Terorism si revolutie/ eseu

Terorism si revolutie/ eseuIn ultimii ani ne confruntam cu o recurudescenta a actelor teroriste la nivel mondial, nu doar in tarile unde acest fenomen era cel mai des intalnit, de pilda in tarile arabe ori in orientul mijlociu, in Irak, Afganistan, Palestina - Fasia Gaza, Siria, Liban, Iordania si Cisiordania, Israel etc.ori chiar pe continentul european, in Irlanda de nord , ci se pune chiar problema amenintarilor de ordin terorist la adresa Romaniei, ca urmare a implicarii tarii noastre in teatrele de operatiuni militare ale NATO, in Irak si Afganistan. De unde mai ieri auzeam prima oara despre atentate teroriste, teroristi si acte teroriste, in zilele asa numitei Revolutii din decembrie 1989, traind ingroziti cu gandul ca acesti teroristi vor inabusi in sange revolutia abia inceputa, astazi acest termen a devenit un loc comun petru discursul politic la nivel global si un motiv sau chiar pretext de interventie militara pe teritoriul altor state. Problema care se ridica este insa aceea de a vedea ambele puncte de vedere, atat ale celor numiti teroristi, cat si a celor care ii denumesc astfel, anatemizand grupari intregi de oameni, pentru ca se ridica si lupta (de regula militar si informational) impotriva unor regimuri recunoscute legitim (de regula democratice, desi poti fi chiar autoritare). Cu alte cuvinte cum se vad teroristii pe ei insasi si cum ii vad autoritatile legitime ale statului pe acestia.

Din primul punct de vedere, regula de-a lungul istoriei, incepand chiar din cele mai vechi timpuri, a fost ca anumite grupuri de indivizi, legati prin afinitati ideologice, culturale, religioase si necesitati de grup(economice sau identitare), au incercat sa-si afirme identitatea (culturala, religioasa etc), in vederea fie a impunerii propriului scop ideologico-religios, fie in vederea obtinerii unor avantaje de ordin moral si material, impotriva autoritatilor recunoscute sau acceptate ca atare pana in acel moment. Pana in momentul cand se radicalizeaza modalitatea de abordare, trecandu-se la lupta armata, nu se pune problema de a incadra aceasta miscare ca terorism. Abia ulterior, cand lupta armata devine modalitatea principale de abordare sau de obtinere a scopului urmarit, se poate vorbi de calificarea de terorism. Insa insurgentii nu s-au privit niciodata ca teroristi, ci s-au calificat ca luptatori pentru diverse cauze/scopuri (materiale, ideologico-religioase etc), ca revolutionari (in perioada moderna a istoriei, sec.XIX-XX-XXI), ba chiar ca aparatori ai nationalismului si valorilor traditionale ale poporului din randul carora provin. Asa de pilda in timpul razboiului sovietic din Afganistan, mujahedinii din Afganistan se considerau revolutionari patrioti in numele lui Allah, pe cand reprezentantii URSS ii considerau teroristi; similar, in Belfast, nationalist groups did not view themselves as terrorists as they believed they were fighting for their countries. Unlike Anarchists wich were socially isolated, nationalists could hope for the possibility of greater support. Governments labeled them as terrorists, but nationalists saw themselves as unconventional soldiers in a national cause. Nationalists believed they were fighting patriotic wars. They only adopted the tactics of the anarchists.

The nationalist Irish Republican Army (IRA) grew from this period. Unlike anarchists, the IRA believed Ireland was entitled to self-government. They did not reject the notion of governmental control; the IRA wanted to nationalize it. Their weakness caused them to use the terrorist tactics fostered by the anarchists. In the twentieth century, other nationalist groups in Europe followed the example of the IRA.In consecinta , prin prisma crezurilor politice si ideologico-religioase, asa zisii teroristi se considera a fi luptatori/revolutionari pentru o cauza. De multe ori, istoria ii si retine ca atare, dupa cum s-a si intamplat in Iran, cand regimul legitim al sahului Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi a fost rasturnat prin violenta de luptatorii apartinand Islamic Revolutionor the1979 Revolution, cum mai este cunoscuta. Din Mujahedini, istoria i-a calificat revolutionari. De cealalta parte, autoritatile legitime (indiferent ca sunt statale, suprastatale, regionale etc) sunt tentate sa numeasca ca terorist, orice grup care lupta impotriva unei atari autoritati, in vederea atingerii scopurilor ideologic-religioase, prin mijloace armate si proceduri armate destinate sa raspandeasca teama generalizata, in vederea intimidarii partii inamice. Daca lupta s-ar purta prin mijoace pasnice - a se vedea revolutia pasnica indiana a lui Gandi - , de nesupunere la lege, insa fara violenta indreptata impotriva autoritatii recunoscute si a suporterilor ei, atunci promotorii ei nu ar mai fi calificati teroristi. In consecinta, diferenta intre terorism si revolutie, de cele mai multe ori nu este calitativa, ci cantitativa, intrucat poat exista o identitate de scop(transformarea si reformarea social-politica, institutionala, religioasa etc), de mijloace(lupta armata, de gherila) dar nu si de marime de grup, intrucat ceea ce porneste ca o miscare terorista, poate la fel de bine sa sfarseasca ca o revolutie, cand lupta nu mai este dusa doar de grupul initial ci crezul este impartasit de cvasimajoritatea indivizilor de pe teritoriul controlat de autoritatea legimita, ce adera la realizarea scopului propus de initiatori.Terrorism and Revolution

Tha past few years, the worls confronts a recrudescence of terrorist acts, not just in the countries in which this occurence is most often met, for instance in the Arab countries or in the middle East, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and so on, or in Europe, such as Northern Ireland, but also we can speak about terrorist threats against Romania, in consequence of our countrys involvement in the areas of operations of NATO, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much as recently we heard for the first time about terrorists and terrorist attempts, during the so-called Revolution in 1989, linving terrified through the thought that these terrorists will make of it a blood bath, nowadays these terms have become a common place in the global political speech and a reason or even a pretext for military intervention in other states territories. The emerging problem is that of undestanding both perspectives, not only of those called terrorists but also of those qualifying them as such, anathematizing entire groups of people for rising to battle (usually military and intelligence), against rightfully acknowledged regimes (democratic, although authoritarian). In other words, how the terrorists see themselves and how the legitimate authorities of the state approach them.

From the first point of view, the rule throughout history from ancient times, was that certain groups of individuals, connected by ideological, cultural, religious affinities and group necessities (both economical and identity), have been trying to assert their cultural and religious identity, in order to either impose their own ideological-religious purpose, or to obtain certain moral and material advantages, against authorities acknowledged or accepted as such thus far. Up to the point where the approach is radicalized by going to armed struggle, there is no point in qualifying this movement as terrorism. Only afterwards, when the armed movement becomes the main vehicle to obtain the intended purpose, one can speak about terrorism. But the insurrectionists have never considered themselves terrorists, but they proclaimed themselves defenders of various causes/pursuits, as resurgents or even defenders of nationalism and of the values of the people they belong to. For instance, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the Mujahedins considered themselves patriot rebels in the name of Allah, while the U.S.S.R. representatives saw them as terrorists. Similarly, in Belfast, nationalist groups did not view themselves as terrorists, according to the common belief that they were standing out for their countries. Unlike Anarchists which were socially isolated, nationalists could hope for the possibility of greater support. Governments labeled them as terrorists, but nationalists considered themselves dissident soldiers in a national cause. Nationalists believed they were fighting patriotic wars. The difference consisted in them adopting the tactics of the anarchists.

The nationalist Irish Republican Army (IRA) grew from this period. Unlike anarchists, the IRA believed Ireland was entitled to self-government. They did not reject the notion of governmental control; the IRA wanted to nationalize it. Their weakness caused them to use the terrorist tactics fostered by the anarchists. In the twentieth century, other nationalist groups in Europe followed the example of the IRA.Therefore, in terms of political, ideological and religious beliefs, the so-called terrorists are rebels with a cause. History often remembers them as such, as it happened in Iran, when the legitimate regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was violently overthrown by the dissidents belonging to the Islamic Revolution, also known as the 1979 Revolution.On the other hand, the legitimate authorities (whether political, supranational or regional) tend to call terrorist any group fighting against them in order to achieve ideological and religious ideals by armed means and procedures meant to spread pervasive fear and to intimidate the enemy. If the battle were to be carried unagressively (see Ghandis peaceful Indian revolution), by disobeying the laws and without violence against the authorities and their supporters, only then its promoters would not be seen as terrorists.Therefore, the difference between terrorism and revolution is most of the times related to quantum, not quality, as there may exist an identity of purpose (social, political, institutional reformation), of means (resistance movement), but not of group size, because what is born a terrorist action may end up a revolution when the battle is not carried by the initial group, but the belief is shared by half of the majority of individuals inhabiting the territory governed by the legitimate authority and which line up to the achievement of the purpose intended by the originators.