Kawaki's Argument/Conclusion is as follows:
A belated Happy Valentine's day to all. Thanks to all for their attention, their patience, participation and work.
I’ll begin with an analysis of Xunzian’s post.
Xunzian begins with stressing the importance of clear and distinct definitions; to this, we can agree. Xunzian continues by providing us the reason why Confucius supposedly stressed this practice (no link is provided nor a document sited in support of this but for the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true).
It would seem that Confucius argued that these men who ruled autonomous states/regions (thereby meeting the first, and third definition of king: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/king
) needed to meet more than just the definition of king to in effect be king as they also needed to meet additional (undefined) criteria to “assume the title of king”. I bring attention to this because it is at the core of Xunzian’s strategy.
ILP’S QUALIFIERS OF STATECRAFT
Xunzian gives us the definition of statecraft as “the art of conducting state affairs”. I will not object to this definition. Xunzian then argues that the definition requires further analysis and proposes two qualifiers for statecraft; which, for easy reference I will call Q1, Q2, Q3, Qn namely that: (Q1) “one must be in a position whereby one can conduct state affairs” and that statecraft is (Q2) “internal to the state being considered” and that it is “used by those in power within the state in question”, and “involves running the state”.
We will explore the above two qualifiers as if they are accepted by ILO and argue that these two qualifiers are NOT a hindrance to the position that terrorism is a tool of statecraft.
But first, let us review the definition of terrorism advanced by ILP.
ILP’S DEFINITION OF TERRORISM
Xunzian chooses to use the UN’s adoption of Resolution 1373 and Andrew Byrnes’ three common characteristics of terrorism as the foundation of ILP’s argument that the very definition of terrorism is a proclivity to the argument that terrorism is a tool of statecraft.
Specifically, Xunzian argues that “Byrnes’ second point (b) is the most damning to ILO’s position.” We will refer to this as qualifier 3 (Q3).
EXPLORATION OF ILP’s QUALIFIERS
I. Accepting, for the sake of argument, Q1, we must define who can be in a position to conduct state affairs. In a democracy, it is often elected officials that often represent a government. In a fascist government, it is the dictator who is in this position. In a monarchy, it is the king or Tsar or Pharaoh. The question then becomes, do said officials or dictators, or kings engage in the practice of terrorism? For the sake of this portion of the argument, we will use the simple definition of terrorism as: the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism
Under this definition, the unequivocal answer is yes, elected officials have engaged in terrorism and one need only point to several external conflicts between nations in which this has occurred.
Jean Paul Sartre famously argued that terror has ever been an instrument of states (like Britain, France, and the U.S.). Specifically: “The name given by the French to their "Conquests" -- possessions d'outre mer (overseas possessions) -- indicates clearly that they had managed to obtain them only by wars of aggression. The aggressor seeks out the adversary on his own ground, in Africa, in Asia, in the under-developed countries; and, far from waging a "total war", which would presuppose a certain reciprocity at the outset, he takes advantage of his absolute superiority in arms to commit only an expeditionary corps to the conflict. This gains an easy victory over the regular armies -- if there are any -- but as this uncalled-for aggression arouses the hatred of the civilian population, and since the latter is always a mine of rebels or soldiers, the colonial troops hold sway by terror, that is to say, by constantly renewed massacres. These massacres are genocidal in character: they involve destroying "a part of the group" (ethnic, national, religious) to terrorize the rest and to destructure the native society.” http://campustechnology.com/articles/50618/
Of course, our opponents at ILP provided other qualifiers; let’s take a look.
II. Accepting, for the sake of argument, Q2, (that it must be internal to the state being considered, etc) we need only ask whether terrorism is ever used by those in power within the state as a part of running that state. Is this the case? Again, the unequivocal answer is yes. One can point to Vlad the Impaler who killed his own people to elicit terror both internally and externally. Or one can point to Stalin, who used terrorism as a first resort against anyone deemed to be a threat to his (or the communist party’s) authority and who executed possibly some 20 million of his own countrymen. More recently, we can point to Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe whose regime brutally represses their own people; or we can point to George W. Bush who authorized the capture of U.S. citizens to be tortured (and I would argue, this torture is an act of psychological terrorism against both internal and external parties). However, ILP had a third qualifier which would make such acts “crimes against humanity” rather than terrorism. We will take a closer look at this last qualifier in section 3; however, I want to explore why this particular qualifier (Q2) is not valid.
Conducting foreign affairs (and diplomacy) is part and parcel to state affairs. States rarely fail in addressing international relations and in fact dedicate enormous amounts of resources to address such. After all, diplomacy is a tool used by those running the state as part of conducting their affairs. To argue that diplomacy is an act outside of the state’s affairs is contradictory. Running the state presumably includes seeking advantageous opportunities outside of the state for the benefit of its residents and citizens inside the state (an international pipeline, a tourist agreement, etc). This is similar to a corporation based in the U.S. that manufactures in China. That is, the corporation is conducting some of its affairs abroad but it is for the benefit of its shareholders nonetheless. I hope the judges will agree that Q2 should be rejected.
III. We reject Q3 (the third qualifier that terrorism is defined as actions by non-State actors) and we ask that the judges reject it too. Below is our case:
(a) The U.N. resolution in Q3 applies only to member states. This is not a universal definition by any means.
(b) The U.N.’s law would does not go unchallenged. Said law is challenged by anarchists (anarchy denies that governments have the authority OR even the necessary function to regulate society).
(c) The U.N. continually changes and updates its own definitions. The matter is of much debate and it remains unresolved. However, U.N. Resolution 1566 describes terrorism as: “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act” http://campustechnology.com/articles/50618/
(Pg 2). This definition leaves it open for the possibility that a person in the position to manage state affairs can be guilty of terrorism.
(d) Acts of terrorism have been used by states like Palestine, Israel, the U.S., Mexico, etc, in order to free themselves from an oppressive force.
The Declaration of Independence: “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
(e) Some, like Sir Thomas More argue that : “I can have no other notion of all the other governments that I see or know, than that they are a conspiracy of the rich, who on pretence of managing the public only pursue their private ends, and devise all the ways and arts they can find out; first, that they may, without danger, preserve all that they have so ill acquired, and then that they may engage the poor to toil and labor for them at as low rates as possible, and oppress them as much as they please. And if they can but prevail to get these contrivances established by the show of public authority, which is considered as the representative of the whole people, then they are accounted laws.” –Sir Thomas More, Utopia, Book II, Of the Religions of the Utopians.
While some would argue that this is not the case or that it is simply ‘conspiracy talk’ I will add that John Locke argued “Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.” John Locke, Second Treatise Sec. 222
Xunzian begins to conclude ILP’s argument by adding that there is the potential for overlapping prosecutorial consequences in defining certain acts by the state as terrorism. It is not an argument that need be advanced in the question of whether terrorism is a toll of statecraft. The question is whether it is or is not. It is. Whether it can be adequately prosecuted is not the question. Whether it is redundant is not the question. That actors within a state do commit acts of violence is a fact. That these acts of violence sometimes constitute terrorism is also a fact. It stands to reason that sometimes the state can and does, in the art of conducting its affairs resort to terrorism and that the persons are in recognized (accepted) positions—remember Bush was elected twice. Sometimes, a king is a king despite our desire to call them by other names. Sometimes a definition, though simple, is sufficient.
Our position is that if Q3 is invalid hence Q2 cannot be valid; that Q2 is invalid hence ILP's argument fails; that both Q2 and Q3 are invalid and ILP's argument fails; and that terrorism is a tool of statecraft both historically and presently.
ILP has until 10:00p.m.EST February 18th, 2009 to respond.