.9 Therefore, violent attacks against individuals violence applied to achieve a politi- and property.3 While the interna- cal goal is in essence the fundamen- tional community has made some tal characteristic that distinguishes headway classifying some of the terrorism from crime and other violence considered terrorism to be forms of violence.10 covered by international law, the euphemistic approach so necessary Since the definition issue remains to reach international consensus controversial, terrorism experts such makes only certain the persistence as Walter Laqueur11 and Bruce of the semantic disarray. Hoffman12 find it useful to list cer- tain distinctions as a path to defini- Subjective and heinous, terrorism tion. In addition to its ineluctable leaves no one indifferent. Invoking political dimension and deliberate the word “terrorism” stirs strong violence, there are some cardinal emotions due to its violent nature criteria for describing the ontology and the misery its bloody actions of contemporary terrorism. usually entail. Violence or the threat of violence may be the only feature • It is about power: Terrorists generally accepted to describe the want power; terrorism is designed terrorist ethos.4 Unfortunately, to- to create power where there is none day virtually any especially abhor- or to consolidate it where there is rent act of violence is often de- very little.13 scribed as terrorism,5 showing the pervasive misapplication of the • It is systematic: The terrorist word in everyday life since not all enterprise is a planned, calculated, violence is terrorism. The word has and indeed systematic act.14 Terror- become too elastic, a catchall term to ism is a method, rather than a set of describe violence directed against adversaries or the causes they pur- society. However, the terrorist is sue.15 It is choreographed with an fundamentally a rational actor and a audience in mind – a concept “violent intellectual” ready and epitomized in the celebrated state- committed to using force in pursuit Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos GEES 2 Análisis nº 7561 ment by terrorism expert Brian Jen- mon with the character of its previ- kins, “Terrorism is theater.”16 ous versions and a definition of the • It is designed to have the rip- past would likely not meet the re- ple effect of fear: Terrorism seeks to quirements of today. The word “ter- go beyond the immediate target vic- rorism” was first popularized dur- tims; it seeks to have far-reaching ing the French Revolution to de- psychological repercussions.17 The scribe the violence practiced by the purpose of a terrorist attack is to state during the Reign of Terror instill fear on a wider scale18 in or- (1793-1794) in revolutionary France der to coerce others into giving in to and in those days, the term had a their demands. The essence of ter- decidedly positive connotation.24 rorist operations is its indiscriminate Almost one century later, during the attacks against civilians19 with the days of Karl Marx, the term was intent of creating havoc and instill- proudly anti-state and acquired ing fear and insecurity in society. many of the revolutionary connota- • It is non-state: Terrorism is tions we recognize today.25 And one more usefully regarded as a most century after that, the same word serious breach of peace in which has such intrinsic pejorative conno- non-state entities participate.20 To- tations that not even its practitioners day it is usually a networked, lead- want the terrorist label to describe erless adversary, either a subna- their actions.26 This definitional tional group or non-state entity, metamorphosis taking place during ideologically motivated.21 In spite the span of centuries is only one that one of the most accepted crite- part of the story. The fact is that ria about the terrorist narrative is its pursuing universal acceptance re- non-state essence, terrorism is also garding certain issues often ends up developing into a new form of becoming a utopian ideal. The se- asymmetric warfare carried out by mantics of terrorism seems to be one states22 in one more demonstration of those lost causes. of its chameleonic nature. • It is rational: The terrorist II. Fostering Terrorism: The Root strives to act optimally in order to Causes achieve his goal in a clear demon- stration of an entirely rational Just as with the semantics of terror- choice, often reluctantly embraced ism, neither is there consensus after considerable reflection and among academic experts about what debate,23 weighing costs and bene- generates and fosters terrorism. Al- fits before undertaking the murder- though scholars such as M. ous journey. Crenshaw, A. Merari, or W. Reich have advanced various hypotheses This short list of criteria is a helpful and arguments about the origins of account in the quest of understand- terrorism in general, an integrated ing the ontology of contemporary framework that considers the possi- terrorism. Our current manifestation ble causes of terrorism in a system- of terrorism has very little in com- atic manner is still lacking.27 The Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos GEES 3 Análisis nº 7561 underlying, even naïve, assumption The persistent belief that poverty is is that if society identifies and re- the main, if not the only, cause of moves the root causes, then terror- terrorism in the contemporary ism will wither away28 and this pos- world is explained by applying cer- sibility is depicted as an apparently tain political assumptions such as plausible effort towards addressing this one: In pure Marxist-Leninist the terrorist issue.29 terms, the misery of poor countries is the fault of imperialism and de- Although the causality issue re- veloped countries exploit them un- mains as controversial as its other mercifully; therefore, Westerners aspects, terrorism does have causes; have been told not only that the cur- ex nihilo nihil fit – nothing comes out rent wealth distribution is unjust, of nothing.30 Much has been written but that it is all their fault and the and speculated about the circum- effective cure for the eradication of stances that make the road to terror- terrorism is the redistribution of that ist violence seem to be the only way wealth.37 Holding poverty and ine- out of despair;31 however, more quality as root causes of terrorism is than anything, terrorism tends to be the wrong approach since the actual the product of a long process of data does not fit that narrative.38 In radicalization that prepares a group fact, most research shows that a of individuals for such extreme ac- higher living standard is positively tion.32 Notions of causality imply a associated with support for, or par- sense of predictive value that belies ticipation in, terrorism.39 Yet as long the complexity of terrorism as well as the root causes of terrorism are as the factors behind the choosing of analyzed through an interest-based terrorism as a strategy of violent lens, i.e. dividing the world into protest.33 Actually, terrorism is a haves and have-nots and linking problem of what people (or groups, poverty to terrorism, the Marxist or states) do, rather than who they explanation will remain a compel- are or what they are trying to ling argument, regardless of its lack achieve.34 The actor-oriented ap- of accuracy.