Oslo: Flowers for the victims of a terrorist attack in Norway on 22 July 2011
In his study of evil, Roy F. Baumeister
tells the story of a North Korean young woman who had been chosen to become a
special agent for the foreign intelligence service and then to carry out a bomb
attack on a South Korean airplane. She was “explained that the airplane’s
destruction would create a broad sense of chaos and uncertainty that would
prevent South Korea from hosting the upcoming 1988 Olympic Games as scheduled.
This in turn would lead to the reunification of Korea ...”. Later she wrote
that she didn’t understand how this could happen, but she saw herself as
politically naïve and she wanted to be a good patriot. Also any feeling of
moral responsibility that more than hundred people would die did not come to
her mind. The bomb attack was purely a technical operation, she thought. The
woman successfully performed the action, but, as we know, the 1988 Olympic Games
took place as planned and Korea was never reunified. The woman was captured,
sentenced to death but pardoned by the South Korean government. Gradually she
also begun “to feel terrible guilt much of the time” because of the innocent
passengers killed, and she got nightmares.
In this case, so Baumeister, we see three
characteristics typical of a terrorist act. First, the actor is not troubled by
guilty thoughts that many innocent people will be killed, although such
thoughts often come after the deed. Second, vicious terrorism is motivated by
the highest ideals and principles, not by personal hate towards the victims or by
personal gain. Third, the action doesn’t lead to the desired goal; neither a
possibly short-term goal is reached, nor a long-term goal is. Even more, I want
to add: What the goal is, is often vague and unrealistic. It is usually only
stated afterwards, so that there is nothing to negotiate about in order to
prevent it. An act of terrorism happens. (pp. 27-30)
Terrorism is a rather new phenomenon that
could only develop since the end of the 18th century. There are at least two
reasons for this. The media must have been developed to such an extent that the
news about a terrorist act can get around on a rather wide scale and relatively
fast. Otherwise it has no sense to perform it. Moreover, a human life must be seen
as valuable. Before the Enlightenment life expectancy was short; not much more
than 30 years. People could be sentenced to death for all kinds of crimes,
including petty theft. Many people were murdered. This gradually changed since
the end of the 18th century.
Although the motives for a terrorist act
can be complicated and, for instance, can involve also revenge and punishment,
actually such an act is a deed meant to create an atmosphere of fear: the
intention is that people fear that they might be killed and that because of
this they take all kinds of preventive measures that disturb their lives, if
not society as a whole; or that then people or governments give in to the
demands of the terrorist or his/her group. Therefore terrorism needs not be aimed
directly at persons but it can also exist in, for example, poisoning water
supplies. However, as said, a problem is that the demands are often vague, if
the possible victim would be prepared to negotiate at all (which is often not
the case). In the past revenge or punishment of a certain person was more
important than it is today. Usually victims were carefully chosen and it was
not the intention to kill people arbitrarily or to kill innocent passers-by.
The murder of archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914, which led to the outbreak of
the First World War, is a case in point. Also the Red Army Faction in Germany
in the 1970s and later chose its victims precisely. Today terrorists just want
to kill innocent victims – as many people as possible –, although the killing
of the editorial board of Charly Hebdo
in Paris in 2015 shows that sometimes the victims still are purposefully chosen.
This shows another characteristic of
terrorism: Man is seen as a mere instrument, as Camus makes us clear. This does
not conflict with the point that for terrorism being possible man must be
valuable. Just because people are valuable in the view of others, terrorists
see them as instruments to draw attention to their causes. For the terrorist the
ideal is higher than man, which makes man instrumental. That’s also why ultimately
the terrorist is prepared to kill him or herself in the act, or that, in case
of state terrorism, the people may be oppressed, for their oppression is seen
as a step on the road to the ideal state. As Camus quotes Nechayev, a Russian
communist revolutionary and nihilist from the 19th century: “It’s not about
justice but about our duty to eliminate everything that can harm our cause.”
Everything is allowed.
And this is what we see in all kinds of
terrorist acts today, whether performed by representatives of organised groups
or by lone wolves. Locked up in their brains they see only abstract ideals and
instruments but no people, like in the recent terrorist acts in Churchland, New
Zealand, or in Utrecht, here in the Netherlands. In fact, man is absent in the
ideals of the terrorist. Terrorists only care for ... yes, for what?
Sources
- Baumeister, Roy F., Evil. Inside human violence and cruelty. New York: Henry Holt and
Cy, 1999.
- Camus, Albert, The Rebel: An Essay on Man
in Revolt.
New York: Vintage Books, 1956.
No comments:
Post a Comment