Is there no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters?

This means that all who resist government authorities, even for legitimate causes are currently called "terrorists" because the term suit most of the political leaders to pursue their political agenda. Many political observers and human rights activists believe that political leaders are conveniently using the term "terrorists" indiscriminately to every one including those who fight for liberation from foreign occupation of their land.

Who are terrorists?
A US Army manual defined terrorism as " the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature… through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear". America's foremost intellectual activist, Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT, has interpreted the definition as follows: " It is a common practice that allows for the conventional thesis that terror is a weapon of the weak. Another problem with the official definitions of terror is that it follows from them that the US is a leading terrorist state" ( Hegemony or Survival: America's quest for global dominance, 2nd edition, 2004, Allen & Unwin).

Terrorism per se is an act of senseless violence by one or more individuals to create an atmosphere of fear and helplessness. At one level it is argued that some terrorists may be individuals with personality disorder looking for a cause. At another level a sense of alternative ideology motivate them to change the prevailing world order.

Terrorism is a tactic to achieve a goal but this tactic should not be employed because no one can force another person to believe in something which that person does not want to believe in voluntarily. Terrorists have undermined the cause of freedom or resistance fighters who want to liberate their lands from foreign rule.

Many believe that terrorists do not fight for the independence of their lands but fight for an extreme ideology to succeed. The September 11 attacks on the US were motivated not to free their lands but by ideological reasons. That is why terrorist elements could spread over 60 countries. Ideological fight is not winnable easily because it is based on commitment to a misconceived faith. The fight against terrorism is for a long haul because one can easily defeat a conventional enemy but not an idea.

When distorted ideology leads them to take recourse to violently killing innocent people they become terrorists. And terrorists are to be condemned and eliminated because they are a danger to peaceful society. An ideology cannot be imposed by force. It is only through persuasion or practice that one can succeed.

In the name of Islam, some orthodox fundamentalists, such as Osama Bin Laden through his wide network Al-Quaeda, have began terrorist acts. The use of terrorism contravenes the core teachings of Islam. The term "jihad" should not be misused and should not be misinterpreted to justify terrorism. In fact such acts serve only to tarnish the image of Islam. Islam abhors such violence against innocent people. Such terrorist acts provide benefit to no one. It should be totally discarded.

State terrorism
Interestingly, when government troops kill innocent civilians in pretext of claim of terrorists, they do not become terrorists simply because their activities are sanctioned by government. What Israel is doing against innocent Palestinian civilians, women and children is nothing but state-terrorism. Since big powers are on the same boat like Israel, no one condemns Sharon. The root cause of Palestinian anger including suicide bombers is the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands since 1967, contrary to the UN Security Council resolution 242 of November 1967.

Many government troops have been causing deaths to innocent civilians on claims of fighting terrorism. Some of the people who howl "terrorist" most loudly admit that they use the term as an attempt to shut down a debate on the subject. Richard Perle, a neo-conservative guru of the US simply says : " Any attempt to discuss the roots of terrorism is an attempt to justify it".

Who are freedom fighters?
Former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad sought to draw the distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters at the 2002 Islamic Summit. He said : " We need to distinguish a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Otherwise we will deprive people wishing to

free themselves from foreign occupation or terrorist governments of their right to fight for their own salvation."

However on 22nd September, President Musharraf, a close ally of the US in the war on terrorism said in his address to the UN General Assembly that an "iron curtain" was falling between the Islamic world and the West. He further said: " The major powers of the West have yet to show movement by seriously trying to resolve internationally recognised disputes affecting the Muslim world". This implies that he saw a clear distinction between terrorists and freedom fighters.

Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who is also the chairman of the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference expressed similar opinion on September 23, in Kuala Lumpur. He said that " Malaysia will work to convince the countries of the West in particular to reassess and change their policies in the Middle East. Their stand on the Palestinian issue and their actions in contravening international law, such as the invasion of Iraq are factors that fuel acts of terror".

Historically all struggle for freedom begins initially with revolt or by commission of some violent acts. The American Revolution in the 18th century started against the British rule with the "Boston Tea Party" in 1773 when protesters threw crates of British tea into the sea. The first phase of Indian independence movement started in 1857, although the British ruler called it "Sepoy Mutiny". In 1920s and 30s, many Indian individuals had committed violent acts towards British personnel as a part of resistance movement. Many of the Indians were arrested and hanged. The question is : Is Khudiram who was hanged by the British a terrorist or a freedom fighter?

In the 30s and 40s, the Jewish underground organisation killed many British officials and even one UN Swedish official in 1948. Two of the Israeli Prime Ministers ( Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir) were terrorists in the eyes of the British administration. In 1971, Bangladeshi valiant freedom fighters waged armed struggle against the brute Pakistani Army and the Pakistani authorities called them "miscreants". Under the current situation, the brave Bangladeshi freedom fighters would have been called " terrorists".

In the 1980s, President Reagan invited the bearded Afghan Mujahedeen (freedom fighters) in the White House because they were fighting against Russian occupation in Afghanistan, while to Russians, the Mujahedeen were terrorists. To Reagan, the Afghan freedom fighters were battling the "Evil Soviet Empire" with billions of dollars from the US. One of the leaders who trained the Afghan Mujahedeen was Osama Bin Laden, a friend of CIA agents.

Many observers argue that Palestinians, Kashmiris, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Irish Republic Army, Chechens, Chinese Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province, Mexican Zapatistas and Acehnese in Indonesia, among others, have been fighting what they call against foreign rule and they claim vigorously that they should not be called terrorists. However the authorities have labeled them as " terrorists".

The human rights activist and a noted Indian writer Arundhati Roy in a speech in August in San Francisco affirmed in colourful language the right of self-determination of peoples around the world: " From the ruins of Afghanistan, from the rubble of Iraq and Chechnya, from the streets of occupied Palestine and mountains of Kashmir, from the hills and plains of Colombia and the forests of Andhra Pradesh and Assam comes the chilling reply to the authorities: 'There is no alternative. Armed struggle, Insurgency, Terrorism. Call it what you want".

What Roy means that their fight is based on the right of self-determination and not on the basis of an ideology but on the basis of their right to choose their political destiny. They want to exercise the right of self-determination in terms of the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 1 of the Covenant states: " All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". They further argue that what they fight for is recognised by the UN humanitarian law and therefore they cannot be called "terrorists".

Many believe that once the proper grievances have been dealt with through political dialogue, some of the terrorist activities will cease and the Islamic fundamentalists will be left in the lurch. In that situation, it will be very hard and difficult for Al Queada to recruit a new generation of supporters.

Fighting terrorism
Another matter that merits attention is that fighting terrorism is more than soldiers and weapons. Some say that if the parties are serious about terrorism, they have to address global poverty and thus win the hearts and minds of poor and frustrated youths. In 2003, the US spent almost US$ 400 billion on defence budget but very little on aid, the lowest of any industrialised country. Over six billion people live on this planet. One billion own 80 percent of the wealth. Another billion live in dire poverty on less than a dollar per day. In the sub-Saharan Africa, the number of poor people has doubled since 1980.

President of the World Bank James Wolfensohn continually emphasises that economic and social deprivation fuel civil wars and terrorism and a 6 percent per cent reduction in arms budgets among industrialised countries (G-8) would fund a 100 per cent increase in foreign aid. Does any leader of the rich countries listen to him?

The controversy between freedom fighters and terrorists has led to failure to define as to what constitutes terrorism in the UN, Islamic Conference and even within SAARC nations. Every one including the UN Security Council condemns terrorism but as regarding its definition, many countries want to draw a clear distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists. And there is no consensus as yet.

Even the US and Britain do not see eye to eye with Russia on the treatment of Chechens. Two former Chechen leaders have successfully obtained asylum in these countries. Russia now accuses US and Britain of maintaining a double standard policy on terrorists.

Conclusion
In this age, political spin is characterised by the choice of words and language tend to be peppered with misleading connotations. When freedom means "occupation", when democracy means "ignoring public opinion", when reform means "economic deprivation and job loss" and peacekeeping means "killing people in a foreign country", words have lost their original meanings. The same distortion has occurred with the word "terrorist".

The old adage "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" holds true even today. A freedom fighter becomes a terrorist in the context of a given political situation. One stark example is that Osama Bin Laden who was known to train Afghan freedom fighters with CIA assistance in the 80s is now number one terrorist to the US, with a bounty of US$25 million on his head.

It reminds me of what Lord Palmerston, a former British Prime Minister and a strong advocate of gun-boat diplomacy in the 19th century said: " We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow."

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.