Міністерство освіти і науки України

Одеський національний універсітет ім. І.І. Мечникова

Інститут соціальних наук

О. М. Набока, О.В.Александрова

Методичний посібник

з аспекту

«Зарубіжна преса та політичні реаліі»

( адaптована версія)

Навчальний посібник

з аспекту “Міжнародна преса та політичні реалії “

для студентів відділення міжнародних відносин

Одеса

2005

CONTENTS

1. Terrorism. What is it? .........................................................…. 5

2. International Terrorism………………………………….….. 31

3. Significant Terroristic Acts. The World after September 11… 46

4. Significant Terroristic Acts. Beslan………….…………...…. 74

5. Significant Terroristic Acts. Moscow Theatre Siege……..…. 91

6. Combating Terrorism…………………………………...……. 100

7. Topical Vocabulary………………………..…………………. 132

UNIT 1

TERRORISM

Basic concepts of the unit: terrorism, terror, violence. Text A. Definition of Terrorism. Text B. Terrorism. Text C: State Terrorism.

“Terrorism has become the systematic weaponof a war that

knows no borders or seldom has a face.”

Jacques Chirac

Basic concepts:

Terrorism the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion

Terror 1. a state of intense fear

2. violence committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or

government into granting the demands.

Violence 1. exertion of physical forse so as to injure or abuse

2. an instance of violent treatment or procedure

3. instance, turbulent or furious, or often distructive action or force.

Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Discussion:

1. The Third World War has already begun.

2. Terrorism can be put down by means of terror.

3. To combat terrorism we should be ready for a great amount of victims and even

to sacrifice our own lives.

PRE – TEXT EXERCISES.

I. Practice the pronunciation of the following words:

Criterion, premeditated, target, society, unlawful, perpetrate, pursuit, illegitimate, use, disproportionate, guerilla, warfare, genocide, assault, mayhem, coerce, marginalizing, furtherance, inculcate, criteria, deliberate, Holocaust, disgruntled, divergences, pronounced, asymmetrical, argue, inherently, inescapably, unfavoured, proxies, dissent, destabilize, beneficiary, realm, clandestine, unpredictable, democide, phenomenon, squads minorities, indigenous, clergy, liability, plausible deniability, insurgency, tyrannical, torture, liquidation, purges.

II. Practice the pronunciation of the following proper words:

Walter Laqueur, Brian Jenkins, James M. Poland, Martin Luther King, Jr., Noam Chomsky, the Ku Klux Klan, Xenophon, Tiberius, Caligula, Robespierre, Algeria France, Vietnam, Ireland, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iran, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Argentina, Augusto Pinochet, Orlando Letelier,Gen. Carlos Prats Bernardo Leighton, Tiananmen Square, Dalai Lama, the Weimar Republic, Jews, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Hizbullah, Egypt, Qana Massacre Israeli, Nicaragua, Nietzscheans, Croatian fascist Ustashi organization, , the Rumanian Iron Guard, Slovenia.

Text a definition of terrorism.

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. According to expert Walter Laqueur, "the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence."

This criterion alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism—war, organized crime, revolution, or even a simple riot. Asymmetric warfare and low-intensity operations are military terms for tactics that can include terrorism.

At its core, the definition of terrorism is not so much a description of a particular kind of violence, like bombing or assassination, but a way to characterize an act of violence relative to the speaker, and their point of view.

"Terrorism," thus is a term that attempts to define, as a separate phenomenon, a philosophy of coordinated violence which tends to have a high degree of social impact on the target society. Terrorist violence may be perpetrated by rebels in opposition to an established social order or it may be inflicted by a state upon its own citizens or those of another state.

One 1988 study by the US Army discovered that over 100 definitions have been used. Some examples:

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives".

Current U.S. national security strategy: "premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents."

United States Department of Defense: the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

British Terrorism Act 2000, defines terrorism so as to include not only attacks on military personnel, but also acts not usually considered violent, such as shutting down a website whose views one dislikes.

1984 U.S. Army training manual says: "Terrorism is the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to produce goals that are political or ideological in nature."

Brian Jenkins: "Terrorism is the use or threatened use of force designed to bring about political change."

Walter Laqueur: "Terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted."

1986 Vice-President's Task Force: "Terrorism is the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce a government, individuals or groups, or to modify their behavior or politics."

James M. Poland: "Terrorism is the premeditated, deliberate, systematic murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent to create fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or tactical advantage, usually to influence an audience."

The following are some further criteria that are sometimes applied, and the acts they exclude from the definition of "terrorism". Note that many incidents often labelled as terrorist fail one or more criteria.

Target - It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its deliberate and specific selection of civilians as targets. Furthermore, an act is more likely to be considered terrorism if it targets a general populace than if it purposefully targets a specific individual or group.

This criterion excludes: assassination of a head of state or leader of comparable stature (such as that of United States President John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr.), conventional warfare in accordance with the laws of war, attacks on military targets (such as the bombing of the USS Cole), and guerilla warfare and revolution when limited to military targets.

Objective - As the name implies, terrorism is understood as an attempt to provoke fear and intimidation. Hence, terrorist acts are designed and intended to attract wide publicity and cause public shock, outrage, and/or fear. The intent may be to provoke disproportionate reactions from states.

This criterion excludes: the Holocaust and other cases of genocide, which are undertaken to exterminate, not to intimidate, and which are usually hidden rather than publicized. Also, any violence against targets unlikely to attract public notice and having little effect on the populace at large.

Motive - These acts are intended to achieve political or religious goals, not for personal gain. For example, a gang of bank robbers who kill the bank manager, blow up the vault and escape with the contents would normally not be classed as terrorists, because their motive was profit. However, if a gang were to execute the same assault with the intent of causing a crisis in public confidence in the banking system, followed by a run on the banks and a subsequent destabilization of the economy, then the gang would be classed as terrorists.

Legitimacy - Some hold that a legitimate government cannot, by definition, commit terrorism on its own territory. In this view, a state can commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, but these actions are distinct from terrorism.

This criterion excludes: warfare between states, government repression, the Holocaust and other state-sponsored genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Dominance - Some, particularly political conservatives, claim that only acts of "revolutionary" violence should be considered terrorist in nature; in this context, only members of a disgruntled group seen as having a subordinate position within the larger society in which they live are capable of "revolutionary" violence, and any similar acts committed on behalf of the dominant or majority segment of the populace are "reactionary" and hence do not qualify as terrorism (when the "have-nots" do it it's "terrorism," but when the "haves" do it they are defending "tradition," "order," etc.)

This criterion excludes: groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and those who commit racial hate crimes or gay-bashing

Noam Chomsky, points to the claims that distinguish between the targeting of civilians and the targeting of military personnel. If the logic underlying "counterterrorism" is used consistently, the use of military force against civilians must also qualify as terrorism. Violence, Chomsky says, is objective, whereas "terrorism" is relative to the speaker or their point of view. He states: "The wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism."

To term an act as a "terrorist" act, will thus carry with it the above connotations, even if they may not factually fit the definitions. Thus there are large divergences between the legal use of the term, and the polemic use, which carries with it some common distortions: 1. The early characterization of an act as "terrorism", and 2. The classification as "terrorism" of actions by those considered "terrorists." For example, the assassination of individuals, if committed by "known terrorists," will be called "terrorism." Because of the above distortions, the distinctions between types of actors (military, paramilitary, unlawful combatant) in the laws of war tend to be less than the definition of the violent act itself.

The "terror" or pronounced state of fear that is manifest as a result of an act of terrorism is limited in terms of its immediate threat, but causes enough of a general disturbance to threaten this existing social order. Thus, terrorism, can loosely be defined as the use of violence to bring about a change in a particular social order. It is violence as a means to get political attention for causes that are out of, or contradictory to, the established agenda —which may itself also use asymmetrical and immoral violence to enforce its established political and social order.

The central item that distinguishes terrorism from other kinds of coordinated violence is the often-random choice of targets, giving the appearance of senselessness and chaos. The low-profile of terrorism actors tends to make them less succeptible to moderate common influences, and the danger imposed by enforcers of the existing order makes the potential actors more out of touch with their larger collective political body.