Chapter 5: Terrorism in Transition

This chapter focuses on the interplay betweenreligion and transnational terrorism. It begins by describing the slipperynature of definitions, and it separates international and transnationalconcepts. The three phases of modern post-World War II terrorism aresummarized, and an older ideological model of terrorism is recast in terms ofreligion. The chapter also focuses on the process of religious terrorism, andit contains a brief discussion of asymmetrical warfare. The argument here isthat terrorism has gone through three transitory phases since 1945. The firstphase was dominated by nationalism, and the second emphasized ethnic andideological violence. The current phase is dominated by religiously motivated groups.During the first two phases of the postwar experience, terrorism tended to beeither a localized or an international affair. Religion has changed theequation, and it provides the base for a transnational terrorism.

Definitional Problems and TransnationalTerrorism

It is difficult to conceive of terrorism as amanifestation of transnational crime because the definition of the subjectchanges in time and political space. This is not to suggest that one person’sterrorist is another’s freedom fighter, but it does suggest that the termterrorism means different things at different times. Alex Schmid claims theslippery nature of terrorism is due to its intangible nature. Terrorism is nota physical entity to be measured and defined; it is an ever-changing affair.Despite the elusive nature of the subject, terrorism becomes more concrete whendefined in criminal codes. The problem with such codes, however, is that theyare not applicable across cultures. Whether approaching terrorism through socialor legal meanings, the concept is problematic within the framework oftransnational crime.

Terrorism is political activity involvingcrime, and its characteristics change with historical circumstances and thepolitical environment. The term terrorism is so pejorative that it has becomevirtually meaningless. Many violent political activities are inappropriatelylabeled terrorism and that terrorists continually seek to avoid being labeled.The complexity of the definitional dilemma is exacerbated when discussingtransnational crime. On one hand, name an international criminal activity andchances are terrorists have engaged in it. Physical violence such as hijacking,kidnapping, and murder are on the high end of the scale, with drug trafficking,money laundering, and immigration crimes falling in other areas. Terroristsengage in cybercrimes, and they use information networks for clandestinecommunication. They establish illegal multinational criminal organizations.They extort money, commit credit card fraud, and counterfeit currency.Terrorists forge documents and rob banks. They commit mass murder and engage inactivities that would be deemed war crimes in other circumstances. Terrorismfrequently involves local and international criminal activity. On the otherhand, many distinguished analysts have refused to classify terrorism ascriminal activity. Two of the illustrious deans in the field, Paul Wilkinsonand Cooper, took pains to emphasize the importance of the political nature ofterrorism in contradistinction to its criminal characteristics. Wilkinson'sclassic Political Terrorism identifies three forms of terrorism: criminal,political, and state sponsored. Wilkinson argues that scholars, governmentleaders, and journalists usually mean “political terrorism” when they discussthe problem of terrorism. Political terrorism can be examined as staterepression, ideological revolutionary activities, or nationalistic revolutions.State repression refers to a government's using terror to keep citizens inline, whereas ideological revolutionary terrorism focuses on violence to changea political system. Nationalistic terrorism emphasizes the ethnic structure ofgovernment over its ideological underpinnings, and both nationalistic andrevolutionary terrorism can be sponsored by states. Wilkinson's focus onpolitical terrorism guided many terrorism analysts away from the study ofcrime.

As editors of an early presidentialcommission report on terrorism, Cooper and his colleagues explain why analystsemphasized the political nature of terrorism. To be sure, Cooper says,terrorists engage in all types of crimes, but their purpose is not criminal.The ultimate objective of terrorism is to change political behavior. Criminalactivity enters the equation, Cooper says, because terrorists commit crimes asthey conduct political operations. Cooper and his colleagues make a distinctionbetween normative crimes and crimes associated with terrorism. When the purposeof a crime is to achieve economic gain or psychological gratification, criminalactivity does not fall into the realm of political terrorism, but violentcriminal actions in support of political goals may be terrorism. Not allpolitical criminal activity is terrorism, but violent political crimes thatvictimize innocent individuals may fall into the category. Agreeing withWilkinson, Cooper's approach suggests that terrorism is a subject for politicalanalysis, not criminology.

Continuing in the path established byWilkinson and Cooper, Walter Laqueur further explains the political nature ofterrorism. Criminologists may develop profiles and models of criminal activity,Laqueur writes, because they deal with constant traits of human behavior. It ispossible to plot behavior over a period of time, profile certain behavioraltypes, and predict behavior in various social settings. This works incriminology because conditions and behavior are relatively constant, butnothing could be further from consistency than terrorism. No one can develop acriminological model of terrorism, Laqueur argues, because terrorist behaviordoes not remain constant. Terrorism is not a psychological phenomenon; itrepresents violent political behavior. Terrorists do not act from psychologicalinadequacies but from political circumstances. It is possible to determinegeneral characteristics of political movements, but not to engage in apsychological analysis of terrorist criminality. Such definitional specificity,Laqueur concludes, does not exist.

Brian Jenkins offers a practical solution tothe problem: terrorism is situationally defined. Rather than seeking a complexsocial definition of the problems of terrorism, Jenkins and his fellowresearchers look at the practical aspects surrounding terrorist events.Although terrorism frequently involves criminal activity, terrorists are nottypical criminals. They commit crimes for political purposes. When captured bysecurity forces, they are not usually prosecuted as terrorists but charged withthe crimes they commit. Terrorists strike targets for political purposes in agiven situation, using crime as an incidental tactic. When terrorists crossnational boundaries, they become international terrorists. Furthermore,terrorists are not exceptionally creative; they use a limited array of weaponsand tactics. Whether regional or international, terrorists use crime in varyingsituations for political purposes.

An analysis by Jeffery Ian Ross differs fromearlier research suggesting that both political and social factors can lead toa criminology of terrorism, and he takes the argument further. Terrorisminvolves violence but criminal behavior is a result of political and socialcircumstances; that is, terrorism involves variables that can be measured on acriminological scale. The measurable by-product can be examined throughpsychological factors that vacillate with political circumstances. Ross'sconclusions lead to two practical considerations. First, terrorists use bothcriminal activities and criminal organizations to accomplish politicalobjectives. When using international violence, criminal organizations may posea problem for national security. Second, as a result of criminal activities,terrorists frequently encounter criminal justice systems even though theirprimary purpose is not to commit crimes. This presents a policy problem.Terrorism is political activity that can threaten national security on aninternational scale, yet the criminal aspects of terrorist operations andorganizations bring them into contact with justice systems. Should terrorism behandled by the criminal justice system, or should it be considered within theframework of national security? Many countries, including the United States,have yet to answer this question.

There are further complications with thedefinition when discussing various types of terrorism, and this becomesapparent when examining transnational crime. International terrorism involvesgroups operating across nation-state boundaries, but transnational terror seekssomething greater than nationalistic goals. Richardson writes that terrorism ispolitically motivated violence directed at noncombatants or symbols, designedto change behavior through communication. She believes the United States seesterrorism more as an international problem than a transnational one. In otherwords, American policymakers view terrorist organizations in terms of theirlinks to nation-states, even basing policy on state-sponsored terrorism.Transnational terrorism, political violence transcending the nation state, isnot at the forefront of counterterrorist policies. Richardson believes the USgovernment as well as American counterterrorist analysts tend to use the termsinternational and transnational interchangeably; however, she separates thedefinitions. International terrorism crosses national boundaries whileacknowledging the legitimacy and function of the nation-state. Transnationalterrorism points toward an ideological globalism ignoring a world divided bynational frontiers.

If Richardson's dichotomy is correct, it hastwo important conceptual ramifications. First, by acknowledging the nature oftransnational terrorism, policymakers may come to realize that the structure ofterrorism has changed. At least two major international terrorist groupsembrace a transcendent ideology—al Qaeda and Hezbollah—and both groups aremotivated by religion. In addition, several smaller groups want to follow intheir path. Second, at first glance, because many of these groups are Islamic,it would seem to suggest the beginning of religious conflicts beyondnationalistic wars. Indeed, this is part of the thesis of Samuel Huntington'sclash of civilizations. However, when examining Western terrorism, the sametranscendent trend seems to be emerging when ideology is used as a surrogatereligion. Transcendent ideology dominates modern anarchism, ecologicalextremism, animal rights activism, anti-genetic-engineering movements, andracial supremacy extremism. Transnational terrorism transcends the nation-stateby using religion and surrogate religious values.