contradictions and deferrals that, as Derrida would note, haunt such apparently stable binaries and investigate whether we can see the ‘misconceptions about the nature of the enemy’. The origins of word ‘terrorism’ shed at least a little contextual light: “Originally a ‘terrorist’ was one who legitimated and practised Terror… It was an objective designation, defamatory only for political adversaries. Hence the great Jacobins of the committee for Public Safety during the French Revolution declared themselves to be terrorists pure and simple. They placed Terror officially ‘on the agenda’.” (Badiou, 2006: pg. 17) While Halliday also states: “It should not be forgotten that the word ‘terrorism’ began life not as applied to the tactics of rebels, but as an arm of state policy, in the French and Russian revolutions.” (Halliday, 2002: pg. 48) So we are immediately struck by the nature of the origin of the term ‘terrorist’ and the methods of inflicting ‘terror’ upon the population as having their genesis in the birth of the modern nationstate. What needs to be added to this origin is how states have not in reality disavowed the use of methods of terror to achieve their strategic aims, so that the apparent distinction between the methods of the terrorist and the methods of the state can be called into question: “On the one hand, the perpetrators of 11 September and other acts of sudden violence against civilians hold to the view that extreme, indeed any violence is justified in pursuit of a political goal… On the other hand many states in the world, in the Middle East and elsewhere, such as the Russians in Chechnya, hold to the view that extreme violence is justified in defence of their state.” (Halliday, 2002: pg. 47) The US stated its aims, beliefs and responsibilities in the ‘war against terror’ rather clearly: “America must stand firmly for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state” (Bush, 2002: pg. 3) and “The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just” (Ibid: pg. 16) so that we can clearly see a line drawn between the legitimacy in state action in opposition to the acts of terrorists, but again we must question this clear demarcation, this cut, that allows no ambiguity to enter the terms of the ‘war against terror’: “The denunciation of 11 September by George Bush opens up the discussion of other groups that he and his predecessors may have supported (the Afghan mujahidin, the Nicaraguan contras…), who certainly committed acts of terror and whom many also see as terrorists…[and]…states are the greatest perpetrators of violence and terror.” (Halliday, 2002: pp. 47-48) Already we can see that the line between the state and the terrorist can be called into question as both can be declared guilty of using violence to achieve political ends. What we can clearly demonstrate is the frequency with which state action is both violent and completely disregards international law, as seen in the recent UN Report (Goldstone Report) into Operation ‘Cast Lead’
225 111gradbook final.indd 225
22/10/2010 13:52:17