One Persons Free

One Persons Freedom Fighter Is Another Persons Terrorist Essay Introduction The terrorist attacks in America have since publicized controversial attitudes in understanding and defining terrorism. There is a misconception of terrorism as it was only in actuality brought to light after the attacks in America on 11 September 2001 (Best Nocella, 2004); this has guided many to assume that terrorism arose in light of the 11 September attacks, when actually terrorism did not begin in 2001; nor is it restricted to extremists in the Middle East. Here is where much of the difficulty lies in defining terrorism; thus the now famous quotation, â€Å"One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’. This essay will look at both the way this phrase can be beneficial and inversely cause issues in the objective to define terrorism. It is apparent that there are objective distinctions that can be made that separate the true terrorist from the true freedom fighter. Regardless of derogatory labels or national political ideology these distinctions do exist. Therefore the aim of this essay will be to critically examine the notion that One person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter through examining three existential differences that can help to draw a theoretical line between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. They lie first in tactical theory; second, in sources for motivation; and third, in the discrepancies of the justifications for the actions of each. It is these three distinctions in contrast to the quote’s implied similarities that will assist in achieving an accurate definition of terrorism. To examine the wider processes involving the application of the terrorist label, the Cuban Revolution’s major figure Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara will be used as a framework and a practical source to refer to as the essay unravels the application of a terrorist label in relation to the abovementioned phrase. This somewhat superficial phrase can be useful as it suggests that the motives and the methods used may be separable. Terrorism is merely a phrase. It is tactical choices in which those who chose to employ terror can ideally do so in achieving any cause they desire (Caplan, 2006 pg. 92). Consequently it is indeed possible for any people who are validating themselves as fighting freedom from an unjust authority to make the choice to use terrorism as a tactical choice in achieving their goal. Secondly the phrase advocates that defining terrorism can become a moral issue. The definition depends wholly on the subjective outlook of the efiner. The terrorist label The struggle in defining the terrorist has been apparent throughout history. Scharf (2001) has also made this discovery as he states that the problem of defining terrorism has vexed the international community for years. Conceptual issues are not the only problem in defining terrorism. Labelling actions as terrorism promotes cond emnation of the actors; a definition may therefore reflect ideological or political bias (Silke, 1998). Silke (1998) goes on to suggest that a misleading trend is a result of ‘attribution bias’ and that it has done nothing other than â€Å"taint terrorism with a pathology aura†. Many of the terrorist labels that have been employed over the years are based on community and individual perceptions creating a subjective definition (Jenkin, 2006 Pg. 3). Following the 11 September 2001 attacks, the use of the word terrorism or terrorist has become an offensive label (Ganor, 2002). These labels may lead to further implications for how countries, populations and individuals define terrorism (DeAngelis, 2009). The psychology of terrorism is marked more by theory and opinion as opposed to scientific research. Assisting in DeAngelis findings are many articles implying that many of the individuals who engage in terrorist activity will contest that they are terrorists but rather freedom fighters (Schwartz, Dunkel, ; Waterman, 2009; Whiteley, 2010). This tethering in with the now famous phrase; One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Before labelling an individual or group of people terrorists or freedom fighters it is important to take into consideration the three differences as apposed to the similarities that the quotation implies: 1. Tactical Choice The first of the three differences is the tactical theory used. The terrorist will employ tactics in order to target civilians (Tavares, 2003 pg. 13). It is however rare for enough civilians to be targeted in order to have any form of physical impact on the states resources. The general aim becomes to separate the greater part of society from its incumbent authorities through the use of fear. Crenshaw (1981, pg: 386) suggests that this is utilized to weaken the powers of authorities that on the contrary result in the terrorist group to be perceived as more powerful. The goal of the terrorists tactics becomes less concrete as they believe that a relatively small attack will result in the overall political goals of their group to be identified. In contrast Ganor (2006) states that freedom fighters do not target civilians however focus their target on armed forces. Their objective then becomes to diminish the militaries resources to the point where the balance of hard power in particular area, shifts into ones own favour leading to the concrete goal of an enemies surrender and capitulation to ones demands (Ganor, 2006). . Sources for Motivation It is stated by most theories that terrorists are motivated by more than just exclusively political goals (Whiteley, 2010). Freedom fighters are motivated by what is encompassed in their name i. e. their quest for liberty; on the other hand terrorists are grounded on a less concrete foundation ranging from a variety of goals, that are not all rationally political. Certain personal goals seem to either misund erstand or directly conflict with the aim of achieving freedom. Jenkins (1983) states that the ultimate terrorist goal is to terrorise in furtherance of an otherwise legitimate political goal rather than just to terrorise; just like when a nation state resorts to war to achieve political goals when diplomacy fails. Jenkins raises a point in relation to the inspiration of terrorist behaviour, stating that learned ideological values are antecedents to terrorist behaviour, not personality defects. The differences in the motivations between a freedom fighter and terrorist are often grounds where the terrorist myths are created. Terrorists justify their actions through exaggerations that consequently result in an inaccurate perception of the world in order to justify their terrorist tactics. The terrorist myth seeks to prove that those who witness terrorism have a misconception of both the world around them and themselves, therefore needing a ‘wake up call’, that of course is in the form of a terrorist attack. This justification will ultimately be to their benefit (Moghaddam , 2006, Pg. 85). This myth is projected to validate what the functions of terrorism are, these include; showing that authorities are impotent, to create a sense of instability in society and to assert the existence of a terrorists power. The goals of a terrorist clearly show that they are less politically focused and more personal; consequently representing less of a fight for freedom and more of a fight to be renown for their power (Whiteley, 2010). In summary of the two abovementioned areas of distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter; Senator Jackson was quoted by Benyamin Netanyahus (1985, pg 18) as stating: The idea that one person’s ‘terrorist’ is another’s ‘freedom fighter’ cannot be sanctioned. Freedom fighters or revolutionaries don’t blow up buses containing noncombatants; terrorist murderers do. Freedom fighters don’t set out to capture and slaughter schoolchildren; terrorist murderers do . . . It is a disgrace that democracies would allow the treasured word ‘freedom’ to be associated with acts of terrorists. 3. Justification vs. Legitimacy? Many sources suggest that perception is the main influence and commonly the main issue when it comes to defining terrorism (Sorel, 2003; Gibbs, 1989 Jenkin, 2006). Therefore validation of the actions of both a freedom fighter and a terrorist cannot evolve around general society and how they interpret t errorism to be. Perception becomes a significant issue in determining the legitimacy of the justifications for the actions of both a freedom fighter and a terrorist (Jenkin, 2006). For example a state which is under attack will most likely define the attacks as illegitimate and a form of terrorist activity; conversely those who are attacking the state will define their actions as justified. The difference between the true terrorist and the true freedom fighter appear to pivot around the perceived legitimacy of the motives of each. This social perception of the alleged legitimacy plays a large role on deriving a neutral definition. This becomes difficult due to the aforementioned terrorist label as being pejorative, with the term freedom fighter having positive connotations. The difference in terms between terrorists and freedom fighters seems in many ways to hinge upon the perceived legitimacy of the motives of each. As previously stated, the term ‘terrorist’ is usually pejorative, while the term ‘freedom fighter’ often has positive connotations. It is therefore difficult to derive a neutral definition of legitimacy: it remains a social product (Wardlaw, 1989). Many terrorist organisations only recruit a small amount of discontented individuals who support them; this is done through the prolonged influence of norms. There is a steady shift of certain individuals who are separated from society to an accepted morality of terrorism (Moghaddam, 2006). He goes on to suggests that the support networks utilised by terrorist groups are also discontented, however nearly never consist of sizeable groups of people willing to conduct the terror tactics themselves. Nevertheless it is important to consider that the means of moral and logistical support for individuals like Osama bin Laden has differed significantly from the support for someone like Che Guevara (Whiteley, 2010). Guevara was successful and like other revolutionaries often rallied a large number people relatively quickly, openly and most important effectively. It is therefore credible to state that there is a far wider support base for individuals who are freedom fighters. This is evident through the social product of legitimacy given to them by their supporters. Whiteley (2010) goes on to state that terrorists tend to find themselves in minorities because of the small amount of legitimacy rewarded to them or their cause from other citizens. This perspective is supported by the abovementioned self-interested motives of terrorist and the liberation-seeking motives of freedom fighters. Legitimacy can therefore be summed up by the amount of genuine local support given to a particular group (Whiteley, 2010); consequently true freedom fighters that have legitimate reasons for their existence can recruit members easily while terrorists goals lack legitimacy and consequently result in the recruitment of fewer members. Ernesto Che Guevara Historical Context Ernesto Che Guevara was born into a middle class family in Rosario, Santa Fe Province, Argentina on June 14, 1928. He was a Marxist and left Argentina in late 1953 to take part in a communist revolt in Guatemala. Che was an idealist; believing that everyone should be equal and have the same opportunities. Che joined Fidel Castros 26 July movement where guerrilla troops were sailed to Cuba. Landing on 2 December 1956, they were focused on overthrowing Fulgenico Batistas government. In July 1957, Che was assigned command for more than half of Fidel Castros forces as commandant. He led against government forces in the province of Las Villas while growing hatred for Batistas government that grew in size and gained support rapidly. Che sealed victory for Castros forces in December 1958 becoming Castros most trusted advisor leading the international revolution. She soon became the Cuban minister for agriculture; writing a book in 1960 called Guerrilla Warfare to bring about communism throughout the world. Che resigned his posed in Cuba in 1965 and travelled to Africa as well as many other places in order to organise more communist revolts. In 1966 Che surfaced Bolivia where his movement did not grow much support. His movement came to an end on 7 October 1967 when his surviving group members and he were captured and two days later on 9 October 1967 were executed by a Bolivian fighting squad whom were apparently acting on behalf of the CIA whom were training the Bolivian Army (Guevara, 1985). Che Guevara Terrorist or Freedom Fighter After examining the notion of the phrase One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. It has become evident that although the phrase implies that there are similarities between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, it can be concluded that there are many aspects that differentiate the true freedom fighter from the true terrorist. In order to successfully complete the examination of this notion; it is required that a conflict within a terrorist organisation be examined. The debate as to whether Che was a terrorist or a freedom fighter arises. Che came to be one of Latin Americas most feared and most famous professional revolutionary (Gall, 1998). Ches investigation of capitalism, imperialism and socialism and his precise tactical position on guerrilla warfare were concurrent to his views of ethics and political practice. His thoughts were concerned with the revolutionary organizations to oppressed individuals, the affiliation between political agency and objective conditions, the interrelation between revolution and imperialism and the link between personal values and revolutionary action. The question raised is whether Che adopted any terrorist characteristics in his apparent fight for freedom. Yes, through this essay there has been an establishment that a terrorist differs to a freedom fighter however the question arises as to whether it is that easy to differentiate the two when they are applied to an icon from the past. Ches tactical choice was not to target innocent civilians but to build and attack a government that promoted in-equality (Guevara, 1985). Although Che and his supporters killed many, there has not been any academic documentation to suggest that he killed innocent civilians. Anderson (1997) made the following discovery: I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder. I should add that my research spanned five years, and included anti-Castro Cubans among the Cuban-American exile community in Miami and elsewhere. Che depicted himself as a guerilla fighter and defined a guerilla fighter in his book as: . . . Must have a moral conduct that shows him to be a true priest of the reform to which he aspires. To the stoicism imposed by the difficult conditions of warfare should be added an austerity born of rigid self-control that will prevent a single excess, a single slip, whatever the circumstances. The guerrilla soldier should be an ascetic. The peasant must always be helped technically, economically, morally, and culturally. The guerrilla fighter will be a sort of guiding angel who has fallen into the zone, helping the poor always and bothering the rich as little as possible in the first phases of the war. But this war will continue on its course; contradictions will continuously become sharper; the moment will arrive when many of those who regarded the revolution with certain sympathy at the outset will place themselves in a position diametrically opposed; and they will take the first step into battle against the popular forces. At that moment the guerrilla fighter should act to make himself the standard-bearer of the peoples cause, punishing every betrayal with justice. Private property should acquire in the war zones its social function. For example, excess land and livestock not essential for the maintenance of a wealthy family should pass into the hands of the people and be distributed equitably and justly. (Guevara, 1985) Furthermore, the question of whether Guevaras sources of motivation were of a terrorist kind comes to light. Che was on a quest for freedom and equality. Presently Ches legacy has lived on and people do not remember him for the power he sought to have but for the goal he strived to achieve; Some view Che Guevara as a hero for example, Nelson Mandela referred to him as an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom while Jean Paul Sarte described him as not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age. This was equality and freedom for those who were less fortunate (Compton, 2009) Like a freedom fighter, Che was able to recruit a great deal of support for his movement as he possessed qualities of a true leader. Many perceive Che to have been a great man who has credibility. Because Che was believable, people would in turn believe him. This is because there was a consistency between which Che was and what Che said (Safty, 2002 pg. 112). Despite all the supporting evidence to suggest that Che was a freedom fighter, many do believe that he was a terrorist. Some who were part of the opposing side, who were part of Batsias movement, would have felt that Ches actions were of a terrorist kind. It is important to note however that although Che was a freedom fighter and not a terrorist some people perceived he to be one as their perception was defined differently and they believed that the actions Che was engaging in were of a terrorist kind. Conclusion Ultimately there is a definitive difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. It cannot be implied that one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. Many philosophers have concluded that terrorist do not have any right to be classified within a freedom fighting definition. The means of a terrorist do not justify the ends. The abovementioned three distinctions between a terrorist and a freedom fighter outlined in the first paragraph clearly show that the two are completely disparate.