"Terrorism" -- There's No Quick Fix

"Terrorism" is a mode of governing (by officialdom or those opposing government), using intimidation through a systematic threat or use of violence. Terrorism is two-sided: state vs. out-group violence.

Who are labeled "terrorists?" Premier Begin of Israel was a member of the terrorist Stern Gang opposed to the British when he was a young man. Once he became Premier he was deemed a "statesman." Palestinians who kill innocent Israelis with bombs in buses are called "terrorists," but not those who conduct aerial bombings of Palestinian refugee villages.

In Labeling theory, the capacity to designate groups or individuals "terroristic" enables those in power to use the media to make the label stick on groups out of power, often those greatly disadvantaged.

Those with less power (e.g., slaves vs. masters, employees vs. employers, women vs. men, etc.) must avoid costly direct confrontations. The weaker resort often to indirect means to achieve goals. Sometimes those out of power resort to terrorism after the powers that be have used state-sponsored intimidation and violence.

Ignoring those out of power can radicalize them, for example when the pro-apartheid government of South Africa refused to talk with the ANC, when the British government wouldn't talk with the IRA, and when Israeli leaders refused discussions with the PLO, and President Bush refused to confer with "opponents!"

Those called "terrorists" are not crazy. They risk their lives for reasons, their own good reasons. They can be annihilated by governments in power, but if their grievances go unrecognized, violence continues. Their demands may or may not be valid, but they deserve humane consideration.

Why are Americans often the targets of "terrorism?" Why are so many US embassies built like fortresses, unlike those of Scandinavian countries? In our mirrors we see ourselves as benevolent; why do so many of the world's oppressed see something else?

The US is powerful enough to rule the world. With our military bases in 130 countries, over the globe we appear to have that intent. But we cannot prevent specific terroristic acts. Ron Steel (New Republic) contends that "what we think is an embrace is seen by others as a stranglehold." Puzzled by their reactions, we consider them irrational.

The US is capable of terrorism. Occasional violent Native American uprisings in US history have been called "terroristic" but not the official genocidal policies that provoked them. Slave revolts were considered "terrorism" against masters, but the horrors of slavery were not given that label.

US foreign policies have supported many terroristic dictators (Batista of Cuba, Somoza of Nicaragua .. and the Contras, Marcos of the Philippines, Pinochet of Chile, Noriega of Panama, etc.). Our own CIA has undertaken numerous nefarious covert actions, directly or indirectly. Our School of the Americas has trained thousands of Latin American military personnel in oppressive tactics.

Much of the world is now protesting the "legislation against terrorism" by which America tries to impose laws on other countries. Current domestic "anti-terrorism" legislation deals with symptoms, not causes. Increased government surveillance and more police diminish our liberties without addressing the conditions that foster terrorism.

Personally, I oppose violence by anyone against others for any reason. But it is understandable that desperate people will turn to such methods. Why are so many people despairing and persuaded to become "terrorists?" We need to act on the answers!

The article originally appeared in the September, 1996 issue of the North Country Peace Builder, a publication of the Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation.