If you´ll forgive me, this does seem to make the assumption that terrorism
is something that occurs outside the state... and also seems to set up a
false binary, terrorism/democracy?
What about democratic states that are happy to use terror when it suits
them? The UK in Northern Ireland with shoot-to-kill and Intelligence
Service-sanctioned killings, and the use of dictators by the EC and the US
are both examples of this - Saddam Hussein was our best buddy until he made
the mistake of invading Kuwait. Had he not done so, he would still be in
power and would be able to kill and torture (terrorize) as much as he liked
so long as he kept the oil flowing and bought the weapons expected of him.
The ´retirement´of Rios Montt in Guatemala is another example of this, a
dictator responsible for the deaths, tortures and rapes of far more people
in Guatemala than Saddam was in Iraq, but who was allowed to retire
gracefully because he´d always done what he´d been told. Qaddafi is another
example; he apologises for a number of bombings and pays reparations for
some that he did do (the Berlin nightclub bombing) and some which he almost
certainly didn´t (the Lockerbie bombing). The next day, he gets a visit from
Tony Blair who sets up a deal for BP to extract Libyan oil, and just this
week he signs a massive arms deal with France. And can get back to
imrpisoning, torturing and killing his people as much as he likes. Because
now he´s a ´good´dictator, a ´good´terrorist...
Why is the terrorism of the state excluded from this? And how can such a
one-sided take on terrorism be described as ´altruistic´, if by encouraging
this kind of ´research´ you help to propagate the very neo-con discourse
that is in a good measure responsible for the very terrorism you wish to
research? Will the student be permitted to contest the term
´counter-insurgency´as being inaccurate and misleading? I bet.... not.
Jon Cloke
University of Sao Paolo airport cybercafe
|