Terrorism: A Clarity of Thought

I want to examine the concept of terrorism. I want to look at the legal construct of terrorism.

A failure to grasp the concept of terrorism enables people to foolishly talk about state terrorism.

I believe that terrorism is an illegal use of violence by non-state actors against states and peoples of states.

So the idea of state terrorism is a foolish concept. It is loaded with moral connotations of the wrongness of state violence.

However, there is a legitimate use of state violence to protect itself and its peoples as well as its borders. There are also legitimate use of supra-national activity. So a country that fight the terrorism of non-state actors cannot be using terrorism. It has legal authority to use armed force to defend itself.

This is vital to understanding the concept of terrorism and not confusing it with the legal or illegal use of armed force by the state.

Terrorism is carried out by non-state actors. Al Qaeda is not affiliated to any state. So it is a typical terrorist organisation. Russia is a state and therefore, it has a legal authority to defend its territorial integrity in Chechnya. It is not using terrorism to do this. Equally, the actions by states against terrorism cannot be described as terrorist because they have a legal authority to use force, unlike the non-state actors.

Equally, war is not a terrorist activity. It can be morally wrong. However, its legal authority is defined by the state carrying out the activity. It is perfectly valid to question the legality of the war. There is immense confusion by use of very loose criteria to assess this. US and UK had legal authority as states to use force against Iraq. However, it required the authority of the UN to make it a legal war (and it had such a LEGAL authority in UN resolutions even ones right at the end of the UN process). However, if the US and UK did not have the UN authorisation, the action by the state would not be an act of state terrorism. It would be contravening international law and the recourse would be to an international court and not any anti-terrorist legislation or actions. Without a court ruling, the actions do not become illegal.

There is a confusion on describing harsh actions by a state as terrorism. This is not a legal description. Military or armed or harsh action by the state does not make it terrorist. It legal authority does not matter. Even if it does not have legal authority, it is still a state-based action. Not every state-based illegal action can be terrorist. A court would have to rule on this.

There has to be with this clarity of thought. Terrorism is non-state actors using violence. It is clearly not the use of violence by the state because a state has the right to use violence within its legal right to deploy force especially against insurgencies.

The reason for this clarity is that there is a foolish and loose thinking on this issue. It is very political. However, it does not take into account the real power of the states too. States have legal rights to deploy force, which non-state actors do not. In reality, non-state actors do face huge state-led actions to crush terrorism. I would argue hat it is the prerogative of the state to do this. They have the right to defend citizens against the use of non-state actors' violence - terrorism. I believe that terrorism is a dead-end for achieving political objectives or redressing grievances. The lack of clarity of thought gives a foolish moral justification to terrorism. Non-state actors are likely to have less force than states. This is almost inevitable. So the greater ability of the state in the use of force does not make it less valid specifically at a legal level. This is the point to grasp in looking at terrorism.

I believe that it is wrong to encourage non-state actors to use violence against states. Those encouraging such violence are fueling a cycle of actions that are unhealthy for law and order. They are violent anarchic actions even nihilistic. There is a general duty to encourage people to obey the laws of the state. Non-state actors using violence and arms against a state will face very harsh measures. This is a normal reaction of any state.

Clarity of thought is needed to discourage terrorism and not encourage terrorism through a loose understanding and use of the term - 'terrorism'. This will actually help to reduce the fuel for terrorism and lead to its defeat. Al Qaeda as a global terrorist organisation is being challenged by all states when it uses violence against it. The states have a legal duty to challenge such terrorism.