Some Reasons Why International Terrorism Has Not Yet Become the Common Enemy of Mankind

Transcription

1 Some Reasons Why International Terrorism Has Not Yet Become the Common Enemy of Mankind Presentation by Prof. em. Alex P. Schmid (Research Fellow, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism [ICCT], The Hague; Editor-in-Chief of Perspectives on Terrorism, Terrorism Research Initiative (Vienna) on the occasion of the International Think Tank Summit PRIMAKOV READINGS WORLD IN 2035, Moscow, June 29, 2017

2 Widely Acknowledged Common Enemies of Mankind (in Latin: hostis humani generis): Pirates Slaver [slave-trader/owner] Torturers Genociders War Criminals Terrorists?

3 Acts of Terrorism as peacetime equivalents of war crimes? Acts of Violence Identified as War Crimes in International Humanitarian Law: Willful killing of civilians and prisoners; Taking of hostages; Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities; Attacking and bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives; Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable.

4 What is Terrorism? UN Draft Definition of Terrorism Article 2 1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of the present Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or (b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility or to the environment; or (c) Damage to property, places, facilities or systems referred to in paragraph 1 (b) of the present article resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

5 1. Terrorism refers, on the one hand, Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism (2011) to a doctrine about the presumed effectiveness of a special form or tactic of fear-generating, coercive political violence and, on the other hand, to a conspiratorial practice of calculated, demonstrative, direct violent action without legal or moral restraints, targeting mainly civilians and non-combatants, performed for its propagandistic and psychological effects on various audiences and conflict parties; 2. Terrorism as a tactic is employed in three main contexts: (i)illegal state repression, (ii) propagandistic agitation by non-state actors in times of peace or outside zones of conflict and (iii) as an illicit tactic of irregular warfare employed by state- and non-state actors.

6 The Triangle of Terrorism TERRORIST 1. Violence or Threat thereof 3. Feeling of Intense Fear (Terror) (Direct) VICTIM 2. (Mass) communication of 1 (Ultimate) TARGET(S) Alex P. Schmid Director, CSTPV, University of St Andrews

7 19 th Century Proponents of Propaganda by the Deed 1.Mikhail Bakunin (1870): we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda ; 2.Errico Malatesta: (1876): the insurrectional deed destined to affirm socialist principles by acts, is the most efficacious means of propaganda ; 3.Peter Kropotkin (1870s): By actions which compel general attention, the new idea seeps into people s minds and wins converts. One such act may, in a few days, make more propaganda than a thousand pamphlets. Above all, it awakens the spirit of revolt. ;

8 Violence as Communication 19 th century urban terrorists engaged in demonstrative acts of violence as a way to enter the news system. By killing half a dozen heads of state or government, including the Russian Czar Alexander II (1881), they made the headlines without having to pay a penny in advertising costs. This principle of accessing the world s news system by deliberately creating bad news has remained the same from the time of the yellow press to the period of radio, television and the internet. As one German terrorist explained in the 1970s: We give the media what they need: newsworthy events. They cover us, explain our causes and this, unknowingly, legitimizes us.

9 Four Issues Confusing the Discourse on Terrorism 1. Our inability to reach a legal consensus definition of terrorism; 2. Equating all forms of political violence with terrorism; 3. The confusion of freedom-fighting/legitimate armed resistance with terrorism; 4. Confusing political activism and non-violent radicalism with violent extremism and terrorism.

10 Ad 1: Our Inability to Reach a Legal Consensus Definition of Terrorism There are more than 250 definitions of terrorism but the United Nations General Assembly has not been able to come up with a concise legal definition that is acceptable to all its 193 Member States. We therefore have the paradoxical situation that the UN General Assembly unanimously accepted on 8 September 2006 a global action plan against terrorism without being able to agree what exactly terrorism is in legal terms.

11 Ad 2: Political Violence other than Terrorism By the regime: 1. Restraining Violence,e.g. house arrest 2. Internment in detention/concentration camps 3. Violent repression of peaceful demonstrations 4. Purge/ Pogrom/ Mass Eviction/ Deportation/Ethnic cleansing 5. Political Justice/Show Trial 6. Individual political murder/assassination/liquidation/targeted killing 7. Torture 8. Disappearances (= kidnapping + torture + murder) 9. Summary extrajudicial executions/massacre 10. Ethnocide/Politicide /Genocide/Democide By those seeking greater political power: 11. Public property damage/arson/sabotage 12. Hunger strike /self-burning (political suicide) 13. Violent demonstrations/rioting 14. Tyrannicide 15. Partisan/guerrilla-type hit & run armed resistance to occupation

12 Ad 3: When is Political Violence Justified/Legitimate? Four Conditions under which Certain Forms of Political Violence (not Terrorism) would Appear to be Justified (Stuart Hampshire) 1. that it is in response to a great injustice and oppression, as of a resistance movement against a foreign power ruling by force and terror so that the victim is the reverse of innocent; 2.that it is certain that no lawful and non-violent means of remedying the injustice and oppression will be given; 3.that the political killing will cause far less suffering, and less widespread suffering than the present injustice and cruelty are causing; and 4. that it really is very probable that the killing will end the oppression, and that it will not provoke more violence and more horror.

13 Ad 4: Non-Violence, Radicalism, Extremism, Terrorism Non-violent Activism: tries to be persuasive and holding the moral high ground in confrontations; it can be aggressive (e.g. sit-in) and coercive (e.g. by acts of non-cooperation like strikes) but avoids the use of anti-personal violence as a matter of principle; it should not be equated with terrorism. Radicalism [in the European 19 th century tradition]: advocating sweeping political change; but usually open-minded, rational and pragmatic. Not necessarily violent or rejecting democracy; pluralist, anti-authoritarian. Radicals were anti-authoritarian, egalitarian and secular and more radical in their objectives than in the choice of methods of achieving them. It should not be confused with extremism. (Violent) Extremism: fanatical and close-minded, engaged in hateful propaganda, demonising opponents; favours use of mass political violence, based on dogmatic secular or religious ideology to achieve supremacy; authoritarian or even totalitarian; rejecting equality and pluralism, denying human rights to outsiders; adherents are intolerant and accept that achieving their ends justifies the use of any means. Terrorism: special form of demonstrative political violence without moral restraints, directed mainly against unarmed civilians to communicate with, and influence (intimidate, coerce, subdue or provoke) various conflict parties and audiences. Should be clearly distinguished from other forms of political violence where the search for publicity and its political exploitation is not the dominant feature.

14 Thank you for your attention! Questions? Marrakesh, 25 January 2011