Any discussion about terrorism immediately begs the question: What is a terrorist?

There is a distinction between alleged Al Qaeda operatives flying a jet-liner into a building and the US Army flying cruise missiles into a city's suburbs; between a suicide bomber immolating themselves along with their target, and a helicopter gunship rocketing a car of militants on a crowded Palestinian street; between beheading a mercenary or soldier in a back room and shooting a journalist or travelling family at an army checkpoint. The real distinction is the monopoly that nation-states reserve for themselves over the legitimate use of violence.

It is because of this monopoly that governments can say “we don't deal with terrorists” while negotiating with states that aggressively invade other countries, commit acts resembling genocide, and routinely use torture as a method of repressing political dissent.

Of course, it is not always as simple as that. I don't condone terrorism, although I was a supporter of the ANC and its armed struggle against apartheid. I cheered when Nelson Mandela, offered a release from prison on the condition that he renounced violence, refused, saying that he would renounce violence if the regime did likewise. I have always been a little suspicious of the view that opponents of state terror must remain pacifist if they want our sympathy and support. I am opposed to the use of violence in general.

When a young man or woman blows themselves up with a nail bomb in a crowded bus or shopping centre, they are not doing it for a laugh. Such extreme measures tell us that these are desperate people, who see no other way of making their voice heard. I think it unlikely that more repression, causing more desperation, will ever bring an end to this kind of terrorism.

My fear is that ending terrorism is not actually the main objective of those who hold power in the USA and its closest allies. By launching a 'permanent war' against 'terrorism and rogue states', within the context of a new crusade, the USA has solved what seemed like an intractable problem.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet empire was hailed as proof of the superiority of capitalism over other forms of economic organisation, yet it appeared as an enormous blow to the power of the military industrial complex. If the sweet run that it was enjoying was to be preserved, it had to find a new threat. Intelligence agencies started focussing on internal surveillance of 'economic saboteurs' (e.g. unions, anti free-trade activists, animal rights activists, indigenous rights activists) but that was never going to legitimise spending billions of dollars on war toys.

So-called Islamic terrorists offered a solution. They formed a highly decentralised global network, justifying intrusive domestic and international intelligence and policing powers, with links to nations with significant military presence. Although, as during the Cold War, the actual fighting need only be done with militarily-weakened nations such as Iraq. Best of all, it played into psychologically powerful mythologies about the Crusades.

What is interesting is how New Zealand has positioned itself in all this. While remaining coy about our role in the continuing occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq we have clearly aligned ourselves with the interests of US. We have passed legislation to make our surveillance laws aligned with those of the USA, Britain and Australia. We have locked up in prison and attempted to silence an Algerian Muslim leader who challenges the Crusade by his simple presence. Ahmed Zaoui was detained on pretty spurious allegations that he is a terrorist. A reading of his actual words suggests that he is a man committed to greater understanding between different religions and societies, to tolerance and to civil engagement in the political process. In that sense, he may indeed be a greater threat to the powerful than a terrorist would be.



What is the real purpose of the war on terror?

Have your say >>