Defining terrorism

Ми протопчемо дорогу до влади народу | We'll make the way to the rule of the people. We do analytics.

TERRORISM

Maria Ivanova, Kingdom of Academic Investigation

The first definition of terrorism I’d like to point out from the UN 9/11-follow-up conference statements is given by the Iraq Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the republic of Iraq to the UN Mohammed Aldouri.
Mr. Aldouri emphasized that this ‘negative phenomena’ causing ‘suffering and sacrifices among innocent people’, ‘civilian victims’ ‘requires first of all an agreement on the definition’ – ‘a clear definition that is not misleading or vague, so that it would not be mixed up with acts that are not related to terrorism or would exempt clear terrorist acts, for purely political and advantageous reasons’.

The main accent of this report is the description of terrorist methods and diversity of this phenomenon which causes the definitional problems as one should recognize ‘the natural and inalienable right of all the peoples that struggle against foreign occupation, colonial control, aggression <…>’.
And state-executed as well as state-supported terrorism stands at the common red line of the whole terrorist bunch (where according to the reporter US should occupy the leading position).
So in his understanding of the terrorism Mr. Aldouri reflects the problems and pains of his country where people have been killed and terrorism is not a vague possibility but everyday realm.
The Russian official – Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the RF Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze was short and clear: ‘terrorism is not only a dangerous but also an insidious enemy’ expanding ties with ‘transnational crime, illegal drug business, <…> illegal trafficking of nuclear, chemical, biological <…> materials’. The global character of terrorism is stressed and such approach could be called something all-over-the-world-cell-network theory.
Next definition fitted in the continuity of the global network approach – provided by the Israeli Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the UN Yehuda Lancry statement is interesting for its obvious conformity to the US official political doctrine.
His colourful speech was full of metaphors like ‘two towering symbols’ (about the Twin Towers in NY), ‘civilians have been the direct target of violent attacks’, ‘the deadly plague of terrorism has posed a grave threat to international peace and security for decades’, on 9/11: terrorist attack ‘demonstrated’, ‘attacks shattered not only glass and steel, but the misconception that terrorism <…> does not pose a global threat’, on terrorists: ‘sacrifice themselves’, ‘infrastructure that feeds them’.
Such vocabulary sounds strangely fictional assuming the subject in question. But bearing such form Mr. Lancry’s speech reflects the symbolic and communicative part of the terrorism definition and stresses the planned character of terrorism, which results in applying the ‘complex network’ term to terrorism.

© 2006-2007 All Rights Reserved | усі права застережено. Усі авторські права належать авторам матеріалів. При використанні матеріалів сайту зазначення авторства та наявність посилання (для інтернет-видань – веб-посилання) на сайт обов’язкові.