writing 122

Page � of �1 8

The definition of terrorism A new US government report illustrates that any classification of terrorist groups is fundamentally motivated by self-interest, writes Brian Whitaker

Brian Whitaker (The Guardian U.K.) Monday 7 May 2001 05.12 EDT

Decide for yourself whether to believe this, but according to a new

report there were only 16 cases of international terrorism in the Middle

East last year.

That is the lowest number for any region in the world apart from

North America (where there were none at all). Europe had 30 cases -

almost twice as many as the Middle East - and Latin America came top

with 193.

The figures come from the US state department's annual review of

global terrorism, which has just been published on the internet.

Worldwide, the report says confidently, "there were 423 international

terrorist attacks in 2000, an increase of 8% from the 392 attacks

recorded during 1999".

Page � of �2 8

No doubt a lot of painstaking effort went into counting them, but

the statistics are fundamentally meaningless because, as the report points

out, "no one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance".

That is an understatement. While most people agree that terrorism exists,

few can agree on what it is. A recent book discussing attempts by the UN

and other international bodies to define terrorism runs to three volumes

and 1,866 pages without reaching any firm conclusion.

Using the definition preferred by the state department, terrorism is:

"Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against

noncombatant* targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents,

usually intended to influence an audience." (The asterisk is important, as

we shall see later.)

"International" terrorism - the subject of the American report - is

defined as "terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one

country".

The key point about terrorism, on which almost everyone agrees, is

that it's politically motivated. This is what distinguishes it from, say,

Page � of �3 8

murder or football hooliganism. But this also causes a problem for those

who compile statistics because the motive is not always clear -

especially if no one has claimed responsibility.

So the American report states - correctly - that there were no

confirmed terrorist incidents in Saudi Arabia last year. There were,

nevertheless, three unexplained bombings and one shooting incident, all

directed against foreigners.

Another essential ingredient (you might think) is that terrorism is

calculated to terrorise the public or a particular section of it. The

American definition does not mention spreading terror at all, because

that would exclude attacks against property. It is, after all, impossible to

frighten an inanimate object.

Among last year's attacks, 152 were directed against a pipeline in

Colombia which is owned by multinational oil companies. Such attacks

are of concern to the United States and so a definition is required which

allows them to be counted.

Page � of �4 8

For those who accept that terrorism is about terrorising people,

other questions arise. Does it include threats, as well as actual violence?

A few years ago, for example, the Islamic Army in Yemen warned

foreigners to leave the country if they valued their lives but did not

actually carry out its threat.

More recently, a group of Israeli peace activists were arrested for

driving around in a loudspeaker van, announcing a curfew of the kind

that is imposed on Palestinians. Terrifying for any Israelis who believed

it, but was it terrorism?

Another characteristic of terrorism, according to some people, is

that targets must be random - the intention being to make everyone fear

they might be the next victim. Some of the Hamas suicide bombings

appear to follow this principle but when attacks are aimed at predictable

targets (such as the military) they are less likely to terrorise the public at

large.

Definitions usually try to distinguish between terrorism and

warfare. In general this means that attacks on soldiers are warfare and

Page � of �5 8

those against civilians are terrorism, but the dividing lines quickly

become blurred.

The state department regards attacks against "noncombatant*

targets" as terrorism. But follow the asterisk to the small print and you

find that "noncombatants" includes both civilians and military personnel

who are unarmed or off duty at the time. Several examples are given,

such as the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin, which killed two servicemen.

The most lethal bombing in the Middle East last year was the suicide

attack on USS Cole in Aden harbour which killed 17 American sailors

and injured 39 more.

As the ship was armed and its crew on duty at the time, why is this

classified as terrorism? Look again at the small print, which adds: "We

also consider as acts of terrorism attacks on military installations or on

armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not

exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases."

A similar question arises with Palestinian attacks on quasi-military

targets such as Israeli settlements. Many settlers are armed (with

Page � of �6 8

weapons supplied by the army) and the settlements themselves - though

they contain civilians - might be considered military targets because they

are there to consolidate a military occupation.

If, under the state department rules, Palestinian mortar attacks on

settlements count as terrorism, it would be reasonable to expect Israeli

rocket attacks on Palestinian communities to be treated in the same way

- but they are not. In the American definition, terrorism can never be

inflicted by a state.

Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is classified as a human rights

issue (for which the Israelis get a rap over the knuckles) in a separate

state department report.

Denying that states can commit terrorism is generally useful,

because it gets the US and its allies off the hook in a variety of

situations. The disadvantage is that it might also get hostile states off the

hook - which is why there has to be a list of states that are said to

"sponsor" terrorism while not actually committing it themselves.

Page � of �7 8

Interestingly, the American definition of terrorism is a reversal of

the word's original meaning, given in the Oxford English Dictionary as

"government by intimidation". Today it usually refers to intimidation of

governments.

The first recorded use of "terrorism" and "terrorist" was in 1795,

relating to the Reign of Terror instituted by the French government. Of

course, the Jacobins, who led the government at the time, were also

revolutionaries and gradually "terrorism" came to be applied to violent

revolutionary activity in general. But the use of "terrorist" in an anti-

government sense is not recorded until 1866 (referring to Ireland) and

1883 (referring to Russia).

In the absence of an agreed meaning, making laws against

terrorism is especially difficult. The latest British anti-terrorism law gets

round the problem by listing 21 international terrorist organisations by

name. Membership of these is illegal in the UK.

There are six Islamic groups, four anti-Israel groups, eight

separatist groups and three opposition groups. The list includes

Page � of �8 8

Hizbullah, which though armed, is a legal political party in Lebanon,

with elected members of parliament.

Among the separatist groups, the Kurdistan Workers Party - active

in Turkey - is banned, but not the KDP or PUK, which are Kurdish

organisations active in Iraq. Among opposition groups, the Iranian

People's Mujahedeen is banned, but not its Iraqi equivalent, the INC,

which happens to be financed by the United States.

Issuing such a list does at least highlight the anomalies and

inconsistencies behind anti-terrorism laws. It also points towards a

simpler - and perhaps more honest - definition: terrorism is violence

committed by those we disapprove of.