Trite Phrase of the 21st Century

Terrorism is undoubtedly the trite phrase of the third millennium. While most people have general perception about it, a consensus on its definition is totally lacking. Like the branded products, its definition remains relevant to the source, which is propounding it. The dilemma has become so grave that scholars worth the name admit in the prologue, the futility of the venture to define terrorism.
Along with complications of its definition, some additional varieties have also propped up which, though existed before, are now being extensively referred in the same breath. The terms like state terrorism, wholesale terrorism, international terrorism, retail terrorism and individuals terrorism are giving this trite phrase a new dimension.

By implication, while most people agree about existence of terrorism, the harmony of views on ‘what it is?’ lacks to the extent that divide across the globe is visible. Brian Whitaker laments to state that the UN and some international bodies attempts to define terrorism run into three volumes (1866 pages) without reaching any firm conclusion.

US state department prefers to define terrorism as a “premeditated, politically motivated violence, perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents usually intended to influence any audience.’ About the international terrorism, the department defines it as “terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country”.

The US version of the definition appears logical and convincing as long as it has linchpin statement like,’ politically motivated”. It enables one to categorise terrorism versus other kinds of violence, say murder, rape and arson. In other words the act of terrorism must ultimately lead to the philosophy of the terrorists enshrined in it to serve as political springboard.

Unfortunately when same definition ingredients are vetted against the ground realities, its scope and validity falls short of the human ethics. For instance if the ‘non-combatants’ only qualify to be the targets of terrorism, a suicide attack on USS Cole which killed and injured about five dozens of US sailors in Aden harbor could not be graded as an act of terrorism since the sailors were combatants and the ship was armed. Similarly devastating attack on US base in northern city of Mosul (Iraq), which killed 22x combatants and injured 50 of them, was anything but a terrorist act.

Oxford English Dictionary gives one of the definitions of the word terrorism as “government by intimidation”. Surprisingly the meaning has been reversed by the anti-terrorist states as “intimidation of government’. Going deep into such an expediency of modifying the definition, one concludes that it is not a coincidence but a coined move.

Had the true definition been validated in the concept, some leading champions of war on terrorism could be questioned on the morals of fighting war against terrorism because the same meaning can conveniently be substituted by high profile description in 21st century as “state terrorism”.

The point is made when Israel commits aggression against Palestinian and Labonese boys, women and children; it is labelled as problem of lesser severity (human rights issue) and not a state terrorism. Similarly US is also not willing to recognise ‘state terrorism’ as it takes her off the hook when her forces bomb civilians in Fallujah or marriage parties in Afghanistan. On the contrary, a large number of countries not only recognise the pinch of state terrorism; they are also victims of such a menace.

Muslims in general disagree to the perceived approach, engineered by the West, particularly the US and Britain. Some Muslim scholars made worthwhile effort as early as June 1987 from a responsible platform of OlC during conference held in Geneva.

Till then the timeframe reveals that Afghan imbroglio, Iraqi cauldron and 9/11 holocaust had not occurred. It is logical to assume that Muslim approach to terrorism then, was not reactive to the Western concepts. Attempts had been made to develop a definition in the ideological as well theological frames for the sake of credibility.

For instance, a visible effort was made to reach at its definition by drawing a line between terrorism and peoples struggle for legitimate causes to acquire territories. Recourse to Islamic sources was made to judge the humanity aims and principled actions.

Need was felt to spell out unblemished parameters of human nature to forge a ground for acceptability at international level. The definition thus arrived at could satisfy the norms of justice because ethics apply to divine religions believers all and sundry.

For instance no one could dispute that terrorism threatens human dignity, freedom, security, work, honor and property, which has to be labelled as reprehensible. Unfortunately the global governance today represents an Orwellian model, ridden by narrow national interests. In the absence of determining a yardstick to know ‘terrorism’ as a single apparition of violence and deceit, the universal convergence of views cannot be achieved.

Each country would keep trumpeting its own brand of ‘terrorism,’ not acceptable to others. What the US is espousing is a different kind and her closest ally, Britain, has different version. UK anti-terrorism laws label twenty-one organisations as unlawful to which UK citizens are forbidden to seek membership.

Till such times transparency criterion is not ensured at international level, one would take exception to UK laws, declaring six Islamic groups, three opposition, four anti-Israel and eight separatist groups as unlawful. Other than the first category manifest through its nomenclature, remaining groups also largely comprise Muslim factions including Hizbullah of Lebanon who have elected membership in the parliament being the bona flde political party of the country.

Fathom the magnitude of dichotomy in perception. Who would agree with people pioneering war on terrorism? While the discussion has been kept restricted to the necessity of evolving an agreed chemistry of its basics only, the discord would, otherwise, multiply and hence terrorism will stay green, in fact lush green.

It precisely amounts to bringing the global peace in shreds because the powers that matter are bent to wage war on terrorism according to their shallow interests as a war of ‘likes and dislikes’ with utter disregard to humanity. As a consequence terrorism is fledging to surface as cultural terrorism, military terrorism, information terrorism, economic terrorism, diplomatic terrorism and scientific terrorism.

It is a chain action and reaction syndrome (AARS). The end result is multiplying polarity and grave paradigm shift in international relations. It is imperative therefore, that comprehensive definition with universal acknowledgement is evolved to deal with terrorism across the board. One possible definition put forth by a Muslim scholar is quoted as food for thought, ‘terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt objective, involving threat to security of any kind and violation of rights acknowledged by religions and mankind’.

The scarlet thread of a possible definition should be that it must be based on established norms of justice even if some of its provisions go against the pursued stance of member(s) of the world community. In the absence of such a consensus, a mistake would lead to another mistake in the face of AARS and thus the mother earth may be lashed out by unending tsunamis of greed, hate and contempt.

Agreeing on what means, ‘terrorism”, its hydra-heads would vanish on their own.

Say and pursue truth to save the world. The temptations to wield universal influence on the people’s fate and resources be left to Gods’ domain. Having known the menace for past over two thousand years, it is time not only to recognise the ground realities but to be realistic as well.