Amidst the recent controversy surrounding terrorism and its meaning for our society, I feel that this piece can help people to find a better understanding.
A critical evaluation of Cooper’s (2001: 83) definition of terrorism as “the intentional generation of massive fear by human beings for the purpose of securing or maintaining control over other human beings”.
Terrorism is a massively contentious issue which many analysts look at from differing viewpoints. Perhaps one of the most prominent questions is how to define terrorism. This alone is debatable, with many definitions using the same words as others but taking on a slightly different meaning due to the context in which they were written and the opinion of the writer. Despite Cooper’s definition appearing both broad and easy to apply, terrorism is nevertheless an essentially contested concept. In order to critically evaluate the statement, it will be first important to assess its credibility by cross referencing it with other standpoints on defining terrorism. There are many standpoints when it comes to defining terrorism; many even conflict with each other due to their ideologically driven nature. For example there are state and non-state definitions and also, new and traditional theories on what terrorism is. It will also be worth considering, in context of Cooper’s definition, what the idea of state terrorism means for defining terrorism. Most importantly, for a definition such as Cooper’s, the quote must be applicable to contemporary examples of terrorism such as the war in Iraq. All such questions must be asked of Cooper’s definition in order to perform a critical evaluation and as such, attempt to come to a considered and amicable conclusion of what terrorism could be defined as.
The main issue for governments or analysts trying to define terrorism is that terrorism is an essentially contested concept and contains no truth. It then in turn becomes difficult to analyse all the aspects of terrorism and create a meaningful sentence which looks at all the aspects evenly. It is impossible therefore to develop the perfect definition as there will always be opposition regarding legitimacy, rendering every definition untrue. As Laqueur explains, “There is no authoritative systematic guide to terrorism – no Clausewitz, not even a Jomini – and perhaps there will never be one, simply because there is not one terrorism but a variety of terrorisms and what is true for one does not necessarily apply to others” (Laqueur, 2003, p. 8). There is however, a need for an international definition to be created in some form due to the increase in terrorist activities concerning the western world in recent times. As Hoffman says, “An analysis of political violence is particularly important, given the fact that authoritarian regimes may find it convenient to label all manifestations of violent opposition as terrorist in nature” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 451). Cooper’s definition is an interesting take on terrorism and does lend itself slightly to a certain aspect of terrorism, that being state terrorism. State terrorism is not terrorism as it is immediately thought of but is for sure a very dangerous and malicious variation. Whittaker says that, “The high costs of modern warfare, and concern about non-conventional escalation, as well as the danger of defeat and the unwillingness to appear as the aggressor, have turned terrorism into an efficient, convenient, and generally discrete weapon for attaining state interests in the international realm” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 37). Although it could be argued that state terrorism does not exist at all. This is due to thoughts that terrorism is most often brought about due to a group wanting change rather than a government trying to maintain the status quo. There have however been many examples of where states have used military force to keep its population in line. Such as in Argentina where a government funded organization known as the AAA squad (Argentinian Anti-Communist Alliance) killed in total over one thousand five hundred people who opposed the government. During the mid seventies, the group was at its most brutal and was ordered to kill many political activists but also senior officials such as police officers and judges (Valente, 2007). This was, as Cooper’s definition states; an intentional generation of massive fear which in theory allowed the government to ‘maintain control’.
However, Cooper’s definition stretches beyond just state terrorism and could be used to describe both new and traditional theories. New terrorism is what we see from Al Qaeda today, with tactics such as suicide missions which draw their thought from religious persuasion. Muslim extremism and its aims very much befit the aims and ideas of new terrorism, as it sees violent destruction as an end in itself. As field states, “Proponents of the concept argue that contemporary terrorist groups are operating in an unprecedented manner and pose an entirely new type of terrorist threat” (Field, 2009, p. 1). Again this would be the intentional generation of fear which Cooper’s quote defines. Looking at Al Qaeda, it would appear that its members cannot be reasoned with whilst performing their acts of terrorism as they believe they are doing what is right in accordance to their religion. This mentality gives them the power to generate, as the title definition states, massive fear. More traditional forms of terrorism see destruction and violence as simply a pathway to advantages regarding political ends. According to Field, “The ‘traditional terrorism’ of the past was linked to a predominantly nationalist or separatist agenda and was usually concerned with the political situation within a specific region or country” (Field, 2009, p. 3). Cooper’s quote covers this as well when it communicates the ‘securing’ of power for those enacting terrorism. This differs from the example of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers, who of course cannot secure power from beyond the grave. Therefore Cooper’s definition can show, when taken in context of a given situation, two differing variations of what terrorism is at the same time without necessarily undermining the other.
Alongside contemporary thinkers and analysts such as Cooper, many states have attempted to define what terrorism is. State definitions have often been seen to have conflicted with other non-state definitions in their assessments of terrorism even when they came from the same country. For example, the US State Department has a different interpretation from Brian Jenkins, a former US government advisor. Jenkins codifies terrorism as, “The use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). Whereas the US State Department defines terrorism as the, “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Whittaker, 2001, p. 3). These two definitions take on similar areas of terrorism but the state definition appears more official, accommodating more specific circumstances. There are many other conflicting definitions of terrorism circling the US system, all of which throws up confusion for both the public and senior officials dealing with terrorists. However, it could as easily be argued that the more definitions the world has, the easier it will be to pin point a violent act as terrorism.
Looking at the above statements, perhaps the only reason why Cooper’s definition cannot fully explain terrorism is because it lacks two key areas or words which show up in many others, that is violence and politics. The two go hand in hand when evaluating terrorism especially concerning traditional theories on terrorism which explains that one often leads to the other. This is all despite the title statement itself being subject to much change over time as Cooper states, “This definition evolved over some 25 years of teaching about the topic of terrorism in a university setting, and during that time, it has undergone a number of small refinements as experience has suggested” (Cooper, 2001, p. 883). Importantly however, in the critical evaluation of Cooper, the definition has shown through the cross referencing of other notions of terrorism, that it can certainly be used to describe varying types of terrorism and could run closely alongside many other definitions and theories. All this meaning that Cooper’s definition is easily justifiable as an evaluation of terrorism.
In order to truly assess Cooper’s claims however, they must be analysed in relation to a case study. The Iraq war broke out due to a reaction to the terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 in New York. The twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York were destroyed by Al Qaeda suicide bombers aboard two aeroplanes; it was believed that terrorist leaders such as Osama Bin Laden were responsible. The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush along with other allies agreed to join forces and invade Afghanistan for fear that they possessed weapons of mass destruction. “Testifying in front of the inquiry into the UK’s participation in the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Blair said he had stated publicly that Iraq needed to be confronted over its ambitions to develop weapons of mass destruction” (CNN News, 2010). This war later spread into other parts of the Middle East including Pakistan. There are perhaps two instances of terrorism during this period which Cooper’s definition can cover. The first is obviously the malicious attacks on the UK and US. More significantly the world trade centre attacks on September 11th but also the terrible London bombings in July 2005 where civilians were targeted on public transport. Over seven hundred people were injured during the London attacks with fifty two more killed (One India News, 2010). This would be an example of new terrorism, where death and destruction were the sole aims which Cooper defines as the ‘generation of massive fear’. The other instance of terrorism would be the relentless tactics being used by the Taliban in the war which followed and is still ongoing today. Hoffman, speaking of the Taliban, continues, “…once more is marshalling its forces to continue the struggle against the United States, which Osama Bin Laden formally declared thirteen years ago” (Hoffman, 2009, p. 1). Road-side bombs and suicide bombers have caused many western casualties over the years with the war proving very difficult for either side to win.
It is clear that the Iraq war and the actions preceding it can all be assessed as examples of terrorism in accordance with the title statement. This much is true but it could be interesting to look at the war from a different standpoint, where Cooper’s definition can take on different meanings. Perhaps it is the western allies who are also war criminals in the case of Iraq and are often seen to be committing terrorist acts themselves. Little is mentioned of the deaths of the largely innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who are often caught up in the conflict. Considering Cooper’s definition, this could be seen as a state, or several more powerful states, aiming to ‘secure’ the control of another when initial fears of the possession of nuclear weapons was somewhat misguided. Schmid suggests that, “By placing narrowly defined acts of terrorism in the context of ‘war crimes’, the dilemma of attributing a given act of violence to the criminal or political sphere disappears” (Schmid, 1993, p. 13). It could be argued therefore that the Taliban is simply trying to defend its own territory by forcing allied troops out of the area despite its violent threats to the Western world. However even this, according to Cooper, is a form of terrorism and can be positioned within the definition when it talks of the ‘maintaining’ of control over other human beings.
Terrorism is an essentially contested concept and it has throughout the ages been difficult to define as it continuously proves today. There are no set rules when defining terrorism, with many definitions using alternative words even when coming to the same conclusions. There have been many attempts at it however, with most definitions covering broadly similar areas even if they do vary in emphasis on different issues. Cooper’s definition stands in my view as a very credible alternative to even those from government departments. It can be applied to varying aspects of terrorism including state terrorism and even war; it is comparable with state definitions, other non-state definitions but also new and traditional thoughts on terrorism. Cooper’s quote also offers up an interesting debate with regards to the War on Terror and how it can be viewed from differing perspectives. In conclusion, although there have been a vast amount of attempts to define terrorism, indeed it is often thought of as an impossibility, in my opinion Cooper’s definition stands up as well as any other.
Bibliography
Books
Hoffman. J (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, Second Edition, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Laqueur. W (2003), No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty First Century, Google Books, Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uXn6UYh9JUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false,
Schmid. A P (1993) Western Response to Terrorism, London: Frank Cass Publishers.
Whittaker. D J (2001) The Terrorism Reader, New York: Routledge Ltd.
Web Articles
CNN World (2010), Blair: No ‘covert’ deal with Bush over Iraq, available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-29/world/england.iraq.blair.inquiry_1_john-chilcot-tony-blair-iraq?_s=PM:WORLD,
One India News (2010), July 7 2005 London bombing inquests to begin, available at: http://news.oneindia.in/2010/10/11/july7-2005-london-bombing-inquests-to-begin.html,
Journals
Cooper H. 2001, ‘The Problem of Definition Revisited’, Terrorism, pp.881-892.
Hoffman B. 2009, A Counterterrorism Strategy for the Obama Administration, Terrorism and Political Violence, 21 (3), p. 359, [online]. Available from: Taylor Francis Online. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546550902950316,
Field A. 2009, ‘The ‘New Terrorism’: Revolution or Evolution?’, Politics Studies Review, 7, pp.195-207.
Luis de la Calle, 2011, ‘What We Talk About When We Talk About Terrorism’, Politics and Society, 39 (3), pp.451-472.
Schmid A P. 2004, ‘Frameworks for Conceptualising Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (2), pp.197-221.
Weinber L, 2004, ‘The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism’, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16 (4), pp.777-794.
The Word Stable 
One Response to “Defining Terrorism”