Thursday, January 17, 2008

According to a source at Ministry of Law and Human Rights, Amrozi will soon be executed as a criminal. Amrozi is a figure highly interesting to be studied, firstly, since he was accused to be a world-class terrorist involved in the famous Bali bombing. Secondly, he was even smiling after the judges pronounced a death sentence on him. A question arises: was the terror committed by Amrozy and his friends a political behavior or a ideological behavior? Issues on terrorism at present are no longer based on substantial truth; on the contrary, those only become global economic and political propaganda tools. Debates on terrorism are not longer using scientific paradigms, but political and economic paradigms.

Definitions of Terrorism
Defining terrorism is highly important to distinguish terrorists from freedom strugglers. It is indeed almost impossible that terrorism is defined objectively. Definition of terrorism in connection with Usamah bin Ladin, for example, according to a columnist named Michael Kinsley in Washington Post, October 5, 2001 was a confusing definition. The definition containing “injury on government property and computer trespass” is too wide in its scope. Furthermore, Kinsley gave an example, US supported a guerilla movement against Nicaraguan government, but in El Salvador, US did the reverse. If terrorism is defined as a crime supporting political aims, the question is how if the actor is the government of a country?

Terrorism had been defined by referring to interests of the definers, so that there is a definition of terrorism based on ruler’s perspective, intelligent perspective, and scientific perspective. Definition of terrorism based on ruler’s perspective among others is Terrorism is premediated threat or use of violence by subnational groups or clandestine individuals intended to intimidate and coerce governments, to promote political, religious or ideological outcomes, and to inculcate fear among the public at large.

Meanwhile, FBI, for example, defines or determines a person a terrorist or not depending on public opinion in US; “The unlawful use of force or violence against person or property to intimidate or to coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals”.
Meanwhile, more neutral definitions are proposed by Ali A. Mazrui and Raymond Hamden.

According to Ali A Mazrui, we should distinguish horrific terrorism that kills innocent people indiscriminately from terrorism done by strugglers for independence (heroic terrorism) in facing the oppressing power, or even oppressing superpower country. The latter terrorism is of patriotic and heroic nature.
Meanwhile, Raymond Hamden distinguishes terrorisms based on their various backgrounds: such as political point of view, ideology of a religion, political struggle against an established government, and mental disorder.
Although it is impossible to unify all definitions pertaining terrorism, but eventually definition accepted by common people will be the definition made by the power owner that can force their intentions, whether political, military, economic or technological power.

It is certainly not easy to understand US’ way of thinking in regarding Yasser Arafat as a terrorist, meanwhile Israeli that has been colonizing Palestine, violating human rights, and owning mass destruction weapons are defended intensively by US. Terrorism is never discussed to its roots of problem, but only viewed from US’ interests. All that threat American interests are labeled as terrorists, and unfortunately UN is not strong enough to resist American hegemony. Root of terrorism is injustice.

In any conflict area in which striking injustice exist violence will happen. Palestine, Afghanistan, South Philippines, and Iraq are now are producers of violence. Whom the violence is aimed? To a very powerful party compelling its wills to weak parties with support of weapon, formal legality, and economy.
There are three characteristics of terrorism: (a) spreading scared feeling; (b) destroying public infrastructures, and (c) causing innocent victims in large amount. Hence, there are actually two terrorist groups.

1. First, Strong terrorists, in this case are big (powerful) countries, with an excuse of protecting their national interests, they think that they have the right to destruct their enemies, wherever they are. US (in Afghanistan and Iraq), Israeli (in Palestine), and Soviet Union (when colonizing Afghanistan) in this perspective are terrorist countries, meaning that here terrorism is launching by state. Viewed based on the characteristics of terrorism activities, US is the country that is most in spreading scared feeling, destructing public infrastructures, and killing innocent people in a large amount.

2. Second, Cornered Terrorists, those who are weak and lose in formal (political) struggle but don’t want to surrender. These groups think that they are entitled to defend themselves and to launch guerilla attacks in accordance with minimum abilities they have. Therefore, terror and anti-terror warfare at present are actually warfare between two kind of terrorists, first, terrorists who try to maintain their dominant powers (mainly economy) on the world, and second, terrorists who are cornered and with all limitations they think that they have to maintain their existences in every way.