Terrorism has gained global attention across the world. Individuals, organizations, and states have become the perpetrators or victims of terrorist activities. However, it is in the public domain that no one agrees with the acts of terrorism, not even those engaged in the act themselves. This raises the question, what is terrorism? How is terrorism manifested? What excuses are given for terrorist acts? Are these terrorism excuses justifiable? This paper gives the opinion of the writer with regards to the four questions, with much concentration on the most excuses given for terrorism. It is important to note that according to the writer, none of the excuses is justifiable and reasons will be given for each.
Terrorism can be defined as the unlawful use of violence against civilians and innocent people with the intent to create fear and intimidation to acquire certain political interests by the perpetrators. This means that the perpetrators of terrorism have a target group for their activities. These groups often include the vulnerable and the weak members of the society. The terrorists aim to create fear and intimidation to these groups to gain support to their political interest. Terrorist activities including the killing of innocent civilians, third party people or innocent bystanders who are not participating in the activities. However, terrorists never agree to the real intentions of their terrorist activities. They, therefore, tend to give excuses to gain sympathy or support to their activities from the oppressed communities or the general public at large. These excuses are not justifiable.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Excuses of Terrorism
According to Michael Walzer, the most common excuse given by terrorists is that terrorism is the last resort when everything else has been tried and failed. This portrays a picture where the terrorist has tried all the possible options at their disposal but none has worked. This makes terrorism as the only option they have to express their political agenda or else they do nothing at all. This excuse only reaffirms the principle while ignoring the cause that the terrorists are committed to. One thing we have to agree with Walzer is that no matter how many different options are available to the terrorists, and even if they have tried them all and failed, one thing that they cannot do is do nothing at all.
Getting to the last resort is not very easy. Politicians do not give up on something after trying for the first time and failing once. Politics can be said to be an art of repetition. Just as states cannot justify extrajudicial killings of hostages and peasant villagers as having tried everything else, the same case applies to terrorism. If presented before a tribunal investigating terrorist activities, states or terror groups often mention their acts as a last resort, without expressing the activities that they have done before reaching to terrorism. Sometimes, terrorism can be justified as the supreme emergency as presented in chapter 3 of Emergency Ethics but that has to be a reaction towards a genocidal act. This has not been experienced in the recent past, and therefore, terrorism cannot be justified using it. Modern terrorism is a means within which the perpetrators pursue their political interests rather than deterring an imminent disaster.
The second excuse according to Walzer is structured for national liberation movements fighting against established powerful states. It is claimed that apart from terrorism, no other strategy to defeat the powerful state is viable. The difference with the first excuse is that in this excuse, the perpetrators do not have to run through other possible alternatives to terrorism. They tend to establish a weakness disadvantaging their pursuit of other options available. However, there exists a confusion between the weakness of the movement against the opposing state and a weakness of the movement vis a vis its people. The second kind of weakness automatically rules out the possibility of success of other options available making terrorism the only option available. Perpetrators of terrorism, whether states or organized movements, tend to hide behind the important need to protect the needs of the weak. However, with or without the presence of popular support (which gives room for other options), the evils of terrorism are not excusable.
Walzer’s third excuse is that terrorism is the only thing that works nothing else. This excuse tries to express that terrorism helps to assist the oppressed even without their participation. In short, when the act accuses, the result excuses. This excuse holds no ground. First, it agrees to the evils of terrorism but tries to justify them with the results. Terrorism has never been a successful means of arbitration, and for this excuse to hold any ground, it will completely depend on the success of the previous two excuses. Unfortunately, none of them appears to be of any success so far.
Walzer’s fourth excuse is somehow independent. It does not require the apologist to defend any claims of terrorism as last resort or the only possible resort. It presents terrorism as the universal resort. It supports the idea that politics is pure terrorism, and thus presents terrorists who don’t bother with the appearance as to be doing openly what other politicians are doing secretly. Walzer borrows from the maxims of Thomas Hobbes; politicians acts only generate fear in innocent men and women, thereby making terrorism as the politics of both state officials and movements militants. This excuse justifies not only the acts of the politicians but also the militant terrorist organizations.
The fourth excuse is highly reliant on peoples’ cynicism about political life. Cynicism sometimes only responds to experience. Legitimate states do not require to terrorize their citizens, neither do movements need to terrorize their opponents. Terror is never a universal experience. Terror is planned at a round table by a group of people, who at that time everyone agrees with the objective of creating terror. However, a litany of excuses arises after the terrorist act has been implemented. This excuse can also take another form such as oppression. By choosing terrorism, this is a reaction to the terroristic nature of oppression and acts as means of vengeance. Terrorism acts as a means of enforcing political dominance, as a way of changing the rules. This would mean that if the group currently revolting acquires power, it would end up oppressing the other group which could create a pattern of revolts and terroristic activities aimed at outdoing the other at the helm of power. This would never resolve the differences between the oppressors and the oppressed at any particular time. It does not serve as a viable excuse towards terrorist activities whether by the oppressed or the oppressors.
All of the four excuses have no solid ground upon which they can be justified. They are all based on false statements, historical arguments without evidence and false moral claims. Terrorism is purely a deliberate choice by men and women, and its consequences cannot be justified. Some terrorists use other people that they have highly intimidated to carry out terrorist activities. Some carry out the activities freely with a conscious mind. Those who agree to participate in terrorist acts out of free will have no viable reason for participating in the vice. Whether it’s a state, an individual or a group of them, there is no viable justification for their actions.
In response to terrorism, states have also been caught in the act and tried to justify themselves as responding to a need. This could be true. However, there has not consensus on the best way of responding to terrorism. This is because, as Walzer puts it, the technology of terror is simple, weapons are readily available. It is certain that terrorists should be resisted. However, it is not likely that a purely defensive strategy will be sufficient at any point. It needs supplementary acts such as repression and retaliation. Caution needs to be taken however as these too could also take terroristic forms which could lead to sympathizers siding with the initiators of the terrorist activities.
Counterterrorism acts, including repression and retaliatory responses to terrorism also need to be subjected to the same scale that regulates terrorism. However, an option to the two exists in addressing the real causes of the terrorist uprising. More often than not, this could appear as allowing the terrorists to win the battle. For example, terrorist often uses oppression and other injustices as the main reason for their activities. It is thus necessary that the accused oppressors consider addressing the assumed cause of misery rather than embarking on aggressive counterterrorism techniques. This will help break the circle of excuses that might arise from either side of the divide, the initiators of the act or the responders. Though terrorists still need to be defeated, approach to defeating them should be carefully calculated, their possible areas of excuse addressed before embarking on the use of force in dealing with the terrorist. This will lead to a reduction in the possibility of further casualties in the fight against the terrorists.
References
Michael Walzer. Terrorism and Torture
