Is terrorism rational? Can it be justified? And finally, is terrorism really a final option for oppressed people to utilize? Many would promptly say the act of terrorism is rational since terrorists exert violence in accordance with clear purpose oppression . Furthermore, despite the argument terrorism cannot be justified because it sacrifices civilians, many believe it is an inevitable consequence of marginalization and oppression exerted by superior power which cannot be challenged in conventional warfare. Then, can sacrifice of civilians be also be viewed as an inevitable result of human history? Is there any other way for terrorists to achieve their goal? In that question lies myriad numbers of assertions and thoughts about terrorism and I would like to share mine; terrorism cannot be a final option.
Before we dive into the controversial topic, it is necessary to fully understand the meaning of the term “terrorism.” Up until Sept. 11, people imagined exotic, crazy maniacs shaking old Soviet’s AK-47s and RPGs above their heads, justifying violent behaviors under their god’s name. However, thanks to many devoted scholars’ works, it has been proven these ‘maniacs’ are not really maniacs, but men of reason pursuing their religious and political goals with violence. According to Patrick H. O’Neil, a professor of politics and government at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Washington, terrorism can be defined as “the use of violence by non-state actors against civilians to achieve a political goal.”
The emphasis lies on intentionality of targeting civilians as a form of costly signal against dissents and other audiences. This is one of the essential reasons terrorism differs from crime, piracy, state-sponsored terrorism and guerrilla war. Also, it is critical to understand the different types of goals of terrorism. Andrew Kydd, a professor of political violence at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, introduced five ultimate goals of terrorists: Regime change, territorial change, policy change, social control and status-quo maintenance.
Now it is time to dive into the topic and examine if terrorism is really a final option. If the background of this conflict between terrorists and their targets is sufficiently studied, the goals and grievances of terrorists may sound reasonable and even rational. However, blaming lack of other options and killing innocent civilians as a means of pursuing rational goals is unacceptable.
Regardless of the reason terrorists are behaving the way they are and the goals they are pursuing, they are struggling to achieve too much in a relatively short period of time. For example, in China, there is a Muslim ethnic-minority group called Uyghur at Xinjiang. Ever since their territory was amalgamated by Chinese government in 1949, Uyghur people desperately pursued their religious freedom and separation from the country. However, the independence could not be achieved and the footings for political change have been marginalized constantly. The result was acts of terrorism and numerous violent conflicts. In June 2013, a police station was blown up by Uyghur separatists and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). In the course of this, seventeen civilians were killed.
Even though frustrations of Uyghur people are understandable, the terrorism they have committed cannot be explained as an inevitable consequence. Although the given circumstances may vary, there are great examples of peaceful ways of pursuing independence and change in many societies. As an illustration, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. successfully achieved their goal by conducting peaceful propaganda. They obtained attention of the public and the world utilizing various media sources. They gave a grandiose speech in front of the world, conducted interviews, met with influential figures from different nations, marched the streets and organized for the oppressed people to change the awareness and cognition of the unoppressed others.
What was the result of this? India achieved its independence. Racism against African Americans was reduced. Also, The Dalai Lama is another great example of an important figure who is trying to achieve his goal through peaceful methods. Although Tibet did not achieve its independence, they successfully attracted the attention of the people around the world and international organizations. Despite the fact it may take a relatively longer period of time, peaceful methods do not usually result in sacrifice of innocent individuals. Furthermore, both Martin Luther King Jr. and the Dalai Lama’s efforts were recognized by the international community with Nobel Peace Prizes.
I am neither trying to dispute the grievances of the oppressed nor encouraging the violent act. Rather, I am asserting there is always an alternative to terrorism. Albeit there are some situations that are extremely unbearable and hard to withstand against the dissent, terrorism should not be considered as a final resort in the way of demolishing the problem. Although terrorism may create a short-term effect and there were some successful cases, it would not last long and only trigger the backlash of vengeance and anger.
Do you agree terrorism is never an option to be used by the oppressed in any given circumstance? Do you have a counter argument to this? Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
