Terrorism, Guerilla Warfare & Freedom Fighting
An issue that has plagued the study of counter-terrorism for decades has been the cliché comparison “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. The comparison suggests that the difference between the two groups is the eye of the beholder.
There are certainly elements of perspective that play into the debate. The words “terrorist” and “freedom fighter” are after all only words, and their meanings are still a matter of perspective and are reasonably difficult to fully capture. Indeed, the German term for freedom fighter, “Freiheitskämpfer” has a different meaning in the German language than it does in English.
Despite the inherent ambiguity in defining terrorism, especially when compared to freedom fighting, there is a strong argument that the difference can be quantified, and that there are in fact very real differences between the two groups. Counter-terror experts have had some degree of success in defining both terrorism and freedom fighting, and even the original cliché can be dissected and criticized.
There is no shortage of reasons why terrorism requires an internationally recognized definition of terrorism. In the modern world, terrorism is a globalized issue, and as such it must be dealt with on an international scale. If we are to develop and implement an international strategy, there must be agreement on what we are dealing with – a definition of terrorism. Until there is an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, operational results will be far and few between (Ganor).
Developing a definition of terrorism will assist in multiple phases of dealing with terrorism. The first phase involved defining terrorism for the purposes of legislation and punishment. Legislation requires a definition to distinguish terrorism from ordinary crime. A definition is necessary for legislation designed to curb terrorism and assistance to terrorism, as well as setting sentences for terrorists or for confiscating their financial resources and supplies. The second phase involves international cooperation, where an internationally accepted definition of terrorism is required to ensure effective cooperation between states, as well as discouraging links between states and terrorist organizations. The third phase involves public relations and terrorism, where universal definitions of terrorism can not only undermine indigenous support for the terrorist organization, but also legitimizes offensive action taken against terrorists. Importantly, an internationally accepted definition of terrorism also creates a universal distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists, and allows for legitimate action taken by freedom fighters or guerillas in the name of national liberation. (Ganor)
The use of the “terrorist” label is often applied as most suitable for meeting an individual or group’s political purposes, or for meeting individual’s personal preconceptions on the matter (Hughes). States can deny the political motivation of rebellious groups through the use of criminalizing terms such as “gangs”, “thugs” and “terrorists”, all of which undermines legitimate resistance. The leader of the communist resistance to the British in Malaya stated:
When we worked with the British during the Japanese occupation and killed people—essentially in Britain’s interests—we were neither bandits nor terrorists. Indeed, we were applauded, praised and given awards. Thus, you only became a terrorist when you killed against their interests.” (Chin Peng)
On a more personal level, there have been recent psychological studies that support the idea that terrorism is mostly cognitive in nature. Although political violence is a very real occurrence, terrorism itself as a concept is a social construction that occurs in the general population. When people apply labels, they are applying their own personal perceptions of those who partake in terrorism (Montiel). It was found that the “Terrorist” label implies an individual who is motivated by revenge and hatred, targets the innocent, refuses political negotiations and is considered the “evil villain”. (Kennedy). On the other hand, the “Freedom Fighter” label implies a person who stands passionately committed to national liberation; hits legitimate military targets only, and is often viewed as a hero or a martyr. (Harre)
The problem with states using the definition of terrorism in a highly selective and politicized manner is that it undermines the credibility of the term “terrorist” (Hughes). This is why modern academic definitions of terrorism tend to analyze the means of violence, rather than the justifications for, as the factor in deciding whether or not the act is illegitimate. In a similar vein, modern academics agree that the immediate target of a terror attack is secondary, and is only a vehicle for communicating a threat to a primary target elsewhere.
There have been multiple attempts by individuals, organisations and states to justify the means in terms of the end (Waltzer). The Arab League has previously argued that violent conflict in the name of “liberation and self-determination” cannot be terrorism, but violent conflict against existing regimes or monarchies will be considered criminal assaults. Syria has made equally ambiguous and insincere statements – it will not assist terrorist organisations, but openly supports “national liberation movements”. (Ganor) These attempts to justify the means in terms of the end emphasize not only the idea that states use the term “terrorist” as a political tool, but also the cliché that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”, and that terrorism hinges on the perspective and motivations of the one doing the defining. However, terrorism cannot be allowed to be a means towards national liberation. When a national liberation group chooses terrorism as it’s means, the aim of their struggle can no longer be used to justify the use of terrorism. (Ganor) (Netanyahu)
It will be necessary to accept that the world is not entirely black and white. Although terrorism and freedom fighting are different things, a national liberation organisation can also participate in terrorism, and the concepts of terrorism and freedom fighting are not mutually contradictory. There will be cases where an organisation or movement will contain elements of both, and there is a certain area of uncertainty. So far, this uncertainty has not been properly addressed. Most definitions of terrorism fail to properly capture the dynamic nature of terrorism as an instrument and tool within the wider context of armed conflict and resistance. (Hughes)
The inability for the international community to agree upon a definition of terrorism is posing a serious issue. One popular definition proposed by Boaz Ganor states “terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims”. This definition is based on three principle elements. The first is the essence of the action. Under Ganor’s definition, if the action does not involve violence or the threat of violence, it cannot be defined as terrorism. The second element is the requirement for the goal of the action to be political in nature. In the absence of a political aim, the action cannot be defined as terrorism. The third element is the targeting of civilians, emphasizing the deliberate rather than accidental targeting of civilians. This is what distinguishes terrorism from other forms of violent conflict.
There are many different methods used by freedom fighters to accomplish their goals, with terrorism only being one of those methods. Under the wider category of non-conventional conflict, guerilla warfare is the legitimate counterpart of terrorism. I would suggest that as national liberation/freedom is an end rather than a means, that comparing terrorism to freedom fighting is a poor comparison to be making. The real comparison should be between terrorism and guerilla warfare – both means utilized by freedom fighters in pursuit of their goals. Guerilla warfare is described as “a prolonged war of attrition, with progressively increasing violence, blurred limits, a fluid line of contact, emphasizing the human factor. In the course of war, guerilla combatants become regular military forces until victory is attained and one side is defeated” (Harkabi). The definition by Laqueur focuses on the asymmetric nature of the conflict; “Guerilla warfare is a form of warfare by which the strategically weaker side assumes the tactical offensive in selected forms, times and places. Guerilla warfare is the weapon of the weak”. Even though terrorism and guerilla warfare are often strongly intermingled, their methods are distinctly different. Guerillas are noted to have the weaker side in an asymmetric conflict, usually with inferior numbers, ad-hoc weaponry and fewer strategic capabilities. However, they can and often do fight according to the laws of armed conflict, taking and exchanging prisoners, as well as respecting the rights of non-combatants. On the other side, terrorists place no limits on the means used, and tend to employ widespread assassination and the use of terror tactics upon the indigenous population. (Schmid, Jongman & Stohl)
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
Bookmarks