By:

Dr. Ali S. Awadh Asseri

(Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon)

    Terrorism is certainly a value-laden concept. ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ is a popular dictum that, in fact, sums up the highly subjective and judgemental nature of terrorism as a political concept. If a country, a group of people or an individual sympathizes with the cause of a non-state organization, and if this non-state organization happens to deliberately commit a violent act against unarmed civilians, this will not be a terrorist act in the eyes of the sympathizers. However, the state entity against which such an act is committed will certainly call it an act of terrorism. What happens in the process is that, consequently, a blame game begins in which each side accuses the other of being terrorists while positing itself to be either fighting for freedom, as non-state actors often do, or trying to safeguard its territorial integrity, as state actors mostly do. There is, then, no end to this blame game, and no way, therefore, to objectively understand what terrorism is.

    In a sense, employing the dictum of ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ amounts to simplifying a complex issue such as terrorism, and any objective assessment of the subject has to explore the grey zone between freedom fighter and terrorism. It is possible that, during the course of a freedom fight, some acts of terrorism occur. It is also possible that a terrorist organization may be motivated by the goal of freedom. Charles Townshend argues: ‘On the historical record, those who have adopted a purely terrorist strategy have not been successful liberators. Conversely, the liberators were not pure or absolute terrorists’. [1] In other words, it is possible that a freedom movement may employ terrorist tactics, and it is also possible that a terrorist movement is guided by the goal of freedom.

    Thus, according to Leonard Weingberg,

by saying that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, the observer is simply confusing the goal with the activity. Almost everyone concedes that terrorism is a tactic, one involving the threat or use of violence. If this is true, there is, in principle, no reason why this tactic cannot be used by groups seeking to achieve any number of goals and objectives, including a fight for freedom or national liberation.[2]

The ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ argument serves merely to undercut the natural human antipathy for terrorist methods, and permit terrorist propaganda far more credence than it deserve’.[3] ‘Critics of this strong statement,’ according to Mockaitis,

will argue that it dismisses the legitimacy of some insurgent goals. This concern may be addressed by separating ends and means. Certain heinous acts can be condemned no matter what causes they serve. International conventions against the use of torture make no exception based on the intentions of the perpetrators. Sucide bombing deserves the same condemnation.[4]

Hasan-Askari Rizvi adds to the terrorist versus freedom fighter debate while pointing out a dilemma that arises when,

an abstract articulation of terrorism is applied to an incident in its political and historical context. Much, therefore, depends upon how a specific incident is interpreted. As historical and political narratives vary, the use of violence may be viewed as ‘justified’ and ‘understandable’ by some in a specific context, while others interpret it as terrorism that cannot be condoned. Given that, each movement will have to be examined with reference to its historical and political context and the goal it pursues. Some of these movements may be pursuing well-recognized goals like elimination of radical discrimination, national rights and the right of self-determination. These factors have to be taken into account passing judgement.[5]

Hasan-Askari further argues:

The methods employed by these movements should also be reviewed. Do they rely exclusively on violence, or is it coupled with non-violent strategies? If they resort to violence, the key questions are its frequency, methodology, and the primary target. If violent methods involving killing and destruction are used as the primary method and the civilians are targeted systematically and persistently, such a movement is vulnerable to the charge of using terrorism. Furthermore, we should also take into account the policies of the challenged authorities towards these movements. The states and the political authorities often use the coercive apparatus in a persistent and systematic manner to suppress dissident, nationalist and liberation movements. The criterion of terrorism should be applied to both sides rather than condoning the actions of the state authorities. If one side adopts terrorist methods as a matter of policy, the other side is likely to respond in the same manner.[6]

Finally, almost all terrorism experts agree that organized non-state terrorism is not necessarily always motivated by ‘progressive’ or ‘good’ causes, i.e. changing a status quo perceived to be unjust. Terrorist violence has been conducted by groups that want to retain or restore systems of racial supremacy such as the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, or to promote the establishment or re-establishment of a right-wing dictatorship in the name of neo-Nazi or neo-Fascist ideas. In addition, some Latin American countries in the recent past, from Colombia to El Salvador to Chile, have been sites of ‘death squads’, bands of killers (frequently off-duty soldiers or police officers in civilian dress) who wage assassination campaigns against land reformers, union organizers, members of the Catholic clergy, and others identified with promoting the interests of the poor. In Northern Ireland, loyalist paramilitary organizations have repeatedly carried out terrorist attacks with the goal of maintaining the region’s link to the United Kingdom.[7]

[1] Townshend, op. cit., p.26.

[2] Leonard Weinberg, Global Terrorism: A Beginner’s Guide (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006), p. 2.

[3] Christopher Harmon, Terrorism Today (London: Frank Cass, 1995), p. 147

[4] Mockaitis, op. cit., p. 16.

[5] Hasan-Askari Rizvi, ‘Theoretical Formulations on Terrorism,’ in Institute of Regional Studies, Global Terrorism: Genesis, Implications, Remedial and Counter-Measures (Islamabad: PanGraphics, 2006), pp. 3-4 and 9-10.

[6] Ibid

[7] Weinberg, op. cit., p. 8.