The default definition of terrorism

Guy Lucas

February 2005

In the aftermath of 9/11, the world plunged into a debate aimed at defining terrorism. More than three years after that date, the world has still not come up with a definition that satisfies the world’s majority of nations.

Through practice, however, one can come up with a rough definition of perhaps the most used term on the face of earth nowadays.

“Terrorism is an act of violence committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals,” looks like the most applicable term. To prove this term, one should take a look at the way a country like the United States defines terrorism. A country like North Korea, Iran or for that matter Iraq before liberation in 2003, is never called a terrorist state. To describe these countries’ support of terrorist groups or their instigation of terrorist to commit violent acts in different parts of the world, the United States has called them states that sponsor, or harbor, terrorism.

Therefore, any world government, whether elected or not, is not considered a terrorist state even if it embarks on violent activities.

This way of defining terrorism is both intriguing and has been contested by some groups who view some terrorist groups as freedom fighters. Some Palestinians, for instance, have accused Israel of engaging in what they call as “state terrorism,” a term that is not familiar to most Westerners who view any violence ordered by an elected political authority as an act of national self-defense.

A better definition of terrorism might be, however, “the usage of violence for any purpose other than maintaining public order.” This means that no state, group or individual may be able to use force or coerce any other state, group or individual into accepting their perspective or adopting certain lifestyles. As long as public order is preserved, no one should have the right to use violence. If violence should be used to preserve this public order, it should be used upon the instruction of an elected authority or upon a judicial order only.

In the United States, police can only bust someone’s house, with or without the house’s owners’ permission, upon the issuance of court order. The judiciary is ultimate in deciding who should and who should not be exposed to coercive measures. And even so, the judiciary in so many instances either commits mistakes in its judgment or is blinded by some unwanted corruption.

Meanwhile, when the judiciary and the police are not forcing public order, it would be highly appreciated if the civil community embarks on campaign urging the world’s communities to refrain from using violence for whatever reason.

True, violence is part of the human nature, but the different civilizations have cultivated several habits and trends that took humans away from unwanted habits and there is no reason why violence should not be eliminated.

Guy Lucas is a student at the University of Hanover, Germany. He wrote this commentary for Alternative