Combating terrorism: Beth Greener-Barcham discusses the problems New Zealand faces in defining terrorism.

• Author: Greener-Barcham, Beth K.

A Richard Jackson eloqueutly conveyed in this journal last year, any comprehensive attempt at answering the question 'what is terrorism' is usually a very long and convoluted one) This is not least because terrorism, as traditionally understood, has been associated with no small number of key factors.

One factor is the idea that terrorism is 'propaganda of the deed'. Terrorism, scholars such as Brian Jenkins dryly tell us, is an attempt to spread terror. The most favoured first step towards achieving an effect of terror is to threaten or employ physical violence. The second step, many analysts have asserted, is the communication of this act or threat of violence to as wide an audience as possible in order to spread that terror. Terrorism has, therefore, also generally been associated with particular tactics (such as hostage-taking and hijacking) that might ensure extensive media coverage and high levels of public awareness. The aspect of secrecy, the lack of military" uniform and the overall apparent absence of regard for the laws of war are typically thought to be part and parcel of terrorist method, and the typical terrorist targets of much of the last century were military or political figures--highlighting another fundamental factor.

Why would anyone intentionally want to spread terror? Terrorism has generally been defined as an act or threat of violence undertaken for political purposes. More specifically, it has traditionally been viewed as a weapon of the weak in struggles for political control or to redress political imbalances--struggles for self-determination, independence, greater autonomy, revolution, and decolonisation. It has also been used as an instrument in attempts to achieve shorter term goals such as the release of political prisoners and so on. The politically motivated goals of terrorism, therefore, highlight the last, often unspoken, but most vital consideration, and that is the fact that it is states that have--often problematically--dominated discourse about who actually is a terrorist.

This means that it can be difficult to assess claims as to who is a 'terrorist', especially when previously condemned 'terrorists' such as Nelson Mandela and the ANC come to power, and when states themselves exercise terror over their own citizens and others. Labelling something 'terrorism' de-legitimises the actors and their actions, whilst also allowing for ideological and practical co-operation between friendly regimes in response to actions that threaten their control--as in the case of US contributions to Indonesia following the Bali bombing; the US support for the Philippines and Thailand after 11 September; and improved relations between the United States and China, and the United States and Pakistan.

In terms of how an act of violence undertaken for the advancement of political purposes is responded to by liberal democratic states, terrorism is usually classified as a particular kind of illegitimate, politically motivated crime as it is not able to be conflated with an act of war--as this would mean bestowing a greater level of legitimacy upon such violent actions. This has typically required police and court primacy in dealing with terrorist activity, backed by intelligence and other civilian agencies and with recourse to tightly circumscribed military aid to the civil power in times of emergency.

Such key factors present a few basic starting points for attempting to understand what people mean when they refer to the nebulous and essentially contested concept that we call 'terrorism'. This tenuous foundation is further challenged, however, when we consider more recent developments.

Fractionating terrorism

In their 1997 journal article entitled 'International Terrorism on the Eve of a New Millennium', Franck and Meddstein claimed that terrorism was 'fractionating'. They suggested that the rise of consumer and narco-terrorism for profit could be considered terrorism in terms of the intended effect, but perhaps most convincingly they also argued that these criminal acts qualified as acts of terrorism because they were used as fundraising efforts for political struggles. Cyber terrorism was even more troublesome for traditional definitions of terrorism as it generally lacked the element of immediate violence. However, cyber acts could potentially incite violence, be connected to terrorist groups and generally fulfil many of the definitional criteria that have been used to identify an act of terrorism. Acts of eco-terrorism...