It is not difficult to understand why this paradox exists. The terrorist is motivated to act on the basis of a perceived injustice suffered by him, and is hence celebrated as a hero by the community he represents (which could be bound together by political ideology, religion, class, ethnicity, etc). In fact most instances of the struggle for independence from imperial rule relied on methods that would be deemed ‘terrorist’ by those were unsympathetic/antagonistic to the cause. The most obvious examples are witnessed in the freedom struggles in Africa and Asia as well as the anti-oligarchic struggle in Latin America. With the demise of imperialism (notwithstanding its morphed version neo-colonialism), acceptability for retaliatory terrorist acts have disappeared too. So, although terrorism has thus lost its lustre of old, a comprehensive definition still eludes the international community. (Weiss, 2002, p.12)
It is a reflection of the complexities involved in defining terrorism that diplomats and international legal personnel have so far overcome the problem by writing conventions that outlaw acts of terrorism without directly including the word ‘terrorism’. The UN Conventions on Terrorism bears this fact through the eight UN conventions and two protocols that were enacted between 1963 and 1991. These deal with a range of offences such as “hijacking, attacks on diplomatic agents and other internationally protected persons, hostage taking, theft of nuclear material and unlawful acts against maritime navigation and fixed platforms located on the continental shelf.” (Halwani, 2006, p.289) It is quite obvious that any of these forbidden acts can happen with or without the motive of terrorism. Perhaps taking into account this ambiguity, the two most recent UN Conventions (the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997) and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999)) do manage to address the term ‘terrorism’ directly. The earlier convention still has no definition, but the latter indirectly defines terrorism as “any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” (Halwani, 2006, p.289)
Coming to the analysis of counter-terrorism, one scholarly description of the goal of counter-terror is “to prevent it [terrorism] and combat it. From that general charge to ‘prevent and combat’, two specific purposes of counter-terror emerge, both derived by analyzing the goals of terrorism, that is, that which counter-terror attempts to prevent and combat…” (Leeman, 1991, p.10) That is, by definition counter-terrorism stands in opposition to terrorism. Its purpose, presumably, is to prevent terrorists from attaining ‘their’ goals. This is not to deny the possibility that supposed counter-terrorists might have multiple or even hidden goals and agendas. For example, a speaker might deliver a ‘counterterrorist’ address less for the purpose of opposing terrorism than for the purpose of, say, getting re-elected. In constructing such a message, however, such a speaker is attempting to answer a far different question than that the citizens are concerned. For example, “How can I best get re-elected? is not the same as How can I best respond to terrorism?. That rhetoric which most effectively accomplishes the objective or objectives of counterterrorism should be considered the ‘best of the available means.” (Leeman, 1991, p.10)