main
The Eurasian Politician - January 2004
By: Antero Leitzinger, 19th Jan. 2004
Individual perpetrators of terrorist acts may be psychopaths or suicidal personalities, but their mentors, protectors, and managers, are rational political players. Not only the techniques, but also the strategies of terrorism will follow general development, to suit better to the modern society.
Terrorism is the art of manipulating political opinions and decisions by the use of violence and mass psychology, specially in a democracy – in dictatorships, carefully targeted assassinations would be more efficient. There are basically two strategies:
1) collective blackmail;
2) provocations.
In the former, the enemy is forced to pay such a high price for peace and security, that compromises or appeasement will get wide support. This is clearly the intention of the IRA against the United Kingdom, or the ETA against Spain. In some cases, the enemy may become a political pariah, shunned by potential allies. This is the case of various terrorist groups operating against Turkey (to prevent EU membership), Israel, and the USA.
The latter method was used for the "Bulgarian agitation" in 1876, and became the favourite strategy of Russian secret services throughout the 20th century. Provocations aim at compromising the "ordinary" suspects. Even the German National Socialists were tempted to use Jews as scapegoats for staged acts of terrorism.
Both traditional terrorist strategies are, however, messy and risky. Terrorists have learned, that the victims tend to react unexpectedly, by rallying around their political leaders and accepting tougher counter-terrorist policies. Many good men (from the terrorist perspective) have to risk their lives for committing terrorist acts, and even the most fanatic groups have a limited supply of voluntary suicide-bombers. In the case of provocations, on the other hand, terrorists may save man-power, but they have to sacrifice women and children in an attempt to earn sympathy and accuse their enemies for brutality. Would it not be possible to achieve the same results by less actual blood-shedding?
Terrorism needs media attention like plants need sunshine. If an airplane is destroyed, but everybody assumes it an accident by technical failure, terrorism gained nothing. If the reason of an air crash remains unsolved or doubted, a terrorist group may claim responsibility and celebrate it as their achievement. Why do the hard work of actually planting bombs in airplanes, if the most important factor is, to what and whom the media subscribes the incident?
Terrorists need journalists, but journalists too live of bad news and threats. Terrorists and journalists live in a symbiosis, mutually profitable relationship. Ideally, journalists provide terrorists with headlines and resulting public outcry, while terrorists provide journalists with the evidence required for verification. A maximal sensationalist "yellow press" needs a minimum of real bodies. If public hysteria can be created bloodlessly, just by media reports and threats, why fill the mortuaries?
In Iraq, coalition soldiers and civilians are killed almost daily. This has been chosen instead of open resistance, because killing 30 men in a battle once a month would, paradoxically, not produce the same net result. The ultimate aim is not to destroy the occupying military forces (Americans could easily afford to loose a thousand men in the whole war), but to keep the media occupied, and to make the "home front" tired of the whole issue. Killing military personnel would not be terrorism as such, but when the aim is to frighten the great public by continuous media attention, it could be classified as terrorism.
The remnants of the former Iraqi government and security forces are not the only people to have learned the might of the media, and how to influence it effectively. Terrorism is spreading all over the world as a substitute for old-fashioned fighting. High-profile kidnapping cases provide similar publicity, without body counts. During the Anthrax letter scare and SARS epidemics, ordinary people felt the temptation of jokes that could paralyze air traffic, mailing, private and public businesses. The media can be held hostage by so many different ways.
In long term, virtual terrorism may become a business-conscious enterprise. Advertisement and campaign bureaus, consults and lobbyists, belong to the 20th century, while the 21st century will see the privatization of full-service secret agencies with their trusted professional terrorists, provocateurs, media connections, stock exchange experts, life guards, arms merchants, human rights lawyers, and documentation centres. Disinformation is not even illegal.
Although this development may clean up terrorism somewhat, and save lives and limbs, there will follow the same problems that plague every expanding organization. Some terrorists become common criminals, but others may find the manipulation of financial markets more interesting. Airlines and insurance companies react to terrorist acts, and threats of such. There will be rivalries, and some terrorist organizations may turn into honest protection business.
Terrorism is a globally unevenly distributed phenomena. The natural objects are free and democratic societies, where the media is not censored, justice is clement, and the decision-making process is open and predictable. The most successful organizers and sponsors, however, are internationally protected dictatorships with closed borders, secretive administration, hierarchical power structures, and cheap work force. This inequality determinates that terrorists will be harboured by dictatorships against democracies, until the latter make serious counter-threats of promoting democracy by force, which will prevent dictatorships of exploiting their natural advantage too far.
Countries like Turkmenistan and North Korea know, that their real or supposed capability to retaliate are their best guarantees against foreign demands of liberalization, but the recent fate of Afghanistan and Iraq warn them of testing the patience of democracies beyond all limits. Peaceful coexistence of dictatorships and democracies is possible only in a state of mutual balance of terror.
Russia has by far the longest tradition of state terrorism, global network of agents, propaganda machinery through international front organizations, and all kind of subversive tactics. The restoration of Soviet-style centralization, and the possession of destructive potential, accompanied with continuing economical and demographical problems, make terrorism a temptation hard to resist. What would Russia have to loose by protecting terrorist groups and regimes?
In a postmodern world, Russia will cultivate and export the know-how and techniques it knows best. This will not necessarily mean, that Russia would sell too much nuclear technology to Iran, because it prefers to keep a monopoly. Russia will not need to harbour Usama bin Ladin or Saddam Hussein in Moscow, because there are enough client states and nominally independent military bases to store them outside its borders. Most likely, postmodern Russian terrorism will appeal to the media, and avoid unnecessary brutality. Why blow up innocent people, when all critical opposition by democratic societies can be paralyzed and eliminated by the mere threat of risking world peace? Who would seriously oppose bold demands of further credits, or the extradition of individual terrorists, if Russia would fully use all its potential? Journalists, researchers, and politicians could be relieved by the prospect of saving lives - perhaps even their own - through appeasement at the cost of taxpayers. Nevertheless, this would be the end of democracy.