Before I took The Global Politics of Terrorism, I did not have a clear definition of terrorism. What I did know is that terrorism involved the use of terror. I also understood that for an act to be considered an act of terrorism, the act needed to be motivated by political reasons. In addition, I understood that violence needed to be incorporated and that an important component of terrorism is instilling fear in the minds of civilians. Although I understood and recognized many of the components of terrorism, I came to the conclusion that the word “terrorism” was overused and therefore had lost some of its meaning. In addition, because each case of terrorism is unique and circumstantial, I had concluded that the world did not have a universal and agreed-upon definition of the word “terrorism”. I still do believe that this is the case and that there is no universal definition of the word, but I have constructed my own definition of “terrorism” during the course of the class.
A common debate is whether or not terrorism can be committed by state actors, rather than solely non-state actors. Some argue that what a state chooses to do, even if it may be horrific, is not ever considered terrorism. The state’s tactics may inflict terror and instill fear, and may even be political, but some believe that it is still not terrorism, and instead believe that the actions fit into some other category. In my opinion, terrorism can be committed by anyone, including a state. Anyone can be a victim of terrorism, and anyone can be a terrorist. My definition of terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence, intimidation, and fear, especially against civilians, by a state or non-state actor, in the pursuit of political or theological goals.”
Terrorism can be difficult to pinpoint. In “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists”, Tilly states, “We actually need a twofold distinction: first between violent specialists and others, and then between actors who deploy terror within their own operating territories and those who direct it elsewhere.” This statement can be interpreted in a few ways. One might argue that Tilly is expanding on the theory that terrorism can be committed by experienced terrorists, a common person, someone who is foreign to the targeted territory, and someone who belongs to the targeted territory. I, however, believe that this statement can be interpreted to mean that states and governments are not excluded from being terrorists. In addition, Tilly explains that “the terms terror, terrorism, and terrorist do not identify causally coherent and distinct social phenomena but strategies that recur across a wide variety of actors and political situations.” This sentence reiterates the fact that there is a “wide variety of actors and political situations”. I believe that state actors are included within this “wide variety of actors”, and that states can indeed participate or conduct terrorism.
In the past, North Korea, and its ruler Kim Jong Un, has been mentioned and used as an example to show that states can commit terrorism. Human rights in North Korea are severely limited, and sometimes are even nonexistent. The ways in which citizens are treated in the country are some of the worst in the world. North Korea is currently on the United States’ list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. The fact that Kim Jong Un’s country is on this list is enough evidence to prove that states can commit terrorism. The fact that there is even a list of this kind shows the confusion about this topic. This debate, whether or not terrorism can be committed by state actors, may never be decided.
In conclusion, terrorism is something that is complicated and difficult to dissect and discuss. Terrorism is not purely black and white. There is plenty of gray area when it comes to terrorism because each individual case is unique and contains circumstances that are specific to that situation only. I do not believe that the world will ever agree upon one single definition for the word “terrorism”. There are different opinions about whether or not a state can commit terrorism, and that is a major component of defining terrorism. Without a consensus on that issue, “terrorism” will never have one single definition. Because each scenario of terrorism is different and unique, it is impossible to have one definition that would be efficient enough to cover all situations that could potentially be terrorism. Again, in my opinion, terrorism is the unlawful use of violence, intimidation, and fear, especially against civilians, committed by a state or non-state actor, in the pursuit of political or theological goals.
Works Cited
"State Sponsors of Terrorism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 03 May 2017. Web. 05
May 2017.
Tilly, Charles. “Terror, Terrorism, Terrorists” Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 1, Theories of
Terrorism: A Symposium. (Mar., 2004).
Great post Wendy!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you stated that the world will never agree on a definition of terrorism. Yet I believe that a definition cannot be agreed upon because of what I said in my essay and how it is a label based on point of view. I do not think that terrorism is even a proper word because it is just used for manipulation to gain support and chastise an enemy.