|
|
October 3, 2001
"Leaning
Left "
Ending the State Sponsorship
of Terrorism
by James Hall
There are widespread implications
to President Bush's war on terrorism that we are only
beginning to realize. One is a heightened sense of security
that curtails some of our civil liberties. Another is
a new awareness of a part of the world--Central and South
Asia, that we have had little interest in, in the past.
The major implication, however is the war on terrorism
itself. For when Mr. Bush argued that there can be no
state sponsorship of terrorism anywhere, he was himself
abandoning and encouraging the rest of the world to abandon
a tool of statecraft used by many nations, including the
United States.
Bush's war, if it is followed
to its conclusion, means the end of the use of guerillas
-- so-called "freedom fighters" to undermine a hostile
government. Why? Because today's guerrillas are frequently
tomorrow's terrorists. In the 1970s, Arab guerillas armed
and supported by the Soviet Union and frustrated in battles
against Israel invented the hijacking of aircraft as a
terror weapon against Israel and its Western supporters.
Today, Colombian guerillas, once supported by the Soviet
Union, have become drug dealers, car-bombers, and kidnappers
to support their efforts to overthrow the Colombian government.
The best example, of course,
is Osama bin Laden and the Taliban itself, both former
US allies and clients, freedom-fighting guerillas who
graduated to terrorism. But the US has also supported
the contras of Nicaragua, the Christian militia in Lebanon
(who have been implicated in the mass murder of civilians
in refugee camps), and most recently the Kosovar guerillas
in Kosovo who themselves have a checkered past as drug
smugglers and petty criminals.
Some of these, you might
argue, are not terrorists but freedom fighters. The distinction
is often a matter of which side you talk to. The British,
who occupied Palestine before 1948, called esteemed Israeli
leader Menachem Begin a terrorist for blowing up off-duty
British troops. Yasser Arafat, before the PLO became the
leadership of the Palestinian people, was called a terrorist
by the much of the world that now recognizes his leadership
of Palestine.
This sort of ambiguity faces
the Pakistanis, who until September 11 helped maintain
and train "guerilla fighters" in Afghanistan, who were
principally used in the ongoing conflict with India over
the disputed territory of Kashmir. Since September 11,
these friends have become foes. They are no longer "freedom
fighters" but "terrorists" to the Pakistani government.
To many of the people of Pakistan, that change has been
harder to make.
Another Islamic state, the
Sudan, made a similar choice and has begun rounding up
former freedom fighters from al-Qaeda who are now terrorists.
But many states are clearly facing a tough time deciding
whether to support "freedom fighters" or repudiate "terrorists."
Even in the US there is much debate over whether President
Bush's war is primarily on al-Qaeda and its close allies
implicated in the September 11 attack, or includes all
terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hizballah
who have free reign in Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank,
and nations like Iraq who have used the weapons of terror
as a tool of statecraft.
It seems clear that if we're
going to have a just war on terrorism that we must have
an objective definition of "terrorist" that transcends
ideology, or the distinction between freedom fighter,
guerilla, and terrorist will continue to be a matter of
perspective. Clear definitions of terrorism do exist.
Terrorism is violent action focused primarily on civilians
and national symbols, not on military targets. Terrorist
weapons include using civilians as hostages, disguised
weapons like hijacked airliners, suicide bombers, and
car bombs, and illegal weapons (those banned by international
conventions) like poisons and biological weapons.
By banning terrorist behavior--the
premeditated attacks on civilians, the use of civilians
as hostages, and the use of hidden and proscribed weapons--we
can arrive at a definition of terrorism that the world's
nations can agree on, one scrubbed of ideological content.
An objective definition of terrorism makes it possible
for the US to lead the world in this war on terrorism,
but also serves notice that supporting any guerrilla or
"freedom fighter" movement must be carefully weighed against
the creation of future terrorists. Today's state-sponsored
guerilla may become tomorrow's terrorist.
Given that most terrorist
organizations started out with state sponsorship, states
must be more careful about who they sponsor, and what
actions from "freedom fighters" they condone in the name
of freedom. ***
©
2001 James Hall
___________________________________
|
