From owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu Tue Dec 18 08:00:30 2001
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 20:05:03 -0600 (CST)
From: MichaelP <papadop@peak.org>
Subject: DAILY STAR : 'Terrorism': the word itself is dangerous
Article: 132341
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/07_12_01_b.htm
'Terrorism': the word itself is dangerous
The greatest threat to world peace today is clearly terrorism
-
not the behavior to which the word is applied but the word itself. For
years, people have recited the truisms that one man's terrorist
is another man's freedom fighter
and that terrorism, like
beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
However, with the
world's sole superpower declaring an open-ended, worldwide war
on terrorism,
the notorious subjectivity of this word is no longer
a joke. It is no accident there is no agreed definition of
terrorism,
since the word is so subjective as to be devoid of
meaning. At the same time, the word is extremely dangerous, because
people tend to believe that it does have meaning and to use and abuse
the word by applying it to whatever they hate as a way of avoiding
rational thought and discussion and, frequently, excusing their own
illegal and immoral behavior.
There is no shortage of precise verbal formulations for the diverse
acts to which the word terrorism
is often applied. Mass
murder,
assassination,
and sabotage
are available
(to which the phrase politically motivated
can be added if
appropriate), and such crimes are already on the statute books,
rendering specific criminal legislation for terrorism
unnecessary. However, such precise formulations do not carry the
overwhelming, demonizing and thought-deadening impact of the word
terrorism,
which is precisely the charm of the word for its
more cynical and unprincipled users and abusers. If someone commits
politically motivated mass murder,
people might be curious as
to the cause or grievances which inspired such a crime, but no cause
or grievance can justify (or even explain) terrorism,
which,
all right-thinking people agree, is the ultimate evil.
Most acts to which terrorism
is applied (at least in the West)
are tactics of the weak, usually (although not always) against the
strong. Such acts are not a tactic of choice but of last resort. To
cite one example, the Palestinians would prefer to fight for their
freedom by respectable
means, using F-16s, Apache attack
helicopters and laser-guided missiles such as those the United States
provides to Israel. If the United States provided such weapons to
Palestine as well, the problem of suicide bombers would be
solved. Until it does, and for so long as the Palestinians can see no
hope for a decent future, no one should be surprised or shocked that
Palestinians use the delivery systems
available to them - their
own bodies. Genuine hope for something better than a life worse than
death is the only cure for the despair which inspires such gruesome
violence.
In this regard, it is worth noting that the poor, the weak and the
oppressed rarely complain about terrorism.
The rich, the strong
and the oppressors constantly do. While most of mankind has more
reason to fear the high-technology violence of the strong than the
low-technology violence of the weak, the fundamental mind-trick
employed by the abusers of the epithet terrorism
(no doubt, in
some cases, unconsciously) is essentially this: The low-technology
violence of the weak is such an abomination that there are no limits
on the high-technology violence of the strong which can be deployed
against it. Not surprisingly, since Sept. 11, virtually every
recognized state confronting an insurgency or separatist movement has
eagerly jumped on the war on terrorism
bandwagon, branding its
domestic opponents (if it had not already done so) terrorists
and, at least implicitly, taking the position that, since no one dares
to criticize the United States for doing whatever it deems necessary
in its war on terrorism,
no one should criticize whatever they
now do to suppress their own terrorists.
Even while accepting that many people labeled terrorists
are
genuinely reprehensible, it should be recognized that neither respect
for human rights nor the human condition are likely to be enhanced by
this apparent carte blanche seized by the strong to crush the weak as
they see fit. Writing in the Washington Post on Oct. 15, Post Deputy
Editor Jackson Diehl cited two prominent examples of the abuse of the
epithet terrorism
: With their handshake in the Kremlin,
Sharon and Putin exchanged a common falsehood about the wars their
armies are fighting against rebels in Chechnya and the West Bank and
Gaza. In both cases, the underlying conflict is about national
self-determination: statehood for the Palestinians, self-rule for
Chechnya. The world is inclined to believe that both causes are just
-- Sharon and Putin both have tried to convince the world that all
their opponents are terrorists, which implies that the solution need
not involve political concessions but merely a vigorous
counterterrorism campaign.
Perhaps the only honest and globally
workable definition of terrorism
is an explicitly subjective
one - violence which I don't support.
The Western press routinely characterizes as terrorism
virtually all Palestinian violence against Israelis (even against
Israeli occupation forces within Palestine), while the Arab press
routinely characterizes as terrorism
virtually all Israeli
violence against Palestinians. Only this formulation would accommodate
both characterizations, as well as most others. However, the word has
been so devalued that even violence is no longer an essential
prerequisite for its use. In recently announcing a multi-billion
dollar lawsuit against 10 international tobacco companies, a Saudi
Arabian lawyer told the press: We will demand tobacco firms be
included on the lists of terrorists and those financing and sponsoring
terrorism because of the large number of victims smoking has claimed
the world over.
If everyone recognized the word terrorism
is fundamentally an epithet and a term of abuse, with no intrinsic
meaning, there would be no more reason to worry about the word now
than prior to Sept. 11. However, with the United States relying on
the word to assert, apparently, an absolute right to attack any
country it dislikes (for the most part, countries Israel dislikes) and
with President Bush repeatedly menacing that either you're with
us or you're with the terrorists
(which effectively means,
either you make our enemies your enemies or you'll be our enemy
- and you know what we do to our enemies
), many people around the
world must feel a genuine sense of terror (dictionary definition: a
state of intense fear
) as to where the United States is taking the
rest of the world.
Meanwhile, in America itself, the Bush Administration appears to be
feeding the US Constitution and America's traditions of civil
liberties, due process and the rule of law into a shredder - mostly to
domestic applause or acquiescence. Who would have imagined that 19
angry men armed only with knives could accomplish so much, provoking a
response, beyond their wildest dreams, which threatens to be vastly
more damaging to their enemies even than their own appalling acts? If
the world is to avoid a descent into anarchy, in which the only rule
is might makes right,
every retaliation
provokes a
counter-retaliation
and a genuine war of civilizations
is ignited, the world - and particularly the United States - must
recognize that terrorism
is simply a word, a subjective
epithet, not an objective reality and certainly not an excuse to
suspend all the rules of international law and domestic civil
liberties which have, until now, made at least some parts of our
planet decent places to live.