State Terrorism

Terrorism is often thought of as the province of relatively small nongovernment groups that more often than not exist despite the best efforts of governments to destroy them. Indeed, some observers define terrorism specifically to exclude violence conducted by governments, arguing that when nations engage in violence and killing as a means of reaching a particular political end, it should be called oppression, not terrorism. At the other extreme, some argue that nations are the deadliest of terrorists. The average [Page 345]country, they note, has considerably greater military and financial resources than the average terrorist group, and some states regularly use violence for political ends—violence that these observers argue should be considered terrorism.

Defining state terrorism is complicated because all nations rely on violence to some degree. War, for example, is a violent and deadly way for countries to settle their differences. War can be very one-sided, as when a powerful country launches attacks on a much smaller, weaker neighbor to force it to adopt policies that benefit the attacker. All functioning governments have systems of law enforcement that rely on various forms of violence—for example, armed police, imprisonment, forced labor, and the physical mutilation or killing of certain criminals—to maintain order.

So how does state terrorism differ from other forms of state violence? One difference is the predictability of ordinary warfare and law enforcement. Wars are rarely unexpected and are generally preceded by a long period of escalating disagreements and failed negotiations. Often, a country declares war before conducting an attack, publicizing its grievances and explaining the rationale for the decision to wage war. Although they are not always honored, rules of war have been established—unarmed civilians, for example, are not supposed to be targeted by the military—and deliberate violations of these rules are considered war crimes.

Ordinary law enforcement is likewise designed to be predictable. Laws are written, and what constitutes a violation usually is apparent. If a law is violated, certain protocols must be followed regarding the capture of the suspect, the determination of guilt, and the choice of punishment. Law enforcement may involve violence; however, a functional legal system enables individuals to avoid that violence by not committing the crimes that trigger it. In an ideal law enforcement system, law-abiding individuals would never wonder whether they will be arrested, imprisoned, beaten, mutilated, or killed by state officials because they would know what constitutes a crime and that such punishments will be given only to those who commit criminal acts.