State and Individual Terror in International Relations: The Implications for Global Peace and Security
Bola A. Akinterinwa
International life is currently fraught with many problems that are partly man-made and partly nature-induced. The nature-induced problems are basically the disasters like global warming, the origin of which can still be traceable to man-made activities. It is generally believed that the generation of electricity and heat by particularly burning fossil fuels like natural gas, coal, and oil necessarily and largely explains the current climate change and global warming. In other words, when greenhouse gas is emitted, it covers the Earth. The man-made problems include environmental degradation, food crisis, cyber-insecurity, transnational crimes and international terrorism. Most of these problems result from bad governance.
Of all the man-made problems, international terrorism is the most critical because it is both an act of State and individual. When it is considered an act of the individual, it is criminally and therefore internationally condemned and sanctioned. When it is state-led, it is generally seen within the framework of self-defence. As such, Article 2(4) which not only prohibits any threat or use of force by Member States of the United Nations against one another but also requires the respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States, becomes inapplicable. So is Article 2(7) of the UN Charter on non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other sovereign states inapplicable.
And more concernedly, Article 51 specifically provides that ‘nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’ The problem in this case is that no Member State wants to wait for an armed attack before acting on the basis of self-defence. More often than not, emphasis is placed on preventive self-defence. It is against this background that the States use terror to counter individual terrorism and that both state and individual terrorism threaten global peace and security.
Manifestations of State Terrorism
State terrorism is a direct negation of the various international efforts made to contain terrorism in its various ramifications. Many are the agencies and fora created and conventions signed with the objective of defeating terrorism but which have been to no avail. The United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT), Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP), Partnership for Regional East Africa Counterterrorism (PREACT), International Convention for the suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft signed in The Hague on 16 December 1970, are examples of international agreements that have been breaches from the perspective that international terrorism is still rearing its ugly head as at today. Member States of the international community have not been able to do the necessary to contain terrorism.
Without doubt, terrorism varies in causal factors, design, origination, objectives, and manifestations. Classical terrorism is generally motivated by political objectives. It was initially an instrument of protest, especially against the major western powers. The diplomatic agents of the great powers (France, United Kingdom and the United States in particular) were the main targets. They were either kidnapped or sent letter and parcel bombs. Classical terrorism involved hijacking and skyjacking of planes, hostage takings and suicide bombings. The principal objectives were then very political. Today, terrorism has been technologized. There are also cyber terrorism and atomic terrorism. Financial terrorism has become another critical issue.
The causal factors of individual or private terrorism varies from political oppression, and ideologies to religious persecution, ethnic discrimination, opposition to human rights violations, and poverty. As for state terrorism, it is the quest by sub-nationals for autonomy by use of force and opposition to political dictatorship, especially supported externally, that often prompts state terrorism. State terrorism can be manifested more cruelly when the agitators are critical of government or engaged in the use of force illegally. Recall the killing of a Saudi dissident. Jamal Khashoggi, on 2 October, 2018 at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. An embassy is considered exterritorial in international law, implying that the host state cannot enter an embassy forcefully without the consent of the Chief of Mission. However, being exterritorial also means it is an extension of the Sending State and therefore the sending state can do and undo. This was what happened to Khashoggi in 2018. He went to the Saudi consulate and was ambushed and slaughtered like a cow by a 15-member squad of Saudi agents.
Many points are interesting about the dismemberment of Khashoggi: the Saudi Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, claimed innocence of the assassination. Did the conviction of five persons (Fahad Shabib Albalawi, Turki Muserref Alshehri, Waleed Abdullah Alshehri, Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb and Salah Mohammed Tubaigy) and the verdict of death for murder for covering up the murder imply the innocence of the Saudi government that made fruitless efforts to cover up the murder? In fact, the Turkish authorities also bugged the Saudi consulate. Was the act of bugging not a violation of international diplomatic law?
In essence, the act of disagreeing with or criticising the Saudi government warranted the capital punishment of Khashoggi because he was a critic of the Saudi government. The United States and allies condemned the killing but acquiesced to it and nothing happened thereafter. The journalist was seen when he entered the Saudi consulate but never seen to have come out of it. This was state terrorism per excellence. As brutal as this state terrorism might be, religious and Israelo-Palestinian terrorism are not less brutal in manifestation.
On 7 July, 2005 at about 8.50 am during rush hours, three London Underground trains were victims of suicide bomb attacks by some ‘ordinary British citizens’ who shared the al-Qaeda philosophy. It was not clear why the British citizens were described as ‘ordinary’. However, a non-ordinary or extraordinary British citizen cannot and should not be expected to launch terrorist attacks on his or her country even in the absence of patriotism. In the attacks, 39 people were killed. At about 10 am another bomb was detonated on the upper deck of a bus at the Tavistock Square. There were four attacks in all and more than 700 were injured. A real British citizen, a genuine citizen of Britain must not be seen or heard engaging in terrorism against his people in the absence of any declared struggle for political autonomy.
Whatever is the case, the bombers were not foreigners. They were British that had been radicalised. They were three British who travelled from Leeds to join a fourth British in Luton en route London. They were publicly seen as ordinary people carrying backpacks filled with explosives but never seen as threats to public safety. As noted in the report of the official inquiry, the ordinary British citizens ‘carried out the attacks by using inexpensive readily available materials. These factors made advance detection of the plot by authority extremely unlikely and forced a sea change in British counterterrorism policy, which was previously focused on foreign threats’ (vide Michael Ray, “London Bombings of 2005,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, last updated on September 4, 2024).
Put differently, the policy understanding before the 7/7 attacks was that threats to the UK were foreign. The people residing within the United Kingdom were never seen as enemies. Consequently, security threat would be immediately redefined. Prime Minister Tony Blair saw the bombing as an expression of hatred. As he put it, ‘there is no hope in terrorism nor any future in it worth living. And it is hope that is the alternative to this hatred.’ This statement gives the impression that terrorism can be an objective by considering the possibility of any hope in it. Terrorism is more of an instrument of a struggle. If we are talking about hope in terrorism, it cannot but be a hope in the use of terrorism as a means for attaining political objectives. Consequently, interpretatively, what Prime Minister Tony Blair is saying is that there is no hope, or no likely good outcome, in the use of terrorism to attain whatever objective. He is simply condemning terrorism in all ramifications. But does condemnation put an end to terrorism, especially when the British State is also aiding terrorism directly or indirectly?
International politics is necessarily fraught with dishonesty in design and practice. This is because international politics is a conflict system. It is a system of order and counter-order, amounting to disorder. For instance, terrorism is internationally prohibited. Use of force to settle disputes in international relations is also banned. However, the guarantors of international law happen to be the first countries breaching the same laws. At the level of the UN Security Council, the right of veto is used to promote the national interest to the detriment of the promotion of global peace and security. The more powerful countries preach the gospel of democratic values but refuse the democratisation of the UN system. In fact, it is a truism that Israel acquires weapons from the UK and the US to commit genocidal crimes in its so-called legitimate self-defence war on Palestinian Hamas. The international shame has not only prompted the taking of Israel and Germany to the ICJ but also why the UK has unilaterally decided to suspend the export of certain weapons to Israel who is believed to be using the weapons to terrorise internationally protected persons. Israel uses terror allegedly in self-defence which should not be.
Implications for Global Peace
First, international terrorism is politics in itself and therefore cannot engender global peace. When the liberation movements in southern Africa engaged in armed struggle, with Nigeria actively engaging in the combat diplomatically and financially, the then US president, Donald Reagan, described the armed struggle as terrorism but the whole of Africa, led by Nigeria, refuted and rejected it. In the same vein, Israel is apparently killing and maiming internationally protected persons, children, non-combatants under the pretext of self-defence against the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks in which 1200 Israelis lost their lives.
In fact, the argument of self-defence is presented as an unprovoked attack by Hamas. It is difficult to rightly argue the case of non-provocation in light of the fact that the Palestinian Hamas, though considered by the West as a terrorist organisation, have been subjected to Israeli occupation, misrule, and oppression, a situation that appears to have pushed them to the wall in probably deciding to damn the consequences of their attack. Israeli terrorism is aimed at wiping out an ethnic community under the guise of self-protection and the international community not only condones it but is also surreptitiously supporting Israel in its genocidal crimes. With this type of situation, global peace and security cannot but remain a quest or dream.
Secondly, the danger posed by the invisible terrorists is deadlier than that danger of the visible terrorist carrying weapons. Explained differently, there are the visible terrorists and the unseen terrorists who guide and fund the criminal acts. Who is funding terrorism? Is it only private individuals that are doing so? Are States not also funding the use of terror? A terrorist is not only the suicide bomber and the kidnapper. All those who aid and abet the use of terror are also invisible terrorists. They are terrorists because of the many international agreements already done on it and which prohibit both the visible and invisible terrorists. Efforts should not be made in the open to combat the use of terror and then some financiers of terrorism would be promoting terror in the secret. By implication, the real anti-terrorism battle should be more at the level of the invisible terrorists.
Thirdly, there is the breach of the many international anti-terrorism agreements. There is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA) on 14 December 1973. There are also the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, adopted by the UNGA on 17 December, 1979; the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the UNGA on 15 December 1997; the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism done on 9 December 1999; and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism done on 13 April 2005. There are still more agreements, but they are also generally not adhered to. Why is it that the agreements are only respected in the breach? Does this not also suggest that the breaching will continue in the foreseeable future?
Fourthly, there is also the aspect of international complicity in state terrorism. When Israel opted to attack the Iranian Embassy in Syria, was it that the Tel Aviv authorities did not know that Article 2 (1) (b) of the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents, prohibits any ‘intentional commission of a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transport of an internationally protected person likely to endanger his person or liberty?’ The implication of Israel’s attack on Iran in Syria is that the sovereignty of any country can be violated in self-defence of an attack launched by a third party. In other words, Syria was not in conflict with Israel per se as at the time of the attack. There was no good basis to have attacked Iran in Syria even if the principle of hot pursuit in international law were to be considered. There is also no good basis for supporting Israel’s state terrorism which does not allow for a 2-state solution to the Palestinian question.
Fifthly, there is the implication of a likely rise in terrorist attacks in the foreseeable future especially in the West Africa region of Africa. The United States and France who are said to be assisting in the containment of terror in the Sahel have been declared unwanted. They are replaced by Russia but the extent to which sub-regional, not to say regional, security will not be bleak is a matter of conjecture.
For instance, the Institute for Economics and Peace uses data from terrorism tracker and other sources to rank countries on the impact of terrorism in its Global Terrorism Index (GTI) reports. The GTI report scores each country on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no impact at all and 10 represents the highest measurable impact of terrorism. In the GTI 2024 report, ‘deaths caused by terrorism increased by 22% to 8,352, the highest level since 2017. Attacks are more deadly as the number of terrorist incidents fell by 22% to 3,350 and number of countries reporting an incident fell to 50.’
Explained differently, the scoring of more points simply implies more terrorist challenges to address, especially in terms of the number of terrorist casualties. For instance, even though terrorist incidents are on the decline, the attacks are also becoming deadlier. Terrorists are able to inflict more deadly attacks without having to organise many attacks. Besides, in terms of impact, in the year 2023, West African countries were unequally impacted upon. Burkina Faso was the most impacted upon with 8.571 on 10 points. Mali came second with 7.998, while Nigeria with 7.575 points, and Niger with 7.274 followed in that order.
In Nigeria’s neighbourhood, Cameroun was placed third after Nigeria and Niger with 6.98 points, followed by Chad with 4.987 points and Benin with 4.898 points. This means that Nigeria is at the epicentre of terrorist impact. One would have expected that, since Nigeria and her immediate neighbours are seriously impacted upon, they would want to come closer together to fight international terrorism in a more strategic manner and beyond the Lake Chad Commission’s framework.
Other countries in the ECOWAS region were not even impacted by terrorism. For instance, Ghana, Guinea, The Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Senegal, and Sierra Leone all scored 0 point on ten. So did Mauritania, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho, Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal, and Sierra Leone in West Africa, and Malawi, Namibia, South Sudan, Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, and Gabon in other regions of Africa.
Additionally, it should be pointed out that international terrorism is not peculiar to Africa alone. The great powers are similarly impacted by terrorism in the way Nigeria and her neighbours are impacted: the United States scored 4.141 points, compared to Russia’s 3.016 points, France’s 2.647 points, UK 2.373 points, and China’s 0.582 points. If international terrorism has become a major concern for the global community, for how long can it be expected to be eventually contained if it is containable? If truth be told or asked for, who really is interested in global peace and security? Are the manufacturers of weapons sincerely interested in peace? If there is peace, if there is security, who will be interested in the purchase of arms and weapons? If there are no weapons, what will be the responsibility of military advisers or the defence attachés? When there is peace and security, why will the military powers not take interest in fomenting troubles in order to create a basis for relevance? Apart from this, Africa is currently searching for a new order of political governance and Professor Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi, CFR, has been holding discussions on the matter and is specially to speak on it on the occasion of the 200th edition of his Thrumyeyes Programme on Thursday 18 September, 2024 at 7pm. Can there really be peace when individual and state terrorism cohabit? Can there be regional or global peace when the international system is that of a conflict system, that of order and counter order amounting to disorder? If there is disorder, why will there not be business for weapons manufacturers? Why should anyone expect global peace when Africa has not shown any seriousness of purpose in nipping in the bud colonial legacy? Time will tell.
