Newsletter, Edition 3, October 2012

What are your future career

ambitions?

My dream job would be working in a

Youth Development Coordinator role for

an international non-governmental

organisation such as Oxfam or Save the

Children, working with disadvantaged

children domestically and overseas.

What particular areas in International

Affairs are you passionate about?

I am interested in the relationship

between African and other states, and

how these relationships impact the

continents development. Further, I enjoy

researching the impact (or lack of) of

foreign aid on African development and

growth since the Cold War.

What has been the highlight of the

internship program for you so far?

I have enjoyed interacting with students

from universities on the Gold Coast and

Brisbane, and getting to understand the

similarities and differences between

these Universities. It has also been

valuable for me to see how an

independent, non-profit organisation

operates considering this is the area I

wish to work in.

Editor’s Welcome

Welcome to the third edition of the AIIA Qld newsletter. This

month has certainly been an engaging one for the AIIA

Queensland Branch. We have had the pleasure of hearing from

the Mongolian Ambassador to Australia, His Excellency, Mr Bold

Ravdan speaking on Mongolia’s place in the world. More

recently, we have also heard from Senior Research Fellow at the

Griffith Asia Institute, Dr Sara Davies, who discussed the

International Politics of Disease Reporting.

The AIIA Queensland interns have also been working hard in conjunction with Bond University’s Bond African Students’ Association to establish an exciting Think Tank event next Wednesday, 24th October focusing on African development issues. There will be six high-profile speakers, so we would love to see you there. Further, the interns have established a written competition called ‘The Great Debate’, inviting Queensland university and school students to respond to the topic: ‘The Western development model is the best model for the developing world to follow’.

This edition focuses on some central themes in the context of terrorism. Connor McBain looks to some of the challenges in defining terrorism, and Alamelu Venkatesh considers the contemporary challenges of transnational terrorism. A big thank you to Cassandra Switaj for helping design and edit this newsletter. Also, don’t miss next week’s seminar on Tuesday, 23rd October, where we will hear from Professor Colin Brown who speaks on ‘The Democratisation of Indonesia: Impact on Relations With Australia and the Asia-Pacific’. If you have any feedback or wish to contribute, please email us at qld.branch@aiia.asn.au Milly Arsic | AIIA Intern supervisor

AIIA Qld Branch – Intern Profile

Words: Ashleigh Peplow Ball

Please tell us a bit about yourself.

I am in my penultimate year of a double degree in

International Relations and Communications

(Journalism). I was born and raised in Adelaide, and

moved to the Gold Coast in 2010 after receiving a

scholarship to study at Bond University. I keep busy

at University, and lend my hand to a few student

associations. I am particularly passionate about the

United Nations, and work to promote UN principles at

Bond and in the community. I organise Model United

Nations (MUN) Conferences at Bond, and will be

attending World MUN in 2013.

Random/Fun fact about you.

I used to hold the Under 16 Australian record for

Javelin.

What are you currently studying and where? Why

did you choose those degrees?

I chose my combination of International Relations

and Communications as they both speak to my

interests. I would love to work in international

development, and International Relations provides

me with a needed background in the relationship

between states, and the role of non-governmental

organisations. I also love writing, and so I chose to

study Communications to develop my writing style,

and knowledge of modern media environment.

Industry Snapshot: Left-Right Think Tank Interview with Mr Alexander McLaren AIIA intern Cassandra Switaj interviews Mr Alexander McLaren, Queensland Advocacy Manager, Left Right Think Tank What are the organisation's main goals? Left Right Think Tank is Australia's first independent and non-partisan youth-led think tank. We aim to help create a society where young people are consulted on national issues of broad community concern, not just youth issues. We help create this change by developing public policy and holding discussion events around our four areas of research: governance, higher education, sustainability and infrastructure. What does Left Right Think Tank do? Who can get involved? Left Right's main program is our Policy Fellowship. Run twice yearly over six months, the Fellowship takes ten 16-25 year olds with an interest in politics and current affairs in each state and guides them through the process of developing a well researched, evidence-based piece of public policy. This year's Queensland program has focused on e-governance and has a diverse range of young people, from post-graduate public policy students to undergraduate biomedicine students, taking part. Additionally, we hold a number of Decision Makers Dinners throughout the year. These dinners allow three to four young people to sit down with key decision makers and discuss current policy issues. Past guests have included John Battams

from the Queensland Council of Unions and local MP's such as Saxon Rice and Scott Emerson. How long have you been working with Left Right Think Tank? What have been the key highlights for you while working with the organisation? I've worked with Left Right for just over two years. In this time I've worked in a number of roles in our policy and communications departments. I've overseen the development of a number of our policies including those on youth volunteering and the communication of fiscal information. It's been an absolute privilege to be able to work alongside and consult with some of Australia's brightest young minds. One particular memory that will stay with me for many years to come was the days spent in Canberra during the 2011 Federal Tax Summit. I was able to personally contribute to the Forum on behalf of Left Right, which allowed the opinion of young people to be considered in such a fundamentally important debate.

How can young people get more involved with policy in their communities? I think the key thing for young people in engaging with policy is to cut through a lot of the superfluous political debate that occurs throughout the news cycle. Young people need to be able to critically analyse issues and to come to a well thought out and considered conclusion. This can be helped by expanding the variety of sources they get their news from and also from engaging with their peers in critical discussion. At the next level, I'd suggest they get involved with organisations such as Left Right, Queensland Youth Parliament or University societies such as the UQ Debating Society of UN Student's Association. These organisations offer a wide variety of activities that require varying amounts of involvement and provide great opportunities to meet like-minded people.

Transnational Crime & Terrorism Words: Alamelu Venkatesh In recent years, numerous notorious terrorist activities such as the September 11 suicide attacks, the Bali bombings, the 2004 coordinated bombings on the Madrid commuter train system and the 2005 bombings on London’s public transport system have harshly illustrated that international terrorism remains a significant threat to the protection of democracy, human rights and liberties and national and international peace and security in general. In my view, Australians and Australian interests need to be protected at all times. Therefore, the main obligation and concern to the Australian government is to protect Australia from future terrorist threats that are committed by so called ‘home grown terrorists’, especially in the name of ‘Jihad’ from Islamic extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. In spite of Australia being a unified society, supported by secure political and solid financial systems, I still consider contemporary Australia a target for terrorist attacks because of home-grown terrorism on the 4th August 2009 – the Holsworthy Barracks terror plot on an Australian Army training area which is located in the outer south-western Sydney suburb. I believe to successfully combat terrorism, Australia need to focus more on an effective and efficient shared information system with other nations that should be available in a timely manner. This should also be complemented by continuous training and development programs, which would be required to relevant government departments such as the police, intelligence and the military personnel. Home-grown terrorism is a concerning issue because I consider that it represents a constant and menacing threat. It has, and is, causing unpredictable and mass causalities. Hence, it has the possibility to impose substantial damage to both national and international security (Lloyd’s 2007 Report).

On the one hand, the implications of home-grown terrorists are such that they are driven by the ideologies of global Jihad, a system that was constructed decades ago. On the other hand, home-grown extremists believe that the Western countries are intentionally targeting Islam and rebelliously assassinating Muslims. They perceive that it is their religious Islamic duty and holy responsibility to fight against those who are against Islam and the Muslim communities (Gunaratna 2007). In the modern world, however, international security concerns are having an immense impact on the future of mankind. Both transnational crime and globalisation are considered the internationalisation of capital, unification of economy, resource deregulation and generalisation of consumerism. The tendency of globalisation has given birth to many of the universal criminal distresses which have also generalised control responses. Organised crime has been supporting control strategies which are more dependent on law enforcement powers than their diversification (Findlay 2008). Economic globalisation acts as a structural constraint that modifies the proportional cost between illegal and legal activities. This, in turn, has an effect on the decision calculus of transnational terrorism. Transnational terrorists often take advantage of international trade networks to market their goods or services in an attempt to organise resources to accomplish their criminal activities. Terrorist organisations often rely on these international trade networks where they can trade their illegal goods to find their various operations. Instability, poverty and underdevelopment are the most important elements for the cause of transnational terrorism which are frequently linked with countries who are either willing to provide safe havens for terrorists or are unable to throw out terrorists from within their borders. For instance, in Afghanistan, both poverty and instability have created the conditions that have allowed the Taliban to gain power and also a situation which led to the provision of safe havens for Al Qaeda’ activities (Li & Schaub 2004).

There is a direct linkage between crime and terrorism and the majority of terrorist acts themselves are crimes. There are two ways where terrorists have a tendency to involve instrumentally in common criminality. Firstly, terrorists involved in various forms of money-spinning, conventional criminal activities (due to the absence of other means of support) do this in order to support themselves and finance their main activities. Secondly, these terrorists get involved in various crimes in order to procure themselves with such means (due to the absence of normal access to some of the means they require to conduct their terrorist activities).

“In the modern world, however, international security concerns are having an immense impact on the future of mankind.” On the other hand, terrorists get involved with various forms of human exploitation and conventional crimes as well, which includes their participation in and the exploitation of various illicit markets. This generally becomes the pre-requisites in order to carry out terrorist operations (Dandurand & Chin 2004). To conclude, I consider that transnational terrorism is a major, concerning issue in the contemporary world. Home-grown terrorism is especially a significant threat to Australia. Transnational terrorism is definitely a complex problem with varied causes and there is no single and effective method to oppose it. To successfully combat terrorism and transnational criminal activities, it is vital that law enforcement agencies target not only terrorist acts, but also target the organisations that are responsible for recruiting people, planning, financing and performing such acts of terror.

References:

Dandurand & Chin (April 2004) report, “Links Between Terrorism and Other Forms of Crime”, pp.1-38) at http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/TNOC_LINKS_STUDY_REPORT.pdf

Findlay, M. (2008), Governing Through Globalised Crime, Chapter 3 ‘A Review of Global Crime Problems – Studies of Crime as Global Risk’

Gunaratna. R (2007), ‘Homegrown terrorism’, an ABC News article accessed at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-06-05/homegrown-terrorism/60582

Li, Q & Schaub, D (2004), ‘Economic Globalization and Transnational Terrorism: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 230-258 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Lloyd’s 2007 Report, ‘Home Grown Terrorism – What Does it Mean for Business?’, accessed at http://www.lloyds.com/News-and-Insight/360-Risk-Insight/Research-and-Reports/Terrorism/Home-Grown-Terrorism

Nassar, R.J. (2005), ‘Globalization & Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares’, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

What is the African Development Think Tank? Words: Dawid Hough The African Development Think Tank is an event being held on 24th October at Bond University. Africa is all too often viewed negatively, with a large majority of the focus being on issues that plague the continent. However, what we really want to do is open up people’s perspective to the opportunities that exist on the continent for economic development. Slowly but surely the world is realising that Africa is changing for the better. The Think Tank will place the country’s key intellectuals, politicians, public figures and NGOs in a panel forum to discuss the challenges and opportunities facing Africa in the 21st Century. BASA actively works to promote awareness of the African reality throughout the Bond community. We believe that through engagement with key individuals who are responsible for shaping Africa’s future, students can expand their knowledge and change their perceptions. Our main priority for the semester is engaging students in African development through the African Development Think Tank we’re hosting in Week 7. That said, exciting opportunities are in the works through our partnership with other clubs and societies on campus for World AIDS Day later in the semester. Who are the featured Guest Speakers that will attend the Think Tank? We have an exciting line up of speakers for the day. They come from a range of backgrounds and disciplines. Our line-up is as follows: Jacqueline Zwambila – Zimbabwean Ambassador to Australia Koleka Mqulwana – South African High Commissioner to Australia Michael Hayworth – Amnesty International Ade Kukoyi – Australian-Nigerian Council, President Peter Run – PhD Candidate & Tutor at UQ Stephen Keim - President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights

What will be the main themes the event will focus on? There are three main topics that we want to focus on: women’s rights in Africa, the role of the international community in African development, leading into the concluding topic of transforming Africa. Food at the event? Pizza will be provided at the beginning of the event. Will there be a chance for me to talk to the speakers? Students will have the opportunity to engage with the speakers during the panels. For those who are interested, we will also be holding a small gathering at the conclusion of the main event that will allow the opportunity for students to personally meet and thank the speakers. Can I help volunteer on the day? If you would like to volunteer on the day, please contact BASA. We would love to hear from you! Send an email to sapphire.parsons@student.bond.edu.au. I hear there is also a competition being run by the AIIA? The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA), our partners for the event, will be offering university students all over Queensland to enter a 500 submission for or against the question 'Is the Western development model the best model for the developing world to follow?’ For further details about prizes and submission criteria, be sure to check the AIIA Qld's Facebook page!

Terrorism – A Universal Definition Words: Connor McBain Terrorism is a method of expressing asymmetrical power through violent means to coerce change rationalised by an extremist viewpoint. Terrorism is hard to define due to the difficulty in giving proportionate weight to the utility of Terrorism and the cause of Terrorism in this definition. Terrorism is a concept which has been prevalent in human society for two millennia. However, despite a constant presence it is only since September 11, 2001 that the utility and causation of Terrorism have come under intense scrutiny by both the state and academia sufficient to claim it as one the defining issues of the 21st Century. Organisations such as Al- Qaeda, and concepts such as the ‘War on Terror’ have made the issue of Terrorism, and how to define and solve it, one of the leading problems to face generations to come. This paper will consider the significantly politicised definitions of Terrorism and the struggle for universality that underpins giving clear and encompassing meaning to the concept of Terrorism. It will do so by highlighting the necessary elements that constitute an act of Terrorism as well as those necessary to cause Terrorism. The examination will include evaluating the applicability of a universal definition of Terrorism in both a national and subnational context. Through this examination it will become apparent that Terrorism is a method of expressing asymmetrical power through violent means to coerce change rationalised by an extremist viewpoint. Further in developing the universal definition it will be shown that Terrorism is difficult to universally define due to the difficulty of giving proportionate weight to the utility of Terrorism and the cause of Terrorism in this definition. The Act and Causation of Terrorism To define Terrorism one must separate the objective criteria from the subjective. This approach is best epitomised in the statement of Garrison in that “the cause explains the terrorist but does not define him. The act of using terror defines the terrorist”. In contrast, Martin suggests Terrorism cannot exist without extremism and the consequent absolute justification self afforded to terrorists as a result of their extreme beliefs.

Hence making the presence of extremism essential to any definition that seeks to distinguish the phenomenon of Terrorism from outright criminality. What becomes apparent from both scholars is that academia is unable to come to an agreed conclusion. Therefore, to define Terrorism conceptually it is necessary to take into account a method in which both objective and subjective elements are encompassed in a universal definition. There are a number of problems in application of the objective/ subjective method. The most significant contention with the method is highlighted by Garrison, who asserts that the utility (or tool) of Terrorism, “that being “to cause change through the infliction of fear”, is constant3. Hence it is only the justification, ergo the cause, that changes. This is further validated by Pilat in arguing that no clear set of causes can be deduced from Terrorism, due to the vast difference in aim and and underlying reasons for terrorist action between groups and individuals. The question is then; how to resolve apparent contentions between the objective utility of terror, and the subjective but necessary element of extremism, as this is where defining Terrorism encounters difficulty. Definition of Terrorism by the State and by Academia Before resolving the contentions of the utility of terror and the necessity of extremism, it is necessary to look at comparative failures of states to define Terrorism appropriately and the reasons behind academia’s inability to generate a universally agreed definition of Terrorism. It is argued by Maskaliunaite that a significant issue in a state’s definition of Terrorism is the tendency to include the state’s interests (whether political, economic or for security purposes) into the definition of what constitutes a terrorist. A particular example is shown when Maskaliunaite quotes the word of Whittaker at page 38; Another essential ingredient [of Terrorism] (you might think) is that Terrorism is calculated to terrorise the public or a particular section of it. The American definition does not mention spreading terror at all, because that would exclude attacks against property. It is, after all, impossible to frighten inanimate objects. Among last year’s [1999] attacks, 152 were directed against a pipeline in Colombia, which is owned by multinational oil companies. Such attacks are of concern to the United States and so a concern to the United States and so a

definition is required which allows them to be counted.

Quite clearly, the modifying of a definition to protect America’s oil interests in Colombia by allowing international action is blatantly self serving on the part of the United States. Further the condemnation of property destruction as terrorism rather than conduct of domestic criminal supports the idea that the state will label something terrorism if the method available to rectify the problem is more desirable than pursuing it through judicial means. The subjectivity of the State’s definition is further exemplified by Gipta in discussing terrorist activity in China’s Xinjiang province;

With the East Turkestan Islamic Militants (ETIM) group being included in the UN list of terrorist organisations, the Chinese have successfully renegotiated the US definition of terrorism to include movements for self-determination. Gipta further opined as to the potential result of the Chinese definition; The blurring of distinctions between terrorism and self-determination will enable the Chinese to brand any opposition to reunification with Taiwan as a potential terrorist threat. The impact of this re-definition on the Tibetan movement for self-rule will also be

detrimental. It is evident from the above that a state cannot provide a definition neutral and applicable without some form of prejudice in favour of the national interest. As a result the boundaries between freedom activist and terrorist are blurred. Based on the Chinese definition, individuals pressing for self -determination via peaceful means could be considered a terrorist. It is rather gratuitous that individuals such as the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi could be deemed terrorists, comparable to Ayman al-Zawahiri and others, given how much they are glorified in Western culture for being symbols of peace. The hypocrisy of the state’s position, specifically that of the United States is best summarised

by Whittaker; If, under the state department rules, Palestinian mortar attacks on Israeli settlements [despite the settlements being there for military occupation] count as terrorism, it would be reasonable to expect Israeli rocket attacks on Palestinian communities to be treated in the same way - but they are not. In the American definition, terrorism can never be inflicted by a state.

Therefore, it is unlikely that a state will ever devise a definition sufficiently neutral and free from bias to be applied universally to Terrorism because, speaking bluntly, it will never be in their interest to do. It is submitted that this hypocrisy is one of the reasons Terrorism is difficult to universally define. Similarly, a scholarly approach to universally defining Terrorism has also encountered problems, primarily in dealing with causation and distinguishing terroristic violence from acts of war and criminal violence. In Understanding Terrorism Martin alludes to a number of common factors present in academic definitions of Terrorism, they are; • Use of illegal force • Subnational Actors • Unconventional methods • Political motives • Attack against ‘soft’ civilian and passive military targets • Acts aimed at purposefully affecting an audience Already one significant problem in universally defining Terrorism has presented itself, the applicability to both terrorist nation-states as well as sub-national groups that participate in Terrorism. A universal definition must apply sufficiently to both types of Terrorism. A further such problem is the use of illegal force, the contention here being that the state has the power to determine what is and is not legally sanctioned. This potentially gives rise to a double standard when practically applied similar to that argued by Whittaker in the American definition of Terrorism. In contrast with the views of Martin is data presented by Maskaliunaite, disseminated from a review of 109 scholarly definitions. The most prevalent element is violence for obvious reasons. Terrorism without violence would simply be extremism. What distinguishes a terrorist from an extremist is the former’s acceptance of violence as the most rational tactic to achieve his or her purpose. A further problem that has obscured a universal definition is the relevance of civilians as targets. Much like Whittaker’s take on American hypocrisy, the blurring of lines between noncombatant (civilians and potentially military) and combatants (both actual combatants and by association) has left academia puzzled as to the objective importance of civilian casualties to the utility of Terror.

However, this is best resolved by Armbost who opines; It seems reasonable to regard the substitutability between different victims and different potential consequences as a decisive element of terrorist violence: deliberate physical violence against humans is terroristic to the degree to which different victims as well as different anticipated political consequences of the violent act are substitutes. It is concluded then that if the substitutability of potential victims, and political consequences are the degree to which terror is measured, then like causation they cannot be pivotal in giving universal definition to Terrorism. This is because the designated victims and desired consequences will differ between different Terrorist organisations, and will give rise to varying degrees of terror depending on the severity of the attack.

Simply stated it is illogical to draw a distinction in defining a lesser degree of Terrorism from a greater degree of Terrorism. It is erroneous to do so based on a continuously substitutable evaluation of success, when all that is required to satisfy an objective definition of the utility of Terrorism is an act of violence intended to serve a purpose outside violence for violence’s sake as per Garrison’s submission. It is apparent in the failures of the state and academia to universally define the concept of Terrorism is the problems encountered in giving proportionate weight to the objective act and subjective cause of Terrorism. However, this is resolved by defining it in manner so that it is applicable from the smallest sub-national, to largest nation-state. In addition, by labelling causation as purely extremism one accounts for the substitutability for targets and political goals, whilst still drawing distinction between terroristic violence and common violence. The Universal Method It has been established above that a universally applicable definition should require both an objective and subjective element be satisfied to conceptually define Terrorism, or indeed label someone as a terrorist. The subjective element should not go as far to claim causation, target or political outcome as defining characteristics of Terrorism, but only as far to acknowledge the presence of ‘something extra’ that distinguishes a Terrorist from a common criminal. That ‘something extra’ being the presence of extremism as it is, in Martin’s opinion, a “primary feature underlying all terrorist behaviour” and a “precursor to Terrorism”. An extremist can exist as not being a terrorist because he or she is not acting violently on those extreme beliefs, the same cannot be said for vice versa. A terrorist behaving violently, not in reliance on extremist beliefs, is not a terrorist but merely a criminal. Hence, all terrorists are extremists, but not all extremists are terrorists.

[Extremism is] taking a political idea to its limits, regardless of unfortunate repercussions, impracticalities, arguments and feelings to the contrary, and with the intention not only to confront, but to eliminate opposition...intolerance to all views other than one’s own. The common elements of extremism are further outlined by Martin along with this definition, they are: • Intolerance - the derision of all who disagree totally or partially with the cause, who are hence opposition and do not deserve recognition. • Moral Absolutes - a clear distinction between good and evil, the terrorist’s belief or cause is the morally correct vision of the world, spawning an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality. • Broad Conclusions - simplification of the goals of the cause and the nature of the opposition, which are not debatable and allow for no exceptions. • New Language and Conspiratorial Beliefs - language and conspiracies are created to demonise the enemy and set the terrorists apart from those who do not share their belief.. If a specific example were to meet a majority of these elements, then they could be considered extremist given that extremism is what allows terrorists to justify the gravity of their actions. Therefore satisfying the subjective element of the proposed universal definition of Terrorism. The objective element is far more straight forward, as per Garrison’s definition, that the universal view of terrorists is that change occurs only through the use of violence, hence the utility or tool of Terrorism is violence itself. To fulfill this element the individual or group in question must have utilised it’s asymmetrical power through violence with the intention of some form of social or political change from the current trajectory society is following. Hence the approach argued is Terrorism is a method of expressing asymmetrical power through violent means to coerce change rationalised by an extremist viewpoint. Application of Universal Method in a National and Sub-National Context The applicability of the proposed universal definition, that being Terrorism is a method of expressing asymmetrical power through violent means to coerce change rationalised by an extremist viewpoint, is examinable through four examples. La Regime de la Terreur and Post 9/11 U.S.A:

Maximilian Robespierre, leading revolutionary and member of the Committee for Public Safety held the view, as did his followers who openly referred to themselves as terrorists, that; Terror is nothing else than swift, severe, inflexible justice. [Further it is] but a consequence of a general principle of democracy applied for the most pressing needs of the country.

Similarly George W. Bush stated “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done” and that; Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

In Bush and Robespierre’s statements the ruse of justice against internal and external threat, characterised by the polar Good vs. Evil approach displayed in both instances, is demonstrative of the requisite element of extremism. This is combined with the refusal to consider any other truth other than the one that justifies using asymmetrical power over smaller actors through violence in the forms of torture (USA) and mass execution of political prisoners (France). It is clear that the universal definition devised in this paper can be applied to terrorist entities in a national context if the satisfaction of both elements occurs. In a sub-national context the rhetoric of Osama Bin Laden was sufficient enough to fulfill the element of extremism. The terrorist always has self-afforded justification because of the oppression and injustice of the enemy, shown in his statement that; It should not be hidden from you that the people of Islam had suffered from aggression, iniquity and injustice imposed on them by the Zionist-Crusaders alliance and their collaborators; to the extent that the Muslim’s blood became the cheapest and their wealth as loot in the hands of the enemies. Their blood was spilled in Palestine and Iraq.

With little difference, Fidel Castro’s justification of the July 26th Movement, led by him, that sought revolution was justified by the tyranny of the ruling Batista Regime; How can Batista's presence in power be justified when he gained it against the will of the people and by violating the laws of the Republic through the use of treachery and force? How could anyone call legitimate a regime of blood, oppression

and ignominy? How could anyone call revolutionary a regime which has gathered the most backward men, methods and ideas of public life around it? How can anyone consider legally valid the high treason of a Court whose duty was to defend the Constitution? With what right do the Courts send to prison citizens who have tried to redeem their country by giving their own blood, their own lives? All this is monstrous to the eyes of the nation and to the principles of true justice!

Both leaders speak against the struggle of the oppressive enemy, submitting that the only true justice is their own individual cause which seeks to end the oppression. Further they rationalise that exercising their power, which is asymmetrical to that of their enemies, through violence was the only method available to attain their goal of coercing change. Bin Laden through indiscriminate bloodshed such as 9/11, and Castro through guerrilla warfare and later arbitrary detention and execution of political prisoners31. Therefore in their justification of and use of violence the objective/subjectives elements of the definition that Terrorism is a method of expressing asymmetrical power to coerce change rationalised by an extremist viewpoint have been met. Conclusion This paper has critiqued the significantly politicised state, as well as conflicting scholarly, definitions of Terrorism and the struggle for universality that underpins giving clear and encompassing meaning to the concept of Terrorism. The examination has evaluated the applicability of a universal definition of Terrorism in both a national and sub-national context specifically through the examples of La Regime de le Terreur, Post 9/11 USA, Al Qaeda and The July 26th Movement. In developing the universal definition it was shown that Terrorism is difficult to universally define due to the difficulty of giving proportionate weight to the act of Terrorism and the cause of Terrorism in this definition. This problem was resolved by labeling causation as purely extremism so as to account for the substitutability for targets and political goals, in addition to drawing distinction between terroristic violence and common violence. Through this examination it became apparent that Terrorism is a method of expressing asymmetrical power through violent means to coerce change rationalised by an extremist viewpoint. In which the objective element of the utility of terror, i.e. violence, and the subjective element of extremism must be met in this universal definition. If all the necessary elements are present, then an act, individual or organisation can be declared terroristic as the requirements under the proposed universal definition have been met.

Cited Literature: 1. Armbost, Andreas., Modeling Terrorism and Political Violence, Online, http://ire.sagepub.com/content/24/4/414, 2010 . 2. Bush, George W., Joint Session Address on Terrorist Attacks, Online, americanrhetoric.com, 2006. 3. Castro, Fidel., History will absolve me, Online, http://www.marxists.org/history/ cuba/archive/castro/1953/10/16.htm, spoken in 1953, last updated 2001. 4. Cobban, Alfred., Aspects of the French Revolution, Paladin, 1971, London U.K.. 5. Garrison, Arthur H., Defining Terrorism: Philosophy of the Bomb, Propaganda by Deed and Change Through Fear and Violence, Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2004. 6. Gipta, Sonika., September 11 and Definitions of Terrorism, Online, http:// www.ipcs.org/article/terrorism/september-11-and-definitions-of-terrorism-871.html, 2002. 7. Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism - Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, 3rd ed., 2010; Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, USA. 8. 9. Maskaliunaite, Asta., Defining Terrorism in the Political and Academic Discourse, Baltic Defense Review No. 8 Volume 2/2002. 10. Oxford University Press, Extremism; Online, http://oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/extremism?q=Extremism, 2012. 11. Pilat, Joseph E.,The Causes of Terrorism, Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change Volume 6 Number 2 2009. 12. Robespierre, Maximillien., Pour le bonheur et pour la liberté., Discours, Paris, La fabrique editions, 2000. 13. Weissbrodt, D. & Bergquist, A., Extraordinary Rendition: A Human Rights Analysis, Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol 19., Harvard University, 2006. 14. White, Matthew,. Minor Atrocities of the 20th Century, Online, http:// users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm, 2005. 15. Whittaker, Brian., The Definition of Terrorism, Online, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/07/terrorism, 2001.