What constitutes terrorism? A case study (and author's introduction)

Hi there! Welcome to security-worldwide.blogspot.com! My name is Markus and I am one of the two authors of this blog. If you want to learn more about us, try it here.

After working on issues related to international security, arms trade, terrorism, armed conflict etc., I recently decided to start a blog about those very topics, in which I interpret or explain what they are about. I figured that since I’m reading and thinking a lot about them, I might also write about them. This not only gives me the opportunity to get a clearer image of my thoughts but also to discuss them with you! Some days ago my friend Alejandro joined me. We share the same interests and both want to work on our writing style, so we decided to work together. As you will soon find out I do not really follow any certain guideline but write about everything that I am curious about.

Of course we would be very happy to initiate interesting comments and discussions. Please do not hesitate to tell us what you think, we will appreciate it!

----

In a previous post I presented my personal idea of how to define terrorism. Of course this is only one of many understandings of this contested concept. Now I want to give you a broader overview of how the term terrorism is used and which requirements might help to define it. Therefore, I will do a case study of the 2008 Mumbai Attacks and (1) show how they were labelled by various actors and (2) if they fulfill any of the requirements of Alex P. Schmid’s famous and widely used Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism. This might give you an insight in the academic discussion of how to understand this social phenomenon and also allow you to decide yourself which of the requirements you deem more important and which less.

In the 2008 Mumbai Attacks from Nov. 26 to Nov 29, ten members of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which is listed as a terrorist organization by several countries and international organizations, including the United States and the European Union, assaulted several civilian targets in India’s largest city Mumbai, killing 164 people and wounding 308. The international community strongly condemned the attacks.

A CCTV-camera picture of Ajmal Kasab at the CST Railway Station

(1) Not only the international media, but also the Indian legislative coincided that the attacks were to be labelled as terror attacks, as indicated in the legal documents of both the Mumbai High Court and the Indian Supreme Court in their trial of Ajmal Kasab. Of the ten perpetrators, only he was captured alive. The Mumbai High Court called the shootings and bombings “terror attacks” and the perpetrators “terrorists”, while the Supreme Court of India affirmed the judgement that charged Ajmal Kasab with “commission of terrorist acts”, clearly indicating their position that the attacks where no conventional crime but an act of terrorism. This opinion was shared by the 15 members of the Security Council of the United Nations, who stated: “The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attacks in Mumbai that started on 26 November”.

(2) To see if this judgement is justified let’s look into Alex Schmid’s Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism. As you will see I believe that the 2008 Mumbai Attacks fulfill all of the twelve criteria suggested by Alex Schmid.

1. A doctrine or practice of violence
LeT, the Pakistan based terror organization that planed and conducted the Mumbai Attacks is committed to a very violent and aggressive interpretation of jihad, mainly waging war against India with the aim to “liberate” Kashmir from the perceived Indian occupation and to ultimately crush India. LeT’s understanding of jihad definitely constitutes a doctrine of violence.
2. The context in which terrorism is employed
Of the three contexts in which terrorism as a tactic is employed, LeT practices the second, e.g. the “propagandistic agitation by non-state actors in times of peace or outside zones of conflict”, which fulfills the second condition of Alex Schmid’s definition of terrorism.
3. The concept of physical violence
In the 2008 Mumbai Attacks, ten men armed with Kalashnikov rifles, ammunition, 9mm pistols, hand grenades and IEDs killed 164 people and injured 308, an action that clearly constitutes physical violence.
4. Threat-based communication processes
In a phone call between one of the attackers and the LeT instigators in Pakistan during the time of the assault, the attacker was informed that three ministers and a Secretary of the Cabinet were in the hotel they assaulted. The caller then said: “Find those 3-4 persons and then get whatever you want from India.” Even though no actual negotiations between the LeT and the Indian government took place, this phone transcript indicates the LeT’s intention to do so.
5. Terrorism instills fear, dread, panic or mere anxiety
Victims of the Mumbai Attacks report of panic and fear.
6. The main direct victims were civilians
The dossier of evidence states that “[t]he terrorist attacks took place in many locations, especially at CST Railway Station; the Leopold Café; Taj Hotel; Oberoi Trident Hotel; and Nariman House.” All targets were clearly civilian. Even though some policemen lost their life in the fighting that resulted from the initial attacks, the assault was obviously aimed at civilian targets.
7. The direct victims are not the ultimate targets
When Ajmal Kasab, the surviving gunman who attacked the CST Railway Station was asked in an interview who they were supposed to kill, he answered: “I was supposed to kill people there. [...] Whoever was there”, a clear indication that the direct victims were not supposed to be the ultimate targets but to generate LeT’s message. In order to increase international attention, the instigators instructed the gunmen: “Everything is being recorded by the media. Inflict the maximum damage."
8. Perpetrators of terrorist acts
The perpetrators were members of the jihadi organization LeT, which can be describes as a transnational network, therefor complying with criteria no. 8.
9. Terrorist violence is predominantly political
According to Stephen Tankel, expert in the field of jihadi groups, LeT’s intention is to establish “a pan-Islamic Caliphate, but since 9/11 its primary objective has remained the liberation of Kashmir and the destruction of India”, aims that can only be described as political.
10. The immediate intent of acts of terrorism is to terrorize
In a phone transcript shown in the documentary “Terror in Mumbai”, one LeT instigator in Pakistan explains their intention: “The enemy must fear us. When this is over, there will much more fear in the world.” This statement clearly indicates the intention behind the attacks to terrorize and instill fear.
11. The motivations to engage in terrorism
The LeT is motivated by a religious ideology that promotes a very strict interpretation of islam.
12. Acts of terrorism form part of a campaign of violence
In its intention to “liberate” Kashmir and to promote their idea of islam, the LeT is engaged in violent acts for many years.

In my opinion it is obvious that the 2008 Mumbai Attacks state an act of terrorism. This stands in line not only with the conclusion of many international leaders, the media or the UN but also of the Indian legislative. Furthermore, the attacks correspond with each of the twelve conditions of Alex Schmid’s Revised Academic Consensus Definition of Terrorism. I would, therefore, suggest that it’s safe to say that the 2008 Mumbai Attacks were an act of terrorism.

Memorial ceremony at Fort Hood, Texas

I chose this example because it is hardly controversial, which makes it easier to understand the twelve requirements of Alex Schmid’s definition. But there are numerous cases that are disputed because they do not fulfill some of the criteria. Think for example of the 2009 Fort Hood Shooting, where Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a US army physiatrist with a radical islamist background shot 13 people and wounded 32 more. Of his victims, only two were civilian, one of which was a police officer who fired at him, the other a physician assistant who tried to charge him. Hasan reportedly targeted soldiers in uniform and passed up several opportunities to shoot civilians. Moreover, his motive for the shooting was to prevent US soldiers who were preparing themselves for their service in Iraq or Afghanistan from killing muslims. It is not clear if the spreading of fear was one of his motivations.

The murderer of Lee Rigby with his victim

Another rather difficult case is the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in 2013. His attackers who slaughtered the man in the open street tried to justify their action to civilian bystanders, explaining that they explicitly targeted military personnel: “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one”. They then went on to threaten the society as a whole and stated their political objective: “You people will never be safe. Remove your governments”. Terrorism or not? For many it remains an open question.

The Iranian Nuclear Programme Made Easy (and author's introduction)

Hi guys I'm Alejandro. Welcome to our blog :)

WHAT THIS IS :

This is going to be a collaborative effort with my friend Markus who shares the same general interest in world affairs, including but not limited to (inter)national security, international relations, arms proliferation, terrorism, war and armed violence, and peace processes. To learn more about us, click here.

For my part, I'm doing this for two simple reasons : 1) to improve my writing and 2) to relay news and commentary to my peers in such a way that it's approachable, easy to understand, uses plain language, and is relevant especially to the Philippines and Filipinos. Basically, it's an attempt to market world affairs to the non-politically inclined Filipino. Markus, who originally started the blog and already has several articles, has his own style and approach which you will notice swiftly.

I don't consider myself an expert in the field -- not yet. So please, do yourself a favour and refrain from citing/plagiarising my articles here. Also, while in theory I will generally write about news from all corners of the globe, don't be surprised if a majority of my articles narrows down on the Middle East region since that's where I'll be specialising in.

Comments are HIGHLY ENCOURAGED. If there's something you don't agree with or even don't understand, then please please pleaaaase let me know, you can even comment anonymously ! You can also request me to write on a particular topic if you're curious enough, although I can't guarantee on following through if work takes up time.

Credit must go to Max Fisher of the Washington Post for his article explaining the Syrian crisis in very layman's terms from which I draw inspiration for both the style and motivation of my writing. 

----

20 January 2014 -- Remember this date.

Last Monday an interim deal between the international community led by the P5+1 -- the United States, the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany -- and Iran on its nuclear programme went into effect, seeing the latter scaling back its nuclear power infrastructure in exchange for modest sanctions relief from the world.

Hang on, I didn't catch that. If the above statement didn't quite make any sense to you, then you've come to the right place. In my first article, I'll try to answer the most basic questions on the Iranian nuclear programme and also explain why such an agreement is important not just for the Middle East and the world in general, but also for the Philippines and Filipinos -- you. (Shout-out to people I know who love their cars or pay for their own gas : it may seem unconnected, but this article is VERY relevant for you)

(N.B. This article is admittedly quite long. I tried to shorten it but doing so would make the issue even harder to understand. Just give it a go, read on, and if by the time you reach the end and still don't understand anything then I owe you a 100 bucks*).

Let's get started. Does Iran have a nuclear programme ? 

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which means that it renounces the use of nuclear weapons, and that it agrees to regular inspections from the UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to verify that, indeed, the country isn't pursuing a path to nuclear military technology. So it is clear that in writing as well as in words, Iran is not interested in nuclear armament.

However, it's important to note that Iran nevertheless currently has an existing civilian nuclear infrastructure in place. This is because the NPT does NOT ban civilian or peaceful uses of nuclear technology (which is how Marcos was able to pursue such technology back before things got a little out of control) as an alternative source of energy as well as providing a boon to medicinal research.


So what's the fuss all about ? They're not bent on acquiring weapons, end of story.

Not quite. This is where it gets complicated, so try to bear with me.

The fuss is because, despite Iran's pronouncements of peace and its NPT signatory status, there's evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability within its nuclear infrastructure. Now I'm not a nuclear physicist, but for the sake of giving a general statement, nuclear technology by its very nature has dual uses; it can be used for civilian or military technology. So even when Iran reaches nuclear weapons capability -- the threshold where countries can finally start weaponisation itself -- it doesn't necessarily follow that they will acquire the weapons themselves, instead channel the benefits of such a capability into civilian uses (Japan and Brazil possess such a weapons capability and yet nobody's splitting hairs that they might get the weapon itself). Still confused ? Think of those peaceful monks that regularly practise some sort of martial art not because they want to get into a fight -- a clear benefit of practising -- but for some health benefit and mental peace of mind, another sort of benefit. So while these monks potentially have the capability to whoop someone's ass, they choose not to. And so whether Iran really is scheming to acquire weapons is a moot point.

Don't let the shy smile fool you. He will kick your ass
(Source : Wikimedia Commons)

The Iranian nuclear programme has been thoroughly politicised as well because of two main things. First, while today Iran regularly gets accused of human rights abuses, repression of political activists and sponsoring terrorism, there already exists a history of bad blood between the United States and the Islamic Republic. In 1953 the Americans helped their British peers engineer a coup d'état against Iran's first democratically elected president (familiar story ?) and reinstalled the Shah (king) of Iran as ruler. Deeply unpopular and resented by his subjects as an American puppet, he was deposed himself in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution, establishing the current regime that exists today. During the revolution, protesting Iranian students stormed the US embassy and held the staff there hostage for 444 days, drastically downgrading relations between the two countries. The following year, the United States aided Saddam Hussein's Iraq's (yep, the same Iraq which the Americans invaded in 2003) invasion of Iran, lasting for eight years. The war reached a climax when the US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 passengers and crew onboard, something which understandably angered the Iranians. Fast forward to 2002 where you have President Bush Jr including Iran in his "axis of evil" speech, ironically putting Iran alongside its former nemesis Iraq. This, even after Tehran covertly assisted Washington in hunting after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11. And finally, of course, the existing sanctions regime, which the Americans have over the years increasingly tightened, doesn't really endear the latter to the Iranians either.

So we've established that the Iranians don't see eye-to-eye with the United States, the world's sole superpower. The other reason why the nuclear issue is blown way out of proportion is because Iran isn't loved by some of its immediate neighbours either. Cases in point are Israel and Saudi Arabia, who both happen to be important allies for the United States. Each has their own reason for hostility towards Iran; Israel fears that Iran's hellbent on destroying it. Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim kingdom, sees a rising Shia Iran as a threat to the region's status quo (Sunnism and Shi'ism are two rival strands of Islam. Think Christian Catholics going up against Protestants). Some observers fear that if Iran gets its hands on nuclear weapons, that could trigger an arms race within the broader region, giving the United States another headache. Others think that a nuclear-armed Iran is actually better for the region's stability.

The Sunni Saudis don't like to see a return of Shi'ite Iran as a regional power
(Source : Wikipedia)

Okay okay so the United States and most Middle Eastern countries don't like Iran. Enough with the history lesson. What's this sanctions regime that gets on Iran's nerves ? 

Economic sanctions are trade and/or financial restrictions imposed by a country/group of countries (e.g. the P5+1) on another country (e.g. Iran) that overtime cripple its economy in the hope that the sanctioned country succumbs to pressure from the sanctioning countries. Okay that sounded like a mouthful, but in short it's a political weapon used by powerful countries in order to achieve desired goals (such as regime change, which the Iranian government is accusing the United States of) in another country without having to go to war. American sanctions on Iran have been in place since after the Iranian Revolution, and these have only gotten tighter since 2006 with the UN joining in. The effectiveness of sanctions is questionable since it usually means more hardship for the poorer sections of the targeted society. For example, US and EU sanctions have caused medicine shortages, leading to the death of a teenage boy from hemophilia.

Pretty harsh. But is Iran really "guilty" ? 

This is a very difficult question to answer as it is basically an argument over its intentions. Some commentators think Iran is being deceitful, some think they genuinely only want the civilian uses of nuclear technology, and still some others are undecided. It's also worth noting that Iran has in the past repeatedly breached additional safeguards agreements as reported by the IAEA and have failed to properly account for some of its nuclear activity as well. What makes this fact even more complicated STILL is that the report, which was approved by the IAEA Board of Governors, saw TWELVE abstentions, making it a highly non-consensual decision. And plus... Okay instead of further boring you with the minute intrigue, let's just agree that it was a dizzying and complex process.

This is why, despite assertions that Iran's programme is peaceful, I'm regretfully part of the group which is undecided on Iran's true agenda. Still, I am inclined to believe that Iran does not harbour any nuclear ambition.

Okay it's a complicated matter then. So how were the US and Iran able to come to agree on a deal ?

How Iran and America came to an at least preliminary agreement is a long tale, but the main thing you need to know is that the 2013 election of current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatic moderate who replaced the hardline and often abrasive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did much to lessen the vitriol and thaw frosty relations. In fact, Presidents Obama and Rouhani held a phone conversation last September 27, 2013. It's supposedly a big deal because the last time these nations' leaders had direct contact was way back in 1979 before the Iranian Revolution.

Twitter-certified
 (Source : Robert Mackey, The New York Times)

A caveat here, better listen up. It's worth noting that this is an "interim" deal lasting only six months, meant as a confidence-building measure as each side gives and takes. The hope is that this could lead to a more comprehensive final arrangement that sees the total lifting of sanctions, the normalisation of US-Iran ties, and Iran pursuing civilian nuclear technology while complying with regular inspections from the IAEA.

Of course this is the ideal state of things, and most experts, even supporters of the temporary deal, are skeptical that this will lead to the holy grail of US-Iran friendship. A lot of things could go wrong along the way: Iran obstructing full inspections, Israel deciding to act on its own and attack Iran anyway (which would actually have the opposite effect. Think about it, if Israel attacks Iran then that only confirms the latter's worst fears about its neighbours' intentions, and thus it will have no other choice but to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence), or a renewed push by US hardliners and the Israeli lobby, mainly President Obama's Republican opponents but also Democratic senators fearful of losing their seats in the upcoming US midterm elections, to enforce yet another round of fresh sanctions even though the agreement explicitly called for the suspension of such new sanctions (to see the exact details of the agreement, see the Joint Plan of Action). It's not difficult then to imagine the Iranians walking out on the deal if the Americans don't stick to their end of the bargain. Worse, the United States' credibility would take a hit in the eyes of the P5+1 and the rest of its allies. Finally, this would vindicate Iran's own hardliners who have argued against negotiating with America, thus shoring up their own power and rendering Iran even more intransigent.

That looks like a tough sell, and it does seem that Obama is putting his reputation on the line for a razor-thin deal. So what do you think ? 

I mentioned that any lasting agreement would be vulnerable to technical and/or political hiccups, and Obama himself admitted only a 50-50 chance for the current deal to succeed. But the benefits of such a comprehensive agreement between two former arch-nemeses far outweigh the costs. I won't delve too long on the finer details of such benefits, but off the top of my head normal-US Iran ties and a lifting of sanctions would mean, aside from a nuclear weapon-free Iran :

1) a chance for Iran to finally rebuild its crippled economy and therefore aid its struggling citizens

2) a chance for Iran to reopen its crude oil supply to the world market by at least one million barrels of crude a day and therefore bring down world prices

3) a chance for Iran, as a traditionally major regional power, to contribute to the region's stability by working together with the United States on key strategic issues (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinians, regional terrorism, etc)

4) And of course a chance for peace and security in the region.

And so, in my humble capacity as a budding foreign affairs analyst, I believe that the deal should be given a chance.

Also, consider it from this perspective. Let's say Iran does get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Will it really use it on Israel or even the United States ? Let's see, there are nine states currently known to possess nuclear weapons, yet nobody has ever used nuclear weapons, excepting the two bombs the United States dropped on Japan in 1945, for the simple reason of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the simple concept that attacking another country with nuclear weapons would guarantee the same destruction in return. Eye for an eye. And considering the United States possesses upwards of 5000 of these babies which are enough to destroy the world multiple times over, a more appropriate comparison would be an eye for the whole family plus relatives up to the third generation. I don't think anyone in his right mind is willing to toe the line unless he's that eager to see his country flattened. As I mentioned earlier, the worst-case scenario of a nuclear-armed Iran is a localised arms race. So you'll have a bunch of other nuclear Arab countries, Israel, and Iran staring each other down but not crazy enough to start the third world war. Expect loads of empty bluster and saber-rattling but no real action. Puro hangin lang.

I can confirm, Iran's a threat
 (Source : Truthaholics)

Well I'm Filipino and I live halfway across the world so this doesn't mean jack to me or my country.

Aside from the fact that millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) work in the Middle East and that any political instability in the region could affect the lives of these OFWs (as was the case during the recent Arab Spring revolutions and subsequent evacuations of Filipinos by the Philippine government pursuant to the third pillar of Philippine foreign policy, giving assistance to nationals), there are reasons why the Iran issue matters to the Philippines.

As mentioned earlier, Iran is a major exporter of crude oil and ever since the United States led the international embargo against Iran, international oil prices have soared. For the Philippines, which is heavily dependent on imported oil, this can only mean bad news. For example, in 2011 we were importing somewhere in the ballpark of 6 million barrels of crude from Iran. By March 2012 the US had pressured a reluctant Aquino administration into ceasing all Iranian imports lest we face sanctions ourselves. Have you ever stopped to complain and wonder why local gas prices have kept rising the past few years ? I'm not saying that the Iranian nuclear crisis is the ONLY factor determining the global price of crude, but from an easy 6 million barrels of oil to zero -- that's definitely something. It's in this manner that the interim deal specifically and US-Iran relations generally influence how much bang for your buck you're getting the next time you load up at Caltex. Finally, sanctions have also hurt local banana producers who export 30% of their wares to Iran.

Aside from the economics, we also have strong politico-cultural relations with the Islamic republic despite the Philippines being a traditional US ally. Manila and Tehran both have embassies with each other and both have hosted cultural exchanges in the past and are keen to expand tourism. A large number of Iranian students come to study in the Philippines. I'm sure some of you, especially students in medicine and/or dentistry (I've no idea if dentistry should be lumped under "medicine" generally. I apologise for my ignorance), have Iranian friends or acquaintances since a lot of them come here to take advantage of studying low-cost English (and not to mention a less politically hostile environment compared to the United States), including those unfortunate souls who died in a Cebu bus accident in 2010.And it helps that Iran is one out of the many countries that extended aid to the Philippines in the wake of Yolanda's destruction last November 2013.

Although it did suck when the Iranians ripped team Philippines
(Source : AP, Saudi Gazette)

Finally, the Philippines, and any sovereign state for that matter, always has something to contribute to world peace and stability despite being a country with relatively little influence. Just check this guy out. I've just listed down the particular areas of interests the Philippines has in relation to Iran, but more broadly I believe we also have a moral imperative as members of the international community to not just look on from the sidelines, but to constantly lend our voice to any pressing issue if what's at stake here are people's lives and their freedoms, not just of Filipinos but of all human beings.


That's all I have for now. Comments, criticisms and stinging accusations of perfidy are all welcome !

DISCLAIMER : This article was prepared or accomplished by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the view of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs, or the Philippine government. 

---

*joke lang

"My soul aches, it is unbearable ..."

The pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia recently released a letter by Mikhail Kalashnikov, inventor of the AK 47 assault rifle, addressed to the Russian Orthodox Church's top leader, Kirill I. The letter was written in April 2013, eight month before Kalashnikov’s death on Dec. 23^rd. In it, the designer of the most famous (and probably most deadly) gun in recent history considered his responsibility for the death of a vast number of people all over the globe that his invention caused, thereby joining the ranks of countless inventors who regret their inventions.

In a previous post I explained my view on Kalashnikov’s moral responsibility. Since the issue is in the media again, I want to look at the topic once more and explain my opinion from a more ethical perspective.

First of all, imagine a gun designer who invents an assault rifle and produces a prototype. "Unfortunately", his product is inferior to other guns and therefore never enters production, thus never gets used in battle or anywhere else. After a while other designers disassemble the prototype in need for some of its parts. Regardless of the designer’s intention, some people would intuitively say that his action could hardly be considered as morally objectionable since its effects were insignificant. These people who judge the moral value of an action by its outcome are called consequentialists. The most famous consequentialist school is called utilitarianism, a normative approach that holds the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good or the least bad. Scholars of ethics speak of a teleological approach from "telos", ancient Greek for aim or goal (while "logos" stands for science or study).

Utilitarian scholars should condemn Kalashnikov’s action due to the vast amount of evil it created. Of course one might try to evaluate the good that the Kalashnikov rifle caused (due to deterrence, freedom fights etc.) and trade it off against all the bad things, but this seems to be an illusionary approach. To keep things simple we should assume that the invention of the AK 47 produced much more detrimental consequences than good ones. But there are several schools of utilitarianism. The one that might be especially interesting in this context is called rule utilitarianism. It states that it is not the actions that we should judge according to their consequences, but the rules that they were based on. If we agree that defending the motherland and designing the means for it is generally good, then even the invention of the AK 47 was a morally good action regardless of its bad consequences.

Another very important normative approach is the Kantian categorical imperative. Kant suggests that actions should not be judged by its outcome but just in itself. In this deontological approach one might argue that producing the means to kill must be considered bad because killing is bad. On the other hand, creating the means to deter or defend oneself or one's motherland against an external enemy might be perceived as morally good by some as well.

Of course these two are not the only normative approaches but are often considered the most influential ones. I’m leaving it up to the reader which of the theories sounds more convincing, especially because I personally disagree with both of them regarding their attempt to rationalize ethics.

The Kalashnikov rifle was by no means the only invention that had ambivalent outcomes. Just think of the invention of the synthetical production of ammoniac by Fritz Haber in the beginning of the 20^th century. Right to this day it ensures the food supply of billions of people worldwide while it is also an integral component of explosives and ammunition.

Patriarch Kirill II. personally responded to Mr. Kalashnikov’s letter, but his answer was not published. According to the press secretary for the Russian Patriarch, Cyril Alexander Volkov, the “Church has a very definite position: when weapons serve to protect the Fatherland, the Church supports both its creators and the soldiers who use it”.

Last year was not the first time Mr. Kalashnikov expressed his worry about the great calamities his invention causes. In a letter to the United Nations in 2006 he wrote: “It is a source of great sorrow for me that the assault rifle which I designed has produced many casualties. I myself fought and defended my country during the Great Patriotic War and was seriously wounded. I am no stranger to the pain of losing comrades in battle. But the tragedy of innocent lives lost at the hands of terrorists is beyond compare.”

I still find it difficult to judge an engineer for the efficiency of his invention. Instead, I rather look at the person's intention. I can see no evidence that it was Mr. Kalashnikov's intention to support armed violence and genocide in certain developing countries. It was surely not his intention to cause the deaths of innocent civilians or to arm child soldiers. At least to me his statement about his motivation to protect his motherland and to save the lives of his comrades sounds much more plausible. And that again doesn't sound so heinous after all.

Are drone strikes acts of terrorism?

US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia have killed several thousands of individuals, among them hundreds of civilians. Numerous scholars of human rights and international law engage in lively debates about the legality of these assassinations, or, as it is commonly phrased, targeted killings. For the people in communities where drone strikes are common, for example in northwest Pakistan, the effects on their lives are tremendous. According to the report Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan, the constant presence of drones “terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves.” This illustration of the effects of drone strikes on affected communities sounds frighteningly similar to the reactions describe after major terrorist attacks. Especially the existential fear and the inability to protect oneself seem to be key elements in both the consequences of drone strikes and terror attacks. But the report continues: “These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims.” The strategy of double tap drone attacks has its equivalent in terrorist twin bombings to increase the level of fear that these attacks aim to provoke. After comparing some of the the effects of drone war and terror attacks on communities we are faced with one important question: Are drone strikes acts of terrorism?

As usually in the academic discussion, there are as many definitions of terrorism as there are scholars working on the topic. I personally believe that a good definition is a simple one. Terrorism expert Alex P. Schmid suggests twelve components of definitions of terrorism of which I only used three, deliberately neglecting the others. In a first attempt to find my own definition of terrorism, I suggest the following:

Terrorism is the attempt to spread fear among people belonging to a certain group (of considerable size) through the use of physical violence.

The three key elements of my definition are (1) the intention behind the perpetrators actions to terrorize, (2) the (attempted) spreading of fear and (3) the use of physical violence. Let me explain why I deem these three characteristics as crucial and why I exclude others (for example the political motivation behind attacks or attacking of civilians). I believe that the motivation for attacks by individuals or groups is mainly (but not always) political. For them, terrorizing is not an end but a mere means to achieve their political goals. They terrorize people in order to show them the weakness of the system they live in, a system that is unable to satisfy their fundamental desire to live. It is only when people have this mistrust in their own system that terrorists see their chance to change the existing system according to their ideology. This already implicates that the direct victims of terrorist attacks are not the real target of the perpetrators.

Provoking existential fear for oneself or other members of one’s group makes physical violence a necessity. Other forms of violence or even non-violent techniques are not part of my definition, because I don’t believe that they would evoke the intended level of fear and because we would step on a slippery slope. If we allow other techniques, what "amount of fear" makes terrorism, where is the line? I, therefore, propose to draw the line at the point where individuals attempt to create existential fear among a group of people, the fear to die or lose someone in an attack. This fear is generally evoked by physical violence.

It seemed important to me to include that the group of people the attack(s) attempt to frighten should be of considerable size simple because otherwise every wife-beater who terrorizes his family by spreading fear would have to be considered a terrorist. A nightmare for homeland security.

I was struggling with myself about if or if not I should include the political motivation of a group or individual that commits the attack(s) in the definition but I decided not to. The reason is simple: If a person or group without any political motivation attempts to spread fear among a community through the use of physical violence, they terrorize them in the truest sense of the word. Well, someone who intends to terrorize people on a big scale should be considered a terrorist, regardless of his/her/their motivation. I admit that this is a rather exceptional case, but that doesn’t make it impossible. One could argue that this would make serial killers terrorists as well, but this is not necessary the case. The key factor in this question is what a killer primarily intends to achieve. If it is simply the pleasure of killing, we cannot speak of terrorism, but only if the primary aim is to spread fear (regardless of the fact if this is a means for something or an end in itself).

I don’t see why a definition of terrorism should be restricted to civilian victims. If an individual or a group of people attempt to spread fear amongst combatants this should be considered terrorism as well. The important criteria is that the attack is not primarily aimed at directly affecting the enemy’s military power but by terrorizing their troops. I agree that there are cases where a distinction between the two becomes blurry, think for example about booby traps. Are they primarily intended to reduce the enemy’s military strength or to spread fear amongst their soldiers, or are both aims equally important to the terrorists? I guess we would have to ask trapper.

So, can US drone strikes be considered terrorism? I would say yes and no. On the one hand they cannot be considered terrorism as long as the US is not intending to provoke fear among for example Waziris. There might be conspiracy theories that say so, but since we have no proof of the validity of those assertions I prefer to stick to the known facts. In my opinion drone strikes are intended to kill enemy combatants and to a small degree also high level terrorists. But on the other hand targeted killing creates fear just like terrorism does. Drone strikes are, therefore, perceived as terrorism by those who have to live under drones. 

It is general knowledge that fear leads to anger and anger to hatred. The islamophobia in some parts of the western world as reaction to 9/11 can serve as an example. Targeted killing, even though I don’t consider it terrorism per definition, should be stopped or strongly limited simply because it rather aggravates than solves the problem.

Between a rock and a hard place - The West and the Syrian Civil War (Part II)

The Syrian Civil War is a threat to the interests of the western world in many ways. Without international intervention there is only one outcome that the West and the Syrian people would benefit from: The moderate rebels succeed, drive the jihadists out of the country and establish a functioning democratic government in Syria. Unfortunately this outcome of the civil war is rather unlikely, while the many other possible outcomes seem not very auspicious. Syria could fall in the hands of the jihadists and become a failed state like Somalia, or, in the worst case, an islamist state like the former Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Even if the moderate rebels are successful and drive Bashar al-Assad out of the country like Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, capture him like Saddam Hussein in Iraq or kill him like Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, the jihadist groups will claim their piece of the cake. This could lead to a situation like in Iraq, where islamist groups terrorize the population and weaken the government.

After three years of insurgency, the rebels did not manage to gain substantial military successes. The Assad regime still holds the greater part of the country, partially because of the support from Iran and the Hisbollah. If the West would intervene in Syria in support for the rebels, for example by establishing a no-fly zone, this would not be as simple as it was in Libya in 2011. The Syrian military is stronger and better equipped, it has a functioning air defense against close-range targets. But more important than this are its international friends. Especially Russia is very eager to watch the back of its middle eastern ally. While the Libyan no-fly zone was established with approval of the UN World Security Council, the Russian veto for an equal decision regarding Syria seems at the present situation inevitable.

After the invasion of Iraq by the “Alliance of the Willing” lead by the U.S. that crushed the reign of the Ba’ath party and left Iraq in a state of chaos that will continue for years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has risen to become a major power in the region and an increasing threat to the interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In the clash between Sunnis and Alawites, a Shia sect, in Syria, both countries support one side of the conflict. Three years after the insurgency started, the Syrian Civil War has become a proxy war between regional powers to increase their influence in the Middle East. The West, relying on Saudi oil imports and especially the U.S. as a close ally of the kingdom are still supporting the rebels or at least ignore Saudi Arabia’s financial and military help for Sunni groups. But it becomes increasingly difficult to explain why the rule of the Assad regime is a bigger threat to the Syrian people, the region and international security than jihadist and al’Qaeda-affiliated groups acquiring power in Syria.

It is too late for the West to take part in any military action in the Syrian Civil War. Soon it would have to fight radical islamist rebels rather than the Syrian Armed Forces. But the consequences of the muslim world hearing the news that western countries attack the Syrian opposition would be extremely undesirable. It would most likely lead to a radicalization among muslims all over the world, a nightmare for international security. So what to do?

Either way, Assad has to go. But does the Syrian state? The insurgency started as a protest for more democracy, civil participation and rule of law. President Assad as the symbol of oppression among the members of the Syrian opposition must resign, his governance will not be accepted by the majority of the people any more. On the other hand, the threat of islamist groups acquiring power over Syria is equally unpleasant. To achieve peace, Assad has to resign and the moderate rebels of the Free Syrian Army have to accept this opportunity as their only chance for peace. A ceasefire during the negotiations in Switzerland later this month would be a sign of good will.

The jihadist groups will not accept this peace. But the reputation of the Syrian Armed Forces after three years of fighting against it’s own people is extremely bad. It will need military support from the international community to defeat the islamist groups that are already establishing themselves in Syria. All this has to happen soon. Once the islamists control a region it will be very difficult to get rid of them.