State terrorism

Template:Totally-disputed State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism conducted by governments.

Controversy

Like the definition of terrorism and the definition of state-sponsored terrorism, the definition of state terrorism remains controversial and without international consensus.

It is controversial whether the concept of terrorism can be applied to states. It is usually applied to non-state actors. [4] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law. [5] Kofi Annan. at the time United Nations Secretary-General, has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law" [6] However, he also made clear that, "...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism. And I think this we can all be clear on." [7]

Definitions

See also: Definition of terrorism

Various analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, according to these analysts, a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors:

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.

— Alex P. Schmid,

[Terrorism is] the purposeful act or threat of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat. ... this definition helps to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Not all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim.

— Michael Stohl, Professor of Political Science at Purdue University,

Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, described as pioneers in the concept of State Terrorism, have argued that the distinction between state and non-state terror is morally relativist, and distracts from or justifies state terrorism perpetrated by favored states, typically those of wealthy and developed nations (Chomsky and Herman, 1979).

The traditional approach views terrorism as a form of random behavior perpetrated by international criminals, treating it as a special type of deviant behavior (Helen Purkitt, "Dealing with Terrorism.," in Conflict in World Society, 1984, p. 162.) In contrast, a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism has been increasingly discussed within the literature that establishes a meaning to account for the concept of state and state-sponsored terrorism. (Michael Stolhl, p. 14). The authors cite former US Secretary of State George Shultz who elaborates on this conceptual framework shift:

"What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984).

The term "Establishment" and "Structural terrorism" is sometimes used to describe state terrorism that posits the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. This includes policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. As such, state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreign policies (Michael Stolhl, p. 15). Academic Conor Cruise O'Brien argument is cited, as an example:

"Those who are described as terrorists...make the uncomfortable point that national armed forces, fully supported by democratic opinion, have in fact employed violence and terror on a far vaster scale...."("Liberty and Terrorism," International Security 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 56-57.)

In this view terrorism emanates from legitimate political institutions intent upon creating a state of fear for political ends, and therefore includes the activities of sovereign states themselves. Michael Stohl has argued:

“The use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents. Examples that come readily to mind include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. (M. Stohl, “The Superpowers and International Terror,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, March 27-April 1, 1984).

Prof. Stolhl and George A. Lopez designate three particular forms of state terrorism exhibited in foreign policy behavior (p.207-208):

• 1. Coercive terrorist diplomacy: (eg. discreet and controlled, and makes non-compliance intolerable)
• 2. Covert state terrorism:
  • a)Clandestine state terrorism (eg. direct participation of states, ex. to weaken a governments or intimidate government officials of another state etc)
  • b)State-sponsored terrorism (eg. "states or private groups being employed to undertake terrorist actions on behalf of sponsoring state."
• 3. Surrogate terrorism: (eg. assistance to another state or group that improves their capability to practice terrorism)
  • a)State-sponsored terrorism (eg. as above)
  • b)State acquiescence to terrorism (eg. group undertakes terrorism and is not explicitly backed by a state but not condemned either.)

Some scholars argue that a institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. In this analysis state terrorism as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. The argument is discussed by Professor of Political Science Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988.

The earliest use of the word terrorism identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is a 1795 reference to what the author described as the "reign of terrorism" in France. During that part of the French revolutionary period that is now known as the Reign of Terror, or simply The Terror, the Jacobins and other factions used the apparatus of the state to execute and cow political opponents. The Oxford English Dictionary still has a definition of terrorism as "Government by intimidation carried out by the party in power in France between 1789-1794".

The Encyclopedia Britannica Online defines terrorism as the "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police". [8] The Encyclopedia Britannica also states that "Establishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state's support is always clandestine.." [9]

Linguist and US policy critic Noam Chomsky, described by some as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism, has equated low-intensity warfare with State Terrorism. He writes: "The U.S. is officially committed to what is called 'low-intensity warfare'.... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same." See Low intensity conflict for the army definition.

Scholars Emizet Kisangani and Wayne Nafziger argue that democide is equivalent to state terrorism.

Analysis

Philosopher Igor Primoratz provides four reasons why he believes that state terrorism is typically morally worse than non-state terrorism. First, because of the nature of the modern state and "the amount and variety of resources" available even for small states, the state mode of terrorism claims vastly more victims than does terrorism by non-state actors. Secondly, because "state terrorism is bound to be compounded by secrecy, deception and hypocrisy," terrorist states typically act with clandestine brutality while publicly professing adherence to "values and principles which rule it out." Thirdly, because unlike non-state actors, states are signatories in international laws and conventions prohibiting terrorism, when a state commits acts of terrorism it is "in breach of its own solemn international commitments." Finally, while there may be circumstances where non-state actors are in such an oppressed situation that there may be no alternative but terrorism, Primoratz argues that "it seems virtually impossible that a state should find itself in such circumstances where it has no alternative to resorting to terrorism."

In his university-level textbook, "Understanding Terrorism:Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues", Gus Martin argues that the work of organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are among the "approaches to the analyses of state terrorism [that] are useful for evaluating different types of state-sponsored violence" arguing further that during the late 1970s and 80's “in its annual global human rights reports Amnesty International has extensively documented the escalation in state terror…Amnesty International identified the main forms of state terror as arbitrary detention, unfair trial, torture, and political murder or extrajudicial execution."

By country

India

India has long been accused by its immediate neighbors of fomenting terrorism in their respective territories by using its external-intelligence agency, the Research & Analysis Wing [RAW]. India first became involved in 1971 when the Pakistani Civil War was brewing. India saw it as an opportunity to dismember its historic rival state and also to payback for the 1965 humiliation. RAW was tasked with training, financing, armament and equipping the Mukti Bahini force which was to carry out attacks not only on West Pakistani troops in East Pakistan but also to engage in torture, murder, rape of innocent civilians of any origin who showed any support for West Pakistani forces. Later on, RAW utilized this experience to aid the LTTE [Tamil Tigers] in Srilanka prior to India's U-turn in its foreign policy vis-a-vis LTTE when it sent 'peacekeepers' to Srilanka to fight the LTTE (but were later withdrawn hurriedly in the face of abject failure). Indian media regularly carried reports chastising the state government of Tamil Nadu as well as the federal government for failing to act against the LTTE which drew support and funds from well connected Indian politicians who harbored sympathies for the Tamil minority of Srilanka. + India has long been accused by its immediate neighbors of fomenting terrorism in their respective territories by using its external-intelligence agency, the Research & Analysis Wing [RAW]. India first became involved in 1971 when the Pakistani Civil War was brewing. India saw it as an opportunity to dismember its historic rival state and also to payback for the 1965 humiliation. RAW was tasked with training, financing, armament and equipping the Mukti Bahini force which was to carry out attacks not only on West Pakistani troops in East Pakistan but also to engage in torture, murder, rape of innocent civilians of any origin who showed any support for West Pakistani forces. Later on, RAW utilized this experience to aid the LTTE [Tamil Tigers] in SriLanka prior to India's U-turn in its foreign policy vis-a-vis when it sent 'peacekeepers' to SriLanka to fight the LTTE (but were later withdrawn hurriedly in the face of abject failure). Indian media regularly carried reports chastising the state government of Tamil Nadu as well as the federal government for failing to act against the LTTE which drew support and funds from well connected Indian politicians who harbored sympathies for the Tamil minority of SriLanka.

- India has also been extremely active in fomenting ethnic violence, breakdown of law and order and religious tensions in neighboring Pakistan. RAW agents have been caught by Pakistani security apparatus on a regular basis and put behind bars as India continued to ignore the existence of Indian nationals in Pakistani jails for fear of compromising its intelligence agency's actions. Two high-profile cases of Indian spies who languished in Pakistani jails have been those of Kashmir Singh and Sarabjit/Manjit Singh with the former acknowledging up on his handover to India that he was indeed a spy.

United States

Main article: Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

The United States' World War II nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan were acts of war, but have also been characterized as state terrorism. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas, and many of these critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century.

Israel

Main article: Israeli State Terrorism

Prominent western media has cited that Israel has long been accused by its neighbors of "state terrorism" and that more recently the term has been applied to Israel from some western sources. In December 1988, Palestine Liberation Organization leader, Yasir Arafat, stated regarding the killing of four Palestinians that Israel has "a policy of state terrorism" while urging the United States to hold Israel to the same standards that it does Palestine. In June 2006 the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, referred to Israeli military activity as "state terrorism". After inquiry, the Israeli defense minister stated that month that the incident involving the death of 8 Palestinian civilians was not the result of Israeli weapons. In August 2006 Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora accused Israel of "state terrorism" regarding 30 dead Lebonese in the heavily damaged town of Bint Jbei. At that time Israel intended to further expand their offensive. Israel stated their military activity in Lebonon was self-defense. In February 2009 the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (president-elect Obama's pastor) stated Israel has committed "state terrorism against the Palestinians." In January 2009 Bill Moyers of Public Broadcasting Service stated that by "waging war on an entire population" Israel's military activity is "state terrorism" equating Israeli military activity to the use of B-52s and napalm in Vietnam and Shock and Awe in Iraq by the United States.

France

The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, codenamed Operation Satanic is attributed to France. While docked in Auckland, New Zealand, the Greenpeace ship was bombed by the French foreign intelligence service in order to prevent interference with a French nuclear test in the Pacific Ocean. The bombing has been described as an act of state terrorism.

Spain

see also : GAL

GAL (Antiterrorist Liberation Groups; Grupos Antiterroristas de Liberación in spanish) were death squads illegally set up by officials of the Spanish government to fight ETA, which took place from 1983 until 1987, both in Spain and France.

United Kingdom

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland the British State was frequently alleged to be involved in incidents of state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism from the Dublin and Monaghan bombings to involvement with loyalist paramilitaries to the Shoot to Kill policy .

Pakistan

Pakistan has been accused by India, Afghanistan, and other nations (including the United States, the United Kingdom and China) of its involvement in the Terrorism in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and China. Satellite imagery from the FBI which shows the existence of terror camps and data produced by India's Research and Analysis Wing clearly suggest the existence of many terrorist camps in Pakistan with at least one militant admitting the help given by Pakistan in training them. Another terrorist outfit, the JKLF has openly admitted that more than 3,000 militants from various nationalities were still being trained. Other nonpartisan resources also concur stating that Pakistan’s military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) both include personnel who sympathize with and help Islamic terrorists adding that "ISI has provided covert but well-documented support to terrorist groups active in Kashmir, including the al-Qaeda affiliate Jaish-e-Mohammed" Pakistan has denied any involvement in the terrorist activities in Kashmir, arguing that it only provides political and moral support to the secessionist groups. Many Kashmir terrorist groups also maintain their headquarters in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, which is cited as further proof by the Indian Government. Many of the terrorist organisations are banned by the UN, but continue to operate under different names. Even the normally reticent UNO has also publicly increased pressure on Pakistan on its inability to control its Afghanistan border and not restricting the activities of Taliban leaders who have been declared by the UN as terrorists. Both the Federal and State governments in India continue to accuse Pakistan of helping several banned terrorist organizations like ULFA in Assam. Experts believe that the ISI has also been involved in training and supplying Chechnyan militants.

Until Pakistan became a key ally in the War on Terrorism, the US Secretary of State included Pakistan on the 1993 list of countries which repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism. The recent 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot is also blamed by various sections in the media as being a handiwork of elements in the Pakistani administration. (See Pakistan's role in the plot) Press editorials from around the world have consistently and strongly condemned Pakistan's "terror exports" In fact, many consider that Pakistan has been playing both sides in the fight against terror, on the one hand helping to curtail it while secretly stoking terrorism. Even the noted Pakistani journalist, Ahmed Rashid has accused Pakistan's ISI of providing help to the Taliban, a statement echoed by many, including author Ted Galen Carpenter, who states that Pakistan has "assisted rebel forces in Kashmir even though those groups have committed terrorist acts against civilians" Author Gordon Thomas states that whilst aiding in the capture of Al Qaeda members, Pakistan "still sponsored terrorist groups in the disputed state of Kashmir, funding, training and arming them in their war on attrition against India." Journalist Stephen Schwartz notes that several terrorist and criminal groups are "backed by senior officers in the Pakistani army, the country's ISI intelligence establishment and other armed bodies of the state." According to one author, Daniel Byman, "Pakistan is probably today's most active sponsor of terrorism."

Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, has often been accused of playing a role in major terrorist attacks across the world including the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, terrorism in Kashmir, Mumbai Train Bombings, London Bombings, Indian Parliament Attack, Varnasi bombings, Hyderabad bombings and Mumbai terror attacks.The ISI is also accused of supporting Taliban forces and recruiting and training mujahideen to fight in Afganistan and Kashmir. Based on communication intercepts US intelligence agencies concluded Pakistan's ISI was behind the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7, 2008, a charge that the governments of India and Afghanistan had laid previously. The Afghan President Hamid Karzai who has constantly reiterated allegations that militants operating training camps in Pakistan have used it as a launch platform to attack targets in Afghanistan urged western military allies to target extremist hideouts in neighbouring Pakistan. In response to the growing extremism from Pakistani border, the US has started bombing selected terrorist hideouts within Pakistan, as well as raiding villages in Pakistan to capture and kill suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban members hiding in Pakistan. + India has also been extremely active in fomenting ethnic violence, breakdown of law and order and religious tensions in neighboring Pakistan. RAW agents have been caught by Pakistani security apparatus on a regular basis and put behind bars as India continued to ignore the existence of Indian nationals in Pakistani jails for fear of compromising its intelligence agency's actions. Two high-profile cases of Indian spies who languished in Pakistani jails have been those of Kashmir Singh and Sarabjit/Manjit Singh with the former acknowledging up on his handover to India that he was indeed a spy.

Pakistan is also said to be a haven for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Omar, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Sipah-e-Sahaba. Pakistan is accused of sheltering and training the Taliban in operations "which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and on several occasions apparently directly providing combat support," as quoted by the Human Rights Watch. In fact, the US has stated that the next attack on US could originate in Pakistan.

External links

• Link 1
• Link 2
• Link 3

See also

• Allegations of Iranian state terrorism
• Allegations of state terrorism by Israel
• Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
• Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka
• Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
• Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism
• Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force

References

• Sluka, Jeffrey A. (Ed.) (2000). Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1711-X.
• Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S. (1979). The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Vol. 1. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-090-0
• Alexander George (1991). Western State Terrorism. Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-0931-7.
• Mark Curtis (2004). Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses. Vintage. ISBN 0-09-946972-3.

Further reading

• Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner, eds. Terrorism : essential primary sources. Thomson Gale, 2006. ISBN 9781414406213 Library of Congress. Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms LC Control Number: 2005024002.
• Tarpley, Webster G. 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA -Progressive Press. ISBN 0-93085-231-1
• Chomsky, Noam. The Culture of Terrorism ISBN 0-89608-334-9
• Chomsky, Noam. 9/11 ISBN 1-58322-489-0
• George, Alexander. Western State Terrorism, Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-0931-7

External links

Prevention of terrorism

• The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
• Recognizing State Terror
• http://State Terrorism and Counterterrorism