Thread by @RBrulin

Can a State official/agent be a "terrorist"?
There is a fascinating (&completely forgotten) historical case that helps illustrate how US answer to this Q has been BOTH "Absolutely!" & "Not at all!": 1983 Rangoon bombing, where N Korean agents tried to kill S Korean President
/1

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1214628074748305410

In his PUBLIC speeches, Reagan repeatedly called attack "Terrorism" & "State sponsored Terrorism" (a term that was used for the very first time by a US President in reference to the attack vs the US Marines stationed in Beirut also in Oct 1983) & said that NK was a "T State"
/2

Similarly, in its yearly report on "Patterns of Global Terrorism" the State Department called the Rangoon bombing "the most vicious terrorist attack in Asia in 1983" and described the perpetrators as "North Korean Government terrorists"
/3

In late 1987, 2 NK agents bombed Korea Airlines Flight 858, killed 115. State Dept described it as "return of NK as an active agent of state terrorism" & added NK to its list of "state sponsors of terrorism" where it joined Syria, Libya, Cuba, Iran and South Yemen
/4

The Answer to the Q asked above thus seems straightforward:
Yes, State agents can engage in "terrorism," can be "terrorists," & when they are their State is considered by US to be a "Terrorist State" or to be engaged in "state-sponsored" or "state-supported terrorism"
BUT:
/5

BUT back in late 1983, during the UN General Assembly debates on "International Terrorism" (the first such debates had taken place in late 1972, following Munich) the US Representative put forth a COMPLETELY different position
/6

At UNGA, the US was repeatedly accused of engaging in "state T" or "state sponsored T" (&,therefore, of being hypocritical in its official condemnations of "terrorism" around the world), eg because of its bombing of civilians in Vietnam or its support for Contras in Nicaragua
/7

In this very adversarial context (a context VERY different from the one in which Pres. Reagan expressed himself) the US Representative insisted that the Rangoon Bombing was NOT an act of "international terrorism." He would be the ONLY representative to defend such a position
/8

US argument was straightforward:
Initially, the world had thought that Rangoon bombing had been perpetrated by non-state actors. That, he insisted, was the kind of act that the UNGA was supposed to fight against in the context of its discussions on "international terrorism"
/9

However, he added, investigations by SK had shown that NK agents were behind attack. This made it a State Act, an act already covered by International Law and which the International Community did NOT, therefore, need to discuss under the heading of "international terrorism"
/10

The US representative was the ONLY representative to put forth this position. Every other representative (incl. all European states, Israel, many unaligned states etc) insisted Rangoon was PRECISELY the kind of "T act" that the International Community should try to stop
/11

That US position was repeated by US Representatives at UNGA year after year: To the US, if a State was involved, directly OR indirectly, then that act should NOT be discussed under the heading of "terrorism." It was a State Act, already covered by Int Law
/12

Needless to say, this position (developed in an adversarial context) COMPLETELY CONTRADICTED the Reagan discourse on "terrorism" at the time, a discourse (developed in a safe context) CENTERED around the threat that STATES played in the rise of "international terrorism."
/13

Remarkably, the fact that this was the US position on "terrorism" at the UNGA was NEVER covered in the US Press at the time. Similarly, "terrorism experts" have shown very little interest in these UN debates & have NEVER written about this US argument
/14

Thus, the Answer to the initial Q is BOTH:
The US insists that "State agents can be "terrorists" / can be involved in "terrorism"
AND
The US insists that "absolutely not, the concept of "T" should be used SOLELY for acts in which State agents played NO part"
/15

Said differently:
There is not ONE but MANY American discourses on "terrorism," discourses developed in =/= contexts (some safe, others adversarial) & that are fundamentally contradictory one w/ the other.
For more details on Rangoon & all this: e-ir.info/2018/01/25/con…
16/16

For more on the history of discourse on "terrorism":
In Central American context:
foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/20/ter…
Or: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio…
In Israel/Palestine context:
mondoweiss.net/2014/08/israel…
OR: mondoweiss.net/2019/10/it-is-…

Another Note: At UNGA since 1970s US has consistently opposed idea of organizing international conference the goal of which would be to arrive at clear, agreed-upon definition of "int T." US LOVES its ad-hoc approach to T. It does NOT want to be tied down by such a definition

For much more about all of this, here is link to my PhD dissertation, which documents how US officials have defined / refused to define "terrorism" since early 1970s in public speeches, in Congress & at UN: (text is in French BUT all Quotes are in English) theses.fr/2011PA030163

Note: Most "terrorism experts" have, historically, focused solely on non-state actors & excluded "state terrorism." As a result they have tended to exclude fm their studies the policies of US & its allies. This is what led to the creation of "Critical Terrorism Studies" in 2000s

Scholars fm "Critical Terrorism Studies" like @jackson reject idea that "T" should be focused just on non-state actors, both for intellectual &moral reasons. He notes that it'd mean that car bomb used by non-state actors is "T" but SAME car bomb used by State Agent wouldnt be

@jackson In fact, this was EXACTLY the position advanced by the US at UNGA regarding Rangoon: a bomb that killed several members of S Korean government WAS initially considered "T" BUT, US insisted, it WASNT T anymore once investigation showed that State Agents were behind it

@jackson Scholars fm CTS reject such notions. They insist that "terrorism" is a method, a tactic, & that it can be used by ANY actor, be they State or non-state. For ex., CTS scholars insist that study of T must include a study of "death squads" (& of those who supported them, eg the US)

@jackson Regarding the argument that death squads in El Salvador were "terrorists" & therefore that US policies in that country in 1970s/80s amounted to supporting "terrorism" (what Michael Stohl called "surrogate state terrorism"): foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/20/ter…

@jackson Another historical example helps illustrate why excluding acts committed by State actors can be so problematic:
In early 1980s in Lebanon, mysterious group calling itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon fm Foreigners (FLLF) took responsibility for dozens of car bombings

@jackson The bombings were described as "terrorism" in US press at the time. a RAND report from 1983 described FLLF as a new "terrorist" group & described in detail several of these bombings. RAND & START databases both include many of these bombings

@jackson The assumption was that the group was a non-state actor. But at the time, the Palestinians & several Lebanese officials insisted that Israel was in fact behind this group / that the group was fictitious, a mere cover for Israeli "terrorism"

@jackson In 2018, Ronen Bergman published "Rise & Kill First," a book about the history of Israel's "targeted killings." In the book, he reveals that several Israeli officials DID in fact create the FLLF in 1979, and run the group till 1983. Hundreds of civilians were killed

@jackson As I have written on several occasion since 2018, the US media has been fully SILENT about these revelations.

https://twitter.com/RBrulin/status/1187067870192250880?s=20

But for the purpose of our discussion re: state vs non-state actors, the important point is as follows:

@jackson Deciding that "terrorism" is a term that applies solely to non-state actors would mean that suddenly, now that we know Israeli officials were in fact behind FLLF bombings, these bombings should NOT be considered to be "terrorism" anymore. Surely, this is a problematic proposition

@jackson Relatedly: the US's decision to designate the IRGC as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" completely CONTRADICTS idea that "T is something non-state actors do" & thus the position that US representatives repeatedly put forth during UNGA debates on "terrorism" over the years

@jackson US has ad-hoc policy on "terrorism." Different agencies / branches of the US government act using different definitions of "terrorism," definitions that are often fundamentally contradictory. This is why US has always OPPOSED idea of clear, internationally agreed-upon definition

@jackson This is true at the level of the US Congress as well: Dems and Reps defined "T" very differently when debating conflicts in Nicaragua, El Salvador, South Africa, Israel or Afghanistan. They could not agree on WHO the "terrorists" were in these conflicts AND therefore they were

@jackson repeatedly UNABLE to agree on a definition of "terrorism" that could be applied to any & all conflicts: hence Congress's repeated FAILURE, in 1980s, to criminalize the providing of material support to "terrorists." See for example here: foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/20/ter…