The Ambiguity of Terrorism by Chirusha de Mel

February 6, 2017

Global Politics of Terror

Professor Shirk

The Ambiguity of Terrorism

During the French Revolution, the term ‘terror’ was introduced to our vocabulary. As time passes by the question of what constitutes a “people,” led individuals to understand how the principle is becoming very ambiguous.[1] Many scholars argue the term terrorism is used unreflectively, and that state of affairs hinders theoretical progress and distorts terrorism research in impractical ways. However, the debate on terrorism beyond academic confines is a world-wide issue where governments are realizing the serious threats and problems which they have to deal with. Terrorism has been described by scholars and government officials as ‘the use of international violence by a group or individuals to achieve political goals’. There is no right or wrong answer when defining the term terror. In addition, I argue that in spite of the many definitions that are used by political and academic actors, the term terrorism has shifted over the past years. I believe that the term terrorism is defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, by using political strategy. It is also important to use the term carefully because of how it is expanding over time. However, some may argue that terrorism or terror tactics can be used against undemocratic governments in order to bring change, while being interconnected with the constitutional order.

According to Terror, Terrorism, Terrorist by Charles Tilly, he articulates how the term of terrorism occurs in the context of broader political struggles. Tilly describes how terror is one of the many strategies. He states,

Writers on terror continue to use it for governmental intimidation of citizens, as in Joseph Stalin's use of executions to still dissent within the Soviet Union (Mayer 2000). But they also use the term frequently to designate clandestine attacks on governmental targets by domestic opponents such as Basque separatists, the Irish Republican Army, and Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Schmid 2001) ... Thus, the term sprawls across a wide range of human cruelties. [2]

In addition, the term terrorism consists of usually two kinds, political terrorism which creates a sense of panic among other individuals, and criminal terrorism which deals with kidnappings, ransom, etc. It is evident that political terrorism is more dangerous than criminal terrorism because of how well the terrorists are trained, and how difficult it is for law enforcements to capture them. To support my argument Tilly stipulates, ‘properly understood, terror is a strategy, not a creed’.[3] It is a political strategy, by not defining a feature attempt in order to achieve a political goal. Terrorist range across a spectrum of organizations, beliefs, and circumstances. Terrorism consists of certain acts and plans to spread pressure, panic, and destruction towards the innocent civilians. In addition, terrorist, are specific to what they want, and poses a great threat to innocent individuals.  Some may argue that, kidnapping and ransom should not be classified as a terrorist attack. In today’s society many individuals use the term terrorism liberally, rather than using the scientific approach. As each act is evolving, it is harder to track. Therefore, it is important to have a scientific analysis. Many individuals would categorize terrorism as ‘evil doers’ who are from predominantly Muslim countries, because of the recent attacks that have been happening around the world.

According to Disciplining Terror How Experts Invented Terrorism by Lisa Stampnitzky,

Since 9/11 Americans have been told that terrorists are pathological evildoers, beyond our comprehension, and that our response, in the form of the "war on terror," will be (in the words of George W. Bush) "a very long struggle against evil.[4]

Stampnitzky points out that terrorism occurred in the 1970s during the French Revolution, which indicates that terrorism has a history. Stampnitzky describes that history matters for the ways we think about it, the questions we ask, and the possible remedies we apply, as well as the questions that we don't ask those silences that may even go unobserved.[5]

            Even though it is important to understand the term terrorism is still evolving and does not have a stable meaning. The threat of violence or the direct attack on civilians by making them a primary target is the definition of terrorism through a political strategy. As stated by Stampnitzky, terrorism has been cursed by an ongoing inability to settle upon a stable meaning, and this problem of definition has come to hinge around three core axes: politicization, rationality, and morality.[6]

Stampnitzky articulates why terrorism has shifted over the past years in history with the evidence and data collected by terrorism experts. Lastly, she points out that terrorism should not be categorized based on the recent attacks by al-Qaeda and ISIS.  It is evident that the term, terrorism is ambiguous, and should be used carefully.

            In contrary, Terror and Consent by Philip Bobbitt takes a different approach on how terrorism has evolved. Bobbitt articulates that terrorism is always tied to the constitutional order by causing terror within that order. He states that there is a real war against terror, and that our state should fight it without violating our obligation to the rule of law. He further discusses that it is important to fight within the law, and with our allies. In addition, he says, ‘terror became a methodical technique to bring about revolution, not simply to maintain it’.[7] This simply means that some countries do not have a consolidated democracy in order to change a regime, however terror could be a technique to change it. In addition, Bobbitt further explains how there are numerous other groups which have experienced discursive transformation from ‘terrorists’ to ‘freedom fighters’ due to the transitions which occurred over time. According to Bobbitt, the nation state terrorist groups that succeeded the anarchists did not proclaim themselves to be terrorists, indeed, quite the opposite. They saw themselves as freedom fighters.[8] For example, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) considered themselves as freedom fighters although the Sri Lankan government and international community branded them as terrorists. Therefore, he argues that the 21^st century ideologies on terrorism are false due to the the transition from nation states to market states. Lastly, he argues that Islam is not the primary reason for terrorism, it is the emergence of market states. It is apparent that Tilly, Stampnitzky, and Bobbit have slightly different arguments based on the term terrorism and how it has shifted over since the 1970s.  

            In this paper, I identified why terrorism is ought to be an ambiguous term, and does not have a definite definition. If there was a stable meaning of terrorism, conflicts would arise.  In addition, I believe that it is important to have a base definition on terrorism by indicating that it is an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, against innocent civilians. It is also important to use the term ‘terrorism’ carefully, in order to avoid categorizing certain groups according to where they are located. As an ambiguous term, terrorism could be defined to different groups and governments. It is a complex term that continues to expand and become more complicated within the different international political issues because of the interconnectedness of the world.

---

[1] Rapoport, David. The Four Waves of Rebel Terror and September 11. 2002

[2] Tilly, Charles. Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists. 2004

[3] Tilly, Charles. Terrorism.

[4] Stampnitzky, Lisa. Disciplining Terror How Experts Invented Terrorism. 2013

[5] Stampnitzky, Lisa. Invented Terrorism.

[6] Stampnitzky, Lisa. Invented Terrorism.

[7] Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent. 2008.

[8] Bobbitt, Philip. Terror and Consent.