Defining Terrorism

¶ … Terrorism

Gray, Jacqueline M. And Margaret A. Wilson. "Understanding the 'War on Terrorism': Responses to 11 September 2001." In Journal of Peace Research, 43:1 (January 2006).

The present article discusses the issue of terrorism as seen in the perspective of the 9/11 attacks. More precisely however, it represents an interpretation of the way in which people assessed the response to these attacks.

Terrorism is seen as a means of communication. While terrorists try to communicate with the legitimate decision makers in the state, the government, the ones responding are in a first instance the audience around the world. However, the messages sent across by the government are different and they transmit various ideas of punishment. In this sense, Gray and Wilson present the retributive and utilitarian philosophies of punishment. While the former considers punishment to be enforced at the same level as the acts committed, without any consideration for rehabilitation, the latter focuses on the potential wider outcome of the punishment, without attracting necessarily the adequate punishment but in line with potential benefic results of the punishment.

These two perspectives give way to potential messages to be transmitted and to ways in which the war on terrorism can be conducted. Thus, utilitarian theory may suggest dealing with the causes of terrorism, rather than with the actual events. This in turn determines several messages, one of the most important being that of deterrence. More precisely, when dealing with the causes rather than with the effects of terrorism, a message of deterrence is transmitted. As presented by the authors, the certainty of punishment is more important than the severity of the punishment. This acts as a deterrent and therefore has more possibility of utility for the case at hand. Finally, another message that can be transmitted is related to the issue of punishment. Yet, should the group consider this punishment unjust, deterrence is not achieved.

The main scope of the article however is the way in which people interpret the war on terrorism. The study was made on university students, aged from 20 to 49. The nationalities varied; however, the majority was European. The study was based on an interview system and it was developed after the 9/11 attacks. The eventual results pointed out that deterrence means were to be used, under the form of diplomatic responses. Thus, one of the first means to respond to terrorism was through diplomatic channels with states that supported terrorism. In this sense, the message sent across was that terrorism cannot be tolerated. Also associated with diplomatic means was the revenge response; finally, the least diplomatic message was that of actually eliminating terrorism.

Another result found through the study was related to the issue of negotiation. Still a diplomatic means, it pointed out a deterrence aim. It showed again that terrorism must not be tolerated.

The application of economic sanctions, as yet another action envisaged, bared the same message of lack of tolerance for terrorism and revenge. The military action against terrorism point out to the same principle of lack of tolerance for terrorism and punishment, still it does not point out to deterrence or elimination of terrorism.

An important result of the tests performed was related to weapons of mass destruction. More precisely, it is mentioned in the results that actions against WMDs conveys the message of revenge, rather than anything else.