Liberal Perspectives on Terrorism and Civil Liberties
by Dr. Jay Kun Yoo
Member of the National Assembly, Republic of Korea
Former Chairman of the URI Party

"War on Terror" in 21st Century"

The most talked-about topic in today's international relations is "war on terror." Terrorist attacks occur in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Central and South Americas, as well as in the United States. The "war on terror" has now come into focus in the major international affairs. The "war on terror" has become a frequently used term since the September 11, 2001 attacks. It is a new kind of war in contemporary times that the United States is waging against al-Qaeda and its supporters.  

A few days ago, al-Zarqawi was killed in an American airstrike. He had been notorious for kidnapping innocent civilians and beheading some of them, and killing many innocent Iraqis and foreigners in numerous suicide bombing attacks. Despite his death, the threat of terrorism is still increasing.

Terrorism is never an issue of today alone. Since ancient Rome, some radical people have resorted to terrorism as an expression of their revolutionary cause, or political or religious protests. But since the 1960s when a Palestinian group led by Yasser Arafat hijacked and blew up aircraft, terrorism has become very cruel. Among other things, the September 11, 2001 attacks were a genocidal kind of terrorism reminiscent of a war.

New Terrorism, Changing Terrorist Styles

Terrorism has been changing in its styles, giving rise to new terrorism.

In the past, terrorism was motivated usually by ideological or political causes. But since the end of the Cold War, the frequency of such terrorism has been decreased to a lesser extent. It is true that politically-motivated terrorism still is most frequently carried out. But terrorism seeking social, religious, racial or economic goals is now coming into focus.

In the past, terrorism used to target political rivals or certain countries in rivalry. But terrorism is now targeting more of unspecified individuals and states.

Terrorist means have become state-of-the-art and large-scale. Due to developed transportation and communication systems, terrorist groups have also become large-scale, well-organized, and globally-connected.

As the globalization has proceeded at a quick pace, exchanges of various kinds have been expanded on a global scale. In this process, alienated groups with international networks have come into being. Terrorism by such groups is a new concept of terrorism called new terrorism that has been born in the process of globalization.

This new kind of terrorism has ultimately expanded its target to fan people's feeling of fear beyond a certain level.

Defining of Terrorism Is Not Easy

It is not easy to define terrorism that has come into focus in the international community. According to Walter Laqueur, an American historian and political commentator, as many as 109 definitions were made on terrorism between 1936 and 1981.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, "Terrorism, the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police. Definitions of terrorism are usually complex and controversial, and, because of the inherent ferocity and violence of terrorism, the term in its popular usage has developed an intense stigma. Various attempts have been made to distinguish among types of terrorist activities. It is vital to bear in mind, however, that there are many kinds of terrorist movements, and no single theory can cover them all."

In a book entitled "Power and Terror," Noam Chomsky says that terrorism in the 18th century referred to the act of violence by the government to force the general public into obedience.

It has long been a question in the international community how to define terrorism that has strong political motivation. While agreeing to the basic principle that terrorism should never occur under any circumstances, countries of the world have failed to reach a consensus on making a concrete definition of terrorism.

In 1937, the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, made the first-ever international attempt to reach a consensus on the definition of terrorism. The League of Nations Convention (1937), the first international treaty on the prevention of terrorism, proposed a definition of terrorism by saying in its Article I, clause 2, "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public." However, the League of Nations' discussions on terrorism came to naught without reaching any conclusion.

Despite many efforts, it is still hard to give a clear definition of terrorism.

Double-Edged Nature of Terrorism: Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

In 2004, the United Nations tried to reach a consensus on the definition of terrorism. In such an effort, the international organization released a 101-point report, focusing on a five-point principle on the use of arms between states and an enlargement plan for the Security Council. The five principles on the use of arms between states are: Does the threat pose a clear and present danger?; is the use of arms for defense purposes?; is the use of arms the last resort?; can the arms be used to a minimum extent?; and can the use of arms produce a successful outcome? The report also makes a definition of terrorism, while taking into consideration the reality in which a terrorist can be regarded by another group of people as a freedom fighter. The report does not recognize terrorism as a legitimate means of protest, defining it, instead, as "an act of threatening the general public or killing or injuring civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of forcing certain demands on particular governments or international organizations."

This, however, is a mere declaration made from a broad point of view. Countries of the world differ from each other on how to define terrorism. As the United Nations has already admitted, the United States, Israel, and the third world countries, including Islamic nations, have different views of terrorism.

Under these circumstances, a person who is regarded as a "terrorist" in one country can be accepted as a "freedom fighter" in another. Militant guerrillas active in India-occupied Kashmir are "terrorists" from the Indian viewpoint. But they are praised as "freedom fighters," or armed warriors who are resolved to win freedom from the oppressive local Indian government by resorting to an extreme means called "terrorism," in Pakistan. This is also the case with the Chechen separatists. They are "terrorists" in the eyes of the Russian government officials, but "freedom fighters" for the Chechens.

Should we regard only the attack on noncombants as "terrorism"? In other words, shouldn't we regard a nonregular militant group's attack on a state's military facilities or regular army as a "terrorist act"? Should we regard Palestinian Hamas guerrillas' attack on Israeli soldiers in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip as "terrorism"?

Due to such vagueness and subjective views of terrorism, each individual country can be arbitrary in formulating its own countermeasures against terrorist threats. Accordingly, citizens' freedom can very likely be violated.

As such, it is very important to find root causes of terrorism and work out countermeasures to root it out and remove causes that might violate citizens' freedom.

Western Powers' Unilateralism, Root Cause of Terrorism

After the end of World War II, many new countries won independence. These countries faced many problems in their nation-building processes. They could not catch up with advanced countries in their efforts to seek political, economic and social development. Many of them ended up facing serious economic and political problems.

In this process, Western powers pushed for neoliberal policies after emerging from the ruins of World War II. Unlike liberalism, neoliberalism's advocacy of standardization and globalization of "liberty" appears very desirable. But since it is based on the law of the jungle, this idea tends to unilaterally promote the interest of the powerful nations, far from properly protecting the weaker countries in the process of its implementation. Such unilateralism of the Western powers has served as a major cause for some weaker nations' provocation of terrorism. And as the globalization proceeds, clashes arise frequently in political, economic and cultural issues.

But if such unilateralism is continuously enforced in the course of such clashes and such clashes are forcefully suppressed as seen in the case of Israel, use of arms in suppressing discontent with this kind of situation may lead to a new breed of terrorism. We have to recognize that frequently-discussed global issues -- including conflicts over disparities of wealth between northern and southern hemispheres, aggravated alienation and poverty in the wake of globalization, environmental destruction, and deep-rooted regional disputes such as the Palestinian issue -- are linked to the causes of terrorism.

Accordingly, when human beings are deprived of their dignity, terrorist nations or groups come to have a deep sense of shame and grudge, which will eventually develop as hatred for society and burst forth in the form of anger toward the international community.

Nonetheless, in its implementation of war on terror since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration is taking counterterrorism policies tougher than those taken by its predecessor, the Clinton administration.

The Bush administration's tough counterterrorism policies, however, leave something to be desired, considering that they do not envision ideas of sincerely soothing the weaker nations, eradicating poverty, and understanding other cultures -- the ideas that can root out causes of terrorism. The Bush administration's counterterrorism policies appear to be seeking retaliation against terrorists, believing that they have harmed the American pride. This kind of approach will only result in a vicious circle of producing a new breed of retaliatory terrorism.

Instead of lukewarm policies implemented through the international counterterrorism control regime in the wake of America's victory in the Iraq War, it is necessary to further intensify pragmatic policies implemented through a domestic control regime, including the strengthening of domestic law enforcement agencies, militarization of the war on terror, and the intensification of the intelligence agencies' "locate-and-subdue-terrorists" policies. The U.S.A. Patriot Act is the representative legal instrument in this regard.

Civil Rights in Crisis Due to Counterterrorism

On October 24, 2001, 45 days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, U.S. Congress passed the Patriot Act without holding any public hearings or in-depth discussions. The key point of this 215-clause act is to give unprecedentedly extensive authority to investigation agencies, such as the FBI and police. According to this act, investigation agencies can monitor civilians' e-mail messages to collect information for their counterterrorism activities and conduct house searches without warrants. They can obtain even information on who has borrowed what books from libraries, and demand and obtain even individuals' medical records and health information. At the same time, this law can prevent citizens from reading government archives despite their legal rights.

This law gives prosecutors extensive authority to define terrorists, allowing the law enforcement officers to categorize even American citizens as "domestic terrorists" for their participation in the so-called "civil disobedience" campaign of all types.

When this law was enacted, the entire United States had been gripped by shock from the terrorist attacks and no much objection was raised to its content. But as time passed, many people began taking issue with the law's enactment process and the possibility that the law will most likely infringe upon individuals' freedom and civil rights. 

Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, and a citizens' volunteer group have cited the possibility of this law violating the Constitution and civil rights. The congresses of seven states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Idaho and Colorado -- have passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act as the expression of their respect of citizens' views.

Such resolutions express their opposition to the law's possibility of violating civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution, while supporting the federal government's efforts to deter terrorism and protect citizens' safety from terrorists. They stress the need to keep the principles of American democracy, including the freedoms of expression, religion and assembly, equality under the law, and protection of privacy. These states made clear their opposition to the Patriot Act that appears to justify its violation of "freedom" in the name of "national security."

U.S. Congress refused to indefinitely extend the term of this law in December 2005. But President George W. Bush is currently extending it in 2006, and shows moves to further strengthen the law.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration launched the largest-ever government agency, the Department of Homeland Security, following the enactment of the Patriot Act which has much room for unconstitutionality. All this shows the threat American democracy is facing. Since the terrorist attacks, the administration has failed to locate and apprehend terrorists. But the "counterterrorism" has been used as a very useful political tool. In the meantime, American citizens have had their civil rights violated knowingly and unknowingly.

The United States is not the only country that is concerned about this kind of matter. In any country, counterterrorism policies may infringe upon civil liberty. The Korean government is also attempting to enact a counterterrorism act. But it has so far failed to deliberate a draft, much less enact it, in the face of strong resistance from civic groups due to the possibility of such a law violating civil liberty. Australia and New Zealand are strengthening the immigration and passport laws under the pretext of preventing terrorism and protecting the national interest.

In the future, those from Southeast Asian nations or Islamic countries will highly likely be treated as "aliens who have enough reasons to be suspected as members of terrorist groups." This is because counterterrorism-related laws might be applied arbitrarily due to a lack of a proper definition of "terrorism."

It is, first of all, important to give a definition of "terrorism" and then focus on trying to find and resolve its causes.

U.S.' Position on Terrorism

Neoconservatives, or neocons, stand in the forefront of the Bush administration's hard-line counterterrorism policies. Conservatism stresses that a small number of wise people should lead the public, accepting the inequality of wealth in the American capitalist economic system. This conservative view of international relations is in striking contrast to that of liberalism that advocates procedural democracy in such a way as to prefer equal distribution and give all people fair chances for political participation.

In the United States, which is in the forefront of the war on terror, many neoconservatives are working at the Bush administration. Second-generation neoconservatives include Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Pual Wolfowitz, currently president of the World Bank. In a declaration for the "Project for the New American Century," they make their view clear. They warn that in the 21st century, the United States, which contributed to ending the era of the Cold War and has become the world's only superpower, is in danger of losing its global leadership with which it can propagate American principles and ideals to the world.

Accordingly, the United States, which is taking responsibility for defending world peace, should not hesitate to use its force. In light of its past experience, the country should avert danger and create a favorable environment.

The neoconservatives also call for strengthening relations with democratic nations of the world and holding non-democratic ones in check. They urge their country to fulfill its role in maintaining the international order, counseling political and economic democracy globally. This view is in the same vein with that of the first-generation neoconservatives who tried to cope with threat from the Soviet Union. It is a view held by conventional conservatives.

The second-generation neoconservatives' view was vividly expressed in the war on terror which the Bush administration declared after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Faced with threat from terrorists, the United States invaded Afghanistan to punish terrorist groups and countries that had supported them.

The United States also launched a preemptive strike against Iraq, a country under dictatorship that was believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to prevent terrorist groups from obtaining WMD. The U.S. leaders believed that they could maintain world peace by replacing the Iraqi leadership and building a democratic nation there.

The Bush administration's strategy was a full reflection of the view held by neoconservatives who say, "American values have collapsed and lost momentum due to its tolerance and amicable attitude toward communism. In the international relations, the only ways to defend freedom are our firm determination and anticommunist spirit to defend capitalism and democracy."

But such neoconservative policies will only produce a vicious circle of a terrorist attack, a counterterrorism war, and a retaliatory terrorist attack. In this situation, countries of the world, including the United States, will be further intensified. Immigrants and migrant workers will feel further alienated. Civil liberty will be further violated.

Overcoming Terrorism, Protecting Civil Liberty

Terrorism may have several causes and we need various countermeasures. But first of all, it is necessary to give a definition to it. Two kinds of efforts are especially needed to find a solution to terrorism.

The first kind of such an effort is a long-term counterterrorism strategy. As mentioned above, globalization has much room for cooperation and clashes due to its ability to enhance mutual accessibility. In case of a clash, what is the most important is to seek mutual understanding. The powerful nations tend to look at all countries of the world according to a single standardized criterion.

But it is not so easy to look at cultural or religious issues according to a single standardized criterion. It is important to recognize each other as it is. The future international order should be built on such mutual recognition and understanding, while it is necessary to consolidate international cooperation.

International terrorist groups are better-organized and cooperate more closely with each other than before. In contrast, cooperation is possible only in certain sectors of the current international community despite the globalization process. Accordingly, to remove international terrorism from a long-term point of view, the world needs an authoritative international forum where every country can join and express its views freely. It is necessary to give more authority to the United Nations or the International Court of Justice and make it independent of the powerful nations' arbitrary control.

A total of 12 counterterrorism treaties have so far come into effect, while another international treaty on the deterrence of nuclear terrorism will soon take effect. Korea is a signatory to all of these 13 counterterrorism treaties. It will be necessary for more nations to join these treaties to realize substantial international cooperation in this regard.

The other kind of counterterrorism effort is "prevention." Under no circumstances can terrorism be justified. Terrorism by the weak cannot be justified, either. Terrorism cannot be justified even if it is the only way of expression of views of one's oppressed situation. Likewise, if one calls for the use of arms to prevent terrorism in retaliation of a terrorist attack, this means it is the expression of one's intent to launch another type of terrorism.

In this context, a short-term counterterrorism is to intensify preventive measures. In other words, it is necessary to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and seek international cooperation to locate and crack down on international terrorist groups. The foremost goal of such a short-term policy is to prevent terrorism from being carried out as much as possible.

But in this process, it is highly likely that civil liberty may be infringed upon. It is imperative to win "trust" as a precondition for a "trickle-down effect." Some measures taken to prevent terrorism have room for violating civil liberty of some nations and some people. But states should show that such policies may cause inconvenience and discomfort to the citizens, but will be beneficial to all ultimately. Systematic devices should be prepared to back this up. This way alone can minimize the possibility of civil liberty being violated and help each nation to have legitimacy in its counterterrorism policies.

Response to Terrorism: Conservatism and Liberalism

Conservatives generally prefer suppressive response to violence, while liberals reiterate the importance of a policy of restructuring the society to root out the causes of violent crimes.

Since the mid-1970s, the consistent U.S. policy against violence has been incarceration and imprisonment of felons. This is the reflection of conservatives' argument that a strengthened judicial system would largely contribute to reducing violent crimes.

Conservatives' perspective is in conjunction with what former U.S. President Richard Nixon referred to as "retributive justice" in 1968 (a year before he took office). According to this perspective, violent criminal activities are the outcome of combinations of human genomes. As a result, individuals should take responsibility for what they have done, and violent criminals are subject to punishment.

On the contrary, liberals' perspective is that violent activities are caused by inferior social conditions or structures that need remedial measures by the government. They call for social-rebuilding projects aimed at enlightening the underprivileged people. They take keen interest in social justice, social projects to eradicate the root causes of violent crimes, and the implementation of such projects.

Conservatives' approaches envision getting rid of terrorists before they take action. This policy is to track down, annihilate or incapacitate terrorist groups' hideaways or rallying points. This policy also includes blocking the sources of funds for terrorist groups, and destroying the enemy's weapons of mass destruction or their transportation systems, or their infrastructure.

Conservatives also advocate preemptive attacks or even the use of nuclear weapons, citing them as proactive preventive measures.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration came up with the Bush Doctrine. The key point in the doctrine is that the United States "would regard, as potential targets of attacks, all nations and organizations that support terrorism or supply terrorists with a shelter." This seems to be the expression of active counterterrorism policies that call for "using all means possible to eradicate terrorism."

But a preemptive strike may give rise to an international dispute and cause conflicts at home and abroad due to the possible infringement of human rights or interference of domestic affairs of foreign countries. It is very difficult to take such preventive action in reality unless there is smooth cooperation among nations and an international recognition is won.

Conservative counterterrorism policies are characterized by suppressive control aimed to use every means possible to prevent terrorists from taking action. This is aimed at making terrorists refrain from taking action by making them realize, through their rational calculations, that their action would incur more danger and damage than gains.

Conservative policies are an approach to suppressing the motivation for terrorism by reducing the potential effects and probabilities of terrorism in terms of its valence, instrumentality, and expectancy.

First, from the standpoint of valence, such policies are to make terrorists refrain from taking action by emphasizing negative aspects, such as punishment and retaliation that they would undergo after they take action. These policies include strong legal punitive measures, the expression of will to take physical retaliation, and the danger of international rebuke.

In terms of instrumentality, conservative policies can reduce motivation for terrorism by making terrorists believe that it would be hard to attain their goals, concurrently securing a rapid rescue system, quickly carrying out restoration work, maintaining order, and intensifying the will of the government and citizens to fight terrorism.

In terms of expectancy, conservative policies are aimed at reducing the terrorism's probability of success. These policies include intensifying security and crackdowns, and preventing terrorists from getting necessary help for their action by rejecting flights in the territorial airspace, if they attempt to find shelter or hijack aircraft.

Such measures are general examples of direct counterterrorism control. But they have limits as a counterterrorism policy. This policy has a minimal effect on fanatics or martyr-type terrorists who carry out irrational super terrorism for psychological, religious or ideological reasons.

In contrast to conservative approaches, liberal policies are aimed to remove breeding grounds of terrorism and improve environment. It takes these policies longer time to be effective, but they are strategies aimed at finding fundamental solutions.

These policies seek improvement of environments for potential assaulters and victims. Potential victims can give support to potential assaulters to improve the latter's environment. Or potential victims can improve their own environment, develop resistance to terrorism, and remove potential causes of terrorism. Measures to improve environment for potential assaulters include active support for their country to resolve nation-to-nation conflicts, promotion of policies to enhance reciprocity, and restoration of mutual trust through civilian educational programs.

The liberals believe that a war is attributable to an imperfect political system. They believe that it will be possible to maintain the global order and peace by either making up for the weak points in the current system or establishing a new system. They believe reform is possible through a system or an institution and that political power can be refined through such a systematic device.

As such, today's terrorism is also a structural issue. So it is necessary to try to find a solution structurally, not making judgment based on the outward appearance of a terrorist attack. It is necessary to establish an international conference or organization to cope with terrorism through various kinds of treaties on counterterrorism.

They believe that this way alone can find a final solution to terrorism and can prevent civil liberty from being violated.

Conclusion

Terrorist acts are symbolic. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, the targets in the United States had been selected probably due to such symbolic nature.

Since the end of the Cold War, international conflicts between east and west have developed into those between north and south. Such conflicts have reached uncontrollable levels, increasing the possibility of terrorism.

In the September 11, 2001 attacks, terrorists destroyed symbolic American buildings and caused a panic among the Americans in an instant. This may have seemed a big success in their eyes. In addition, the terrorists seemed to have spent minimal expenses for such mass destruction.

But it is hard to say that the terrorists attained the goal they were ultimately pursuing, because as its counterterrorism policy suggests, the United States is still unwavering in its principle that it will never give in to terrorism. This means that the United States will thoroughly deter terrorists from attaining goals through terrorism. Never frustrated or weak-kneed, the United States adopted thoroughly punitive policies, demonstrating its resolve to overcome the crisis in unity.

The United States has taken an ultrarightist view of terrorism, appearing to try to completely annihilate even the potential terrorist groups by resorting thoroughly to conservative policies. But if unilateral counterterrorism policies aimed at completely annihilating terrorist groups continue, there is the possibility of danger that such policies might lead to a real clash of civilizations.

It is reported Islamic jihadists believe Osama bin Laden is a source of inspiration, and that an international terrorist system has been established so that it can be maintained even after his death. In this regard, it would be basically impossible to get rid of the aggressive terrorist groups if we fail to cut off the terrorist networks -- including personnel resources, organizations, funds, weapons, networks of communication, and bases of operations -- from their international connections.

It will be possible for countries to find out the true nature of these networks by intensifying intelligence activities against terrorist organizations, obtaining accurate information and cooperating with each other. International cooperation will make it possible to destroy such networks. Based on international cooperation, it will be possible to carry out this strategy when it is helped by liberal approaches.

If it really wants to succeed in its war on terror, the United States should not be satisfied only with the annihilation of terrorist groups. In its war on terror, the United States should also push for liberal policies that would eradicate the root causes of terrorism, while changing its unilateral policies and strengthening support to nations or groups that are alienated or discriminated against. If the breeding grounds for terrorism are not removed, it is possible that a new breed of terrorism might arise from those grounds.

Atrocious terrorism of killing and injuring innocent people will never disappear completely, if there exist those who want to maintain or solidify discriminatory political, social and economic structures, if there exist groups that are alienated by such structures, and if some people still believe it is inevitable to use violence to overcome such a situation.