What is terrorism, anyway?

This is my first ever blog – you have to start somewhere, don’t you?

I’m doing this mainly for therapeutic reasons, writing whatever is on my mind, about whatever subject, really. I’m likely to be writing about the things that most occupy me, though, which include politics, a bit of sport, current affairs generally and the frustrations of corporate life.

The blog may change based on where I see things going or depending if I get any feedback at all.

A like a bit of a debate so will also engage in discussion on whatever subject anyone cares to raise.

I’m going to start off small and then go in whatever direction feels appropriate.

So, where to start…

David Miliband and the terrorists
I listened to the latest edition of Great Lives the other day (a Radio 4 programme presented by Matthew Parris) in which David Miliband was making the case for Joe Slovo, “a leading member of the African National Congress and the first housing minister in Nelson Mandela's government” [quote from the BBC website]. I thought it was a very thoughtful discussion and raised some very interesting philosophical points, particularly relating to the use of force to achieve a political aim (in this case, the overthrow of the South African apartheid regime).

William Hague has condemned David Miliband for saying in the program that there are some situations where terrorism is justified. In response to William Hague’s comments the Today programme (Radio 4, 17/8/2009) hosted a brief debate between Sir Menzies Campbell and Andy Hull from the Institute of Public Policy and Research, both of which argued that there is no justification for terrorism.

I was disappointed by this furore for two reasons. Firstly, it is seldom we hear leading politicians being entirely open and honest about what they think or believe in so I thought it was brave of David Miliband to nominate Joe Slovo as his Great Life and then to show understanding for the methods he used in the fight against apartheid. I would like to hear more politicians open up and express themselves freely without other politicians (such as William Hague) being so quick to pass judgement for political gain. It is just such cheap point scoring that closes down debate, causing politicians to be guarded in all responses and that makes kings of spin doctors. Let’s have more openness and honesty in public debate.

The second reason for my disappointment was the narrowness of the debate presented by Radio 4 in response. In the Great Lives programme, Joe Slovo’s daughter challenged Matthew Parris to describe “terrorism”. Matthew Parris answered that terrorism was the use of violence to pursue political ends but failed to answer the subsequent question of whether, therefore, the invasion of Iraq by the U.S.A. was an act of terrorism (and I would offer the recent Israeli incursion and bombing of Palestinian territory as a similar question).

In constraining the debate to the emotionally loaded question of whether terrorism is justified or not the BBC patronises its audience and produces obvious and easy answers. What reasonable person would argue that terrorism is justified? If the question of whether force is sometimes justified to achieve a political outcome was asked, the answers and debate would be much more informative and interesting.

The use of the word terrorism loads a debate and is unhelpful in deciding whether force is justified. It seems to me that the contemporary description of terrorism relies on the level of resource available to the perpetrator. So if you have the funds to support a huge army equipped with cutting edge weapons and nuclear arms, then your use of force is justified; if, on the other hand, your funds are short and you have to rely on home made devices, guerrilla tactics and whatever you can get your hands on, then you are a terrorist.

When the big boy in the playground steals sweets, his means are justified; when the small boy fights back, he is a terrorist!