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 |
(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 |
 |
| 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.
I think the Syrian case is instructive in showing how complex terrorism has become, and how to define it. Traditionally, the current crisis there is seen as a civil war; this supposes two almost-equal camps battling for control over the whole country. However, note the rhetoric coming from President Assad's camp every time it refers to the rebels. They never say "rebels" or even "opposition", but always as "terrorists." At first one might think that this is just a ploy the regime uses in order to delegitimise the opposition, but there seems to be a ring of truth : what is made even more complicated is that some of the rebel groups indeed sometimes target civilians or employ terrorist acts, such as decapitating innocent civilians (thus including them within Schmid's definition), while others moderate groups refrain from doing so and have even condemned such acts. And while the West and the regime may agree on defining particular groups such as terrorists (e.g. the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham and the Al-Nusra Front), they may not agree on others e.g. the Free Syrian Army and other moderate groups since the regime designates the entire opposition as "terrorists."
ReplyDeleteIn such a fluid and multi-layered climate, it becomes increasingly difficult to objectify terrorist groups unlike the Mumbai attacks where everyone is in agreement, and the term terrorism itself has become heavily politicised to suit each faction's interests.
Well, it is indeed true that the Syrian regime refers to the rebels as terrorists. In fact, that is their major argument in the current negotiations in Switzerland. Unfortunately, by now they actually have sort of a point. But I believe that it is still not to late for the West to take action, although in my opinion excluding Iran from the negotiations was a major mistake that limits diplomatic options.
DeleteIt is important to note how crucial a definition of terrorism is, exactly because of the abuse of the term not only by the Syrian regime but by many other governments. The term terrorism has a very negative connotation, while rebellion seems more neutral. We should not allow governments to blur the terms and use them to their advantage. Here lies the importance of a clear definition or at least the ongoing discussion about it.