'International terrorism' not what it used to be

By Riza Sihbudi

JAKARTA (JP): The United States is getting ready to launch its retaliatory attack on Afghanistan, which is accused of protecting Osama bin Laden. Quite a number of countries have expressed their support for the U.S. plan but some are taking a critical stance, one of them being an American ally in the Middle East -- Egypt.

President Hosni Mubarak has firmly refused to join an "international anti-terrorism coalition sponsored by the U.S.". Mubarak prefers that the United Nations first convene a worldwide conference to agree on the definition and reach the same interpretation of "international terrorism". Until now, controversies still emerge regarding this term.

Along with "fundamentalism", "radicalism" and "militancy" the term "terrorism" has been made popular over the past two decades by Western social political experts -- though surely names like Edward Said, Paul Findley, Roger Garaudy and Noam Chomsky must be excluded. The terms are then spread around by the media without trying to find out their real meaning.

These terms are negatively associated with the political, reactive activities of people in the Middle East. Daniel Pipes, for example, wrote that "the Middle East has special importance for terrorism".

Every time one hears the word, the following names immediately come to mind: Osama bin Laden, Muammar Qaddafi, Hafez al-Assad, Yasser Arafat, Khomeini, the Hamas and Hizbullah organizations, and jihad (holy war).

In her article Terrorism: A Balance Sheet, (The Washington Quarterly, Summer 1989), Shireen T. Hunter writes: "There are many similarities in the Iranian, Syrian and Libyan uses of terrorism as an instrument of policy." This clearly reflects the stereotypical, Western view of the Middle Eastern communities they dislike.

Yet Israeli actions against Arabs have never been called "terrorism". Hence, the slaughtering of innocent Palestinians by Israelis or the bombings and embargoes by the U.S. causing death or inflicting lifelong handicaps upon thousands of civilians, including infants, are never called "terrorism", but "acts of retaliation", "response" or "prevention", as Noam Chomsky wrote in 1991.

Experts have yet to agree on a definition of terrorism.

J. Bowyer Bell, in his book Transnational Terror, says that terrorism is a weapon for the weak, and a very effective one. David Fromkin in Contemporary Terrorism distinguishes between terrorism and military action. He points out, "military action is aimed at physical destruction, while terrorism aims at psychological consequences". Brian Michael Jenkins sees terrorism as "a new form of warfare" and Antal Deutsch describes terrorism as "a low-cost type of warfare between major powers".

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Ian Ross and Ted Robert Gurr in their article, Why terrorism subsides (Comparative Politics, July 1989), define international terrorism as "terrorism carried out by autonomous non state actors and affecting nationals of at least two states".

They attempt to formulate a set of definitions: that terrorism may be a psychological or military act designed to create fear, or cause material or economic destruction; and a method of constraining the behavior of others.

The writers also note that terrorism has been described as a crime committed for publicity; as an act of intentional violence; and that it is a criminal act perpetrated either for political or economic gain.

The analysis by Fathi Osman seems to be the most accurate. In Arabia magazine (August 1985), Osman touched on the difficulties in defining terrorism. If it is defined as the use of violence to achieve a certain goal, then all military acts also apply force. If we regard terrorism as an action to hurt or injure innocent people, the use of heavy arms in war obviously constitutes an action to harm thousands or millions of blameless civilians.

Noam Chomsky writes that the term terrorism was first coined at the end of the 18th century, especially to refer to acts of violence committed by a government (i.e. authorities) for the purpose of guaranteeing popular obedience.

This term is applied to connote the coercive -- as opposed to persuasive -- power of a ruling regime. In this way, Chomsky indicates that the original meaning is overlooked and the term terrorism is now used in the sense of "terrorism of retaliation" by individuals or groups.

It is very interesting to note the story of St. Augustine, as quoted by Chomsky, about a pirate captured by Emperor Alexander the Great. It is said that a dialog followed between the emperor and the pirate. "Why did you dare to upset the sea?", asked Alexander.

"Why did you dare to upset the whole world?" the pirate replied, "As I used only a small boat, you call me a robber; as you used a large vessel, you are called the emperor."

This precisely illustrates the relationship between state "terrorism" perpetrated by the strong against the weak, and acts of "terrorism" committed by Hamas against Israel, or by the group of Osama bin Laden against U.S. interests. The description explains the true nuance of the term "international terrorism".

Branding bin Laden the mastermind of international terrorist acts on Sept. 11 is, therefore, very subjective, stereotyped and arbitrary. If terrorists like bin Laden are to be punished, then the ones behind the disguise of "retaliatory action", "response" or "prevention" should also receive the same treatment.

The writer is the chairman of the Indonesian Society for Middle East Studies (ISMES) in Jakarta.