Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 1999, page 45

Special Report

It’s Necessary to Distinguish Between Indiscriminate And Motivated Terrorism

By A. Motiar

The recent terrorist attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S. bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan raise some serious concerns for those who seek peace and wish to uphold civilized norms. Misguided policies can cause loss of innocent lives. Was the U.S. response retaliation or terrorism?

The answer would depend on how civilized we consider ourselves. A civilized society upholds ethical values and subscribes to principles of justice—meted out equally to all, regardless of class, race or religion. Collective punishment, double standards and vengeance are examples of barbarism.

There are two forms of terrorism—indiscriminate and motivated. “Indiscriminate” terrorism is manifested in instances where there is a perceived or real injury and the person lashes out randomly at society to mitigate his own grievance. Such perpetrators are either demented or seeking revenge, e.g., the Unabomber. How does one respond to such terrorism? To arrest every “bizarre” person in society would be tantamount to collective punishment and would be the height of idiocy. “Indiscriminate” terrorists, because their injury is so personal and self-centered, are very difficult to identify but their motivations for revenge can be assuaged where a society promotes justice. Societies which tolerate double standards of justice will experience the most indiscriminate violence.

“Motivated” terrorism, on the other hand, is manifested in instances where there is a clearly identifiable “cause” or injury and the individual or group targets attacks against nationals of a specific country to redress grievances. The parallel of a bully-victim situation offers some insight. Bystanders, fearful of the bully, by their inaction lend support to the bully. When a victim finally retaliates, to succeed, he is forced to use means considered “foul or unfair.” To focus on the victim’s unfair methods would be a miscarriage of justice. Only when the bully is challenged does he stop or move to a weaker target.

Keeping this parallel in mind, how does one respond to “motivated” terrorism? If we consider ourselves civilized, certainly not with “collective punishment,” which is criminal because it results in loss of innocent lives. To suggest that we accept this as “collateral damage” is to bring one down to the same level as terrorists. Collective punishment is terrorism whether it is undertaken by ground forces or warplanes.

No country, not even a superpower, can ever triumph over “motivated terrorism.” One should learn from the experience of Israel, a regional superpower, which has lost more soldiers fighting “motivated” terrorism than it has in any war. A military response killing innocents only increases the number of people ready to join the “cause” and invariably broadens and prolongs the conflict.

To avoid falling into this trap, a civilized alternative seeks justice and to avoid loss of more innocent lives. That requires examination of our own position vis-â-vis the demands of those labeled as terrorists.

Why is it that so many of yesterday’s terrorists (Nelson Mandela’s ANC for example) became today’s governments? Their terrorism/struggle did not end because they were subdued. Rather, it was their opponents who belatedly recognized they were up against a just cause and agreed to make amends. The U.S. can show leadership by examining the motives and demands of these “terrorists” as well as its own policies in the areas from which these people originate.

In short, is there a bully-victim situation? If so, the issue is not one of “giving in to terrorism,” but rather one of “ending support for bully-dictators/states.” This does not condone terrorism, but rather opens for debate whether terrorism is aggression or a “response” to aggression.

If Osama bin Laden is behind the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as the U.S. alleges, what are his demands? He wants the thousands of U.S. troops out of his homeland, Saudi Arabia. He blames U.S. refusal to lift sanctions on Iraq for the deaths of thousands of innocent children each month. If this is true, a hitherto obscure Bin Laden, thanks to U.S. President Bill Clinton, will now have thousands desiring to support his cause.

The U.S. cannot expect to win the war against terrorism if victims of U.S. actions see it as a bully and a terrorist state. How does the U.S. justify the continuation of sanctions that are killing thousands of Iraqi children?

This is ongoing terrorism! When this terrorism stops, then the fathers of these dying children will not join Bin Laden’s cause. Such an approach is civilized and just. Supporting bullies, retaliation and revenge only encourage more terrorism.