If you haven’t heard about terrorism and terrorists nonstop for a few years, then you’ve been under a pretty big rock. We hear about it everyday: wars on terror, roadside bombings and insurgents keep our 24-7 news cycle running. With all this going on, what defines a terrorist and why are some called terrorists and others just scare us.
The United States Code, Title 18, Section 2231 sets out definitions for forms of terrorism, international and domestic, and sets up a definition for who terrorism effects. The most in-depth definition involves international terrorism; understanding this definition will consequently make domestic terrorism easier to grasp.
International terrorism means activities that -
• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.
• Appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.
The UN has yet to agree on an official definition of terrorism, but they do have a general academic consensus on the matter. This is very similar to our Code but it also specifically extends terrorism to propaganda and acts that incur collateral damage.
This definition is broad, unspecified, and easily applicable. Many groups fit this idea of terrorism but are not in the forefront of our minds when it comes the thought of terrorism. American’s most prevalent thought of terrorism begins with the loss of our World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad predominate our ideas of terrorists with AK-47s and religious garb. We must also remember the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, the Nagaland Rebels (a Christian group responsible for many bombings in India in 2004), the Aryan Nation, and the genocidal Army for the Liberation of Rwanda.
Terrorism and terrorists are products of hate. We must not limit ourselves and our perspectives to a certain group, this gives them strength. If we put our energy into going against only one enemy, we strengthen the resolve of that group and all their sympathizers, while ignoring other atrocities going on in our world.
While the definitions of these acts help give scope when our leaders speak of terrorists and acts of terror, they leave open the problem of ambiguity. Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of the Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania, presents an uncomfortable position concerning the definition in Section 2231 that calls terrorism activities those that influence government “by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” Ambassador Peck said, “[One] can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.”
Even the UN seems to agree on this problem of ambiguity, with their web site admitting: “Cynics have often commented that one state’s ‘terrorist’ is another state’s ‘freedom fighter’.” In no way am I implying that our state or Israel are terrorist nations, but Peck’s statement shows that terrorism depends on foreign policy, foreign allies, and the tendency to classify ‘terrorists’ and ‘terrorism’ as something brutal, sadistic, and so inhumane that the country who defines it keeps itself out of the definition through this type of mindset.
President George W. Bush first used the term “Axis of Evil” in his Jan. 2002 State of the Union Address, which was a reference to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Under previous administrations, these countries- along with Afghanistan, Libya, Syria- were called rogue states or states of concern. These labels are used for countries we feel to be a threat to the world’s peace. The criteria most often contains the act of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, sponsoring or harboring terrorists and their organizations, mass disregard for human rights of its citizens, and a stance of hostility towards our country. These are just the basics; every country is reviewed and defined as a threat on very specific terms.
These terms and their definitions are not endorsed universally. People on all sides of the issue throw them around quite often and seem to take offense to them as a misuse just as often. It is hard to take an objective look that is all encompassing. It is hard to understand what parts of a classification make one more of a threat than another. It is also hard to get past the news, movies and television specials that shove a certain idea of terrorism and a certain person as terrorist in our face day after day.
We must be aware of ourselves, our world, and take the time to view a terrorist by their actions, not by the color of their skin or their faith. All people have the capacity for good and we must not lose that faith.
Further reading:
Blum, William. Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. 2000.
Goodman, Amy. “Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah Talks With Former US Diplomats on Israel, Prisoners and Hezbollah’s Founding.” Democracy NOW. 28 July 2006.
United Nations Department Office on Drugs and Crime. Online. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment