On the use of certain words or phrases

Download as PDF

We all know that humanitarian workers are meant to be neutral and impartial. But this is not so easy as it would appear: we all carry around our philosophical, our ethical, our sociological, and our linguistic baggage. In addition, what we witness in the field will necessarily impact us. And so it should: we are not cold machines programmed to carry out our duties without feelings, without taking a stand, without commitment. It is precisely our shared humanity that allows us to relate to those around us, be they actors, perpetrators, victims, bystanders, or even colleagues.

To state the obvious, language is our main communication tool. Yet are we always on the same wavelength? Are we manipulating others or being manipulated by the words or the sentences we utter or hear? How does the use of language condition our response? In a famous series of children’s books, the evil character is "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named" – a testament to the power of words. Naming Voldemort demystifies him. Here we look at a small sample of expressions and how they are used context of humanitarian action, in the hope that we become more aware in general of their potential impact.

I dedicate this essay to my colleagues who became victims in the cause of the victims, in particular F, C, C, V, and N.

When is a state not a state?

When I was working at Geneva Call, an NGO dedicated to engaging armed non-state actors in humanitarian and human rights norms, we sometimes found that words could be a fundamental barrier to our work. Take a breakaway entity which has control over territory and has declared independence, but which has not achieved unanimous recognition by the international community.

There are many of these, but we can cite as examples Somaliland or Abkhazia. If you call such entities "non-recognized states" or "non-recognized governments" you are very explicitly recognizing them as states, much to the disgruntlement of the international community and the fury of the State which has lost effective control of the territory, but which has absolutely no intention of relinquishing its sovereignty over the breakaway. However, if you use terms such as "armed non-state actor," then you are just as explicitly saying that they are not states, and good luck with your humanitarian engagement...

The entity is not able to join international conventions (such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949) but will hardly wish to sign unilateral documents designed specifically for non-state actors, such as the Deeds of Commitment drawn up by Geneva Call. This does not mean that we are not able to discuss humanitarian norms with these entities, but it does severely limit the options. And, as we know, written commitments are much more likely to be adhered to than vague promises, or references to customary law and local cultural norms.

Innocence lost

Another interesting term that often crops up is "innocent civilians." We have all used it... But have we thought about what we are saying? Remember, international humanitarian law (IHL) protects each and every individual caught up in armed conflict. Were civilians the beneficiaries of Henry Dunant's work at Solferino? Were civilians the object of the first Geneva Convention? Hardly. Indeed, many humanitarian norms are designed primarily to protect those participating directly in hostilities. The ban on chemical weapons, or on anti-personnel mines, for example, protects such combatants. And then, when we look at the first three 1949 Conventions, we see that they essentially protect members of the military who are hors de combat (injured, sick, shipwrecked, or captured). The innovation in 1949 was the acceptance that civilians too may enjoy some degree of protection. The Second World War showed that this did not go without saying.

The first thing we are doing then, when using the term "innocent civilians," is to imply that only civilians are protected persons. In itself, this is not such a problem, as long as our humanitarians do not forget the universality of IHL and do not forget the protection afforded to all those who are or were fighting.

But, to my mind, the damage goes deeper than that.

It is, of course, the use of the word "innocent" that does the most harm. Innocence somehow becomes the state that conditions protection. If a civilian is not innocent, does s/he forfeit protection? How do we define innocence? Does the Israeli settler, clearly a civilian, forfeit his/her protection by living illegally on occupied territory? Or by carrying a gun while taking his/her children to school? What about the civilian who votes for a pro-war party? Or what about the civilian government employee who participates in genocide by maintaining the files of the victims awaiting the “Final Solution”? "Innocence" is hardly appropriate, but these people are nevertheless civilians. And what about combatants or civilians taking a direct part in hostilities. Are they not innocent? What is the opposite of innocent – guilty? So are we implying that the act of fighting for a cause immediately confers guilt? This is utterly in contradiction of IHL, which demands protection for fighters and soldiers who are hors de combat.

To give a concrete example, the Obama administration has been defending strikes by its drones in the following terms: "(The) security adviser, Brennan, gave the Obama administration's first public justification for drone strikes in his April speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think-tank. Such strikes are used when capture is not a feasible option and are conducted 'in full accordance with the law,' Brennan said. 'We only authorize a strike if we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed, except in the rarest of circumstances,' he said." Further we read that " 'This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies,' said (London-based rights organization) Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith."¹ So here we have a high-level government official and a high-level NGO director both allegedly using this term. How will the reader react to such a categorization?

This is not to forget that civilians today pay by far the highest price in armed conflict....

Belts and braces

What about a person carrying a bomb belt, who detonates that belt at a bus stop where soldiers and civilians are waiting? The attacker, some soldiers, and some civilians are killed. In the ensuing "war of words," the bomber's supporters will use the very positively charged term "martyrdom operation", whereas the opposite side will use the equally negatively charged "suicide bombing." Neither term, interestingly, expresses regret for the death and injury of non-combatants.

Does it matter whether the attacker commits suicide or martyrdom? Each and every soldier and fighter knows s/he can be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice, and most will be ready to do this for their cause or some noble ideal. I do have some difficulties in relating to those who manipulate youngsters to "volunteer" for martyrdom, but as for the act itself, who are we to judge whether a person is right or wrong to give his or her own life for a cause? By choosing either the term "suicide" or "martyrdom" we are taking a stance, we are condemning or applauding the act. Where does this leave the victims? The "martyrdom" side manages to hide the inconvenient fact that, quite probably, the attacker did not take sufficient care to avoid fatalities among non-combatants (or, as may often be the case, that s/he deliberately targeted civilians). For those who use the term "suicide," the record is not much better, because all of the victims are considered on the same level without a discussion about the fact that some targets might be "legitimate” in the legal sense – as might be the attack itself. It takes away the need to compare the destruction brought about by the use of non-suicidal weapons delivery such as drones or helicopters, in which an equally large number of "non-targets" might be killed or injured.

For the humanitarian worker, who is neutral and who will treat all victims with impartiality, the two conflicting words are actually irrelevant. All victims – the dead, the injured, whether civilian or military, and their families, including that of the bomber – deserve our respect, our succor, and our compassion. So let us not be "taken in" by the language used.

A word without a definition that changed the world

Finally, let us look at the “T-word.” It is such a bad word that there was, or possibly still is, a war against it. Terrorism does just that: it terrorizes us. Could part of the reason be that we do not know what it is? There is no commonly agreed definition of terrorism, and I am still myself struggling to make up my own mind about it. Terrorism is very vague and very menacing. IHL and Human Rights Law are both instruments meant to protect us; both these bodies of law are unequivocal: murder, kidnapping, and other forms of violence against persons not taking part in hostilities are illegal, immoral, and the perpetrators of such violence eminently prosecutable. So why do we additionally need to brand some acts of violence as “terrorism?”

This has huge importance for the humanitarian worker, especially in that “terrorism” as a philosophy or an act can easily be transposed onto individuals (terrorists) and parties (terrorist groups). And once this is label is pinned onto acts, persons, or groups, it becomes very difficult to carry out one’s humanitarian duties. As a humanitarian, I need to protect through persuasion. I have spent many hours trying to persuade people whom I believed were committing acts of torture to treat their captives with humanity. In the same vein, if I want to protect non-combatants in an armed struggle, I need to persuade those with the guns – whatever their cause or whatever their methods – to cease to harm those who are not parties to the conflict. A hopeless cause? That’s not a reason not to try!

In the absence of an agreed definition of “terrorism,” I need to put forward a hypothesis for one. The use of the word seems to be linked to the intent of the violence. This is where we need to be extremely careful. If the avowed intent of the perpetrators is to cause generalized fear among target groups, then yes, I would propound that we are faced with “terrorism.” If, on the other hand, it is violence directly against legitimate or illegitimate targets simply for military or for political reasons, it is not terrorism. In other words, it is not the legality, or more precisely, the illegality of an act that turns it into terrorism, nor is it the political or ideological nature of the act that would transmute it into “terrorism”: a murder is a murder, whatever reasons are put forward for justifying it.

The deliberate targeting of civilians – through a suicide/martyrdom attack, for example – is politically motivated and illegal. It seems to me that such attacks are almost always branded as “terrorist.” Yet, to me, if we use this term according to this criterion, we are missing or obfuscating the point. We are once again allowing the misuse of words to obscure our thinking. We are doing the same as when we use “martyrdom” and “suicide”: we are placing emotively charged terms on top of what are already horrendous acts.

If we reduce the word “terrorism” to what it really is, i.e. the deliberate attempt to create fear or panic in a target population group, we can more easily justify our interventions, we can be strategic about them, we can morally defend our engagement of the perpetrators.


Concluding remarks

There will always be those who claim that, “if you are not with us, then you are against us.” We will always be faced, in conflicts around the world, with parties to a conflict accusing us of “supporting terrorism” precisely because we are trying to influence positively their opponents. We humanitarians need therefore to be clear about what we are doing, why we are doing it... and use the correct words to define our action, avoiding all the emotive terminology, all the terminology which parties use to discredit each other and to praise their own actions. We need our terminology to accurately reflect IHL and human rights law, to show that we are clear about what we are doing. And not just humanitarians: an interesting example goes back to the debate, within the CENTCOM-led Coalition in Iraq, on which term should be used for groups or persons opposing its presence in the country, with the words "insurgents" and "insurgency" eventually being adopted.

There are many other examples we could be looking at. When is an Occupation not an Occupation? The purpose of this short essay is not to go through all such examples and to bring definitive conclusions, but to encourage humanitarian practitioners to reflect on their own use of language and to avoid linguistic traps.

For example, have I avoided the pitfalls in this essay? Is the use of the word "attacker" appropriate in the case of the bus shelter example?

What about the two terms I used at the beginning of this article? When are we “neutral,” and when are we “impartial”?

Notes

¹ CNN (26 September 2012), "Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says"

Suggested further reading

For a take on entities which have most attributes of States, in the light of peace-building: Engaging Unrecognised States in Conflict Resolution: An Opportunity or Challenge for the EU?

For an example of the reflection going into the use of the word "terrorism," see the FBI's document, "Terrorism 2002-2005":
"There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).”

For another reason for humanitarians to be wary of the term "terrorism," we should bear in mind the US Supreme Court ruling on Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (see, for example, an opinion piece by Professor David Cole).

Further reading on reflections of "innocent civilians": The Myth Of the Innocent Civilian by Harold Thomas

If you are interested in the use of communication, manipulation, and armed conflict / terrorism, you will enjoy listening to something I found on "iTunesU"  it is called "Terrorism, Propaganda and the Politics of Fear" by ASU Regents Professor and authority on propaganda David Altheide. He also has an interesting aside on the status of victims.

If you are still wondering whether aid workers are somehow participants in armed conflict, see War Games: The Story of Aid and War in Modern Times by Linda Polman. For a criticism of this book, see Andrew Anthony, 25 April 2010 in The Observer.

On the use of language which can be interpreted in different ways: Pearls Before Swine.

About the author

Martin Damary is currently a consultant with extensive experience with the ICRC and was the former Managing Director of Geneva Call from 2005 to 2010.

Discuss this article in the member forum