Chávez and Gaddafi urge redefining of ‘terrorism’

[Psephos]

Source: Financial Times

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi have joined forces to urge the world to redefine “terrorism”.

After a summit last weekend for African and South American leaders on the Venezuelan island of Margarita, the two leaders signed a document rejecting attempts to link terrorism to ”the legitimate struggle of the people for liberty and self-determination”. While emphasizing the importance of attacking terrorism “in all its forms, including state terrorism”, the controversial duo called for an international conference to establish a new definition for the concept of terrorism.

The two leaders – who have both come under attack from the US and others for allegedly supporting terrorism – also pushed for wholesale reform of the United Nations Security Council, which Mr Gaddafi referred to as the “Terror Council” at the UN General Assembly last week.

Mr Chávez, who denies accusations of backing the Colombian Marxist guerrilla group FARC, generated unease during the summit when one of his ministers said that Iran was helping Venezuela in the detection and testing of uranium deposits in remote areas near the Brazilian border. Another minister subsequently denied that this was the case, stating that Venezuela was only working with Russia to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

<snip>

Mr Chávez earlier also singled out Zimbabwe’s leader, Robert Mugabe, for praise during the summit meeting over the weekend. “I wish to give our moral, spiritual and political support to Mugabe and the people of Zimbabwe,” Mr Chávez said. “They seek to make Mugabe pay for being anti-colonialist.”

Read more: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5a429ac8-ad0e-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html

[troubledamerican]

1. How about U.S. ally Colombia? Alvaro Uribe's mass graves & 25,000 dead?

Chavez has no mass graves or Death Squads.

U.S. ally Colombia does.

[EFerrari]

2. ACLU and Human Rights Watch are also concerned about an overboard

definition of "terrorism". Here's an ACLU piece that criticizes the Patriot Act for this very issue:

http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html

And here's a page of HRW articles pointing out this problem in various countries, UK to Philippines to India -- it's a problem:

http://www.hrw.org/en/search/apachesolr_search/Terrorism+definition

And reforming the UN Security Council is also a widely held goal.

There is no news in this article but they couple Chavez with as many controversial figures as possible. They forgot Polanski!

:)

/oops

[ShortnFiery]

7. A "terrorist" or "terrorist group" is anybody or any entity that the USA and it's allies say it is.

:nuke:

[dharmamarx]

3. "Terrorism" needs to be redefined

Why doesn't the article actually specify the "official" definition of "terrorism"? The term seems to be used by most U.S. politicians and news outlets to designate something like: "intentional acts of violence committed against civilians by non-state actors for political ends." This is a definition that is, of course, completely unsatisfactory because: 1) It omits "unintentional" acts of violence (as when a military fires recklessly into a crowded city but says they were only aiming for one person) 2) It omits cases in which states intentionally commit acts of violence against civilians (as in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). 3) It seems to understand "violence" only as the exercise of physical force. IMF structural adjustment loans have killed a lot more civilians than any "terrorist group" (and they've terrified plenty more into not demanding more social spending), but because the IMF doesn't carry guns, no one calls them "terrorists." It's a definition invented by wealthy states to serve their interests.

[harmonicon]

4. "a definition invented by wealthy states to serve their interests"

What isn't?

[Downwinder]

6. Or testing their weapons on civilian populations

(Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Idaho).
http://www.campustech.com/item/McMillan+Publishing/MCMILLAN+PUBL./100651761

[Recursion]

8. The current Dept. of Defense definition is

"Violence or the threatened use of violence to inculcate fear in order to effect religious, ideological, or political changes."

That is, by the DoD's definition all war is terrorism.

[The Stranger]

9. By that definition, many forms of protest are "terrorism," so long as someone felt "threatened."

[boppers]

5. Governments re-defining words?

That's double-plus ungood.

No amount of power should ever have *this* kind of power.