Page 364 - Encyclopedia Of Terrorism

S-Kushner.qxd 28-10-02 11:28 AM Page 344

344———State Terrorism

private group to obtain. Such gifts can be crucial to the terrorism and readily imposing trade sanctions and
success of a terrorist group; the decision of the United other restrictions on such governments. U.S. officials
States to provide the mujahideen with antiaircraft mis- argue that such actions help isolate states that con-
siles or that of Libya to provide the Irish Republican tribute to the problem of terrorism and that they deter
Army with the plastic explosive Semtex significantly other states from considering support for terrorism.
increased the military capabilities of both groups. European countries, in contrast, have generally
States can also do a great favor to terrorist groups taken a more conciliatory approach, preferring to keep
by providing them with a haven where members of the diplomatic and trade relations intact with countries
group can plan attacks without fear of arrest, and that support terrorism. Such engagement, they argue,
where they can flee and regroup after attacks—a role is in the long run more likely to turn countries away
Afghanistan came to play extensively under Taliban from such policies and avoids the risk of retaliatory
rule. Such havens also provide groups an opportunity terrorism that often follows an attack.
to interact and form networks to share information But all opponents of state-sponsored terrorism
and to carry out coordinated attacks; such networking have focused on the importance of international coop-
is sometimes explicitly encouraged by supportive eration, essentially an attempt to create a global cul-
governments. ture in which supporting terrorism is unacceptable.
The issue of safe havens can be complicated, Following the September 11, 2001, attacks on the
because a country can provide havens to terrorists United States, efforts to end state support and even
passively or even inadvertently simply by not arrest- state tolerance for terrorist groups took on a new
ing members of terrorist groups. Countries with lax life—as did debates over how best to discourage the
banking laws can become financial havens as well, practice.
allowing groups to hold and channel money.
See also FINANCING TERRORISM; MUJAHIDEEN; SEPTEMBER 11
ATTACKS; STATE TERRORISM; WAR ON TERRORISM
DISCOURAGING SUPPORT
Further Reading
Because state support can be so important to terrorist
groups, international efforts to curb such support have Han, Henry H, ed. Terrorism & Political Violence: Limits &
Possibilities of Legal Control. New York: Oceana, 1993.
a long history. During the Cold War, however, such
Köcher, Hans, ed. Terrorism and National Liberation: Pro-
efforts were hindered because the United States and
ceedings of the International Conference on the Ques-
the Soviet Union were supporting a variety of armed
tion of Terrorism. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988.
groups in many countries. International treaties in the
Levitt, Geoffrey M. Democracies Against Terror: The West-
1970s and 1980s designed to curb terrorism thus ern Response to State-Sponsored Terrorism. New York:
focused on certain actions that all parties could agree Praeger, 1988.
were “terrorism,” not “freedom fighting”—including Tanter, Raymond. Rogue Regimes: Terrorism & Proli-
hijacking, the taking of hostages, and violence against feration. New York: St. Martin’s, 1998.
diplomats, but excluding bombings and assassina-
tions. Despite these limitations, the treaties did
encourage the international community to act in coor- STATE TERRORISM
dination to condemn countries that were seen as
supporting terrorism.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of Terrorism is often thought of as the province of rel-
the Cold War in the early 1990s largely put an end to atively small nongovernment groups that more often
superpower support for armed groups, and by the end than not exist despite the best efforts of governments
of the decade states that supported terrorism risked to destroy them. Indeed, some observers define terror-
being treated as international pariahs. ism specifically to exclude violence conducted by
How best to deter states from supporting terrorist governments, arguing that when nations engage in
groups is still under debate. The United States has violence and killing as a means of reaching a particu-
taken a relatively confrontational approach, occasion- lar political end, it should be called oppression, not
ally launching military attacks against governments terrorism. At the other extreme, some argue that
it considers especially flagrant in their support for nations are the deadliest of terrorists. The average