Terrorism and State’s Responses
เขียนโดย
little bird
There is unclear definition of the insurgent who has taken responsibility of the violence of Southern Thailand. In the past few years, Thai government avoided the word ‘terrorist’ and defined the insurrectionist as ‘Guerrilla fighter’ or ‘Criminal’ whereas, in the academic areas, many scholars used the word ‘Terrorist’. In contrast; the local community defined the insurrectionist as the ‘National liberalist’ whereas, sometimes Malaysia defined it as ‘Political offender’. It seems like one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter (UNODC, 2005).
The definers define terrorism in the ways that most benefit them. When there is a violent act against the state, that state defines the act as terrorism whereas, the same act which aim against another country, the rest of the world call it the freedom fighter.
In fact, there is no definition of terrorism in the international arena. At first, the League of Nations had tried to define the internationally acceptable definition, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. In these contemporary days, the Member States of United Nations still have no agreed-upon definition (UNODC, 2005). The American perspective, the CIA – Central Intelligence Agency; defines the term terrorism that it means “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (CIA, 2005). The international organization like ICT – the Institute for Counter - Terrorism defines terrorism as “the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims” (Ganor, 1998). As can be seen, there is one similar idea which is ‘the use of violence against civilians’ thus every activities aims to attack civilian are terrorist’s actions no matter what the insurrectionist named itself. On the other hand, from the radical Islamic perspective, as long as terrorism is effective, it is legitimate. Hassan Nasrallah’s claimed that an acts against Israeli civilians “completely legitimate as there are no (innocent) civilians in Israel, only occupiers and accomplices to crime and carnage” (Kodesh, 2004). Therefore, the killing of civilians should not be considered as terrorist. Moreover, in 2004 Saudi Sheik Abdallah Al-Muslih declared that “there is nothing wrong with [martyrs] if they cause great damage to the enemy,” (Stalinsky, 2004).
It is quite clear that there are different definitions because of the different point of views therefore it is difficult to reach the international agreement on the definition of terrorism as well as the international agreement on state’s response.
There are no international agreements under the UN on the definition of terrorism issue; however, the UN General Assembly has clarified types of terrorism (Mani, 2004). Firstly, state terrorism refers to the use of violence against its people or against its citizen’s human rights, as can be seen from many rogue states such as Saddam Hussein’s de-population campaign against Kurds. Secondly, non-state terrorism is referred to “the action of small non-state groups which seek to advance a political cause by spectacular, violent actions against soft target” (Walker et al, 2005, p. 130). The ‘soft target’ in the sentence, can be interpreted as non-combat or civilian. Nonetheless, sometimes non-state terrorist exculpates government to damn the people who against them as the terrorists which most of them are national liberation groups or political offenders. This is one of the reasons why there are difficult to get international agreement on the definition of terrorism because most states define the word ‘terrorism’ to serve their political purpose and interests thus in the states’ view; who oppose them are terrorism.
In addition to those two types, there are some organizations or people who cannot be explained under those clarify. Walker and Grant explain by ‘five-fold’ which are the terrorism’s more frequent result and proposes in the 21st century. Those five-fold are; “to publicize a case, to suggest that it is strongly supported, to strike at a hate enemy, to reinforce divisions in society and to gain support for a leadership group” (Walker at al., 2005). This kind of terrorism is ‘hate terrorism’ because the insurrectionists do not have main purpose on politics but making war an agenda and they do not have strong other reasons but hate. As can be seen that in 1996, there was the declaration of war against American by Osama Bin Laden, asking all Muslim to “kill the American and their allies – civilians and military” (Elshtain, 2003, p5). According to Walker and Grant, there is an interesting point that the declaration of war against American by Al-Qaeda is the war which leader (Osama Bin Laden) hopes to become the overall leaders. Moreover, hate terrorism also can explain the attacks from residence and non-residence such as the Oklahoma City bombing which bomber – Timothy McVeigh, is an American and the Al-Qaeda’s spectacular assault of 11 September 2001 which is known as Americanism 9-11 (Walker at al., 2005).
According to ICT director’s view; it is different between attack the military adversary and civilians, and the activities that attack civilians are considered as terrorists (Ganor, 2001). Therefore, there should be no one claim that ‘I am not a terrorist but a freedom fighter’ which means the terrorists no longer claim to be freedom fighter even if its declared ultimate goals are legitimate because if the insurrectionists are using violence against civilians then they are most certainly a terrorist as well (Ganor, 1999). In addition to national liberalist, terrorist and guerrilla warfare are different even if they both involve in violence and political aims but the differences are in the mode of activities and the chosen targets. According to Ganor, terrorism is a “violent struggle intentionally using, or threatening to use, violence against civilians in order to attain political aims” (Ganor, 1998). However, guerrilla warfare is “a violent struggle using (or threatening to use) violence against military targets, security forces, and the political leadership, in order to attain political aims” (Ganor, 1998). This means if an attack deliberately targets civilians then it is considered as terrorism whereas if the same activity but targets on military, security forces or political leadership, then it will be considered as guerrilla warfare.
In addition to the definition of guerrilla warfare by Ganor, Huntington added that guerrilla warfare is the weapon of the weak (Laqueur, 1997). Moreover, Ehud Sprinzak has claimed that guerrilla warfare has the rules which apply to the other war under the Geneva Convention, whereas, terrorism has no rule (Ganor, 1998). It is quite clear that if the insurrectionists attack military, security forces or political leadership, they may be defined as the guerrilla fighters but if they attack civilian, then they are terrorists. However, I do not pay much attention to the rules of war because the guerrilla war can be one of the combat strategies as Yehoshafat Harkabi has explained that in the course of war, “guerrilla combatants become regular military forces until victory is attained and one party is defeated” (Ganor, 1998). Therefore, guerrilla war can be used by both strong and weak sides to aim the victory.
Furthermore, there are the differences between individual terrorism and urban guerrilla warfare. The urban guerrilla warfare involves a specific targeting which mainly is state official such as police, soldiers, political leader at the decision-marking level. On the other hand, individual terrorism attacks on a target which embodies a symbol to public. As can be seen from the news in August 2005 that Foreign Minister of Sir Lanka, Lakshman Kadirgamar was assassinated in the capital, Colombo, by LTTE – the Liberation Tiger of Tamil Eelam – therefore this attack should be considered as urban guerrilla attack (BBC, 2005). In contrast, the attack on Twin Tower in September 11, 2001 was the symbol of capitalism and the American financial power, thus it should be concerned as an attack of terrorism which is also known as Americanism 9/11 (Walker at al., 2005).
From American point of view, terrorist is not a criminal as Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Centre explained that mafias are criminals but terrorists are not because terrorists have political aims as well as attack civilians (Hass, 2004). In fact, terrorist is a kind of crime regarding to the League of Nations, terrorism is referred to “[all] criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public” (UNODC, 2005). Moreover, there are some Conventions and Protocols which are now offer the legal infrastructure to address serious crime committed by terrorists – acts such as hijackings, hostage-taking, terrorist bombings and the financing of terrorism (Costa, 2002).
If the terrorism is defined as another form of crime, it will lead to more clear and more specific state’s counteraction especially extradition between states. Many countries have signed bilateral and multilateral agreements, concerning a variety of crimes but those agreements excluded political offenses. This means the state can refuse to send political offenders to another state who requests them. Consequently, if terrorists are not criminals and most of them have backgrounds on political aims then they can be defined as political offenders. There is a sentence, stated that ‘one man’s terrorism is another man’s freedom fighter’ but criminal always means criminal thus, if the terrorist is criminal then there will be more effective state’s counteraction. Even if government uses the domestic law to suppress the insurrectionists but it will be limited under the international conventions. This may prevent government to use the violence against civilians because the government or the decision-maker may be charged at the International Criminal Court for crime against humanity. However, there are seven countries - the US, China, Israel, Iraq, Qatar, and Yemen, rejected the International Criminal Court (ICC) therefore the ICC may not affect or force those countries. Nevertheless, if the ICC is fully existed, can we bring the trial to the US as being the state terrorist?? Who will do it and how??
แจ้ง Blog ไม่เหมาะสม
19 มิ.ย. 49
202
5
ความคิดเห็น
แต่หล่อนแปลเป็นภาษาไทยก่อนได้ไหม ขี้เกียจอ่าน ต้องทำงานทำการเฟ้ย
แง้ว!!
แปลไม่ได้อ่ะ...เพราะคำบางคำมันหาศัพท์ภาษาไทยไม่ได้ แล้วไม่รู้ทำไมเราถึงคิดว่าเขียนบทความวิชาการเป็นภาษาไทยยากกว่าเขียนเป็นภาษาอังกฤษ...
คนมุสลิม เขาเป็นมาเลย์ ไม่ใช่ไทย
แต่การจะแยกออกไปตั้งรัฐอิสระมาเลย์ มันก็เป็นไปไม่ได้ในประเทศนี้
เขาไม่ได้ต้องการให้เข้าใจความเป็นมุสลิมของเขา
แต่ 3 จังหวัดนั้น เขาต้องการศักดิ์ศรีความเป็นมาเลย์เขากลับคืนมา
แต่การวางระเบิดนี่ ยังไงก็ไม่ชอบง่ะ
เพื่อนของ บก.ใหญ่ ตายเพราะระเบิดในโรงแรมนี่ล่ะ
มันทำให้เราไม่เข้าใจเหมือนกันว่า ทำไมมุสลิมเขาต้องทำอย่างนี้
การจัดการของรัฐ ไม่ใช่เป็นการกวาดล้างชนชาติ หรือ บังคับล้มล้างความเชื่อศาสนา แต่ควรจะมุ่งไปทางด้านอาชญาวิทยา...ถ้าเราจัดพวกผู้ก่อการเป็นเพียงแค่อาชญากร พวกนั้นก็เป็นได้แค่อาชญากร
ไม่ว่าในกลุ่มชนใด กฎย่อมถูกบัญญัติ และเป็นที่ยอมรับในทุกศาสนาว่าหากละเมิดกฎย่อมถูกลงโทษ...การลงโทษผู้ก่อการก็ควรจะอยู่ภายใต้เกณฑ์นี้ ดังนั้นย่อมไม่สร้างความขัดแย้งใหม่ เพราะมันอยู่ในพื้นฐานตรรกเดียวกับตำรวจจับฆาตกร..
แต่ที่น่าสนใจคือ..ใครเป็นตำรวจ ใครเป็นฆาตกร..เราใช้มาตรฐานใดในการระบุตัวตนนั้น...
(พยายามแปลงความคิดจากภาษาอังกฤษเป็นไทย..เราว่ามันแปร่ง ๆ อ่ะ)
โต้กันได้ถ้าไม่เห็นด้วย..ยินดีอย่างยิ่ง
อ่านไม่ออกค่ะ...
ก็...ฆาตกรก็ฆาตกรนั่นแหละ
เค้าจะเป็นคนชาติอะไรศาสนาอะไรมันก็ไม่เกี่ยว
(ต่อไปขอนอกเรื่อง)
แต่บางทีก็สงสัยอ่ะค่ะว่า
เราเอาอะไรมาตัดสินว่าเค้ามีความผิด
คนที่ฆ่าคนอื่นเราบอกว่าเค้าเป็นฆาตกร...มันก็ใช่
แต่ว่า...ถ้าเค้าฆ่าไปเพื่อปกป้องล่ะคะ
ฆ่าไปเพื่อให้อยู่รอดน่ะ...
เค้าจะผิดมั้ย
ไม่ต้องไปสนใจที่เขียนข้างบนหรอกค่ะ
มันเป็นความสงสัยส่วนตัวที่ไม่เคยมีใครตอบให้
ไม่รู้ว่าตอบไม่ได้หรือว่าอธิบายแล้วฝนไม่เข้าใจเองก็ไม่รู้