Terrorism is not a new theme but it is one of the most important ones in the international agenda of the 21st century. This form of violence is followed by concern towards the environment, immigration and energy resources. Traditional problems such as war, imperialism or economic underdevelopment have taken new forms, although this does not mean at all that they have been completely eradicated or that the world has finally reached the peace it has sought for such a long time. On the contrary, terrorism shows us a new subtle and disguised fight, in which each one of the parties is affected.
Although terrorism is typical in certain areas in the world, the recent experiences have showed us that no country is safe from suffering terrorist attacks. Common in the Middle East, extremely controlled in the Great Britain, or "regulated" in Spain, terrorism is a recurrent implement used by the political groups that only find their personal fulfillment through violence. Even when some world powers are more familiarized with the topic, like Japan or France, countries like Russia cannot deny having incurred in State terrorism in the past, or hegemonies like the United States, unfortunately, have to suffer terrorist attacks as a result of the world’s antipathy towards its policies. Not even developing regions like Latin America are free from using terror against the innocent, since although they are called guerrillas, the various clandestine groups have outraged their civil populations with terrorist attacks. Mexico is an interesting case regarding terrorism, and we will see why there are different ways of approaching the topic, especially the use of intimidating actions to provoke fear.
We will start saying that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. To different countries or political groups, the murderer for a cause is called revolutionary or liberator, while to others it is called terrorist; in conceptual terms it is only a matter of semantics. Likewise, public opinion recognizes a terrorist as a political activist that attacks common people violently with the purpose of causing fear. On the other hand, the affected people do not understand political matters, their rejection and called for justice is totally understandable, although to the terrorists their cause is justified.
I. ELUCIDATIONS IN UNIVERSAL LITERATURE
If we recall the antique myth of the Minotaur make an analogy about this phenomenon, we can see that there are always at least two stories to tell. In the classic history, the man with a bull’s head is considered an evil creature which harassed the Greek people and particularly the island of Crete and the Athenians. According to Ovidio,1 this old terrorist, "half human and half beast",2 created fear with its thirst of blood. The uncertainty that anyone could be a victim when the monster did not satisfy its appetite, spread death and desolation in the inhabitants of the area. Although it was product of a material union between the men and the gods, humans distained it because it threat their security of what we now consider a State. Teseus became a hero in this context by killing the kind of terrorist the Minotaur represented.
Centuries later, with a statement typical of the genuine Hellenic legend, Julio Cortazar gives us a new version of the Minotaur’s terror in its work "The Kings".3 To Cortazar, the Minotaur symbolizes the free individual and Teseus is the terrorist at the service of the State. Such Minotaur did not live frightening the people in its labyrinth, but it enhanced reflection of thought and the performance of arts. This son of Minos had the best qualities of man and animals, but its existence endangered the interests of the States, because it questioned its effectiveness and raison d’etre.
Teseus, the hero, is an individual without imagination of being there with the sword in his hand to fight the monsters that are the exception of the conventional. The Minotaur is the poet, the creature different to the others. For this reason it has been locked in, because it represents a threat to the statu quo.4
In Cortazar’s words, "Theseus will kill the Minotaur as a king’s ‘gangster’", he becomes one of the first State terrorists and not necessarily a hero.
The Minotaur, like the terrorists, has had however more real and less maniquean judgments. This is the argument authors like Jorge Luis Borges use. Man sometimes acts like an animal and sometimes like a person; he has bloody passions but he can also be rational in his actions and carry them out beyond his instincts. He can live and die for his ideas and he justifies them with his own aims and fears. This could also be the psychological profile of a terrorist that kills for an ideal, and although this ideal might be irrational, having it makes him different from a common murderer. This situation makes us underline that terrorists, apart from being good or evil, follow humane passions and reasoning, as well as clear political interests. Nonetheless, their violent actions and their consequences are undoubtedly, subjects of Law, since they affect people’s integrity. A fragment of Borges’ "Asterion’s House"5 also helps us make an analogy between the Minotaur and terrorists:
I hear their steps or their voice in the bottom of the stone galleries and I cheerfully run to find them. The ceremony takes only a few minutes. One by one they fall without my hands being covered with blood. Where they fell they remain, and the corpses help distinguishing a gallery of the others. I ignore who they are, but I know that one of them foresaw, before his death, that my redeemer would someday arrive. Since then, solitude does not hurt, for I know my redeemer lives and at least he will arise over the dust. If my ear could hear all the rumors of the world, I would perceive their steps. I wish he would take me to a place with fewer galleries and less doors. How would my redeemer be like? I ask myself, would he be a bull or a man?
Would he be perhaps a bull with the face of a man? Or would he be like me?
In most terrorist attacks we keep the doubt of knowing who the legitimate aggressor was and if the victims had the right to revenge. More than three thousand years after the Hellenic story of the Minotaur, we realize that the value judgments keep making pointless all the efforts of dialogue and understanding of the opposite. Theseus’s reasons are legitimate par excellence, or perhaps, simply because history is written by the winners.
II. TERRORISM AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
The theme of terrorism has become obsessive after the attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York. The innocent victims of the fall of the Twin Towers paid a very high cost for United States’ hegemony in the world. This event left wordless those who considered that war confrontations were only based on force. Who would defy the United States face to face in an armed war? No country would be able to succeed in a war confrontation against the American military force, not even adding up the efforts of the other nuclear powers and the largest armies. However, we shall remember when De Gaulle was asked about the reason of its military force, since it was nothing compared to the US’s and the USSR’s, as to defy them. He answered that in such case, although he would indeed not win war, these countries might lose an arm, therefore they would think twice before attacking him. In this sense, although the 9/11 terrorists did not overtake the United States, they definitely made it shiver with the attacks to New York.
The United States does have the strength, but the suicidal hijackers showed having much more imagination. The terrorists apparently Islamic, used US’s commercial planes to bring down the World Trade Center. The response of the US government was unexplainable and passionate, as their own actions were when they sent planes to bomb Afghanistan as a response. With this action and the occupation of the Afghan territory, they removed the brutal Taliban government. However, we still do not know if the United States captured its aggressors, if it had the right to judge them or if it has the right to invade every country in which it has unfounded or unjustified suspicions that defy its immaculate image.
To begin with, we shall say that the civil population in the United States was not aware of the resentments a country and a culture can provoke in others. It was until September 2001 that the Americans realized that in spite of being the most powerful nation in the world, they were susceptible of suffering humane losses and material damage, which, in terrorism, affects precisely the individual’s psychological security, causing fear and shaking confidence in the security granted by the State.
On the other hand, the United States considers itself a country of virtues, which it somehow honestly has, and of which it also sometimes exaggerate. Till now, history has not witnessed such a strong empire, which could concentrate technology, nuclear power, military and commercial presence in the whole world, as the American Union. A country with such characteristics arises resentments within other countries or political groups. Moreover, not all the American population is aware of the antipathy that their presence has created in the world, and for this reasons the "civilians" do not understand the reasons why the terrorist attacks were launched against them. The US aims to be appreciated, unlike the Great Britain that does not care very much about others’ affection and least France’s. It should be remembered that both of them at certain point had a world presence and for this, they have caused inconveniences in other places.
Being a democratic country, with full freedoms, amongst them the press, the one that attacked the United States would be attacking freedom as a symbol, from many points of view. The ideals of the terrorists of 9/11 are quite different to the US’s; and the deaths caused by this incident revealed the US that there are political groups that do not agree with the actions of its government.
III. DEFINITIONS OF TERRORISM
I consider prudent for the reader’s comfort to approach the theme with some definitions. The Dictionary of the Spanish Language defines it as "the succession of violent actions to cause terror".6 To which we must add the legal concept of Manuel Ossorio,7 who determines that terrorism are "the violent actions against people, freedom, property, common security, public calm, public powers, and the constitutional order or against the public administration". Up to here, we identify two constants in terrorism: violence and the provocation of fear.
Therefore, in Norberto Bobbio’s Dictionary of Politics, he comments that:
In the international context there could be the case, only apparently contradictory, that terrorism is the only possible form of action, and in this case the terrorist groups cannot be circumscribed to a territorial unity or State. This is precisely the most original and recent case of terrorism in the troublesome international politics.8
Bobbio’s relevant contribution is that to terrorists, at the international level, terrorism is the only open path for those who do not identify with the prevailing structure of the international order, and I allow myself to add, those who do not find another open path.
Adolfo Gilly cites a definition by Henry Kissinger also interesting to me. To Kissinger "terrorism is defined as indiscriminate attacks against civilians in order to break the social tissue".9 I coincide particularly with this concept because terrorist attacks characterize by affecting civilians, that is, the population which is not part of the government or the army. This obviously creates social instability, for it is a confrontation between two different actors and not between two military forces, what would be a war.
Terrorism always has a political character and it causes strong effects in the public opinion. This practice always has the purpose of promoting ideological causes and giving hope to those who believe in them, through demonstrations of strength such as violent attacks. Their actions respond to the ideas born in non-state groups that pretend to obtain legitimacy of the force, which legally lies on the State. To Chris Cook10 terrorism is a contemporary phenomenon since it is:
The tentative of reaching political ends thanks to the creation of an environment of terror through bombs, slaughters, kidnapping, and air hijacking in order to damage the capacity of trusting a State in protecting its citizens or obtaining publicity for a cause.
Terrorism can be an instrument of war but it is not a war itself. War traditionally emerges between States or in the case of a civil war, between a part of the population that attacks another one, in an express and direct way.
As Clausewitz would put it "war is, consequently, an act of force to impose the adversary our will".11
At war, the enemy is identified and the objective is to impose it the will, on the contrary, in a terrorist act, the aggressor is not directly a State and the direct objective is not imposing it conditions, but causing fear mainly in the non-military forces. In a confrontation between nations, "the destruction of the military force is the means, both in the attack and the defense".12 Notwithstanding that in order to physically defeat terrorist organizations, force could be used, this "war" would remain unfinished if their ideological petitions or of any other kind are not solved, because soon new terrorist cells would emerge obtaining new financing of who identified with such ideologies. Armies are financed with public budget, and terrorists by particulars who follow their ideas, or governments that want to cause instability in the attacked countries.
The States or nations face armies that legitimately represent them, while terrorists can come from a political group that minds its own interests and that is not submitted to the legislation or international conventions, reason why they do not characterize by attacking only the military force of the State, but the population in general. To this respect, Bouthoul’s elements of war are useful, because:13 1) it is a collective phenomenon; 2) it is an armed fight, and 3) it has a legal character. With this, we affirm that war is not the same as terrorism, and that war actually cannot be pronounced against terrorism.
Another conceptual difference I consider important to approach is State terrorism, which can also be low intensity war. This type of terrorism, operating from the government, is different to common wars because it does not work within the State’s legal framework, and like the other types of terrorism, it is fought clandestinely carrying out criminal actions. Though, State terrorism justifies its raison d’etre, identified with that of the government. This way, in State terrorism the government’s power is used to eliminate an individual or a particular group with political purposes. Its means are those normally used by terrorists and anarchists and are obviously committed without a war declaration.
An interesting situation regarding this is the IRA14 in its modus operandi, with a kind of agreement it reached with the UK government since the nineties. Inside the brutality of terrorism, there is a ray of light that makes this practice of political pressure less devastating. The IRA has a particular way of communicating, which is previously identified by the British government, with which it warns about future terrorist attacks, giving information about the place and time in which the attacks are to be made. Although this is not very well known, it allows clear advantages for the population, and to a certain point, if not an act of civility, a pact between gentlemen. The problem in this is that few terrorists warn before attacking, less have agreements with the governments and finally, they are not fully reliable, given the nature of their organization. Terrorists remain in clandestinity, among other things, because they know that if a government has the capacity to dissolve them, it will do so by legal or pragmatic means.
On the other hand, the concept of State terrorism is occasionally used pejoratively to identify political groups or actions that are not so well accepted by certain countries or governments. It is common to hear that this name is given to the Gestapo, for being a German political repressive force during the Nazi period, or the Eastern Europe’s Stasi during the Socialist period, which was a political body linked to the Russian KGB. These organizations committed from this point of view, several ways of political terror, against their international enemies and against their own citizens. On the other hand, terrorism sponsored by the State focuses its resources in causing instability beyond its own borders. In the recent times, certain countries with different ideological orientation, have relapsed into this kind of activities, though paradoxically, in other cases they condemn their opponents for the same practices. For example, the United States during Ronald’s Reagan Presidency accused several governments for doing this, amongst which was Libya; while its government simultaneously backed actions to create instability in Nicaragua, even when both governments had full diplomatic relations.15
Magnicides± are quite similar to terrorist actions regarding their methods, but contrary to the latter, they go against important politicians, not against civilians. Magnicide is "the violent death caused to a very important person because of its position or power".16 This type of murder can be exemplified with the cases of Anwar Al Sadat, in Egypt, John F. Kennedy, in the United States, and Luis Donaldo Colsio, in Mexico. Although the three events frightened the civil population, the murderers’ objective was causing their death and not public terror. Magnicides do not always come together with specific political petitions, and given their nature, they are more predictable than terrorist attacks against civilians.
Terrorist actions have been carried out with different political purposes in the world, and in some cases they are isolated actions (here is where differences between terrorism and a terrorist action lie). An anarchist can carry out actions judged as terrorists, but this does not turn him immediately into a terrorist; launching a petard in the euphoria of a political tumult is a crime, but in order to turn into terrorism, it ought to have a specific target with violence planning focused on the civil population. Summarizing, anarchists are not terrorists, but they do are their kins.
IV. TERRORISM THROUGH WORLD HISTORY
The history of humankind has been full of violence, however, we can say that terrorism is a modern phenomenon. Wars and confrontations in ancient times caused panic, though, they were seen to a certain point as everyday matters. Invasions, conquests or annihilations generated terror and were seen as a reason to defend the population, feuds or countries, but not as the lack of protection by the State, which did not exist as such, and thus did not have the responsibilities granted by its members, such as the protection of the civil societies from attacks like the terrorists’.
If we put Gengis Kan’s territorial conquests as an example, we can tell that they were neither terrorism nor State terrorism. It was just a war of annihilation and demonstration of power, apparently similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s, but with primitive means. Centuries later, the period of the French Revolution’s "terror" had undoubtedly a psychological impact on the civil population. Massive executions and political persecutions changed the structure of the government the French had till that moment. However, even in the middle of chaos, there were juries, judgments and procedures that were carried out publicly, reason why these events could not be classified as terrorist. Jean-Paul Sartre17 turns to Mathiez to picture the particularities of a revolution, to whom "revolution takes place when the change in the institutions goes together with a deep modification in the property system". Undoubtedly, these purposes are quite different to those of the terrorists. However, the most relevant antecedents of the 19th century’s terrorism, related to the revolutionary fight, are found in Czarist Russia of the Romanov, and in the Medji restoration’s imperial nationalism against Japan’s Tocugawa’s shogunate.
The political assaults against the monarchies were intensified in Europe in the second half of the 19th century, when the civil population began to be attacked, conforming the modern terrorism. In Russia, the intellectual group called "Narodnayavolia" (people’s will) organized assaults against royalty to show the farmers how serious their project was. Likewise, since those years, the number of affected victims without any political or governmental relation with the aggressors, increased. In the new continent, in the Southern USA emerged the Ku Klux Klan during the first years of the 1860s, in order to terrorize the former slaves and the delegates of the federal government. An interesting observation of the way in which the Great Britain reduced the attacks against its civil population during the 19th century, since in the Victorian period the English showed some tolerance towards the anarchists, which somehow kept them from being bothered.
Terrorism has had various ways to show itself around the world, and the political situation of the second half of the 20th century has also given it a particular development. Terrorist attacks increased after the end of WWII in the Middle East, especially after the creation of the State of Israel. Although the majority of the Jews showed tolerance and clear preference for legal and political solutions in order to reach their independence, by the end of the forties, certain radical groups as the Sterns and the Irgun Zvai Leumies used terrorism against the Arab communities, in order to fulfill their aimed sovereignty. Moreover, the Palestine Liberation Organization is also responsible for carrying out terrorist attacks, as a claim for their independence, during the sixties. Europe and Asia went through a considerable increase of terrorist attacks during the 1960s and the 1990s for different reasons, especially those regarding the Irish and the Basques. The last decade of the 20th century witnessed a relative decrease of terrorism, which became disparaged after 9/11.
Every continent and country has suffered different attacks from terrorists and State terrorism.18 In Europe, we have the members of Spain’s ETA and Ireland’s IRA. Germany’s RAF became organized as a breakaway group of the Red Army and in Italy, there were also leftist violent groups as Red Brigades and Lutta Obrera. Regarding the liberation movements, besides the Basques and the Irish, France received as transcontinental terrorists the Algerian Antifascist Committee. The Middle East has had Al Fatah as PLO armed element, certain organizations such as the Jihad, Hezbollah, Hamas and sometimes the al Mossad. In Africa, the Revolutionary Party of the Ethiopian People, Sudan’s Communist Party, and the Combatants in Uganda were the ones who committed terrorist attacks. If we go to Asia, Japan had terrible humane losses causes by Rengo Segikum (Red Army), South Korea by North Korean agents (1987) and in Malaysia, the Phillippines, and Indonesia there is a suspicion that the Al Qaeda operates there. These countries have suffered of terrorism and some, of State terrorism; however, there are no elements to affirm that one country or another is terrorist, or that terrorists compose a population. Such a statement would be visceral, not objective and academically unfounded.
V. TERRORISM IN LATIN AMERICA
If we go back a few decades in the history of Latin America, we identify several groups that committed terrorist attacks in favor of their own causes. Although being called guerrillas, in Peru Sendero Luminoso and the Revolutionary Movement Tupac-Amaru committed aggressions against the civil populations. Argentina had in its territory the Montoneros, the FAR and the ERP. In Chile, the ones who committed violent actions were the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez and the Revolutionary Leftist Movement. In Bolivia the ELN caused terror, like the MLNT in Uruguay, the VRP in Brazil, and the Maoist Revolutionary Armed Forces in Guatemala. On the other hand, Cuba’s Communist Party was accused of committing State terrorism, as the USSR’s Red Army was accused in that time, as well as the Iraqi Communist Party. Although guerrillas like the EZLN from Mexico boasted about not being terrorists or do not attacking the civil society, a recent event connected them to the ETA and they were not able to deny the cooperation agreements with the Basque terrorists.
Terrorism has no borders, therefore both governments and international institutions look for mechanisms to solve and prevent it. Moreover, there could be liking for and even cooperation among different terrorist groups. However, the purposes of the Basques are different to the Irish’s, the Colombians’ and the Philippines’. As we said before, there is a potential possibility of cooperation, especially between those who attack the international establishment and who consider the "Western" countries as their enemies. A symptom of this could be the increase of terrorism in the world after United States’ war against Iraq (Desert Storm), since more than a coalition military conflict, this warlike conflict was also interpreted in the Middle East as an attack against the Arabs’ ethos, or against Islam discourse in Iraq (which is not Arab) and the Islamic countries in Asia and Africa. This situation may foster pan-Arabism born since the forties. To professor Fouad Ajami, the constant presence of the United States in the Middle East has increased anti-Americanism in all the area, the "Arab phobias", and could be the ideological argument of future terrorist attacks:
During the seventies and eighties, the economic and political structure of the Arab world began to yield up (to the Western paradigm). The explosive demographical tendencies overheated what had been built during the post-independence period, and thus, a furious Islamism emerged as a dreadful wind. This offered consolation, seduced the youngsters and gave the meanings and language of resent and reject. During some time, this world’s failures were confined to their own land, but transnational immigration and terror altered all this. The fire that began in the Arab world spread to other coasts, with the United States as the main target of the attacked people who did not believe justice could be assured in their own land, with their own governors. The result was September 11 and its devastating surprise, which lead to the balance with Iraq out of contention and towards a change of regime and "turning back to the same".19
VI. TERRORISM IN THE 21st CENTURY
The 9/11 events showed the world that terrorism is a way in which nonconformist political actors against a particular government can attack it successfully using few resources. The United States spent much more money in the attack to Afghanistan, than the resources the assumed Islamic terrorists used to frighten New York. Likewise, the aggressiveness and celerity with which the Afghan government was removed might have a boomerang effect in the United States. "Successes" (attack to Afghanistan) like 9/11 have energetic effects: they generate a wave of recruitment and probably a new will of financing terrorist networks.20
The violent answer of the United States, maybe not commonly posed, can perhaps be explained because they had never received a direct attack in their territory, since it did not hold any war in it, reason why it interpreted the terrorist attack as a declaration of war. No one had ever attacked the continental territories of the United States since they became independent, except for the English in 1812 and Pancho Villa in Columbus. Terrorists fulfilled their purpose in New York’s attack, as Clausewitz put it: "when surprise reaches success to a high extent, the consequences it brings with it are confusion and discouragement among the enemies, and this multiplies success".21 The US ousted the Taliban government as a response; however, the connection of the terrorists to a single government has yet not been proved. The American population continues being confused and terrorized about possible terrorist attacks in the future.
The 9/11 terrorists used a strategy with a specific target that attacked the moral forces with audacity, perseverance, but especially with surprise. Here is combined a situation of tension and release. Moreover, being aware of US’s aggressiveness, the terrorists are more aware than ever, and although they showed their face in the attack, it will be very difficult for them to show it in the defense, for "the attack has only one active principle… it does not show the same variety as the defense. Undoubtedly, there is a great difference between the attack’s energy and the quickness and strength of the hit; but this is only a difference in degree and not in class".22 Terrorists are not a country with lands where they ought to remain, neither a government based on institutions with an army at the front, but clandestine people that can "camouflage" in the immense corners of the world or be associated to any intelligence body of a government, as is the case of Al Qaeda in a different moment. It is clear that the terrorists’ defense will not be face to face, thus they cannot be defeated "making war to them".
VII. TERRORISM IN MEXICO
Terrorism in Mexico has not been deeply approached, partly because Mexico has had mainly liberal governments during the 19th and 20th centuries. The priest Hidalgo might have well been a terrorist to the Spaniards, but he was undoubtedly a revolutionary and a hero to the Mexicans. The same could have been said about "The Pipila" or Morelos, since they used violence to rebel against the Spaniard yoke. On the other hand, the heads of the independents hung at the Alhóndiga de Granaditas might be considered as State terrorism, for the vice royal government punished the rebels publicly in order to mitigate the revolt and frighten future separatist attempts. Generally, the 19th century in Mexico was full of violence, with fights between liberals and conservatives, foreign invasions, robbery within the territory, but this could better be explained as anarchy or brutality than as terrorism.
The Porfiriato is known in Mexico for being a period of stability, but also repression and in which material and intellectual revolts were being prepared. Some of the actions made by Flores Magón or the Serdan brothers might be considered as terrorist; however, it must be underlined that the first revolutionaries of the Porfiriato sought to oust the regime and not to frighten the civil population. On the contrary, State terrorism during that period was one of the first causes that fed popular discontent and gave birth to the Mexican Revolution. In the Porfiriato it was common to use violence against those who opposed the regime, and the population lived certainly frightened of the government’s repression.
Afterwards, the fact of the Revolution being a critical movement that hoisted ideals heading towards socialism, kept terrorist groups from being created in Mexico. As a consequence, in Mexico there was not a fertile field for this type of violence, because of the revolutionary essence of the government and the leftist flags assumed by it. In fact, the closest to terrorists in the country were the guerrilleros who started acting vigorously during the sixties, who were also leftists. Contrarily to Central America, Mexico did not have either dictatorships or rightist (or military) governments during most of the 20th century, and perhaps also because of this, the armed demands and the violent protests that afflicted other Latin American governments decreased.
The sixties and seventies were decades with plenty of subversive movements in Mexico. Arturo Gamiz’s guerrilla, known as the Liga 23 de septiembre, committed multiple attacks against the governments as well as kidnappings in order to finance itself; its actions were intimidating, but were more focused on the government and to those considered as "the wealthy", than the population in general. On the other hand, Lucio Cabaña’s guerrilla attacked violently the Mexican Army, however its purpose was not frightening the civil population, and the circumstances did not allow it either. Genaro Vázquez’s guerrilla did not frighten the Mexican population significantly, thus it cannot be considered literally as terrorist either. This type of rebellion had a basically rural character, which did not enable the public opinion to know much about its activities and its diffusion in the urban mass media. The best ones saved from their facing the government were the members of the Liga 23 de septiembre, since they were granted amnesty and were placed in different productive projects. Some of them could have been absorbed by the public administration of that time, partly because they, like the government, had a mainly socialist ideology, which they shared to a certain point. During the nineties three guerrilla movements stood out, which cannot be considered terrorists either: the Zapatist Army of National Liberation, the EPR and the ERPI. They have been careful not to bother the civil society and only attacking the Army and the government.
The theme of terrorism shall be analyzed in Mexico since although it is still not one of the main points in our political agenda. If the issue does not want to be treated as a "Mexican" problem for political and perhaps chauvinist reasons, it must be identified what prevented our post-revolutionary history of having terrorist attacks like those the world has gone through in the recent years. Fortunately, at the end of the millennium, Mexico did not have any memorable tragedy with respect to terrorism. On the contrary, during the times of ideological persecution, we have granted asylum to political persecuted people considered terrorists, although lately we have not been so generous, after we handed in the Basques. In another time we sheltered personalities such as Leon Trotsky and the Cha of Iran. The latter was well received, but when he left for health reasons, he was not accepted again. The Cha was not admitted again, among other reasons, because of fear towards possible attacks as reprisal from his opponents, and because of the imprudent declaration of US State Secretary where he expressed that "we should receive him again".
The Mexican population feels panic and terror towards delinquency inside the country as well as the recurrent economic crises, but until now, it does not fear terrorism very much. This situation lies in the scarce treatment given to the theme, and partly, in the fact that the Mexican considers terrorism as a foreign problem. A case that has not been approached and that sometimes is not quite pursued, is that of the Mexicans who feel panic about crossing the border and facing certain US ranchers who shoot them when they trespass their properties. Nonetheless, this is a murder, despite being committed clandestinely and that sometimes there are no elements to accuse the responsible.
Luis González de Alba23 makes an interesting approach about terrorism in Mexico. From his own perspective, the Mexican Executive Branch carried out a kind of terrorism when they hung the cristeros along the pathways as an intimidating action. Moreover, the cristeros committed terrorist actions by pursuing and outraged the lay teachers that promoted sexual education. Regarding State terrorism, the most unfortunate action from his perspective was committed in October 2, 1968 in Tlatelolco, by the so-called "Olimpia Battalion", since this event had an intimidating purpose, focused on those who attended the mass meeting and on the students in general. The elements of this argument are based in the fact that it was a clandestine operation where terror was perpetrated. Undoubtedly, this is still a delicate topic in Mexico.
González de Alba also conceives the happenings of June 10, 1971 as State terrorism. In his words, this fact had the conceptual elements mentioned above, like the violent attack against the civil population and the issue of a clear coercive message against the attendants of the meeting that day. The paramilitary group "the Falcons" are responsible for attacking the students in order to prevent a similar action from happening in the future. In his opinion, part of these repressive actions became a cultivation broth for the subsequent guerrillas of the eighties.
VIII. PROPOSALS TO ERADICATE TERRORISM
The governments, political actors and academic scholars suggest several formulas to solve the problem of terrorism. The government of George W. Bush in the United States has made up its mind to attack by the use of force, any sign of terrorism or any country that fosters terrorists. The government of Great Britain, headed by Tony Blair is willing to help it, although curiously, it has never made a collective call in order to eradicate its domestic problems of terrorism. On the other hand, some European countries consider that the Palestinian problem is a mistake of international politics, partly because of the US’s staunch support towards Israel. Also in the Arab word, and as said above, in Europe, they consider that while the problem with the Palestinians is not solved, terrorism would not decrease. The terrorists’ position is, of course, that violence will not cease until their political demands are fulfilled, which is not always feasible.
A fragment of William Somerset Maughman’s book "The traitor",24 reminds us about each party’s position towards terrorism. Asherdem is to the English, the agent that helped them capture the separatist Indian leader during WWII. Chanda Lai looks for India’s independence but in order to fulfill it, he commits terrorist attacks. The conversation between Asherden and its chief R. is about capturing the Indian terrorist, but not about solving their political demands:
A.- One cannot at least (sic) feel impressed about a man who has the courage to face practically by himself all the English power in India.
R.- I would not be so sentimental about it if I were you. He is nothing but a dangerous criminal.
A.- I guess he would not use bombs if he could send a couple of batteries and half dozen battalions. He uses weapons available to him. You cannot reproach him for that. After all, he is fighting for himself, isn’t he? He is fighting for his country’s freedom. If we see it that way, it seems that his actions are justified.
But R. could not understand what his interlocutor was telling him.
Fiction is sometimes not far from reality. The countries that suffer from terrorist attacks sometimes do not solve political demands not even on their own interest. A realist argument about this is given by Simon Peres regarding Palestinian terrorism. The former Prime Minister of Israel exposed in an interview with Silvia Cherem in Mexico the urgency of approaching the problem of terrorism to later solve it:
— What is the solution to eradicate terrorism?
— I think that there’s no use in killing the mosquitoes that buzz in stagnant waters if the swamp is not dried. Terrorism not only eradicated with military means, but also with political proposals. The reasons that create a cultivation broth for terrorism are the lack of hope and the bad conditions of the territories (occupied).25
I agree with Peres that terrorism should be eradicated from its source and not only being reactive towards aggressions of terrorist attacks. The "swamp’s" mud is created precisely for of the lack of political proposals. Every warlike confrontation is a political failure and also a diplomatic miscalculation when it reaches the international level. It is always more productive to negotiate than to fight, regardless of who wins the battle, even when sometimes it does not seem like it. Terrorists are used to organizing clandestinely and are predisposed to being attacked, reason why repressive actions against them only solve the problem momentarily and justifies their modus operandi. Their discourse, as crazy as may sound, should have certain logical argumentation and explainable petitions. The complexity of the problem lies then, in discussing and solving their political demands without falling into blackmailing. This is a hard challenge to every government, though not impossible. "Dignity" and legal respect could be granted to them, but what cannot be granted is submission and privileges outside the legal framework. When terrorists are out of an ideology and political demands with a logical argumentation, out of a discourse with political repercussions, they might become common criminals and thus, be legally processed without political connotations and without this generating new terrorist cells.
In an article published in the diary Reforma, Carlos Fuentes26 depicts as a question some of the American actions he considers encouraged presumably "Islamic" terrorism. In Fuentes’s opinion, the United States are responsible of arming Saddam Hussein to empower Iraq against the Iranian ayatollahs. In "¿Qué tal?" the candidate to the Nobel Prize of Literature exposes that the United States has a clear responsibility in the war conflicts in the Middle East and in the development of terrorism in the area. Fuentes made George Bush senior’s government responsible for arming Osama Bin Laden and the political-religious group known as Taliban in order to fight against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Moreover, the author of The Most Transparent Region argues that the US, being able to do it, has not given the government of Israel an ultimatum in order to give back the Palestinian territories, follow resolutions 194 and 242 of the UN Security Council, and eventually, promote regional security with the creation of an independent Palestinian State.
Likewise, Fuentes considers that the US detoured the attention of the Western public opinion towards terrorism in order to prepare a war against Iraq. However, the liking the "West" has towards the fight against terrorism may decrease if a real relation between the Al Qaeda and Baghdad is not proven. Moreover, a virtual intervention in Iraq might create massive repulse in Europe and in the US itself, not to mention the possible protests of the Arab world and the Iraqi resistance in the world. As in the case of Vietnam, the American public opinion could take away their confidence towards the President. Finally, the invention of the "axis Baghdad-Teheran-Pyongyang" and a war attack from the US has the risk of encouraging terrorism instead of fighting it. Carlos Fuentes always criticizes, in another article, the US’s discretionality to be judge and police in its fight against terrorism. It is quite comfortable for Washington that "if it (Washington) does not like a country or a governor, it accuses it of being terrorist and clever",27 making this an argument to invade it and place a new government that is convenient to its interests.
In my opinion, the way we should rebuff terrorism shall be object of debate, but also of analysis. Responding with war when a terrorist attack is committed, would be looking for a direct, and to a certain point acquiescent solution, but it would not solve the real problem. The other countries’ civilians cannot be attacked as if they were criminals, and this is the violence we are mainly criticizing in terrorists. Michael Walzer makes an approach of this in "Five questions about terrorism":28
"War" here is a metaphor, but real war is a necessary part of "war", but real war is a necessary part of metaphoric war. It could be the only part in which the "fair war" doctrine, frequently invoked, is pertinent. We shall look for other ways of ethical leading —though not foreign— in other fronts. The issue of justice in real war is common, as it is the answer —although the answer is easier regarding principles than in the practice—. When fighting terrorists, we shall not point at innocent victims (which is what terrorists do); we shall ideally get as close to the enemy in order to be sure, not only that we are pointing at them, but also that we are killing them. When we fight from a long distance, with planes and missiles, we have to establish people inside, in land, in order to select the targets, or we have to have very good intelligence services; and we should keep from underestimating the intelligence of our intelligent bombs. It is not a crime, I guess, the technological arrogance, but it may have very bad results, so it is better to leave error a broad margin.
Usually, the rule of proportionality of civil deaths and wounds is invoked here, called with euphemism "collateral damage", should not be disproportioned with respect to the value of the military victory that is sought.
The Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto29 considers that the best way of fighting terrorism is making terrorists feel that there is a legal framework that protects them and that justice may be on their side. De Soto has suffered at least three terrorist attacks, however, in books such as The Mystery of Capital is critical about how the world powers make more profit of neoliberalism than the developing countries, which is also a complaint of various terrorist groups. To De Soto, capitalism should fight terrorism, not encouraging it, and create instead a legal regime that is more just and that improves the economic activities and productivity of the poorest regions in the world. De Soto is right when he says that the same solution cannot be given to the different terrorist movements of the world, since they have political, ideological, cultural and economic differences, among others.
The fight against terrorism can begin by attacking its source. The task, then, would begin by preventing future attacks, drawing back the terrorist cells, refute the motives that move them so that they cannot be able to obtain financing from those who identify with their ideological fights. Acting rationally in the problem of terrorism does not mean to become apart from justice and liberal ideals, on the contrary, it allows protecting the citizens in the future, which is finally the State’s function. By fighting terrorism, the face of the government that ought to come out in the solution of the terrorist controversies is the political and diplomatic one, not the military. The essence of politicians and diplomats are the social matters and the negotiation, therefore they could be more efficient in cutting terrorism from the root, which the military cannot.30
Terrorists should not only find hostility and repulse towards their violent attacks, but also political solutions to their ideological demands, without this depreciating the legal framework, the State’s interests and citizenship. Likewise, foreign policy of the countries that intend to fight terrorism through it shall show concern about the problem, but not give an offensive face without any reason. By keeping an aggressive position towards the countries considered suspicious of tolerating terrorism, terrorists are being warned and they are given new elements to justify that they are defending themselves from the countries that precisely intend to fight terrorism. A way to fight terrorism could understand the terrorists’ ideologies and giving a political solution to their demands, before they turn into violent protest actions.
IX. PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE OF TERRORISM
For all these reasons and given the objectiveness this theme demands, this work does not illustrate terrorism but it compiles opinions about the origins of terrorism, about how to prevent it and set a legal framework to it. It should be underlined that this task could not be implemented with a subjective or unilateral view of the problem, since the study of terrorism has a multidisciplinary focus, as well as reflexive. Thus, several specialists on terrorism were consulted, giving them freedom in the theoretical and formal orientation they chose, from their personal and professional preferences, towards the theme of terrorism. With this, the present work intends to become a source of consultation about the theme, with different points of view, but all within a framework of seriousness and academic reflection.
All the collaborators in this book had original ideas that were very worthy. We all coincide in rebuffing terrorism and trying to eradicate it with legal means. Nonetheless, given a peculiar coincidence, none of the collaborators treated the case of Mexico, and this reinforced my interest in studying the case of our country. Also, this situation led me to two important conclusions about this. There are no capital events related to terrorism in the history of Mexico. The theme is seen as something quite far away, partly because we do not want to accept it happened in our country, and partly because terrorism is a mainly urban phenomenon, which takes place when the discontent actors do not have a political solution. We shall say that in Mexico it has not been successful regarding economic fortune and administrative efficiency, though, it has been successful in domestic political administration. However, I considered important to mentioning the closest events and organizations to the definition of terrorism in Mexican history, which the reader already realized in the former paragraphs.
Notes
*Translated by Ingrid Berlanga Vasile.
**Former Ambassador of Mexico in the United Kingdom and the United Stated. The Presidency of Mexico named him eminent Ambassador. Former deputy secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Full time researcher at the Institute of Legal Research of the UNAM. He died in 2004.
1 Aguilar, Luis Miguel, Fábulas de Ovidio, México, Cal y Arena, 2001, pp. 255-258.
2 Ibidem, p. 255.
3 See Cortázar, Julio, Los Reyes, Alfaguara, 1992.
4 Cortazar’s interpretation about his own work.
5 Fragments of Borges, Jorge Luis, "La casa de Asterión", Obras completas, Buenos Aires, Emecé, 1974, p. 570.
6 Diccionario de la Lengua Española, Madrid, Real Academia Española, 1970, p. 1259 (The definition in Spanish is: "el terrorismo es la sucesión de actos de violencia para infundir terror" [N. of the T.]).
7 Osorio, Manuel, Diccionario de Ciencias Jurídicas, Políticas y Sociales, Buenos Aires, Heliasta, 1992, p. 1030.
8 Bobbio, Robert, Diccionario de política, Mexico, Siglo XXI editores, 1998, p. 1570.
9 Definition stated by Kissinger in a conference at the London Centre for Policy Studies, on October 31, 2001.
10 Cook, Chris, Diccionario de términos históricos, Barcelona, Atlaya, 1997, p. 482.
11 Von Clausewitz, Karl, De la guerra, Buenos Aires, Mar Océano, 1960, p. 9.
12 Ibidem, p. 490.
13 Definition taken from Bouthoul, G., Traité de sociologie: les guerres, elements de polémologie, Paris, Payot, 1951, in Bobbio, Norberto, Diccionario de política, cit., p. 138.
14 Irish Republican Army.
15 McLean, Iain, Concise Dictionary of Politics, Oxford, England, 1996, p. 493.
±In Spanish "magnicidio" means murdering a Head of State [N. of the T.]. There is not an equivalent in English.
16 Diccionario de la Lengua Española, cit., p. 827 (In Spanish the definition is: "muerte violenta dada a persona muy principal por su cargo o poder").
17 Sartre, Jean-Paul, Literary and Philosophical Essays, New York, Collier, 1997, p. 224.
18 We have not intended to exhaust the reader with a comprehensive explanation of the different names given to terrorist groups and their different factions, because given their extension, this could be part of another essay. However, a chronological summary is made of the main terrorist organizations so that their localization in time and space becomes easier.
19 Ajami, Fouad, "Iraq and the Arabs Future", Foreign Affairs, New York, January-February 2003.
20 Walzer, Michael, "Cinco preguntas sobre el terrorismo", Nexos, Mexico, September 2002, pp. 28 and 29.
21 Von Clausewitz, Karl, op. cit., p. 143.
22 Ibidem, p. 489.
23 González de Alba, Luis, "El terrorismo en México", Nexos, Mexico, September 2002, pp. 108-110.
24 Somerset Maugham, William, El traidor, México, El Mundo, 1998, p. 68.
25 Cherem, Silvia, "Entrevista a Simon Peres", Reforma, Mexico, January 13, 2003, p. 30 A.
26 Fuentes, Carlos, "¿Qué tal?", Reforma, México, January 27, 2003, p. 23 A.
27 Fuentes, Carlos, "Los EE.UU. su propio enemigo", Reforma, Mexico, September 6, 2002, p. 16 A.
28 Walzer, Michael, op. cit., pp. 28 and 29.
29 See editorial article in "The economist versus the terrorist", The Economist, London, February 2003, 1st-7th.
30 Walzer, Michael, op. cit., p. 30.
