Terrorism & Biology:
The Reciprocal Signalling Cascade Between State and Non-State Actors
By Paul A. Hamel
A discussion paper for the Pugwash
Conference, Seoul, Korea October 2004
The intent of this paper
is i) to reclaim the language used in “terrorism” discourse in order
that terrorism on a global scale be resituated as an activity carried out
predominantly by State actors and ii) to illustrate that a reciprocal
relationship exists between State actors and non-State actors in maintaining
the justification of the massive terrorist methods by the State.
The Lexicon of Terrorism.
Terrorism and the
so-called “War on Terror” have come to dominate the media and have had profound
impacts on legislation, governance, policing and security measures around the
world. As articulated by scholars such as Michael Ignatieff,
the dominant representation of terrorism follows from one early usage in which
a terrorist is “a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to
coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its
subjects.”
This usage, exemplified in Ignatieff’s article, precludes State activities as
“terrorist” in nature (although he allows for human right violations by states)
and further de-legitimizes violent resistance to state “terrorism”. Returning
to Ignatieff in his talk based on his Giffford lectures, for example , he
states: “A terrorist targets non-combatant civilians to achieve a political
goal. Those who undertake political actions that target civilians are
terrorists.” In his analysis referring to Palestinian-Israel conflict, he does
not drift beyond the notion that terrorists are a Palestinian phenomenon. So,
as he states “Israeli defense forces defending small clusters of civilians in
places where the only possibility, once you’ve put those settlers in, is
endless conflict, human rights violations, death, and horror -- I still believe
that settlers are entitled to the Geneva Convention protections on civilian
immunity,”. And while he grants the possibility that the violence of armed
“settlers” may preclude them from protection as civilians, they are never
refereed to as terrorists. However, more fundamentally, the military forces in
the occupied territories responsible for the violent maintenance and expansion
of the occupation are not referred to in the context of terrorism.
It is the latter aspect
that requires a fundamental shift in discussion, specifically, the notion that
State actors/forces are principally responsible for terrorism. Returning to
Ignatieff’s usage that “A terrorist targets non-combatant civilians to achieve
a political goal.” This point is consistent with the Oxford Dictionary’s
generalized articulation “Terrorism: 2. gen.
A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the
employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of
being terrorized.” So, considering Gaza and the West Bank, data reveals that
the most vulnerable population in those regions, children, have been subject to
a disproportionate level of violence
. Importantly, murder of children in homes and during school by Israeli
military forces in the documented absence of open conflict represent a profound
method of terrorizing the Palestinian population. The psychological effects on
Palestinian children and women of these policies have been well documented,
and point to the long term societal consequences of such terrorist activities .
Projecting the use terror
by (State) actors with overwhelming access to force leads one to reconsider the
use of “terrorism” as being an activity used principally on a global scale by
States. These large-scale “methods of intimidation” and “polic[ies] intended to
strike with terror” have been well documented. Adopting the system worked out
in South East Asia by the U.S., to which I will return, the military
dictatorships which ruled Guatemala after the overthrow in 1956 of the
democratically elected Arbenz government, conducted a massive campaign of
oppression against the rural population in that country. As documented in
detail in the Historical Clarification Commission Report, a systematic policy
of disappearances, torture and destruction of entire villages was used to
suppress any democratic aspirations or even the human rights of the (mostly)
indigenous population. Over 200,000 persons were identified as having been
disappeared or murdered, 93% by the Guatemalan military or their associated
paramilitary forces. As was usual throughout Latin America during this period,
bodies of those tortured and murdered were often purposefully returned to their
communities in order to further terrorize the living population. Guatemala is
further illustrative of the overwhelming and disproportionate level of violence
available to the State in order to terrorize the population.
The Apartheid system in
South Africa represents a variation of the means of terrorism at the disposal
of States. Here a social structure was imposed resulting in the intimidation of
30 million South Africans by the “elected” white-only South African Government,
the latter derived from a minority population of less than 5 million white
South Africans. It was clearly manifested by overt and covert military and
paramilitary means and designed specifically to intimidate the majority
population to achieve and maintain political, economic, military and cultural
dominance. “Apartheid government” rather than some variation of “Terrorist
regime” was almost universally applied to the white South African Government.
In contrast, the considerably weaker forces attempting to overthrow this
regime, such as the African National Congress and the Pan African Congress,
were deemed terrorist entities. Indeed, that the government of South Africa
also instituted a system of occupation and intimidation in neighboring Namibia
(formally South-West Africa) as well as coordinating, supplying and
participating in an irregular war against the elected Angolan government did
not elicit the term “terrorist” for the South African government or its
activities.
As is well known, similar
conditions to those outlined for Guatemala have been regular fare throughout
Latin America for several centuries, the 1960 to 1990’s representing one
particular crescendo in an overall state of terrorism. These examples of
“internal State terrorism” are, however, typically described in the context of
oppression, military dictatorships and human rights violations. The operational
definition of terrorism is, however, not applied to the State actors in the
mainstream description of these systems of overt, coercive violence. Similarly,
“external State terrorism” accounts for a body count orders of magnitude
greater than the terrorism inflicted by “extreme revolutionary groups”. So, for
example, coincident with the methods applied in Guatemala, the people of
Vietnam were intimidated on a massive scale by the overwhelming force applied
by an external state actor, the United States. Terrorizing of the rural
population in order to coerce them to “migrate” to “safe centres” was
systematically instituted. Both ground forces and air forces, massively
equipped with sophisticated military means of violence, routinely terrorized an
essentially undefended population. These actions produced an extreme ratio of
deaths, relative even to that in Guatemala; where more than 2 million Vietnamese
were killed compared to the 58,000 personnel in the US forces. Despite the massive
use of force coercing and intimidating the people of Vietnam, no US military
personnel let alone administration officials, have been referred to as
“terrorists”. Yet, as well documented, the methods employed by these forces
were, in fact, a massive application of the methods of terrorism.
While, methods of suppression
of acknowledgement and discussion of large-scale State terrorist activities is
beyond the scope of this paper, previous examples provide some elements which
will serve an introduction to the relationship between State and non-/State
terrorism. Hermann Goering alluded to this clearly during the Nuremberg Trials
in an off-the-record statement where he said:
“But after all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a
communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Naomi Klein in a recent
article in the Guardian Weekly
pursued this notion when she called the current methods of State terrorism by
the US (Bush) and Russian (Putin) Administrations the “Likudisation of the
world”, referring to the tactics of Ariel Sharon of Israel. Following from the
“Goering’s Doctrine” in which the starting point is that Palestinians “are
actually only interested in the annihilation of Israel”, it follows that all
acts by the State are in self-defense and opposition to State methods makes one
an enemy also. Use of this doctrine conveniently absolves these States, who
each employ overwhelming military power, of the application of the term
“terrorism” to their activities despite the demonstrable coercive effects and
intimidation on the target populations.
Reciprocal Signalling Cascades and
Terrorism
I have attempted above to
develop the notion that discourse on terrorism does not remotely reflect the
global nature of these coercive activities and their usage as primarily a State
activity. From the last examples in the previous section, I wish to pursue a
mechanism which usefully describes the need for non-State terrorists for the
manifestation of the considerably more violent (in terms of scale) State
terrorism.
In this
model, I propose that a reciprocal relationship exists between State and
non-State actors in manifesting their own “brands” of terrorism. Specifically,
I propose that overwhelming, massive State terrorism is dependent on the
relatively small scale terrorism perpetrated by non-State actors. This
State-directed terrorism further provides the impetus for recruitment to and
operations of small-scale non-State terrorist organizations.
I would like to consider,
then, how this reciprocal signalling system can serve as framework to
understand “the War on Terrorism” and restrict my analysis to the US case given
the focus of this workshop. I propose that the inductive signal in the
“terrorist context” originates with State policy. As has been discussed in
detail since the events in New York City on September 11, 2001, an apparent
long term geopolitical goal of the US appears to be control of the resources in
Eurasia. This goal was laid out in considerable detail by former Secretary of
State Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 in his book The Grand Chessboard -
American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives..
Brzezinski points out the massive subterranean wealth of the Eurasia, most of
which remains undeveloped, as well as presence of the largest populations of
the world. In his opinion, control of the exploitation of these resources
relies on the control of specific subregions within Eurasia, specifically a
number of the independent states of the former Soviet Union and, especially,
Afghanistan.
Sticking to theme of this
workshop, I propose that the initial signal originates in series of State-organized
events in 1979 which lead directly to the “War on Terror”. As articulated in
Brzezinski’s analysis described above, the initial “signal” is desire access to
and control of resources in a major part of Asia and mechanistically involves
the destabilization of the principle US adversary, the USSR. As Brzezinski has
articulated, the tools for this destabilization included the organization of an
irregular fighting force meant to draw the Soviet Union into a protracted war
(Russia’s “Vietnam” as Brzezinski suggested to President Carter)
in Afghanistan (note that this strategy was not reactive to the Soviet invasion
but proactive in drawing the Soviet to invade). This force of Muslim
“fundamentalists” became highly trained to operate with the most sophisticated
weaponry supplied by various means from the US. For example, the
US-manufactured mobile “Stinger” missile system was central to this operation,
effectively neutralizing the most important Soviet weapon in the region, their
Hinds helicopter gunship.
Overall, this operation became the most highly funded CIA operation ever
organized. As is well known, this trained group came to dominate Afghanistan.
Importantly, while the leaders of the group supposedly responsible for the 9-11
attacks were not among these US-trained fighters, this region remained a centre
for terrorist activities directed towards the US.
Thus, the organization and
training of these terrorist groups had the benefit i) initially of
destabilizing the Soviet Union and ii) subsequently providing the basis
upon which the US later invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as well as developing
forward military bases in previously inaccessible regions. Borrowing from John
McMurtry’s analysis of the 9-11 wars
where he posits the question of ”who benefits” from the events of 9-11, we
observe that the principle beneficiaries of the terrorist activities
originating in this region and initially organized by the US were US
administrations (Reagan and Bush Jr.). For the latter administration (the
subject of this workshop), the “security state” agenda articulated prior to
2000 Presidential election was in fact implemented. Close examination of this
agenda supports the notion that some sort of precipitating event (a “new Pearl
Harbor”) was considered as mechanism for rapid implementation of this domestic
and foreign policy scheme.
Turning then to the basis of
the misnamed “War On Terrorism”, the tactical aspects were
outlined in a number of reports originating at the Project for the New American
Century (PNAC). Principle among these is “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”.
In the principle conclusion on page IV it states the US should:
“REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to
respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting permanently-based
forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval deployment
patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.”
As members of this group are well aware,
repositioning of these forces has taken place with the introduction of a
number of features also outlined directly in this report. So, for example, the
authors wish to:
“DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL
MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to
provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.”
The
point here is to not detail the list of policy initiatives which have arisen
following the installation of the authors of this report into the
administration of the US government, but rather to discuss how terrorism by
non-state actors propelled these initiatives forward, providing a basis for a
massive State terrorist response. Indeed, the very same document suggests
that:
“the process of transformation, even if
it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Such a catalyzing event occurred in New York City on
the morning of September 11, 2001, a year after the release of the PNAC
report. The results of the horrific attacks in New York were i) a
massive violent response which directly terrorized the populations of
Afghanistan and Iraq, ii) death of more than 10 times as many civilians
as died in New York, and iii) maintenance of both of these countries in
a state of chaos, where viable security and a functioning government are not
possible. Furthermore, these events propelled an otherwise unlikely massive
budget increase for the US military and facilitated the introduction of
“security” legislation (The Patriot Act) that, under normal circumstances,
would never have been seriously considered in the US Congress in the absence of
these events.
While a relatively straightforward task
in the case of Afghanistan, linking Iraq to the terrorist attacks in the US was
the immediate preoccupation of the Bush administration..
Here, then represents the sort of reciprocal signal generated from the attacks
in New York- producing conditions in which the people of the US feel directly
threatened. The well documented shift of public belief that Iraq was
intimately involved in the events of September 11, 2001, despite evidence to
the contrary and now totally discredited, also strongly supports the Goering
“patriotism” doctrine. The routine issuance of terrorist alerts in the US
serves as one of the many obvious mechanisms of terrorizing the population by
the State.
Despite the public predictions of the
invaders being welcomed as liberators, more sober analysis suggested that the
illegal occupation of Iraq, privatization of its assets, and ongoing
terrorization of its population would be met with internal Iraqi resistance.
This condition precisely creates the condition of maintaining the terrorist
activities (occupation) by the State (US) since the insurgency can be presented
as terrorist activities against the “Iraqi liberators” and are easily portrayed
as such given the methods available to the insurgents. To counter these
terrorists, harsher methods by the State actors can now be employed which
further terrorizes the population under occupation. One of these is the
traditional method alluded to above for Guatemala in which individuals are
incarcerated without charge, communication, medical or legal access, tortured
for a period of time and released back into the population. As summarized by
Jim Lobe
and revealed in, for example, the Los Angles Times
and the Guardian,
this system of incarceration currently detains and abuses/tortures thousands
individuals who often return to their communities. This system has the two-fold
effect of terrorizing the population into which these tortured prisoners are released
as well as providing the impetus for retaliation following the incarceration.
Would State actors (terrorists) actually
promote small-scale terrorist activities in order to provide a “signal” for the
massive State reciprocal response? An agency charged with this role has been
revealed in the US. As was reported by William Arkin,
John Pilger
and discussed by the Federation of American Scientists (www.fas.org). The
Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) has the mandate to conduct the
“War on Terror” with “off the book” operations which will incite small
terrorist groups into action. Further supporting the notion that States actors
attempt to incite small-scale terrorist activities, John Pilger also reports
that Bush advisor Condoleezza Rice asked members of the National Security
Council to "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'",
referring to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Thus, I return to the model in which
State actors, conducting large-scale terrorist activities, depend on the
presence of a certain level of terrorism performed on a significantly small
scale (“recreational” or “retail” terrorism). The State then produces a
response which is amplified by orders of magnitude (“wholesale” terrorism)
through State actions. It answers in the affirmative the question posed by the
PNAC “Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable
to American principles and interests?” I propose that the so called “War on
Terrorism” is shaping fundamentally the century along the lines of an
oppressive security state. I suggest further that this “shaping” i)
includes framing the limits of “terrorism” discourse and ii) that the
State benefits from low levels of terrorist activities which, once amplified
through its media system, justifies “wholesale” terrorist activities of the
State but suppresses any notion that these actions are terrorist in nature.