CLASSIFIED | POLITICS | TERRORISM | OPINION | VIEWS

When a Terrorist is not a Freedom Fighter - Whose decision is it?

Shenali Waduge

It is often argued that it is one's perception that defines & distinguishes between who a terrorist & a freedom fighter is - but it could also be in the terminology used globally. Arguably the fact that one man's freedom fighter becomes another man's terrorist makes it an uphill task to deal with the predicament that prevails globally. That the world lacks a single authority to declare a freedom fighter from a terrorist has created the confusion in tackling the issue & merely prolongs the suffering for the ordinary.

Judge, Jury & Executioner has been the modus operandi of the countries that we know today as the superpowers. Unpalatable as it may be countries like the US, UK even India must accept accountability for their foreign policy roles in being a haven, banker, supplier & training base for groups that these countries today term as "terrorists". How many are aware that the Osama bin Laden the present day foe of the USA was one time its friend? Osama was a friend so long as he was able to hurt the Soviet empire & for this purpose the American's showered Osama's group with arms & ammunition. Taking it further Ronald Reagan went as far as equipping bands of terrorist groups to destabilize Central & South America.

Today, the US is able to engage in wars, take over countries, send its troops, demand democratically elected Governments to follow their policies, bomb villages killing innocent civilians & simply say they targeted terrorists & the world would remain mum not even the UN Secretary General would raise a voice of alarm or a statement demanding "why". If this is the mighty USA in action we can but wonder if it is to set a precedent for countries like China, India & Russia in time to come & imagine the immunity of their actions.

Differentiating a Freedom fighter from a terrorist

How do we differentiate a freedom fighter from a terrorist? Simply put we need to be able to differentiate from those who imbibe the desire for acquisition against those full of envy that they aim to destroy happiness of others. The desire to acquire can be toned down unlike envy
- doesn't this speak volumes of what terrorists end up doing - not resting until it destroys its object, resorting to cruel & destructive ways?

Then what about the freedom fighters those who usually spring from oppressed or marginalized groups & usually struggling for a homeland they feel their own. How do we balance the equation - freedom fighters desirous of acquisition & terrorists who desire only destruction. The case of Palestinians is a good example. Can anyone guarantee that the men who claim to fight for the Palestinian cause will stop their murders & acts of arson if the Palestinian homeland was given? Terrorism is not interested in stopping at mere acquisition of what brought them together, they are out to destroy with envy whatever they feel & decide.
Why then should the world, the international community or the UN try to understand or empathize with terrorists & make their status noble. Why should terrorists be treated on par with Governments upon whom they calculate their destruction & terror?

If the attackers of September 11 were treated with wrath so should all other terrorist acts globally & Sri Lanka's case should be no different.

Freedom fighters do not destroy & kill innocent people: terrorists do & why should Sri Lanka's terrorists be known as freedom fighters for their rising atrocities over 2 decades tell otherwise. It takes great strength & wisdom to counter the destruction & mayhem that make up the enterprise of a terrorist movement & perhaps that is why the Bush Administration continues to imply force as a means to counter terrorism. How many can "talk" with terrorists & reach anywhere near a solution? Do any of the terrorists of the world care a penny for the rule books on warfare?

The 1949 Third Geneva Convention was designed to ensure humane treatment for captured legal combatants. But what is interesting is that while there are enough & more of conventions, treaties & international policies no terrorist groups or freedom fighters are signatory to it & thus not bound to follow it. Therefore these treaties remain one-sided documents which unfortunately end up forcing the State ratifying it to be accountable & not the terrorists concerned. Therefore, would any terrorist group care a penny for the treaties let alone abide by it? By violating international law do not terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the Geneva Conventions? Would not a sovereign nation have every right to take action against such atrocities?

The UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT) defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" & Article 16 further states that "each state party shall undertake to prevent any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture" - But what exactly is meant by "severe pain or suffering" & unfortunately "undertake to prevent"
doesn't really connote to mean absolute prohibition. What often emerges is States working round the international law whether human rights activists with their own political agendas like it or not. The essential element remains how many conventions & bans can the world community continue to create & would it at all give a solution?

The International Committee of the Red Cross maintains that "persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians & combatants & between civilian objects & military objectives". So who can define the illicit & licit means of conducting an armed conflict - why should the UN seek to define when its aim should be to intervene & stop such conflict from starting? Throughout the years the UN has only been piling up regulations & legislature but terrorism has not lessened.

With 12 conventions already in place & the 13th comprehensive convention against terrorism very much on the balance the UN is still undecided on how to "define" terrorism. Which returns us once again to the argument of distinguishing between freedom fighters & terrorists? For the US, Hezbollah's in Lebanon & Palestinians in the West Bank & Gaza are terrorists & it refuses to accept that they are fighting against Israeli occupation of their lands. Military attacks by Israeli's on Hezbollah & Palestinians have always been accepted as acts justifying against terrorism. The West's experience with terrorism has been with the involvement of Islamist fundamentalists. It is perhaps this reason why most are quick to equate terrorism with Islam. Which has set a trend to demonize all Muslims igniting unwarranted hatred? It is also why the US Governmental apparatus is spending billions on equipping itself against the fundamentalist terrorism without paying attention to the other forms of terrorism & LTTE should definitely be one after the FBI findings on it.

The strategy of using fear has been used by everyone including freedom fighters or liberation movements. The Nelson Mandela that we today acknowledge as a hero of our times was initially arrested & imprisoned because he refused to order his followers to refrain from violence when the African National Congress was outlawed in 1960. Similarly when the Algerian legal body the FIS was silenced they resorted to the language of violence for the British government to take any notice.

The tragedy however is that those that are accused of terrorism are themselves victims of terror & find themselves equally living in fear.

Prabakaran may be supreme leader of the LTTE but he needs a flock of bodyguards & resorts to changing hideouts for fear of his own men. What remains to say is in Arundathi Roy's word "Terrorism is transnational, as global an enterprise as Coke, Pepsi, or Nike". "At the first sign of trouble, terrorists pull up stakes and move their "factories" from country to country in search of a better deal. Just like the multinations". "Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease".

The media, human rights activists & other movements & groups with agenda's entertain the idea of "flirting" with both freedom fighters & terrorists for their own advantage & ends up a mutually beneficial venture. However in the light of what is at stake it becomes a moral obligation for those that are acknowledged as guardians of "peace" to finally treat terrorists for who they really are. Does the world really have any freedom fighters?

Disclaimer: The comments contained within this website are personal reflection only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LankaWeb. LankaWeb.com offers the contents of this website without charge, but does not necessarily endorse the views and opinions expressed within. Neither the LankaWeb nor the individual authors of any material on this Web site accept responsibility for any loss or damage, however caused (including through negligence), which you may directly or indirectly suffer arising out of your use of or reliance on information contained on or accessed through this Web site.
All views and opinions presented in this article are solely those of the surfer and do not necessarily represent those of LankaWeb.com. .

BACK TO LATEST NEWS

DISCLAIMER