By Anwar S. Mohammed
One of the reasons (see the screenshot) why I do not use the term “terrorism” lightly is below. The reason why I have not applied it even to the Myanmar junta many times. I would rather use terminology that is more legally relevant, both nationally and internationally, when referring to the Myanmar military’s actions.
In many situations the label proves counterproductive for communities like ours. It can lead to restrictions on financial transactions, migration, and other forms of legitimate armed struggle.
Many Burmese people have already labelled Rohingya armed actors—and, by extension, the broader Rohingya community as well—as “terrorists.” Now even members of their own community are using the same term against them.
The word “terrorism” is more often employed as a rhetorical political judgment or as a political tool to punish those a state opposes than it is used in a strictly legal sense.
There is still no single, clear definition of what constitutes terrorism, and countries treat the concept differently under their own laws. In the United States, for example, certain violent and unlawful acts, including those that cause conflicts between nations, —prosecuted as criminal offenses of “terrorism” under federal statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 et seq.) otherwise— are treated as “terrorism” offenses.
Moreover, there is no single universally agreed treaty that precisely defines terrorism. This is why groups once designated as “terrorists” in West Asia by the United States are now being treated as allies as they have become politically relevant or strategically important.
Laws are not political tools or emotional responses, but clearly defined legal frameworks. Under the rule of law, only those who violate the law can be punished.
We are yet to learn a lot in this regard.##
*Anwar S. Mohammed is a US based activist for Rohingya. His opinion doesn’t reflect anything of Arakan Watch
