[allAfrica.com] [The_Africa-America_Institute_Awards_Dinner] The Problem With the Term 'Terrorism' The East African Standard (Nairobi) OPINION August 15, 2004 Posted to the web August 16, 2004 By Makau Mutua Nairobi Arguably, the most important word in the English language over the past three years has been "terror". But, like most highly politicised terms, terrorism is a vacuous utterance, a word about which no commonly agreed definition has been possible. The reason for this definitional paralysis is the deep ideologisation of the term, in which your terrorist is my freedom fighter and vice versa. The essence of this distinction is virtue, on the one hand, and vice, on the other. To the protagonists, the matter is as clear as night and day. One is evil, the other righteous. There is no room for moral ambiguity or equivalence. It is very simple: you are either good or bad. But there is common ground among the protagonists. Terrorism defines the other side, the demons that would commit atrocities. It is in that sense that both sides agree that terrorism is demonic. So, therefore, neither side wants to be described as terrorist. In that sense what is defined as terrorism has no redeeming value. But defining that "thing" is the problem because inevitably the author of the definition is framed by his biases. Neither side will accept the other's definition of the term. Dedan Kimathi after he was arrested by colonialists in Central Kenya. Despite fighting for the freedom of his country, Kimathi was deemed a terrorist and cruelly hanged. This is the case because it is in the definition wherein lies the high moral ground. The power to define authorises one to demonise. That is why it is virtually impossible to come up with a universally acceptable definition of terrorism. Intimidation I am afraid that the dictionary does not offer us a way of out this quagmire. It defines the word "terror" and its derivatives to imply conditions under which threat, fear, anxiety, or intimidation are caused through coercion, violence, or the use of force. Some people think that this definition is so innocuous as to be useless. I disagree. It is the elasticity of the definition that may allow room for consensus. For one, this open-ended definition does not prima facie offend any culture, people, region, or instrumentality. What the dictionary definition makes clear is that terror can be committed by anything or anyone. Terror, therefore, is not just the province of non-state actors, such as Al Qaeda or the Ku Klux Klan. It can also be the instrument of states, such as Israel in the Occupied Territories or the bombings of civilian targets by the United States in Afghanistan. Both state and non-state actors can commit terror. In Kenya, for example, the politically instigated ethnic clashes of the 1990s were acts of terror by the Moi-Kanu regime. Although the dictionary definition of the term terror is seemingly neutral and vacuous, its political usage is not. In recent history, Western governments and internationally powerful media groups have largely used the term to describe non-Western liberation groups, non-Christian political groups, and so-called rogue or pariah states. The Mau Mau, the single most important liberation organisation in colonial Kenya, was described by the United Kingdom and the West as a terrorist organisation. Homeguards The leader of the Mau Mau, Dedan Kimathi, was deemed a terrorist and cruelly hanged by the colonialists. The atrocities committed against the Mau Mau and other Kenyan freedom fighters - all of whom were defined by the British as terrorists - amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. But to the majority of Kenyans, save for the homeguards, Kimathi, Me Katilili, and others were freedom fighters, not terrorists. How can an occupying, colonial power describe you as a terrorist when you fight to free your country of occupation and colonialism? As late as the 1990s, the US listed the African National Congress as a terrorist organisation. Nelson Mandela, its leader and the Nobel Peace laureate, who is acknowledged by the world as a living saint, was once on the US State Department's list of international terrorists. Now you figure it out. One would have thought that it was the apartheid state and its leaders who were terrorists, and not the ANC and the freedom fighters. But Ronald Reagan, the former US President, thought that the late Jonas Savimbi and Unita were freedom fighters, and not terrorists, despite the unimaginable terror they inflicted on Angola. In Algeria, during the war of liberation from French colonialism and atrocities, the FLN, the liberation organisation, was described as a terrorist organisation by the French. In Iraq today, following US conquest and occupation, Americans describe Iraqi resistance as terrorism. By and large, the term terrorist has been fashioned by the West to describe organisations and individuals that use violence to express their opposition to Western policies or governments, which are aligned to the West. It is this political, one-sided, biased deployment of the term terror that we must reject. If the term is to make sense at all, it either has to be redefined or abandoned altogether. It will not suffice to simply say that we recognise terrorism when we see it. That is a recipe for constructing definitions that favour us, and disfavour our enemies, whoever they might be, no matter how justified their cause. The United Nations, the one body that could provide guidance on the issue, has been flummoxed by the definition. International law, as expressed by the UN, has been unclear on the matter. Since 1970, various UN treaties, resolutions, and declarations have come up short. These documents refer to "terrorist acts", but never really define terrorism. The draft Comprehensive Convention Against International Terrorism, which is now being negotiated, is unlikely to overcome the problem of definition. Some of the "terrorist acts" in UN parlance include bombings, piracy, attacks or hijackings of aircraft, taking of hostages, and similar acts. But these are acts, not definitions. The questions that must be ultimately answered by the definition should respond to why certain actions are taken by individuals, groups, or states. In other words, the question of motives, causes, and responses is extremely important in crafting the definition so that the legitimate bounds for the use of force are clearly identified. One of the questions that must be asked and answered is whether it should ever be legal or permissible for an individual or non-state actors, such as political groups, to ever use force to advance a cause. Secondly, if the answer is yes, who or what can be the target of the use of force? Third, under what circumstances, beyond those now permitted under international law, can states use force against civilian populations or political groups, which may or may not be armed? The term terrorism can only make sense if and when these questions are clearly and objectively answered so that individuals, states, and non-state actors do not employ force selectively against their enemies or to simply perpetuate an unjust order. Authoritarian I cannot overstate the urgency of this matter because since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, governments around the world have used the pretext of the war against terror to suppress civil and political rights, and consolidate authoritarian rule. In the US, for example, the Bush Administration has promulgated laws, policies, and measures that have a profoundly negative effect on civil liberties. The creation of military tribunals, the encroachment on attorney-client privileges, the arrest and detention without trial of suspects - both American and non-American, and other intrusive measures have been undertaken all in the name of fighting terror In Kenya, as elsewhere in the world, there is enormous pressure to pass highly repressive, vague, and overbroad anti-terror laws. These laws, and the Kenyan anti-terror Bill is a case in point, have given the state sweeping and unconstitutional powers to run roughshod over human rights. Furthermore, they create a presumption of guilt on certain groups in society. The net effect of these laws is to allow states to suppress their opponents in the name of fighting terror. Like other civilians, I am unequivocally opposed to the use of force as a weapon of terror against society. For me, it does not matter whether it is an individual, the state, or non-state actors who deploy that force for terror purposes. I believe that such acts ought to be outlawed, and severely punished. But I am equally opposed to the demonisation of legitimate struggles for self- determination as terrorism. It seems to me that the real solution to the problem of terror does not even lie in legal definitions. What is needed is an honest and soul-searching process to identify the root causes of terror so that they can be addressed at source. *Makau Mutua is Professor of Law at the State University of New York at Buffalo and Chair of the Kenya Human Rights Commission.   =============================================================================  Copyright © 2004 The East African Standard. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). =============================================================================