State Terrorism and State-Sponsored Terrorism

Throughout history, terrorism has been a method used by individuals, groups and states to achieve political, ideological or strategic aims. But the source of terrorism is not only independent organisations or individuals. States too have supported or carried out terrorist acts, directly or indirectly. The concept of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism therefore holds an important place in international relations and security policy.

In addition to the points listed under general headings in the previous parts, we will now examine the unchanging and changing elements of terrorism from the perspective of state terrorism and state sponsorship.

1. Strategic Interests

One of the most fundamental, and perhaps most controversial, elements of state-sponsored terrorism and state terrorism is strategic interest. Some states try to advance their national goals and strategic interests by supporting or cooperating with terrorist groups. This support can take the form of material aid, training, weapons and even sanctuary.

For example, during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (1979–1989), the US supported the jihadist elements fighting the Soviets. Behind this US support lay the aim of gaining a strategic advantage over the Soviets.

More recently, from the start of the civil war in Syria, a number of states, Turkey among them, supported various opposition groups. Although this support rested on the basic idea of serving the states’ regional strategic interests, almost all of the groups supported were described as terrorist organisations by other states.

Yes, state-sponsored terrorism is shaped by strategic interests, and the use of terrorist groups by states is often a move intended to change regional or global balances. But because the humanitarian and ethical aspects of this support are almost always ignored, harm to civilians is almost inevitable in the developments that follow.

2. Weighing Risk and Reward

For states that support or use terrorism, the decisions behind planned or executed acts usually rest on weighing risk against reward. States act by comparing the strategic advantages they might gain through terrorist acts, such as regional influence, weakening the enemy and influencing public opinion, with risks such as international sanctions, loss of reputation and retaliation.

The Lockerbie bombing carried out by Libya in 1988 is a good example of weighing risk and reward. A Pan American Airways Boeing 747, in which a bomb had been planted, exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. This Libyan-sponsored attack killed 270 people. The attack damaged Libya’s relations with the international community and exposed it to sanctions. But with it, Libya sent a message to its adversaries and positioned itself as an important actor willing to use force in international relations.

In the 1980s Iran tried to increase its influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah. This was a balancing move against Iran’s rivals in the region. But this support also linked Iran to many terrorist acts and put its international reputation at risk.

In recent years North Korea’s name has come to be associated with terrorist acts such as cyberattacks and assassinations. While these acts help the regime achieve its aims in one respect, they make its international relations more difficult in another.

Ultimately, state-sponsored terrorism rests on weighing risk and reward. States decide whether to use terrorism as a tool by constantly assessing the advantages they could gain and the potential risks.

3. Concealing Involvement

In interventions carried out by supporting terrorist organisations, states also develop measures to prevent the act being linked to them. Such states generally prefer to hide or deny their contribution or intervention before world opinion. This allows them to avoid responsibilities they do not want to face on the international stage and to protect their reputation.

The support that countries involved in the Syrian civil war gave at various times to different radical organisations fighting in the region can be seen in this light. The intervening states sometimes tried to make their own activities look legal by declaring organisations other than those they supported to be terrorist organisations. At other times they conducted their support covertly. And in the activities they carried out through these organisations, they kept themselves hidden.

Russia’s actions in Ukraine’s Donbas region over the last ten years can also be seen in this light. Russia consistently denied supporting the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine, but much evidence supported these claims. Indeed, the war that has continued in the region since February 2022 has shown that the denied support did in fact exist.

Yes, concealing involvement is essential in state-sponsored terrorism. It allows states to avoid responsibilities they do not want to face on the international stage and to protect their reputation. With the help of technological advances, however, such covert operations can now be detected more easily.

4. The Ideology of Supported Groups

In state-sponsored terrorism, the support states give to terrorist organisations has been shaped by ideological reasons that change over time. Leaving humanitarian concerns aside, this support to terrorist organisations is seen as a tool states use to achieve their national or international goals.

During the Cold War, the ideological rivalry between the US and the USSR led each side to support groups that did not conflict with its own ideology. The US, for example, supported anti-communist groups in Latin America, the USSR communist groups in Africa. Terrorist groups were in a sense used by states as strategic partners and as a means of pressure against hostile states.

On the other hand, in recent times, some states, especially in the Middle East, have begun to support certain terrorist groups for religious or sectarian reasons. Iran’s support for Hezbollah is one example.

Today, the ideologies of the terrorist groups states support are no longer limited to great ideological currents such as communism or capitalism. Ethnic, religious and above all regional interests are among the current causes of state-sponsored terrorism.

It should also be noted that states’ foreign policy goals can be directly linked to their support for terrorist organisations. As energy security, for example, becomes increasingly important to states, such strategic interests also determine which terrorist organisations states will support.

In recent years, the support various states have given to various terrorist groups in the Syrian civil war is one of the most current examples. Different states supported different groups according to their own strategic and ideological interests, with no regard for any humanitarian criteria.

In short, state-sponsored terrorism continues to change and transform as a reflection of global political dynamics and states’ national interests.

5. Forms of Support:

The support states have given to terrorist organisations has taken methods and strategies that have varied over time. This support has sometimes been direct, sometimes indirect.

Weapons and ammunition: During the Cold War in particular, states supplied weapons and ammunition directly to terrorist organisations for ideological reasons. The US supply of Stinger missiles in the 1980s to jihadist groups fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan is an example of such support.

Training: Training terrorist organisations in tactics, strategy or the use of weapons has also been applied as direct support. We can say that intelligence agencies in particular have contributed greatly to such training.

Financial aid: Providing financial support to pay salaries to terrorist organisations and their members, to finance their operations or to supply the resources needed for propaganda is also a well-known reality. This support is often channelled through private banks, complex money transfer methods or special couriers.

Logistical support: Enabling terrorists to move across borders, sheltering them in safe areas and providing medical treatment or rest can be described as logistical support.

Diplomatic and political protection: A terrorist organisation or member receiving diplomatic or political protection internationally is also an important form of support. Some countries can provide such protection by refusing to extradite terrorists involved in many attacks and killings, or by granting them political asylum.

This support to terrorist organisations directly affects the dynamics of international cooperation. A country’s open or covert support for a terrorist organisation naturally strains its relations with other countries.

Recently, Iran’s support for the Houthi militants in Yemen’s civil war, and the support given by Russia, the US and other countries to various groups in Syria, are current examples of how states provide different kinds of support to terrorist organisations.

6. Secrecy

Terrorist acts and state-sponsored terrorism are generally carried out, wherever possible, by structures that attract no attention, leave no particular trace and value secrecy. With advances in technology and in intelligence-gathering methods, however, the element of secrecy has also changed.

Terrorists use a wide range of means of communication, from radios to encrypted messaging platforms on the internet.

As a means of finance, they can use cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin for transfers that try to conceal their identity. Bitcoin is not fully anonymous, however. Its transactions are recorded on a public blockchain and can be traced with specialised analysis.

In response to the development of secrecy and terrorists covering their tracks with new technology, states are constantly updating their intelligence-gathering methods too.

In the terrorist acts they support, states mostly act through covert operations. Former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, for example, was poisoned with polonium-210 in London in 2006 and died. In 2016 the British public inquiry concluded that the FSB had carried out the killing and that it was probably approved by Nikolai Patrushev and Vladimir Putin.

The picture that emerged from the leaks by WikiLeaks and in the Edward Snowden affair revealed states’ intelligence-gathering capabilities and their efforts to tackle these problems. Such leaks showed how critical an element secrecy is.

Secrecy is critical for terrorist organisations and states alike; that is why both sides constantly update their methods of secrecy.

*****

In our next article we will make a brief assessment of the future of terrorism.