A trying and tragic day-and its troublesome aftermath......
The sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks are just around the corner. On the US public/social and personal/private scenes, many Americans will be preoccupied with commemerating the lives lost of their beloved and their friends, colleagues, and of the rescue and aid workers who horrifically perished that day. Public officials and politicians will send out condolences and/or eulogies in some or another. The media will reciprocate with airing special news segments and programs, perhaps to analyze some aspect of, or simply bring memory to, the largest event of terrorism on US soil to occur in contemporary American history. The media is even likely to air reportages purported to analyzing new trends and developments in international terrorism and similar threats facing America's security.
Though it will be understandably a week of intense emotional drama caused by the twin pains of mourning and insecurity, it will also be a very jittery week with the strong and formidable potential to attract and illicit an upsurge of ethnic hate crimes to add on to what rights monitors have warned as the already existant trend of yearly increase. Undoubtedly, questions over how to how with the aftermath of 9/11 are crucial not only for healing processes, but also for determining/establishing patterns and regimes for societal, political, legal, and even economic/trade, interactions. If anything, the up-and-down battles over the Patriot Act, the domestic phone wiretapping scandal, the moral and legal challenges regarding the operation of Guantanamo Bay camps, the processing, interrogation, and trial of suspects /detainees in secret or special holding centers abroad, the detention and interrogation of non-documented immigrants through constitutionally questionable methods(Latinos, Arabs, and South Asians), the failure of police/public safety units to effectively clamp down or reduce hate crimes increasing in frequency and intensity, the yearly increasing allegations and complaints of discrimination and profiling at the workplace, and the allegedly intense profiling practices against specific minorities by law enforcement, among others [a good introductory source for more information about such backlash is the annual civil rights reports issued by the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) ], should serve as a deeply troubling wake-up call warning all Americans and others about the erosion of America's generally multipluralistic fabric.
All of these various sets of interaction and public policy decisions modeling, be they organized or sponttaneous, are in turn partly influenced by what Americans and others conceive of terrorism violence and other perceived or real threats they face. Likewise what they conceive of these threats are partly shaped by the debates and controversies raging over how to identify, conceptualize, and classify them as well as how to best respond to them.
Origins of the term "Terrorism" and Early Usages
Despite the fact that different academic and theoretical disciplines have more or less established methods to study acts of terrorism, in modern times, what is professionally refered to “terrorism” is essentially a type of “political violence,” or violence conducted to statisfy political motivations. In turn, then, “terrorism” refers to a category of human expression studied by a methodoligical approch with primary (though not exclusive) roots in the dicipline of Political Science.
Some scholars have noted that, historically, one of the earliest references to terrorism violence dealt with groups that operated in the Middle East during various intervals in the medival period. Specifically, the reference was to a very notorious political-religious sect that challenged not only the authority of public adminstrators but also purposefully created widespread uncertainty and panic. Then known as the Hashshahsheen, the secret society arose in the last decade of the Tenth Century AD, and for the following three centuries, they posioned or struck by dagger any person civilian and government official who was marked for death as a threat to the secret society. The Arabic name of the sect, hashshasheen ("druggies") was itself a reference to the sect's use of hasheesh (a type of narcotic) that was used as a tool both for initiating new members and for prepping up members selected for a murder mission. Europeans (mainly Crusaders) who came into contact with the Hashshasheen anglicized and romanized the latter's Arabic nickname into various form spellings--Heissessini, Assessini, and Assassini--all of which later evolved to the English variant, "assassin." (Mazhar-ul-Haqq, Outlines of Islamic History, Bookland, 4th ed. 1992, 332-5).
[Today, in the field of Political Science, assassinations are classified as one type of terrorism violence.]
Yet throughout history, neither the use of terrorism violence nor even the use of a specific term to describe that violence was restricted to events only in, or connected to, the Middle East. Europe also had tremendous share of chaos during the Middle Ages and throughout the Enlightenment subsequently after. For example, the French Revoltion of 1789 was a period of much bloodshed in which revolutionaries clashed with the Ancien Regime to depose the monarchy, the nobility and the clergy and to create a republican (not related to the Republican Party) system of governance. The Revolution's utopian ideals quickly transformed into nightmares as conflicts between the revolutionaries emerged. These conflicts heightened and turned deadly in large part as the result of a popular revolutionary leader, Maximilien de Robespierre, who soon engaged in firebrand politics. Robespierre purged the l'Assemblie Nationale, the legislative institution set up by the Revolution, of its moderate faction and cracked down on anyone he suspected as being a threat or a traitor to the Revolution. Countless people faced imprisonment or execution by the guillotine (invented in this time period) en masse. (J. Suzanne Ravise, Tableaux Culturels de la France, National Textbook Company, 3rd ed. 1994, 65-9). It is no coincidence, therefore, that the French use the term "la Terreur" ("The Terror")---perhaps a variant of the word "terrorism"---to refer Robespierre's regime and reign (Ibid).
Modern/Contempoary Applications of the Term and Conceptual Considerations
For social scientists, and especially political scientists, It is especially important to distinguish between political violence and other forms of violence (such as more ‘ordinary’ crimes like fraud, murder, etc).
In studying terrorism, Political Scientists have realized that signficant ambiguity exists as to what exactly constitutes “terrorism” at any given point of time or environment. This is not a deliberate result of political science, but reflects a response to the international environment. Since, terrorism (and actors) are politically motivated, there has been no strong international consensus on a specific statement defining this phenomenon, whether among governments/nation-states or non-governemental actors. [A glimpse through the UN Treaties webpage depicting the various treaties, conventions, and agreements on terrorism can help us to understand how diverse interpretations of terrorism are regionally, internationally, and on the level of the individual nation-state.] In the search for an objective study of terrorism, Political Scientists themselves have worked to create a set of descriptions for terrorism that takes into consideration the reality that nation-states will act on behalf of their own interests, while attempting to avoid making value judgments over the national interests of nation-states. How nation-states define terrorism is as a much a product of their adherence to their own national interests at a given time as other factors, and so Political Scientists try to avoid getting caught in the subjectivity net national interests create. This task is no less crucial for media as purveyors of news.
There are, however, some basic general characteristics that Political Scientists have identified for terrorism (For example, see Cindy Combs, Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, Prentice Hall, 3rd ed. 2003). These basic guidelines help not only to distinguish between political violence and other forms of violence, but also to distinguish between terrorism and other forms of political violence (such as riots, coups, and to some extent guerrilla warfare). If my memory serves me well, the general characteristics of terrorism violence are:
(1). the act of violence must be politically motivated (examples include: destablize a government, eliminate a government’s monopoly over the use of violence, or to extract concessions from a government);
(2) the act of violence must be performed for an audience/media–--hence the increasing dramatism and intensity of terrorist acts over time;
(3) the act of violence must be at least intended to provoke widespread fear, confusion, disorientation among the population—-hence the increasing dramatism and intensity of terrorist acts over time;
(4)the act of violence must be a deliberate effort to target innocent civilians to result in #(3). (Combs, 10-7)
[Government structures do not necessarily have to be included in the mix of targets in a given attack or plan of attack, as recent trends involving greater frequencies of non-government (i.e. civilian & non-combatant) targets have emerged. The main point here is satisfying the intention to target civilian/non-combatants either directly or indirectly as mentioned above. But attacks against government structures that are intended to provoke concerns about security and public safety could also potentially be considered as a terrorism if a political motivation to it is attached/associated.]
Terrorist acts can be:
a) conducted by governments,
b) sponsored nation-states/governments,
c) can be conducted and/or sponsored by non-state private actors, whether they operate internationally, regionally, or within a country.
Conclusion
As you can see, defining “terrorism” can entail an enormously complex set of tasks and analyses. While treading this complexity carefully can lead to charges of “not being resolute,” moving away from a careful and thoughtful approach to analysis and reporting can lead to serious inaccuracies. It is important that one remains resolute in opposing terrorism. It is equally and sigificantly important that a high level of objectivity and accuracy be maintained during identification and analysis as well. In all, this balance is very tricky and much easier said than done.
Exploring the reality of terrorism and attempting to understand it more deeply doesn't lessen from the value or significance that events like those that occurred on Septermber 11 have or should have. Despite the possible barriers presented by an intensity of emotional, physical, social, and other scars that have yet unfortunately to be fully healed, a more thoughtul inquiry and discussion of terrorism, extremism anywhere should not threaten to remove the "face identity" of anyone who is involved September 11 and elsewhere. The participants, whether victim or perpetrator, should not be reduced to "just another statistic" in an inquiry that is balanced and analytically thoughful as possible. In order for such an inquiry to succeed, however, we can not afford to let emotion or personal interest drag us into continuing the long-held stereotypical views and ignorance towards the Middle East/Arabs/Muslims that have existed in mainstream attitudes, and that have been promoted or replayed by some form of popular culture (particularly many Hollywood/cinematic productions and tv dramas and sitcoms, for instance) or news media ,for at least a century now, or by some politicians and policymakers more recently.
A very illustrative recent example of the potential for continuing and expanding ignorance, stereotypes, blacklashes that come out of careless thinking can be found in Representative Peter King's (R-NY) statements that "too many mosques [exist] in America" as a threat of "radical Islam" to American society. The most worrisome aspect of King's arguments is that they fail to make a crucial distinction between institutions themselves that help many Muslims practice their faith on the one hand, and varying levels of extremism among Muslims worldwide, on the other. Whether there are some or any number of extremists in a mosque/Islamic center and the extent to which they may or may not influence the centers in the US or abroad is one question. Appearing to simplistically associate the mere concept of a mosque/Islamic center with radicalism/extremism/terrorism is a different consideration altogether. The former attitude may possibly help to enagage Muslims, depending on the circumstances (such as outreach from both sides). While the latter attitude places absolute suspicion on a Muslim minority's ability to not just to integrate into, but also to coexist with, the broader society (or of the ability of Muslims abroad to deal responsibly with the international community). The suspicion is placed simply by virtue of their background, faith, practices, personal devotions and so forth.
Without bothering to ask any deeper questions, the absolute suspicion is, then, an assumption that any Muslim presence in itself represents a danger to society. I personally don't think that would be a wise, reasonable or fair suggestion to make. This is not to say that dangerous extremists don't exist, or that they don't have some type of influence in some Muslim institutions. But simplistic associative assumptions on the totality of both minorities and their 'sister' populations abroad (and on the activities of both) never help to solve problems relating to their integration (if they are minorities) or dealings with the international community (if they are 'sister' populations). Rather such assumptions can and do in fact exacerbate the problems they face. Equally important, such assumptions also greatly more complicate the tasks and problems the host society (if within a single country) or the international community (if we're talking about Muslims worldwide) undertakes/confronts in its relationships with them.
Yes, events like September 11 have triggered knee-jerk reactions the kinds of which that both reinforce, and are reinforced by, ignorance and stereotypes. The pain and anguish reflected in the knee-jerk reactions is understandable. But the reactions themselves are not. It is precisely because of grusome events like September 11 and their backlash---which have in turn begun to trigger much-needed discussions over the two so-called "twin problems" of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism/Anti-Westernism---that a seriously more careful, calm, and fair look is urgently and desperately required not only at terrorism and extremism but also at Islam, Muslims, Arabs, the Middle East, South Asia, Southwest Asia, and the Arab world. Equally important is to place a similar emphasis on serious analysis of foreign policies carried out by major state actors including primarily, but not limited to, the United States. If not, we may then have to brace for an ever-continuing and more-intensifying cycle of misunderstanding, missteps, violence and repression.
