A confusing threat: Andrew Renton-Green reflects on international terrorism, terrorists and some terrorist organisations.

• Author: Renton-Green, Andrew

'There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.' (Montesquieu)

This article addresses international terrorism, terrorists and some terrorist organisations. The subject is fraught with pitfalls, as commentators and the media constantly misuse the words 'terrorism' and 'terrorist', leaving many wholly confused about the subject.

The word terrorism first entered popular usage during the French Revolution--the regime de la terreur. This was initially a positive political system using fear, according to Bruce Hoffman, 'to consolidate the new French government's power by intimidating counter-revolutionaries, subversives and all other dissidents whom the new regime regarded as enemies of the people... and in its original context was closely associated with the ideals of virtue and democracy'. (1)

Terror was in use long before the French Revolution, of course, with groups such as Assassins, Zealots and Thugs being employed to instil fear and eliminate opposition, and by these means encouraging compliance with whatever their sponsor required. The Spanish, French and English Inquisitions, Ivan the Terrible, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Mugabe, just to mention a few others, were further examples of institutions or people who used terror to further their ends.

Some analysts view terrorism and guerrilla warfare as the same. I do not. I am of the view that they differ significantly, in that the means used to achieve the end are very different. Guerrilla warfare is controlled violence against the organs of a state system, such as formed military or paramilitary forces and the political leadership. These actions are based on clearly defined goals aimed at replacing the prevailing political system and encouraging support for the cause from within the population. Once control is established in rural areas, it spreads to urban and metropolitan areas (for example, as happened in Malaya in the 1950s under the Templar Doctrine).

Indiscriminate violence

Terrorism is very different. It is indiscriminate violence directed against individuals or groups of civilians, and does not rely much on popular support from the people. An example is the attack on New York's World Trade Center in September 2001. As David Rapaport observes, 'The traditional distinguishing characteristic of the terrorist is the explicit refusal to accept the conventional moral limits which define military and guerrilla action.' Terrorism, above all, is a crime--and defined as a crime in most criminal jurisdictions, including our own.

I believe that in the 21st century the characteristics and nature of terrorism have changed. In the past terrorism was carried out generally by individuals belonging to an identifiable organisation with a command and control system that had a defined set of political, social or economic goals (such as radical leftists and rightists, nationalists or secessionists).

These groups engaged in attacks, usually in their home country, against highly specific targets like religious centres, with clearly defined aims and objectives. Indiscriminate slaughter was not their aim--most groups believed it was counter-productive to the cause. To attract attention to their cause, it was more productive to admit publicly their involvement in the attack, and couple this admission with a strong dissertation about the rightness and justice of their cause. While politically radical, and personally fanatical, these groups had clear ideological underpinnings for their actions. It was unusual for such groups to internationalise their campaigns of terror. ETA, the Basque separatists, is an example of these terrorist groups.

The so-called 'traditional terrorist' is in a minority today. Existing groups (political, ethnic, nationalist, religious, separatist) have been joined by a variety of individuals and organisations with less decipherable motivations, and often with very broad or multiple agendas (for example, to attack all American interests worldwide), rather than single aims. These groups and individuals tend to be indiscriminate in their target selection, do not recoil from inflicting very large numbers of fatalities and often internationalise their campaigns. The increasing lethality of terrorist attacks and their borderless nature are phenomena that are here to stay.

Global problems

Publics have tended to view terrorism as a national and perhaps regional problem, but, as I state above, they are in fact global problems, problems which need international strategic answers both in terms of policy and operations. This requires international co-operation, sharing of expertise and, possibly, the sharing of resources. Co-operation in these areas is not new, nor is it a startling fact. That sharing takes place now is encouraging, but many recent incidents have demonstrated tragically that more is needed.

...