A Question of Definitions

Virtually all agree on one thing about terrorism: they are against it. The trouble is in defining it. Secretary of State George Shultz ran into that difficulty with the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week when he testified in favor of Administration-backed proposals to combat the scourge. The legislators voiced few objections to a bill that would give rewards of up to $500,000 to those who provide information about terrorist acts. But they balked at one that would empower the Secretary to designate any government as "terrorist" and make it a crime for an American to furnish training or support for its activities or to act "in concert" with it.

Congressmen peppered Shultz with problematic cases.

Would Saudi Arabia be considered guilty of terrorism because it helps fund the Palestine Liberation Organization? (If so, might the U.S. Government fall prey to the bill's criminal penalty for having sold the Saudis F-15 jets and other weapons?) What definitions would distinguish between Afghan rebels and Nicaraguan contras on one hand, and Salvadoran rebels on the other? Shultz's answers were hardly illuminating: "I think the concept must be different between an insurgency that is open and a terrorist organization and action." The Congressmen seemed confused. "We have to proceed with care," Shultz concluded. "That is the message being given to us in these hearings."