Is there a need for a 'good definition' of terrorism?

So far, the international community has failed to come up with a simple definition that would be acceptable to all parties, not to speak of a "good definition." One wonders whether it would be at all possible, given the disparate perception of the term, to come up with what the UN Secretary General would like to see -- "a good definition of terrorism that we can all live with."

To some, the whole exercise may appear a bit absurd, that while so many are being made the victims of senseless suicide bombings, the international community is still seized with the problems of its definition. That is what begs the question of whether proper responses can be devised without actually defining what we are going to counter? And as the UN chief has himself admitted, its character is not a mystery. According to one expert, arriving at a working definition also has uses other than increasing our understanding of terrorism; by defining terrorism one can also define the preferred means of countering it. Sorting out the definition of terrorism is also essential if only to distinguish it from other forms of violence.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

It is also important, while we are trying to define it, to understand that the character of terrorism has undergone changes over the last several decades. According to one expert, contemporary terrorism has become indiscriminate in the choice of victims.

Its aim is no longer to conduct propaganda, but to effect maximum destruction. Some scholars go so far as to suggest that terrorism has been criminalised. One would therefore not be wrong to surmise that terrorism was invested with a degree of ethical values in the past. One would have to accept, going by the events of the recent past, that there is indeed a significant departure from the motives and modus operandi of terrorism of the nineteenth and twentieth century, a difference that is marked by the absence of morality.

It is difficult to disagree with those who want us not only to involve ourselves in what terrorist do but also go into why they do what they do, because not all "terrorist" activities were conducted with a spirit of cool detachment and wanton destruction. A Nobel laureate, once dubbed a terrorist, particularly by the US, had said: "I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love for violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites." This sums up the element of "morality" and the motivation of terrorists!

While one goes about trying to conjure up an acceptable definition of terrorism, one feels that the job would be left half-done if one did not go into the whys and wherefores and the motivations that compel people to become suicide bombers. Seldom do we bother to peep into the minds of those that chose to act as human projectiles. It is imperative that we do so because, in the words of an Israeli engaged in the job of hounding out Palestinians, "Those who want victory without addressing the underlying grievances want an unending war."

It is also essential to distinguish terrorism from other types of violence in society, particularly from the tactics resorted to by the freedom fighters and liberation movements, because it is illogical to describe all liberation movements as terrorism, although they may resort to terrorist tactics from time to time, as much as it is to characterise all terrorist outfits as freedom fighters, although emancipation may be their ultimate objective. What separates these two is the method. The methods of the freedom fighters are bound by certain rules and behaviour that are consistent with their goals. Distinction is made in their choice of targets, where children and women and the unarmed are never equated with soldiers, where destruction is wreaked but only against oppressive regimes and their supporters.

Given the fact that terrorism is a multifaceted and multidimensional phenomenon, how does one define it? Most agree that perception is one of the core problems in defining terrorism. One cannot agree more with those who consider such endeavour a "fool's errand." Yet this is necessary, all the more so, when the transformation of the meaning of the term is effected by the application of measures to combat it, to suit the political and strategic ends of some of the big powers.

Plethora of definitions exists, but no single one captures the entire character or nature of terrorism. There are as many definitions as there are those practicing the trade or dealing with it or in it. It is most often a result of individual and parochial perception of the phenomenon. Most experts agree that even if there were an objective, value-judgement-free definition of terrorism, covering all its important aspects and features, it would still be rejected by some for ideological reasons.

That definitions are so very dependent on parochial perception is well illustrated in the series of activities and the number of proposals leading up to the adoption of UN resolution on terrorism. Three subcommittees were set up by the UN ad hoc committee in 1973 to "examine the definition, causes, and prevention of terrorism." So much was the house divided and for so long that it was not until 1987, when the international conference convened by the UN Secretary General to differentiate freedom struggle from terrorism, agree to identify terrorism with crime, that the relevant report was passed. Therein all act of terrorism were condemned, except those fighting for the cause of self-determination against foreign and racist and foreign regimes.

The fact that there are by one count 160 definitions of terrorism should neither detract nor prevent us from addressing terrorism for what it is, use of violence for attaining political objectives by inducing fear. There is a general consensus that lack of a universally accepted definition should not be allowed to inhibit our efforts to confront terrorist groups on the basis of a working definition.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.