Terrorism (that old story again)

I am writing this after attending an international relations seminar. For 9am on a Friday morning I think our class had an excellent debate, and for that I would like to thank them for the inspiration for this…

So this week’s topic was terrorism. Anyone who would ask what that is would usually receive an answer of “where have you been for the past 5 years?” Well first of all I would like to clear up a point – terrorism has been around in one form or another for centuries. In fact one text reports the first ever act of terrorism as occurring in the first century BCE when members of the Jewish population stabbed Romans to death in broad daylight in the middle of Jerusalem, causing such fear that there was eventually mass rebellion[1]. There is a key word in there – fear. Our lecturer defined terrorism as
“the use of violence to cause a political effect, by creating fear among a civilian population.”[2]
Well that brings me on to my first major point; if you take that definition literally, then does it not describe all wars? I mean I’m sure that if the Iraqi civilian population was given that definition then it would call us, the US and all the other countries involved in the invasion as terrorists. Because have we not used violence to cause a political effect? And have we not created fear amongst a civilian population?

So who is a terrorist? Some may argue that it was the people that blew up the World Trade centres in 2001, or the people that attacked the London underground in July 2005 (to use two recent examples). But the truth is that from 11 September 2001 to 30 September 2005 there were 895 arrests under the Terrorism Act 2000.[3] Are they all terrorists? Or are some of them actually innocent bystanders caught up in it, like Jean Charles de Menezes was? (Don’t get me wrong I realise there is always going to be errors, and I know there was pressure on the police to do something, and they would have been criticised to a similar extent had they been passive in everything), I know it was following orders etc etc).

But we don’t hear about most of those ‘terrorists’. The media will always report on the big events, the Bali bombing, the Madrid bombing and so on because sensational news sells. But is this in itself a negative thing? By reporting on these events the media will inevitably look at the perpetrators, who they are and what they stand for. The idea behind terrorism is that a political cause is brought to light and that there will political change. Are the media, therefore, doing exactly what the terrorists wanted by spreading word of these causes? Are the media, in fact, terrorists of an indirect nature? In truth there is little sense in the relationship between say media coverage and the number of lives lost due to terrorism. If you consider that approx. 3000 lives were lost in 9/11[4] and there was media coverage for years after reaching all corners of the earth. But 3000 lives are lost on the American roads each week. Where is the mass media coverage of that? People aren’t scared of getting into their cars, but they’re scared of the underground or flying.

But its ok, we can take comfort in the global war on terror that Bush started and everyone flocked in to join up to (got to stay in his good books after all). We invaded Afghanistan to conquer Al Qaida. What do you imagine their response would be? An organisation with inferior military power will not go to war – that’s suicide. Instead they will commit acts of ‘terrorism’ to pressure for the withdrawal of troops. So in effect we have brought on more terrorism ourselves by using (what could be argued as terrorist) military tactics to destroy terrorism. Where is the sense in that? Or is the global war on terror simply a cover for other incentives to go to war? Martin Shaw (International Relations lecturer at Sussex) said in some ways terrorism “permitted wars against people who were not terrorists”. But that’s a whole different political kettle of fish and one I won’t go into here.
The main questions for me are: what is terrorism? Who are the ‘terrorists’? Has the global war on terror backfired in creating more terrorism? Should media be restricted in their coverage of attacks and finally who are we to judge, define and condemn those who are prepared to die for their beliefs and morals when it could be argued that they are a one-man-army?
[1] Course pack
[2] Martin Shaw talking in the “Terrorism and the War on Terror” lecture, 2/11/06
[3] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks