The nation-state as a terrorist actor

Terrorism is a phenomenon that is becoming pervasive day by day. It affects the manner in which governments conduct their foreign policy and the way corporations transact their business. Our newspapers, radio and televisions inundate our everyday lives with vivid details of the globe. The acts of terrorist groups are frequently displayed in the media where the terrorist acts of nation-states remain unnoticed to a large extent. It is the nation-states that define ‘terrorism’ and therefore, as a result, the real image of terrorism remains ambiguous. It also gives the states excuse to deny its atrocities in the name of ‘national security’.

This article will begin with a brief definition of the phenomenon of terrorism and analyse whether a nation-sate can be regarded as a terrorist actor and if this in turn leads to more terrorism in an ever-increasing spiral. The foreign policies of United States will be used as a case study and the region it will study in details will be the Greater Middle East, although prior to that, in general, a picture of US intervention around the world will be provided. Further analysis will be made in order to substantiate if the US routinely sponsors terrorism to secure its own strategic and economic interests.Terrorism is not strictly a phenomenon committed by individuals or groups. In fact, terrorism is a political term derived from state terror. Therefore, analysis of the ways in which states use terrorism as an instrument of foreign and domestic policy offers interesting insights. It can be defined as a synthesis of war and theatre, a dramatisation of the most forbidden kind of violence- that which is perpetrated on innocent victims – played before an audience in the hope of creating a mood of fear, for political purposes [1]. This description of terrorism has a number of crucial components. Terrorism, by this definition, involves an act of violence, an audience, the creation of a mood of fear, innocent victims and political motives.However, it terrorism is not a modern phenomenon.

The word ‘terrorism’ dates back from the French Revolution. It was originally used in 1794 to refer to the use of terror by governments against their own populations. It was in this context too that Trotsky, whilst Commissar of the War in the post-1917 Bolshevik government, used it to justify the use of political violence against the enemies of the state [2].From 1945 to 2000, the US has attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, usually successfully, and crushed more than 30 populist movements struggling against dictatorships, killing several million people in the process, and condemning millions more to a life of misery. Though these are shocking statistics, defenders of US foreign policy rarely quarrel with these statistics but rather only try to show why they were necessary [3]. This process of justification carries the hallmark of state terror by any definition of terrorism and where the adherents practice literal denial to the evidence.

Beyond these actions abroad, US policies have helped various regimes around the world to create terrorists and war criminals granting safe haven, carry out torture and assassinations, develop death squads, provide training manuals for repression, promote the use weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations, distort foreign elections and intervene in foreign political systems, and thus undermine hundreds of United Nations resolutions and treaties. As argued by Bennis, the biggest cause of international anger against the US is the arrogance with which US hard and soft power is exercised whereby international law is dismissed, UN resolutions ignored, and binding treaties abandoned. Washington demands that other countries must strictly abide by UN resolutions and international law, imposing sanctions or threatening military assault in response to violations, but holds itself accountable only to a separate law of empire that applies to the US alone [4].Since 1965, non-state actors have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians ranging from suicide bombings in the Israel, car bombings in Enniskillen, civilian airliner bombing over Lockerbie, the World Trade Centre bombings, and the Bali nightclub bombings. The number of civilian fatalities compared to the numbers killed by state actors has been minimal. It has been estimated that nation-states have been responsible for the deaths of around 2.5 million individuals and critical US historians have dubbed the US as the most warlike nation on earth.

The US has a long history of supporting dictators and suppressing populist movements all in the name of fighting communism. Within five years following the Second World War the US was already fighting a war in Korea and later funded the French in Indo-China before actually taking on the conflict where the US bombed not only Vietnam, but also Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s and 70s. During the 1950s governments in Iran and Guatemala were removed covertly with US help and backing. In the 1960s US troops invaded the Dominican Republic and huge amounts of military aid was sent to Indonesia, which used this ‘aid’ to kill many thousands in an internal war and in the repression of he people of East Timor. In the 1980s atrocities were carried out in Central America, particularly in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua that were funded by the US [5]. Though condemned by human rights groups and even the World Court the US describes its efforts as being in the service of freedom and democracy. The US is the only nation to be formally found guilty of terrorism through its mining of Nicaraguan harbours. This catalogue of violence is by no means exhaustive and can be added to by mentioning Chile, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yugoslavia. It does not include US funding for repression in Turkey, Israel, Colombia, Argentina and so on [6].The US with little or no justification regards itself as the target of a serious global terrorist threat. It also suggests that particular states are either behind this threat or harbouring those who might carry out such attacks. The US is ready to condemn such ‘rogue states’ and even to attack them as part of a ‘war on terror’ [7].

Cindy Combs notes that nations such as Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran have repeatedly been accused of involvement in state sponsored terrorism [8]. There is no sense in denying the unsavoury nature of many such regimes, however, history shows the US has provided and is still providing these regimes directly and indirectly with military armaments, finances, and in some cases political support.Chomsky argues, policy intellectuals explain that it is right and proper for the US leaders to resort to coercion and violence unilaterally. Powerful defence will provide the US with “absolute freedom in using or threatening to use force in international relations”. Lawrence Kaplan writes in the Liberal New Republic, that kind of defence will “cement US hegemony and make Americans ‘masters of the world’.” In the neoconservative National Interest, Andrew Bacevich cites him approvingly, providing historical and philosophical depth. History, he explains, “has a discernible direction and destination. Uniquely among all the nations of the world, the United States comprehends and manifests history’s purpose”, so that US “hegemony” should be welcomed, as the realisation of history’s purpose. The principle that America is a “historical vanguard,” and therefore must be free to act as its leaders choose, is “so authoritative as to virtually immune to challenge” [9]. Militarily, America’s bases cover every continent. There is a military presence in 120 of the 189 member states of the UN [10].

It is worth noting that even patriotic Americans have described its foreign policy as ‘arrogant and cruel’ over time [11].Since the late 1970s when the West began recovering from economic crisis under the guidance of Thatcher’s and Reagan’s neo-liberal administrations and following the subsequent collapse of the USSR, the world has been witnessing a rampant expansion in military, economic, ideological and juridical parameters of US foreign policy projection. Projects around energy resources, coupled with competing financial and military interests of Western states have impelled US to launch its robust battle to secure the upper hand. The war against Iraq in 1990-91 was directly linked to energy interests, as will be any future US intervention in the Iraq-Iran-Syria-Kurdistan zone. Fouskas argues that a key-underlying element of all three major theatres of war since 1990 – the Persian Gulf, Western Balkans and Afghanistan/Central Asia, has been the new geo-political environment centred on oil and gas pipeline projects [12].The Clinton administration claimed “assertive multilateralism” as their basis for foreign policy. Clinton’s rhetoric made it appear that he was in favour of multilateralism but during the eight years of ‘Clintonian’ multilateralism, treaties on everything from the rights of children to the International Criminal Court to the prohibition of anti-personnel land mines were rejected.

The United Nations Charter was repeatedly violated and Security Council decision-making circumvented with billions of dollars left in arrears to the UN by the US. Following the debacle in Somalia in 1993, the slogan of assertive multilateralism dropped off the foreign policy agenda.From the start, George W. Bush junior asserted a boldly unilateralist voice that catered to both the far-right social conservatives and the most belligerent military hawks of the Republican Party. All of Bush’s foreign policy advisers had earned their political stripes fighting or analysing the Cold War. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice as well as their respective deputies and assistants, were an experienced team that agreed on one fundamental point: in a post-Cold War era US hegemony on a global scale was not only unprecedented and possible, but also pertinent. They agreed that for the US military might is right and that American values and interests were inherently good, simply because they were American. The Bush administration viewed that unilateral exercise of US power was the first choice of option. As the US had created an unequalled technologically military establishment, it had to be effective with a global reach and as a result the US has 725 military installations outside its territory of which 17 are fully-fledged bases.The 1996 Amnesty International Annual Report concluded that: “It is a paradox that a nation that did so much to articulate and codify human rights in its foundation documents has so consistently resisted and undermined the effective functioning of an international framework to protect these principles and values”. It also argues that repression, torture and terror have occurred disproportionately among countries in the American sphere of influence. “Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, a woman, or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or 'disappeared' at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.” Many years ago, the Chinese writer Moh Tze said: “To kill one person is murder. To kill thousands is foreign policy” [13]. This seems to be reflected in American policies abroad; especially the current situation in Iraq tells the same story.The Middle East is regarded as called by President Eisenhower “the most strategically important area in the world”. In the early post-war years, the US extended the Monroe Doctrine to the region barring it from any interference apart from Britain, which it punished during the 1956 Suez Crisis. The strategic importance of the region lies primarily in its immense petroleum reserves and the global power accorded by control over them. It has been necessary to ensure that this enormous wealth flows primarily to the West and not to the people of the region. Another is the Israeli-Arab conflict with its many ramifications, which have been closely related to the major US strategic goal of dominating the region’s resources and wealth [14].

Despite Bush frequently using rhetoric such as ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’, in truth US foreign policies help the Middle Eastern regimes and their likes around the world, to combat democracy as it hampers their economic and political interest.US 'stability' in the region opposes democracy, as it would threaten US hegemony. Throughout the Middle East, it is common knowledge that US backing for the absolute monarchy is itself absolute. The call for democratisation that shapes US policy toward so many other countries is virtually absent regarding Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and most other Gulf states. Saudi Arabia has for years have been the top purchasers of US military hardware and equipment. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the US has maintained troops, bases, warships, fighter jets in virtually every country in the area, despite criticism, helping to keep in power the repressive regimes in favour of pragmatic diplomacy and joint military training exercises [15].

In conclusion the act of terrorism claims many innocent lives. When terrorist acts are committed by terrorist organisations, states around the world and the media protest against it fiercely. Unfortunately, terrorist acts committed by nation-states in the guise of ‘national interest’, ‘national security’, ‘war against terror’, sanctions against ‘unfriendly-regimes’ remain unnoticed, though appalling, more civilians get killed by these acts. In 1996 when Madeline Albright made her famous “we think the price worth it” remark regarding the death of half a million Iraqi children as a result of sanctions, her callousness actually reflected a clear political decision [16]. These political decisions go against human rights and portray the acts similar to terrorism to a great extent. Double standard of US policies can be noticed as while it condemns the individual terrorist act, it justifies its own act of killing innocent men, women and children around the world. US foreign policies post-September 11 reveals a vivid picture of its crime against humanity. It waged war on Afghanistan with no clear evidence. Although US never found any trace of the prime suspect Bin Laden, it claimed its expedition a successful one as they have toppled the Taliban regime (this particular war aim was not mentioned at the start of the bombings), which was one of the closest US Allies in war against the USSR during the Cold War. This war was claimed to be a ‘just war’ although with little justification of how it can be regarded as a just one? [17]. The US then waged a war against Iraq in suspicion of having contact with the terrorist group, Al-Qaeda, again with no evidence. This kind of atrocities that result in death of hundreds and thousand of innocent people certainly carries the characteristic of terrorism.US state terrorism as well as other state terrorism creates terrorist groups in return, as terrorism triggers more terrorism. The current situation of Iraq with the increasing resistance movement shows the reality of the situation. Only by recognising the terrorism of nation-states, it is possible to understand and deal with acts of terrorism by groups and individuals, which, however horrific, are tiny by comparison.

REFERENCES[1] Combs, C. (2003), Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, Prentice Hall, p. 10.

[2] Halliday, F. (2002), Two Hours that shook the world: September 11,2001: Causes and consequences, Saqi, p. 72.

[3] Professor Elias, R. (2001), “Terrorism and American Foreign Policy”, University of San Francisco, California.http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

[4] Bennis, P. (2003), Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the War on Terrorism, Arris Books, p. 104.

[5] Ahmed, N.M. (2005), “American State Terrorism: A Critical Review of The Objectives of US Foreign Policy in The Post-World War II Period” http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.html

[6] Pettiford, L. & Harding, D. (2003), Terrorism: The New World War, Arcturus Publishing limited, p. 151.

[7] Ibid, p. 149.

[8] Combs, C. (2003), p.84

.[9] Bennis, P. (2003), p. 11.

[10] Johnson, C. (2004), "America's empire of bases", http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

[11] Professor, Elias, R. (2001), “Terrorism and American Foreign Policy”, University of San Francisco, California. http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

[12] Fouskas, V. K. (2003), Zones of conflict: US Foreign Policy in the Balkans and the Greater Middle East, Pluto Press.

[13] Professor Elias, R. (2001), “Terrorism and American Foreign Policy” (2001), University of San Francisco, California. http://www.tanbou.com/2001/fall/USForeignPolicyElias.htm

[14] Chomsky, N. (1999), Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel & the Palestinians, Pluto Press, p. 9.[

15] Bennis, P. (2003), p. 102.

[16] Ibid, p. 101.

[17] Chomsky, N. (2002), “Who are the global terrorists?” in, Booth, K. & Dunne, T. (ed), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of the Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 135