International Relations

[Section 8]

Terrorist also usually employ guerilla warfare tactics. In the American revolution, the GB probably considered us terrorists, while we treated them like heros. This can be taken into context for the Palestinian IDF conflict. Same story different actors.

[rmnunez]

If we make the definition of terrorist too broad so includes a variety of authentic insurgencies in pursuit of self-determination, then the UN recognized right to self-government will be disregarded. Additionally, since the US has characterized lending support and sheltering them 'actionable' it is essential so governments can know whether helping a given group will earn them American wrath.

[rmnunez]

The Guardian (Zaki Chehab Monday October 13, 2003):

>What struck me most, though, was their intense commitment to their cause: the liberation of Iraq from its current occupiers. These were no "Ba'athist remnants". On the contrary, they blamed Saddam Hussein for bringing the Americans into Iraq. They went so far as to say the capture of Saddam by allied forces would sever the links between Saddam and the resistance movement once and for all. They defined themselves as nationalists. One said: "We do not want to see our country occupied by forces clearly pursuing their own interests, rather than being poised to return Iraq to the Iraqis."

Unadulterated propaganda from a likely source. This is not to say Iraqis do not fully subscribe to what “One” said, of course they want their country back and the foreigners gone, but most are not committed to armed struggle to bring that about and so fed up with the foreigners they want them gone yesterday. Be they ‘Baathist remnants’, Iraqi ‘nationalists’, Islamic fundamentalists or infiltrated terrorists, they all must at least claim to be in some sort of struggle for national liberation from foreign military occupation, this is what ‘sells’ their conduct (because such a struggle is recognized as normal or natural by most).

How long to tolerate a ‘liberator’ is a subjective question, not long for sure, but what is a reasonable time? Is any time beyond what one subjectively regards as enough, purely attendant on some American need to extract a profit? Could delay in withdrawing troops result from difficulties in consolidating their control to a sufficient extent to accomplish the successful transfer of power? Saddam is still presumed to be alive and well, if the Americans suddenly left, would the new guys (whoever is left in charge) be capable of resisting an effort of his to recover power? Since there are tacitly recognized reconstruction obligations and in light of the resistance, isn’t there some requirement the countryside be suficiently pacified so the effort can be undertaken? How much time to pacify, to capture Saddam or accomplish his removal, to transfer with some expectation it will hold?

[castille]

Japan is the highest importer of oil from the Middle East. The US is one of the lowest.

Lets go kill some japs and burn Japanese textbooks.

[rmnunez]

Japan is the major ME oil consumer, the EU and US rely primarily on other sources. According to figures I'm familiar with the US' imports from the region are about 15% of its total foreign oil imports (about 25% comes from Venezuela and a bit less from Mexico, smaller fractions from other places). Foreign oil, it should be noted, is a fraction of US consumption.

[rmnunez]

A Survey on Iraq: http://FreeOnlineSurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=47427

[rmnunez]

Latest survey http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?id=47427 results:

Nineteen polled, practically evenly split on whether US should “immediately withdraw”, idem on perceptions of Saddam’s ‘threateningness’, 83% now think the Oil for Food thing was not some “evil” American aim imposed on the rest, 42% now believe intervention was an international effort against international terrorism, generally unchanged on solutions.

[RebelWithanAK]

The Oil for Food programme question was terribly worded.

[rmnunez]

Yes, but its nice to quote, agree or disagree that: "The Oil for Food Programme was an evil American thing imposed upon Iraq and exacted from the rest by force of arms in the Indian ocean."

As a sensible multiple choice put that description with 4 others; "economic effort to compell compliance", "diplomatic effort to encourage adherence", "ploy to exploit Iraqi trade", "attempt to enforce a ceasefire" (I suspect you'll get the same results).

[castille]

Section 8: There is a big difference between the American Revolution and modern-day terrorism.

The American rebels had a defined goal for self-determination. They wanted a democratic, free America.

Al Qai'da and other terrorist organisations do not have such self-determination. Bin Laden does not call for a creation of a definite state, but rather the death of all Americans and Westerners (and the supremecy of Islam).


Its wrong, and very idiotic, to compare American revolutionaries to Al Qai'da. The Americans were rebels fighting for a country, Al Qai'da is a loose organisation fighting to destroy half a dozen countries.


The American revolutionaries couldn't give a damn what Britain did as long as the Imperial British kept off the American continent (excluding Canada, since Canadians werent rebelling).

Al Qai'da wouldn't care if the US became isolationist again. Their goal is the destruction of the West (and today, even Japan/China).

[rmnunez]

Castille is right, the goal of self-determination is a fundamental prerequisite for recognition of revolutionary, insurgent, rebellions. If they seek self-determination, can hold specific territory and are capable of sending emisaries to foreign governments, then they are susceptible of recognition and could be recognized with certain international rights.

Some 'terrorist' organizations are actually legitimate movements for self-determination (the ETA, IRA, KLA, Kurds, Tamil Tigers, Uighurs, Chechens...) but the Al Qaeda could never be as they've never advocated for some homeland, self-government is not the issue, its a religious or ideological movement.

With the Palestinians its an interesting problem. The terrorists there do appear to have some territorial claims, however some of the terrorist groups there are more religiously than territorially motivated.

The American rebels who opposed British rule were a classical movement for self-determination, wasn't one of the battle cries "no taxation w/o representation"? Lack of representation is the basic prerequisite for a self-government movement.

[RebelWithanAK]

rmnunez, you've hit on something, and I'd like to contend with you that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, as well as Al Qaeda, are also primarily politically motivated. But before I do that, I must say, they are terrorist groups. Tactically, they seek to terrorise the populace to foment political change. None of this "they're a 'terrorist' group" kind of gerrymandering. However, terrorism in this case isn't as vile as would be, as these are guerilla fighters against a vastly better armed and better trained enemy.

The Palestinian effort has expressed goals in the defense of Palestinian territories and livelihoods that are being subdivided by strategically placed 'settlements' and the walls and military-defended fences that they have. The fight is for a Palestinian sovereignty, which is at the moment nonexistant, as well as the economic livelihood of Palestinian peoples who do not have citizenship (90% of them) It is hard to farm or go to work or school when such endeavors are walled off and defended by the IDF - checkpoints that one cannot get past for hours or even days at a time, checkpoints that the Israeli government and army can reserve the right to turn anyone back as they please. This, coupled with incursions and an unending development of new settlements presents a clear and present threat to the continued possibility of a Palestinian homeland - which is certainly a problem when these people have been here for hundreds of years.

So they use terrorist tactics - snipers, suicide bombs, et cetera. These are the same tactics they used successfully to oust the Israelis from Lebanon. These are the tactics that the Tamil Tigers have been doing for decades (in fact, the Tamils have the highest number of instances where suicide bombings were used to date). These are the same tactics used by Al Qaeda, which is not to say that Hamas is the same as Al Qaeda, nor is it affiliated with the Tamil Tigers.

Al Qaeda also has political aims - one of which, ironically enough, was the removal of American troops from Saudi Arabia. It also has clearly defined demands as to the establishment of a Palestinian state, the pullback of American forces in all the middle east (especially Iraq), and for the US to cut support to the Israeli government. These demands are not unfounded, and are quite necessary to allow the middle east a sovereignty and an independence from the West that it has never had before. Al Qaeda does not have a country, but it pulls radicals from all pan-Arab nations and most of the Muslim world. It is as nationalistic as NATO or the east Asian bloc.

[rmnunez]

Rebel:

Terrorism and ideological premises are not divorced, the Red Brigades and the FARC (for example) have some ideological argument. The islamic fundamentalist variety of terrorism has a theological argument; its not political reform they seek rather than religious enforcement.

This is relevant because somehow with the Geneva Convention's IVth Protocol (which extends jurisdiction to insurgents w/o uniform) and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which recognizes self-determination as a "human right") we've reached the point where technically rebel insurgencies are entitled to international recognition in specific circumstances (I think the Chechens and probably Uighurs too would be eligible).

But Al Qaeda cannot qualify since they don't seek self-determination, the ones operating against Israel show a range of theological doctrine (as opposed to a self-determination claim). The PLO was actually a self-determination movement so I suppose its armed faction(s) would qualify as "legitimate" terrorists, the martyr focus with all those virgins and all sorts of references to infidels, holy land, jihad, and such -detract from their self-determination movement status.

[rmnunez]

Breaking WTO news:

EU about to impose huge tariffs on US goods if the Americans don't drop the steel tariffs by mid-December, but the Euers are playing dirty:

>In drawing up its list of sanctions, the EU has deliberately selected products from states which are crucial to President Bush's electoral hopes. A spokeswoman for the EU trade commissioner, Pascal Lamy, said the measures were "not there to punish the US but to focus the minds of the US administration". The EU did not need to use these sanctions, she said.

You know, when the US does this sort of thing its called outrageous involvement in the domestic affairs of a sovereign, they're a bit more discrete about it too.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politi...sp?story=462607

[RebelWithanAK]

Funny thing is, the history of US applications of embargoes and economic sanctions just goes to show how ineffective they are at fomenting political change. Just ask Cuba or Iraq. But hey, anything that knocks down tariffs...

[rmnunez]

Economic sanctions on unrepresentative governments never have the desired effect. The tyrant is glorified as struggling against the greedy Americans, prices shoot up for contraband goods and sniping states, the perfidious ones and emerging producers with all sorts of smugglers step in to find ways around them. There is good reason to believe artful targetting would be effective in a more citizen responsive system where the head of state's standing is measured in objective economic outputs (like employment or GNP rates).

On the blast in Riyahd, if AlQ is involved and this signals a focus now on the Saudi royals, I'd expect Saudi Arabia will become much more cooperative with the US regarding terror-funding, intelligence sharing and no more of this sudden decapitation instead of interrogation. Some of those Sheiks have a lot to hide and they are in the doghouse now, obviously they misread OBL and his fantasies.

If the blast signals an effort to oust the Saud regime and there is any substance to the argument the Saudis feel themselves "crushed" and oppressed by some sort of represive tyrany, then maybe its a home grown effort. If it is a new focus and from AlQ then it could provoke a sort of national solidarity thing.

If the AlQ were behind it and more successful suddenly and if the situation degenerated into Saud exiles and evacuations, with the Americans still deployed on the ground and in large numbers next door, it doesn't seem far-fetched to suggest 'broadening' the scope of the effort now underway.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (rmnunez,)
Rebel:

Terrorism and ideological premises are not divorced, the Red Brigades and the FARC (for example) have some ideological argument. The islamic fundamentalist variety of terrorism has a theological argument; its not political reform they seek rather than religious enforcement.

This is relevant because somehow with the Geneva Convention's IVth Protocol (which extends jurisdiction to insurgents w/o uniform) and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which recognizes self-determination as a "human right") we've reached the point where technically rebel insurgencies are entitled to international recognition in specific circumstances (I think the Chechens and probably Uighurs too would be eligible).

But Al Qaeda cannot qualify since they don't seek self-determination, the ones operating against Israel show a range of theological doctrine (as opposed to a self-determination claim). The PLO was actually a self-determination movement so I suppose its armed faction(s) would qualify as "legitimate" terrorists, the martyr focus with all those virgins and all sorts of references to infidels, holy land, jihad, and such -detract from their self-determination movement status.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Bringing us back to the terrorism topic.

FARC and the Red Brigade do not have some ideological reasons, they are totally and utterly founded upon ideological reasons.

Al Qaeda will use such radical religious language in order whip up support and to reinforce a mentality. But I would argue this is top down. Like all terrorist groups, its members are 9/10 from the poor and desperate. The religious language may be ranted all day, but it is because the members of this group have nothing left to live for, regardless of all the theology.

More importantly, the continued existence of any guerilla movement relies upon support among the people. If the central demands of Al Qaeda were met, the group would lose support among the populace, and the core of its members too. What is left would either break up and fade away, or would be found because enough people would reveal them.

Now for the EU - Bout time we got off our arses and showed some balls in dealing with the US regarding trade. I hope to hell it cripples Bush enough to topple him.

[RebelWithanAK]

I should note that I never said that terrorism was 'divorced' from ideological causes. Terrorism is a tactic, one that can be used by any group for any purpose. If the Palestinians use terrorism in order to affect political change, it does not diminish in any way the fact that their plight is very real. Of course, if the Americans use terrorism in order to affect political change, it does not change the fact that we are the aggressors.

But Al Qaeda, for its rhetoric, still has those very political issues on its demands, and put together (we want the US out of the middle east) speaks a great deal on the pan-Arab nations' self-determination on the whole. Palestine is obvious, but it's not like Iran or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are enthralled with our occupation of Iraq at the moment.

[rmnunez]

Ideology does not legitimize a terror movement except in the case where the movement's inspiration is premised pn an indeology of self-determination. If a movement seeks self-determination international law recognizes the option (though not the obligation) to recognize the movement. Governments can (and do) lawfully fund and support movements for self-determination.

It is a problem when governments differ on whether the revolutionary ideology premises a legitimate movement for self determination (one's "freedom fighters" may be the other's "terrorists"). With terrorism we've reduced the questionable cases based on tactics. But we are still left with what to do legally with genuine movements for self-determination which employ clearly terrorist tactics.

Describing US foreign policy as "terrorist" doesn't help much. While that definition may satisfy some it does differ at least in the actors (a government rather than a band of insurgents or revolutionaries). So, though the conduct arguably is indistinguishable, when we refer to terrorism and international efforts to erradicate it we are not refering to a need to confront abusive governments rather than focus on these insurgencies and revolutionary movements.

The need for definition here is claimed by many in the UN (most notably Cuba) and it is a very real need, however it is obvious choosing which groups fall on one side or the other of the law is a 'political' determination. I'd expect insurgents opposing US allied governments would invariably be termed "freedom fighters" seeking self-determination entitled to internationasl support and similar groups fighting non-US allies would be termed terrorists the US and allies could not object to how repressed.

We've got clearly recognized terrorist groups like AlQaeda which doesn't fit the self-determination movement profile and are generally recognized as criminal and we've got movements like the Chechens seeking self-determination but applying terrorist means which are sometimes recognized as criminal. With this new "war on terror" the US has identified a number of terrorist groups (overwhelmingly -though not exclusively) Islamic fundamentalists seeking jihad. None of the groups identified by the US that I know of emphasize self-determination as a goal (except the Basques). Some other groups (the Chechens and the Uighurs) are also identified as terrorists though they do seek self-government and it is argued this is done because the US wants to curry favour from those oppressing them (Russia and China).

[RebelWithanAK]

The US involvement in Afghanistan, Chile, Colombia and other places can be construed as our willful funding of terrorists. And like I said, Lebanon is a proof of successful application of terrorism to oust the Israelis. I'm not defending the tactic, but on a simple standpoint of what-works-and-what-doesn't, it's very much an option. Especially since international opinion hasn't done jack shit for the Palestinians.

You still seem to gloss over the aims of Al Qaeda, which will certainly not help in dealing with them (please please PLEASE don't fall into the propogandic hole that they're simply just against freedom and want the US to burn burn burn) but yes, even the Chechen movement uses terrorist and guerilla tactics to further an aim of self-determinations. Snipers are an oft-used tactic by insurgent groups against unbalanced forces.

And yes, 'terrorism' as a term is very subjective when put in use in our international politics, which is exactly why you can't pin a moral label on someone's movement by their tactics.