TERRORISM: from a major Sunday newspaper in Athens Greece

"Four top analysts pose questions and give answers to the phenomenon of armed violence, x-raying terrorism"

21 July, 2002: Eleftherotypia (An Athens newspaper)

By Danny Vergou (Translated By Alexandra Vassiliou And Tina Ligdopoulou)

Are terrorists mad, insane, insufficient? How come the one you call a terrorist, I call a freedom fighter? And how is that particular phenomenon - terrorism - born, when and why? What have we been taught so far through history? Which are the strategies to combat it? And what are the profile and the psychology of a terrorist?

Four top analysts of terrorism issues pose questions and analyze this phenomenon for "K.E."("K.E." - Sunday's Eleftherotypia (the latter being the title of the newspaper). . "Terrorism is a logical strategy of anger and weakness," says Bruce Bueno de Meskita, a top analyst, activist and an honorary member of the 'Institute for War, Revolution and Peace' in Washington.

"Terrorists form the extreme expression of a group of people, being dissatisfied with the policies of their own or other governments, their voices being too weak to be heard, too improvising and too incompetent to bring change if they choose to turn to normal and civilized political means. If those people gather themselves into a core of fanatics, ready to give their lives away for their cause, no matter how justified or not this cause may be, they then get power and a voice. This is the charming side of terrorism - its users are getting heard. This voice gives shelter to the continuous use of terror as a strategy in the political becoming."

He [Bueno de Meskita] is very clear: "Terrorists are neither mad, insane nor insufficient. If we fail to understand the reason why some people, who appear to be normal in many instances, end up undertaking actions of indescribable violence and terror, we will never manage to replace terror with civilization and democracy."

"Terrorists want to make the public opinion take responsibility for social change," says the internationally renowned psychotherapist, crisis management counselor and author Arnold Mindell.

"Their aim is to stop us from escaping our social consciousness, emphasizing the fact that the world is a theater in which each one of us is interpreting a specific role, whether we like it or not. Even standing and watching passively means that we accept the status quo. Terrorism becomes a times spirit when there is a need for social change that is blocked."

I realize that the need to behave as a 'terrorist' is born within me when I feel that the powers comprising the status quo are conscious of the need for social change and yet are blocking it, as they are afraid of being denied. In those moments of anger I understand the aim of the terrorists - "to wake up those in power and make them understand the need for social change".

"How many are those people today who understand both sides of the strife, Palestinians and Israel, since representatives of both sides have chosen for more than half a century to commit acts of terror and at the same time have sought to sensitize and explain to the rest of the world the causes driving them into such actions?" wonders Bruce de Meskita.

"To say that the one you call a terrorist I call a freedom fighter would be an oversimplification. We have to be clear about the differentiation between those using extreme tactics as terrorism against repressive regimes and those who use the same ways against regimes supporting and encouraging civilized societies and especially the free exchange of ideas."

Arnold Mindell says "illicit use of rank and social position gives space to the emergence of terrorism". By the term social position he refers to the "social or personal rank being constructed by upbringing, education, social acceptance, psychology and spiritual rank." Social position can be earned or inherited. Furthermore, one may or may not have awareness of his position. In few words, social position is the "sum of a person's privileges", the latter being psychological, educational, social, racist, sexual, spiritual and based on sex or social class. The desire for revenge, instigating terrorism, would not exist "if we all had consciousness of our position and social rank."

"Some groups end up in terrorism against oppressors because there is no other way available to them" explains de Meskita. "Although we can condemn the means they choose, at the same time we can understand the virtues of their aim. Citizen of such societies, with governments that do not hesitate to imprison or even kill the ones who disagree with them, they surely cannot hope that the situation will improve if they restrict their reaction within legal means and civilized expression."

The problem

"The problem with terrorism as an action plan is that while you insist in saying 'wake up', too much is destroyed and with great disrespect towards human life" he says. "In few words, through terrorism the oppressed becomes an oppressor. We know that two mistakes make one right, but the most important is the fact that nothing changes."

Mindell explains that the act of terrorism goes beyond the limits and becomes itself a problem. In other words, unconsciously they misuse their power in order to point out the unconscious abuse of rank. "We (the victims of terrorism) are hurt by the hidden negativity of terrorists. We feel hidden messages, even though we don't see them or hear them. This is what makes us being afraid of people and situations without knowing why. And one way or another, people who are scared are the most inappropriate to change things."

Tendencies in terrorism

In this way, terrorism manages to do harm to itself as a means of social change. And, although it does manage to persuade the public opinion, it does this in such a way that it creates a competitive atmosphere towards any social change. Neither anger, nor fear rising from terrorism help to create the appropriate atmosphere in order to support, lead and maintain change. This reminds me of an old saying "something changed without the will of mind has still the same opinion".

"Moving at the margin of civilized behavior, terrorists are commercializing violence and threat in order to achieve their political or religious targets," says James H. Anderson, director of the International Affairs Institute and professor of the James Madison University in Washington on issues of Terrorism and Political Violence.

"They may have in their hands some political or diplomatic material, while they are encouraged or even financed from native donors, emigrant societies or even the state itself.

They may carry out actions of crime - although it is not their aim perhaps, but a medium. Brazilian terrorist Carlos Maringela encouraged robberies as a means of supporting terrorist action. Various groups, differing significantly from each other, like IRA in Northern Ireland, Kurdish Labor Party in Middle East and the Tamil Eelam Tigers in Sri Lanka have gathered money for terrorist purposes through different crime activities. Terrorists use violence in order to gather greater political power. When they are arrested and led into court, instinctively turn their trials into political theatre."

Professor Markus Corbin, a top, special analyst on issues of terrorism in the 'Center for Defense International' of the Pentagon, in which he has been working for the last 40 years, names the war declared by the terrorists as an "asymmetrical conflict". "Unequal conflicts created by groups driven by ideology, revenge, thirst for power, nationalism, religious dedication or some other bond that keeps them together, are often related with - or supported from - regular military forces. At the end of the 20th century things were not like this. In reality they are reactionary tendencies. There are many small groups or very loose group networks which instigate terror, threatening or attacking civilian population and structures. This is what I call an asymmetrical form of conflict. Some enjoy the support, asylum or encouragement from governments, while others - at least - seem to act with little or no support."

"The target of most terrorist groups is to overthrow governments. Some government supporters though, are defending the existing political situation," says J. Anderson. "This differentiation has become the cause for conflict between ideologically oppositional terrorist groups, like Northern Ireland and Colombia (where AUC opposes FARC).

Negotiation

"When - if ever - is logical for the authorities to negotiate with terrorists?" is De Meskita wondering. "It is wrong to suggest that all terrorist groups are the same. There are those fighting against an oppressive regime repressing the right of its citizen for expression and those who fight against a government encouraging and supporting those liberties. Often though we tend to overpass another, more subtle differentiation: the first group consists of the 'warlike terrorists', who chase their targets with fixation without being interested in reconciliation and concessions. The second group consists of the 'rational terrorists' - as oxymoron it may sound -wishing to bring their real or their own (translators note : The Greek word doesn't make any sense in Greek and therefore it's difficult even to imagine what was initially meant in the English original) target in the attention of others. They are asking for understanding and hope in concessions; they may accept a compromise in anger and minimize their reaction, as they have not become unscrupulous in their quest for winning. Persons who chose terrorism do so because they believe they will not get heard otherwise, that they will get ignored if they use legal ways for negotiation.

Repealing Terrorism

"Two great strategists - Shoun Jou in antiquity and John Boyd at the present - have explained how to fight and win in asymmetrical conflicts" explains M. Corbin. "Their tactics have focused on spiritual breaking off, opponent's detuning and confusion, restricting thus the need for an actual fight.

Simplifying the ideas of the two strategists, to win an asymmetrical fight you have to:

Understand that military power is not the only or necessary way to accomplish a mission. Excessive or wrong use of violence can result to the opposite and nourish the seeds of future conflicts.
Attract allies at your side, taking them from the opponent.
Concentrate on two complementary issues: create 'harmony' and cohesion at your side and cultivate chaos and paralysis at the opponent's side.
Enclose successively the opponent with doubt, deceit, surprise attacks, isolation and threat, using diverse methods. Move faster than the opponent can handle, alternating the expected with the unexpected and the orthodox with the unorthodox, undertaking distracting actions.
Understand that success and conflict are depended mainly on people and ideas' continuity and less on equipment.
Your power - the group - has to be agile, flexible, cohesive and cooperative on all levels, to renew itself and get trained through continuous education and more than anything to have good leadership."

Motives-organization

"All terrorist groups have some hierarchy," says Anderson. "Leaders can be very important: a leader's arrest or death can leave a group disabled, like it happened with the case of 'Sendero Luminoso' in Peru, after the discovery of Abimael Guzman Rainoso, in September of 1992. Guzman was succeeded by the regional chief of staff Oscar Alberto Ramirez Durant (known as Feliciano), who in his turn got arrested from the governmental authorities in July 1999. Neither Durant, nor his successor, Filomeno Seron Cardozo (known as Artemio) has managed to divert the group's destructive course.

Terrorist groups being based on loose networks (their members being scattered) have significant advantages. Subgroups have the freedom to take initiatives, either using situations not planned beforehand or occasional targets, something allowing the hierarchy's top to encourage terrorist action on the one hand and to disclaim all responsibility on the other hand."

The Future

"How long a group will live depends on its adaptive abilities", explains J. Anderson. "A group survives if it manages to adapt to the changing situations without abandoning its ideological principles. A failure to adapt can and has led in the past to groups' solution. It has happened in the case of the German RAF, which in the 20th of April 1998 announced that 'urban battles belong to our history', since its attempt for adjustment during the 90s has not been realistic". In Peru Marxist-Leninist Tupac Amaru (MTRA) died-off in the margins, after the dramatic take over of the Japanese embassy, which was followed by a police attack resulting at the death of its leader, Nestor Cerpa. Imprisonment of its cadres has pushed it to the margins.

What is the Future of Terrorism?

"Terrorists have historically used a wide variety of mediums: from guns and rockets to deadly toxins, biological mediums, while bombs remain the most popular tactic for attack. Access of those groups to massive destruction weapons consists a threat. Some organizations appear to be much more cautious in causing massive accidents than others do, such as the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo ('Supreme Truth'), a big organization of prophetic-apocalyptic ideology, which has attempted massive attacks. This is certainly not the last one. Obviously the people of Bin Laden have been trained in chemical or biological mediums for attacks", Anderson explains. "At this moment the most dangerous groups are those combining vast financial resources with prophetic or nihilist ideologies, like Osama Bin Laden's network and Aum Shinrikyo."