Understanding Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century

Describing the nature of a particular topic is commonly the path towards defining it. Attempting to outline what constitutes terrorism amounts to landing in the middle of a semantic minefield where emotions run very high and the criteria necessary to describe the term are constantly evolving. Terrorism is a polemical word that has long provoked interpretation discrepancies in the international community. Although definitions are short formulations used with the intent of conveying clarity, we may be facing a case of intended ambiguity, of a lack of clarity in order to stifle the need to pronounce moral judgment about terrorism. The results to attain a definition that elicits universal acceptance have been frustrating so far because the predicament of defining terrorism lies in its subjectivity. There are clear contrasts in perception for those in authority, onlookers, public opinion, victims or perpetrators;1 for those who condemn or condone terrorism. It all “seems to depend on one’s point of view,” says terrorism expert Brian Jenkins; “if one party can successfully attach the label ‘terrorist’ to its opponent, then it has inherently persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.”2 His formulation summarizes the rationale behind the controversy surrounding terrorism, which is epitomized in the relativistic saw, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Although there are different reasons hindering international consensus, subjectivity remains a major obstacle in defining the term. The international community has pragmatically chosen to tackle the issue by skipping to use the word itself and fo-