Armed group or terrorists? : implications of labelling

Armed Group or Terrorists?

Implications of Labelling

Author: Hanae Zaitar

Student number: 10674659

Master program: Political Science – International Relations

Research project: Thesis - Armed Groups and Violent Conflicts

Supervisor: Ram Manikkalingam

Second Reader: Anne de Jong

2 * The picture on the front page contains the logos of the analyzed armed groups that are labelled as terrorists. The logos are from Hizballah, HAMAS, PKK, FARC, ETA, IRA, LTTE, ELN, ANC, PLO, LRA, and NPA.

3

Contents

1.3 Research question and sub-questions ... 9

1.4 Research methodology ... 10 1.5 Thesis outline ... 10 2 Literature review ... 11 3 Theoretical Framework ... 22 3.1 Definition of labelling ... 22 3.2 Literature review ... 23 3.3 Process of labelling ... 27 4 Implications ... 30 4.1 Positive implications ... 30 4.2 Negative Implications ... 37 4.3 Analysis ... 42 5 Conclusion ... 48 Bibliography ... 50

4

Abstract

In today’s international politics, armed groups play a big role in intra-state conflicts. Despite many different armed groups in the world, armed groups still get labelled as terrorists. The literature on terrorism is diverse, but the most academic articles and scientific books on this subject all start with the same questions: “what is terrorism”, and “why is it import to have a universal definition of terrorism”. I argue that without a universal agreement on the definition of terrorism, the terrorist lists give states and governmental organizations a blanket power to label individuals, groups or organizations as terrorist without any further consequences for them. Furthermore, the terrorist list can been used as a political method by states in attempts to criminalize and delegitimize resistance armed movements. Labelling armed groups as such, brings several implications for states, IGO’s and the armed groups themselves. Labelling of armed groups needs explanation, because labels are political and could be misleading. Labelling is on one hand good in order to distinguish armed groups, but on the other hand there is a chance that armed groups are handed the wrong label which lead to several implications. For instance, states use the terrorist label to label an armed group, which is against the government to gain national and international aid for oppressing the armed group. Labelling has positive implications and negative implications. The positive implications of labelling are related to states and IGO’s, and the negative implications are related to the armed groups.

5

List of acronyms

ANC African National Congress

ECCHR European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

ECHR European Court of Human Rights

ELN National Liberation Army

ETA Euskadi Ta Askatasuna

EU European Union

FARC Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia

FTO Foreign Terrorist Organizations list

HAMAS Harakah Al Muqawamah Al Islamiyyah

ICCPR International Convention on Civil and Political Rights

ICJ International Court of Justice

IGO International Governmental Organization

IRA Irish Republican Army

LRA Lord’s Resistance Army

LTTE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NPA New People’s Army

PKK Kurdistan Workers’ Party

PLO Palestine Liberation Organization

UDHR Universal Declaration for Human Rights

UAE United Arab Emirates

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNSC United Nations Security Council

6

1 Introduction

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

- Gerald Seymour

1.1 Research issue

Today, despite many different armed groups in the world, armed groups still get labelled as terrorists. Many armed groups are labelled as terrorist by states and IGO’s, giving states the ability to add the groups to the UN or EU terrorists lists. But due to the lack of a universal definition, it is unclear if an armed group can always be considered terrorist. Labelling armed groups as such, brings several implications for states, IGO’s and the armed groups themselves. For example, on March 1, 2015, an Egyptian court decided that HAMAS is a terrorist organization, while on December 17, 2014, the court of the European Union made the decision to remove HAMAS from the European Union terrorist list. Furthermore, now HAMAS is labelled as a terrorist organization by Egypt, the position of Egypt as mediator between Israel and Palestine possibly could be affected, because Egypt has played a big role in peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine and both sides seeing Egypt as a neutral and impartial mediator. Several studies on HAMAS have acknowledged the complexity of HAMAS.

Glenn Robinson (2004:135) argues that labelling HAMAS only as a terrorist group is problematic for two reasons. First, he suggests that such labelling ignores most of the activities in which HAMAS is involved, namely its social and political activities as a social movement organization. Second, it is always problematic to speak of a terrorist group, as opposed to groups that periodically use acts of terror for tactical reasons. Furthermore, any group who is labelled as a terrorist group is politically and socially degraded (Grisham, 2014:15).

In today’s international politics, armed groups play a big role in intra-state conflicts. Thus, understanding and engaging armed groups is an important issue for the international community (Thompson, 2014:7-8). The definition of armed groups vary between international lawyers, scientists, and academic experts from IGO’s and NGO’s (Krause, 2009:203). Furthermore, the definition of armed groups is debatable

7 and intensely politically oriented. Due the large number of active armed groups in today’s society, it is difficult to make an understandable and useful definition. Moreover, also due to the fact that there are various armed groups which vary in size, behavior, structure, motives, goals, and resources (Hoffman, 2004:03).

Armed groups get different names or labels. Armed group with positive labels means that the armed group is legitimized, like liberation movements, freedom fighters, and defense forces. The armed groups with negative labels are according to the international community illegal. These negative labels are terrorists, rebels, insurgents, criminals, gangs, bandits, and warlords. Labelling of armed groups needs explanation, because labels are political and could be misleading. Labelling is on one hand good in order to distinguish armed groups, but on the other hand there is a chance that an armed group are handed the wrong label which lead to several implications. For instance, states use the terrorist label to label an armed group, which is against the government to gain national and international aid for oppressing the armed group. It is important to recognize such diversity, to understand the interests of the groups, and to draft and implement efficient strategies to decrease their power to challenge states with violence and their injurious effect on social society (Graduate institute of international and development studies, 2010:87-88).

Ylönen (2014) argues that the labelling of armed opposition groups as terrorist is both politically biased and tends to have little academic value. On the one hand, analyzes of the labelling of armed groups is not from one particular view, which may estrange it from objectivity. Furthermore, the difficulty in defining the political aim of each armed group, inhibit any effort to attain a specific categorization of the armed groups. Moreover, such labelling can have a brief academic usability. Instead, it may help the explanation of political argumentation, framing, and certain policy approaches regarding armed groups. Categorizing by academics creates social boundaries between each other, which can justify certain actions and policies by states against armed groups. Hence, the research on armed groups is related to politics by falling into the trap of legitimizing a particular position and approach towards armed groups (Ylönen, 2014:4).

8 The moral issues related with the categorizing and labelling of armed groups can be noticed in the ongoing scholarly debate on terrorism. The widely known statement

“one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” leads attention to an identical

dilemma, which linked to the difficulty in defining terrorism. This resembles the political use of the labelling of armed groups, by naming them as criminal or terrorist

(Ylönen, 2014:5). Furthermore, He also argues that the academic studies’ analyzing

armed groups is that scholars should avoid labelling without a proper justification to protect the academic objectivity. As mentioned before, the use of categorizations or labels creates social and identity boundaries and is debatable, with implications when it used in the political world (Ylönen, 2014:6).

In my view, there is a positive and negative side of labelling. The positive implications of labelling are related to states and IGO’s. By labelling armed groups as terrorist, states and IGO’s have the ability to adopt measures such as, the banning of the listed armed group, the ability to take action against the listed armed group, or to impose sanctions on the listed armed group. These measures are targeted at combatting the listed armed group, to protecting the community against the listed group, and maintaining peace. For armed groups that been labelled as terrorists, there are negative implications for them. Several scholars argue that by listing armed groups as terrorists, the negotiations and peace process will be effected. Furthermore, the groups objectives, political and social activities are then ignored by states and IGO’s. These examples are not the only implications of labelling, but in my opinion the most important implications of labelling. Finally, I find that actions against terrorism, such as listing on the terrorist list should be based on objective facts and facts that are verifiable, or on the base of the behavior of the armed groups or their threats, and it should not be conflicting with each other. Lastly, the taken measures should be in balance with the threat of the listed group (O’Donnal, 2007:951).

9 1.2 Research aim

Hamas is not the only group labelled as terrorist, there are several other armed groups that are labelled without consideration of the implications for the group. Inconsistent messages on Hamas being a called a terrorist organization one day but not a terrorist organization at other times, made me think about other armed groups and the implications of labelling for both them and the state. Labelling armed groups as terrorist will have positive implications for states, but for the armed group the label will be overwhelmingly negative. Therefore I will research both positive and negative implications of labelling. Furthermore I will also research the impact of the terrorist label on the social and political activities of the armed group. Another point I am interested in, is finding out if labelling is effective in combatting the armed group. Finally, as there is no universal consensus on the criteria that define terrorists, I also want to know which actors are important for states and IGO’s when deciding the armed group is a threat to the national and international community and defining an armed group as terrorist.

1.3 Research question and sub-questions The research question in this thesis is:

What are the implications for labelling an armed group as terrorists?

The research question would be answered through the following sub-questions:

- What are armed groups?

- Why do armed groups use violence to obtain their objectives? - What is terrorism?

- Why is the lack of consensus about the definition of terrorists problematic? - What criteria does a state or IGO examine before defining terrorists? - Why is it important to have a universal definition of terrorists? - What is labelling?

10 1.4 Research methodology

This research is foremost a literature study. First of all, the theoretical background is based on literature reviews from scientific books and articles to describe the main debates, and to define the central concepts “armed groups” and “terrorism”. Furthermore, this thesis is also based on international law, news articles, research reports from IGO’s like, the United Nation, the European Union and reports from several NGO’s that have experience with armed groups. The positive implications will be described and analyzed through academic literature and several newspapers. As mentioned before, I will describe and analyze several armed groups that have been labelled as terrorist to research the negative implications. The armed groups that will be analyzed here are: LTTE, PKK, HAMAS and Hizballah. Though other armed groups, such as the IRA, ETA, FARC, ANC, PLO and the ALN are mentioned as well. Finally, the research question will be answered through the analysis of found implications both for states and armed groups.

1.5 Thesis outline

This thesis is structured as follows: In the second chapter, I will give a broad overview of the literature on armed groups and terrorism, with the aim to understand the background of these two concepts. Furthermore, the definition of armed group and terrorism will be set out in this chapter. Moreover, this chapter also contains the debate on terrorism. The third chapter defines the concept labelling, and the literature on labelling would be reviewed. In addition, the process of labelling will be described and explained. Chapter four shows the implications of labelling, and the found implications would be analyzed and expound. Finally, in chapter five, the research question will be answered.

11

2 Literature review

“Nobody likes to get the label ‘terrorist’. It is an unhelpful word. As soon as we hear the word terrorist, people look different to that person. They see that person

as unhuman and scary.”

- Jo Berry (founder of Building Bridges for peace)

This chapter is structured as follows: First, the concepts “armed groups” and “terrorism” will be defined on the base of academic and scientific definitions. Then, the literature and debates on the mentioned concepts will be described and important statements will be highlighted. The literature will be organized along the topics of armed groups and terrorism. This chapter has the aim to define the concepts and to review the literature and debates on the mentioned concepts.

As mentioned in my introduction, in today’s international politics, armed groups play a big role in intra-state conflicts. Thus, understanding and engaging armed groups is an important issue for the international community (Thompson, 2014:7-8). Thompson (2014:04) argues that there is no universal definition of an armed group. According to Thompson, armed groups are: “coherent, autonomous, non-state actors

that rely on the threat or use of force to achieve their objectives.” The United Nations

defines armed groups as: “groups that have the potential to employ arms in the use of

force to achieve political, ideological or economic objectives, and are not within the formal military structures of states, state-alliances or intergovernmental organizations, and are not under control of the state(s) in which they operate."

(Thompson, 2014:05).

The main characteristics of armed groups are described by Bruderlein (2000) as follows: First, there must be a basis command structure: the commanders have a minimum control over the behavior of their combatants, and, the combatants are organized according to a unitary command structure and follow its instructions. Second, the use of violence to achieve political ends: the group is engaged in a political conflict, aiming to redefine the political and legal basis of society through the use of violence. The usage of violence is a means to obtain political status, however is not employed as a military strategy which aims for a takeover. Furthermore, violence can take numerous forms, and particularly towards civilians. And lastly, the armed

12 group is: independence from state control: an important indicator of the independence of the armed group is the leaders control over the behavior of the combatants. However, it is difficult to judge the state control of armed groups, since it is often rejected to make the state responsible for the acts of the armed groups (2000:8-9).

International Relations scholars recognize the importance of non-state actors, although they have long viewed the world through a state-centric lens.

Thompson (2014:06) argues that the study of armed groups is important, because if we do not understand armed groups, international actors may have a difficult time understanding the conflict or the main actors in them. Thereby, it is important to note that armed groups use violence, are not under control of states, and they are a security threat to the state. Whether through violence, or merely through their existence, they challenge the legitimacy of the state (Thompson, 2014:05). Thompson (2014:22) notes that even though many armed groups share common elements, there is a wide variation in armed groups. The Economic or political goals, or the ability of a group to mobilize, may help accumulate armed groups, but the boundaries between archetypes are quickly blurring. For this reason, looking at individual characteristics of armed groups is very important. Furthermore, understanding a specific armed group can remove potential mistakes that can grow when armed groups being labelled as terrorist.

According to Thompson, the most armed groups are led by charismatic individuals or political regime change. These individual characteristics do not describe a broader understanding of the armed group and its place in the international environment. Thereby, it is necessary to examine the individual characteristics of an armed group to understand the importance, role, and place in a state’s threat matrix (Thompson, 2014:75). Besides, Thompson argues that states must recognize that armed groups are the symptoms of the problems in today’s political, economic, social and military areas. Furthermore, the underlying basis that led to the growing threat from armed groups remain as factors that create progressively complex international environments, growth motives for illegal activities, and create falsification in the market for privatized violence (Thompson, 2014: 174).

Thompson (2014:75) also argues that the creation of archetypes is important, for understanding armed groups and the nature of armed groups, for further analysis

13 on armed groups, and to bring clarity to ambiguous concepts and definitions. However, Thompson (2014:76) points out three negative aspects of the creation of archetypes: First, Thompson argues that labelling is politically driven, and due to their negative meaning, a regime may refer to armed groups as terrorists or criminals. Second, archetypes may cause the terms ‘terrorism’, ‘insurgency’, and ‘organized crime’ to be banded together indiscriminately. This will hinder the diffusion of important information throughout the academic community and will lead to potentially misleading guidelines and polices. As a result, politicians and academics create superficial and incomplete narrative frames based on these incorrect double differentiations. Finally, the conceptual lines between armed group types are fading. This does not mean that archetypes are not functional, but it is important to understand the ideal form of a group before understanding how armed groups are fading the lines with other armed groups.

Thompson asserts that it is necessary to understand armed groups, because states, politicians, and policy makers label armed groups very generally without any detail. Therefore, the academic environments need to understand the definition of an armed group and the meaning of labelling an armed group as terrorist. Furthermore, he also asserts that there is something objectively behind the word terrorist, although the concept be filled with political connotations and is used against political enemies. Thompson also argues that even if words are used and adopted through societal discourse, they can change understanding behavior, and ultimately statements of policy (Thompson, 2014:77).

According to Krause (2009) the most research on armed groups is based on the rationalist models. The rationalist approaches do not study the social understanding of the members of the armed group. Instead, if a study addresses the issue at all, the reasons found for certain behaviors by armed groups lie in simplifications or over generalizations. Therefore, an ethnographic study can be more effective when studying armed groups, as Krause (2009) argues: “Ethnographic study can involve informal

interviews with armed groups or government officials in order to uncover their understanding of a situation, and/or to validate external interpretations of the meaning of certain acts. It can also be used to reconstruct the socio-cultural meanings and rules of action for armed groups, as these are defined by the groups and the

14

broader society. In any of its variants the approach is demanding and potentially dangerous when applied to armed groups. But it can also yield significant insights that are not evident from an outside perspective.” (Krause, 2009:206). Thus, studying

armed groups should be extended, and not only regarding specific armed groups, but also how they should be studied. In other words, what kind of frameworks, approaches and methods should be used for studying armed groups (Krause, 2009:202).

As mentioned before, rationalist models dominate the literature on the formation and motivation of armed groups. For example, many studies on armed groups have been focused around the ‘greed versus grievance debate’. The greed view, demonstrate by Paul Collier, argues that the elite, not wanting to share wealth among the population, are more likely to consider backing armed rebellion as a viable course of action. The movement gains followers when the rebellion is financially achievable,

by natural resource or diaspora, and also when there is a ‘poverty trap’1, which makes

joining more attractive. However, the grievance view point out that the comparative deprivation is linked to the ethnic and nationalist identities, which influence the actions and motives of the most recent armed groups. In this view identity matters as a driving force for merging armed groups by separating them on grounds of race, language, religion, ethnicity, or regional relationship (Krause, 2009:210).

The literature on terrorism is diverse, but the most academic articles and scientific books on this subject all start with the same questions: “what is terrorism”, and “why is it import to have a universal definition of terrorism”. Grisham (2014:15) argues that several scholars from different academic disciplines have tried to define terrorism, but no single scholarly definition has been created. I found more than 100 definitions of terrorism. Below I pointed some academic definitions:

Crozier defines terrorism as “motivated violence for political ends. Measures

of extreme repression including torture, used by States to oppress the population or to repress political dissenters, who may or may not be terrorists or guerillas, as termed terror.” (Crozier, 1974:4).

1

The meaning of ‘poverty trap’ is:

“The situation of being unable to escape poverty because of being dependent on state benefits, which are redu ced by the same amount as any extra income gained.” Retrieved on 29 May, 2015, from:

15 Wilkinson defines terrorism as “the use of coercive intimidation by revolutionary

movements, regimes or individuals. […] political terrorism is a sustained policy involving the waging of organized terror either on the part of the state, a movement or faction, or a small group of individuals. Systematic terrorism invariably entails some organizational structure, however rudimentary, and some kind of theory or ideology of terror.” (Wilkinson, 1974:11).

Laqueur defines terrorism as “the use of covert violence by a group for

political ends, usually directed against a government, less frequently against another group, class or party. The end may vary from the redress of specific grievances to the overthrow of a government and the taking of power, or the liberation of a country from foreign rule. Terrorists seek to cause political, social and economic disruption, and for this purpose frequently engage in planned or indiscriminate murder.”

(Laqueur, 1977:79).

Since 1937, states have tried to agree a definition of terrorism in international law, but without success. After the attacks in September 2001, The UNSC Resolutions 1267 and 1373, noted that states “shall prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts” and take the “necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts”. But the resolutions did not define the term terrorist, and an agreement in the United Nations has been stalled since. The obstacle at hand is the fine line between terrorism as a legitimate act of resistance and how the legal regime established by a convention would coexist with international humanitarian law.

According to the report of the ICHRP, it is difficult to agree on a definition, because states have tended to focus too much on who could be labelled a terrorist rather than the definition of a terrorist act (ICHRP, 2008:19).

Despite the unsuccessful negotiations on the Comprehensive Conventions, domestic and regional definitions of terrorism have been elaborated since the Tokyo Convention entered into force in 1969. Some of the definitions were created in reaction to specific incidents of terrorism, or to procedural situations of specific incidents (ICHRP, 2008:20). Regional organizations like, the European Union, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, the League of Arab States and the African Union, also have adopted binding measures on the subject of terrorism (ICHRP, 2008:20). This shows that even without a universal consensus of the

16 definition of terrorism, therefore, terrorism has not gone unregulated (ICHRP, 2008:21).

Several academic articles have outlined the importance of having a universal agreement in the definition of terrorism. Schmid and Jongeman (1988:177) argue that the literature of terrorism is not the product of a single discipline, because scholars from different fields such as criminology, law, political science, sociology and history have contributed to it. A central concern in terrorism studies is identifying the causes of terrorism. Bueno de Mesquita (2013:636) argues that researching the causes of terrorism, is to look for correlation between various measures of terrorism and its causes: economic deprivation, political repression, or religion. According to Beck (2008:1567) in the study of terrorism, grievance can play a central role, while McCarthy and Zald (1973) argue that grievances alone are not enough to explain terrorism. Furthermore, Schmid and Jongeman (1988:127) argue that sociological approaches to the study of terrorism would benefit if they did not take society as the point of departure, but if they begin by studying the terrorist movement or organization; its internal structure, its non-terroristic activities, its internal dynamics, and its external links. Schmid and Jongeman (1988:129) also argue that terrorist groups are splinter groups from broader political movements and it may be that the life cycle of these movements can tell us something about the decision to opt for terrorist techniques.

According to Bueno de Mesquita (2013:635) terrorism is an act of violence if it satisfies several criteria: (1) it must be taken by a non-state actor. (2) it must have as its purpose some political, economic, religious, or social objective. (3) it must be intended to intimidate a population that is larger than the direct victims of the attack. De Mesquita (2013:635) argues that this definition already rules out some act that other might label as terrorism. The first point rules out the direct actions of states as terrorist attacks. States no doubt sometimes engage in violence meant to intimidate a large population. But the constraints and incentives that shape state behavior are different from those that shape the behavior of non-state actors. Furthermore, the second point distinguishes terrorism from violence by organized crime. The last point is that terrorism is a tactic that organizations use to try to leverage relatively low levels of violence into larger influence (Bueno de Mesquita, 2013:635-636).

17 According to Laqueur, there are several aims of terrorism; specific grievances, the overturn of the government and the breakdown of their power, or the liberation of a country. Terrorists seek to cause political, social and economic disruption, and for this aim frequently engage in planned or unplanned attacks (Laqueur, 1987:72). Laqueur argues that all discussions of terrorism, on the motives, the specific character and enduring consequences, should start with a clear, exact and comprehensive definition of terrorism. Otherwise, there will be a broad agreement on the definition, with result that everyone will interpret the definition in a different way (Laqueur, 1987:142). Richards (2014:218) argues that defining terrorism has been a controversial attempt that has confused both academics and policymakers. The political, subjective and negative use of the term has affected any prospect of reaching a universally agreed upon definition, and continued consideration over the meaning of terrorism is often seen as an old and excessive exercise. According to Richards, is terrorism like any social science concept. Furthermore, terrorism is a social construction, and a paradox in trying to be defined.

Richards notes that as an ontologically unstable term, terrorism, therefore, barely mean a brute fact. Richards also notes that the social construction of terrorism, means that in theory terrorism can actually be whatever one says it is, and thus comes down to who has the power to define terrorism. Moreover, it is also the case that those who claim that the term has been misused are by definition themselves guilty of making some type of knowledge claim as to what terrorism is and what is it not (Richards, 2014:218). According to Richards, this dilemma is with all social science concepts. Social science concepts are socially constructed, and their meanings and function changes over time. Moreover while terrorism may be socially constructed, this does not mean to say that there cannot be a universally agreed definition of the concept, even if there is an acknowledge that such a definition would be the truth but the conclusion of an agreed on understanding at a given time in a new context (Richards, 2014:219).

Some scholars argue that agreeing a single definition of terrorism is not necessary. But most scholars understand the necessity for defining the term terrorism. According to Grisham (2014:15), due to the problematic nature of defining terrorism and terrorist organizations, it is necessary to develop a less negative definition. As

18 mentioned before, research on terrorism draws on many disciplines. Yet there are concerns about scope, methodology, impact, and the level of public debate.

According to Schmid (2011:44) states, institutions, and scholars have their own criteria when it comes to deciding how to label violence that is linked to political, religious, social, and other causes. Furthermore, the reason why many states have different definitions of terrorism is because, organizational and bureaucratic perspectives, and responsibilities also influence the definitions of terrorism.

Schmid (2011) asserts that the risk of the UN definition of terrorism is that a resistance movement involved in a struggle for freedom could be labelled as a terrorist. Besides, Schmid notes that “when a definition serves to deny public

legitimacy to one violent actor while allowing another violent actor engaging in the same sort of conduct to escape being caught in the definition, the door is open for double standards.” (Schmid, 2011:52). Even in the legal field, there is a doubt

regarding the definition of terrorism. In particular, the existing relativism and moral implications of the label. For example, one of the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declares: “terrorism is a term without any legal significance. It is merely

a convenient way of alluding to activities, whether of states or of individuals, widely disapproved of and in which either the methods used are unlawful, or the target protected, or both.” (Schmid, 2008:14).

Hoffman (2004:23) argues that terrorism is a negative term. According to Bryan, Kelly & Templer (2010) the negative nature of the term is dangerous, because it’s continued to be used by academics. And, once the word is used, even with the objective of deconstructing the term, the politically loaded meaning that has been put forward is useless with regards to understanding the act that is being analyzed. Furthermore, using the term often complicates the meaning of that act instead of making it understandable. Bryan, Kelly & Temple, declare that the argument for using the label of ‘terrorism’ is based on an unclear definition that can be defended with theoretical and empirical arguments which point out that not all elements of a category necessarily have to share the same characteristics (Bryan, Kelly & Templer, 2010:83). The authors argue that by categorizing diverse acts of violence as terrorism, the whole group of people would be labeled. Hence, it is more insightful to look at when the label of terrorism is used (Bryan, Kelly & Templer, 2010:85).

19 It is difficult to think of a wiser case of that the category defines the act, and not that the act defines the category. Because it is obvious armed groups that are labelled as terrorists, the violence acts they commit therefore become terrorist acts. As an example, the authors refer to the violence act by the IRA in 1984.The act is labelled as terrorism, because the IRA is viewed as terrorist organization, and not because the act itself. Thus, because of the labelling of IRA as a terrorist organization, the violent acts committed by their members are all called terrorist acts, although there are different aims of the violent acts. The reason of why the definition of terrorism constantly covers various areas is because the analyzed acts in each case are so different in nature (Bryan, Kelly & Templer, 2010:86). According to Bryan, Kelly & Templer (2010) labelling many different acts of violence as acts of terrorism, appears that all the violent acts, regardless of context and meaning, have moral similarity (Bryan, Kelly & Templer, 2010:89).

Ganor (2002) argues that it is essential to have an objective definition of terrorism, to combat terrorism. Because without an objective definition of terrorism, there won’t be any coordinated fight against international terrorism. Ganor also argues that a correct and objective definition of terrorism can be based on accepted international laws and principles regarding what behaviors are acceptable in conflicts between states and armed groups (Ganor, 2002:4). The usual definitions of terrorism lead to conceptual and linguistic difficulties. Hence, concepts with a positive meaning like, guerrilla movements, resistance movement, and national liberation movements, often used to describe and characterize the activities of terrorist organizations. In most cases, these concepts are used without extensive attention to the implications, and sometimes the uses of these definitions are established in a specific political perspective (Ganor, 2002:8).

Furthermore, defining terrorism is not only a theoretical issue but also a practical issue. Ganor also argues that terrorism is no longer a local problem but an international issue. For example, terrorist organizations perpetrate attacks in different states, the victims of attacks have different nationalities, terrorist organizations get direct and indirect aid from different states, and, terrorist get support from different ethnic communities. Since terrorism is an international issue, responses to terrorism must also be on an international scale (Ganor, 2002:18). Ganor notes that without a

20 definition of terrorism, it is impossible to develop or implement international agreements against terrorism. For example, the international extradition of individuals. Although many countries have signed international agreements regarding different crimes, extradition for political crime is often explicitly excluded, and the background of terrorism is always political. This gives states the possibility to avoid their obligation to extradite individuals who are responsible for terrorist activities (Ganor, 2010:19).

An international agreement of the definition of terrorism would be easier, with an objective definition, one which takes account to the demands and perspective of armed groups and their followers (Ganor, 2002:21). An accepted definition, which can serve as a foundation for international terrorist activity, also could bring armed groups to think about their actions. Armed groups must be confronted with the question of persisting to launch violent attacks versus risking: losing of legitimacy, incurring harsh and specific punishments, facing a coordinated international opposition, and suffering harm to sources of support and revenue. The international community must support the moral and practical dilemmas of the definition of terrorism, and on the basis of an accepted definition, to establish a clear policy of sufficient means of punishment (Ganor, 2002:22).

Many western scholars, politicians and states accepted the misperception that terrorism and national liberation groups are the extremes in using violence. It is impossible for any group to be a terrorist group and a national liberation group at the same time. Hence, Ganor argues that many have tried to understand the difference between a terrorist group and a national liberation group, but have been caught in a semantic trick set up the terrorist organizations and their associates. They tried arguing with the clichés of national liberation by using random arguments, rather than declaring that when a group or organization chooses terrorism as a tactic, the aim of their conflict cannot be used to legitimize their actions (Ganor, 2002:10).

Roberts (2014) pointed out that there should be more focus on the specific acts instead of labelling whole groups. To attend effective terrorist operations, it is important to understand the causes and ideology of the group (Roberts, 2014:62). The definition of terrorism is enduring debate that will not be shortly sorted out. Studying terrorism is particularly problematic, because of the changing main core of the issue.

21 Also the methodology of studying terrorism has been ongoing problem. Such as to understand the advance or declines of a group, why it pursues particular forms of action, and how it relates to the people it claims to represent, it helps to have extensive date on how it is perceived among a given population (Roberts, 2014:63).

Although the problem of defining terrorism, there has been some progress both in the national regulation of states and in a number of international considerations. Still, there is no clear final resolution of the definition problem. Roberts describe four causes of the definition problem as follows: First, like other conceptual political terms the essence of the connotation is clear and it is debatable. Second, its meaning has changes over time like many words, and also changes as between different states and political beliefs. Third, there should be an admission of the issue of the terrorist activities of states. Finally, because terrorism is a debated concept, the international community should be applied with serious attention and applicable scientific discretion (Roberts, 2014:65).

One of the central fundamental arguments for trying to define terrorism has been to provide a basis for prohibited particular terrorist groups. However, according to Roberts, there are three risks in prohibiting whole groups on the grounds that they are terrorists. First, labelling a whole group as terrorist can be harsh, and can even amount to serious misrepresentation. Second, labelling a whole group as terrorist may, under particular national legal policies, make it difficult and in some cases impossible to negotiate with the group. Last, even when the situation changed and an agreement against a threatening group was really needed, it is impossible to form an agreement with the labelled group due the prohibition to form an agreement with terrorists (Roberts, 2014:65). Due the defining issue of terrorism, and a safe agreement of listing armed groups as terrorist, it is essential to pay attention on the terrorist acts and not on terrorist groups or terrorism. Roberts argues that defining specific acts as terroristic should be intellectually more defensible, legally sounder, and perhaps even politically more productive.’ (Roberts, 2014:65).

22

3 Theoretical Framework

In the first paragraph, I will explain the definition of labelling. The second paragraph, I give review on the existing literature of labels and labelling. In the last paragraph, I describe the process of labelling by governmental organizations and states. Regarding to the process of labelling, I will describe the aim and functions of three different terrorist lists. The terrorist lists will be described on the international level (United Nation), regional level (European Union), and on the national level (United States). The reason for looking at the terrorist list of the US, is because the 9/11 attacks and the ‘war on terror’ played an important role in how armed groups currently are described by both states and IGO’s. Overall, this chapter forms the theoretical framework.

3.1 Definition of labelling

Wood (1985:347) defines labelling as an element of public policy and in the structure of political discourse. Political discourses are constructed and created for specific purposes, and the most important, the creation, support and extension of power. According to Bhatia (2005:8-9), once a name is established a series of normative associations and characteristics are quickly attached to the named subject. Bhatia argues that by naming, the subject becomes known in a way which may accept particular forms of analysis and commitment. Naming is according to Bhatia to identity an object, and to allocate it with characteristics, motives, values and behaviors. Furthermore, Adler (1978:93) argues that the purpose of naming is to identify, designate and indicate something. According to Adler (1978:135) names are labels, and the power which comes from names and naming is directly related to the power to define others. Identities and how people see each other are enormously affected by the names and the words which they are labelled.

23 3.2 Literature review

According to Jackson (2005), words are never neutral, because they don’t just describe the word, but they help to create the world. Therefore, words can never be employed in an absolutely objective sense. Jackson appoints several reasons in his book. The first reason: academics discovered, that all language have a double structure. Hence, the application of language can never be really neutral.

The second reason: the way of speaking has an active role in the creation and changing of perceptions, knowledge and emotions. Namely, language forms how people see the world, language is the central element of perceptions, and language is the entry to actual reality. Furthermore, the language of politics is established on the assumption to understand the world, and is intentionally organized to form the perceptions of the world and the types of people in the world. Jackson argues that, politicians try to form public perceptions through the strategic use of particular words and grammatical formations. Jackson also argues that language does not only affect perceptions, but also structures knowledge. In other words, language affects our way of thinking and how we make strategic choices.

The third reason: language also effects emotions, because language structures perceptions and knowledge. On the other hand, particular words or the combinations of words can be affected by emotions. Therefore, politicians often use specific words to create a specific kind of public emotion, such as outrage, sympathy or fear.

The final reason: words are not neutral, because words always have a history. The reason is that words have no basic definition, and words have to obtain in their own discursive context. According to Jackson, the background of the word terrorism a perfect example.

Jackson argues, originally, the word terrorism was used to describe the actions of states against their own people. However, since 1960, states, media and scholars define the word terrorism as the use of violence by small groups who threaten the state, and so the word terrorism has a new meaning. Accordingly, because words have histories, the act of naming and defining something, is always a complex process that can have serious political and social implications. As mentioned before, language affects perceptions, emotions and knowledge. But language also affects a political action, such as implications for social processes and structures.

24 Jackson also argues that speaking and writing is never a neutral act, and it is not possible to use language objectively. Thus everything we say or write has a specific intent. Furthermore, Jackson also argues, that language is the instrument of the political world, and that politicians always have created particular types and forms of language to gain public support and assent for their actions (Jackson, 2005:21-24).

According to Bhatia (2005:8-9), once a name is established a series of normative associations and characteristics are quickly attached to the named subject. Bhatia argues that by naming, the subject becomes known in a way which may accept particular forms of analysis and commitments. Bhatia also argues that names can fulfil a similar role as stories and pictures. Names serve as a reaction to extra and sufficient information, and using structures to order, interpret and simplify. Most names are not developed individually, but drawn or borrowed from other areas. Furthermore, names place attention on specific aspects and characteristics of an object, while at the same time ignoring and disregarding other essential areas. Since the September 11 attacks, politicians and scholars have struggled to find applicable words that describe the current global situation. Bhatia (2015:15) asserts that especially during conflicts, people assigns morality to their own identity and decisions, based on a set of negative characteristics to describe the opponent, concerning to greed, illogical or the absence of civilization.

History provides little additional help for those looking for examples of words that used to describe conflicting groups, instead providing various cases where the idea of brutal, criminal or extremist as opponent was constructed to legitimate authority or intervention. Bhatia notes that due to the absence of an international definition of terrorism or terrorist, the possibility to provide a base in international law for the terms, remains complicated. Since 1972, the terms have been under consideration in the United Nations General Assembly. During these considerations, although there has been some agreement and accord on the definition of terrorist act, the considerations have been complicated by anxiously differences over issues of occupation, liberation movements and state-terrorism (Bhatia, 2005:15). According to Bhatia, the interaction between political gain and the naming of armed groups, limits the degree to which governments can be relied on to represent opponents accurately and impartially. As a result, the micro histories of the most recent conflicts become

25 unseen (Bhatia, 2005:16). Bhatia argues that the complexity of local differences, reasons, backgrounds and relations where not important in favor of the large interpretations. Bhatia also argues that conflicts that been seen through any classificatory lens, currently accepted to corporate violence in the outside world (Bhatia, 2005:16).

Labels impose boundaries and define categories. Labels are to construct the social world; to define norms in relation to others who bear similar or different labels. Moncrieffe (2013:01) argues that without labels, the social interaction would be valuable and ungainly. Policy makers, practitioners and researchers frame and label to support their analyses and to explain to others what they do. Furthermore, they quantify and measure categories of people to define needs, justify interventions and to formulate solutions to perceived problems. Wood (1985:347) defines labelling as an element of public policy and in the structure of political discourse. Political discourse are constructed and created for specific purposes, and the most important, the creation, support and extension of power. According to Jackson (2015:19) discourses are an application of power. That implies that they try to become dominant or hegemonic by suspicion or rival discourse, by promoting themselves as definitive truth, and by ignoring any other discourse.

Hegemonic political discourse is, according to Jackson, a public debate that

especially uses language, terms, ideas and knowledge of the dominant discourse. In

addition, other words and meanings are not often found and other statements have never been heard. Jackson argues that one of biggest political discourses, trying to become hegemonic over alternative discourses, is the “war on terrorism”. The most important to know, is that political discourses, are not monolithic, nor are they even totally hegemonic, because there are always differences in opinion and resistance to the main discourse by political and societal actors (Jackson, 2005:19). Moreover, labels, as a characteristic of discourse, indicate that the explanation of the relation between the state and people is occurring in competition with other forms of social action such as collective voice (Wood, 1985:365).

Wood (1985) asserts that the concern of people and groups are legitimate since the process of labelling affects the categories of people and groups. Furthermore, labelling refers to power, which implies that labelling some people and situations are

26 easier than labelling others. Therefore, labelling is an act of politics which affect both conflict and authority. Thus, it important for any state to understand the dimension of labelling and the struggles around it. Moreover, through labelling, politics is being discussed in different forms (Wood, 1985:347). According to Wood labelling happens at various levels of social interaction. People use labels to signify similar preferences to the labelled and to identify themselves with others who share similar preferences, by using for example, the same language. Hence, to acquire labels happens through labelling others. Clearly, labelling is a universal process in the world (Wood, 1985:349).

According to Wood (1985:358) the function of labelling is: “to achieve

universalistic justification or legitimation of something which is highly selective. Labels require advocacy therefore, and successful advocacy is accompanied by institutionalization, and that is, a proliferation of practices in support or he prevailing orthodoxy.” Furthermore, Wood (1985:355) argues that labels rename the social

implications that are based on personal experiences. Wood asserts that labelling is not only a scientific act, but it is also an act of valuation and judgement including prejudices and stereotyping. Since these elements are difficult to separate, labelling is rarely just taxonomic or classificatory. Wood also asserts that the best way to understand the mentioned dimensions, it may be more accurate to see labelling as classification. In that way, the validity of labels become not a matter of substantive objectivity but of the ability to use labels effectively in action as description which define criteria for thought and behavior, which provide environments stable, and which establish abilities and responsibilities. Furthermore, labelling through these kinds of classification is part of the process of creating a social structure.

Besides, according to Wood people make history by making rules for themselves and others of follow. Hence, labels are also relative and social constructed which reflect patterns of authority and the acceptance of it in the context of particular events and experience (Wood, 1985:348-49). Because the concern for the state and society process, it is important to accept that people more concerned with labelling than with labels. In other words, labels reveal more about the process of authoritative designation, agenda-setting, than about the characteristics of the labelled. Indeed, labels misrepresent or intentionally falsify the situation and role of the labelled. In that

27 sense, labels do effect reveal the relationship of power between those who label and the labelled (Wood, 1985:353).

3.3 Process of labelling

Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, and their ‘war on terror’, armed groups are often labelled as terrorist. The proscription of armed groups has become an important policy instrument. IGO like the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU), and states like the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) have developed lists of prohibited organizations that are labelled as a terrorist organization (Haspeslagh, 2013:192). Haspeslagh argues that before the 9/11 attacks and the ‘war on terror’, there was some forms of listing terrorist, but it was not a global issue as now. The abovementioned IGO’s and states introduced the terrorist lists with the idea that this list will help to control the security treats. Thus, by blocking these groups, states and individuals will distance themselves from the groups (Haspeslagh, 2013:192).

At the international level, the terrorist list of the UN has three types of sanctions. The first sanction is established regarding the Taliban and Al ‘Qaeda, on 15 October 1999, by the UNSC Resolutions 1267, 1988 and 1989. The second sanction is regarding armed groups in particular conflicts. The third sanction is UNSC Resolutions 1373, 1540 and 1624. These resolutions demand states to take different actions against armed groups (Haspeslagh, 2013:192). The criteria for listing individuals or groups on the base of Resolution 1267 is: “being associated with

Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for: ‘participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of’; ‘supplying, selling or transferring arms and related material to’; ‘recruiting for’; or ‘otherwise supporting acts or activities of.”2

Resolution 1267, mandate all Member States to: “freeze the assets, prevent the

entry into or the transit through their territories, and prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer of arms and military equipment with regard to the individuals, groups and entities on the list.” (Giorgetti, 2006:07). Any UN Member

2

28 State can directly propose a name for listing. The proposing Member State must supply to the Committee a statement of the case with informative description that forms the basis or the justification for taking action (Giorgetti, 2006:08). After the proposal, the Committee has five days to object or to accept the new name on the terrorist list.

At the regional level, the EU has two terrorist lists. The first list is for armed groups within Europe, and the second list is for foreign armed groups. The UNSC Resolution 1267 and 1373, are directly implemented by the EU through the EC Regulation 881/2002 and the EC Regulation 2580/2001 (Thorne, 2006:01). The European terrorist list forwards to persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts. The criteria for listing are: “persons, groups and entities, who committing, or

attempting to commit, participating in or facilitating the commission of any act of terrorism”3. The decision to list an individual, group or entities, are taken unanimously by the officials of the EU Member States. On the ground of information and proposals taken by Member States or third-states, the European Union will make a decision to list or not to list the individual, group or entities (Giorgetti, 2006:04). At the national level, the United States terrorist lists are more complex than the terrorist list of the UN and the EU. The US has two lists regarding terrorism: the Foreign Terrorist Organizations list (FTO), and the Travel Exclusion List (TEL). In this thesis I only focus on the FTO list. The FTO list has three criteria for listing: (1) foreign organization, (2) engage in terrorist activity, and (3) threat the security of the United States. In other words, for listing in the FTO list, it must be a foreign organization, that is engaged in terrorist activity, and is a security threat to the United States. It is prohibited for an individual or subject to give material support or resources to a listed foreign organization. Furthermore, according to the FTO list, there are five other effects of labelling. Namely, the possibility to check the finance of foreign organizations and to stimulate other states to do the same; to isolate the labelled organizations internationally; to raise public attention and knowledge of the foreign

organizations; and, to give other states signals about the listed organizations.4

3 _{EC Regulation 2580/2001}

4 _{Bureau of counterterrorism of the United Nations. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list (FTO). Retrieved from:}

29 These lists contain judgment differences armed group, with different objectives and violent tactics, and from transnational armed groups such as Al ‘Qaeda, to national armed groups Such as the FARC and LTTE, to unknown leftist and anarchist groups in Italy and Greece. The only difference between the terrorist lists is who lists which groups (Haspeslagh, 2013:194). For example, armed groups like al-Qaeda, the PKK, FARC, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) are listed as terrorist by both the US and the US. Furthermore, HAMAS is a good example of the differences between listing of armed groups. The whole group is listed by the US as a terrorist organization, but only its military wing is listed by the UK, and in 2014 the EU decided to remove HAMAS from the terrorist list.

All the above mentioned lists have the same assumption. The aim of the lists is to disrupt the activities of armed groups, such as their freedom of movement or the ability to collect funds (Haspeslagh, 2013:194). The procedure of de-listing a group from the UN list and the EU list is also different. The UN lists are more flexible than the EU list. The de-listing process of the UN level is carried out by the Committee, and the delisting process of the European Union relies on unanimity among the 27 member states, which makes it nearly impossible. Listed groups can comply a request to the European Council at any time, with the purpose to amended their listing (Haspeslagh, 2013:194).

30

4 Implications

In this chapter I describe and analyze the implications of labelling. In the first paragraph, the positive implication of labelling will be mentioned and analyzed. The second paragraph, will focus on the negative implications of labelling. Furthermore, the impact of labelling on several armed groups that have been labelled as terrorist, will be analyzed. By doing this, and by showing the implications of labelling, it should become clear the importance of having a universal definition of terrorism. Both, the positive and negative implications will be analyzed and explained on the base of several empirical cases. Finally, in the last paragraph of this chapter I will analyze several armed groups to show that despite the terrorist label, the group still achieve several goals.

4.1 Positive implications

Research on the effect of labelling armed groups as terrorist organizations has been more productive than ever. In recent years, there has been an increase in articles and reports on the effects of labelling armed groups as terrorists. Before analyzing the implications of labelling of specific armed groups as terrorist, it is first necessary to describe the implications in general. States and IGO’s adopt anti-terrorism law to deter and to punish terrorist act, and to prevent the listed groups from having access to funds or resources that support their terrorist acts. Burniske, Modirzadeh & Lewis argue that the 9/11 attacks and the reaction of the international community played an important role for states to develop new laws and measures against terrorism (Burniske, Modirzadeh & Lewis, 2014:3). One of the instruments of the war on terrorism, are the terrorist lists of the UN, EU and several states like the US, UK, and the UAE. The terrorist lists has several aims, like: the public stigmatizations as terrorists, and the legal sanctions, such as asset freezing and travel bans. The terrorist list of the UN has impact at the national level of states. Because the member states of the UN and the EU must adopt and implement the sanctions in their national regulations on terrorism. The UN sanctions demand the member states to freeze the assets of the listed organization without any scope of judgement (Eckes, 2009:12-13).

31 Furthermore, the Australian government uses a terrorist list to identify organizations, groups and individuals, and to inform the Australian population that the listed organization, group or individual is a terrorist under the Australian law. Furthermore, according to the Australian government the announcement is important with the purpose to prevent the population engaging in activities of the listed organizations, or becoming a member of the listed organization, or more important to give financial support to the listed organization. Participating with the listed organization, or becoming a member, or providing funds to or receiving funds from the listed organization is punishable on the ground of the division 102 of the Criminal Code. Thereby it is also punishable to associate with a member of the listed organization whereby such association purposely provides support to the listed organization. And lastly, listing a group or organization as terrorists van also prove a

base for proceeding the listed organization in a criminal process.5

As mentioned before, the US has several lists for listing groups, organizations or individuals as terrorists. The US government asserts that the FTO list of the US has several positive effects for the state. For example, by listing armed groups as terrorists, the US has the ability to check the finance of foreign organizations and to stimulate other states to do the same; to isolate the labelled organizations internationally; to raise public attention and knowledge of the foreign organizations; and, to give other states

signals about the listed organizations.6

The creation of the global coalition against terrorism, is one of the most important success of the 9/11 US diplomacy. The global coalition consist of all five permanent members of the UNSC, the G77, the Western world, and a lot of Arab states. At the Regional level, on 21 November 2001 the EU Council decide that the war on terrorism is an important goal of the EU. Furthermore, on 24 October 2002, at the fourth Asian-Europe meeting in Copenhagen, there are also made declarations of cooperation and unit forces in the war on terrorism. The aim of these declarations is to developing willingness of IGO’s and states to cooperate universally against

5 _{Australian Criminal Code Act 1995, received on 25 May 2015 from:}

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

6 _{Bureau of counterterrorism of the United Nations. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list (FTO). Retrieved from:}

32 international terrorism. These declarations and action plans also highlight the importance of respecting the international law (Suder, 2004:17).

According to Eckes the aim of the terrorist act is to destruct the democracy of the state, the law of the state and the human rights. Hence, states are obliged to guarantee national security and, they have the duty to protect their civilians (Eckes, 2009:187). Eriksson asserts that there are several sanctions, such as: financial sanctions, diplomatic sanctions, travel bans, arms embargoes, trade sanctions, flight bans, admission restrictions, diplomatic sanctions, and boycotts. All these measures are accepted and applied with the aim to handle with national and international crises.

The use of sanctions is aimed to punish individuals and groups who are participating in armed conflict or terrorism, threaten the peace and security of the community, are involved in international crimes, abuse human rights, or finally use political violence. Sanction can reach several different goals. The main goals of sanctions is to support the democracy, to stop the human rights violations, stopping the oppression of the internal opposition. Furthermore, other goals of the sanctions is; to apply a peace accord, to prosecute the listed group or individual before the international criminal court, and to guarantee that the treaty obligations would be complied.

One of the implications of listing is that states have the possibility to bring the listed armed group before the ICC. This has a positive impact on global justice, and firstly acts as a deterrent to violent armed groups, letting them know they will indeed be prosecuted and will not be given amnesty for their violent acts against civilians. Secondly, it has ensured listed armed groups who use violence do not receive amnesty from states. In the case of FARC, the Colombian government have committed

themselves to denying amnesty to FARC members.7 From the viewpoint of states, this

positive implication gives states the power and ability to punish the listed armed

group, and to protect the global justice. Moreover, other goals of sanctions is to

inform the social society both on national and international level about the listed group

7 _{Buschschluter, V. (11 May 2015). Colombia: No blanket amnesty for FARC. Retrieved May 27, 2015, from:}