Eko-Terörizm Kavramı Üzerine Bir Tartışma: Yeryüzü Kurtuluş Cephesi ve Hayvan Kurtuluş Cephesi’nin Analizi

Year 2022, Volume: 10 Issue: 2, 292 - 311, 30.09.2022

Ayfer Genç Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.14782/marmarasbd.1030019

Cited By: 1

Abstract

11 Eylül’ün ardından, terörizm tüm dünyayı ilgilendiren bir mesele haline gelmiştir. O günden sonra, bir hayli tartışmalı bu kavramı yeniden tanımlamaya yönelik hem akademik hem de popüler tartışmalar ortaya çıkmıştır. Bir taraftan, siyasal otoriteler ve genel olarak güvenlik kurumları kavramın anlamını genişletmeye başlarken, diğer taraftan çok sayıda araştırmacı temel hak ve özgürlüklerin istismarını engellemek amacıyla terörizm kavramının sınırlarını çizmek ve ona belirli ve nesnel bir tanım vermek için çaba sarf etmiştir. Bu süreçte, uluslararası terörizmin yükselişine yönelik artan ilgiyi rağmen, diğer taraftan, ABD’de bir başka terörizm türünün -yerel terörizm- kendini göstermiş ve beraberinde tartışmaları tetiklemiştir. 2000’li yıllarda FBI ekolojik terörizmi ABD için en önemli tehlike olarak gördüğünü açıklamıştır. Bu çalışma, bir ekolojik örgütlenme olarak Dünya Kurtuluş Cephesi ve hayvan hakları örgütlenmesi olarak Hayvan Kurtuluş Cephesi’nin stratejileri ve kundaklama ve genel olarak mülkiyeti yok etmeye yönelik faaliyetlerini incelemek suretiyle bu örgütlenmelerin terörist olarak sınıflandırılıp sınıflandırılamayacağını tartışmak niyetindedir. Bu tartışmayı yürütebilmek için Ganor’ıun siillere ve sivil hedeflere zarar vermeye odalanan terörizm tanımını kullanacaktır. Eko-terörizm üzerine yapılacak tartışma üzerinden, çalışma, Ganor’ın terörizm tanımının eksik ve yetersiz yanlarını ortaya koyacak ve daha iyi yapılandırılmış bir terörizm tanımı sağlamak amacıyla gerekli kriterleri göstermeye çalışacaktır.

Keywords

terörizm, eko-terörizm, Dünya Kurtuluş Cephesi, Hayvan Kurtuluş Cephesi

A Discussion on the Concept of Eco-Terrorism: An Analysis of the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front

Abstract

In the aftermath of 9/11, a vast scholarly debate has arisen to redefine the highly contested concept of
terrorism. On one side, political authorities and security institutions gradually expanded the term’s
meaning. On the other side, many scholars intended to give an objective and precise definition to
prevent the abuse of fundamental rights and freedoms in the name of the war against terrorism. During the same period, despite the increasing attention given to the rise of international terrorism, in the US,
another type of terrorism – domestic terrorism – has shown up and triggered a series of debates. In
the 2000s, the FBI defined eco-terrorism as the most dangerous threat for the US as ecological groups
damaged the property of innocent civilian people and committed terrorist attacks. This paper analyzes
two ecological and animal rights movements (Earth Liberation Front, ELF and Animal Liberation Front, ALF). It focuses on these movements’ strategies and activities, such as arsons, monkey-
wrenching and property damage to decide whether they can be classified as terrorists. For doing that, the article uses Ganor’s definition of terrorism. Through the debate on eco-terrorism, the article aims
to put forward the still imprecise part of Ganor’s definition and demonstrate the necessary criteria to
be established to provide a well-structured definition for the concept of terrorism. In this regard, the
definitions suggested for terrorism must decide whether an act is accepted as violent when directed
toward a civilian, or property damage can be conceptualized as violent. Moreover, the newly established
definition must clearly explain who or what civilian targets are. Finally, the acts committed by the ELF
and ALF must be evaluated on the ground of fear they provoked among people. This last criterion
reveals the missing part of Ganor’s definition.

Keywords

terrorism, eco-terrorism, Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front

References

• Ackerman, G. (2003). ‘‘Beyond Arson? A Threat Assessment of the Earth Liberation Front,’’ Terrorism and Political Violence 15,(4), 143–170.
• Amster, R. (2006). Perspectives on Ecoterrorism: Catalysts, Conflations, and Casualties, Contemporary Justice Review, 9(3), 287-301, DOI: 10.1080/10282580600827991
• Brown, J. M. (2017). Notes to the underground: credit and organizing in the earth liberation front, Terrorism and Political Violence, 1-20. Brown, A. (2019, 23 Mart). The Green Scare: How a movement that never killed anyone became the FBI’s No 1 Domestic Terrorism Threat, The Intercept, Erişim tarihi 11 Mart 2021.https://theintercept.com/2019/03/23/ecoterrorism-fbi-animal-rights/
• Carson, J. V., LaFree, G., & Dugan, L. (2012). Terrorist and Non-Terrorist Criminal Attacks by Radical Environmental and Animal Rights Groups in the United States, 1970–2007, Terrorism and Political Violence, 24(2), 295-319, DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2011.639416
• Cianchi, J. (2015). Radical Environmentalism: Nature, Identity and More-Than-Human Agency. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
• Crenshaw, M. (1981). The causes of terrorism, Comparative Politics, 13(4): 379-399.
• Crenshaw, M. (2008). The Debate over New vs. Old Terrorism. I.A. Karawan., W McCormack ve S.E. Reynolds. (Ed.). Values and Violence: Intangible Aspects of Terrorism, Dordrecht: Springer
• Chomsky, N. (2003). Terror and Just Response. J. Sterba (Ed.), Terrorism and International Justice, (ss. 69-87). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Connolly, W. (1993). The Terms of Political Discourse, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Da Silva, J. R. (2020). The Eco-Terrorist Wave, Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Agression, 12(3): 203-216.
• Deshpande, N. ve E. Howard. (2012). Countering Eco-Terrorism in the United States: The Case of ‘Operation Backfire’. Final Report to Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division, Science and Technology Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. College Park, MD:
• Eagon, S.P. (1996). From Spikes to bombs: the rise of eco-terrorism, Studies in Conlifct&Terrorism, 19(1): 1-18.
• Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2002, Şubat 12). Congressional testimony: The threat of eco-terrorism. Erişim tarihi 5 Mart 2021. http://www.fbi.gov/congress02/jarboe021202.htm,
• Ganor, B. (2002). Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist another Man’s Freedom Fighter, Police Practice and Research, 3(4): 287-304. Gofas, A. (2012). “'Old' vs. 'New' Terrorism: What's in a Name?”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 8(32): 17-32.
• Gray, P. W. (2013). Leaderless resistance, networked organization, and ideological hegemony, Terrorism and Political Violence, 25(5): 655-671.
• Gristmill (2005). Behind the eco-terrorism hype. Grist Magazine, http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/9/30/161855/060 erişim tarihi 5 Mart 2021.
• Güngörmez, O. ve Alkanat, A. (2019). Environmental Terrorism and Arson Attacks on Forests by the PKK, SETA Analysis, 56, İstanbul: Turkuvaz Haberleşme ve Yayıncılık
• Kennedy, R. (1999). Is one person's terrorist another's freedom fighter? Western and Islamic approaches to ‘just war’ compared, Terrorism and Political Violence, 11(1): 1-21, DOI: 10.1080/09546559908427493
• Laqueur, W. (1987). The Age of Terrorism. Boston ve Toronto: Little Brown and Company.
• Liddick, D. R. (2006). Eco-Terrorism: Radical environmentalist and Animal Liberation Movements. Westport, CT: Praeger
• Loadenthal, M. (2014). Eco-terrorism? Countering Dominant Narratives of Securitisation: A Critical, Quantitative History of the Earth Liberation Front (1996-2009), Perspectives on Terrorism, 8(3): 16-50.
• Miller, J. A. (2000). Eco-terrorism and eco-extremism against agriculture. Spiral bound: self-published. Erişim tarihi 3 Mart 2021. https://start.umd.edu/pubs/START_EffectivenessofLECountermeasuresOperationBackfire_Sept2012.pdf
• Monaghan, R. (1999). Terrorism in the name of animal rights, Terrorism and Political Violence, 11(4): 159-169, DOI: 10.1080/09546559908427538
• Monaghan, R. (2013). Not quite terrorism: Animal Rights Extremism in the United Kingdom, Studies in Conflict&Terrorism, 36(11): 933-951.
• Nagtzaam, G. ve Cheltenham, E.E. (2017). From environmental action to ecoterrorism? Towards a process theory of environmental and animal rights oriented political violence, Global Crime, 18(4): 442-444, DOI: 10.1080/17440572.2017.13359
• National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) (2019). Global Terrorism Database (GTD), Erişim tarihi 10 Ocak 2021 www.start.umd. edu/gtd
• Perlstein, G. (2003). ‘Comments on Ackerman, Terrorism and Political Violence 15(4): 171–172.
• Roberts, J.J. (1986). Against All Odds: Animal Liberation 1972-1986, London: Arc Print.
• Schmidt, A. P. ve Jongman, A. I. (1988). Political Terrorism. SWIDOC Amsterdam and Transaction Books.
• Sedgwick, M. (2007). Inspiration and origins of global waves of terrorism, Studies in Cpnflict and Terrorism, 30(2): 97-112.
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: a new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: New York Review.
• Smith, G. D. (1990). Combatting Terrorism, London: Routledge.
• Stallwood, K. (2004). A Personal Overview of Direct Action. S. Best ve A.J. Nocella (Eds.). Terrorist or Freedom Fighters?, New York: Lantern.
• United States of America: Uniting and Stregthening America by America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA Patriot Act) [United States of America], 26 Ekim 2001.
• Vanderheiden, S. (2005) ‘Eco-terrorism or Justified Resistance? Radical Environmentalism and the ‘War on Terror’,Politics and Society, 33(3): 425–447.
• Ward, M. B. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counterterrorism Division. (2008). Operation Backfire Press Conference, Washington D.C.: Foreign Press Center. Erişim tarihi 18.03.2021 www.fbi.gov(congress/congress02/watson020602.htm
• Weinberg, L., Pedahzur, A., ve Hirsch-Hoefler, S. (2004). The Challenges of Conceptualizing Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, 16(4): 777-794, DOI: 10.1080/095465590899768