The discourses of terrorism: myths and misconceptions: Richard Jackson discusses the nature of terror and questions the likelihood of success in the present United States-led war on it.

• Author: Jackson, Richard

The first step in dealing with any problem is to make sure that we understand it properly. The problem of terrorism in particular requires clear and realistic thinking, and all assertions about who the terrorists are, or how we should respond to them, need careful scrutiny before being embraced. The job is not made any easier by the persistence of a number of myths, constantly re-cycled by academics, the media, and government officials, that can then become the basis of misguided counter-terrorism policies. Terrorism is an extremely complex phenomenon, requiring a great deal of careful thought and reflection. De-mystifying the subject is a critical first step in developing credible anti-terrorism strategies. Unfortunately, in times of crisis, the temptation is to rush our judgments and to rely on accepted -- but often mythical -- wisdom.

A key set of myths revolve around the question of what `terrorism' actually is, and whether it is so easily defined, categorised, or quantified. There is no accepted definition of what terrorism is -- it is a highly contested concept. Although the US State Department's annual list of terrorist groups and state supporters of terrorism is the most widely accepted formulation, it is criticised for its lack of consistency. That is, the groups on this list change regularly according to prevailing US policies. When Osama bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan with CIA support, he was nowhere to be seen on that list. Now, of course, he is number one. At one time or another, both the IRA and the ANC were on the list. Iraq was on it as a terror-supporting state, then off during the war against Iran, and then back on after the 1991 Gulf War. If the stickiness of assigning terrorist labels can be seen anywhere, it is most telling in the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners -- Sean McBride, Menachem Begin, Yassir Arafat, and Nelson Mandela were all formerly designated as `terrorists' before they won the world's greatest diplomatic prize.

Another error is the present insistence on designating the collective enemy as `international terrorism', as if such a phenomenon actually exists. While there are terrorist organisations that operate across borders (giving them an `international' dimension), they are all unique groups that have to be understood in terms of their own history, ideology, and social and political contexts. It is, in fact, a misnomer to assume that Palestinian `terrorism', Irish `terrorism', Basque `terrorism', Tamil `terrorism', Islamic `terrorism', `narco-terrorism' or anti-abortion `terrorism' in the United States have anything more than superficial similarities. Similarly, it is mistaken to assume that there is no difference between revolutionary terrorism and nationalist terrorism, or between ideological terrorism and religious terrorism. Part of the problem is that we only consider terrorism when it happens, and thus we tend to perceive it as a one-off event. This is partly due to the tendency of the media quickly to abandon the story once it has lost its drama. It is not surprising then that we fail to appreciate its context, or see it as one part of a long-running historical struggle.

Difficult problem

In fact, how are we to distinguish between insurgent or revolutionary violence, and terrorist violence -- particularly when insurgent groups use terror on occasion, but not as a matter of general principle? The ANC and the PLO, despite being recognised as legitimate liberation movements, historically have resorted to what we would presently call terror strategies. This is the problem of trying to define terrorism according to methods it employs. A common definition is `indiscriminate attacks on innocent populations designed to create fear for political ends', but the issue is obviously further complicated when governments employ the same tactics, such as Stalin's purges, Mao's Cultural Revolution, or Latin American death squads.

Some try to define terrorism according to the kinds of groups that practice it, and suggest that it is only used by non-state actors trying to overthrow or influence legitimate governments. This is another myth. Not only do states support terrorism in a wide variety of forms, but some even practice it -- against their internal opponents...