Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Terrorism, justifiability of
Section C. International relations

The popular imaginary of terrorism might now mainly focus on Al-Qaeda and the mass destruction of 9/11, the London and Madrid train bombings and associations with the Taliban, but there are many terrorist groups with arguably far more just aims; historical examples include the African National Congress (ANC) or the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and current ones include ETA (the Basque nationalist movement) and Palestinian terrorism. The point of the debate is not to argue about whether specific causes are just, but whether, assuming they are, violence against civilians would then be legitimate to pursue those aims. Equally, while the Proposition team must defend some specific acts of violence, they need not support, for instance, the blowing up of kindergartens.

Pros

[1] Sometimes minorities under oppressive regimes have no other means of expression, as they are denied access to media, the political system or the outside world, as were the ANC in South Africa under apartheid. As a last resort, it may be defensible to resort to violence.

[2] The end justifies the means; it may be that the eventual outcome of a terrorist campaign is beneficial and this outweighs the harm done in achieving it. History will be the judge, as when terrorism in East Pakistan helped to bring about the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, or the Jews forced the British out of Palestine and this led to the creation of Israel in 1948.

[3] Terrorist attacks are justifiable in the same way that just wars are; the only thing that deprives terrorists of the right to fight conventional wars is their lack of a state, which is usually exactly what they are fighting for. But given that we allow a sensible level of civilian death in wartime, we should also do so when it arises from terror.

[4] Terrorism is about causing fear. Although some civilians will usually have to die, much of the campaign may not actually involve violence, but merely the exploitation of existent fear. In 1997, the IRA threatened to blow up several railway stations in South East England without doing so; and they have used ’phony’ warnings to evacuate buildings, exploiting the fear caused by previous explosions. The level of violence can be — and often is — kept to the bare minimum necessary to be taken seriously.

Cons

[1] Having no other means of expression is no justification for harm done to innocent civilians. Mahatma Gandhi and others have shown the potential success of peaceful protest. A noble cause is devalued if it is fought through violence; the ANC were for a long time painted in a bad light because of their violent actions, perpetuating apartheid. Moreover, it is simply false to claim that groups have no other access to the outside world; if you can launch a terrorist attack, you can also stage a sit-in.

[2] There are very few cases of terrorism actually working. In some cases, the satisfactory outcome is only achieved once the terrorists are forced to renounce violence; but in most cases, the fighting continues and nothing is achieved.The IRA won no concessions from the British government in 70 years of violent campaigning, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was forced to renounce terrorism before negotiations began.

[4] Terrorist attacks are not like war in numerous ways. First, one side is not wearing uniform, which makes it very hard to fairly identify when you will be attacked. Second, they do not have fixed installations that can be retaliated against. Third, and most importantly, they do not have internal disciplinary procedures that can be used to enforce the laws of war against their members. As such, they cannot be protected by those rules.

[4] The bare minimum is unacceptable — ’phony’ warnings still serve as reminders. The more often a terrorist exploits the fear from a previous attack, the more the public will begin to see through it and the terrorist must attack again. Moreover, fear is simply not credibly created unless it is supported by a real risk of attack, which in turn requires that at some point an attack takes place. A terrorist group that only ever made threats would hardly be feared.

Possible motions

This House believes that terrorism is justifiable in pursuit of a just cause.

This House supports Palestinian/Basque/Tamil terrorism.

Related topics

Civil disobedience

Pacifism

Dictators, assassination of

Terrorists, negotiation with

Terrorist suspects, torture of