What is Terrorism?

Theory Lecture by Dr Robin Edward Poulton, Virginia Commonwealth University

In 1977 Yonah Alexander, Director of Georgetown University's Center for Strategic and International Studies, founded a journal called TERRORISM - An International Journal.

This journal is obviously a rich source for students' research; it also shows that terrorism has been around, and on the political table of hot topics for security discussion, for a lot longer than most young students imagine. Terror did not start with 9/11 or with the SS Cole, nor even with the first attack on the WTC in 1993. Terrorism was used by the Romans and against the Romans.

BEWARE of where these people are coming from. What they write may be fine, but they may be presenting "spin" and you need to know what it is. Remember I was trained as an economist: this influences my skeptical views about religious terrorism, and explains why I always see an economic root to terror. "Follow the money." I am biased - my experience is what makes me interesting. I always seek the underlying economic cause ... and I am right!

Back to Yonah Alexander. He is close to the US administration and much of his funding is believed to come from the US government. Even if he is a scholar and an academic, his published opinions are bound to be colored by his funding sources. Hear him, but remember who is supporting him financially when you decide whether his ideas are correct.

Likewise Paul Wilkinson, Professor of International Studies at St Andrews University, my Alma Mater, has a pro-government and anti-revolutionary slant colored by his years as a professional officer in the Royal Air Force. He is also very clever. His Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence published Dr Rohan Gunaratna's interesting book called INSIDE AL QAIDA - for those of you who are interested in Osama ben Laden! This is not a criticism; it is a warning that there is no such thing as "objectivity" and Wilkinson's publications will seldom criticize the way in which the British Establishment behaves in fighting terrorism.

That makes it all the more remarkable that he is one of the authors of the Chatham House report published in July 2005, saying in effect that the British Government obviously made Britain more vulnerable to attack from Al-Qaeda by joining the Geroge W. Bush - Dick Cheney adventure in Iraq, going in - as the report puts it - "riding pillion to the USA." That is damaging criticism both because Tony Blair maintains that Iraq did not make the UK a target (68% of Brits disagree with him, according to a July 2005 Guardian poll) and because it highlights the fact that the UK government has had virtually no impact on US policy. US officials simply ignore the Brits, even when the Brits have more experience, and are right. Iy is very difficult to choose between the numerous definitions of ÔterrorismÕ on offer from the UN, CIA, FBI, MoD, State Department ... it is difficult to define "terrorism." For example, UN definitions always exclude "state terrorism" because the people voting represent states. While some scholars and organizations (such as the FBI) do not include State actions in their terror definition, State Terrorism and State-Sponsored Terrorism fall clearly within the realm of what any mildly objective scholar would define as "terrorism." At least, I include them.

What motivates terrorism?

State Terrorism and Death Squads

In the case of State terrorism, it is often "good" ideas that turn bad. Fighting crime can, if not tightly controlled by the Rule of Law, lead to crime fighters themselves becoming criminals. The State wishes to fight terror, it therefore adopts rigorous and aggressive tactics which place the terrorists face to face with army or police or customs or secret service officers who are using the same tactics as the terrorists. Beware the inevitable and natural tendency of government agencies to accrete power and resist accountability.

The most obvious and extreme examples of this is seen in the rise of Latin American Death Squads. In Guatemala on 27 April 1998 just such a death squad murdered Roman Catholic Bishop Juan Gerardi for publishing the Church's analysis of human rights violations in Guatemala, blaming the army for most of the violence. The murder dealt a harsh blow to the peace process and consolidation of democracy in Guatemala, and harked back to a past bloodied by political crimes and human rights violations.

Gerardi, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Guatemala was killed on a Sunday evening after Mass, as he returned home from the Cathedral two days after presenting the report "Guatemala: Never Again," a Catholic Church investigation of the human rights violations committed during this Central American country's 36-year armed conflict.

The murder, which shook the country and international public opinion, was described by human rights groups as a politically- motivated crime. But the government has preferred to remain mum "until all the evidence is in." Edgar Gutierrez, the head of the Recovery of Historic Memory project which gave rise to the Church's report, and indigenous leader and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Rigoberta Menchu directly accused the Guatemalan army.

"Guatemala: Never Again" blames the army for 80 percent of the massacres and other human rights abuses committed during the 36 years of conflict, which a peace accord ended in 1996. The guerrillas were accused of nine percent of the violations. Those responsible for the remaining 11 percent were not identified.

"We want to contribute to building a different country, and for that reason we are recuperating the people's memory," the 75- year-old bishop said at the release of the report. "This route has been and remains full of risks, but the construction of the Kingdom of God is plagued by risks and only those who have the strength to face them are its builders."

Two days later, Gerardi received 14 blows from a heavy object, which smashed his skull and face, as he returned to his parish residence. Human rights leaders called the incident the first direct attack on the peace process confirmed by the December 1996 signing of a peace accord by the government and the former guerrilla Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG).

Local lawyer and human rights activist Karen Fischer told IPS that the murder of one of the main protagonists of Guatemala's peace process had thrown the country back into dark times. "We cannot obtain a response from the justice system, nor are we allowed to find out the truth about the past. It is terrible," she said. (See link)

SPEECH MADE BY MONSENOR JUAN GERARDI ON THE OCCASION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE REMHI REPORT

Metropolitan Cathedral of Guatemala City, April 24, 1998 (extract)

We are gathering the memories of the people because we want to contribute to the construction of a different country. This path was and continues to be full of risks, but the building of the Kingdom of God has risks and only those that have the strength to confront those risks can be the builders.
On June 23, 1994 the parties that negotiated the Peace Accords expressed their conviction that, "all of the people of Guatemala [have] the right to know the full truth" about the events that occurred during the armed conflict, and that "this clarification will help to ensure that the sad and painful pages of history will not be repeated and that the process of democratization in the country will be strengthened." They emphasized that [knowing the truth] is an indispensable condition for achieving peace. This is part of the preamble of the Accord which created the Commission for Historical Clarification whose important work is also is the process of being concluded.
The Church resonated with this desire and committed itself to the search to "know the truth," convinced as Pope John Paul II said that "truth is the strength behind peace." (World Day of Peace, 1980). As a Church, we collectively and responsibly assumed this task of breaking the silence that thousands of war victims have kept for years. We opened up the possibility for them to talk and to have their say, to tell their stories of suffering and pain, so they might feel liberated from the burden that has been weighing down on them for so many years.
This has been the essential objective that has motivated the REMHI project during its three years of work: to know the truth that will make us all free (John 8:32).
In the Historical Clarification Accord, we, as people of faith, discovered a call from God to our mission as Church that truth should be the vocation of all of humanity. Coming from the Word of God, we can not hide or cover-up reality. We cannot distort history, nor should we silence the truth. ... Years of terror and death have displaced and reduced the majority of Guatemala to fear and silence. Truth is the primary word, the serious and mature action that makes it possible for us to break this cycle of death and violence and to open ourselves to a future of hope and light for all.
REHMI's work has been an astonishing endeavor of discovery, exploration and appropriation of our personal and collective history. It has been an open door for people to be able to breath and speak in freedom and for the creation of communities with hope. Peace is possible -- a peace that is born from the truth that comes from each one of us and from all of us. It is a painful truth, full of memories of the deep and bloody wounds of the country. It is a liberating and humanizing truth that makes it possible for all men and women to come to terms with themselves and their life stories. It is a truth that challenges each one of us to recognize our individual and collective responsibility and commit ourselves to action so that those abominable acts never happen again.

Counter-terrorism and terror tactics

Counter-terrorism is therefore a risky way to go, and it can lead to State-Sponsored terrorism. State organizations must be kept under extremely tight rein. The British Army in Northern Ireland went in initially to keep the two sides apart, and it was welcomed by both Protestant and Catholic populations. The Royal Ulster Constabulary had been accused of bias and brutality against the Catholics; with the main police force accused of being Protestant and supporting protestant extremists, the British army soldiers were supposed to be an alternative, neutral force. Naively the British officers allowed themselves to take sides. Because the RUC was the official force, the army tended to assume they were on the "right side" and "on the side of right." Very soon, the British army found itself accused of exactly the same bias the RUC has previously been accused of; instead of being a neutral force of interposition, the British army became a part of the problem and seen by Catholics as a foreign and antagonistic "protestant army of occupation."

The British soldiers were guilty therefore of political ineptitude, and their mission became compromised - although they got better with experience. The British government tried very hard to keep things within the Rule of Law. Although human rights violations were frequent (and brought the UK government up to answer for its actions before the European Court of Human Rights), the excess of violence and murder was mostly avoided. I mentioned earlier the SAS and its "shoot-first" policy which makes it extremely effective but very dangerous to handle. When the SAS executed four IRA terrorists in Gibraltar, whose vehicle was filled with bombs and firearms, the executioners were brought to trial although their faces were never seen. Where there were shootings by the British army, there were enquiries and - on several occasions - soldiers who overstepped the bounds of the law, or who shot protesters in anger or in panic, were tried before civilian courts for murder. Were the SAS wrong to kill apparently incontrovertible terrorists? You can argue that they were right; or that they were too ruthless for a democracy.

State-Sponsored Terror, Criminal Actions

In contrast let is look at another, different Counter-Terrorism strategy: The Iran-Contra scandal which when investigated, proved that the US government was funding, training and otherwise assisting a terror organization trying to overthrow the elected government of Nicaragua. This was clearly a case of State-Sponsored Terrorism.

Under President Reagan, it was decided that the elected Sandinista (left-wing, but undoubtedly elected by the people) government of Nicaragua should be undermined and overthrown. Certain people inside the US administration had defined the Sandinistas and "Terrorists." This led to a campaign of US-funded violence that turned into a counter-terrorist fiasco with clear US criminal activity. People in uniform inside the American administration saw themselves as "arbiters of right," and if you are right, then whatever you do is justified. By this reasoning, the ends justify the means, even if the means involve criminal behavior. Students of criminal justice are bound to refuse such an argument, for it defies the very concept of the Rule of Law. Let me quote from the Executive Summary of the Report of the US Independent Counsel:

In October and November 1986, two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed, potentially implicating Reagan Administration officials in illegal activities. These operations were the provision of assistance to the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels during an October 1984 to October 1986 prohibition on such aid, and the sale of U.S. arms to Iran in contravention of stated U.S. policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls. In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials announced that some of the proceeds from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to the contras.

Colonel Oliver North and Admiral John Poindexter were the two most prominent people who were accused of felonious actions; they considered themselves above the law, and engaged - on behalf of the American government - in financial and smuggling activities with mafia elements which allowed American money - in defiance of Congress - to be used for funding arms, subsidizing the drugs trade and promoting "counter-revolutionary" terrorist warfare by right-wing guerrilla groups in Nicaragua - financial transactions which broke a number of US laws.

In particular, US army and CIA officials knew they were working with and subsidizing drug smugglers (Oliver North's notebook entry for 9 Aug 1985 actually says that the DC-6 being used for flying arms out of New Orleans was being used to fly cocaine back into the USA on the return journey!) The reasoning of these people who considered themselves above the law, was that subsidizing the import of cocaine to the USA was justified (although it clearly violates a whole range of US laws), if it strengthened the war against "Communism." (There are many questions about US military involvement in opium smuggling out of Afghanistan today. In Kabul in July 2004 I was told that US helicopters were flying the crop out of mountainous Badakhshan province. The Iran-Contra scandal encourages me to think this might be true, although I have no way of knowing if the rumors are true).

While the contra/drug question was not the primary focus of the investigation, the Subcommittee uncovered considerable evidence relating to the Contra network which substantiated many of the initial allegations laid out before the Committee in the Spring of 1986. On the basis of this evidence, it is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter.

The Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included:

These activities were carried out in connection with Contra activities in both Costa Rica and Honduras.

The Subcommittee found that the links that were forged between the Contras and the drug traffickers were primarily pragmatic, rather than ideological. The drug traffickers, who had significant financial and material resources, needed the cover of legitimate activity for their criminal enterprises. A trafficker like George Morales hoped to have his drug indictment dropped in return for his financial and material support of the Contras. Others, in the words of Marcos Aguado, Eden Pastora's air force chief: "... took advantage of the anti-communist sentiment which existed in Central America ... and they undoubtedly used it for drug trafficking." While for some Contras, it was a matter of survival, for the traffickers it was just another business deal to promote and protect their own operations.

The failure of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to respond properly to allegations concerning criminal activity relating to the Contras was demonstrated by the handling of the Committee's own investigation by the Justice Department and the CIA in the spring of 1986.

On May 6, 1986, a bipartisan group of Committee staff met with representatives of the Justice Department, FBI, DEA, CIA and State Department to discuss the allegations that Senator Kerry had received information of Neutrality Act violations, gun running and drug trafficking in association with Contra organizations based on the Southern Front in Costa Rica.

In the days leading up to the meeting, Justice Department spokesmen were stating publicly that "the FBI had conducted an inquiry into all of these charges and none of them have any substance." At that meeting, Justice Department officials privately contradicted the numerous public statements from the Department that these allegations had been investigated thoroughly and were determined to be without foundation. The Justice Department officials at the meeting said the public statements by Justice were "inaccurate." The Justice officials confirmed there were ongoing Neutrality Act investigations in connection with the allegations raised by Senator Kerry.

At the same meeting, representatives of the CIA categorically denied that the Neutrality Act violations raised by the Committee staff had in fact taken place, citing classified documents which the CIA did not make available to the Committee. In fact, at the time, the FBI had already assembled substantial information confirming the Neutrality Act violations, including admissions by some of the persons involved indicating that crimes had taken place.

In August 1986, Senator Richard Lugar, then-Chairman of the Committee and the ranking member, Senator Claiborne Pell, wrote the Justice Department requesting information on 27 individuals and organizations associated with the contras concerning allegations of their involvement in narcotics trafficking and illegal gunrunning. The Justice Department refused to provide any information in response to this request, on the grounds that the information remained under active investigation, and that the Committee's "rambling through open investigations gravely risks compromising those efforts."

On October 5, 1988, the Subcommittee received sworn testimony from the Miami prosecutor handling the Neutrality and gun-running cases that he had been advised that some officials in the Justice Department had met in 1986 to discuss how "to undermine" Senator Kerry's attempts to have hearings regarding the allegations.

At the trial of Oliver North, the US government admitted to 107 violations of law including Operation Tipped Kettle (I and 2):

In 1983, DCI Casey asked Secretary of Defense Weinberger if the Department of Defense ("DoD") could obtain infantry weapons that Israel had confiscated from PLO forces. Following discussions between Major General Meron of Israel and Retired Major General Richard Secord of the United States government ("USG"), Israel secretly provided several hundred tons of weapons to the DoD on a grant basis in May 1983. This was known as Operation TIPPED KETTLE. In February 1984, the CIA again asked DoD if it could obtain additional PLO weapons from Israel at little or no cost for CIA operational use. After negotiations between March 1984 and July 1984, Israel secretly provided the additional weapons to DoD in Operation TIPPED KETTLE II. The DoD then transferred the weapons to the CIA. Although CIA advised Congress that the weapons would be used for various purposes, in fact many of them were provided to the Nicaraguan Resistance as appropriated funds ran out. ...
In late March 1984, National Security Advisor Robert C. McFarlane suggested that he pursue funding alternatives for the Resistance for use after Congressional funding ran out. McFarlane proposed putting a member of the NSC staff in touch with an Israeli official to pursue funding alternatives with the Israelis. In an "Eyes Only," Secret memo, DCI Casey agreed with McFarlane's proposal. Casey informed McFarlane that the CIA was exploring two alternative means of acquiring equipment and materiel from Israel for use by the Resistance after the funding ran out. É In early 1984, in a discussion with the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia, McFarlane encouraged that country to support the Resistance. A short time later, the Ambassador informed McFarlane that his government would contribute $1 million per month. The money became available during the early summer of 1984.

Implicit and Explicit Terror (using terror to promote foreign policy, CIA Terrorist manual)

A guerrilla armed force always involves implicit terror because the population, without saying it aloud, feels terror that the weapons may be used against them. However, if the terror does not become explicit, positive results can be expected.

In a revolution, the individual lives under a constant threat of physical damage. If the government police cannot put an end to the guerrilla activities, the population will lose confidence in the government, which has the inherent mission of guaranteeing the safety of citizens. However, the guerrillas should be careful not to become an explicit terror, because this would result in a loss of popular support.

In the words of a leader of the Huk guerrilla movement of the Philippine Islands: "The population is always impressed by weapons, not by the terror that they cause, but rather by a sensation of strength/force. We must appear before the people, giving them support with our weapons; that will give them the message of the struggle." This is, then, in a few words, the essence of armed propaganda.

An armed guerrilla force can occupy an entire town or small city that is neutral or relatively passive in the conflict. In order to conduct the armed propaganda in an effective manner, the following should be carried out simultaneously:

In addition, carry out the following:

When a meeting is held, conclude it with a speech by one of the leaders of guerrilla political cadres (the most dynamic), which includes explicit references to:

The fact that the "enemies of the people" - the officials or Sandinista agentsÐmust not be mistreated in spite of their criminal acts, although the guerrilla force may have suffered casualties, and that this is done due to the generosity of the Christian guerrillas.

Give a declaration of gratitude for the "hospitality" of the population, as well as let them know that the risks that they will run when the Sandinistas return are greatly appreciated.

The fact that the Sandinista regime, although it exploits the people with taxes, control of money, grains and all aspects of public life through associations, which they are forced to become part of, will not be able to resist the attacks of our guerrilla forces.

Make the promise to the people that you will return to ensure that the "leeches" of the Sandinista regime of repression will not be able to hinder our guerrillas from integrating with the population.

A statement repeated to the population to the effect that they can reveal everything about this visit of our commandos, because we are not afraid of anything or anyone, neither the Soviets nor the Cubans. Emphasize that we are Nicaraguans, that we are fighting for the freedom of Nicaragua and to establish a very Nicaraguan government.

Selective Use of Violence for Propagandistic Effects

It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, mesta judges, police and State Security officials, CDS chiefs, etc. For psychological purposes it is necessary to take extreme precautions, and it is absolutely necessary to gather together the population affected, so that they will be present, take part in the act, and formulate accusation against the oppressor.

The target or person should be chosen on the basis of:

The person who will replace the target should be chosen carefully, based on:

The mission to replace the individual should be followed by:

Conclusions

Armed propaganda includes all acts executed and the impact achieved by an armed force, which as a result produces positive attitudes in the population toward this force, and it does not include forced indoctrination. However, armed propaganda is the most effective available instrument of a guerilla force. (See link)

Motivations of revolutionary terror groups

We have looked at some examples of State Terrorism motivations and State-Sponsored Terrorism. How about the terrorist organizations?

Most of these have an ideology of some sort related to restoring "justice" as they see it, although the "pure" motivation quite frequently merges into criminal activity which is initially used to fund the organization's actions and becomes later the main reason dÕetre of the terrorists. In Ireland, activists in the Catholic IRA and the Protestant UDF are broadly split these days between those who want to "go straight" and get a share of the political pie though power-sharing and elections; and those whose motivations a more closely connected to money-raising activities through protection rackets and the smuggling of drugs and whisky. It is pretty difficult to get the criminal fringe to buy into the peace process, for what else will they do when they have laid down their arms and can no longer run the extortion rackets which have kept them alive for decades?

Terrorists quickly perceive themselves as para-military groups and adopt the military terminology, militaristic structures and disciplines (usually based on terror tactics within their own organization) and often some form of para-military uniform. The ubiquitous AK-47 military assault rifle has become one of the accoutrements of the rebel, together with the face mask Ð think of the power this combination has brought to the mythical Subcomandante Marcos, leader of the Zapatistas Army LIBERATION NATIONAL (EZLN) when he appears in public.

I remember the horror of a French mother who sent her six-year-old son to a fancy dress party, dressed in traditional Corsican costume with the flat-brimmed hat, the red sashÉ.. All his friends thought he was a cowboy; when he said, "No, I am a Corsican" they all replied "No you are not; Corsicans wear black, cover their faces with a black cagoule and carry an assault rifle."

The most difficult ideologies to deal with are nationalistic and religious. You cannot easily reason with faith.

There is also the vital importance of the media. One of the major motivations is Publicity.

This first became true with Palestinian skyjackings in the 1970s. Leila Khaled became one of the world's most famous most detested and most admired women, when she led a skyjacking.

Osama ben Laden has been turned into a world leader in late 2001 by CNN, who placed his image day after day, week after week alongside that of President George W. Bush. The leader of the Free World was facing off against ... against whom, in fact ? Osama ben Laden was a wealthy building contractor, who set up training bases for former mujaheddin guerillas fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. He organized attacks against the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam - and who had heard of him then? His people blew a hole in SS Cole but who had heard the name of Osama? Maybe I knew about him, because I was following these affairs in detail and I read everything there is to read about Afghanistan: but how many people, even among the professors of VCU, had ever heard of ObL until CNN stuck his face on the world's TV screens?

Media is a major force multiplier for terrorism. The media transform local rebels into international terrorists. Thanks to CNN, an obscure terrorist leader has become a household name and one of the best-known faces in the world. Thanks to CNN, a building contractor has been promoted to Leader of the WorldÕs Moslems. Osama is not a Muslim scholar. He is a wealthy Arab builder, yet we have made him a hero. First the CIA trained him to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan. Then the CIA funded him to build camps in the mountains, while the Saudis funded his creation of a private army. Finally, after 9/11, Osama is transformed into a religious leader on a par with His Holiness the Pope Ð and that in a religion that has no supreme religious authority.

Come on! Get serious! Is It Absurd? Yes, it is Absolutely Absurd, but that is the power of media and international propaganda today.

The circumstances of the new war resemble ancient times when battles could be decided by single combat. The spectacular killing or capture of one individual can strike terror into the hearts of millions of others. The capitulation to blackmail or ransom can inspire other terrorist groups ... (Living with Terrorism, Richard Clutterbuck 1975, p.30)

But that only happens if the international media give out enough publicity. And they do!