Abstract
Both the RAF and the PIRA claim to be fighting for a just cause and liberation, and against exploitation and colonialism. They also reject the label ‘terrorist’, insisting that they be called ‘urban guerrillas’. However, this work chooses to label both groups terrorist on the grounds that they fail to exhibit the fundamental characteristics of true guerrilla groups. The reason why these groups prefer the label guerrilla is because of the pejorative connotations of the label terrorist. But terrorism has not always been such a pejorative term. Some of the nineteenth century anarchist groups willingly labelled themselves terrorist. According to Rapoport, the last group to call itself terrorist was the Stern Gang which operated in Palestine in the late 1940s,1 and it is from about this time that pejorative connotations enter the definitional debate. The reasons for this lie in the developing global political and ideological divisions, and the growth of ‘national liberation’ movements, which professed to liberate peoples from colonial rule or oppressive political systems. Moves in the United Nations and adjustments to international legislation attempted to raise the status of such national liberation movements, and therein lies much of the reason why groups such as the RAF and the PIRA confer upon themselves the label urban guerrillas.
He who fights for a just cause, he who fights for the liberation of his country, he who fights against invasion and exploitation or single mindedly against colonialism, can never be defined a terrorist.
Yasser Arafat, United Nations General Assembly, 1974
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
D. Rapoport, ‘The Politics of Atrocity’, in Y. Alexander and S. M. Finger (eds), Terrorism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (New York: John Jay Press, 1977) p. 46.
The rider ‘for a political purpose’ excludes the use of fear-inducing violence for personal gain.
T. Honderich, Political Violence (New York: Cornell University Press, 1976) p. 9.
ibid.
P. Wilkinson, Terrorism and the Liberal State, 2nd edn (London: Macmillan, 1986) p. 23.
A. Etzioni, ‘Violence’, in R. K. Merton and R. Nisbet (eds) Contemporary Social Problems, 3rd edn (New York: Harcourt, 1971) p. 712.
E. Van den Haag, Political Violence and Civil Disobedience (New York: Harper and Row, 1972) p. 55.
Wilkinson, op. cit, pp. 23–4.
ibid., p. 54.
ibid., p. 55.
ibid.
M. Crenshaw-Hutchinson, ‘The concept of Revolutionary Terrorism’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol 16 (1972) p. 385.
ibid.
See also T. P. Thornton, ‘Terror as a Weapon of Political Agitation’, in H. Eckstein (ed.) Internal War (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964) pp. 71–99.
Wilkinson, op cit., p. 54, and Thornton, op. cit., p. 81.
W. H. Smith, ‘International Terrorism: A Political Analysis’, in The Yearbook of World Affairs, 1977 (London: Stevens and Smith) vol. 31 (1977) pp. 138–9.
See, for example, A. Kaplan, ‘The Psychodynamics of Terrorism’, in Y. Alexander and J. M. Gleason (eds) Behavioural and Qualitative Perspectives on Terrorism (New York: Pergamon, 1981) pp. 35–50, and
E. Mickolus, Transnational Terrorism: A Chronology of Events 1968–1979 (London: Aldwych Press) 1980, p. xiii.
A. P. Schmid and J. de Graaf, Violence as Communication (London: Sage, 1982) p. 15.
Dum-dum bullets for example.
R. Debray, Revolution in the Revolution? (trans.) B. Oritz (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968) p. 74.
C. Guevara, Guerrilla Warfare (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969) p. 26.
C. Marighella, ‘Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla’, reprinted as an appendix to R. Moss, ‘Urban Guerrilla Warfare’, Adelphi Paper, no. 79 (London: IISS, 1971) p. 30.
ibid., p. 36.
ibid., pp. 30–7.
Mao Tse-Tung quoted in S. B. Griffith, Mao Tse-Tung: On Guerrilla Warfare (New York: Praeger, 1961) pp. 20–1.
However, while such a theory does have some applicability, and as we shall see it has certain characteristics in common with the terrorists who hope that their terrorism will develop into more general confrontation, there are many exceptions to it. Terrorism was not a preliminary stage in Malaysia, Burma, the Philippines or El Salvador. Sabotage rather than terrorism per se can be seen as a preliminary stage in both China and Cyprus.
G. Fairbairn, Revolutionary Guerrilla Warfare: The Countryside Version (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974) p 354.
B. Crozier, The Rebels (London: Chatto and Windus, 1960) pp. 127–8. Crozier notes, however, that the Indonesian experience was in fact the reverse. See also Thornton, op. cit., especially pp. 91–2.
ibid. In Cuba, he says, terrorism was used to heighten publicity in the early days. (p. 127) See also R. Moss, Urban Guerrillas (London: Temple Smith, 1972) pp. 142–3, and
H. Thomas, Cuba or the Pursuit of Freedom (London: Harper and Row, 1971). In Vietnam, Crozier argues that from 1952 onwards, ‘terrorism played a reduced role’, (p. 162). See also
R. Asprey, War in the Shadows: The Guerrilla in History (London: Macdonald and Jane’s, 1976) p. 921. And in Algeria, although he notes that terrorism flared up again, Crozier argues that ‘terrorism died down during 1957, when the National Army of Liberation was at its strongest and set battles were being fought’. (p. 129).
General G. Grivas, Guerrilla Warfare and EOKA’s Struggle (trans.) A. Pallis (London: Longmans, 1964), pp. 36–70. It is clear from his writings that Grivas attached no pejorative connotations to terrorism. See also The Memoirs of General Grivas (ed. and trans. C. Foley) (London: Longmans, 1964).
A. Burton, Urban Terrorism: Theory, Practise and Response (New York: The Free Press, 1975) p. 11.
Various groups operating in Beirut are probably more accurately considered ‘militia’. See L.W. Snider, ‘The Lebanese Forces: Their Origin and Role in Lebanon’s Politics’, The Middle East Journal, vol. 38 (1984) no. 1, pp. 10–13.
W. Laqueur, Guerrilla (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1977), p. ix.
ibid., p. 403.
For a discussion of levels of RAF membership see Chapter 7.
Wilkinson, for example, defines terrorism as the’ systematic use of murder and destruction in order to terrorise individuals, groups, communities or governments into conceding to the terrorists’ political demands’. Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 51.
G. Wardlaw, Political Terrorism (Cambridge University Press, 1982) p. 13.
Laqueur, op. cit., p. 403.
C.W. Jenks, ‘Hersch Lauterpacht — The Scholar as Prophet’, The British Year Book of International Law 1960, vol. xxxvi, (London: Oxford University Press, 1961) p. 83.
Article 4A(2) Prisoner of War Convention, quoted in W.T. Mallison, Jr and S.V. Mallison, ‘An International Law Appraisal of the Judicial Characteristics of the Resistance of the People of Palestine: The Struggle for Human Rights’, in M.C. Bassiouni (ed.) International Terrorism and Political Crimes (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1975) p. 174.
Article 1, United Nations Charter.
The British government would also prefer to prosecute PIRA members under ordinary domestic criminal legislation.
See, for example, An Phoblacht/Republican News, 5 Jan. 1984.
It was also Turkish attitudes that caused Makarios to settle for independence rather than enosis, and thus the split with Grivas.
Crozier, op. cit., p. 181.
Moss, op. cit., p. 211.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1990 Joanne Wright
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wright, J. (1990). Terrorism. In: Terrorist Propaganda. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11714-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11714-7_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-11716-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-11714-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)