The turn of the century has seen the rise of ‘terrorism’ as one of the most pressing domestic and global political struggles. Terrorism is a multi-faceted, unpredictable and seemingly undefinable entity, thus making it’s preventing and understanding a costly and difficult burden. In this essay, I will make certain points clear; firstly, our inability to define ‘terrorism’ has allowed the mass media to influence domestic and foreign policy in order to appease the national interests of dominant states. Secondly, Islam has become synonymous with terrorism and the inability of international bodies to define ‘terrorism’ has led to the perpetuation of marginalisation of religious groups throughout the world, especially Muslims. Also, the difficulty in defining terrorism has intensified due to the modern unconventional tactics, goals and means of committing acts of terror. Likewise, those responsible for the act of terror may simply be brutes and villains, yet, some who were once called terrorists have become leaders and respected citizens. Finally, because of this fact, I will also argue that terrorism is an act that has been committed by legitimate and illegitimate actors yet, the rhetoric of the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ has been used extensively in the discourse on the issue. This has been the biggest impact of our inability to define terrorism as evident through the increase in anti-Islamic sentiments, notably in many European states through the expansion of powers for security services, which many argue has led to a severe invasion of civil liberties.
As a concept, ‘terrorism’ can easily be contested due to the fact that in normal usage, it bears a heavy normative weight. Likewise, in Security, Identity and Interests, Bill McSweeney (1999) states; the meanings and definitions of concepts such as this entails a judgement of value or standards from within a particular moral framework. White House Advisor and expert on terrorism, Brian Michael Jenkins (1980) reached the pragmatic conclusion that “what is called terrorism thus seems to depend on one’s point of view.” Hence, there are several factors which may affect one’s judgement on the definition of terrorism. For example, the extent of one’s emotional involvement, religion, ethnic identity and political standpoint has a significant impact on what they deem to be ‘terrorism’. This brings forth a significant impact of our inability to define terrorism; the media seemingly preys on the infectious emotional toxicity of terrorism in order to capitalise and make profits. What has been colloquially referred to as the CNN effect, is a recent phenomenon in political science and media studies which states that the Cable News Network’s use of shocking images of humanitarian crises and portrays of events such as terrorism have been used and manipulated in order to influence domestic and global politics. This has highlighted how an inability to define terrorism has allowed the media to offer ‘experts’ and commentators a platform to voice their views on the issue. Terrorism and the act of terror have been a global phenomenon throughout history, but the act of supposed terrorism has received extensive exposure in recent times, especially through various media channels. Because of the monopoly on the issue that the media has on the matters, the consequences of an inability to define terrorism has been dictated by those in support of and within the media.
The overall failure to reach an internal consensus on the definition of terrorism has occurred due to overt and covert political actors. Lutz and Lutz note that international definitions have been difficult to achieve because some states have attempted to make sure that national liberation movements are not included in the category while other countries attempt to exempt dissident movement fighting dictatorial regimes or police states (Lutz & Lutz, 2005). The impact of this is that the media employs a promiscuous labelling of a range of violent acts as ‘terrorism’ (Hoffman, 1954). One example is the atomic bombing of Hiroshima which saw over 100,000 civilians killed by the United States; the key justification of the fact was that it was necessary to end the war in the Pacific. The September 11th attacks, also referred to by the mass media as ‘9/11’ saw over 2,000 persons killed by a member of Al Qaeda and its leadership cited US sanctions against Iraq and the presence of US troops as motivations. The deaths following Hiroshima were seen as collateral damage during wartime, yet the US citizens were seen as victims of the greatest act of terrorism. The power of the media was highlighted following 9/11 with countries strengthening anti-terrorism legislation, expanding the powers of security services and states supporting the United States in the War on Terror. Hence, the rhetoric gained prominence in modern-day discourse and to contrast Jenkins’ view, I would argue the media dictate what we know today and have played a significant role in creating the illusion of ‘terrorism’ as a singular crime committed by certain religious and ethnic groups. The lack of consensus surrounding the definition of ‘terrorism’ is perhaps best encapsulated in the aphorism ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. The focal point of terror studies has been on terror acts perpetrated throughout the Middle East and with an apparent foundation in the religion of Islam. Nevertheless, the historical context of terrorism has highlighted that its origins and definition vary depending on the audience. The modal conclusion which Lutz and Lutz (2005, p. 8) summarised was that “terrorism has existed for a long time, and it has periodically resurfaced as a means that groups use to attempt to attain important political objectives”. Mass media has portrayed deviance from the national interests of powerful states as acts of terror and the Hiroshima bombings are indeed vindictive of the consequences of not having a universally accepted definition of terrorism. This is because state-run mass media are able to portray events through a lens which represent the views of those in power.
One difficulty is ascertaining who can and cannot be classed as a terrorist lies in the nature of rationality and objectives. David J. Whittaker (2012, p. 4) poses the question; How rational are they who advocate and plan the use of force to archive political objectives?” Through dehistoricization, we can look at citizens such as Nelson Mandela who were once viewed as terrorists but became state leaders and advocates for peace. An anti-apartheid activist, Steve Biko believed that as long as apartheid was a reality in South Africa, some violence against white was inevitable (Wood, 1978, p. 23). The United States Declaration of Independence of 1776 states;
“Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of People to alter or to abolish it, and institute new Government.” (History.org, 2004)
In essence, the actions of revolutionaries such as Nelson Mandela would be justified by the United States Declaration of Independence, yet whilst he was alive and active, the US remained vocal and critical of his role as a militant. Apartheid South Africa was a reliable source of uranium and labelled Mandela a Cold War communist for attempting to destabilise a racist but expedient ally (Stearns, 2013). This resonates with the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ concept which those with the means and authority can create; a blatant result of the non-existence of a universal definition of terrorism.
But, ‘terrorist’ is a pejorative term and comes with intrinsically negative connotations. This terms also implies that moral judgement has taken place and by labelling one group as ‘terrorist’, the other group then persuades the masses to adopt its moral viewpoint. The impact of this ambiguous definition is that different institutions begin to assemble politically motivated variations of a definition of terrorism. Different states and bodies within these states have different definitions of ‘terrorism’. The CIA, FBI and US Department of Defence, as well as the United Kingdom government, have adopted different ‘official’ institutional positions on the nature and definition of terrorism. Controversially, the United Kingdom’s definition of terrorism is found in a bill laid before Parliament in December 1999. Thus, by making the war on terror a domestic agenda, intelligence bodies, as well as the security infrastructure within the state, are given ambiguous but substantial powers to combat the so-called terrorism. The result is the creation of a suspect group which is subject to more scrutiny and monitoring from the security bodies.
In theory, the work of most domestic and foreign intelligence agencies can be viewed as an infringement of civil liberties and this is also another impact of our inability to define terrorism. What constitutes a terrorist is still expansive, individuals do not have equal protection if suspected. Nevertheless, the enhanced legal backing, provided by governmental agencies empowers security services to widen their parameters and the law enables these agencies to work under their own accord. However, it is these increasing legal powers, particularly in the framework of the UK counter-terrorism strategy, which have arguably marginalised sectors of society.
A failure in establishing successful counter-terrorism strategies in the UK has led to the creation of a divided nation. The CONTEST strategy has played a key role in triggering vilification towards Muslim communities in the United Kingdom since its inception in 2003. This was evident through a substantial influx of discriminatory crimes, predominantly towards Muslims. The implementation of such strategies has also fuelled increased opposition towards immigration and foreign nationals. Arguably, these factors, coupled with the undefinable issue of ‘terrorism’ played a key role in the BREXIT referendum as immigration was a key topic of discussion. The impact of the BREXIT vote saw the United Kingdom leaving the European Union for the first time, affecting the lives of millions across the world. I would argue that ‘terrorism’ or the act of terror cannot have a singular definition as it has many multifaceted aspects, which the PREVENT strategy failed to acknowledge. The Prevent Strategy created an obligation on public citizens and authorities to report any suspicious activity. But, public perceptions of the Prevent strategy has highlighted the counterproductive nature of the policy, which has been repeatedly converted into anti-western propaganda by radicals. Henceforth, through this argument, we can see the counter-productive role the state plays in the radicalisation process as it leads members of the suspect groups into believing they are the enemy. Paul Wilkinson’s Terrorism versus Democracy (2006, p. 10) addresses the issues surrounding increased surveillance and the creation of suspect groups within communities. In essence, our inability to define terrorism has led to what we can regard as a ‘trade-off’ between the normal democratic values and an insistence on heightened security.
The misuses of the term are an everyday occurrence, making us desensitised to the issue.
Furthermore, the media and literature are dominated by post-colonial western centric attitudes towards the discourse on terrorism. I would argue that the impact of this has been a severe lack of feminist input as the literature on a topic has been dominated by the patriarchy. I believe that the social construction of terrorism has led to victimizations of ordinary citizens across the world. These citizens, predominantly in European states, are victims of the bias Islamic-centric discourse on terrorism. The impact and legacy of ‘CONTEST’, in particular, PREVENT is noticeable through massively negative public opinion. The inability of a universally accepted definition of terrorism highlights the lack of intelligence on the nature of terrorism. The existence of Counter-Terrorism strategies without a universally accepted definition allows governments room to manoeuvre around the law. The policies installed have been heavily biased against Islam and have succeeded in censoring communities, and in turn, compromising the freedom of speech of the citizens in suspect groups. Furthermore, these inappropriate and ineffective policies may be counterproductive. Antagonism within the state may aid in the radicalisation process of individuals as they become susceptible to manipulated versions of their identities. I believe that the overuse of the ‘terrorist’ rhetoric became more apparent following 9/11 and the lack of a universally accepted definition has perpetuated the struggle to prevent and understand the true nature of terrorism’.
...(download the rest of the essay above)