Ultramarine (talk | contribs) corrections |
Giovanni33 (talk | contribs) I'm reverting too to Dr.Garbriela (except keeping corrections) The rest introduced problems. I'll explain it in talk. |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | '''State terrorism''' refers to acts of [[terrorism]] or "terror" conducted by established governments. The earliest use of this term identified by the ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'' is a 1795 reference to what the author described as the "reign of terrorism" in France.<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary'' 2nd Edition, CD Version 3, 2002, Oxford University Press</ref> During that part of the [[French Revolution|French revolutionary]] period that is now known as the [[Reign of Terror]], or simply The Terror, the [[Jacobin Club|Jacobins]] and other factions used the apparatus of the state to execute and cow political opponents. The Oxford English Dictionary still has a definition of terrorism as "Government by intimidation carried out by the party in power in France between 1789-1794".<ref name="teichman">{{cite journal|title=How to define terrorism|author=Jenny Teichman|journal=Philosophy|volume=64|issue=250|month=October|year=1989|page=505-517}}</ref>. |
||
'''State terrorism''' is a controversial term, used when arguing that [[terrorism]] can be carried out by governments. Unlike terrorism done by non-state actors, it it not an international legal concept. |
|||
⚫ | According to the Britannica Concise terrorism is "systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective".[http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9380497/terrorism] According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, State terrorism, also known as Establishment Terrorism, is "employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state's support is always clandestine."[http://www.wip.britannica.com/eb/article-217762/terrorism] |
||
==Scope and definition== |
==Scope and definition== |
||
Line 5: | Line 7: | ||
Like the [[definition of terrorism]] and the definition of [[state-sponsored terrorism]], the definition of state terrorism remains controversial. There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is.<ref>[http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633 POLITICS: U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
Like the [[definition of terrorism]] and the definition of [[state-sponsored terrorism]], the definition of state terrorism remains controversial. There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is.<ref>[http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633 POLITICS: U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
||
Terminology consensus would be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present [[International conventions on terrorism|12 piecemeal conventions and protocols]]. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been an obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter"." |
|||
<ref name="un">{{cite web |
|||
|url=http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html |
|url=http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html |
||
|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070129121539/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html |
|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20070129121539/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html |
||
Line 14: | Line 17: | ||
}}</ref> |
}}</ref> |
||
The concept is of state terrorism controversial and is usually applied to non-state groups.[http://eprints.unimelb.edu.au/archive/00000137/01/Primorat.pdf] This is the traditional approach, which sees terrorism as a form of random behavior perpetrated by international criminals, treating it as a special type of deviant behavior. In contrast a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism has been increasingly discussed within the literature. It establishes a meaning to account for the concept of state and state-sponsored terrorism. Former US Secretary of State [[George Shultz]] elaborates on this conceptual framework shift: |
|||
{{quote |"What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984).}} |
|||
This is the traditional approach, which sees terrorism as a form of random behavior perpetrated by international criminals, treating it as a special type of deviant behavior. In contrast a broader interpretion of the nature of terrorism has been increasingly discussed within the literature.{{fact}} It establishes a meaning to account for the concept of state and state-sponsored terrorism. |
|||
The term structural terrorism is sometimes used to describe state terrorism |
The term structural terrorism is sometimes used to describe state terrorism pointing out the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. That is policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. As such state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreign policies. The academic [[Conor Cruise O'Brien]] has argued, for example: |
||
{{quote |"Those who are described as terrorists...make the uncomfortable point that national armed forces, fully supported by democratic opinion, have in fact employed violence and terror on a far vaster scale...."("Liberty and Terrorism," International Security 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 56-57.)}} |
{{quote |"Those who are described as terrorists...make the uncomfortable point that national armed forces, fully supported by democratic opinion, have in fact employed violence and terror on a far vaster scale...."("Liberty and Terrorism," International Security 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 56-57.)}} |
||
In this view terrorism |
In this view terrorism emanates from legitimate political institutions intent upon creating a state of fear for political ends, and thus includes the activities of sovereign states themselves. Michael Stohl has argued: |
||
{{quote |"the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." ("The Superpowers and International Terror" March 27, 1984).}} |
{{quote |"the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." ("The Superpowers and International Terror" March 27, 1984).}} |
||
Many scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. In this analysis state terrorism as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. The argument is discussed by Prof. [[Micahel Stohl]] and [[George A. Lopez]], in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988. |
|||
Regardless, various analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, according to these analysts, a [[logically consistent]] application of the definition to both non-state and state actors: |
|||
{{quote |Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.|[[Alex P. Schmid]]|<ref>{{cite web |
{{quote |Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.|[[Alex P. Schmid]]|<ref>{{cite web |
||
Line 40: | Line 43: | ||
{{quote|[Terrorism is] the purposeful act or threat of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat. ... this definition helps to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Not all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim.|Michael Stohl, Professor of Political Science at Purdue University|<ref>Stohl, National Interests and State Terrorism, The Politics of Terrorism, Marcel Dekker 1988, p.275</ref>}} |
{{quote|[Terrorism is] the purposeful act or threat of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat. ... this definition helps to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Not all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim.|Michael Stohl, Professor of Political Science at Purdue University|<ref>Stohl, National Interests and State Terrorism, The Politics of Terrorism, Marcel Dekker 1988, p.275</ref>}} |
||
⚫ | The earliest use of |
||
⚫ | According to the Britannica Concise terrorism is "systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective".[http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9380497/terrorism] According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, State terrorism, also known as Establishment Terrorism, is "employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state's support is always clandestine."[http://www.wip.britannica.com/eb/article-217762/terrorism] |
||
[[Linguist]] and US policy critic [[Noam Chomsky]], described as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism,<ref>''Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror'', Sluka, Jeffrey (ed), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, p.8</ref> has stated that, "The U.S. is officially committed to what is called '[[Low intensity conflict|low-intensity warfare]]'.... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same."<ref name = "David"> {{cite journal |
[[Linguist]] and US policy critic [[Noam Chomsky]], described as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism,<ref>''Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror'', Sluka, Jeffrey (ed), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, p.8</ref> has stated that, "The U.S. is officially committed to what is called '[[Low intensity conflict|low-intensity warfare]]'.... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same."<ref name = "David"> {{cite journal |
||
Line 62: | Line 61: | ||
The manual ''Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict'' states: "Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.""successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies.""US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government.""The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020ch1.htm#s_9] |
The manual ''Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict'' states: "Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.""successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies.""US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government.""The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020ch1.htm#s_9] |
||
Historian [[Walter Laqueur]] has argued that [[Hitler]] and [[Stalin]] both practiced state terrorism.<ref name="teichman"/> |
|||
Scholars Emizet Kisangani and Wayne Nafziger argue that [[democide]] is equivalent to state terrorism<ref name=Kisangani2007>{{cite journal | author = Kisangani, E. | year = 2007 | title = The Political Economy Of State Terror | journal = Defence and Peace Economics | volume = 18 | issue = 5 | pages = 405-414 | url = http://www.informaworld.com/index/781318312.pdf | accessdate = 2008-04-02}}</ref> |
Scholars Emizet Kisangani and Wayne Nafziger argue that [[democide]] is equivalent to state terrorism<ref name=Kisangani2007>{{cite journal | author = Kisangani, E. | year = 2007 | title = The Political Economy Of State Terror | journal = Defence and Peace Economics | volume = 18 | issue = 5 | pages = 405-414 | url = http://www.informaworld.com/index/781318312.pdf | accessdate = 2008-04-02}}</ref> |
Revision as of 01:55, 19 April 2008
State terrorism refers to acts of terrorism or "terror" conducted by established governments. The earliest use of this term identified by the Oxford English Dictionary is a 1795 reference to what the author described as the "reign of terrorism" in France.[1] During that part of the French revolutionary period that is now known as the Reign of Terror, or simply The Terror, the Jacobins and other factions used the apparatus of the state to execute and cow political opponents. The Oxford English Dictionary still has a definition of terrorism as "Government by intimidation carried out by the party in power in France between 1789-1794".[2].
According to the Britannica Concise terrorism is "systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective".[1] According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, State terrorism, also known as Establishment Terrorism, is "employed by governments—or more often by factions within governments—against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups. This type of terrorism is very common but difficult to identify, mainly because the state's support is always clandestine."[2]
Scope and definition
Like the definition of terrorism and the definition of state-sponsored terrorism, the definition of state terrorism remains controversial. There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is.[3]
Terminology consensus would be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been an obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter"." [4]
The concept is of state terrorism controversial and is usually applied to non-state groups.[3] This is the traditional approach, which sees terrorism as a form of random behavior perpetrated by international criminals, treating it as a special type of deviant behavior. In contrast a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism has been increasingly discussed within the literature. It establishes a meaning to account for the concept of state and state-sponsored terrorism. Former US Secretary of State George Shultz elaborates on this conceptual framework shift:
"What once may have seemed random, senseless, violent acts of a few crazed individuals has come into focus...We have learned that terrorism is, above all, a form of political violence. It is neither random nor without purpose...The overarching goal of all terrorists is the same: they are trying to impose their will by force." ("Terrorism and the Modern World," address in Current Policy 626, Oct. 25, 1984).
The term structural terrorism is sometimes used to describe state terrorism pointing out the existence of 'a form of political violence" in the structure of contemporary international politics. That is policies or actions by governments that encourage the use of fear and violence in pursuit of political ends. As such state terrorism is conceived to have become an integral element of many state's foreign policies. The academic Conor Cruise O'Brien has argued, for example:
"Those who are described as terrorists...make the uncomfortable point that national armed forces, fully supported by democratic opinion, have in fact employed violence and terror on a far vaster scale...."("Liberty and Terrorism," International Security 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 56-57.)
In this view terrorism emanates from legitimate political institutions intent upon creating a state of fear for political ends, and thus includes the activities of sovereign states themselves. Michael Stohl has argued:
"the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." ("The Superpowers and International Terror" March 27, 1984).
Many scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. In this analysis state terrorism as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. The argument is discussed by Prof. Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988.
Regardless, various analysts have attempted to formulate definitions which are seen as neutral with respect to the perpetrators of the act, thus permitting, according to these analysts, a logically consistent application of the definition to both non-state and state actors:
Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.
[Terrorism is] the purposeful act or threat of violence to create fear and/or compliant behavior in a victim and/or audience of the act or threat. ... this definition helps to distinguish terrorism from other forms of political violence. Not all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim.
— Michael Stohl, Professor of Political Science at Purdue University, [6]
Linguist and US policy critic Noam Chomsky, described as a pioneer in the literature of state terrorism,[7] has stated that, "The U.S. is officially committed to what is called 'low-intensity warfare'.... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of 'terrorism' in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same."[8] Chomsky and Edward S. Herman have argued that the distinction between state and non-state terror is morally relativist, and distracts from or justifies state terrorism perpetrated by favored states, typically those of wealthy and developed nations (Chomsky and Herman, 1979). Chomsky has in turn been criticized for allegedly ignoring or justifying terrorism by states such as Communist China, Vietnam, and Cambodia.[4] Herman responded to such accusations in Z Magazine.[9]
The manual Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict states: "Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.""successful LIC operations, consistent with US interests and laws, can advance US international goals such as the growth of freedom, democratic institutions, and free market economies.""US policy recognizes that indirect, rather than direct, applications of US military power are the most appropriate and cost-effective ways to achieve national goals in a LIC environment. The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. When LIC threatens friends and allies, the aim of security assistance is to ensure that their military institutions can provide security for their citizens and government.""The United States will also employ combat operations in exceptional circumstances when it cannot protect its national interests by other means. When a US response is called for, it must be in accordance with the principles of international and domestic law. These principles affirm the inherent right of states to use force in individual or collective self-defense against armed attack."[5]
Scholars Emizet Kisangani and Wayne Nafziger argue that democide is equivalent to state terrorism[10]
See also
- Allegations of state terrorism by Iran
- Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
- Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
- Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
- Consequences of German Nazism
- Gukurahundi
- Selective assassination
Notes
- ^ Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Edition, CD Version 3, 2002, Oxford University Press
- ^ Jenny Teichman (1989). "How to define terrorism". Philosophy. 64 (250): 505-517.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ POLITICS: U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism
- ^ "Definitions of Terrorism". United Nations. Archived from the original on 2007-01-29. Retrieved 2007-07-10.
- ^ "Definitions of Terrorism". United Nations. Archived from the original on 2007-01-29. Retrieved 2007-07-10.
- ^ Stohl, National Interests and State Terrorism, The Politics of Terrorism, Marcel Dekker 1988, p.275
- ^ Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, Sluka, Jeffrey (ed), Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, p.8
- ^ Barsamian, David (2001). "The United States is a Leading Terrorist State An Interview with Noam Chomsky". Monthly Review.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=
and|coauthors=
(help) - ^ "Pol Pot And Kissinger: On war criminality and impunity", by Edward S. Herman, Z Magazine, September 1997
- ^ Kisangani, E. (2007). "The Political Economy Of State Terror" (PDF). Defence and Peace Economics. 18 (5): 405–414. Retrieved 2008-04-02.
References
- Sluka, Jeffrey A. (Ed.) (2000). Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0-8122-1711-X.
- Chomsky, Noam and Herman, Edward S. (1979). The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism: The Political Economy of Human Rights: Vol. 1. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-090-0
- Alexander George (1991). Western State Terrorism. Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-0931-7.
- Mark Curtis (2004). Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses. Vintage. ISBN 0-09-946972-3.
Further reading
- Lerner, Brenda Wilmoth & K. Lee Lerner, eds. Terrorism : essential primary sources. Thomson Gale, 2006. ISBN 9781414406213 Library of Congress. Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms LC Control Number: 2005024002.
- Tarpley, Webster G. 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA -Progressive Press. ISBN 0-93085-231-1
- Chomsky, Noam. The Culture of Terrorism ISBN 0-89608-334-9
- Chomsky, Noam. 9/11 ISBN 1-58322-489-0
- George, Alexander. Western State Terrorism, Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-0931-7
External links
Prevention of terrorism