A US Army manual defines terrorism as: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." Do you agree? How broadly can this definition be applied?

Tanya Plibersek; Tony Abbott; Donna Mulhearn; Jim Wilks

Peter Macdonald: That’s a really good question. It’s quite an intellectual one, it’s probably more for an academic rather than an intellectual battler like me, but I do understand why it’s important. I in fact thought the question might – the US Army manual defining America’s foreign policy as "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain goals …” (Laughter), but it indeed it could well apply to the US invasion of Iraq in my view. I guess that I would just would alter the definition somewhat to include the word “lawful”. So, probably: “systematic and unlawful use of violence by a person or group against a person or group or property with the intention of … “ blah blah blah “for the reasons of … “.

The reason, it seems to me from the little bit of research I’ve done on this as to why it’s important that we do have an accepted definition on terrorism, is that it allows us to come together with an understanding of what terrorism is, with a plan and a strategy to oppose it, and to deal with it. If we’re to have [one], it’s got to be an accurate and clear understanding of what it is, and not one that has been distorted by vested interests. Let me give you an example, in the case of the United States, that they in fact have described the attack on the USS Cole in Aden, where seventeen of their military died, as an act of terrorism. That people would argue with, that in fact it wasn’t a legitimate act of terrorism, and it was in fact an attack on a military target. So, the Americans, have chosen to define that as terrorism, and that is an example of where there is not common agreement on that. So, we ca n find that definitions are being developed that are politically motivated. The absence of an agreed meaning makes the drafting of anti-terrorism laws problematic.

I also wanted to talk about the concept of terrorism within states, and historically the terrorism within a state has been internal, in other words, Nazi Germany, what happened with Stalin in Russia, the Khmer Rouge and so on, where there’s been arrest, imprisonment, torture and execution. Now, I think that we’re seeing a form of external state terrorism in the form of the US foreign policy. The other thing I want to say is that it’s been agreed that what one state might regard as a terrorist, another may state is a freedom fighter.

So, in terms of the definitions of terrorism, let me just ask you to consider a number of other points. There is little or no terrorism in the world’s poorest 49 countries, and that seems to indicate to me that poverty is not at the root cause of terrorism. The terrorists that were involved in 9/11 were educated and middle class. Solving the problems of terrorism does not come from military action, but it will come through foreign policy change. That’s all I’ve got ot say on that, thank you. (Applause)

Tanya Plibersek: I think Peter makes a good [point], and it’s been made many times: one person’s freedom fighter is another person’s terrorist. I guess it’s not a difficult stretch of the imagination to ask ourselves what we would do if our own land were invaded by a superior military power. How would we resist? We would resist with anything at hand, and if they were political weapons and intellectual weapons we would use them, but if they were stones and Molotov cocktails I guess we would use them, too. Under international law you are allowed to resist if your land is invaded, but we all know that even the concept of invasion is controversial. Certainly, Australia has never admitted its own violent dispossession of aboriginal people in this country.

I guess the thing that the United States has done throughout its history is call people terrorists if they’re not on their side and freedom fighters if they are. I mean I feel like I’m speaking about first principles here, but it was the United States that trained Augusto Pinochet’s cadres to be part of the violent overthrow of a democratically-elected government. The Contras were the best friends of the United States and we all know that the scandal surrounding the funding of the Contras even against the democratic wishes of the elected members of the United States government. And the Mujahideen – I mean the list is a very long one. The trouble is for the United States, sometimes these people stop being controllable, and then you’ve really got a situation on your hands that, if you’ve been arming and training people, and then they, say, “go native”, then you’ve got a real problem on your hands.

I don’t see the difference between the actions of many of the groups the United States has trained and funded, like the Contras, if you compare the actions of the Contras and the Shining Path, I mean, they’re both brutal, bloodthirsty, would do anything to advance their own political agenda. And it seems to me that our problem is not so much - whether we use the US Army definition of terrorist or not seems irrelevant because the United States picks and chooses – you know: “he may be a bastard but at least he’s our bastard” – it picks and chooses it terrorist in the same way and that again means that we need to return to the international community to make some of these definitions about when people are legitimately resisting and when people are terrorists.

I want to finish by saying that there are very few circumstances where the violence is something that I can condone, but perhaps if I were alive during the Fascist takeover of Spain, perhaps I would have picked up a gun. And I’m sure there are many people who are pacifists in this room, but we need to consider as well that there are times when all peaceful means have been exhausted, and sometimes the people that are being called terrorists are people that are in those sorts of situations. The final thing I want to say is, I think that “the threat of violence to obtain goals that are political …” blah blah blah – I reckon the United States to sign a non-aggression pact with North Korea would have to fit that definition too, wouldn’t it. (Applause).

Tony Abbott: Well, I’m surprised to find myself in disagreement with the previous two commentators on this question, although I also say that I don’t particularly like what I’m told is the US Army manual definition of terrorism. For me the simplest definition of terrorism is “politically motivated violence against civilians”. For instance, I would regard the September the 11th atrocities as a paradigm, if horrific in their scale, examples of terrorism. I certainly wouldn’t regard the Anglo-American-Australian action against Saddam Hussein as terrorism in any way, shape or form. I just think that it’s completely different for one government to use military force to displace the government or to defeat the army of another country, and for groups to use indiscriminate violence against civilians. I just think that they’re two completely different things, and this idea that the United States is in some way the world’s great terrorist I find almost incomprehensible. Sure the United States makes many mistakes, sure there are occasions when the United States armed forces do things that they shouldn’t do – we can go back to Viet Nam, I suppose, and find things like the My Lai massacre, which were in their own way atrocities. Of course they were, and they should never have happened, and the people responsible for them were rightly brought to trial.

But the fundamental difference between the United States and countries like it, and terrorist states and terrorist organisations, is that the United States at least recognise certain standards (Laughter) now sometimes its agents and its instrumentalities depart from them, but nevertheless in the United States you can change the government, in the United States you can sue the government, in the United States if people commit various atrocities against other people they are put on trial, and they are usually convicted and sentenced to long periods of punishment. So look, sure, I’m not an uncritical admirer of the United States, but I do believe that the United States is overwhelmingly a force for good in the world, and I think the world would be a poorer and sadder place without the United States. (Applause)

Donna Mulhearn: I’m really glad I got to talk after that. The Australian government said I was naïve when I went to Iraq. I think I have a right now to question the naivety of the government, after that.
I’m going to use Tony Abbott’s definition of te rrorism, and take you through a description of what I experienced in Iraq, and let’s just together decide whether we think it’s terrorism: “politically motivated violence against civilians”.

OK. Children, cowering, under their beds, screaming, because the bombs don’t stop, twenty-four hours a day. Screaming because the sound of a bomb is like a gunshot going off in your head, times a thousand. Think about a small child when they hear a bang, alright, what it does to them. Imagine, children hearing that, twenty-four hours a day, and cowering, behind their parents and under their beds. Who has a right to make a child cower in fear? Tell me that’s not terrorism. You tell me that’s not terrorism. I’m a grown woman, and I was cowering in fear. Every breath I took, the next breath I took, that was going to be my last. Imagine the impact of that on children, I can tell you the impact that it had. They went to hospital sick with shock, physically ill, vomiting. That’s the children.

The women, who were pregnant, soon to term, almost ready to give birth, miscarrying, losing their unborn babies, because of the shock, the physical shock, of just being present in the city that was taking the brunt of this wonderful country, the United States of America and its friends. Women losing babies. Tell me that’s not terrorism.

[Tony Abbott: What about Saddam Hussein’s terrorism?]

Donna: I’ll come to that. Thank you. I’ll come to that. That’s a good question for John Howard and the Australian government for the last ten, twelve, fifteen, twenty years. Where were they then? (Applause)

[Genia McCaffrey: Can I? Excuse me. I said at the beginning of this debate, Tony Abbott is one against three different people who have different points of view. If we’re going to have a civilised discussion, it’s not about grandstanding and yelling and screaming. You might agree with some people and not with others. Give people the opportunity to speak, and don’t condemn somebody who’s prepared to come and put their point view, please.]

Donna Mulhearn: Walking into a restaurant in an ordinary street in Baghdad one day, that had been bombed to pieces, I saw the limbs and the blood of people splattered all over the walls. They were have their dinner, in a restaurant, and their lives were cut short. Civilians. Tell me that’s not terrorism. I met a little child in the hospital, I met many children in the hospital who had their limbs blown off or their bodies cut to pieces because of shrapnel, flying shrapnel and debris. Burns right across their bodies. And I met little Omar, who lost his parents and his sister in the bombing. And the nurses were afraid to tell him, because he had severe internal injuries, and they were scared that the shock would kill him. They told him they were in another hospital. This boy is now alone in the world. He has liberation, Saddam Hussein’s not there, but he has nothing, nothing more. I often think about Omar, and think about when the nurses, or whoever, comes to tell him that he’s alone in the world, that he’s lost his family and his sister, that he has no family left. And when they explain the meaning of the word liberation, I wonder what they’re going to say. And I think of little Omar and what his response might be, and I think he’ll look around, outside the streets of Baghdad, where there’s chaos, where there’s still no power, still no water, where there’s fear, where there’s anarchy, where there’s suspicion, where there’s American troops bashing down the doors of ordinary families and going in and knocking people onto the ground with a gun to their head on an hourly basis. And I think he’ll look around and he’ll say: “liberation? Whatever, I just want my mum and dad back.” I think that’s what he’ll say. Tell me that’s not terrorism.

Thousands of orphans now wandering the streets of Baghdad. “Politically motivated violence against civilians”? I think I’ve just defined that. That’s the war in Iraq. That’s what I saw. Terror against civilians. Children screaming. A man coming up to me with blood all over the front of his shirt. I’d just walked through puddles, not of rainwater but of blood, to get to him. He raced up to me because I was western, I was white, and he wanted and answer. He looked at me with a face that is probably going to haunt me forever. He screamed, and he said: “if they wanted to get Saddam Hussein, why did they kill my baby girl? Why did they bomb my house? Why is our neighbourhood ruined?” That’s a good question.

And I’d like to go back to Saddam Hussein, because John Howard had plenty of time to act, but it was only when it was politically convenient to do so that he did. And I think that’s abhorrent and it’s hypocrisy to the worst degree. Because there were some of us that were lobbying for the government to do something about Saddam Hussein, but they were ignored. And the Iraqis were trying to get here on leaky boats and they were refused entry, and now they’re locked up in detention centres. So, war is the terrorism of the rich. (Applause).

Jim Wilks: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate what has been said here tonight. The reason that I was concerned that this question be put is because I’ve heard so little discussion publicly about what terrorism really means, yet terrorism has become such a powerful word, and it’s something that’s reshaped the whole geopolitical landscape. I had the feeling that there was a certain Alice-in-Wonderland type feeling about it, that the words mean what the speaker meant them to mean, rather than their being any agreed definition, really, of what the significance was.

I guess, too, that these days when words are spun by political advisers, and that words and labels are used to both sanitise and demonise different things, that it is important that we have a look at the real meaning of some of these things before they fall into the hands of the spin doctors.

And lastly, I’d just like to say that part of the power of the word, and the reason why I thought it was important to see ideas about the expression of the meaning of it, is that if you can hang the label of “terrorist” on somebody, that these days makes them a legitimate target for a pre-emptive attack, and that’s a very dangerous concept to have in world politics. So, it’s been very instructive for me, and I’ve appreciated the remarks that have been made. It was very useful to hear an understanding of what the government thinks about the meaning of terrorists, and thank you to you all. (Applause).

Genia McCaffery: Thank you, Jim. And our third question comes from Tina Jackson ...

© NSPD 2003. Last modified 22/10/03.