State terrorism may refer to acts of terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people. It can also refer to acts of violence by a state against its own people.[1][2][3][4][5]
Contents |
There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word "terrorism".[6][7] Many scholars believe that the actions of governments can be labeled "terrorism"; however others, including governments, international organizations, private institutions and scholars, believe that the term is only applicable to the actions of non-state actors. Historically, the term terrorism was used to refer to actions taken by governments against their citizens whereas now it is more often perceived as targeting of civilians as part of a strategy directed against governments.[8] Historian Henry Commager wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror.”[9] While states may accuse other states of state-sponsored terrorism when they support insurgencies, individuals who accuse their governments of terrorism are seen as radicals, because actions by legitimate governments are not generally seen as illegitimate. Academic writing tends to follow the definitions accepted by states.[10] Most states use the term "terrorism" for non state actors only.[11]
The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines terrorism generally as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective", and states that "terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions." The encyclopedia adds that "[e]stablishment 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."[2]
While the most common modern usage of the word terrorism refers to civilian-victimizing political violence by insurgents or conspirators,[12] several scholars make a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism that encompasses the concepts of state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism.[13] Michael Stohl argues, "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.[14] Stohl clarifies, however, that "[n]ot 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."[15]
Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism "committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived threats", which can be directed against both domestic and foreign targets.[4] Noam Chomsky defines state terrorism as "terrorism practised by states (or governments) and their agents and allies".[16] Jeffrey A. Sluka has described Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman as pioneers in academic studies about state terrorism.[17]
Michael Stohl and George A. Lopez have designated three categories of state terrorism, based on the openness/secrecy with which the alleged terrorist acts are performed, and whether states directly perform the acts, support them, or acquiesce to them.[18]
Aristotle wrote critically of terror employed by tyrants against their subjects.[19] The earliest use of the word terrorism identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is a 1795 reference to tyrannical state behavior, the "reign of terrorism" in France.[20] In that same year, Edmund Burke famously decried the "thousands of those hell-hounds called terrorists" who he believed threatened Europe.[21] During the Reign of Terror, the Jacobin government and other factions of the French Revolution used the apparatus of the state to execute and intimidate political opponents, and the Oxford English Dictionary includes as one definition of terrorism "Government by intimidation carried out by the party in power in France between 1789-1794".[22] The original general meaning of terrorism was of terrorism by the state, as reflected in the 1798 supplement of the Dictionnaire of the Académie française, which described terrorism as systeme, regime de la terreur.[21] Dr Myra Williamson wrote: "The meaning of “terrorism” has undergone a transformation. During the reign of terror a regime or system of terrorism was used as an instrument of governance, wielded by a recently established revolutionary state against the enemies of the people. Now the term “terrorism" is commonly used to describe terrorist acts committed by non-state or subnational entities against a state. (italics in original)[8]
Later exemplars of state terrorism were the police state measures employed by the Soviet Union beginning in the 1920s, and by Germany's Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s.[23] According to Igor Primoratz, "Both [the Nazis and Soviets] sought to impose total political control on society. Such a radical aim could only be pursued by a similarly radical method: by terrorism directed by an extremely powerful political police at an atomized and defenseless population. Its success was due largely to its arbitrary character — to the unpredictability of its choice of victims. In both countries, the regime first suppressed all opposition; when it no longer had any opposition to speak of, political police took to persecuting “potential” and “objective opponents”. In the Soviet Union, it was eventually unleashed on victims chosen at random." [24] The bombing of Guernica has been called an act of terrorism,[25] as well as the 2006 Lebanon War [26], and other examples of state terrorism may include the World War II bombings of London, Dresden and Hiroshima.[27]
Discussions of terrorism in social sciences and philosophy tend to apply to violent non-state actors,[28] and some scholars dispute whether the concept of terrorism is properly applied to states.
The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the twelve previous international conventions on terrorism had never referred to state terrorism, which was not an international legal concept, and that when states abuse their powers they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law, rather than against international anti-terrorism statutes.[29] In a similar vein, Kofi Annan, at the time United Nations Secretary-General, stated that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already regulated under international law"[30] Annan added, "...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."[31]
Dr. Bruce Hoffman has argued that failing to differentiate between state and non-state violence ignores the fact that there is a “fundamental qualitative difference between the two types of violence.” Hoffman argues that even in war there are rules and accepted norms of behavior that prohibit certain types of weapons and tactics and outlaw attacks on specific categories of targets. For instance, rules codified in the Geneva and Hague conventions on warfare prohibit taking civilians as hostages, outlaw reprisals against either civilians or POW’s, recognize neutral territory, etc. Hoffman states that “even the most cursory review of terrorist tactics and targets over the past quarter century reveals that terrorists have violated all these rules.” Hoffman also states that when states transgress these rules of war “the term “war crime” is used to describe such acts.[32]
Walter Laqueur has stated that those who argue that state terrorism should be included in studies of terrorism ignore the fact that “The very existence of a state is based on its monopoly on violence. If it were different, states would not have the right, nor be in a position, to maintain that minimum of order on which all civilized life rests.”[33] Calling the concept a “red herring” he stated: “This argument has been used by the terrorists themselves, arguing that there is no difference between their activities and those by governments and states. It has also been employed by some sympathizers, and rests on the deliberate obfuscation between all kinds of violence...”[34]
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, so 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." [35]
Prevention of terrorism