Page 365 - Encyclopedia Of Terrorism

S-Kushner.qxd 28-10-02 11:28 AM Page 345

State Terrorism———345

country, they note, has considerably greater military during the 1970s and 1980s several right-wing
and financial resources than the average terrorist regimes in Latin America began “disappearing” citi-
group, and some states regularly use violence for zens. People were taken into custody and were never
political ends—violence that these observers argue heard from again, with the government denying all
should be considered terrorism. knowledge of their whereabouts. Most of the people
Defining state terrorism is complicated because who were “disappeared” were later found to have
all nations rely on violence to some degree. War, for been executed and their bodies hidden.
example, is a violent and deadly way for countries to Indeed, secrecy is such a part of state terrorism that
settle their differences. War can be very one-sided, as covert acts by government officials in societies that are
when a powerful country launches attacks on a much generally open—such as the secret U.S. campaign to
smaller, weaker neighbor to force it to adopt policies assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro in the 1960s—
that benefit the attacker. All functioning governments can generate tremendous controversy when they are
have systems of law enforcement that rely on various uncovered. Groups that oppose state terrorism, such as
forms of violence—for example, armed police, impris- the human rights group Amnesty International, have
onment, forced labor, and the physical mutilation or found that publicizing the details of specific acts of
killing of certain criminals—to maintain order. state terrorism can be effective in stopping such acts.
So how does state terrorism differ from other forms Governments that engage in terrorism operate in
of state violence? One difference is the predictability secrecy, but that secrecy is usually not complete. The
of ordinary warfare and law enforcement. Wars are “disappeared” people of Latin America, for example,
rarely unexpected and are generally preceded by a were often openly taken into custody by easily identi-
long period of escalating disagreements and failed fied state officials. Such quasi-secrecy is essential to
negotiations. Often, a country declares war before creating an atmosphere of terror—Latin Americans
conducting an attack, publicizing its grievances and knew that something bad was happening to the “disap-
explaining the rationale for the decision to wage war. peared” people and that their governments were
Although they are not always honored, rules of war responsible, but the details were left to the imagination.
have been established—unarmed civilians, for exam- The very unpredictability of state terrorism gener-
ple, are not supposed to be targeted by the military— ates escalating fear. In a country where a state relies
and deliberate violations of these rules are considered on terror to maintain control, people are unsure of
war crimes. what actions might result in their being detained, tor-
Ordinary law enforcement is likewise designed to tured, or killed—although they may have a broad
be predictable. Laws are written, and what constitutes notion of what groups are vulnerable.
a violation usually is apparent. If a law is violated, This unpredictability is often deliberate. When the
certain protocols must be followed regarding the cap- Nazis took over Germany in the 1930s, for example,
ture of the suspect, the determination of guilt, and the they randomly arrested one lawyer of every 10. Some
choice of punishment. Law enforcement may involve of the arrested lawyers were then executed. Arresting
violence; however, a functional legal system enables and murdering lawyers for no discernable reason was
individuals to avoid that violence by not committing designed to instill fear in the remaining lawyers so
the crimes that trigger it. In an ideal law enforcement they would not challenge the Nazi regime.
system, law-abiding individuals would never wonder Terrorizing a population is also a goal of nonstate
whether they will be arrested, imprisoned, beaten, terrorism. A nonstate group, however, usually relies
mutilated, or killed by state officials because they on terror to publicize its goals or to punish perceived
would know what constitutes a crime and that such enemies. State terrorism usually has one goal:
punishments will be given only to those who commit strengthening of government control by the complete
criminal acts. intimidation of a population. Thus, if people are
unsure of what actions might lead to unspeakable tor-
ture and even death, they will avoid actions not specif-
SECRECY
ically sanctioned by the government, thereby policing
State terrorism, in contrast, is marked by secrecy. themselves more closely than could the government.
Often the government denies its responsibility or even Accordingly, state terrorism is especially appealing
that an act of terrorism has taken place. For example, to authoritarian regimes that wish to exercise a great