Dear Editor,
Many citizens seem confused as to whether persons involved in the Lusignan and Bartica killings can be referred to as terrorists or just criminals. For the benefit of the nation I would like to expound on my theory of terrorism after which readers can arrive at their own conclusions.
One aspect of political violence that is of great concern to criminologists is terrorism because of its complexity. An all-encompassing definition of terrorism is difficult to formulate, though most experts agree that it generally involves the illegal use of force against innocent people in order to achieve a political objective. For example according to one national commission, terrorism is “a tactic or technique by means of which a violent act or the threat thereof is used for the prime purpose of crating overwhelming fear, for coercive purposes.”
Terrorism, then, is usually defined as a type of political crime that emphasizes violence as a mechanism to promote change. Whereas other political criminals may engage in such acts as demonstrating, counterfeiting, selling secrets, spying and the like, terrorists make a systematic use of murder and destruction or the threat of such violence to terrorize individuals, groups, communities or government into conceding to the terrorists’ political demands.
In a paper Jack Gibbs provides a definition of terrorism that deviates somewhat from the norm:
Terrorism is illegal violence or threatened violence directed against human or non-human objects, provided that it:
1. Was undertaken or ordered with a view to altering or maintaining at least one putative norm in at least one particular territorial unit or population;
2. had secretive, furtive and/or clandestine features that were expected by the participants to conceal their personal identity and/or their future locations;
3. was not undertaken or ordered to further the permanent defence of some area;
4. was not conventional warfare and, because of their concealed personal identity, concealment of their future location, their threats and or their spiritual mobility, the participants, perceived themselves as less vulnerable to conventional military action, and perceived by the participants as contributing to the normative goal previously described… by inculcating fear of violence in persons (perhaps an indefinite category of them) other than the immediate targets of the actual or threatened violence and/or by publicizing some cause.
Gibbs’s concept of terrorism is interesting for a number of reasons. He declines to equate terrorism with political goals, recognizing that not all terrorist actions are aimed at political change. Some terrorists may desire economic or social reform, for example by attacking women wearing fur coats or sabotaging property during labour disputes. He also distinguishes terrorism from conventional warfare (points 3-4) Gibbs recognizes the need for secrecy and clandestine operators in the terrorists’ desire to exert social control over much larger populations.
The term terrorist is often used interchangeably with the term guerrilla. The latter term, meaning ‘little war’ developed out of the Spanish Rebellion against French troops after Napoleon’s invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in 1808. Daniel George Abeyie distinguishes between the two terms by suggesting that terrorists have an urban focus; that the objects of their attacks include the property and persons of civilians; and that they operate in small bands, or cadres of three to five members. Guerrillas are located in rural areas; the objects of their attacks include the military, the police and government officials; and their organization can grow quite large and eventually take the form of a conventional military force. However, guerrillas can infiltrate urban areas in small bands, while terrorists can make forays into the countryside; consequently, the terms have come to be used interchangeably.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Gates
