State Terrorism, Democracy & the United States

Introduction

Shortly after the removal of the gold standard, President Nixon’s Secretary of Treasury, John B. Connally, expressed his views concerning other countries and potential adversaries by claiming that the world only intends to harm the United States, in his words: “Foreigners are out to screw us, and therefore, it’s our job to screw them first” (Rowen, 1993).¹ Only two years later, on September 11, 1973, the military coup in Chile that overthrew Salvador Allende’s democratic government, resulted in the rise of Pinochet’s dreadful regime, a day that came to be remembered as the first 9/11. Behind the coup was the invisible hand of the United States. It seems, however, that such fate awaits all nations and leaders who “pursue a policy of independent development along lines disliked by Washington” (Chomsky, 2017).² Nothing is surprising about the fact that most states try to use all the tools available to maximise any opportunity they acquire and, equally, to minimise any risks that could tarnish their reputation or diminish their influence. States have been trying to gain more power and influence throughout history by employing different methods and tactics depending on the period and effectiveness of those methods.

Not too long ago, the strategy of choice most states went with was, of course, traditional armed warfare. Now, in the modern days, as the concept of going to war does not enjoy the same level of popularity, states have to be inventive and come up with new ways of reaching their aims, whether that is foreign policy goals or demonise their enemies in the eyes of their populations so that they can ensure longer lasting support from them.

Just by briefly looking at a few moments in the history of military interventions and campaigns conducted by the United States and other powerful nations alike, we begin to see an emerging pattern which, some might argue, resembles terrorist tactics. At an international level, a global hegemon with pronounced neorealist views of the world could mean that other states might have to endure more suffering than others. While international law accounts for many of these potential risks, powerful states have found many ways to overcome these and subsequently avoided having their actions categorised as terrorists.

This essay will outline the importance of including states that engage in terrorism in the category of terrorist actors. However, this is covered by international law as there are many ways by which states can bypass these laws. It will do so by presenting the reality of how states leverage international law to their advantage so that they can carry out acts that involve torture, bombings, and coups to further their agendas and advance their foreign policy goals. The essay will first look at what state terrorism is and why it is absent from much of the academic literature. It will then provide an overview of the existing international laws designed to prevent state terrorism, analyse their effectiveness, and offer current examples of state-sponsored terrorism and its effects.

The Dynamic Evolution of Terrorism

Academia has faced for a very long time the challenge of defining terrorism. Its quick evolution means that our understanding of it changes from one context to another and equally from one perspective to another. Wardlaw (1989) further confirms this by stating that it is challenging to find one definition which is precise enough but also meaningful, which makes it difficult for a consensus to exist. “Normal” terrorism (for lack of a better word) is defined generally as a threat or an attempt to engage in violence against a higher authority to generate anxiety and make the opposition give in to the terrorist’s demands.³ By doing so, the terrorist group makes a statement and brings attention to their cause. 

This definition in and of itself provides an understanding of what terrorism is from the non-state terrorist actor’s perspective in such a way that it is difficult to imagine a state actor thought of as such. However, states’ behaviour can be equally, if not more destructive than a group can due to their higher capacity to access resources, funding, and eventual legitimation of such acts through their influence and ability to control public opinion. 

Now, sometimes, states might choose to engage in state terrorism for various purposes, whether asserting their dominance over the countries they patronise or because of an opportunity that needs to be seized, as losing it could give an advantage to the enemy. However, these actions are often granted a pardon due to a noble goal being present, such as defending democracy, while other times because of a lack of enforcement of international law. Nixon’s National Security Council concluded that “if the United States could not control Latin America, it could not expect ‘to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world’”, undermining their credibility in the international arena (Chomsky, 2017).  

Understanding State Terrorism

What should be considered state terrorism then? Scholarly literature on terrorist studies, which traditionally focused only on “orthodox terrorism”, omitted many types of terrorist acts committed by the state if a strong enough justification was present. However, with time, academia, mainstream policy and the media have become more and more critical of some states’ actions, even if it is their own. Whether a current event that certain powerful states try to keep away from the eye of the public or a past event that resurfaced where the same state was involved in questionable military or political practices, many critics have stated that their operations and the subsequent consequences fall under the definition of state terrorism, which refers to “threats or acts of violence carried out by representatives of the state against civilians to instil fear for political purposes” (Blakeley, 2007, p.228).⁴

Following the United Nations General Assembly resolution 39/46, The Office of The High Commissioner of Human Rights (1984) has adopted the ‘Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’, which to this day is one of the most important tools used against fighting state terrorism. The document outlines clearly what is considered to be torture and what responsibilities each state has about ensuring torture falls under its criminal law. In a few words, torture is considered to be any means by which physical or mental pain and suffering are inflicted on purpose on a person to obtain information or a confession.” ⁵ 

Still, despite all the international legislative efforts to reduce the usage of terror, many states manage to take advantage of these methods and get away with it quite easily. According to Brown (1997), state-sponsored terrorism represents “a manifestation of the inherent limitation of international law, which arises when an attempt is made to regulate a political problem within a framework which gives pre-eminence to “positive” international law,” concluding that “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Brown, 1997, p.167).⁶ This statement coincides with Chomsky’s thoughts on the importance of international bodies, by stating that “if an international organisation does not serve the interests that govern US policy, there is little reason to allow it to survive” (Chomsky, 2015, p.4), proving the fact that being a supranational entity does not always translate into having the power and influence of a hegemonic state.⁷

The State as Terrorist and Defender of Democracy

Having defined what state terrorism and torture are, it is worth looking deeper into the issue of why state terrorism is omitted from literature, what are some causes for this and how this can be addressed. To highlight the discrepancy between the effects of a state’s actions and how the state perceives these, Chomsky (2017) points out the difference between the two types of intellectuals when categorising historical events and terrorist acts, respectively. One category is the intellectuals who “line up enthusiastically in support of their own states” (Chomsky, 2017, p.6), while the others are “value-oriented intellectuals” (Chomsky, 2017, p.8), the former being supportive of any initiative and movement of their country, bringing up arguments and evidence to why their state has all the justification for doing what they were doing, while the latter criticise unfairness, injustice and the misconduct of their states based on moral principles. Chomsky further criticises this by showing the historical pattern of intellectuals who served their states ended up being praised, while the value-oriented intellectuals became enemies of the state, some of whom got punished for questioning their state for entering a war or for showing disregard for human rights.

History has shown us that oppressive state regimes which engaged more in terrorist practices, whether against its people or other states, have not been remembered for particularly good reasons nor have they survived for extended periods. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany serve as a good example, as both had similar approaches to how they carried out their international affairs and the treatment their populations received, which resulted in a similar outcome, namely their dissolution. This has led to a consensus that only oppressive and authoritarian regimes are capable of carrying out their goals through such means and that in liberal democracies this would never be possible. However, Wilkinson (1981) argues that even democracies consider the use of terror in certain situations justified only if it is against “tyrannical or oppressive regimes.”⁸ But in such an instance, can the democratic state still think of itself as different from the authoritarian state? Despite their ways, many democratic states still try to avoid the debate as they think their cause is more entitled to the use of such methods, however, they pay no attention to the morality of their actions, such as killing civilians or state-sponsored terrorism.

The constant avoidance of many individuals and institutions alike has led to a new way of thinking about the behaviour of states and the fairness of persecuting people for simply questioning things such as the moral grounds on which wars break out. Blakely (2007) outlines in her paper “Bringing the State Back into Terrorism Studies” the main reasons for the absence of state terrorism in academia and advocates for new approaches, aiming to reduce this bias and provide a new way of observing these issues. 

Why is State Terrorism Omitted?

Typically, terrorism studies have focused on finding a solution to a problem, the problem always being why terrorism emerges, why it happens in particular parts of the world and how its devastating effects can be reduced. However, as Blakeley (2007) argues, taking a purely problem-solving approach can lead to a lack of understanding when it comes to how certain institutions operate and what terrorism is beyond the borders of their state. This is called methodological bias, or failing to see terrorism from the perspective of the destruction caused and trying to seek solutions and focusing instead on convincing the population to believe in one way of viewing an issue, namely the “actors seen as antithetical to US interests” (Blakeley, 2007, p.230).

As seen in the example of the United States, well known for its strong neorealist views of the international scene, it is clear that employing such a view of the world leads to the belief that responding to terrorism with the same methods as the terrorists, can never be considered terrorism. However, more often than not, counter-terrorist measures can quickly turn into terrorism. As pointed out in multiple sources, the United States has turned many incidents into opportunities to further its foreign policy objectives by any means possible, either by using the ‘terrorist’ label to its advantage by making certain groups lose their legitimacy (Blakeley, 2007, p.230), while in other cases even involving the use of torture, policies of rendition, support of dictatorial regimes, and even starting wars (Stohl, 2015).⁹

Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, any doubts the United States might have had regarding their national doctrine were now gone. Given the severity of the situation and the urgency for answers, many government officials were trying to find a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. In 2002, the Bush administration authorised the use of “alternative” interrogation methods under the supervision of Dick Cheney, who was Vice President at the time. A CNN report from 2009 brings to light the fact that these new interrogation tactics had as their main purpose building the Iraq war case and they involved “the illegal torture of prisoners in U.S. custody.”¹⁰ However, this is not something new, given that US policymakers have been changing the way policies and strategies work since the 1950s, effectively allowing them to engage in practices considered unacceptable behaviour justifications (Stohl, 2015, p.3).

It is equally relevant to bring academia into the discussion. As previously mentioned, intellectuals can serve a dual role from the state’s perspective, either by approving its actions or criticising them for being unethical. People in academia or policymaking may choose to display terrorism to the public in the way preferred by their government, as many of the institutions they work with and for are funded and sponsored by the state itself. Even if that were not the case, Burnett and Whyte (2005) argue that experts who are part of institutions and academic publications dealing with researching terrorism can have a powerful influence on their audiences due to their level of expertise and connections.¹¹

However, despite the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, many would still find it difficult to criticise the state’s actions, even when they could be questionable. These factors, combined with the knowledge of what a particular state or government wants, may generate an unwillingness to investigate further the bias created by institutions and could impact the general perception that people have of terrorism as a concept. Limiting people’s understanding of what state terrorism is and choosing not to consider it terrorist even when acting like one, which means promoting a falsehood in academia and displaying only one side of the issue, may eventually lead to a lack of trust in the state and the democratic system itself.

Including States in the Category of Terrorist Actors

With a deeper understanding of what state terrorism involves, the international laws surrounding it, and the methods used by states to avoid such laws, it may be worth looking deeper into the question of categorisation and if this type of approach may bring anything to the table, as doing so might shed light on the existence possible alternatives to categorising. 

Choosing to include states on the list of terrorist actors has potential benefits, as doing so will increase the likelihood that a state will care more about their public and international image. Simply because they cannot be thought of as such, allows them to engage in activities that are terrorist, but without the associated stigma. This could incentivise states to think twice before taking a course of action, as acting impulsively and responding with violence without a second thought will have a greater negative impact. Stohl (2015) argues in the introduction of his paper that although the aftermath of September 11, 2001, changed history forever, it is equally, if not more important how the US government responded to it. If the United States had to consider the prospect of being labelled as a terrorist state, there is a high chance it might have taken a different course of action, possibly avoiding the Iraq war.

Another crucial aspect observed was that international organisations have a crucial mission in ensuring that humanitarian causes are respected and followed by all states who enter these agreements, however, it is clear that stronger enforcement is needed at times. If states feel like there will be no repercussions following their unethical tactics, there is no incentive to find alternative solutions, hence why stricter regulations and penalties might be useful when it comes to international agreements, treaties and organisations. Having stricter methods of implementing these laws at a global level means coming up with new ways of thinking about state sovereignty and also ensuring that states do recognize and accept the presence of a higher and stronger authority above them, effectively changing the neorealist view most states today have of the international system. With significant changes will come other challenges such as states rejecting these ideas and not willing to participate at all, however, by pointing out the benefits of having such a system, a paradigm shift will be possible.

Conclusions

This essay has analysed and compared the definitions of terrorism and state terrorism respectively, examined the existing international law system and its effectiveness concerning keeping states’ behaviour in check and went over the importance of not omitting state terrorism from terrorism as a field of study. With these points, the essay has explored how certain states take advantage of certain opportunities by choosing to engage in violence and avoid criticism by offering a plausible justification to the international community. 

States are powerful entities with plentiful resources which are oftentimes very determined to achieve their goals and standing in the way of that could have devastating consequences for other states, international institutions and non-state actors alike. This, however, does not mean that all states should or choose to take action in a chaotic and destructive manner, but instead focus on keeping each other accountable for their actions, as this fosters an international peace environment and a world with less violence. 

Looking at the United States from an unbiased perspective, it becomes clear how a state, even if democratic, can engage in state terrorism to advance its objectives. And given the power and resources the US has access to, any sign of opposition or resistance coming from the regions of geopolitical interest, such as Latin America, could translate into long-term suffering and unwanted violence. If the international community does indeed look up to the United States as the role model for democracy, freedom, and justice, the US must be judged not just based on its virtues and integrity but also its dishonesty and ethics. Not doing so means considering the less powerful states as insignificant and irrelevant, which makes violence against them permissible and tolerable. International institutions have the power to overcome this challenge and not allow exceptions to be made based on a state’s military power, financial capabilities or geographical size. 

It is important to at least consider the possibility of a state engaging in terrorist behaviour, as not doing so could easily turn into a slippery slope all states will use as a discreet way to further their agendas and foreign policy goals, eventually transforming the global stage into a large anarchic sandbox. State terrorism presents a threat to global security and every state must treat this challenge with importance, by ensuring they are aware of the disastrous effects of state terrorism and by raising awareness. Violence, especially when caused by a state, leaves scars on a nation’s people and memory, which could later on give birth to more violence under one form: terrorism. 

References / Notes

1. Rowen, H. (1993) ‘‘Big John’, The Comeback Kid’, Washington Post, 17 June. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/06/17/big-john-the-comeback-kid/10c7cabf-f53f-4b4a-8adc-9d4fa9e117b3/
2. Chomsky, N. (2017), Who Rules the World? 2nd edn. Penguin Books: London.
3. Wardlaw, G. (1989) Political Terrorism: Theory, tactics, and counter-measures. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Blakeley, R. (2007), ‘Bringing the State Back into Terrorism Studies’, European Political Science, 6, pp. 228-235.
5. OHCHR. (1984) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-against-torture-and-other-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading
6. Brown, A. (1997), ‘Hard Cases Make Bad Laws: An Analysis of State-Sponsored Terrorism and its Regulation Under International Law’, Journal of Armed Conflict Law, 2(2), pp. 135-176.
7. Chomsky, N. (2015), Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs. 3rd edn. Haymarket Books: Chicago.
8. Wilkinson, P. (1981), ‘Can a State be ‘Terrorist’?’, International Affairs, 57(3), pp.467-472.
9. Stohl, M. (2015), ‘The Global War on Terrorism and State Terror’, Terrorism and Political Violence, London: Sage.
10. Smith, M. (2009) ‘Powell aide says torture helped build Iraq war case’, CNN, 11 June. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/index.html
11. Burnett, J. and Whyte, D. (2005) ‘Embedded expertise and the new terrorism’, Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media, 1(4), pp. 1–18.