JJansson These de Master

8/2/2019 JJansson These de Master

1/100

Different Centuries, Similar Responses?

International Police Cooperation and the Depoliticizing of Terrorism

in 1898 and 1998

1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 2

1.1. Research questions............................................................................................. 3

1.2. Prior research..................................................................................................... 6

1.3. Sources............................................................................................................... 9

2. Depoliticization....................................................................................................... 12

3. The International Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome 1898.................................18

4. Interpol.................................................................................................................... 22

4.1. The debated origins of Interpol........................................................................22

4.2. The structure and functions of Interpol............................................................ 24

5. Depoliticization of anarchism and terrorism ...........................................................28

5.1. The political nature of anarchism and terrorism..............................................28

5.2. The Anti-Anarchist Conference and depoliticization...................................... 36

5.3. Interpol and depoliticization............................................................................ 46

5.4. Discussion........................................................................................................58

6. Why depoliticize?................................................................................................... 60

6.1. Ground for international anti-terrorist cooperation.......................................... 60

6.2. Reaction to changes in social and political conditions in 1898.......................64

6.3. Reaction to changes in social and political conditions in 1998.......................68

6.4. Outcome of the bureaucratization of the police............................................... 76

6.5. Reaction to an apparently similar threat ......................................................... 78

7. Conclusions .............................................................................................................85

References .................................................................................................................. 89

Appendices ..................................................................................................................98


2/100

1. Introduction

The President of the United States declared:

[This ideology] is a crime against the whole human race and all mankind should band

against [it].

The President urged that the speeches, writings and meetings of the supporters of the

ideology should be treated seditious and that their activities should be constricted. The

supporters of the ideology that already were in the country should be deported. The

President drew a parallel between this doctrine and piracy. Like piracy, it should be

covered by international law.1

The president in question was not George W. Bush at the beginning of the twenty-first

century. The lines that mark missing words are not replacing the word terrorist. 2

Theodore Roosevelt, who stated this in 1901, spoke about anarchism, the greatest threat

to security and order in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Europe. This

citation gives a good starting point for this study. It provides with a perfect example of

the parallels between the two phenomena dealt with: anarchism of the 1890s and

terrorism of the 1990s.

Terrorism and the international combat against it is something that one comes across

every day today while reading the newspapers, or listening to the news. What has

recently been in the headlines is the War on Terrorism led by the United States. Less

attention is paid to the more low profile police work done to prevent terrorist attacks orto catch terrorists.

International police cooperation has existed from the period when terrorism as we today

know it emerged.3 As early as a hundred years ago international terrorism, in the form of1 Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) stated this in 1901 about anarchists. Cited in: Tuchman, 1980, 107.2 However, the term "terrorism" has only been in use in France (from where it originates) since the 1970s

(Hermant and Bigo 2000) and it was totally absent from contemporary discussions of anarchist

movements at the end of the nineteenth century [] Collyer, 2005, 283.3 More about the nature of modern terrorism and its emergence below.

2


3/100

anarchism, was perceived as a threat to (European) security. Anarchists assassinated

heads of states and the representatives of the police offices of European nations

gathered in Rome in 1898 to discuss ways to confront this threat. This cooperation

started an intensification on the field of international police cooperation and led to the

creation of the International Criminal Police Commission in 1923.4 Both the conference

and the Commission, later known as Interpol, reacted to terrorism in a similar way, by

depoliticizing it, breaking the terrorist acts down to their constituent, criminal parts.

Thus depoliticizing in this context is equated with the criminalization of the acts.

The aim of this study is to find out why the International Anti-Anarchist Conference of

Rome (referred to as AAC in this study) 1898 responded to the anarchist threat and

similarly, in 1998, Interpol responded to the terrorist threat by depoliticizing the

phenomenon. The study looks for reasons for this shared reaction in the similarities of

the threats, in the social conditions of the two points in time, 1898 and 1998, and in the

political situations of the states that have participated in these gatherings.

The present chapter presents gives background information on the AAC and Interpol,

discusses the sources used and the prior research on the subject and outlines the

research questions.

The next chapter aims at defining depoliticization. Chapters three and four present the

Anti-Anarchist Conference and Interpol in more detail. Chapter five discusses the

problematic nature of the concepts anarchism and terrorism and explores the way in

which the AAC and Interpol depoliticized anarchism and terrorism. In chapter number

six, an attempt is made to provide answers for the reasons the depoliticization was done.

Finally chapter seven discusses the research results and suggests possible and

interesting topics for further research.

1.1. Research questions

The aim of this study is to provide a comparative historical analysis of the ways in

which the International Anti-Anarchist Conference (AAC) of 1898 and the International

4 Jensen, 1981.

3


4/100

Criminal Police Organization Interpol5 in 1998 depoliticized terrorism and why this

was done. The research questions are: Why did the AAC and Interpol depoliticize

anarchism and terrorism? What were the means for this?

In pursuance of answering these questions it needs to be examined how the

depoliticization was done, and in what situation. Scholars such as Anderson and Collyer

have claimed that the threat of anarchism in the late nineteenth century and the threat of

terrorism in our days have important resemblances.6 Thus I want to ask the questions:

was the threat the studied agencies had to face similar and did this promote similar

answers?

To analyze the depoliticization of anarchism and terrorism, I have studied resolutions of

the Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome in 1898 and the resolutions regarding terrorism

made by Interpol in 1951-1998.7

There are several reasons for the choice of the study question. The Anti-Anarchist

Conference of Rome was the first international gathering that dealt with terrorism and it

has been claimed to have laid the basis for the organization today known as Interpol.

Richard Jensen argues in his article The International Anti-Anarchist Conference of

1898 and the Origins of Interpol that international system of police cooperation today

known as Interpol, originates from the Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome. He states

that Interpol can be considered the descendant or at least a step-child of the Rome

Conference.8

5 ICPO Interpol, until 1956 International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC). The abbreviation

Interpol was only invented in the early 1950s (Anderson, 1989, 53; Andreas and Nadelmann, 2006, 285.),but is used in this study about both organizations: the International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC)

and the current official name International Criminal Police Organization INTERPOL for reasons of

clarity.6 Anderson, 1989, 28; Collyer, 2005; Gray, 2003, 24. This is discussed in more detail below.7 The listing which resolutions are to be considered relating to terrorism is found at the Interpol

homepage: The first of these resolutions listed is the one of 1951. The listing stops in 2003. The

resolutions on terrorism from 2003 to 2006 are listed by the author, and the criterion by which they are

have been chosen to this paper is that their title includes the word terrorism.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Terrorism/resolutions.asp8 Jensen, 1981.

4
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Terrorism/resolutions.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/Terrorism/resolutions.asp


5/100

The basic hypothesis of this study is that both the AAC in 1898 and Interpol of the late

twentieth century faced similar threats and reacted to them with similar answers. The

interest of this study is to provide with a notion on the development of international

counter-terrorism in the studied period of one hundred years. It aims at looking at the

different world political situations that provoked a similar-looking answer to a similar-

looking menace.

Why was the year 1998 selected for the analysis on Interpol? It could be supposed that

the terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001 would have intensified the anti-terrorist

policy in many countries of the world and thus of many international organizations.

However, in the case of Interpol, the largest shift in the way terrorism was confronted in

its resolutions did not occur after the attacks in the World Trade Center and Pentagon on

September 11, 2001. It can be concluded from the resolutions made by the General

Assembly of Interpol, that 1998 was a turning point in the history of the anti-terrorism

of the organization. This year it became clear in the resolutions, that terrorism would be

considered a criminal, and not a political act, by the organization. The resolutions of

1998-2006 represented this new approach.9

One could argue that the period that is studied is so long, and the threats so diverse in

the nineteenth and the twenty-first century, that the whole basis of the comparison

would not be acceptable. It certainly must be taken into consideration that Interpol as an

organization has been transforming since its creation with the changes in its

membership and the prevailing world situation.10 However, actions anarchists took at

the end of the nineteenth century have a lot in common with actions the terrorists of

even the twenty first century have taken, something that will be discussed in detail in

the chapters that follow. As the threats the two different gatherings of the representativesof the police can be considered similar, it is interesting to see how the responses to the

threats differed and resembled.

The question why (anarchist) terrorism was depoliticized is interesting and important

for several reasons. Thus far the question of depoliticization has been addressed either

9 I have studied Interpols relationship with terrorism in my work Empty Phrases: The Changing Attitudes

of Interpol Toward Terrorism 1923-2006. University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, 2006.10 Fooner, 1989, 24.

5


6/100

very vaguely: [] anarchism was formally depoliticized in order to accommodate

many, politically diverse national states,[]11 or not at all. The final propositions of

the Anti-Anarchist Conference in 1898 and the resolutions of Interpol after 1998 both

addressed terrorism, which usually is considered as an inherently political act, as a

crime, as opposed to a political deed. The aim of providing a ground for international

cooperation by depoliticizing terrorism clearly gives one explanation for this. However,

it is obvious that there have also been other reasons for the depoliticization, since it was

not used as a strategy by Interpol during the years 1923-1997, from its foundation to our

days. My task is thus to provide with some tentative answers for the underlying reasons

of depoliticization of (anarchist) terrorism in 1898 and 1998.

1.2. Prior research

This study contributes to the history of the police force and to the history of counter-

terrorism and anti-anarchism. It relates to both criminology and international relations,

this as summed by Andreas and Nadelmann remarkably understudied intersection

of two disciplines.12

The study compares the way Interpol has encountered terrorism and the way in which

the International Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome (AAC) confronted anarchist

terrorism in 1898. It is based on the assertion of Richard Bach Jensen that the origins of

Interpol were already laid in 1898 even though the organization was not founded until

1923. He has pioneered on this subject in his article The International Anti-Anarchist

Conference of 1898 and the Origins of Interpol. The article introduces the conference

and its influence on the European police culture. My interest in the long historicaldevelopment of anti-terrorism has given the AAC of Rome a significant role in this

study.

The history of international police counter-terrorism has not been widely studied. A few

researchers have looked at either the Anti-Anarchist Conference or Interpol. Scholars

who have been important for this study are Malcolm Anderson, Mathieu Deflem, Bruce

11 Deflem, 2005.12 Andreas and Nadelmann, 2006, viii.

6


7/100

Hoffman, Hsi-Huey Liang, and Francesco Tamburini. Their analyses form a basis for

my own observations.

Richard Jensens earlier mentioned article is cited by all the scholars listed above. 13 My

own work is also based on his conclusion that the basis for Interpol actually was formed

twenty-five years before the creation of the organization. This is a strong proposition,

because even today, on homepage of Interpol, the conference of Monaco in 1914 is

referred to as the starting point of the organization. Additionally, the actual foundation

of the organization did not occur before 1923. There are also other propositions for the

antecedents of Interpol. The 1904 international convention against white slavery is

mentioned by Mathieu Deflem, and also by Jean Npote, former secretary general of

Interpol (from 1963 to 1978). Npote lists also other international conventions: the 1910

convention against pornographic publications, the 1912 convention against opium

traffic, and the 1929 convention against currency counterfeiting. His argument was that

all of these [ ] helped to articulate the problems and point the way to solutions

that were ultimately to be found with the establishment of Interpol. 14

Mathieu Deflem has written several articles relating both to the Anti-Anarchist

Conference and to Interpol. His approach is sociological, and he brings out important

questions concerning the development of the autonomy of the police and anti-terrorism.

These have been valid for my study. Deflem has related the notion of depoliticizing to

both the AAC and to Interpol.15 Francesco Tamburinis article La Conferenza

internazionale di Roma per la difesa sociale contro gli anarchici (24 novembre-21

dicembre 1898) is valid because it gives a detailed view of the AAC and provides with

new viewpoints to Jensens article and its suggestions.

Not much research has been done on Interpol. According to Michael Fooner, one reason

for the lack of research on Interpol is an incident in the mid-1970s, known as the

Hubbard Story. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology,

managed to spread misleading, negative information about the organization, and thus to

create damage to scholarship in this field that was visible even ten years after the

13 And by others such as Emsley, 1997 and Fijnaut, 1997.

14 Fooner, 1989, 19.15 Deflem, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006.

7


8/100

episode. The existence of the deceptive material has made scholars give up the research

of the subject. Fooners worry is still in 1989 that these misleading resource materials

are still at libraries, [ ] waiting to be used by unwary scholars if they should turn

to the subject.16

The studies on Interpol that provide with basic information of the organization,

Malcolm AndersonsPolicing the World. Interpol and the Politics of International

Police Co-operation and Michael Fooners Interpol Issues in World Crime and

International Criminal Justice both date to 1989. In his work, Anderson examines the

organization and discusses the politics of international police cooperation. As

Andersons, Michael Fooners research is extensive and substantial basic research on

the organization. His study has been a very important source for my knowledge on

Interpol. Nonetheless, it is somehow problematic. Fooner presents the organization

accurately and analyzes it in a historical context. He also notices issues such as the U.S.

relationship with the organization and thus sees well the external influences that have

affected Interpol. What I find problematic in this study is its lack of criticism and

questioning. Michael Fooner presents the history, structure and functioning of Interpol

as it was and does not ask the question why. The reason for this could be seen in his

pioneering position in the work ever written on Interpol. The other problem that relates

to this study from my point of view is that unluckily it was published already in 1989

and thus does not cover the years this study concentrates on. In my opinion, the greatest

changes in the Interpol response to terrorism occurred around 1998, which is why I

mostly rely on Mathieu Deflems analysis on the latest developments in Interpol.

Another examination of the development of the organization has been written by Fenton

Bresler, however this book represents something in between a novel and a research.

Regrettably few studies exist on the subject of international police cooperation. Hsi-

Huey Liang provides with a historical approach on the modern law enforcement in his

bookThe Rise of Modern Police and the European State System from Metternich to the

Second World War. This book gives a long-term perspective of the origins of the modern

police system. An important view on the subject of study is presented in Peter Andreas

and Ethan Nadelmanns bookPolicing the Globe: Criminalization and Crime Control

in International Relations. Andreas and Nadelmann challenge the predominant16 Fooner, 1989, 12-15.

8


9/100

functionalist narrative about the internationalization of the police as a result of the

globalization of crime and give a historical perspective to the phenomenon.

Terrorism has been a much more popular field of research. Bruce Hoffmans vast study

Inside Terrorism has provided me with vital information on the history of terrorism. As

it happens, the study was written in 1998, so it gives a good picture of the way the

terrorist threat was seen the year when Interpol made its changes of policy discussed in

this paper.

Michael Collyer and John Gray have made interesting remarks on the parallels of the

anarchist threat in the late nineteenth century and the terrorist threat in the late twentieth

and early twenty-first centuries. Michael Collyer contrasts the changes in the British

migration/ anti-terrorist legislation in response to the terrorist activities of the anarchists

in late nineteenth century and the Islamists recently in his article Secret Agents:

Anarchists, Islamists and responses to politically active refugees in London (2005). His

compares the political responses of the two periods as I concentrate on the responses

made in the context of international police cooperation.17 His approach is interesting and

he makes notes that are valid also to my question of study. John Grays bookAl Qaeda

and What it Means to be Modern tackles the question of todays terrorism and suggests

that terrorism actually is a by-product of modernity and draws important parts of its

ideology from the Western world. He claims that The intellectual roots of radical Islam

are in the European Counter-Enlightenment.18 According to Gray, many ideas of

todays radical Islam have been borrowed from the European anarchists of late

nineteenth century.19

1.3. Sources

My sources include the final propositions of the Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome

1898 and the resolutions about terrorism by Interpol. These documents are made for

different purposes, but still are in my opinion comparable. Both the resolutions made by

17 Collyer, 2005.

18 Gray, 2003, 25.19 Gray, 2003, 24.

9


10/100

Interpol and the final propositions of the Anti-Anarchist Conference have been prepared

internationally. All the words included in the documents have been pondered carefully

and are the results of many compromises.

The document on the final propositions of the Rome conference was declared secret. It

has now been published in a vast bookEarly Writings on Terrorism by Ruth Kinna

(2006). This edition contains a copy of the original document that is found at the

National Archive (Archivio di Stata) of Rome.20 The document was originally published

in French in three hundred copies that were distributed exclusively to the participants of

the conference and European chancelleries. I have not visited the archive in Rome, but I

do possess copies of the program of the conference and the suggestions for the final

propositions and also the amendments that some countries have made. These documents

are found at the National Archive of the United Kingdom 21, and contain a lot of

information that would be worth a wider study. In this study, the process of the making

of the final propositions is not discussed, since the aim of this study is not to evaluate

the process, but to discuss the eventual representation of the propositions.

It is interesting to see what are the words and phrases that have been accepted by

various countries of differing interests; in the case of the Anti-Anarchist Conference

twenty-one European countries and in the case of Interpol a number of countries that

has been growing throughout its history from 1923 onward and is now at 186 member

states.

It is important to remark that even though the resolutions made by Interpol in its

General Assembly meetings each year have been made public, and published, nowadays

also online, the resolutions made by the Anti-Anarchist Conference were considered topsecret. In both cases the outcome needed to conform with the wished of the ones

participating in their making. In the case of Interpol, in addition, the writers had a wide

audience to think about. In contrast to the Interpol resolutions published online, the

propositions of the AAC were written as a treaty between the participant countries and

were kept secret from the public. In order to justifiably compare the two different types

of documents, this must be kept in mind.

20 Jensen, 1981, Tamburini, 1997.21 Correspondence, FO 881/ 7179, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU.

10


11/100

Notwithstanding, there are also prominent similarities between the sources examined:

both are written as declarations and are well prepared. The purpose of the documents is

to bind the countries that have been participating in their preparation. However, Interpol

has only a limited authority regarding to national police, as most international bodies 22

and in fact the AAC had none; its decisions were non-binding. Therefore, at the same

time as the resolutions are analyzed, it must be kept in mind that they have not

necessarily been applied accordingly.

Both the Interpol resolutions and the final propositions of the AAC are the result of long

negotiations between countries of notably different political conditions. All of the

sources evaluated are also the product of their own time; an issue that could cause some

difficulties for the analysis. Even though one could think that this could undermine the

whole starting point of the study, I do not find this to be a problem. It is something that

has to be taken into consideration, but it is also a problem that every person writing

about the past has to face; irrespective of the scope of time dealt with.

22 Liang, 1992, 14.

11


12/100

2. Depoliticization

International police cooperation is a mix of two different types of police sometimes

known as the high and low police23, the political and criminal police. Usually it is

considered as an extension to national criminal police, but at least the Anti-Anarchist

Conference of Rome dealt with issues of highly political nature. 24 The concepts of high

(political) and low (criminal) police clearly show the differences between the AAC of

Rome and Interpol: Interpol has more clearly been representing the low police as the

AAC seems to have had more features of the high police. Whereas the low police

usually seeks to prosecute and condemn the criminals, the aim of the work of the high

police is to collect intelligence and to disrupt the illegal activities of the adversaries.25

The high police are more likely to act extralegally, 26 something that might have ensued

from the propositions of the AAC. A clear example of the dissimilarities of the two

approaches can be drawn from what Andreas and Nadelmann have noted:

The most concentrated international police efforts were reserved, however, for the

Bolsheviks, who provided much the same spark for international police collaboration that

the anarchists had before the war [World War I]. [] Politically motivated crimes and

investigations continued to influence the evolution of police cooperation in Europe duringthe 1930s. Interpols channels were generally closed to communications in this area, so

police and security officials charged with surveillance of Bolsheviks and other political

adversaries maintained direct contacts with one another.27

Despite these differences, both Interpol and the AAC apparently had a similar goal: to

tackle terrorism in the most acceptable way possible, something that resulted, as I argue,

in the depoliticization and, respectively, criminalization of the phenomenon.

Depoliticization in the case is understood as an effort to negate the political and wider

social motivations of the anarchist and terrorist groups.

23 Andreas and Nadelmann, 2006, 61.24 Political policing is generally directed at those individuals who challenge (or are perceived to

challenge) the legitimacy and rules of a regime in ways not acceptable to the regime.Andreas and

Nadelmann, 2006, 62. This definition is of course wide, but it is clear that anarchist actions can be put

under it. In some cases the terrorists today might also be subjected to political policing.25 Andreas and Nadelmann, 2006, 62.

26 Andreas and Nadelmann, 2006, 63.27 Andreas and Nadelmann, 2006, 92-93.

12


13/100

The concept of depoliticization is frequently used in this study and needs to be clarified.

What makes this task challenging is the extreme ambiguity of the concept. 28 This

chapter aspires to elucidate the interpretation of the concept in the framework of this

paper.

The concept of depoliticization can be used for various purposes. Besides an official act

performed by a government it can be brought about by the media (e.g. depoliticizing a

conflict) or by actors such as the AAC and Interpol on a certain issue. It can also be

understood as a process in the society.29 Depoliticizing in the case of Interpol and the

AAC meant that the ideology behind the terrorist actions was put aside and the criminal

nature of the acts was emphasized. Terrorism was depoliticized by breaking terrorist

acts down into their constituent parts, so that their criminal elements could be identified

and subjected to police investigations.30 Understanding terrorism separate from its

ideological motivations, enables to consider it criminal. This way terrorism can be

separated from politics. Repoliticizing is the opposite: by underlining the political

nature of terrorist acts, acts usually perceived as criminal, are given justification by their

supporters.

An online dictionary defines depoliticization and depoliticizing equally and in a

straightforward manner:

To remove the political aspect from; remove from political influence or control.31

Both of these different connotations are present in the subject of study. Anarchism and

terrorism were removed from political control when governments decided they should

be addressed on the international level. However, the implication more central to the

study is to remove the political aspect from, the issue plunged into in this paper when

examining the anti-anarchism of the AAC of Rome and the anti-terrorism of Interpol. In

general, something depoliticized is interpreted as politically neutral. 32 It could also be

perceived as the opposite of politicization. Kari Palonen clarifies the meaning of

politicization by comparing it with politicking.

28 [] lextrme ambigut du concept [] Vedel, 1962, 5.29http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticization.30 Deflem, 2006.

31http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticisation, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticize.32 Turner, 1989, 550.

13
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticisationhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticisationhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticisationhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticizehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticisationhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticisationhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/depoliticize


14/100

In Weberian terms I consider politicking as the search for new power shares within an

existing polity, while politicisation concerns the redistribution of such shares in a polity-

complex in a manner that opens new Spielrume for politicking.33

Depoliticization thus removes an issue from the sweep of political. This relates also to

the subjecting of anarchism and terrorism to the control of the police, moreover, the

international police cooperation.

The concept of depoliticization is used in this study in a manner that differs from its

traditional use.

Depoliticization in the context of this study is used to describe the outcome of the act of

depoliticizing. The concept is thus not applied to describe a passive phenomenon and a

reality in the society as in the 1960s, 34but a deliberative act. Examples of the use of the

strategy of depoliticizing can be found in history. It has been stated that modern

liberalism was founded on the depoliticization of religion as a result of the wars on

religion.35

At the beginning of the 1960s, depoliticization referred to a passive phenomenon. There

was a fear and assumption of the depoliticization of the society in some Western

European countries.36 At the time this signified a threat.37 Contemporaries characterizedthe phenomenon as the erosion of ideology.38 It was distinguished from the contrary

of politicization, politicization regarded institutions and depoliticization persons. 39 It

was specified that there was a difference between depoliticization and the organized

depoliticization, meaning the effort to diminish the interests of citizens toward large

public issues.40 Moreover, a distinction was made between depoliticization and

apolitical: when the term depoliticization is used, it refers to a decline or decrease in the

political, as apolitical signifies an absence of political. This decline could have occurredin various issues. These issues included for instance the participation in the party

33 Palonen, 2003.34 Himmelstrand, 1961; Vedel, 1962.35 Turner, 1989, 555.36 Himmelstrand, 1961; Vedel, 1962, 8.37 Vedel, 1962, 11.38 Himmelstrand, 1961, 2.

39 Vedel, 1962, 12.40 Vedel, 1962, 17.

14


15/100

politics or elections or the interest in the political decisions and debates.41

Himmelstrand described depoliticization in the following manner in 1961:

Depoliticization implies a transformation of political ideologies into a fairly unified

political technology based on a widespread consensus as to what kind of goals one should

try to attain. In this transformation a necessary element seems to be the gradual

redistribution in the political debate of various types of content. Issues with factual,

technical or economical implications become more frequent and references to values

prominent in traditional political ideologies more scarce. [] It seems, then, that there are

at least two dimensions of depoliticization: one which can be expressed as a ratio of issues

with factual , technical and economical implications over all issues appearing in the

political debate, and another dimension which can be defined as the degree of dissociation

between references to ideological values and the discussion of practical, political problems.

42

Depoliticization was differentiated from depoliticizing as well, the first being passive

and the second active. Depoliticization was always something lamentable. What the

views of the 1960s had in common, was this pejorative approach to the phenomenon. In

this study, the above distinction is not made, since the use of the term depoliticization in

the manner it was applied in the 1960s is no longer prevalent. In the context of this

study, depoliticization is used as a synonym to criminalization, an employment adopted

by Mathieu Deflem.43He sees that the depoliticizing, or criminalization of terrorism isaccomplished by defining terrorism very vaguely (a crime against humanity) and/or by

identifying and isolating the distinctly criminal elements (bombings, killings) from

terrorist incidents.

Depoliticization can also be understood as the transfer of functions commonly thought

as political to organs that are (at least to some extent) remote from political control. 44

Buller and Flinders have argued: This may involve the creation of decision-makingarenas that are theoretically insulated from political pressures or the adoption of rule-

41 Vedel, 1962, 37.42 Himmelstrand, 1961, 9.43 E.g. In terms of the objectives of social control, the bureaucratization of policing involves most

noticeably a de-politicization of the target of counter-terrorism. This criminalization of terrorism is

accomplished by defining terrorism very vaguely (a crime against humanity) and/or by identifying and

isolating the distinctly criminal elements (bombings, killings) from terrorist incidents. Deflem, 2006.44 Buller and Flinders, 2005.

15


16/100

based systems that remove or significantly diminish the discretion of politicians.45 An

example of this is the transferring of law enforcement tasks to an international arena.

However, in the cases of the AAC and Interpol, the transfer was only spurious; the

actual decision-making power resided with the national governments as the decisions of

the conference and of Interpol were not binding. In a self-contradictory manner, the act

of depoliticizing is thus an extremely political act. It can be used by the state in a

situation of crisis when the intervention of the state is justified by the national interest.

Depoliticization is occasionally used to describe governmental action and something

executed nationally. National depoliticization can be divided into three different tactics:

1. Institutional depoliticization, where politicians give the broad framework of

action and a relative amount of freedom to specialists or businessmen in order to

provide independence from short-term political considerations such as vote

seeking. This can be reasoned with arguments such as the need for profound

knowledge and operational flexibility. These grounds have been used when tasks

usually managed by the public sector are delegated into the private sector.

2. Rule-based depoliticization involves the adoption of a policy that builds

explicit rules into the decision-making process, which by its very nature

minimizes the need for political discretion or choice. This has been used for

instance to govern the monetary policy.

3. Preference shaping depoliticization uses [] ideological or rhetorical claims in

order to justify a political position that a certain issue or function does, or

should, lie beyond the scope of politics or the capacity for state control. This

tactic attempts to shape the public expectations about the capacity of the state and

the responsibilities of politicians.46

Anarchism and terrorism were in fact depoliticized twice in the course of the events that

led to the declarations of the AAC of Rome in 1898 and Interpol in 1998. This was first

executed prior to the meetings had even materialized, when it was decided by

governments that the issues should be dealt with internationally and by the

representatives of the police instead of those of governments. This represents the

institutional depoliticization.

45 Buller and Flinders, 2005.46 Buller and Flinders, 2005.

16


17/100

Flinders and Buller argue that depoliticization should be referred to as arena-shifting:

[] decisions are made no less political by delegating them to an independent body or

making them according to a rule-based framework. In reality politics is transferred to a new

arena.[]While politicians may seek to insulate certain issues from the political domain, it

is unlikely that the wider public of that polity will accept that a certain issue is no longer

political. It is clear from past experience that if an issue becomes politically salient in the

eyes of the public it will make little difference to the public whether the policy is the

responsibility of a state-owned company, an independent regulator or a quasi-autonomous

agency.47

This kind of depoliticization raises the question of accountability, when issues

previously managed by democratically elected politicians are transferred to organsunder no democratic surveillance.

Depoliticization can thus protect the government from the consequences of unpopular

policies.

However, the depoliticization that is discussed in this study was not implemented in the

manner the term is often understood. The depoliticization in the AAC and Interpol was

done by defining issues commonly considered political as non-political.

Depoliticization was thus not undertaken by the police in order to wash their hands

from these issues, and leave them for others to administer. On the contrary, it enabled

law enforcement to act against anarchism and terrorism, through the use of criminal

investigation.

47 Buller and Flinders, 2005.

17


18/100

3. The International Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome 1898

In the decades preceding the First World War, European countries were desperate to find

the measures to control and suppress the most feared enemy of the time: anarchist

terrorism. In the course of the 1890s sixty people were killed and some two hundred

wounded in incidents that were claimed to have been organized by anarchists.48

At first, the means to fight anarchist terrorism were sought for at the national level, but

it soon became evident that international cooperation would be required in order to

succeed in the suppression.49 According to Mathieu Deflem, the reason for the

increasing interest for international police cooperation was the bureaucratization of law

enforcement institutions throughout the Western world. His theory holds that the more

autonomy police institutions get from the governments, the more opportunity there is

for international collaboration among national police institutions.50 With more

autonomy, the work of the police concentrates on the practical side of the suppression of

crime. Hence it becomes easier to find international approval for the measures.

Mathieu Deflem states that [] International police cooperation for purposes ofcriminal enforcement, such as they continue to exist until this day, have origins in

distinctly political efforts.51 In the late nineteenth century, when international police

cooperation was emerging, it first seemed that the cooperation would not rely on

principles of international law, and would not focus on political crimes. In this context,

it was surprising that the first step that was taken toward more organized international

police cooperation was attempted on such highly political issue as anarchism.52

48 Deflem, 2002.49 Jensen, 1981.50 Deflem, 2002.51 Deflem, 2005.52 Deflem, 2005; Fijnaut mentiones that the conference was organized to discuss how to combat

revolutionary violence from anarchists, Communists and others. Fijnaut, 1997, 110. The fact that the

fight included communists and others is not explicated and the only reference in this paragraph is the

work of Jensen, 1981.

18


19/100

Nevertheless, the outcome of the conference was concentrated on criminal matters and

not on the political aspects of anarchism.53

The murder of the Empress of Austria, Elizabeth, on 10 September 1898, caused, as

Richard Bach Jensen has summed it, a wave of hysteria54 across Europe. The Austrian

foreign minister Count Goluchowsky referred to anarchists as wild beasts without

nationality, who were a menace not only to sovereign rulers but to all persons and all

private property.55 The assassin of the Empress was a young Italian anarchist, Luigi

Lucheni. The press published the news, and the course of events led to wide-spread riots

against Italy. The Italian government was alarmed, and its anxiety grew, as the French

and Russian authorities claimed that the killing of the Empress was only the beginning

of a wider anarchist plot.They gave warning that the next head of state menaced would

be the King of Italy, Umberto I, himself.56 The claimed existence of an anarchist

conspiracy suited well the press, that got more sensational headlines and, above all, the

police and the government that used it for the restrictions of civil liberties, the press and

the rights of association.57 The ruling class in Italy viewed anarchism and the anarchist

attacks one of the most important enemies that needed to be exterminated. 58 Italy also

wanted to assure Europe that it was serious about fighting against anarchism, in a

situation where a large part of the attackers were Italian. 59 The press had regularly been

calling for extreme measures against the anarchist threat, and after almost every

anarchist attempt, there was demands for a joint international cooperation against

anarchism.60 In this situation, Rome decided to call for a European-wide Anti-Anarchist

Conference. England was the last of the great powers to decide to join the conference. 61

53

Deflem, 2005.54 Jensen, 1981, 325.55 Cited in Liang, 1992, 160.56 Jensen, 1981, 325 and Tamburini, 1997, 230; However, the anarchist community was not a whole. E.g.

only a small group of anarchists had subscribed to the killing of the Empress. Tamburini, 2000, 45.57 Tamburini, 2000, 45.58 Tamburini, 1997, 230.59 Tamburini, 1997, 230. Tamburini, 2000, 45.60 Tamburini, 1997, 228-229.

61 Jensen, 326.; The British Government also had been pressured to act by France and Russia, where the

heads of state had recently been assassinated by individuals linked to London. Collyer, 2005, 287.

19


20/100

The secretly held62 International Conference of Rome for the Social Defence Against

Anarchists was opened on November 24, 1898, and it was attended by the

representatives of twenty-one European countries.63 The secrecy was so total, that some

historians almost a century later have even claimed that the conference was never

organized.64 The objective of the conference was to devise and to put into practice a

common defense system against anarchist acts and against the propagation of anarchist

theories.65

The fact that countries with very different ideologies, such as France, England, the

German Empire, and Switzerland,66 took part in the conference shows the wide

international acceptance for the importance for such a gathering to be organized.67 Most

of the participants were government representatives, but also national police heads of

Russia, France and Belgium and municipal police chiefs of Berlin, Vienna and

Stockholm were present. The delegates discussed the following topics: the formulation

of an appropriate concept of anarchism, legislative measures against anarchism, and the

development of international anti-anarchist law enforcement measures. 68 The final

62 Tamburini, 1997, 227.63 Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, the Principality

of Monaco, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Sweden and Norway,

Switzerland, and Turkey. PROPOSITIONS arrtes par la Confrence internationale runie Rome sur

linitiative du Gouvernement Italien en vue dtudier et dtablir les moyens les plus efficacies pour

combattre la propaganda anarchique et soumises par elle lappreciation des Gouvernements qui sy

trouvaient reprsents. Rome, December 21, 1898. Published in Kinna, 2006, 328-329. (Henceforth

referred to as the final propositions of the AAC of Rome 1898.)64 Tamburini, 1997, 228; Jensen, 1981, 323.65 The final propositions of the AAC of Rome, 1898.

More about the fight against anarchist propaganda in the chapter The International Anti-anarchist

Conference of Rome.66 France and Switzerland had changed their policy of providing asylum for political expatriates in the

1890s because of the growing fear of anarchist danger. On the contrary, all immigrants could access the

United Kingdom freely during the period between 1826 and 1905. Extradition for political reasons was

not possible. Di Paola, 2007, 190.

67 Deflem, 2005.68Deflem, 2005 and Jensen, 1981.

20


21/100

propositions were signed by all attendants except for the Great Britain,69 a country that

had a long tradition of being the liberal asylum for political criminals.70

69 Tamburini, 1997, 250.70 Di Paola, 2007.

21


22/100

4. Interpol

4.1. The debated origins of Interpol

As I learned about Interpol, some puzzling aspects surfaced. It is a police organization

without police powers; it is an international governmental organization without a founding

treaty or convention to establish its legitimacy formally. But then again, the organization is

marked by a surprising spirit of voluntary cooperation and harmony among a dissimilar and

divergent group of races, religions, creeds, political persuasions, and cultural levels.71

Criminals do not stop at national borders, why should police organizations?72 Both

international crime and international law enforcement expanded during the decades

prior to the First World War.73 The International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC)

nowadays known as the International Criminal Police Organization Interpol, 74 was

founded in Vienna in 1923, which makes it a quarter century older than the United

Nations. It is an intergovernmental organization that is considerably little known,

despite its status as the worlds oldest still active organ of international cooperation. Its

objective was and has been to prevent and stop international crime.

Some twenty countries were represented in the Vienna conference in 1923 held to

discuss the issue of international crime, particularly drug trade. The delegates decided to

create an organization through which this could be facilitated. 75 The basic idea of the

functioning of the organization is to have in each member state central police offices

71 Fooner, 1989, 12.72 However, as James Sheptycki notes: In popular language, as well as a good deal of the more studied

discourses of academic criminologists, there is a commonly held idea that our globalizing world has

produced transnational criminals of various stripes and that there is therefore an established need to

develop transnational policing. - - - transnational police institutions and their object (transnational crime)

have been constructed on the basis of a simplistic worldview that depicts existence as a perpetual battle of

good against evil. Sheptycki, 2007.73 Andreas and Nadelmann, 2006, 79.

74http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asp75 Fijnaut, 1997, 111.

22
http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asp


23/100

that can easily communicate and cooperate.76 This is both the weakness and the strength

of the organization: Interpol is as weak as the local law enforcement offices allow it to

be.77

Even though Interpol was founded only78 a quarter century after the assembly of the

Anti-Anarchist Conference of 1898, the organization can be considered the descendant

or at least a step-child of the Rome conference.79 Jensen claims that the inter-European

cooperation against anarchists that was first coordinated in the conference of Rome laid

the basis for the future worldwide cooperation of the police under the organization of

Interpol.80 However, only the formation of Interpol organized international police

cooperation on a more permanent basis.81

Commonly, the history of Interpol is considered to have begun in 1914, when the first

International Criminal Police Congress was held in Monaco. 82 In the congress, police

officers, lawyers and magistrates met to discuss arrest procedures, identification

techniques, centralized international criminal records and extradition proceedings. 83

Present were some three hundred people from fifteen countries of Europe, Central

America, North Africa and the Middle East.84 Its achievements were modest: French

was chosen as the language used in international police communications and

preparations for the creation of standardized procedures for police identifications were

made for a future conference.85 Many consider this conference as the starting point for

the creation of Interpol. The 1923 conference that established the organization officially

76 Fooner, 1989, 71.77 Fenton Bresler in the Interpol documentary, 2007.78 Interpol was not founded with an international treaty, as Fooner points out in the above quote. Its

position as an international intergovernmental organization has been established over time. (Anderson,1989, 57). In fact, the pre-1938 ICPC can not be even called an intergovernmental organization.

(Anderson, 1989, 58). The League of Nations accepted the ICPC as an advisory board in the field of

crime prevention in 1933. (Fijnaut, 1997).79 Jensen, 1981.80 Jensen, 1981.81 Deflem, 2005.82 Anderson, 1989, 38;http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asp.83http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asp

84 Fooner, 1989, 31.85 Liang, 1992, 154.

23
http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/governance/sg/history.asp


24/100

has been seen as the planned follow-up of the 1914 meeting.86 Some of the visions that

had been present in 1914, were indeed implemented in 1923. 87 However, it cannot be

said that the 1923 conference continued where the 1914 conference left off. Tuija

Hietaniemi has argued that the importance of the Monaco Conference to the history of

law enforcement has been overestimated. It was a joint meeting of police officials of the

countries within which Romanic languages were used. Northern European countries

were not present even as private persons. The meeting was crowded with the French,

who got train tickets for half price. Russians were also represented. Important issues

for the international police cooperation were dealt with, but the most consequential

matter were discussions about the systems for the identifications of criminals.88

The Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome in 1898 was the first time in history of a

professional police meeting that interested also governments. The question of whether it

laid the basis for the creation of Interpol, can be debated. Malcolm Anderson (1989) has

asserted:

Although it has been argued that the secret conference held in Rome in 1898 to co-ordinate

international action against anarchist bomb outrages was the forerunner of Interpol, the

Rome conference was more like the anti-terrorist action co-ordinated by the Trevi group

established in 1997.89

Despite and because of these different views about the true origins of Interpol, in this

paper, I want to look further in Jensens claim and explore the similarities between the

way Interpol has been coping with terrorism in the late twentieth century and the anti-

anarchist propositions made at the AAC of 1898.

4.2. The structure and functions of Interpol

Interpol represents the worlds largest international police organization with its 186

member countries. Its mission is to encounter international crime and to organize joint

86 The meeting was called The Second International Criminal Police Congress, to signal that it continued

where the Monaco meeting had left off. Fooner, 1989, 32.87 Fijnaut, 1997, 112.88 Hietaniemi, 1997, 67. My translation. Also Fijnaut points out that the results of the Monaco conference

were limited. Fijnaut, 1997, 109.89 Anderson, 1989, 38.

24


25/100

action even between countries that do not have official diplomatic relations. 90 It is a

police institution without conventional police powers.91Since its foundation in 1923, the

organization has been open to all who have wished to join. Nowadays its headquarters is

situated in France. It has four official languages: English, French, Spanish and Arabic.92

The organization has four main organs, three of which in the headquarters: the General

Assemblywhich [] takes all the major decisions affecting general policy, the

resources needed for international co-operation, working methods, finances and

programs of activities.93 The Executive Committee prepares the agenda for the General

Assembly meetings that take place once year and supervises that the decisions made are

implemented. The General Secretariat implements the decisions. The General

Secretariat works every day of the year. In addition to these three main organs, the

organization consists of the National Central Bureaus (NCB), that work in each member

country. Interpol can also use consultants, who can be consulted on specific issues, but

who do not have voting power in the organization. 94

The organizational structure of Interpol

The decision-making process of Interpol involves that all votes are in general done witha simple majority. No country has a right of veto or more votes than others. However,

this does not mean that all countries would have the same amount of power in the

90www.interpol.int.91 Fooner, 1989, 90.92www.interpol.int.

93http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/GeneralAssembly/default.asp.94www.interpol.int.

25
http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/GeneralAssembly/default.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/GeneralAssembly/default.asphttp://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/GeneralAssembly/default.asphttp://www.interpol.int/


26/100

organization,95 for part of the influencing occurs before the voting and unofficially. The

decision-making process is not revealed in detail, because of its confidentiality.96

On its homepage, Interpol lists its core functions: 1. To securecommunication between

law enforcement officials internationally, 2. To maintain a database on criminals and

stolen property, 3 . To offer support in fighting crime.97 What is clearly visible also in

these functions, is that Interpol is not an organ of direct action, but mostly an organ of

background and support work. Operations are reserved for national law enforcement. It

is also evident, that neither Interpol nor the AAC of Rome have tried to tackle the

reasons behind international crime, often said to be the gap between the chances for life

and the standards of living between people.98

The field of action includes fighting drugs and organized crime, financial and high-tech

crime, trafficking in human beings, and other crime areas such as genocide, war crimes,

crime against humanity, environmental crimes and law enforcement corruption. 99 All

these are widely agreed to be serious crimes.100 A fundamental part of the work of the

organization consists of the apprehension of fugitives and serving as a tool for the

national bureaus in suppressing and preventing terrorism.101

Interpol has not had much public attention, which has circulated rumors and suspicions

about the actions of the organization. The lack of publicity partly results from the low

level of financial resources devoted to international police cooperation. 102 Interpol is

primarily financed through fees by member countries; each country pays an annual sum

of money agreed on separately. The budget of the organization in 2007 was 44.5 million

95

Sheptycki, 2002; See also the critique for the WTO, that has the same basic structure in its decision-making e.g. Jawara and Kwa, 2003.96 Anderson, 1989, 93.97http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/about.asp.98 Sheptycki, 2007.99www.interpol.int.100 Anderson, 1989, 27.101www.interpol.int.102 Anderson writes this in 1989 (Anderson, 1989, 53), my assumption would be that at least in developed

nations, the amount information has considerably grown. At least the Interpol-website is available to all

and well presented.

26
http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/about.asphttp://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/about.asphttp://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/Public/icpo/about.asphttp://www.interpol.int/http://www.interpol.int/


27/100

Euros, which as a sum is notably low when one is looking at an organization of nearly

two hundred countries.103

103http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/GI01.pdf.

27
http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/GI01.pdfhttp://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/GI01.pdfhttp://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/GI01.pdfhttp://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/FactSheets/GI01.pdf


28/100

5. Depoliticization of anarchism and terrorism

This chapter presents the central concepts that are used in this study, anarchism and

terrorism. It seeks to provide with a point of view to the problematic nature of the use of

these concepts, that even experts have not yet managed to unanimously define. The

definitions show that both concepts and what is included in their definitions are

inherently political. The political nature of these two phenomena gives a good basis for

the analyze of the propositions of the Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome and the

resolutions formulated by Interpol on terrorism. The chapter describes the ways in

which the Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome in 1898 and Interpol in 1998

depoliticized anarchism and terrorism.

5.1. The political nature of anarchism and terrorism

Institutionalized discourse such as that which has fomented around the concepts of

transnational crime and terrorism fix meanings regarding phenomena that are essentially

dynamic conceptual categories. Once the terms of discourse are naturalized, the institutionsthey express are endowed with rightness and the implications of the language choices made

then cascade through all other levels of our thinking.104

This citation gives an important viewpoint to the choice of not choosing only one

definition of anarchism or terrorism in this study. Both terrorism and anarchism are very

difficult to define and thus to encounter, especially at the international level. James

Sheptycki has argued that the idea of transnational policing [] rests upon the

designation of suitable enemies who play the bad-guy counterpart to the good-guy

technocratic police experts []105 The use of language of the new international of

technocratic police experts simplify the threats in order to identify suitable enemies.

The stereotypes of enemies represent the globally criminalized other that threatens a

just and true world order. 106

104 Sheptycki, 2007, 2.

105 Sheptycki, 2007, 11.106 Sheptycki, 2007, 5.

28


29/100

Definitions on terrorism and anarchism exist, but usually they are very vague. The

biggest problem is that whatever the definition is, it is somehow political. This chapter

introduces some of the possible definitions for anarchism and terrorism, and presents

the way these concepts are used in this study. It is a political decision to choose a

definition for these words. That is why I have tried to avoid it.

By definition, terrorism and anarchism are political concepts. Most of the

characterizations of these concepts perceive the two phenomena as inherently political.

Otherwise, the definitions do not seem to have anything overarching.

6.1.1. Anarchism

We might search in vain perhaps for a better definition of anarchism than that just given

by a little girl twelve years old. Asked by a person who did not know the facts, what her

father was doing abroad, the little girl replied: Hes working for Anarchy. But do you

know, little one what Anarchy means? O yes, it means hating God, the Government and

the rich!. 107

A contemporary viewpoint on the anarchist peril gives an indication of the difficulties ofdefining anarchism. First of all, the definition depends on who is defining and secondly,

some definitions may seem pejorative from one point of view and flattering from

another.

Anarchism has often been related with terrorism, even in this study. It is crucial ,

however, to notice the difference between the two concepts and their backgrounds. The

etymology of the word anarchism dates to ancient Greek with the meaning of without

rulers, absence of leader/ chief. The difference of opinion in defining anarchism lies in

the way in which the action, the will to eliminate the government and the more passive

ideology are emphasized, propaganda by the deed versus propaganda of the word. 108

Anarchists could be classified into two types: the philosophical and the fighting

anarchists, one believing in the attainment of anarchy by the peaceful process of

evolution and the other by the employment of force and revolution.109

107 Professor G.M. Fiamingo in Kinna, 2006, vol. 2, 99.

108 Kinna, 2006, vol. 1, xxv.109 Charles Merriam, 1926, cited in Borum and Tilby, 2005, 204.

29


30/100

One definition of anarchism is presented in Sen M. Sheehans bookAnarchism: The

etymology of the word [] signals what is distinctive about anarchism: a rejection of

the need for the centralized authority of the unitary state, the only form of government

most of us have ever experienced.110A more anti-anarchist definition is found in the

dictionaryFacta 2001 that refers to anarchism as an ideology that struggles against all

social, political and economic order of the state or society and aspires a way of life free

from laws and sanctions.111 I call this definition anti-anarchist because it includes the

word to struggle that brings out the idea of anarchism not only as a resistant ideology

but also an ideology of straight action. Borum and Tilby write:

Although modern terrorism has its roots in the tactics of early Russian anarchists,

anarchism itself is not a terrorist philosophy. Terrorism is tactic, or another way of fighting.

It is distinguished from other forms of violence not only by its motive, but by how it

defines a legitimate target (i.e., civilian non-combatants). Anarchistslike any extremist or

activist groupmay use terrorist tactics, but most would agree that anarchism as a social

philosophy certainly does not require it.112

However, as some anarchists of the nineteenth century indeed were terrorists (in this

case meaning that they tried to destroy people or property), others explicitly accentuated

that they did not have any role in the acts of terrorism. Hence referring to all anarchistsas terrorists is not equitable.113 Even Peter Kropotkin, one of the most important

anarchist theoreticians disassociated himself from the policy of propaganda by the

deed.114Additionally, at the end of the nineteenth century, the word terrorism did not

have such a sinister tone that it nowadays has. Some were indeed proud to be

terrorists.115

I will not disregard the problem caused by who can be called anarchist or terrorist, and

who has the power to decide this. However, in my study, this is not relevant. My interest

110 Sheehan, Sen M.: Anarchism, Reaktion Books, London, 2003. (Sheehan, 2003)111 Facta, 2001, 486. aatesuunta, joka taistelee kaikkea valtioon ja yhteiskuntaan liittyv sos., pol., ja tal.

jrjestyst vastaan sek tavoittelee laista ja pakotteista vapaata elmnmuotoa. My italics.112 Borum and Tilby, 2005, 202.113 Jukka Paastela: Terrorismista ja terrorismin tutkimuksesta, in the volume Terrorismi Ilmin tausta ja

aikalaisanalyysej, (ed. Paastela) Eurooppalaisen filosofian seura ry., Tampere 2005, 109. (Paastela, 2005)

114 Kinna, 2006, vol. 1, xxv.115 Herrala and Puistola, 2006, 24.

30


31/100

is to see how anarchism and terrorism were defined political or non-political by the ones

that were holding power at the AAC of Rome and in Interpol in 1998. Whether a person

called anarchist by, say, the Anti-Anarchist Conference in Rome, considered him or

herself anarchist is not substantial in this context.116 As the English delegation at the

AAC of Rome put it:

A definition is not necessary and would be useless. We are not aspiring for an opinion. For

us, the only question is this one: is there crime or not? If the act is criminal, as a murder or

agitation to murder, it does not become more criminal because it originates from anarchist

thought. If the act is not criminal, it does not become criminal because of the fact that it is

anarchist.117

It has to be noticed that people with very different motives and also innocent people

could have been branded anarchist or terrorist. This question was raised in the AAC of

Rome as the Russians wanted the definition of anarchism to include a complement: a

person could be called anarchist independent of the designation they give themselves.

This was not added to the final version of the proposition text.118

The conference dealt with anarchists as a whole, and the final propositions include

measures for the suppression of the ideology and not only the acts. 119However, it is not

a presumption of this study that anarchists necessarily had something to do with terroristactions.

6.1.2. Terrorism

The concept of terrorism has, in the past, been pronounced dead, analytically useless, and

only valid in the eye of the beholder. Despite all the problems, the term and concept

continue to be used. This continued use, perhaps because of the lack of a viable alternative,

116About the definitions of terrorism eg. Jervas, 2003, 13-22 or Walker, 2002, 21.117 Cited in Tamburini, 1997, 242 and in Di Paola, 2007, 90. My translation, orig. Une dfinition nest

pas ncessaire et serait inutile. Nous ne poursivons pas lopinion. Pour nous, la seule question est celle-ci:

y a-t-il crime, oui ou non? Si lacte est criminel, tel que meurtre ou lexitation au meurtre, il ne le devient

pas davantage par le fait quil provient de lanarchisme. Sil nest pas criminel, in ne le devient pas par le

fait quil est anarchique.118 Tamburini, 1997, 241. Orig. Quelle que soit la dsignation quils se donnent eux-mmes My

translation.

119 Eg. the hindering of the distribution of anarchist propaganda can be seen as a means to prevent

anarchist terrorism but also as a means to restrain the spread of anarchist ideology.

31


32/100

suggests that the term does seem to be able and useful to describe or denote a social

phenomenon.120

The concept of terrorism is used also in this study, despite all the difficulties that are

related to it. This paragraph presents some possible definitions of terrorism and clarifies

why none of these can be used to define terrorism here.

Terrorism has various definitions, among the most common could be listed the one

found at the English Wikipedia: acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are

perpetrated for an ideological goal and deliberately target non-combatants.121

The United Nations has not defined terrorism, but it often uses the definition written by

Alex P. Schmid that is accepted also by many social scientists

Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)

clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons,

whereby in contrast to assassination the direct targets of violence are not the main

targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets

of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population,

and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes

between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to

manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of

demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or

propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988).122

The United Nations short legal definition, also proposed by Schmid is: an act of

terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime.123

The variety of different types of terrorism can be classified to three categories: state-

sponsored terrorism, popular or national-liberation-movement terrorism and radical-minority terrorism.124 What distinguishes terrorism from ordinary crimes is the

ideological motivation: the incentive for ordinary crimes is usually the seek for

personal gain. For example, according to The Institute for Counter-terrorism (ICT) the

120 Duyvesteyn, 2004, 440.121http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism, version: 17:36, 23 May 2007.122http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

123http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html124 Anderson, 1989, 128.

32
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxietyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipulationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagandahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_P._Schmidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism&oldid=132975328http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrorism&oldid=132975328http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxietyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manipulationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagandahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_P._Schmidhttp://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html


33/100

most important difference between terrorism and what might be perceived as ordinary

crime is that

A terrorist is motivated by a higher cause or ideology that is greater than his or her personal

motivations or gains. He or she acts for the furtherance of that external cause (whether it be

a localized secessionist movement or global jihad) and the benefit this has to both the cause

and the people of it.125

A terrorist seeks benefit not only for him or herself, but also for the cause and/or the

community that supports it. A terrorist might also be glorified for his or her actions;

something that ordinary criminals rarely receive.126 An extensive description of

terrorism is given by the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT):

For the purposes of this database (of MIPT), terrorism is defined by the nature of the act,

not by the identity of the perpetrators or the nature of the cause. Terrorism is violence, or

the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are

designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from

actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of

the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally

directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist

actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike

other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are

intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, havinglong-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by

terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and

the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent,

or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.127

A study by Alex Schmid (1988) compared a large number of existing definitions of

terrorism. Violence was mentioned in 80 percent of the studied definitions, political in

65 percent and fear or terror in 51 percent. This shows how difficult it is to find an

accurate and acceptable definition of terrorism.128 What is noteworthy is that criminal as

a definitional element was only present in 6 percent of the 109 definitions studied. 129 In

a basic typology, terrorism is divided into three types: political, criminal, and

125 Ganor and Conte, 2005.126 Ganor and Conte, 2005.127http://www.tkb.org/RandSummary.jsp?page=about,

128 Referred to in Duyvesteyn, 2004, 440.129 Jongman, Schmid et al., 1988, 5-6.

33
http://www.tkb.org/RandSummary.jsp?page=abouthttp://www.tkb.org/RandSummary.jsp?page=abouthttp://www.tkb.org/RandSummary.jsp?page=about


34/100

idiosyncratic.130 This has been the element Interpol has been concentrating on for the

last ten years, when it has depoliticized terrorism.

Scholars have conflicting opinions on the two different possible conceptual approaches

to terrorism. It is conceivable to judge a terrorist act as an act of warfare or as a criminal

act. By considering terrorism as a crime, it is necessary to treat it like one; to gather

evidence, arrest the perpetrators, and put them on trial. This kind of approach (as that of

Interpol) may pose problems for international cooperation and is not applicable is cases

the terrorist act is executed by a distant organization or a country. To consider

terrorism as warfare the importance of individual guilt is less relevant and the focus is

on the proper identification of the enemy. In contrast, by treating terrorism as an

ordinary crime, the possibility of treating criminals differently for political reasons is

prevented.131

There also are scholars, who see that an act of terrorism is exclusively criminal an

illegitimate act of warfare. Nonetheless, some terrorist violence can become legitimate

or even heroic in among people. This can occur in case what started as a rebellion

succeeds and the former rebellions establish a new form of government.132

What the latest events seem to suggest is that both the warfare and criminal approaches

have been used as the basis for anti-terrorist actions. For instance, the ongoing work of

Interpol represents the criminal approach and the unfinished wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan the warfare approach. Bruce Hoffman notes the differences between a

criminal act and a terrorist act that may seem very similar. A criminal is acting for

selfish reasons and his act is not [] designed or intended to have consequences or

create psychological repercussions beyond the act itself.133A criminal is not aiming ataffecting the public opinion or transmitting a message with his act. 134 Hoffman thus

underlines the political nature of a terrorist act, which is of course in blatant contrast

130 Schmid and de Graaf in Jongman, Schmid et al., 1988, 48.131 Ganor and Conte, 2005.132 Anderson, 1989, 128.

133 Hoffman, 1998, 41.134 Hoffman, 1998, 42.

34


35/100

with the act of depoliticization done by Interpol. He cites a statement that a terrorist

without a cause (at least in his own mind) is not a terrorist.135

Internationally, the regulation of terrorism (under this name) dates back to a convention

adopted by the League of Nations on the Prevention and Punishment of

Terrorism(1937). According to Mathieu Deflem (2006), the convention of the League

of Nations did not get much international support. Since then, international policies on

terrorism usually have focused on specific elements that constitute terrorism (plane

hijackings, bombings, hostage taking), a means to depoliticize the phenomenon and to

facilitate international cooperation. Most counterterrorist strategies on the international

level are about effectively sharing the information among states.136

Terrorism does not represent a populous phenomenon on world scale, according to

Interpols calculations an estimated thousand people were considered active terrorists in

1989.137 Supposedly, the number has grown, but still, the deaths caused by terrorist

attacks are so small in number138 that terrorism would not be a notable issue on world

scale, if it would not create so much insecurity and get so much public attention.139

Nonetheless, it is equally clear that there has been a tendency to exaggerate the dimensions

of the threat and thestrategic impact that terrorist violence has actually wrought. By

overreacting and falling prey to a sense of acute fear and intimidation, the terrorists power

is disproportionately inflated in ways that are both counterproductive and often completely

divorced from reality.140

135 Konrad Kellen, cited in Hoffman, 1998, 43.136 Deflem, 2006.137 Fooner, 1989, 9.138 1,0007,000 yearly deaths compared eg.with the 3.9 million deaths caused by influenza every year.

Richard Jackson in Wolfendale, 2006, 755.139 N.B. The Evening News on Monday, December 17, 1894 estimates the number of anarchists in London

being around 8000. This can put the significance of the phenomenon into perspective comparing to the

amount of terrorists today.140 Hoffman, 2001, 418. Unfortunately, this comment was followed by a note soon to be found erroneous

(the article was published in September 2001):

Americas current preoccupation with Osama bin Laden and attendanthowever inadvertent

lionization of his stature and power is arguably such a case in point. Despite his vast wealth and alleged

legions of minions, it is hardly likely that bin Laden could ever hope to vanquish the U.S. military,

overthrow the government, or achieve any fundamental political changes in American foreign or domestic

policy. Yet, this single individual is held in fear and accorded a stature far in excess of his specific

35


36/100

5.2. The Anti-Anarchist Conference and depoliticization

The Anti-Anarchist Conference of Rome in 1898 was held in a situation of political

turmoil created by anarchist activities in Europe. The aim of the conference was to

create and facilitate international police cooperation among the participating states. It

gathered decision makers and authorities to discuss the anarchist peril in colloquies that

were organized from the 24 November until 21 December 1898.141

The conference in Rome and its follower, the conference of St. Petersburg in 1904,

managed to create a more formal ground for the practical police cooperation that had

existed throughout the nineteenth century. The conference was a break-through in some

areas of international cooperation and was the first organized international event of this

sort. The international network of law enforcement offices had existed already before

1898.142 At the beginning of the conference, the participants agreed on policies of the

decision-making. It was decided that every delegation should have one vote,

irrespective of the number of delegates and that the process. Additionally, the

attendants agreed that the outcomes of the conference would be kept secret.143

Even though all participants saw the conference as a significant event, the political

aspects that are related to the fight against anarchism were sensitive. The invitation to

the conference was carefully made to emphasize the practical side of the police actions

against anarchism, and it explicitly stated that technical and administrative staff were

invited.144

capabilities and unique accumulation of financial resources or even what one human being could

conceivably wield over a long-established nation-state, much less the globes sole superpower.141 Jensen, 1981.142 Deflem, 2002, 70-77, Deflem, 2005. Tamburini, 1997, 243. There had even been a previous call for an

international conference against nihilism by Russia after the assassination of the Tsar in 1881. Di Paola,

2007, 191.

143 Final propositions of the AAC of Rome 1898.144 Liang, 1992, 162.

36


37/100

The conference in Rome along with the one held in St. Petersburg intensified the level

of police cooperation in Europe. The significance of this was not apparent in large

issues, but as the first step toward a more intense partnership, the conference did

succeed. For instance new anti-anarchist intelligence bureaus were set up in several of

the states that had participated.145

The concentration on the low level of operation led to the partial success of the anti-

anarchist treaties of Rome and St. Petersburg. The police officials

Documents

JJansson These de Master