M. Zaidi | Opinion
DAWN 19-12-2011

WHEN `terrorism` is used to refer to certain groups or their actions, it risks straying into the realm of subjectivity.

The attacks of September 2001 and the terrorism associated with Al Qaeda have only added exponentially to the existing confusion regarding the definition of the word by popularising new terms and phrases such as `international terrorism`, `global terrorism`, `catastrophic terrorism` etc. Academic efforts to develop a generally acceptable definition of `terrorism` have tended to stray from consensus; from the perspective of history and academic discourse, since the time when the notion of terror was first popularised — the French Revolution, with its régime de la terreur — certain patterns can be observed.

For most of the time, contrary to its French origins, the notion of `terrorism` has been associated with revolutionary forces opposing governments. Only briefly, in the years leading to the Second World War and during that war, was the term widely used to describe mass repression by states of their peoples.

While there was a time when revolutionary groups using terror tactics would publicise and justify them as `propaganda by deed`, after the Second World War no revolutionary organisation wanted to call itself `terrorist`, even if in practice it targeted civilian populations and non-combatants. Hence the growing confusion and subjective connotations of the term.

This subjectivity about contextualising terrorism has given rise to various new approaches to understanding the concept, with some terrorists portraying themselves as freedom fighters struggling for their rights, which, according to them, justifies their targeting of civilians. States have also utilised the prevailing ambiguity to apply the term `terrorist organisation` to guerrillas and freedom fighters, and have cited the threat of terrorism as a pretext to crushing them with brute force.

Currently, a number of states and their institutions have taken cover behind the dispute over definitions and have defined `terrorism` at whim, since the implications of the modern controversy have, for obvious reasons, made it even harder to secure a consensus on the definition at the international level. One way of avoiding such sweeping uses of the term is to concentrate on the nature of the act than on the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of the cause. However, this opens up the possibility of extending the definition to include acts of terror committed by states.

The High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change appointed by the UN secretary general, which delivered its report on global security in December 2004, made an attempt to circumvent these controversies by defining terrorism as: “any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004), that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

This definition delineates the terrorisation of people by states from the definition of terrorism with the argument that such violence is dealt with by other instruments of international law relating inter alia to war crimes, crimes against humanity and the violation of human rights. The exclusion of so-called state terrorism from the definition of terrorism was also emphasised in March 2005 in the subsequent report by the secretary general.

Thus the definition offered by the UN leans clearly towards the `nature of the act` approach, rather than the `identity of the actor` or the `nature of the cause` approach, while at the same time seeking to exclude the violence perpetrated by states against their civilian populations from the purview of terrorism. The rationale is not to obscure the challenges of political violence by states against civilians (whether in their own country or elsewhere) or the features it holds in common with terrorism, but to delineate the two in order to lend more lucidity to analysis, and facilitate formulation of the markedly different strategies needed to deal with each at the national and international levels.

Comparing the UN`s definition to the context of terrorism envisaged in the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, the intention to elucidate terrorism becomes even clearer. The convention defines terrorism as “any other act [in addition to those enumerated in the conventions mentioned above] intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act”.

Contextualising the two definitions, the threat or use of indiscriminate violence does not in itself count as terrorism per se but, conversely, violence must not necessarily be indiscriminate to count as `terrorist`; targeted violence against state authorities or functionaries to make them change their policies also comes within the purview of terrorism.

Similarly, the use of violence against non-combatant military personnel “not taking active part in hostilities in a situation of armed conflict” is also terrorism. Thus, if an organisation in an asymmetric conflict relies on hide-and-seek ambush techniques or bomb attacks against civilian and non-combatant military personnel, that organisation is terrorist in nature. Terrorist violence also includes politically driven campaigns to influence state policies or for intimidating a target population.

The number state parties having signed the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism is 134, including four of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Thus, its definition is one of the most acceptable. Envisaging this, the High Level Panel report and the UN secretary general`s pronouncements together, the following characteristics define a terrorist:

(a) The actor is non-state in nature.

(b) The person is involved in violence that can cause serious bodily harm or death (indiscriminate or targeted).

(c) The violence targets civilians or non-combatants (including military personnel if not in combat).

(d) The purpose of the violence is to intimidate a population or to change the policies of a government or an international organisation.

This definition subsumes under an overarching umbrella all militant entities carrying out armed actions against the state, since they are armed non-state actors and involved in targeting non-combatants in order to shape state policies. Terrorist acts carried out inside the state by groups not associated with radical forms of religion are also included within the purview of this definition, whether their intentions are ethnic or nationalist in character .

The writer is a security analyst.