Abstract: The philosophical facet needed to understand terrorism is anchored to the inability to accurately assume an alternate perspective. In drawing attention to the evolution of political nihilism, this article points to a new lexis shaped by realism rather than the idealization of the notion of terrorism to countless violent episodes. Political nihilism is a product of the crime that is state terror. Implicitly, political nihilism is a product of state terrorism, and it is a distortion for those who terrorize to rely on blackmailing those groups that are oppressed as “terrorists”. In fact, said groups often act out in “terrorist” ways in response to nepotism and deprivation. Conflict of ideas and current trends about the true meaning of terrorism could be examined from the Russia/Ukraine war.
Problem statement: How to define terrorism as a strategic crime rather than a series of violent deeds?
Bottom-line-up-front: There are longstanding issues concerning resources between state actors and indigenous populations. This is true for transnational actors, who explore resources outside their shores. As indigenous people yearn for social justice, their relationship with state actors becomes strained. All the while, the term terrorism is applied interchangeably between state and non-state actors and tends to mean different things. Thus, discounting state-centric definitions of terrorism becomes imperative to understand the difference between strategic and violent crime. While existentialists or political nihilists (aggrieved groups in society) are construed as freedom fighters, or self-determination groups, state terrorism, as exemplified by the current Russian unprovoked attack in Ukraine, is akin to exerting state power to gain strategic, political, and economic objectives through domination and intimidation.
So what?: It must first be accepted that terrorism is not a monolith. As such, it is significant we do not confuse domestic/transnational crime or existential despair-induced violence as a terrorist act. Nonetheless, the proxy wars and mordacious infringements on weak sovereigns should be sanctioned appropriately to promote global peace. China’s invasion of Taiwan could follow Russia’ invasion of Ukraine. We must perhaps identify these state behaviours as an act of terrorism and make necessary adjustments to the UN articles and other justifiable mediums to discourage tyrants from changing the way of civility and global peace. In addition, the UN should review issues bordering on domestic criminal acts and rebellion – enforcing extant domestic and international laws to act as deterrent, instead of labelling such criminal behaviours terrorism.
Source: shutterstock.com/Lev Radin
UN Articles 2(4) and 51
Historically, men have often applied force to pursue their interests. In the 15th century, Grotius insisted that the law of nations limits the use of force to three justifiable causes: defence, recovery of property, and punishment.[1] To resolve the issue of what a proportionate response to the threat of war might be, Grotius formulated the doctrine of the Just War to control the unbridled power of states to act as they choose.[2]
Since 1945, the UN and its affiliated agencies have exercised widespread impact on the thoughts and actions of states and individuals towards human rights and international peace.[3] However, the UN Security Council (UNSC) is seemingly unwilling and unable to contain state terrorist actions. Perhaps because of duplicity in the event of terrorism, states and INGOs sublimely distort the rights of NGOs to rebel against oppressive tendencies in retaliation to state actors. It has become convenient to minimize non-state actors’ ability to object. This reinforces the need for reforms in the UNSC, as nations that have evolved since the Second World War have no say in shaping the international security environment. The UNSC members must consider expanding to at the least include some states in South America, Africa, and Asia. With the power of veto on important international security concerns, the Permanent Five (P5) remain the most destabilizing influence on the world order post-World War Two and has displayed a worrisome lethargy in holding accountable state terrorist actions in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.
The UN Security Council is seemingly unwilling and unable to contain state terrorist actions.
It is crucial to understand that the struggle over scarce resources is one of the key causes of global violence. The claim by Gert Danielsen in his treatise that violence is not human nature did not consider that the world’s exponential population growth could put so much pressure on the available resources and, thus, ignite violence.[4] Proponents of this theory, such as Danielsen, perceive conflict as the result of resource competition and the need to meet the demands of domestic populations.[5] Henry Murray, Erich Fromm, and Abraham Maslow view resource deprivation as critical in understanding the factors for conflict motivation.[6] They conclude: neglect over non-negotiable human needs propagates chaos within society. Essentially, terrorism is seen from the standpoint of a domestic or transnational struggle for scarce resources among state and non-state actors. Against these realities, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between power based on realism (relations of dominance) and power based on constructivism (shared norms as the determinant of social instability) and conflict.
The Berlin Conference of 1884–1885 was the meeting where major European powers negotiated and formalized their claims of African territory, followed by the Mandate system of 1919, among others. Those decisions/border lines, which actors made without prior experience of African territories, created a watershed that became a proverbial ocean of terrorism today. It is succinct to claim that sharing and resharing territories in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East by Europe left the US out of the mix. The latter has thus begun foraging and picking up the pieces, but the result has been malignant within the international security environment. China and Russia have also joined in the foray. All have inadvertently promoted state terrorism in places such as Western Sahara, the DRC, the Azawad region with Mali, and the border issues between Nigeria and Cameroon over the Bakassi peninsula. The resultant tensions and agitations have become a burden borne by non-state actors. The entities systematically use terror to conquer and pillage weaker regions by proliferating arms into the troubled regions, a pattern being resisted by freedom fighters worldwide.
History is replete with atrocities that, once committed, brought the globe into a state of unease. For instance, the analysis of terrorism without assessing events in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen would be uncanny without considering what circumstances led to events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is also an observed transnational angle to the hegemonic idea and the sense of entitlement that often triggers terrorism today. One needs to interrogate the moral question about the Mandate system of 1919, which presumably, created a never-ending conflict in the Middle East.[7] The Mandate system angered many Arabs, who expected promises for self-sovereignty to be fulfilled after their participation on the side of the Allies in World War I. A relevant instance is the fact that the mandate for Palestine and the additional task of creating a Jewish homeland became mutually incompatible.[8] British mishandling of the Palestinian Mandate led to a conflict between Jewish Zionists and Arab nationalists. The hegemony of the Europeans over Arabs has drawn the irks of Arabs. Their protests and activism for equity and human rights, albeit violently, are touted as terrorist acts. Europeans and their partners have continued to resort to the use of force proximally to maintain the stability of their policy of resource plundering in other ways. Of course, it is easy to terrorize weaker nations for their resources, then turn around to coin them “terrorists” when they resist pressure geared towards political and economic disdain regarding their sovereign rights. Article 2(4) mentions contrary to the provision that “all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the UN”. At the same time, Article 51 states:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
There is also an observed transnational angle to the hegemonic idea and the sense of entitlement that often triggers terrorism today.
It indicates that certain uses of force will not contravene Article 2(4) prohibitions, as evident in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. On the contrary, events in Syria and Yemen, however, reveal some ambiguity and gaps in UN documents and systems, reinforcing the speculation that some members of the UNSC could be engineering the conflicts out of self-interest. Furthermore, Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and subsequent invasion of Ukraine has left the UN helpless. Members of the Security Council have continued to interpret these two articles in manners that suit their purposes.
Article 1 revolves around maintaining international peace and security through collective measures. The construction of (context-free) language, however, circumvents the usage of “force” or “threat of force”. Instead, the UN body preferred using words such as “acts of aggression or other breaches of peace”. Applying the qualifying words “in conformity with the principle of justice and international law” to the first organizational purpose has led to the claim that recourse to force may be justified if justice is served. Furthermore, the ambiguity persists in the UN. The need arises to distinguish between a violation of the UN Charter that prohibits the threat or use of force against other states’ territorial integrity or political independence, as is evident in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The events on the 2nd of August 1990, whereby Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait, contrast Article 52, which imposes primary responsibility on regions for dealing with matters related to the maintenance of international peace. Indeed, the UN has declined to define what constitutes regional arrangements and agencies. A proposal to have such a definition in the Charter was rejected, and neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council has sought to develop such a definition. However, the issue has been raised by both entities.[9]
Perhaps, atrocities are usually committed when groups are either seeking self-determination or when nationalities within a state fight as a legitimate expression of grievances on the principle of equal rights. In Nigeria, for instance, when oil installations and pipelines were being blown up in the Niger Delta and Lagos, some correctly justified these mayhems as a legitimate expression of grievances, even when collateral human fatalities were involved.[10] The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, or MEND, launched itself on the international stage in January 2006, when Oil companies, the Nigerian government, and the US (Nigeria being the fifth largest supplier of US crude imports) were concerned about MEND’s ability to disrupt global oil supply. Yet as the International Crisis Group report details, MEND’s militant group was more sophisticated. It shared a common goal of resource control and a share of the oil revenues produced by its region. Despite MEND’s committed atrocities, experts agreed that MEND was a criminal organization during this period.[11] There is also a clash between state sovereignty and self-determinism in the case of Boko Haram, which started the same way until infiltrated by ISIL. Against this backdrop, Article 1(2) is crafted to support the fact that force could be used on behalf of national liberation, thus, increasing ambiguity. In what seems to be a domino effect, it establishes an avenue for powerful states to determine when to take sides and when not to. Secondary to this puzzle is the absence of international law against rebellion. On those accounts, it is highly probable to conclude that gaps in these post-World War Two documents have unwittingly set the stage for the Cold (and proxy) Wars and terrorism, an example of perfidy by large state actors. There is, therefore, a need to revisit these UN guides for international security to inch closer towards the real objective of the UN.
Perhaps, atrocities are usually committed when groups are either seeking self-determination or when nationalities within a state fight as a legitimate expression of grievances on the principle of equal rights.
Terrorism As A Strategic Crime
Theoretically, there is a link between the need for freedom of action and compulsion. Relatedly, fundamental human rights protection, equity, and justice are inextricably linked to global peace. However, in today’s world, it is ironic that those charged as “goodwill ambassadors” are changing the course of global peace and championing the global war on terrorism. From its antecedent in Lebanon to selective operations in DR Congo, the UN Security Council has acted selectively, which suggests a subliminal agenda other than maintaining global peace.
The UN has been indifferent to the war between Russia, Ukraine, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza, Libya, and Syria. Increasing ambiguity and excuses for responsibility to protect where it is needed have shaped opinions in Somalia, where the UN has not delivered the necessitated peace. Moreover, this is after years of presence in the region of Eastern Africa. Inadvertently, the UNSC member states have provoked global insecurity motivated by socio-economic and political interests. It appears that duplicity among its members seems to further demean its credibility in protecting democracy and human rights across the globe.[12] The challenge remains to assure states that are on the fringes that human rights are universal and that democracy is not a tool of assimilation.
The UN has been indifferent to the war between Russia, Ukraine, Yemen, Iraq, Gaza, Libya, and Syria. Increasing ambiguity and excuses for responsibility to protect where it is needed have shaped opinions in Somalia, where the UN has not delivered the necessitated peace.
Less developed countries may question the integrity of global governance for many reasons. They are in turmoil as they recourse to self-help, that is, fighting for the justice and equity they deem necessary. These events and similar ones in Ukraine, Iraq and Libya seem to reinforce the proposition that terrorism is imposed from outside those territories by powerful states. The idea of military operations other than war further strengthened the notion that UNSC member states, including Israel and perhaps Turkey, are unwilling to deliver global peace. These, among others, are the remote causes of agitation at a global scale. Similar trends are observed within states, whereby agitators are branded as terrorists to act harshly against them – a probable motivation for perceived terrorist actions.
As proposed by Britannica, terrorism is the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby bring about a particular political objective.[13] In contrast to the postulations by Britannica, the earlier discussion describes a wider phenomenon that makes terrorism a state affair. State terrorism embraces the range of political assimilation, economic sanctions, social ideology, technology, legal and military operations other than war. Arguably, terrorism is a deliberate, unconventional act of political violence where state actors instill fear in another territory to coerce them and achieve socio-political and economic objectives. In other ways, it is a strategic crime committed principally by state actors using means of national power.
Some of the non-state actors involved in irredentism, as we see in Sudan (North and South), and the failed attempt in the Azawad region of northern Mali and other places are probably a mere attempt to correct the arbitrary outcomes of the Berlin Conference. The conference pitted people of different nationalities together. There is the need to exercise restraint in assuming self-determination struggle is a terrorist activity, even if its ways and means can be abrasive. The nature of resistance, albeit pervasive, is to seek freedom of action. Therefore, the motive for action is key in distinguishing state-centric terrorism from agitations. While existentialists or political nihilists are construed as freedom fighters or self-determination groups, state terrorism, as exemplified by the current Russian unprovoked attack in Ukraine, can be akin to exerting state power to gain strategic, political, and economic objectives through domination and intimidation.
The nature of resistance, albeit pervasive, is to seek freedom of action. Therefore, the motive for action is key in distinguishing state-centric terrorism from agitations.
In defining terrorism, the US State Department used words such as “criminal violation” within the jurisdiction of the US “to affect the conduct of government”. It further includes “assassination or kidnapping” in the basket.[14] A cursory examination of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) and Department of Defence (DoD) shows a different approach to the same concept.[15] It begs the question as to why the US could not achieve inclusivity. Of course, the duplicity is justified in the job description of various agencies within US borders. If missions are fundamentally different, then the description of what constitutes terrorism from the US perspective depends on the mission statement of various security entities. Nonetheless, if the US does not agree on a unified definition, what definition of terrorism then guides its war on terror and related activities overseas? A state may act in self-interest if it has the power to do so and, perhaps, change the narrative to confuse the concept of terrorism to promote an agenda. The premise seems incredibly US-centric. Though not a bad idea from a realist perspective, the notion sustains the article’s reasoning that the UNSC/UN is incapable of doing its job. It somewhat validates the view that the haziness inherent in defining terrorism could be a pretext or an endeavour to confuse the international security system. This is what this article attempts to explore.
Domestic Insurrection
Compared to Nordic countries such as Denmark, where the Human Development, Democracy Index and Corruption Perception Index are higher and more robust, civil unrest or agitation reminiscent of states with inherent restiveness due to poor governance is hardly experienced. In Nigeria, for instance, the study of the Niger Delta militancy is precipitated by government neglect and years of impunity. The Almajeri and feudal system in Northern Nigeria, particularly in Borno, Kano, and Kaduna states, also breeds poverty, bleakness, and disaffection. Such outcomes are the fuel that inflames Boko Haram. Corrupt governance provokes restiveness among the youth, turning them into veritable tools at the hands of Domestic Subversive Organizations. The immense mineral resources in this climate are a lure for Hostile Intelligence Services and, most often, what actually incites terrorist tendencies. This seems to explain the peculiar situation in Nigeria and other African countries. In other words, it is the corrupt system that elicits nihilists. Terrorism has been defined in the Nigerian Law Dictionary by Suleiman Ismailia Nchi as: “The use or the threat of using unlawful force or violence for political ends.” The activities of political nihilists do not fit into this definition; therefore, in context, Niger Delta militancy and Boko Haram at inception did not seek political gain but social justice.[16] Fair and equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges in society is political but distinguishable from irridentism or the quest to gain strategic political/economic and in pursuit of higher goals of domination.
Compared to Nordic countries such as Denmark, where the Human Development, Democracy Index and Corruption Perception Index are higher and more robust, civil unrest or agitation reminiscent of states with inherent restiveness due to poor governance is hardly experienced.
Terrorism versus Political Nihilism
This article distinguishes the two concepts and points the way to a new politics shaped by realism of the moment rather than the idealistic levelling of modernity; in the duplicity of the concept of terrorism. To note, political nihilism as a phenomenon is precipitated by poor global governance and a corollary of realism that presents politics as driven by grand aspirations of advanced civilization but bound by tragic limitations of international law. Whether in service of aristocratic radicalism or radical democracy, the use of the term terrorism is governed by idealism, which has focused the scourge within the domain of non-state actors. From the perspective of Nietzsche, political nihilism has most often been associated with transformation rather than limitations.[17] Nietzsche draws on Thucydides as a source of realism that is neither reductionist nor transformative but rather looks to the grandest of human aspirations and the limits of idealism. Purportedly, political nihilism is a response to realism buttressed by truism that all that is questionable and terrible in existence, birthed political nihilists – a group bore in poorly governed societies and, therefore, they recourse to self-help and violent agitations. Implicitly, political nihilism is a product of state terrorism, and it is most likely a distortion for those who terrorize to recourse to blackmailing those who are oppressed as “terrorists” in their response to nepotism and deprivation. Paradoxically, and over the decades, the academic communities and stakeholders find it rather convenient to label such groups as terrorists to further subjugate them – a trend that often heightens vulnerabilities. The character of modern idealism, the source of conflicting values, the effects of liberalism, and the consequences of democratic modernity have prevailed and promoted falsehood.[18]
It becomes necessary to flesh out of this tragic realism what is true about terrorism and that which is illusory about political nihilism. Nietzsche asserts that to become theÜbermensch, one must transcend the established morals and prejudices of human society to define their purpose and values in life. According to him, most of the townspeople ignore Zarathustra, resulting in dismay that most humans are becoming content with mediocrity and simple pleasures while avoiding anything extreme in contrast, a political nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties and no purpose other than an impulse to destroy.[19] Nietzsche adds that the corrosive effects of political nihilism would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions. Conflict of ideas and current trends about the true meaning of terrorism could be examined from the Russia/Ukrainian model. First, it is instructive to know that the UN unanimously agreed that Russian Ukraine action is deemed state terrorism. This was validated despite Russia being a member of the UNSC. Ukraine’s brutal invasion by Russia has gained the attention of experts on terrorism as to whether Russian action could be deemed a response to idealism or an international norm within the international security system.
Nietzsche asserts that to become theÜbermensch, one must transcend the established morals and prejudices of human society to define their purpose and values in life.
Contextually, it is argued that when a nation invades another without provocation, it immediately becomes terrorism, particularly since the objective is political gain. In retrospect, Russian aggression against a perceived weaker opponent may align with medieval attributions and outright colonialism by a modern-day empire. Could this atrocity be concluded as an interstate war? In this instance, the Minsk agreement was broken without consideration of the legal regime of the UN. In Bucha and Mariupol, for instance, civilians and prisoners were murdered, while the Azov steel survivors were killed in a building full of explosive devices.[20] These are a few examples of atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine. Again, a special military operation does not amount to a war declaration; thus, before claiming war crimes or war against humanity or genocide, it is important to underscore that this is not a war, as stated by the Russian leader, so what is it?
The UN thus needs to reform itself comprehensively as the international security environment has shifted since the end of the Second World War. State terrorism is widespread among the UNSC member states and must be contained irrespective of the veto powers currently enjoyed by the P5. The proxy wars and mordacious infringements on weak sovereigns should be sanctioned appropriately to promote global peace. In addition, the UN should review issues bordering on domestic criminal acts and rebellion – enforcing extant domestic and international laws to act as deterrents instead of labelling such criminal behaviours as terrorism.
Terrorism is not a monolith. The idea was expanded conceivably to protect unwieldy state terrorist actions. Primarily, cases of genocide, crime against humanity, or war crimes are not mutually exclusive and do not correspond in a way to terrorism. The Holocaust was an act of terror against Jews, and incontestably, so is Russia’s unprovoked act of aggression against Ukraine. As such, it is significant that we do not confuse domestic/transnational crime or existential despair-induced violence as a terrorist act.
Delusion about Terrorism
Islamic fundamentalist movements essentially began as defensive responses to European colonial domination.[21] This is like political nihilist demeanour, but it contrasts crusaders and historical Jewish phenomenon. Early Islamic fundamentalists were reformers who wished to affirm the value of their religion by returning to what they sought to portray as its pristine and original form – their movements only gradually acquired the militancy characteristic of much religious fundamentalism today.[22] On the other hand, these movements share with Christian and Jewish fundamentalism an antipathy and secularism, an emphasis on the importance of traditional religiosity as their members understand it, and strict adherence to sacred texts and the moral codes built upon them.[23]
The history of the political nihilist confrontation in September 2001 in the US would not be all-inclusive without mentioning Saudi Arabia because many of the executors of this plot were Saudi nationals. Despite this realization, Saudi Arabia was not faulted as a state sponsor of terror. Instead, in the aftermath of this epic event, the public discussion assumed that only the mindset of perpetrators accounted for terrorism. This occurrence and subsequent action in Afghanistan revealed two things: first, the action of the US was probably premeditated, and secondly, politics, interests, and the media determine the conceptual clarification of terrorism discourse and theories. Furthermore, inquiries would be needed to establish if the September 11 Al Qaeda attack was an excuse to go into Afghanistan, as was likely the case with Libya and Iraq. The US and its allies could have probably changed the regime on the issue of Khashoggi if it was not for Saudi Arabia. In the end, terrorism as a tool for strategic foreign policy objectives becomes distinctive.
Sense of Terrorism
The application of violence to create fear to gain the power and resources of other states is not new. Such violence has served states and various regimes throughout history. The term was used extensively during the Reign of Terror in France (1793–1794). In Maximilien Robespierre’s words, “…terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.”[24] It is, therefore, a virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to the country’s most urgent needs. The Reign of Terror was a bloody, vile, and oppressive episode in French history. It is a textbook definition of the instillation of fear and a form of state terrorism. Robespierre reinforces the claim that terrorism is not a guerrilla action; it is not the activities of freedom fighters. Terrorism is not self-determination. It can be argued that terrorism is what nations do, and perhaps, not what is acted out by revolutionaries, anarchists, or criminal gangs. Seemingly, it is safe to conclude that the notion that a tactic synonymous with inferior forces (asymmetric warfare) is a tool of intimidation (terrorism) is misleading.
It can be argued that terrorism is what nations do, and perhaps, not what is acted out by revolutionaries, anarchists, or criminal gangs.
Proxy Wars and Terrorism
As states became increasingly advanced, wars were made a crime, and global communities succeeded for a while, only to devise ways to circumvent whatever was put in place to end warfare. This could be linked to the failure of the League of Nations and the development of nuclear weapons. Despite bouts of treaties and conventions, there seems to have been a relapse to proxy wars, and state terrorism has become a means of circumventing the laws of war.
Theories of either competitive or comparative advantage govern interstate relations. Unfortunately, some hegemons see all from their point of view, believing that the world sees the same, and so fight for such causes. The framework of excessive interest in oneself and concern for one’s advantage at the expense of others is often a recipe for conflict.[25] An inability to accurately assume or understand any perspective other than one’s own is perhaps the construct of terrorist states. From the Renaissance through the World War periods to the post-war years of conflict regulations, humans have always been violent in their relationships out of fear, need, and greed. Promoted by ego, human instinct is to react violently to eliminate the fear if an event or a thing is strange, different, and inexplicable. This is historical and has been an answer as to why transgressions often attract reprisals and counterretaliations.
Over several decades, the fear of what is different from us has naturally triggered the need to eliminate such fears through violence. Nietzsche holds that the concept of ego, reason and consciousness have resulted from the breakup of human existence from a more natural state – a state in which instinctual activity dominates human life. Nietzsche’s concept of ego is closely related to his understanding of human instincts.[26] The need to preserve our values and future keeps us from trusting others, and it has become a trend for nations to seek revenge for past misdemeanours meted out against their kind because of egotism. The most profound question facing humanity is how different we are. Is it by being white, black, or any other skin pigmentation? How did we acquire so many different languages? Social scientists have advanced many theories to support some of their claims. While some are not verifiable, humanity’s challenges remain daunting.[27]
The need to preserve our values and future keeps us from trusting others, and it has become a trend for nations to seek revenge for past misdemeanours meted out against their kind because of egotism.
Violent Extremities versus Terrorism
Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which small groups of combatants, such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars, use military tactics, including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility, to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.[28] In the past, guerrilla movements were simple tactics to defeat a stronger opposition.[29] When a weaker, independent group member conducts irregular combats against more powerful regular forces, it is not terrorism. It could be given other names that are numerous but not terrorism. Fundamentalism or violent extremism is inherently totalitarian and easily construed as terrorism insofar as it seeks to remake all aspects of society and government on religious principles. It remains difficult to distinguish, but when reference is made to ethnicity, religion, and ideology, it is difficult to place those activities as terrorism. Herein lies the problem with defining terrorism.
It is erroneous to view reprisals as motivated by ideology, religion, or tribe as terrorism, and this is where analysts have muddled everything. First, it is key to observe that ethnic conflicts are not always about ethnicity; they are a convenient common denominator for organizing a conflict group in the struggle over resources, land, or power. They are also a convenient mechanism for organizing and mobilizing people into homogeneous conflict groups willing to fight each other for resources.
The legitimacy or otherwise of goals sought by a state should be irrelevant to whether that nation is outlined as a terrorist state. It becomes significant to observe that a terrorist is not a freedom fighter, and a terrorist is not a guerrilla. A terrorist is a terrorist, whether that state is policing weapons of mass destruction or enforcing ideology.[30] Furthermore, it is important to recognize that public support matters even when such a coalition’s objective is popular. International recognition does matter, especially regarding liberation movements, as this may legalize the movement. Therefore, terrorists should not be defined based on their goals or aim but by their actions. When the outcome of a terrorist act is strategic, the damage involved is grave and crucial to the survivors within the state.
It becomes significant to observe that a terrorist is not a freedom fighter, and a terrorist is not a guerrilla. A terrorist is a terrorist, whether that state is policing weapons of mass destruction or enforcing ideology.
Terrorism can clearly be defined as applying state power to exploit weaker nations to gain a competitive advantage over rival states or preserve global or regional hegemony. An impulsive state actor is belligerently pursuing power over rival states or oppositions through violent intimidation.
A State-Centric Anomality
The Oxford dictionary defines a lone wolf as a “terrorist or other criminal who acts alone rather than as part of a larger organization”.[31] There is PTSD, psychosis or shared criminality linked to lone wolf attacks. Some of these definitions are self-serving and political to a certain extent. It seems like a strategic foreign policy tool for those saddled with the responsibility to protect. As powerful states seek political-economical gains, those at the receiving end (political nihilists) seek freedom of action, which essentially distinguishes the two concepts.
As a supranational entity, the UN has lost some of its essence as a result. Global communities no longer trust its abilities. For instance, today’s leaders and members of the Security Council have continued to interpret Article 2(4) and Article 51 in a manner that suits their purposes. China’s invasion of Taiwan could follow Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We must perhaps identify these state behaviours as an act of terrorism and make necessary adjustments to the UN articles and other justifiable mediums to discourage tyrants from changing the way of civility and global peace.
Today’s leaders and members of the Security Council have continued to interpret Article 2(4) and Article 51 in a manner that suits their purposes.
The invasion of Ukraine validates the claim that terrorism is a state-centric anomaly. A war waged by lies and deceit. Non-state actors, except when bolstered by an external government, should not be able to intimidate a sovereign entity. Terrorism thus seeks political gains by intimidation. This paradigm would undoubtedly go through predictable but vehement spasms owing to several decades of false programs in the international system. A terrorist is a terrorist regardless of the reasons cited for their acts of terror. In that same manner, actions and strategic outcomes are key when defining terrorism, not merely the objectives of terror, which can easily be misconstrued.
If a [illegal] military action other than war yields a strategic outcome, and extensive damage occurs to target states’ lives, property, and way of life, then a terrorist feat is being experienced. Terrorism is a war waged to gain power and competitive advantage over resources by other means, unlike violent extremism, which is a reprisal engagement against dominant states’ oppression.
Kunle Olawunmi has acquired education and experience in the field of National and International Security Studies. His earlier publications include COVID-19: Ensuring Continuity of Learning During Scholastic Disruption in Tertiary Institutions in Nigeria (World Journal of Education, 2021) and BIO-TERRORISM, IMPERIALISM AND HEMORRHAGIC FEVER EBOLA VIRUS (Academic Journal of Current Research, 2019). The views contained in this article are the author’s alone and do not represent the views of Chrisland University, Abeokuta, Nigeria.
[1] J. T. Johnson, “Just War,” Encyclopedia Britannica, June 15, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/topic/just-war.
[2] Ibid.; Also, Rosalyn Higgins, “Grotius, and the Development of International Law in the United Nations Period.”
[3] The International Bill of Human Rights, Fact Sheet No.2, Rev.1 (Geneva: United Nations, 1996), 3.
[4] Gert Danielsen, “Meeting Human Needs, Preventing Violence: Applying Human Needs Theory to the Conflict in Sri Lanka,” (Universidad del Salvador Buenos Aires, September 2005).
[5] Roger A. Coate and Jerel A. Rosati, “Preface,” in The Power of Human Needs in World Society, ed. Roger A. Coate and Jerel A. Rosati, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1988.
[6] Susan Marker, “What Human Needs Are. In Beyond Intractability,” August 2003,
http://www.beyondintractability.org/m/human_needs.jsp/.
[7] Erik Freas, “The Middle East Under the Mandate System,” Itinerario 32 (1): 95–99, doi:10.1017/S0165115300001728.
[8] Dawn Chatty, Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East, The Contemporary Middle East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), doi:10.1017/CBO9780511844812.
[9] Christopher C. Joyner, The United Nations, and International Law, (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
[10] Sanusi Abubakar, Nigeria: Is Mend a Terrorist Organization? Daily Trust (Abuja), October 05, 2010, https://allafrica.com/stories/201010050535.html.
[11] Stephanie Hanson, “MEND: The Niger Delta’s Umbrella Militant Group,” https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/mend-niger-deltas-umbrella-militant-group, March 21, 2007, 9:39 am.
[12] M. Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America
(Berkeley, University of California Press).
[13] John Philip Jenkins,Terrorism, https://www.britannica.com/topic/terrorism.
[14] Michael R. Ronczkowski, Terrorism and Organized Crime, Intelligence gathering, Analysis, and Investigation, (CRC Press, London: 2004).
[15] Idem.
[16] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI, last accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3930.html; and Andrew Walker, “What is Boko Haram?,” United States Institute of Peace, www.usip.org, 2012, 1-16.
[17] Paul Kirkland, “Nietzsche’s Tragic Realism. The Review of Politics,” 2010, 72, 55 – 78, 10.1017/S0034670509990969.
[18] Kirkland, Paul E. “Nietzsche’s Tragic Realism,” The Review of Politics 72, no. 1 (2010): 55–78, doi:10.1017/S0034670509990969.
[19] Nihilism, Internet encyclopedia of philosophy, a peered review of academic resource, https://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/.
[20] The Minsk Conundrum, “Western Policy and Russia’s War in Eastern Ukraine Chatham House,” The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2023, last accessed September 20, 2022, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and-russias-war-eastern-ukraine.
[21] Henry Munson, “fundamentalism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, November 26, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/topic/fundamentalism.
[22] Shalini Saxena, Dictatorship, Fascism, and Totalitarianism,
Political & economic systems, Encyclopedia Britannica, July 15, 2017, https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=f4sgBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&dq=Islamic+fundamentalist+movements+began+as+essentially+defensive+responses+to+European+colonial+domination&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-xeWljKr9AhU8gP0HHUy-DX4QuwV6BAgCEAY#v=onepage&q=Islamic%20fundamentalist%20movements%20began%20as%20essentially%20defensive%20responses%20to%20European%20colonial%20domination&f=false
[23] Idem.
[24] Modern History Sourcebook, “Maximilien Robespierre: Justification of the Use of Terror,” https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/robespierre-terror.asp.
[25] Thomas Kesselring, Ulrich Müller, “The concept of egocentrism in the context of Piaget’s theory New Ideas in Psychology,” ELSEVIER, December 2011, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X10000267#bib54.
[26] Khalid Jamil Rawat, “Instinct and Ego: Nietzsche’s perspective,” E-LOGOS, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2015(2), 61-70.
[27] “Direction for European social science – the need for a strategy,” https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000188333.
[28] Dough Irving, “Civilian Casualties: Lessons from the Battle for Raqqa,” RAND, July 01, 2022, https://www.rand.org/topics/asymmetric-warfare.html.
[29] Guerilla Warfare, https://www.britannica.com/topic/guerrilla-warfare.
[30] M. Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America,
(Berkeley, University of California Press).
[31] “Lone Wolf,” Definitions from Oxford Dictionary, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwickZ-UxeL8AhXmVqQEHS3ZCVcQvecEegQIFhAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Flanguages.oup.com%2Fgoogle-dictionary-en&usg=AOvVaw3kNBXVjbAIAFeyFQVCJmJF.
