The following day journalists, writers, columnists, newscasters, academics, members of think-tanks, and politicians announced that this day had been a milestone. The term “milestone” marks the beginning of new things; what was about to begin now? As time passed we understood what they meant. Nothing in America was the same as before. On September 10, 2001 it had been the land of liberty; on September 12 the situation totally changed. Due to the religious identity of the members of Al Qaeda, who were declared to be the perpetrators, the USA, indeed almost the entire world, had become uninhabitable for anyone with the same religious identity. Liberty had been replaced by constraints and accusations. Not only the USA, but indeed the entire world had shrunk for Muslim people.

It is possible to understand the anger of Americans who lost their loved ones in this tragic incident, one in which almost 3,000 people died. It is also possible to understand people insulting Muslim women wearing headscarves and Muslim men in their beards and turbans. Attacks on mosques during this time could even be considered tolerable. However, what is difficult to understand is the long-lasting discrimination against Muslims and the perception of each and every Muslim as a potential terrorist. For the USA, a country with multicultural politics it cannot be reasonable to formalize changing attitudes with legislation. Something was happening to this country, one which had been advocating peace not war, one that had been known as the land of freedom and diversity. However, all this has happened because America was undergoing a period in which wisdom had been abandoned, something noted by many people.

I want to tell you about two of my memories. One of them occurred in 1999. I and several friends were going to the southern region of New Jersey. When we landed at JFK, we had another 2 hours to drive to our destination, if the traffic was light. Because it was time to pray and we would not be able to get to our destination before the time to pray, we decided to pray on the way. We performed ablution in a rest area. We laid our prayer rugs on the ground and we prayed in public, on the grass. We did not notice anyone glaring at us. We did not encounter any quizzical expressions nor were we treated in any disparaging manner. People in the USA would ask Muslims to mention them in their prayers when they came into contact with God. They also used to show us places to pray. But today? Although some claim that attitudes have not changed, Muslims cannot pray without worrying about somebody calling 911. This is not just an empty claim or remote possibility. There have been many examples of this kind of situation.

Another memory is from the USA of 2002. I was at an airport, getting ready to fly to another state. Although I passed through a number of security checkpoints along with other passengers, the security officer pulled me over. This had happened many times after 9/11, but this time I could not resist asking, “Why?” I had become exasperated with such acts of discrimination. I was fed up with being treated like a terrorist and a man to pity under scornful eyes. Angrily I asked “Why me?” I suppose he had undergone training in psychology. He held my arm, smiling, which made me feel comfortable. He showed me my boarding pass and the 3 S on it. He explained that it means extra security check. He said that the computers put these letters there because I have a Muslim name. He also told me that I should not take it personally because the computer program adds this to all names entered into the system. I realized that my name, which I have always been proud of, was now a reason for discrimination. I am sure that this was only because of 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Are such precautions appropriate? Many authorities, in particular, politicians at that time agreed they were necessary. There were some people who did not agree, but their number was less and they could not speak up. 10 years after this horrific incident many people now say that all such actions were inappropriate.

The past stays in the past. It is ridiculous to try to carry yesterday’s issues to today. However should we not learn from the past? I Religion, language, ethnicity, creed, and profession are our secondary identities, coming after being human. These were differences that gave us a sense of belonging. In the same way that capital has no religion, terrorism cannot have any religion. If there is a list of words that cannot go together, “religion and terrorism” takes first place. We can neither relate to religion nor explain by religion what the Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh or the Norwegian terrorist Behring Breivik did. In the same way that we cannot relate what they did to their religious identity as Christian terrorism, we cannot do the same with the events on 9/11 as Islamic terrorism. However, sadly this has not been the case.

All rational Muslims have exclaimed that it is in no way justified to identify Islam and Muslims with terrorism. Many authorities, scholars, politicians, academics, and opinion leaders have also said that this was a grave mistake. Even though a terrorist may have a Muslim identity, you cannot generalize and scrutinize such behavior from an Islamic perspective. On that day the newspapers published full-page condolence messages. Muslim scholars and academics also penned letters that condemned terrorism. This period, as it was one in which wisdom did not exist, prevented people from seeing all this, perhaps because it was Islam being accused and they didn’t really care about it, or because they did not want to change their foreign policy which they based on these attacks, or because they were prejudiced, or because they wanted to ease public opinion. What did happen was that common sense was ignored and people behaved as they wanted to.

Thank God, this lack of wisdom did not last long. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the mood has changed. Not all Muslims are considered to be potential terrorists anymore. People who have Muslim names do not get extra security checks at airports. The terrible slaughter in Norway has made the authorities start to reconsider their policies. Religious and cultural diversity projects and models for living together with peace are being reviewed. Projects that cover all areas of life, such as world brotherhood, coexistence while preserving differences, making the world a place for togetherness, preventing the otherization of other people have all started to take place despite the existence of some people who still see “others” as the enemy. We sincerely hope that those who are for peaceful coexistence will dominate over the second and the world will never experience a new 9/11, Oklahoma, Madrid, London, or Oslo attacks again.

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention against Torture defines torture as:

… any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

There is also a myriad of laws and conventions prohibiting the use of torture. In the oft-repeated words of the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 3 states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” A large number of international laws have been adopted to combat torture from Article 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 of the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) , and the 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

The ticking time-bomb scenario

In spite of torture being almost universally condemned, some have sought to justify the use of it in the “ticking time-bomb” scenario. While some versions of the scenario are more or less elaborate, the basic idea is that a terrorist has placed a bomb in a public place; if it is detonated many innocent lives will be lost. The authorities have detained a terrorist and are certain that the terrorist has relevant information as to the whereabouts of the bomb. The terrorist knows details that could lead to its defusing, however without the terrorist’s confession there is no other way to defuse the bomb. If the information is provided, the bomb will be diffused and the terrorist will not be tortured. But if the terrorist does not reveal the relevant details, he will be tortured until he does so.

The question posed in this situation is whether the torture of the person is permissible, impermissible or obligatory. Defenders of torture argue that it is permissible, and in some cases even obligatory; the right of the person with information not to be tortured is outweighed by the right of potential bomb victims not to be killed or injured. Given the choice between inflicting a small level of harm on a wrongdoer and saving the lives of many innocent people, is it morally indecent to prefer the interest of the wrongdoer?

The problem with the ticking time-bomb scenario is that it is impossible to know in advance how much pain would be caused by the bomb exploding and how much pain would be caused by the torture. Morally, it does not matter who experiences the pain or how intense it is. No one should go through such pain.

A critique of the ticking time-bomb scenario as a defense of torture

There are many reasons why torture is impermissible. Even if we accept it as a necessary evil, torture is an unreliable way to obtain information and evidence, especially when terrorist organizations know about torture and prepare for it by ensuring that no individual knows all the facts of any one operation. A person being tortured will say almost anything the torturers want to hear, even if it is false, so that their pain and suffering will come to an end. Another reason why torture should be prohibited is the fact that every society detests the violation of common morals; torture is a way of destroying the existing moral fabric of societies.

The ticking time-bomb misrepresents the real world. It is a simplification of reality in order to persuade people that torture can be permissible under certain circumstances. The torturer, for instance, is not portrayed as cruel and insensitive to the victims’ pleas, but rather as a heroic and conscientious public helper desperate to save the lives of innocent people that are weighing on his conscience. If one was to take this scenario hypothetically, it is worth asking how long a suspect should be tortured. How much should he be tortured? Should the frequency increase if he doesn’t talk, or as time runs out?

Secondly, if an official is willing to torture a person to extract information, why should he stop there? If the terrorist does not crack under pressure and pain, why not move on to torturing his family and friends in front of him? Seeing loved ones hurt is another form of torture that may be viewed as potentially useful as actual torture. Who is to guarantee that in order to extract information from a possible suspect, all probable measures, such as hurting loved ones, should not take place? In a world where the truth is unclear and where the existence of information held by a suspect remains ambiguous, the ticking time-bomb scenario should not be a valid point of reference.

Another way of looking at the ticking time-bomb scenario is the argument that it can help prevent future terrorist acts and act as a warning for others. If torture is permitted, it might be argued that it can help stop crimes. This cannot be the case in a society where right and wrong is judged upon what the behavioral norms of people are. If torture is permitted even in exceptional circumstances, then we run the risk of violence becoming tolerated and accepted in society as a normal response.

Contrastingly, it can be argued that even though in theory the requirements of the ticking time-bomb scenario can be met, in practice it is very difficult. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the suspects being interrogated are in fact terrorists, or, even if they are involved with a terrorist group, it cannot be certain or probable that they in fact have any information. Secondly, torture is not guaranteed to work if the assumption is based on mere possibility, as opposed to the certainty, that torture will make anyone talk. Thirdly, there is very little evidence suggesting that torture obtains results within a short time and in the most effective way.

Torture in Islamic jurisprudence

In Islam, human beings are considered as being the most exalted of all creation, created in the finest manner, adorned with rights and freedoms that cannot be undermined. Consequently, torture and inhuman practices inflicted on human life are strictly forbidden. An authority or state body whose aim is to restore justice cannot go outside the sphere of what is just and apply torture-this is haram, forbidden, in Islamic jurisprudence. The Qur’an explains the concept of justice in the following verse:

O you who believe! Be upholders and standard-bearers of right for God’s sake, being witnesses for (the establishment of) absolute justice. And by no means let your detestation for a people (or their detestation for you) move you to (commit the sin of) deviating from justice. Be just: this is nearer and more suited to righteousness and piety. Seek righteousness and piety, and always act in reverence for God. Surely God is fully aware of all that you do. (Al-Maidah 5:8)

In Islamic jurisprudence, a guilty person cannot be forced into confession through torture. If such a case arises, a person cannot be punished for the information they provide as a result of such force. This is because the most important right of an individual under Islamic law is the principle presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In Islamic jurisprudence, a conviction has to be based on sound proof and certainty and not on mere probability, like the ticking time-bomb scenario. If there is reasonable doubt, it is seen as being in favor of the accused, not against. This principle is based on the saying of Prophet Muhammad: “Prevent punishment in case of doubt. Release the accused if possible, for it is better that the ruler be wrong in forgiving than wrong in punishing.”

Said Nursi, a twentieth century Islamic scholar, refers to the strict prohibition of torture in Islam as “pure justice” as opposed to “relative justice,” which is taking on the lesser of two evils. He makes reference to the Qur’anic verse “He who kills a soul unless it be (in legal punishment) for murder or for causing disorder and corruption on the earth will be as if he had killed all humankind; and he who saves a life will be as if he had saved the lives of all humankind” (al-Maidah 5:32). Nursi further explains his ideas in light of the Qur’anic verse above.

“[N]o innocent person can be deprived of his or her right to life or sacrificed for the community’s sake. Any right is a right in God’s sight, and thus cannot be abolished for one considered just as great or fundamental.”

When a relative justice approach is taken, the right of an individual is overlooked in favor of the rights of the community. Nursi argues that attempts made to apply relative justice are wrong if it is possible to apply pure justice.

By looking at Islamic principles on torture and the ticking time-bomb scenario as a whole, it can be said that because torture is strictly prohibited in Islam, it cannot be used to attain a confession from a terrorist. As a result, there would be uncertainty and doubt as to the guilt of that individual. In such cases, punishment needs to be prevented on the presumption that the suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

How to prevent both terrorism and torture

In order to eradicate terror and terrorists, we need to be able to go deeper into the core of the problem and ask ourselves this simple question: would a reasonable person go and threaten to kill thousands just for the sake of killing? There has to be a reason behind such an act. If we cannot discover what is bothering one individual, we cannot solve such a problem. If such problems are not listened to and dealt with in a proper humane manner then one side will continue to torture and the other side will continue to threaten to kill, but for how long? In the end, what we need to realize is that we are dealing with a human being who is facing torture, not an animal.

As long as there is not full certainty that the terrorist is guilty, there has to be another way to deal with situations like the ticking time-bomb without having to resort to torture. There has to be an alternative, one that does not discriminate against an individual on the basis of race or religion, without segregation, belittlement or force. One alternative could be interrogation and reasoning with the terrorist, discovering the reason why they have such a person who poses a threat. The interrogators must ask themselves what has made the suspect what he is, what has triggered him to take such a drastic action, and try to discover what he wants. If voices are being heard and individual problems are being dealt with, why is there still such rebellion and terror in our society? If there is terrorism in a society, there must be injustices. In a society where justice is being served, there cannot be terrorism.

Another solution to terrorism lies in the religious foundations and moral upbringing that should be grounded in every individual and society to prevent such scenarios like the ticking time-bomb from arising in the first place. If every society is sustained by religious, moral and human values, then would, without a doubt, be peace. This moral framework is most effective when it is established early on in life through educational upbringing so that later on such concerns do not develop.

Fethullah Gulen, a modern day scholar and thinker, acknowledges that it is through religion that such a moral framework can be instilled within people.

Humankind, since the beginning of time, has found true peace and happiness in religion. As it is impossible to talk of morality and virtue where people do not practice the true religion, it is also difficult to imagine real happiness. For morality and virtue originate in good, clear conscience and what makes conscience good and clear is religion, which is the connection between humanity and God.

It is extremely important for individuals to realize that when dealing with such scenarios as the ticking time-bomb, no religion supports such behavior. In the Qur’an it is stated that “… those who affront believing men and believing women without their having done any wrong to deserve it, they have surely burdened themselves with calumny and a blatant sin” (al-Ahzab 33:58).

Similarly the Bible states “Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment” (Matthew 5:21). Also, in Jewish scriptures, there is reference to Hillel who says in the Talmud, Shabbat 31a “That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow.”

If religion and moral values are instilled within individuals effectively, even when there is no one present, the fear of God and the love for God will prevail to prevent such treacherous acts like torture and killing from taking place. Those individuals who fear God are less likely to break the rules if they believe that they are being watched and that any action they do will have a consequence. It can also be said that those individuals who love God in His goodness, compassion and mercy will be more likely to do virtuous acts, above and beyond simple duty. It is when society is filled with such conscious people that crime rates can drop and the door to torture and terror can remain closed. There will neither be terrorist’s withholding information regarding the whereabouts of a bomb nor law enforcement agents waiting to torture possible suspects.

In a nutshell, there are numerous arguments for and against the use of torture in exceptional circumstances like in the ticking time-bomb scenario. However, such circumstances cannot justify the breaching of one human’s right in place of another’s, regardless of the quantity of lives involved on either side of the spectrum. Everyone must have an absolute right to life. It is the lack of prohibition of torture by various states that enable such unnecessary exceptions like the ticking time-bomb to arise. There can be no legitimate basis for the limiting of this human right, because a human right to be free of torture is absolute.

Note

1. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted 10 Dec. 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1467 UNTS 85 (1985), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm

2. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed 4 November. 1950, entered into force 3 Sept. 1953

3. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 Dec. 1948, G.A. Res. 217A, 3 UN GAOR, UN Doc. A/810, at71 (1948), available at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/3/ares3.htm

4. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171, reprinted in 6 ILM 368 (1967), available at http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

5. M. A. Abdel Haleem, Adil Umar Sharif and Kate Daniels. Criminal Justice in Islam: Judicial Procedure in the Sharī’a , UK: I.B.Tauris, 2003, p. 48.

6. Abu Dawud, Salat, 14; Tirmidhi, Hudud, 2.

7.Said Nursi, The Letters, The Fifteenth letter from the Risale-i Nur Collection, NJ: The Light, Inc., 2007) p. 92.

8. M. Fethullah Gulen, Criteria or the lights of the way, London: Truestar Publications, 1996, p. 5.

These terrorist attacks show that the perpetrators share none of the aims of Islam, such as spreading Islam peacefully. You cannot spread Islam to other people by bombing them. Is there anything in Islam which legitimizes this terrorist attack? Certainly not! Jihad is a totally different concept, and can be declared only when Islam has to be defended. But Islam does not have to be defended in America, for Islam is already acknowledged here as one of the three monotheist religions: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This is not a superficial acknowledgment”6 million Muslims now live in America. Islam is not an imported religion, and this terrorist attack has nothing to do with American Muslims. On the contrary, it was perpetrated by outsiders having political”not religious”motivations.

The goals for which they are striving are not Islamic, but probably are related to the current political goals of certain people who manipulate Islam to legitimize their quest. I do not agree with Samuel Huntingtons well-known œclash of civilizations theory, in which Islam is approached as an enemy to the West and must be destroyed. On the other hand, the media (especially, those who supply the information and constantly oppose Islam) are striving to maintain an artificial adversarial sensitivity against Islam.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict underlies the clash of civilizations and, in a way, is the primary source of all these events. Mutual terror has been experienced throughout the 54 years of this conflict. Palestinians retaliated with counter-terror campaigns to Israel’s terror at the governmental level. This has affected millions of people not only in terms of religion but also in terms of national-political status. Israel attacks Palestinians not because they are Muslims but because they are Arab Palestinians. The fact that 20 percent of all Palestinians are Christians shows that this is not a religiously driven conflict. Nayef Hawatmeh and George Habash are leaders of Palestinian Democratic Public Front and are both Orthodox Christians. They began organizing suicidal attacks before HAMAS was even founded. The foremost significant supporters of Palestinians are Edward

Said and Albert Hourani, who are Protestant Christians and, respectively, prominent figures in literature and history.

The organizational formation of the terrorist group that launched the September 11th attacks deserves serious consideration. It seems that 60 to 70 people were actively involved; 19 of them are dead. But what about those who probably provided logistical support? How did they carry out their role unnoticed? For such an organization, there needs to be a mastermind, and I do not think that Bin Laden is the most likely candidate.

All types of terrorism, regardless of reason, are evil. While protesting terrorism, however, we should not ignore the reasons. America has to delve into the reasons and the roots of these events. It has to cast far-reaching look and search for real reasons, instead of dealing with symptoms. If America uses its power not to exercise sovereignty over others but to create a more peaceful world, this would serve its own interests. In addition, Muslims would benefit the most from it.

On September 11th, in the first year of the new millennium, all humanity appeared vulnerable against attacks launched by fanatics. Invisible terrorism can show itself anytime and anywhere’in five-star hotels, fantastic malls equipped with modern high tech monitoring devices, airports, or even beneath an isolated table.

What kind of strategies can solve this messy problem? In the opinion of some commentators whose hasty and careless comments create sensational speculations, the time of the ‘clash of civilization’ prophecy, which has been forgotten for 15 years, has arrived. Although sensational, these comments are far from depicting reality, because terrorism cannot be linked with any civilization, especially with Islamic civilization. To which civilization did Attila, who threatened Rome, belong?

Since the days of the Roman Empire, war has been a part of politics. Now, terrorism has become a part of politics. Terrorist actions, from the frequent hijacking of planes to the bloody actions of representatives of the ETA (the Basque separatist movement in Spain) and of the IRA in Northern Ireland, are committed for political reasons. In terms of the global community’s reaction, other terrorist actions do not reach the level of the events of September 11th.

It is too early to comment on the results of this global campaign against terrorism. Furthermore, it is questionable whether the United Nations can develop judicial or other types of sanctions to end terrorism.

As always, the only hope is the military and political alliance of powerful states. The only thing can be said now is that nothing will be the same after the events of September 11th.

For all these reasons I consider Tuesday’s terrorist onslaught against America to be not only an attack against America but also to be an outrageous,despicable sabotage against world peace.Such an atrocity can only be perpetrated by barbaric souls and is inhuman.Besides, terror can never ever be used in the name of Islam or for the sake of any Islamic ends.

A terrorist cannot be a Muslim and a Muslim cannot be a terrorist. A Muslim can only be the representative and symbol of peace,welfare, and prosperity.

Let me clarify this with the analogy of a ship. If nine criminals who have been sentenced to death and one innocent person are on board a ship, Islam does not permit the ship to be sunk in order to punish the criminals, in case the rights of that one innocent person are violated. These rights in Islam are a fact. They may not be ignored. There is no lesser or greater right. An innocent person’s rights may not be sacrificed even for the sake of a whole community. The Qur’an, Islam’s sacred Book, declares that if one takes a life unjustly, it is as if he or she has taken the lives of the whole of humankind, and if one saves a life, it is as if he or she has saved the lives of all. Also, our Prophet Muhammad says that a Muslim is one who does no harm with either his or her tongue or hand.

For this reason, I strongly condemn the terrorist actions which were carried out on Tuesday, the biggest terrorist onslaught the United States has suffered in its history. I strongly condemn such atrocities no matter from whom they came and no matter their intentions or aims. Such acts deserve only hatred and condemnation and should be despised and condemned by all.

I extend my most sincere condolences and deepest sympathy to all those who lost their relatives and to all American authorities and statesmen, along with all American people.

Condolence message by Fethullah Gulen released to press on September 12, 2001, right after the terrorist attacks on the USA.

Terrorists aim to get a lot of people to pay attention to their cause; they don’t necessarily want a lot of people dead. Since they have neither large armies nor economic power, the terrorists’ political hopes lie in the success or failure of their propaganda (Livingstone, 1988, p.120). However, to get attention terrorists must terrorize, must escalate violence in order to capture or recapture headlines (Jenkins, 1985).

The state’s response to terrorism can be categorised as ‘legitimate’ ‘suppressive’ or ‘concessionary’. ‘Legitimate’ measures include the whole range of legal procedures and punishments, special but ‘irregular’ counter-terrorist forces assisted by special courts, special rights of surveillance and arrest, very specific media restrictions, visa controls, etc. ‘Suppressive’ measures can include punitive military strikes against the terrorists (if they can be located) or military or economic or diplomatic sanctions against foreign powers alleged to be supporting the terrorists, intensive propaganda campaigns, extensive media restrictions, etc. ‘Concession’, obviously, involves negotiating some sort of deal with the terrorists.

The state’s counter-terrorist strategy has four major aspects: deterrence; intelligence (early warning); defence; retaliation. Deterrence works on the assumption that the terrorists can be persuaded that the costs of their policy exceed the benefits. Typically, however, terrorists do not have identifiable assets against which the state can take or threaten action. Deterrent action is therefore usually directed against foreign powers allegedly involved in assisting or supporting the terrorists. Apart from the diplomatic and legal complications which may result from such deterrence, the state must also calculate how far action against the foreign power really would affect the terrorists themselves.

lntelligence aims primarily at early warning of what are by their very nature surprise military attacks. ‘Humint’ or covert human intelligence depends on infiltrating terrorist cells, a more hazardous and difficult task than against other types of enemy organizations. Also, information collected about terrorist activity is usually limited in quantity and quality.

Active defence, pre-emptive arrests or military strikes, depends on identification and early warning. Passive defence consists mostly of so-called ‘target hardening’, that is, making potential targets harder to reach and harder to damage. The financial costs of protecting embassies, airports, individual official or private buildings, are very high. Also, protective measures can seriously interfere with the operations of such institutions. Finally, target hardening can encourage terrorists to move to ‘softer’ targets, terrorists can attack anything, anywhere, at any time, whereas the state cannot secure everything, everywhere all the time. The terrorists, in short, retain an edge over state security forces and security measures (Kegley and Wittkopf, 1989, pp.417-18).

The political cost of retaliation against foreign powers allegedly supporting terrorists can be very high unless there is strong proof of such support (Ofri, 1984). Also, as above noted, retaliatory action of this kind may not always impinge upon the terrorists themselves and may, conceivably, exaggerate the importance of their cause and enhance support for it. It is worth noting, in this context, that the international law surrounding counter-terrorist action is problematic. First of all, it is vague. Secondly, three principles of international law have often worked in favour of terrorist groups and their supporters: the right of self- determination, the right of asylum, and the rule of non-interference in the affairs of other states.

The role of the mass media is a crucial one. The terrorists need publicity since their goal is to win support for their cause. The media generally see their role as checking or criticizing the state: in theory, not being on the side of the state can mean being on the terrorists’ side. State imposed media blackouts certainly do not work. Experts on terrorism have pointed out that this policy only forces terrorists to escalate violence until they do get the media attention. The state, therefore, aims to get the media on its side–to encourage media to focus on the horrors of terrorist acts, and to deny exposure to the terrorists’ cause. Extensive anti-terrorist media-coverage can be of great benefit to the state in providing the background which allows it to plan and carry out retaliatory or other measures, in particular to obtain special legal powers which the public might otherwise resist (Clawson, 1987).

‘The state sponsorship of terrorism’ is an accusation that has been exchanged between various states. For example, the US has accused the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Libya, Iran, North Korea and Syria among others, of the practice and has itself been accused of sponsoring terrorist activities in Vietnam, Chile, and Nicaragua, and, as an ally of Israel in many other places (Kegley and Witkopf, 1989, pp.418-19). The historical fact is that ‘terrorists’, according to the definition of one ideological or political purpose are, according to another, ‘freedom fighters’. There is no coherent or generally accepted set of criteria by which the terrorists can be defined as such. However, acts of terrorism can be identified, and it is generally accepted that such acts should be prevented and/or punished. The difficulty lies in how to do so.

The terrorists are hoping to provoke an over-reaction from the state so that it will appear repressive. But if the state is to counter terrorism effectively it may have to take strong and unpopular action, given that a weak response will give an impression of weak government. One way out of this dilemma is for the sate always to act through the normal processes of the courts and not be panicked into any hasty suspension of civil liberties.

One approach is vigorous police action against terrorists, short of a full military commitment but not altogether excluding military involvement–for example, commando-style raids to seize hijackers, relieve hostages, etc. Overt and full-scale military action against terrorists is more controversial–for very good reasons. The record of what might be termed cross-border, military, punitive responses to terrorist actions is not particularly encouraging. For one thing, the motives and consequences of such actions are liable to misinterpretation. Incursions into a foreign country by the forces of one power may provoke another power which has interests or ambitions in that country. Also, such incursions, however honourably motivated, may legitimize similar incursions by others which claim, falsely, the same motive of combatting or punishing terrorism. For example, only five weeks after the US raid on Libya of 14-15th April 1986, South African forces attacked a series of targets in Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Botswana, arguing that they were terrorist centres. Then, there is the difficulty of choosing the targets of such military-punitive raids. It is not at all easy to select suitable targets since relatively few potential targets are indisputably associated with terrorism (Freedman, 1986. pp.l9-22).

Although there is considerable evidence that military retaliation does deter terrorism to some degree, military force is certainly not the answer to every terrorist challenge. Both politically and militarily, the army is a crude instrument. It, at least partly, legitimizes terrorist demands to be treated as political or military prisoners rather than as criminals. Army involvement heightens public tension and creates a feeling that the situation is getting out of hand. What can a state then do to combat terrorism?

One is never sure, where, when, how terrorists will attack. The state should use special intelligence and anti-terrorist units rather than the army. Such units must operate, and be seen to operate, within the law and under the control of legitimate authorities of the state. If not, these units may themselves be labelled terrorist and lose public support for the state’s policy. Given that such units must be ‘undereover’, public supervision of their work is bound to be a difficult and delicate task.

A ‘no concession to terrorists’ attitude, although painful in hostage situations, has been proven to be effective. Following the experience of Irish security forces in 1975, a policy of ‘no deals’ and ‘no assaults’ in a hostage situation was found to work. The tactic used is to wear down the resistance and the morale of the terrorists. Negotiating with or giving in to terrorist demands is generally perceived by the public as weak government and leads to anxiety about what the next concession is going to be (Wilkinson, l988, p.l3l).

Domestic or internal acts of terrorism can usually be traced to minority groups who perceive themselves to be excluded from the political or economic rights and privileges enjoyed by the majority. It is self-evident that the legitimacy of the power and authority of the state will be challenged by grieved parties if their grievances cannot be redressed through the normal political channels. Similarly, international terrorism can flourish where the international system fails to satisfy the aspirations of people whose national or ethnic or religious-cultural rights (or hopes) are denied and, often, denied brutally. Terrorism is, insofar as one can generalize, the weapon of the desperately weak: the despair and the weakness need to be addressed if the causes of the problem, as well as its symptoms, are to be eradicated. The sad reality is that, despite the existence of international law, that law is relatively ineffective in controlling the ‘competition for power’ between powerful states. Sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, terrorism is used as an instrument of foreign policy. To the extent that a foreign policy may be shared by a number of states, these states may agree to poll information and resources in the fight against terrorism (Borg, 1988, pp.11-12). But international co-operation achieved in this way is limited to the states who support or share foreign policy objectives–once the objectives are not shared, the co-operation becomes a pretence, terrorism again finds an ideological space to inhabit and a cause for which to seek attention and support. 

References 

• Borg, P. W. (1988) ‘The evolution of US. anti-Terrorism policy’ in Livingstone and Arnold (1988).
• Clawson, P. (1987) ‘We need more but better coverage of terrorism’, Orbis.
• Freedman, L.(1986) Terrorism and International Order, Routledge, New York.
• Jenkins, M. (1985) ‘Will terrorists go nuclear?’, Orbis.
• Kegley, C. W. And E.R. Wittkopf (1989) World Politics, St Martin’s Press, New York.
• Livingstone. C. Z. (1988) ‘New media strategies for addressing terrorism’ in Livingstone and Arnold (1988).
• Livingstone, C. Z. and E.T. Arnold. (1988) (eds) Beyond the Iran-Contra Crisis, Lexington Books.
• Ofri, A. (1984) ‘Intelligence and counter-terrorism’. Orbis.
• Wilkinson, P.(1986). Terrorism and the Liberal State, Macmillan, London.