Terrorism by the State is still Terrorism

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the University of Birmingham

“What is state terrorism? It is similar to non-state terrorism in that it involves politically or ideologically or religiously inspired acts of violence against individuals or groups outside of an armed conflict. The key difference is that agents of the state are carrying out the violence.”  

Hide

A journalist murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul allegedly by Saudi government agents; an ex-Russian spy and his daughter poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury, apparently by Russian intelligence agents. What connects these two 2018 events is a concept that receives little attention in wider media and political discourses: state terrorism. What is state terrorism? It is similar to non-state terrorism in that it involves politically or ideologically or religiously inspired acts of violence against individuals or groups outside of an armed conflict. The key difference is that agents of the state are carrying out the violence.

It is certainly not, despite the events of the past months, a new phenomenon. There is a tendency, in part because the domination of terrorism studies by certain academic disciplines, to see terrorism as a problem of the present despite its modern version appearing in the latter half of the 19th century. State terrorism has an equally long history, stretching back to at least the French Revolution and “the terror.” Russian intelligence, including in the Soviet era, has long deployed murder as a tactic against those deemed as threats to the state or to a particular leader. The most famous victim of Soviet state terrorism was Leon Trotsky who was killed in 1940 in Mexico City by a Soviet agent. This trend appears to have continued in the post-Soviet era with the deaths of a wide range of opponents and critics of the Russian state and its president, Vladimir Putin.

Despite the Salisbury and Saudi consulate examples, state terrorism does not necessarily involve only individual targets. In my chapter in a new edited collection, Routledge Handbook of Terrorism and Counterterrorism, I compiled the number of deaths in Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) from acts of terrorism between 1968 and 2018. Topping the list were deaths from state terrorism, all caused by the 1988 bombing by a Libyan government agent of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland that killed 270 people.

Nor do authoritarian states have a monopoly on state terrorism. To try to stop protests against nuclear tests, French government agents bombed the Greenpeace ship, The Rainbow Warrior, in New Zealand in 1985, killing 1 person. Israel has spent decades targeting perceived threats, such as scientists active in Iran’s nuclear programme, for death. In a case of state-sponsored terrorism, the American Central Intelligence Agency allegedly sponsored a car bombing in Beirut in 1985 in an effort to kill a cleric connected to Hezbollah. The explosion missed its intended target, murdering 80 people instead. And in 1998 a former MI5 agent, David Shayler, alleged that MI6 sponsored a 1996 assassination attempt on the then Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, that missed its target but killed several other people instead.

As with non-state terrorism, state terrorism has a purpose. As political scientist Ruth Blakely notes, state terrorism is not only about the destruction of those targeted, but it is also driven by the “opportunity afforded by the harm to terrorize others.” In other words, what unites these acts is an aspiration to punish but to intimidate more widely as well.  Based on recent events, such a desire on the part of a wide variety of states shows no sign of dissipating anytime soon.

Have your say...

Feedback
  • Charles Swanson
    External
    1. At 7:37PM on 28 January 2020, Charles Swanson wrote

    I am writing a book and I would like to use text from your website please.

    Regards

    Charles Swanson

  • Andrew Pilkington
    External
    2. At 4:35AM on 26 September 2020, Andrew Pilkington wrote

    Hi,

    If a Government was to generate Terror / Fear into it's Citizens, over an unseen threat and pass oppressive legislation, by bypassing the Officially agreed means of passing laws and legislation, then punishing it's citizens for non-compliance, both physically and emotionally, when there is no valid evidence that this "unseen threat" was indeed a threat at all. Would that Government's actions be classed as "State Terrorism", because such actions must surely be identifiable as "Psychological Warfare" at the least?

    And if so, could said Government actions be also classed as "Treason" and "Fraud"?

    Finally, and I apologise for the essay :)

    Who would be responsible for the arrest of such criminals behind such a Scam / Fraud, if say the Country's Police, Military and Health Care Professionals are Collaborating to promote the agenda of that obviously corrupt Government?

    Many thanks & best wishes

    Great post.

  • sunny yadav
    External
    3. At 10:57PM on 28 May 2021, sunny yadav wrote
  • Vince
    External
    4. At 1:57PM on 23 June 2021, Vince wrote

    There is a tendency, in part because the domination of terrorism studies by certain academic disciplines, to see terrorism as a problem of the present despite its modern version appearing in the latter half of the 19th century.

    - https://sandiegohoodcleaning.net

  • David Smith
    External
    5. At 5:44PM on 27 July 2021, David Smith wrote

    Writing articles is a challenge for many students. Just as students struggle, teachers are just as stressed as they are interpreting topics. But good news! To make writing (and proofreading here https://www.superiorpapers.com/) your essay easier, we provide useful essay writing tips and tricks for students and teachers alike.

  • Syed Ali Akash
    External
    6. At 12:53PM on 14 August 2021, wrote

    Hello, there has been a lot of discussion around State/State-sponsored terrorism and the terrorist groups (non-state actors). But there is another case that does not qualify for any of the above-mentioned categories and that is a State within the State. In the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are not the governing body yet they control and govern almost half of the Major provinces in the country.

    They (Taliban) have political aims and motives, carrying out violent attacks all across the country, the psychological repercussions are beyond the targets and they clearly have intentions to coerce, intimidate or convey the message to a larger audience than the immediate victims.

  • Jann Bordia
    External
    7. At 8:21AM on 25 August 2021, Jann Bordia wrote
  • studynlearn
    External
    8. At 6:32AM on 30 August 2021, wrote

    very informative article appreciable keep it up https://www.studynlearn.com

  • Oliver Smith
    External
    9. At 2:25PM on 14 September 2021, wrote

    Very unique and well written article.

  • Erik Starck
    External
    10. At 2:29PM on 14 September 2021, Erik Starck wrote

    I read your article and totally agree to your points https://essays.uk/custom-essay-writing-service/

  • سئو
    External
    11. At 8:05AM on 15 September 2021, wrote

    Nice article, thanks for sharing

Add Your Feedback