1. Terrorism is connected to two dominant notions - terror/intimidation and violence. Political
terrorism is terrorism that is politically driven, i.e. for political ends or purposes. Depending on how
one understands these two notions of terror/intimidation and violence there can be broader or
narrower conceptions of terrorism. It is generally useful to distinguish between terrorist regimes and
terrorist acts and campaigns (regular, repeated or frequents acts as part of an overall tactic or strategy
of combat). The former involves the institutionalisation of terror/intimidation and would therefore
pertain to deeply undemocratic regimes, while the latter is often carried out by democratic regimes,
usually as a part of their foreign policy behaviour. I am going to be talking about the latter not the
former, or more precisely about international political terrorist acts and campaigns.

2. The agents of terrorist acts/campaigns can be the individual, the group or larger collectivities like
state apparatuses or agencies. The terrorism of states is different in many key respects from that of
individuals or combat groups, i.e., those agents that are non-state actors. When talking of state
terrorism this can be state sponsored or state directed. Historically, state terrorism came first and then
later there emerged the terrorism of non-state actors. When carried out by the latter it is essentially
‘propaganda by the deed’, i.e., publicity is its lifeblood. These acts are meant to be publicly
conducted, and responsibility for it is usually publicly acknowledged. It is carried out to send
messages in two directions - against the enemy and its support bases, but also to the home
population whose morale is thereby supposed to be raised. State terrorism is by contrast usually
(though not always) uni-directional aimed at sending a message of futility in the struggle by the
enemy opposed to the state in question. If the first is the terrorism of the weak, the second is the
terrorism of the strong. States usually do everything they can to avoid their terrorist acts from
becoming public knowledge since this would often be damaging politically to them. Finally, the
scale of state terrorism is far greater than that of non-state terrorism. The main reason for this is not
because the means available to states are that much greater than those available to non-state actors
(which they certainly are) but above all because the ends to which the terrorism of the state is
harnessed are so much more grandiose - protecting the ‘national interest’, defending the free world,
defeating the Communist threat, fighting against capitalist imperialism, etc. - that the scale of such
acts is not only much greater but also more capable of being justified or not seen as terrorism at all.
Al Qaeda, ironically, confirms this point since the aim of Sept. 11- a general message to the US
Satan rather than fan act with a more specific purpose, e.g., release of some prisoners - is what made
it so different from other non-state terrorist attacks in the past. The biggest danger that confronts us
today and tomorrow is not non-state terrorism but the capacities and frequencies with which states
carry out terrorist acts and campaigns!

3. Terrorism, then, is a universal problem demanding not a selective but a universal response -
morally, emotionally and politically. Morally there can be no double standards. You cannot condemn
the terrorism of Al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001 and then remain silent about the terrorism unleashed by
the US government on Afghanistan and Iraq, or condemn suicide bombings by Palestinians and not
the brutalities of the Israeli government. In Afghanistan the US used means that they knew were
going to kill large numbers of civilians and nevertheless went ahead claiming that this was not
terrorism where there is an intent to kill civilians. However, the philosophical gap between
intentionally and knowingly killing civilians is not so great as to allow such hypocrisy to get by,
especially when the number of Afghan civilians killed were more than three times the number of
those killed on Sept. 11, 2001 in the US. Indeed, double standards means the stronger party gets
away with their terrorism while the weaker side is condemned and attacked which is politically
disastrous because it only reinforces and widens the anger of the aggrieved side and its actual and
potential support base, that the only way to hit back at those who get away with their terrorism, in the
absence of international and impartial mechanisms of just punishment for all agents of terrorism, is
to continue terrorist behaviour against those who otherwise are unpunished. Emotionally, a
universalist response to acts of terrorism is not “never again to my people” but must be “never again
to any people”. Precisely because the response of too many Americans and Israelis is the first and not
the second, their governments can hope to carry out the most blatant atrocities with confidence about
getting substantial domestic support. Politically, it must be recognized that the only effective way to
tackle and eventually eradicate the problem of political terrorism is precisely to recognize and tackle
the political context which gives rise to such actions. There can only be a political, not a military or
‘deterrent’ solution to terrorism. Terrorism is not a pathology and its perpetrators are not
pathological. Similarly, terrorism is not a specific or cultural phenomenon but a universal and
political phenomenon. The tendency today in many circles to see terrorism as a special characteristic
of Islam or Muslims or the Muslim world is absurd and obscene, and deeply counter-productive.

4. Evaluating the danger of terrorism today, our greatest problem is the shield that is being provided
by the US-led “war on global terrorism”. It provides the disguise, the great ideological banner,
behind which the US is pursuing its Empire-building project. Indeed, the US government saw Sept.
11 as an opportunity for it to push forward much more aggressively and unilaterally this imperial
project. Its immediate response within 24 hours to that attack was to declare that act, not as an
international crime against humanity whereby all efforts must be made to capture and punish the
criminals responsible. Instead, it declared it as a first salvo in a war against it, which therefore had to
be countered by a “war against global terrorism”. The two words war and global were not accidental
or incidental. In a war you are entitled to act militarily at any time as long as the war is on. You do
not have to wait for an attack on yourself to retaliate. Since it is global the US can attack anywhere it
decides. It is the US of course that decides who the enemy is, and since no distinction is to be made
against the actual terrorist perpetrators and the host country, countries themselves can be directly
attacked regardless of international law. In effect, the US gave itself a carte blanche to attack anyone
it decides is guilty, to do so whenever it wants, wherever it wants, for how long it wants, and with
whatever means it decides. Note, the US declared its “war on global terrorism” to be a just war
project, not simply or merely its war on Afghanistan which being a part of this, automatically
becomes a just war. It was left to other pro-American intellectuals to do special pleading for
justifying the assault on Afghanistan when the government itself was justifying a much larger global
project! A better ideological banner behind which to disguise its imperial project it would be difficult
to find, particularly since it feeds into the fear of its domestic population and thus serves to mobilize
the American public most effectively behind it. Of course, in the nineties there have emerged five
distinct ideological banners to provide cover for US imperial behaviour - ‘humanitarian
intervention’, ‘weapons of mass destruction’, ‘war on global terrorism’, ‘regime change’, ‘failed
states’.

5. How do we move towards resolution of this problem of international terrorism? There are no
surprises here, nor any shortcuts. We can only hope to resolve this problem or at least greatly
diminish its significance and impact in the longer run if we a) confront our biggest and most general
problem conducive to perpetuating terrorism in its most widespread, deepest and dangerous form -
the US Empire project which must be defeated. b) We must recognize and address the specific
political contexts in which terrorism occurs, whether by states or non-state actors, whether in
Kashmir or Israel-Palestine, by searching for politically just solutions in these cases. c) Finally, we
have to work for effective international laws and institutions with the powers to punish all
wrongdoers, no matter how powerful, and to broaden our national laws (a la the Pinochet case) to
weaken prospects of successful refuge for leaders/people most responsible for such criminal acts and
campaigns.