How Nuclear Deterrence during the Cold War

Shaped the Definition of Terrorism

De La Salle University

International Studies Department

Submitted by

Maria Isabella Balcon

Thesis Mentor

Mr. John Phillip Binondo

 Table of Contents

I. Background of the Study 2

A. Introduction 3
1. Terrorism
2. Neo Colonialism
B. Statement of the Problem 7
C. Corollary Questions 7
D. Significance of the Study 8

II. Review of Related Literature 9

Russia During the Cold War 9
The United States in the Cold War 17
Conclusion 24

III. Theoretical Framework 27

Social Constructivism Theory 27
Nuclear Deterrence Theory 29
Assumptions of Nuclear Deterrence Theory 32

IV. Methodology 36
Method of Research 36
Data Collection Procedure 37
Limitations 37

V. Definition of Terrorism from Cold War Period to Post Cold War 39

Identification of Terrorist Organizations 39
Identification of Terrorist Organizations during the Cold War 51
Identification of Terrorist Organizations after the Cold War 52
State Response 58
Definition of Terrorism 66

1
VI. ​The Shift on the Perception of Terrorism in Relation to 72
Nuclear Deterrence
Mutually Assured Destruction 72
Russian Policy of Deterrence 73
United States’ Policy of Deterrence 74

VII. ​Conclusion 76

Bibliography 80

2
 CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

A. Introduction

Since the September 11 attack, terrorism has become a popular topic despite its

existence for a long time. Although it was already evident before the existence of the

modern-nation state, the use of terror by governments and those that contest their power

remains poorly understood.1

The first widespread association of western societies with terrorism occurred with

the upsurge in clandestine violence by anarchist groups in the late nineteenth century,

which reached its peak in the 1890s.2 Among its victims were royalties of different

countries including Tsar Alexander II (1881), Empress Elizabeth of Austria (1898), and

King Umberto of Italy (1900). As mentioned above, anarchist terrorism is a form of

‘propaganda by the deed’: it uses violence as a way of inciting political awareness and

stimulating the masses to revolt. Additionally, anarchist movements view the capitalist

system as a place of constant violence in that every law, church, and paycheck is based on

force; in a world as such, anarchists believe that doing nothing while others suffer is

already considered an act of violence.3 Further anarchist attacks occurred in the 1960s

and 70s, undertaken by groups such as the Baader-Meinhof Group in West Germany, the

Italian Red Brigades, the Japanese Red Army, and the Angry Brigade in the UK.4 These

1
​“History of Terrorism,” ​International Terrorism and Security Research, accessed April 23, 2017,
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/717/05/.
2
Andrew Heywood, ​Global Politics, Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2011.
3
Beverly Gage, The Day Wall Street Exploded: A Story of America in the First Age of Terror, ​Oxford University Press
(2009), pp. 44-45, ISBN 978-01997592868.
4
Ibid.
3
 terrorist organizations had Marxist-Leninist leanings and were state-sponsored by

Russia during the Cold War. As communist groups vying for the destabilization of the

Western government, they believed that they were engaged in a global struggle both to

overthrow the capitalist system and to expel the US military presence from Western

Europe and elsewhere.5 With this, Russia was willing to sponsor and assist such

organizations for their own benefit, a state-sponsorship part of Russia’s foreign policy. In

a similar case, the United States adopted an almost same strategy in the later parts of the

Cold War. The United States gave direct aid to the Mujahedeen in order to fight against

the Russian troops that had invaded Afghanistan. President Jimmy Carter started to aid

the insurgent group, but it was President Reagan who took an active role in facilitating

the training and arming of the group. It was under the Reagan administration that the

Policy of Containment had finally won against Russian aggression. Additionally, the help

of the United States’ middle eastern allies was a big help in Russia’s defeat.

The strategies employed by both the United States and Russia to defeat one

another were meant only for short-term solutions; they had not been able to calculate the

long-term effects that it will give to the international arena. The airplane hijackings of

the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in the 1960s serves as the pivotal point of

a new form of terrorism, and it was with this that ‘international terrorism’ continues to

evolve. These strategies, although employed decades ago, can still be seen as being used

by terrorists today, most particularly in the case of September 11. With regard to seeing

these events, one cannot help but note the fact that the doin gs of both the US and Russia

to win a war only helped in creating a war more perilous and difficult to win than the

previous one.

5
​Ibid.
4
 With this, the researcher seeks to define two important terms within the context

of the research:

1. Terrorism

Terrorism is a term not unknown to any person living in a globalized

world. With the advent of globalization, faster business transactions, easier air

travels, and the gathering of unlimited information have become a given;

however, along with these come the inevitable fact that international threats have

also become modernized and have evolved into something more complicated as

compared to the past. Hence, as Andrew Heywood stated, modern terrorism is

therefore portrayed as a child of globalization.6 Terrorism is not a new

phenomenon; it has been used since the early times of recorded history.

However, it can still be relatively hard to define.7

According to Andrew Heywood in his book ​Global Politics, terrorism in its

broadest sense, refers to attempts to further political ends by using violence to

create a climate of fear, apprehension, and uncertainty. The most common form

of terrorist actions include assassinations, bombings, hostage seizures, and plane

hijacks. Another definition of terrorism defines the term as

both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a

justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable

abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of

view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an

6
Ibid.
7
“What is Terrorism?,” ​International Terrorism and Security Research, accessed April 23, 2017,
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/717/05/.
5
 effective tactic for the weaker side on a conflict. Due to the

secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations,

they offer opponents no clear organization to defend

against or deter.8

Therefore, terrorism as a term is highly pejorative and tends to be used

selectively. Additionally, it should be noted that terrorism should be viewed not

just based on the perpetrators, but also on the act and the victims. In doing so,

one may be able to identify the type of terrorism incorporated in a terroristic

action.

2. Neo Colonialism

Neo Colonialism is described as the continuation of the economic model

of colonialism after a colonized country has achieved formal political

independence.9 During the Cold War, various methods under Neo Colonialism

were employed both by the United States and Russia. For the United States, the

Cold War was the ideological pillar of imperialism, facilitating US economic and

financial penetration of Latin America and the Third World and ensuring the

consolidation of the United States as the hegemonic power of the neocolonial

world-system.10 The Marshall Plan was also a form of Neo Colonialism in that

reconstruction programs and the receiving of US money by European states were

a way for American capital and products to penetrate European markets. More

8
​Ibid.
9
​Toyin Falola and Matthew Heaton, “Neocolonialism - Bibliography,” accessed April. 20, 2017,
http://science.jrank.org/pages/7920/Neocolonialism.html
10
“The Cold War and Imperialism,” ​Global Learning (2013), accessed April. 20, 2017,
http://www.globallearning-cuba.com/blog-umlthe-view-from-the-southuml/the-cold-war-and-imperialism.
6
 importantly, in terms of military influence, the US gained control of Afghanistan

through the Mujahedeen in which they have funded to defeat Russia. This is

considered as form of neo colonialism because, as stated by Kwame Nkrumah in

his work ​Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, neo colonialist control

can be exercised through the neo colonial state’s territory being garrisoned by the

imperial power. Consequently, the government is also controlled because of this.11

In a similar manner, ​Russia performed neo colonialism through the act of

providing Eastern European countries with aid by making their governments into

communist regimes. This was done through economic cooperation base on

inter-government agreements. By 1956, agreements had been signed with

Afghanistan and India alone, whereas today Russia is giving economic and

technical assistance to 29 Afro-Asian countries.12

B. Statement of the Problem

This aims to do an interpretative research with regard to how the definition of

terrorism was molded during the Cold War through variables like Neo Colonialism and

terrorism. In line with this, the main question will be ​How Nuclear Deterrence during

the Cold War shaped the Definition of Terrorism.

C. Corollary Questions

1. How was the Western definition of terrorism different during the Cold

War period compared to the post- Cold War Era?

11
Kwame Nkrumah, “Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism,” accessed April 24, 2017,
https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.html.
12
Clarence Carson, “World in the Grip of an Idea: 28. The Cold War: The Third World,” ​Foundation for Economic
Education (1979), accessed April 20, 2017,
https://fee.org/articles/world-in-the-grip-of-an-idea-28-the-cold-war-the-third-world/.
7
 2. How is the shift on the perception of terrorism related with Nuclear

Deterrence?

D. Significance of the Study

As can be seen in a historical perspective, the Cold War played a significant role

in the turning point of a new form of terrorism. With the issue of terrorism rising and

giving increased alarm internationally, the researcher determines that the findings in

this study can greatly contribute to the enlightenment of the society towards not only the

increased breaching of international security due to terrorism but also, and more

importantly, on the actualization of the roots and causes of it. This study gives readers a

basic and in-depth analysis of the Cold War as well as the history of the hostility of the

Middle East towards the West. Additionally, it seeks to explain the various methods

enacted by the United States and Russia during the Cold War against each other that

prompted the growth of international terrorism. Lastly, this study aims to provide new

information in the academic studies on how the theory of Nuclear Deterrence in the Cold

War shaped the definition of terrorism, which can help propagate new sets of questions

and explanations for scholars focusing on the same field, as well as offer governments

information in addressing the said issue.

8
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In order to better understand the flow of the research this chapter provides an overview

on the different sources used in obtaining information relevant to the area of study as well as

explaining and concluding the underlying and significant themes that are recurring in the

chosen literatures. This chapter mainly focuses on the two superpowers, the United States of

America and Russia, and each of their actions during the Cold War that shaped the definition of

terrorism. The section will be divided into two categories; the first category includes the actions

taken by Russia to further their means during the Cold War. The second category tackles the

actions of the United States. Furthermore, these will be analyzed under the rationale that both

polarities operate under the agenda of furthering their own interests in which they expand their

influence whether through democracy or communism. With these, the researcher will be able to

identify which side during the Cold War is responsible for the shaping of the definition of

terrorism or whether both of them had equal roles in structuring how terrorism is perceived.

Russia During the Cold War

The end of the Second World War did not signal the end of conflict; rather, it

resulted in a new one. With the major European powers left exhausted after the war, two

new superpowers emerged, consequently creating two new spheres of influences. As one

of the two major superpowers during the Cold War, Russia held a crucial and important

role in shaping the events throughout the globe. Having come out of the war territorially

enlarged and with an aura of prestige from having fought Hitler’s Germany, Russia was

seen as having a numerical superiority in terms of men and heavy weapons as well as a

9
 new ideological, economic, and social model that extended in vast parts of Europe.13 It

was a vast empire of a radical ideology that contested the United States’ which ultimately

led to an East-West struggle that shaped relations between states, economies, cultures,

and peoples from 1954 to 1991.14 The Cold War therefore was not exclusively a struggle

between the US and Russia but a global conflict that affected many countries,

particularly the continent of Europe.15

For fifty years ​Russia stood in the eyes of the West as a terrifying enigma bent on

imperial and ideological expansion.16 According to Washington, it was a threatening state

that needed to be confronted and contained, what with its communistic ideology

threatening to overthrow the United States’ democratic advocacy. The aggressive policies

of Joseph Stalin with regard to Soviet expansion in the Eastern Europe triggered a

reaction from the West that made them hostile to their former ally, consequently leading

to tensions and to mistrust that then led to both sides’ reshaping of foreign policies that

focused on ideology expansionism and the deterrence of one another. Although the two

superpowers never fought directly, they pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war on

several occasions.17 Nuclear deterrence was the only effective way to prevent a military

confrontation. Although this ensured that there would be no occurrence of a Third World

War moreover a Mutually Assured Destruction, the war between the two opposing sides

continued in other less direct ways, more specifically in the form of Proxy Wars.

13
​“The Cold War (1945-1989),” ​Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe (2016), accessed April 24, 2017,
http://www.cvce.eu/obj/the_cold_war_1945_1989_full_text-en-6dfe06ed- 4790-48a4-8968-855e90593185.html.
14
​ Vladislav Zubok, ​A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev (University of
North Carolina Press, 2007).
15
​“The Cold War (1945-1989),” ​Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe (2016).
16
Zubok, ​A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev.
17
​“The Cold War (1945-1989),” ​Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe (2016).

10
 Russian Sponsored Political Violence

From the 1960s to the 1970s, Russia was known to sponsor waves of

political violence against the West. Several terrorist and revolutionary groups

terrorized Europe through bank robberies, kidnappings, hijackings, and

assassinations, in the actual pursuit of destabilizing and weakening hostile

regimes and advancing Russian interests. In a journal article named Soviet

Support for International Terrorism and Revolutionary Violence, it was stated

that Russia sponsored terrorism and revolutionary violence were among the

many instruments of the state’s foreign policy arsenal of diplomatic, economic,

military, propaganda, and subversive weapons. This sponsorship includes the

providing of arms and other assistance to a wide spectrum of revolutionary

groups in the world, particularly Palestinians, Africans, and Latin Americans.18

Funding of insurgent groups

The Red Brigades was among the known terrorist organizations to

have been funded by ​Russia​. Famous for its kidnapping and assassination

of former Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978, the terrorist group

originally started as a small band of radical and communist students and

workers at the University of Trento in Northern Italy. Up until the 1980s,

the group followed an ideology and doctrine that advocated “armed

violence against the capitalist state”, its anti sentiments with the

American involvement in the Vietnam War adding more resentment in

18
“Soviet Support for International Terrorism and Revolutionary Violence,” ​CIA Historical Review Program (1981),
accessed April 24, 2017, https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000272980.pdf.
11
 the group.19 The Red Brigades did not see itself only as a protest

movement; they believed that their group would eventually prevail against

the Italian state, in that the group’s belief was “correctly aligned with

political, economic, and social forces” that were- as they believed-

becoming dominant.20

The funds accumulated by the Red Brigades were mostly through

proceeds from kidnappings and bank robberies. Additionally, the terrorist

organization was linked with, or received support from other militant

organizations located outside of Italy, more importantly with the German

Red Army Faction (RAF) and the Palestinian Liberation Organization

(PLO). It can also be noted that the group received a load of small arms

from the PLO after their successful kidnapping and assassination of the

former Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978.

Another terrorist organization worth noting is the Palestinian

Liberation Organization (PLO). Formed in 1964 by the Arab League in

order to centralize leadership in various Palestinian groups under one

organization, the terrorist organization was engaged in terroristic

activities since its inception; it launched its campaign of terror against

Israel in 1965 with an attack on Israel’s National Water Carrier21.

Additionally, the PLO was not short of financial and political support from

Russia and its satellites in Europe, Latin America, Africa, members of the

19
​Paul Smith, “The Italian Red Brigades (1969-1984): Political Revolution and Threats to the State,” ​Armed Groups:
Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism, and Counterinsurgency (2008): 15-28.
20
​Smith, “The Italian Red Brigades (1969-1984): Political Revolution and Threats to the State”.
21
Rachel Ehrenfeld. ​Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed-- and how to Stop it. Bonus Books, Inc., 2005.
12
 Arab League, as well as from Third World countries. Nevertheless, it was

granted by the United Nations an observer status which enabled the

organization to multiply its assets and incomes. Because of this, the PLO

was able to increase its influence and further back its agenda and continue

its terroristic activities despite being recognized by the UN. It was only

after the defeat of the Arab states by Israel in the Six-Day War of June

1967 that the PLO began to be widely recognized as the representative of

the Palestinians and came to promote a distinctively Palestinian agenda.22

The defeat discredited the Arab states, and Palestinians sought greater

autonomy in their struggle with Israel. However, factions under the

organization have reorganized leading to disagreements on ideologies and

goals, creating a momentary internally disorganized group. In 1969 with

Yasir Arafat named as the PLO’s chairman, the PLO launched guerrilla

attacks against Israel from its bases in Jordan which led to instability

within the country. This also brought the PLO into a conflict with the

government of King Hussein of Jordan in 1970, eventually leading to the

group’s expulsion from the country by the Jordanian army. The PLO

transferred its bases to Lebanon whilst continuing attacks on Israel. PLO’s

relations with Lebanon were tumultuous, and the organization became

involved in disputes and contributed to the country’s slide into civil war.23

During that time the factions within the PLO shifted its attacks and

focused on terroristic strategies which included bombings and aircraft

hijackings against Israeli and Western targets. Also, Nick Lockwood in his

22
​“Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),” ​Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009),
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestine-Liberation-Organization.
23
“Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),” ​Encyclopaedia Britannica.
13
 article “How the Soviet Union Transformed Terrorism” stated that

Palestinian groups were enthusiastic participants in Russian terror

largesse, especially with regard to airplane hijackings.24 It was noted that

the PLO received guidance from the KGB, what with the head of the

KGB’s First Chief Directorate, General Alexander Sakharovsky, said in

1971 “Airplane hijacking is my own invention”25 in which he was referring

to the PLO’s hijackings.

The KGB and its operations

The operations of Russia in funding terrorist organizations were

mainly put forth through the ​Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopasnosti, or

the KGB, which was designed as the state’s security committee and was

attached to the Council of Ministers. Considered the world’s largest spy

and state-security machine, the KGB operated independently more than

any other bodies of the government within Russia and involved itself in all

aspects of life of everyday people in the state.26 According to the Cold War

Museum, the main duties of the KGB were to gather intelligence in other

nations, conduct counterintelligence, maintain the secret the secret police,

suppress internal resistance, and conduct electronic espionage.

Additionally, it enforced ​Russian morals and promoted ​Russian ideology

with its propagandas.27

24
​Nick Lockwood, “How the Soviet Union Transformed Terrorism,” ​The Atlantic (2011), accessed April 24, 2017,
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/how-the-soviet-union-transformed-terrorism/250433/.
25
Lockwood, “How the Soviet Union Transformed Terrorism,” ​The Atlantic.
26
“The KGB,” ​The Cold War Museum (n.d.) accessed April 25, 2017, http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/kgb.asp.
27
​“The KGB,” ​The Cold War Museum.
14
 Among the famous propagandas and operations of the KGB were,

as mentioned above, that of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s

terroristic strategy of airplane hijackings and the Red Brigades as being

funded by the state security. Moreover, KGB’s influence did not stop on

the funding of terrorism; operations such as the Sionistskiye Gosudarstva

or Operation SIG were implemented to turn the Arab world against Israel

and the West and this was done so through the cultivation and spread of

false ideas of the United States and Israel as “fascist, imperial-Zionist

countries” bankrolled by rich Jews.28 The operation created joint ventures

in building hospitals, houses, and roads in countries such as Libya,

Lebanon, and Syria. There they sent thousands of doctors, engineers,

technicians, professors, and even dance instructors with the task of

portraying the United States as an arrogant and haughty Jewish fiefdom

financed by Jewish money and run by Jewish politicians whose aim was to

subordinate the entire Islamic world.29

The End of the Empire

The fall of the Russian empire also meant the end of the secular, left-wing

terrorism it had sponsored. The support and funding for the leftist ideology had

stopped; more importantly, the intellectual, spiritual, and philosophical engine of

leftist terror had become powerless.30 With the fall of Russia and the collapse of

communism, extreme leftism lost its inspiration and the terrorists lost their

28
Ion Mihai Pacepa, “Russian Footprints,” ​National Review (2006), accessed April 25, 2017,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/218533/russian-footprints-ion-mihai-pacepa.
29
​Pacepa, “Russian Footprints,” ​National Review.
30
​Lockwood, “How the Soviet Union Transformed Terrorism,” ​The Atlantic.
15
 support. However, according to the author of the article “How the Soviet Union

Transformed Terrorism”, although Communism and Marxist ideologies had lost

its impact to countries that had followed it, terrorism did not go away. Many of

the next generation terrorists found inspiration in the founding narrative of

Islamism, of Mohammed and his few but dedicated supporters affecting massive

political change against impossible odds. State support for terrorist organizations

continued, with elements of the Pakistani military assisting terrorist groups in

Indian Kashmir and in Afghanistan.31 Additionally, Pacepa, in his article called

Russian Footprints, stated that even with the fall of Russia and its communistic

ideology, terrorism in the country still remains. On September 11, 2001, President

Vladimir Putin was the first leader of a foreign country to express sympathy to

President George W. Bush for what he called “these terrible tragedies of terrorist

attacks”.32 Nevertheless, Russia was still doing business with regard to terrorism,

with President Putin establishing ties with Ayatollah Khameini, Iran’s terrorist

dictator, in terms of weapon sales. Moreover, Russia was engaged in the

construction of a 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr, with a uranium

conversion facility able to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Additionally, with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad having announced

that nothing could stop Iran from building nuclear weapons and that Israel was a

“disgraceful stain [on] the Islamic world” that would be eliminated, it was clear

that the roots of terrorism cultivated by Russia against the Western superpower

was not entirely annihilated; Moreover, it is continuously evolving with the help

31
Ibid.
32
​Pacepa, “Russian Footprints,” ​National Review.

16
 of fast paced dissemination of information and easier air travel. The strategies

used may have not been the same, but the inspiration in which terrorism was

founded continues to provide its followers motivation to further these heinous

acts.

The United States in the Cold War

Emerging as the great victor in the Second World War, the United States

remained as the world’s leading military power; its navy and air force were unrivalled,

and until 1949 it was the only country with the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.33 It

also confirmed itself as the world’s leading economic power in terms of volume of trade

and agricultural production. With this, dollar became the primary international

currency.

The end of the Second World War was, for the United States, the beginning of

peace; the military disarmament of the state proves so, with 16 million personnel at the

end of World War II turning into 1.5 million in 1947. However, the Americans were

proven to be incorrect; the rise of a new threat from the Russia, a wartime ally, shocked

American belief systems, and according to John Tierney, author of Cold War Geopolitics:

Containment, the result was a strategic and geopolitical challenge unprecedented in U.S.

history.34 Nevertheless, before the United States took full action on the matter, John

Tierney states that:

At first, there was little that the US could do. With 12

million Red Army soldiers in occupation of Eastern

33
​“The Cold War (1945-1989),” ​Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe (2016).
34
John J. Tierney Jr., “Cold War Geopolitics: Containment,” ​The Institute of World Politics (2016), accessed April.
26, 2017, http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/cold-war-geopolitics-containment.
17
 Europe, up to including East Germany, and with powerful

communist parties in France and Italy, the skeleton

American army in West Germany was left without power or

purpose. Americans were not used to strategic thought in

foreign arenas in peacetime and were left bankrupt against

Marshall Stalin and ​Russian hostility toward the outside

world. The potential of a communist Western Europe was

real, as it appeared that the West was about to turn the

continent over to a new totalitarian, having just lost

millions of lives against the original.35

The West had not entirely expected that there would be another international

aggression that would threaten the new world order. Even though they had perceived

Russia as a powerful state with a different ideology, they did not expect it to be a reason

for another international instability. The aggressive stance put on by Russia came as

surprise to the West, although earlier on it can be seen that Russia was already

expanding its forces in the Eastern parts of Europe. The Potsdam Conference was a

witness to this, when in the few weeks before the surrender of the Reich the Red Army

had quickly occupied the eastern part of Germany, a part of Austria, and all of Central

Europe. Communist governments were also installed in the countries liberated by the

Soviets. The Western powers could not do anything but merely protest at their lack of

control over the elections held in countries occupied by the Red Army.36

35
Ibid.
36
​Ibid.
18
 The Containment Policy

The Policy of Containment was ingrained in the foreign policy of the

United States throughout the Cold War. Although its goal which was the

containment of Russia was the main agenda all throughout the Cold War, various

strategies were incorporated which all depended on who the president of the

United States was. This meant that the Containment Policy did not necessarily

maintain its peaceful strategy, as with the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall

Plan wherein the main agenda was the containment of Russia through economic

aid and reconstruction of Europe.

The Truman Doctrine

The origins of the Truman Doctrine started with George F.

Kennan’s Long Telegram in 1946 which identified the threat posed by

Russia to the United States and the world. The telegram provided a

detailed analysis of recent ​Russian behavior where Kennan attempted to

set out a strategy he believed the US should follow.37 This strategy was

known as the Containment Strategy. Moreso, Kennan urged that there

should be “... a long term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of

Russian expansive tendencies” to counter the communist threat.38 This

resulted in the United States shifting its stance from passive to active on

the Soviet aggression.

37
Leanne M.J Bacon, “George F. Kennan’s Strategy of Containment: An Assessment of Kennan’s Coherence and
Consistency” (master’s thesis, The University of Birmingham, 2010), 6-7.
38
​Tierney Jr., “Cold War Geopolitics: Containment.”
19
 The Doctrine was primarily given significance in Truman’s March 12th

address to Congress. In it was the declaration to support states that are “resisting

attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures”.39 Its main

strategy was Containment, which then became the policy with regard to Russia in

which the U.S. would follow, in times of peace as well as war, these were:

To reduce the power and influence of Russia in order to

maintain peace, national independence, and stability of the

world family in the nation, and to bring about a basic

change in the conduct of international relations by the

governments in power in Russia, to conform with the

purposes and principles set forth in the UN charter.40

With this, the U.S. proposed military aid to Greece and Turkey, and

declared that the United States would contest totalitarian expansion everywhere;

However, the focus of the Truman Doctrine in terms of military rearmament

shifted its focus on the economic reconstruction in Western Europe, and that they

should seek to erode support for Communist parties in France, Italy, and Greece.

According to Leffler, Containment meant ​Russian influence and Communist

ideology should be contained within the areas occupied by the forces of Russia at

the end of World War II.41

39
Ibid.
40
Melvyn P. Leffler, “Containment,” ​Princeton University Press, accessed April 26, 2017,
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/pons/s2_9143.pdf.
41
​Leffler, “Containment,” ​Princeton University Press.
20
 The Marshall Plan

With the creation of the Truman Doctrine came the Marshall Plan,

a plan to rebuild Europe. The governments in most Western European

nations were happy to receive U.S. money and participate in the

reconstruction program. In order to get the French to cooperate, the U.S.

promised to retain its occupation forces inside Germany, and to

collaborate militarily should efforts to revive Germany provoke Soviet

aggression or rekindle German revanchism. Hence, the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization (NATO) was signed as part of a dual containment

policy against Russia and a future Germany, whose political direction and

future alignment was far from certain.42 The initial focus of the plan was

on Western Europe, West Germany, and Japan; However, U.S. officials

began to realize that in maintaining this effort they also have to deal with

the containment on other nations such as in Southeast Asia, the Middle

East, and North Africa, which were targets of Soviet expansionism. This is

due to the fact that, in reconstructing cities within the initial states, much

of the supplies are needed in other countries, particularly that of

Southeast Asia’s raw materials and the Middle East’s oil. The Marshall

Plan, moreover the containment, thus demanded tough choices about

where to extend U.S. commitments.

42
​Ibid.
21
 Strategies of the Containment Policy

With different presidents came different strategies on how to effectively

enact the Policy of Containment against Russia. The changing nature of the Cold

War and Russia’s actions also meant that the U.S. foreign policy should take a

fluid and impermanent stance in terms of this.

Strategies such as the NSC 68 replaced the otherwise ‘peaceful’ means of

the Truman Doctrine. This new strategy, composed by Paul Nitze as the new head

of the Policy Planning Staff in place of George Kennan, and still under the term of

Truman, proposed that containment should mean the blocking of the expansion

of ​Russian power, exposing its falsities of pretensions, inducing a retraction of

Russian control, and nurturing the seeds of destruction within the ​Russian

system.43 This meant that military rearmament was a must in order to achieve the

new strategy’s goals. NSC 68 was further financed with the happening of the

Korean War, wherein Truman believed that the North Korean aggression was

inspired by Stalin. Hence, U.S. troops were deployed to Korea, and the U.S.

became committed to contain the expansion of Chinese Communist influence.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s strategy of containment was different

and less expensive for the U.S. treasury. His strategy focused more on air-atomic

capabilities which were cheaper than conventional forces. Also, covert actions

and psychological warfare were given importance. However, in the election of

John F. Kennedy as president in 1960, he felt that the containment as practiced

by Eisenhower was faltering. Kennedy believed that Russia was gaining power

43
Ibid.
22
 and influence, and colonial states that have become independent were seeking

modernization and looking at Russia as a model of state building and rapid

economic advancement. With this, containment through fiscal and monetary

policy was invigorated. The president also called for an arms buildup, more

flexible conventional forces, and more imaginative counterinsurgency techniques.

In 1980, with Ronald Reagan winning the presidency, the Policy of

Containment became more assertive once again. Having criticized former

President Jimmy Carter’s policy as a “policy of weakness”, Reagan sought to

conduct negotiations from a position of strength. Additionally, Reagan supported

anti-Communist factions in the third world and also quite openly supported

military aid to the mujahedeen fighting ​Russian​ forces in Afghanistan.44

Operation Cyclone

With the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia in December 1979 it

was imperative for the United States to make its move as quickly as

possible. This marked the end of the détente between the United States

and Russia. President Jimmy Carter regarded this as an “assault on the

vital interests of the United States”, in which he furthered that “it will be

repelled by the use of any means necessary, including military force”.45

Actions such as the development of military response options,

enforcement of economic and diplomatic sanctions on Russia, the

assisting of other countries in the region, improvement of access to

facilities in the region, and regional approach to securing economic and

44
Ibid.
45
President Jimmy Carter, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1980.
23
 political interests were taken.46 The roots of U.S. intervention into the war

can be seen from the stance taken by Carter. The invasion was seen as a

turning point in the ​Russian​-American relations. Having done specific

actions in order to contain further ​Russian expansionism, the U.S.

enacted one more strategy that played a crucial role in the defeat of

Russia: the direct aid and assistance of an anti-communist force, which

was the Mujahedeen. The funding and support for the Mujahedeen began

under Carter’s administration, though funding, arming, and training were

taken to a much higher level in Reagan’s administration.47 Attacks against

the ​Russian invaded state increased with the help of the insurgent group.

Lastly, the allegiance of the Saudi monarchy helped in Russia’s downfall;

with oil price hikes and the inability of Russia to sustain itself, the decline

of the empire was inevitable.

Conclusion

As can be inferred in the chapter, both the United States and Russia contributed

greatly to shaping the new definition of terrorism. In the advent of the Cold War, the

employment of various strategies by both superpowers were enacted in order to

destabilize one another without the need for a direct confrontation. ​Many of the tactics

employed by Russia in an effort to destabilize the United States were through the

funding and assisting of terrorist organizations, which proved to be quite effective. In a

similar manner, the last strategy enacted by the United States which was the funding of

the Mujahedeen helped greatly in the downfall of the Soviet empire. These tactics, as

46
Robert D. Billard, Jr., “Operation Cyclone: How the United States Defeated the Soviet Union,” (undergraduate
thesis, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, 2010), 28-29.
47
Ibid.
24
mentioned earlier, were strategically employed as a means to defeat one another without

the need for an all-out war. This phenomenon is explained under the theory of Nuclear

Deterrence which points out that Mutually Assured Destruction led both sides during the

Cold War to modify their diplomatic and military strategies. With this, the use of

conventional forces became the primary tool in the expansion of both powers, given that

nuclear weapons were not the most feasible choice to victory.

However, even though the end of the Cold War meant that tensions between the

two polarities had ended as well as with the looming terror of a Mutually Assured

Destruction, it can be argued that the kind of terrorism in which the two helped shaped

did not; in fact, the funding and assistance of insurgent groups provided by the U.S. and

Russia only gave them short-term solutions. What they were not able to see was that

these particular strategies, moreover the groups that they had funded, could harm them

in the long-term, now that there was no more unifying agenda to work with.

In considering the literature used by the research, a few gaps in the literature are

noted that can be answered. Most of the articles that focused on the Containment Policy

lacked a definite structure in terms of how and why the policy was enacted in the first

place. It is known that the Containment Policy was to secure the position of the United

States as a world power and to limit Russian aggression in Third World countries;

nevertheless, there is no conclusion as to why the Policy of Containment was employed

despite the US’ military superiority at the time. The military strategies by Russia as well

did not use any terms that made their strategies distinctive. Several diplomatic and

military agendas were explained without a definitive theory or framework. Hence, the

research offers a theoretical framework that explains the phenomenon as to why

25
conventional military force was used by both sides despite having nuclear arsenals. The

theory of Nuclear Deterrence will serve as a guide to the readers not only in answering

the question why there was no direct nuclear confrontation between the United States

and Russia, but also how this theory led to the shaping of the definition of terrorism.

26
 CHAPTER III
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

​In dealing with the topic at hand, this research utilizes a theoretical framework that

explains how terrorism was used during the Cold War. Additionally, since this paper is intent on

presenting cases on how the Cold War shaped the definition of terrorism, the theoretical

framework will be based under Social Constructivism. This theory best explains the rationale of

the situation during the Cold War era in which it explains that international relations is

governed by the social construct created by the people themselves. Social constructivism states

that variables in international relations do not matter in the objective sense; rather, they are

important due to their subjective element in which attached to them are meanings that are

socially constructed. In this sense, this paper argues that events in the Cold War era were shaped

through socially constructed identities and ideas which were important figures in how the

superpowers viewed the situation. Both the United States and Russia were unconsciously

applying the theory in the creation of their policies, whether it be domestic or foreign. As a

result, certain theories were further created. The Nuclear Deterrence theory became an

important concept at this time. In the era when nuclear arms were of importance to state

security, both the United States and Russia viewed that the proliferation of nuclear arms was an

important policy to pursue especially when one wants to establish itself as a superpower.

Ironically, with the nuclear proliferation of both states to dominate one another, nuclear arms

gave way to state insecurity, resulting in what was termed as security dilemma. With both the

US’ and Russia’s knowledge of each other’s nuclear capabilities, they were quick to realize and

accept that an all-out nuclear exchange was not a possible strategy in destabilizing the other.

This is due to the fact that the cost of a nuclear war outweighs any possible gains on both sides

and is sure to inflict a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). MAD places primary emphasis on

27
the need for both the United States and Russia to maintain mutual vulnerability48; hence,

further dissuading them from attacking one another. Mutually Assured Destruction became the

primary concept of the theory of Nuclear Deterrence, and thus led both superpowers in their

modification on military and diplomatic strategies.

Social Constructivism

Established in the late 1980s and early 1990s by thinkers including but not

limited to Nicholas Onuf, Alexander Wendt, Emanuel Adler, Friedrich Kratochwil, John

Gerard Ruggie and Peter Katzenstein, Social Constructivism, in simple terms, is a set of

assumptions about the world and human motivation and agency49 and emphasizes the

meanings that are assigned to material objects, and not the mere existence of objects

themselves. In its account, variables in International Relations such as military power,

international institutions, and trade relations do not matter in the objective sense;

rather, they are important due to their subjective element in which they have certain

social meanings. These meanings are constructed from a complex and specific mix of

history, ideas, norms, and beliefs. To further understand the concept of the chosen

theory, Social Constructivism contends that states mostly focus on the ideas, identity,

anything that correlates with the definition of “subjective”. Immanuel Kant’s idea of

Social constructivism gives a wide grasp of the meaning in this case. According to Kant as

stated by Hale and Slaughter, whatever people have obtained knowledge in the world, it

would automatically be a subjective knowledge through the human consciousness

without any further questions.50 Another notable theorist who cited the term

48
Robbin F. Laird and Dale R. Herspring, ​The Soviet Union and Strategic Arms, Westview Press, Inc., 1984.
49
Anne-Marie Slaughter, “International Relations and Principal Theories,”​ Oxford University Press, 2011.
50
Thomas Hale and Anne-Marie Slaughter, “International Relations and Principal Theories,”​ Oxford University
Press, 2013.
28
 “Constructivism” in International relations was Nicholas Onuf. He was the first theorist

who introduced this term in International Relations theory in 1989, claiming that states

much the same as individuals are living in a “world of our making”, as the title of his

famous book bears, where many entities such as “social facts” are made by human action,

as opposed to “brute facts” that do not depend for their existence on human action but

rather are phenomena of human condition.51 In addition to this, social relations happen

to people who make or construct as to how they define themselves of what they are and

are capable of.52 In conclusion, the most definitive definition of Social Constructivism is

that it emphasizes both the role of state and non-state actors by using social factors

through their identities, norms, and cultures of what makes them different from other

actors and produces interests from it. These actors behave as they interact and actually

depend on the subjective elements.

Arguing that the international relations structures are “socially constructed” and

that “these structures shape actors’ identities and interests rather than just their

behaviour”, the Constructivist theory-- which has different forms and foci and thus has

been termed by some as an “approach” to an analysis of world politics -- challenges the

materialist and rationalist underpinnings of the old mainstream IR theory.53 Identities

are necessary, in international politics and domestic society alike, in order to ensure at

least some minimal level of predictability and order.54 Identities are important because

these also determine societies on how they contribute to the world, whether peacefully or

51
Nicholas Onuf, ​The World of Our Making, Columbia, University of South California Press, 1989.
52
Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf, and Paul Kowert, “International Relations in a Constructed World,” ​New
York, M.E. Sharpe, 1998.
53
Maysam Behravesh, “Constructivism: An Introduction. ​E-International Relation, Lund University, 2011.
54
Ted Hopf, “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” ​Summer, 1998.
29
 otherwise. A state also understands others according to the identity it attributes to them.
55

With regard to terrorism, Social Constructivism explains that there is no true and

natural meaning of the term, and states that it is instead an interpretation of events and

their presumed causes.56 The theoretical framework of Constructivism helps its readers

gain a deeper understanding of the states’ varying responses to terrorism by delving into

the complexities of the construction of reality based on history and cultural factors that

give individuals the ability to build meaning for reality. With this, the personal

experiences of states, as well as their historical and cultural backgrounds account for the

differences and similarities when dealing with terrorism.57 This explains the often quoted

statement that “one’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” which reminds us

that the definition of terrorism depends on how it is being constructed by an individual

or a state.

Nuclear Deterrence Theory

In the wake of the Second World War, the United States held supreme superiority

with regard to nuclear weapons. This offered the assurance that “massive retaliation”

would deter ​Russia from aggressively attacking them.58 However, by the mid-1960s

unilateral deterrence gave way to mutual deterrence as ​Russia had built up enough

arsenal to match the United States’ and had created a stalemate in terms of military

55
Greg Cashman, “What Causes War?: An Introduction to Theories of International Conflict,” ​Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, 2013.
56
Janani Krishnaswamy, “How Does Terrorism Lend Itself to Constructivist Understanding?,” ​E-International
Relations Students (2012), accessed June 06, 2017,
http://www.e-ir.info/2012/09/18/how-does-terrorism-lend-itself-to-constructivist-understanding/.
57
“How Does Terrorism Lend Itself to Constructivist Understanding?”.
58
​ “Cold War: A Brief History,” ​National Science Digital Library, 2015, accessed May 03, 2017,
www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page15.shtml.
30
 aggression. Mutual deterrence meant that the two superpowers would refrain from

attacking each other because of the certainty of a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).59

Deterrence is the rationale used by nuclear weapon states to justify their

weapons.60 It is argued that if a nation has the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on

another, then the latter will refrain from attacking the the former-- it will be deterred

from doing so. Additionally, the concept of the nuclear deterrence follows the rationale of

the ‘first user’ principle: states reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in self-defense

against an armed attack threatening their vital security interests.61

As refined by scholars such as Thomas Schelling, Glenn Snyder, Kenneth Waltz,

Robert Jervis, and Stephen Van Era, nuclear weapons are said to provide states with the

ability to protect their sovereignty and independence not via direct defense but rather

through deterrence.62 Instead of defending one’s borders or vital interests with

conventional military forces, states could deter enemy attack by threatening to inflict

unacceptable damage on an aggressor. As long as they possessed a secure second-strike

retaliatory force, in short, they could deter attack by threatening to make an aggressor’s

losses outweigh its gains.63 The concept of deterrence is defined as the use of threats by

one part to convince another party to refrain from initiating some course of action.64

Furthermore, the policy of deterrence can be into two categories: first, preventing an

armed attack against a state’s own territory (also known as direct deterrence), and

59
​Ibid​.
60
“Deterrence, Doctrine and Strategy,” ​Nuclear Darkness, Global Climate Change and Nuclear Famine, accessed
April 28, 2017, http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/deterencedoctrineandstrategy.
61
​“Nuclear Deterrence,” ​Politics.co.uk, accessed May 03, 2017, www.politics.co.uk/reference/nuclear-deterrence.
62
​Stephen Walt, “Rethinking the “Nuclear Revolution”,” ​Foreign Policy, 2010, accessed May. 04,2017,
foreignpolicy.com/2010/08/03/rethinking-the-nuclear-revolution/.
63
​Ibid​.
64
​Huth, “Deterrence and International Conflict: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Debate,” ​Annual Review of
Political Science, 1999, 25-48.

31
 second, preventing an armed attack against another state (known as extended

deterrence).

In light of the research topic, Nuclear Deterrence under the Social Constructivist

theory best answers the research questions provided in the paper. Nuclear Deterrence as

the second theory helps connect the fact that it was used by the two superpowers during

the Cold War with the assumption that mutual vulnerability prevents them to confront

one another. In this case, it can be stated that this resulted in the shaping of a new form

of terrorism as the two sought to find alternatives in defeating one another by means that

will not trigger military and/or nuclear aggression or attack. Under the theory, the

concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) will be used as the main reason for both

superpowers’ resort to using conventional military power rather than nuclear. As a

doctrine, it aims at persuading the enemy that the costs of nuclear war outweighs its

benefits.65 This view resulted in both the US and Russia to accept mutual vulnerability,

hence modifying their diplomatic and military strategies.

With this, the strategies mainly used by both the US and Russia can be

generalized into two main actions, Neo Colonialism and Terrorism. These assumptions

will later on provide a detailed analysis on the factors of how the definition of terrorism

was shaped in the Cold War and will equip the researchers with a more organized

structure in explaining the theory from both the US’ and Russia’s actions.

In order for the readers to better understand the structure of the framework and

how the study will be conducted through the two assumptions, a diagram is provided

below in relation to the Nuclear Deterrence theory:

65
Robbin F. Laird and Dale R. Herspring, ​The Soviet Union and Strategic Arms, Westview Press, 1984.
32
 Diagram 1: Social Constructivism and its Assumptions

Assumptions

In order to clearly understand how the theory of Nuclear Deterrence is classified under

Social Constructivism, this research utilizes the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction as a

definitive factor resulting in the former theory.

Neo Colonialism

This research considers Neo Colonialism as an alternative strategy by

both superpowers to expand their power and defeat one another. Neo

Colonialism during the Cold War was an important tool in limiting the power of

33
Russia in terms of their expansion. Under the Truman Doctrine and its outline of

the Policy of Containment, President Harry Truman stated that countries being

influenced by communist ideologies can ask help from the US and the US will

gladly help so. Additionally, the Marshall Plan was also created to financially aid

European countries whose cities were destroyed by the Second World War. In

doing this, the US was able to impede the aggressive expansion of Russia in

Europe as well as in the Third World countries.

Russia performed neo colonialism by providing aid to Eastern European

and Third World countries and turning their governments into communist

regimes. Also, there were instances that Russia, while helping Third World

countries especially the Middle East in building infrastructure, had sent trained

spies in the form of ordinary citizens to condition the minds of the middle

easterns with regard to US hostility.

Terrorism

Through the act of funding, arming, and guiding of leftist as well as

anti-communist militant groups, the US and ​Russia were employing another

strategy to defeat each other, and ultimately, to create a new and more dangerous

form of terrorism. ​Operation Cyclone was enacted by the United States to

effectively defeat ​Russia by supporting the Mujahedeen fighters against Russian

troops who invaded Afghanistan. ​Russia​, on the other hand, employed terroristic

strategies through state-sponsored violence in other countries that are under

democratic governments. The terrorist organizations funded by Russia shared

34
the same communist ideologies, and therefore was the perfect tool for the

superpower to further spread its idea while destabilizing the United States.

In addition to the first diagram, another diagram is presented wherein the

aforementioned assumptions are now applied to both the United States and

Russia​. Additionally, specific tactics under the two assumptions will be presented

in order for the readers to gain understanding of the topic at hand.

Operationalization is also utilized through pointing out the specific actions of the

superpowers per assumption.

Diagram 2: Operationalization of Assumptions

35
 In referring to the diagram, both assumptions were employed by the US

and Russia in achieving their goals to defeat each other. The theory of Nuclear

Deterrence served as their reason to employ the tactics as can be seen above.

Furthermore, Nuclear Deterrence theory states that conventional military forces

became the main weapon of both superpowers due to their inability to utilize

their nuclear arsenals in fear of an all-out war. With this, the diagram concludes

that Terrorism is an important conventional military strategy used by both the

US and Russia to destabilize and ultimately defeat one another.

36
 CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY

In order to obtain quantifiable answers to the research questions and to validate the

hypothesis, the researcher intends to use for their research design an analysis on several cases

with regard to the United States and Russian confrontation during the Cold War. In doing so,

analysis of the actions of the two superpowers would be done in an organized and cohesive

manner. The cases used in the research design would be those that are considered to play major

roles in the establishment of the new definition of terrorism:

1. Neo Colonialism

A.​ T
​ he United States’ Containment Policy

B.​ R
​ ussia’s Communist aid to Eastern Europe

2. Terrorism

A.​ O
​ peration Cyclone

B.​ O
​ peration Sig

C.​ ​ Russia’s support for left-wing terrorist groups

These cases will provide the readers with a detailed overview of the topic as well as

provide an answer to the research questions at hand. In addition, upon following the theoretical

framework, the research focuses on deterrence as the main and original factor of the issue. By

doing so, readers would have a clear understanding of the events that led to the reconstruction

of terrorism as well as be able to point out the differences in its actions and goals before and

after the Cold War.

37
Data Collection Procedure

As quantitative method proves to be inappropriate in the collection of data on the

given topic, qualitative method will be used. As mentioned before, an analysis on several

policies of both the United States and ​Russia will be done to be able to answer the set of

questions provided in the earlier chapters in a more organized manner. Documentary

research will be the main method in conducting the data gathering, with the usage of

primary and secondary sources as the most essential in this part. In line with this, the

researcher will make use of a wide array of collection of books from the De La Salle

University Library, particularly in the Henry Sy Sr. Research Center, in the European

Studies Corner in the 13​th floor. Electronic data and online articles from trusted sites

such as EBSCO Host and JSTOR were also utilized.

Limitations

Qualitative analysis and documentary research proved to aid the researchers in

answering the questions that arose from the conducted study. However, as the study

progressed it became apparent that first-hand accounts as well as subjects to interview

would be considerably beneficial to the study. While these sources would greatly assist

the researchers, there are no subjects with which the researchers are able to interview

limiting the study.

38
 CHAPTER V

DEFINITION OF TERRORISM FROM COLD WAR PERIOD TO POST COLD WAR

In answering how Nuclear Deterrence shaped the definition of terrorism, it is imperative

to know the importance of Social Constructivism as the general theory to explain the events

during the Cold War. Social Constructivism has rarely been used as an explanation to events

more specifically on Cold War; it has only been second to core theories such as Realism,

Liberalism, and Post Colonialism, which are the main theories used to explain the era. However,

this research uses Social Constructivism as its main framework in proving that the Cold War was

a product of a social construct, wherein the culture, identity, and history of both the United

States and Russia were key elements that shaped the events during the said era.

This chapter answers the research question as to how the Western definition of terrorism

was different during the Cold War period compared to the post-Cold War era. In the later parts

of the chapter, news articles from different time frames during and after the Cold War will be

presented as part of the comparison of the two cases. In doing so, readers will be able to discern

the difference as to how terrorism was seen and portrayed not only by the United States and

Russia but also by the respective medias that were responsible in the spread of the Western

definition of terrorism.

I. Identificat​ion of Terrorists and Terrorist Organizations

There is a notable difference as to how both the United States and Russia

identified terrorist organizations between the Cold War era to the Post- Cold War. In

identifying the list of terrorist organizations most specifically during the Cold War era, it

is to be noted that there were difficulties in accumulating facts to be used in the chapter;

39
 there were no concrete lists of terrorist organizations present during the Cold War era,

unlike with the Post-Cold War wherein both the United States and Russia identified their

own designated FTOs or Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Nevertheless, to be able to

examine in both cases how terrorist identification has been pursued, the chapter provides

its own list of terrorist organization during the Cold War era through the utilization of

several credible data in order to identify designated terrorist organizations.

List of Terrorist Organizations

Terrorist Organizations During the Cold War

During the Cold War, most terrorist groups identified by the

United States were heavily influenced by left-wing ideologies, more

commonly known as Communist ideologies. “Communist terrorism” was

a state-sponsored form of terrorism, most particularly by Russia in order

to destabilize Western countries and to break up the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO).66 From 1968 to the 1980s the colonial era, the

failed post-colonial attempts at state formation, as well as the creation of

Israel engendered a series of Marxist and anti-Western transformations

and movements throughout the Arab and Islamic world.67 With Israel’s

defeat of Arab forces in 1967, Palestinian leaders realized that the Arab

world was unable to militarily confront Israel. Consequently,

revolutionary movements from Latin America, North Africa, Southeast

Asia, and the Jewish struggle against Britain in Palestine taught the

66
​Nick ​Lockwood, “How the Soviet Union Transformed Terrorism,” ​The Atlantic (2011), accessed April 24, 2017,
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/how-the-soviet-union-transformed-terrorism/250433/.
67
John Moore, “The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism: An Overview,” ​Public Broadcasting Service (2014), accessed
June 21, 2017, www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html.
40
 Palestinians to replace the classic guerilla tactics to urban terrorism.

These Palestinian groups became models of various secular movements;

moreover, they created extensive transnational extremist networks which

were sponsored by several states such as the Former Soviet Union

(Russia), and certain Arab states. By the end of the 1970s, the Palestinian

secular network was a major channel for the spread of terrorist techniques

worldwide.68 With all these terrorist attacks on US soil, the 1970s was

known to be the real Golden Age of terrorism, and not the post-9/11

world.69 A website called Public Broadcasting Service listed several “key

radical Palestinian groups” in the years 1968 to 1979, furthermore giving

descriptions of the enlisted terrorist groups:

1) The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

(PFLP), one of the original members of the Palestinian

Liberation Organization (PLO), committed numerous

international terrorist attacks during the 1970s and has

allegedly been involved in attacks against Israel since the

beginning of the second intifadah in September 2000.

Syria has been a key source of the organization’s safe haven

and limited logistical support;

2) The Popular Front for the Liberation of

Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) split from the

PFLP in 1968, wanting to focus more on terrorist rather

68
Moore, “The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism: An Overview”.
69
Peter Bergen and Courtney Schuster, “The Golden Age of Terrorism,” ​CNN (2015), accessed June 21, 2017,
www.edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/opinions/bergen-197s-terrorism/index.html.
41
 than political action, thereby conducting multiple attacks

in Europe and the Middle East during the 1970s and

1980s; and

3) Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), an anti-Western and

anti-Israel international terrorist organization has carried

out terrorist attacks in 20 countries including the United

States, the UK, France, Israel, and various Arab countries.

70

The year 1979 was another turning point in the event of terrorism,

more specifically international terrorism. With Communist terrorism

sponsored by Russia, the year 1979 hosted a new form of terrorists, then

termed as insurgent groups called Mujahedeen fighters. This new form of

terrorism was a product of what the United States termed as Operation

Cyclone, a plan to support the Afghan resistance and Mujahedeen as long

as the Soviets intended to remain in the Afghan soil.71

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in an effort to prop up the

communist government prompted the United States, under the leadership

of President Carter, to effectively mark the end of détente, a period of

relatively eased tensions between the US and Russia during the Cold War.

70
Bergen and Schuster, “The Golden Age of Terrorism”.
71
Nolan Kraszkiewicz, “Operation Cyclone (1979-1989): A Brief Analysis of the U.S. Involvement in the Soviet-Afghan
War,” ​The University of Oklahoma (2012), accessed June 21,2017,
http://www.academia.edu/2897792/Operation_Cyclone_1979-1989_A_Brief_Analysis_of_the_U.S._Involvement_
in_the_Soviet-Afghan_War.
42
 72
The Presidential Directive NSC-63 outlined the reaction of the

administration to Soviet advances in the region. President Carter’s outline

aimed to accomplish the directive by developing the US’ military response

options, enforcing economic and diplomatic sanctions on Russia, assisting

other countries in the region, improving access to facilities in the region,

and taking a regional approach to securing economic and political

interests. These actions had marked the roots of US intervention into the

war, eventually seeing the United States emerge from a passive actor to

that of an active adversary of Russia now prepared to directly aid an

insurgent force called the Mujahedeen.73 The collapse of Russia was due to

numerous factors under the device of the United States. In order to expel

Soviet forces out of Afghanistan, the United States had armed and trained

the Mujahedeen to fight the Soviet troops. Furthermore, they employed

the help of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) the ones who

have provided channels and a means by which the U.S. could arm the

resistance.

With the defeat of Russia in Afghanistan, the interests of the U.S.

in the region soon dried up, as well as with the funding to Pakistan and

the ISI, and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.74 However, as a result,

the United States had essentially laid the ground work and infrastructure

for their new enemies. In Kraszkiewicz’s work he perfectly sums up the

72
​Robert D. Billard, Jr., “Operation Cyclone: How the United States Defeated the Soviet Union,” (undergraduate
thesis, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, 2010), 25-26.
73
Billard, Jr., “Operation Cyclone: How the United States Defeated the Soviet Union,” 29.
74
​Kraszkiewicz, “Operation Cyclone (1979-1989): A Brief Analysis of the U.S. Involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War”.
43
 actualities and aftermath of the Soviet-Afghan War in relation to

Operation Cyclone:

In removing the Soviets and Communist puppet in power

in Afghanistan, a power vacuum was created. Seizing this

opportunity was the remnants of the resistance and the

spiritual leaders of the regional Afghani madrassas. This

coalition became known as the Taliban. And as history has

quite extensively shown, it was the Taliban that gave safe

haven to Al-Qaeda when they were on the run from Yemen

and North Eastern Africa. This tacit alliance set the staging

ground for numerous attacks against the U.S. -- most

notably the 9/11 attacks. Quite ironically, the American

readiness to withdraw support from the region is what set

the stage for the U.S. version of the Soviet experience in

Afghanistan. Which at the time was labeled ‘The USSR’s

Vietnam’.75

Also, it is important to note that the list of key radical terrorist

organizations has changed. Left-leaning terrorist groups have been

replaced with religious organizations, what with the state of decline of

Russia, then known as the Soviet Union. According to Moore’s article,76

key radical religious organizations include

75
Ibid.
76
​ Moore, “The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism: An Overview”.
44
 1) Hezbollah, an anti-Western and anti-Israeli radical Shia

group formed in 1982 in Lebanon. Also known as “The

Party of God”, the group does not recognize the legitimacy

of the state of Israel and has been labeled as a foreign

terrorist organization by the U.S. Department.77

2) The Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) was a militant

Islamist group which emerged in the 1970s. Originally

attempting on installing a religious government in Egypt, it

joined forces with Al-Qaeda, and has opposed Western

influence in the Muslim world ever since. The EIJ has been

active in worldwide in its involvement with Al Qaeda, and

is thought to be involved in numerous terrorist attacks in

the U.S. in the last two decades of 2001. Its operatives were

also known to have played important roles in the attacks

on the World Trade Center.78

3) Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), also an anti-Western

and anti-Israeli, is a terrorist organization state-sponsored

by Syria, Libya, and Iraq. It had cut ties with the

Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1974. The

organization had attempted to derail diplomatic relations

77
“Hezbollah: History & Overview,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed June 21, 2017,
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-hezbollah.
78
Holly Fletcher, “Egyptian Islamic Jihad,” Council on Foreign Relations (2008), accessed June 21, 2017,
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/egyptian-islamic-jihad.
45
 between the PLO and the West, while advocating for the

destruction of Israel.79

Terrorist Organizations in the Post-Cold War era

The collapse of Russia and the entire Eastern Bloc in 1991 was

possibly the most unprecedented change to the international system in

history.80 The emergence of the United States as the sole superpower

created a great shift in the political balance in the global arena, wherein

the absence of a bipolar world order equated with the dissolution of

mutual deterrence, an ideology that kept both powers in check and

avoided an all-out war as much as possible.81 Nevertheless, even though

communism was defeated in the Cold War, opposition to the ideologies of

the United States has grown steadily. The shift in the political system also

created a shift in the nature of global terrorism itself. Communist terrorist

groups are still apparent, but most have became marginalized with the

defeat of Russia in the Cold War. In the wake of the Cold War, the Middle

East did not have the same strategic value for both the United States and

Russia anymore; former Soviet-backed countries like Afghanistan, Syria

and Libya were destabilized by the loss of economic and/or military

support from Russia. During this decade, the Middle East underwent a

great decline economically, and was either unable or unwilling to meet the

79
“Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), aka Fatah Revolutionary Council, the Arab Revolutionary Brigades, or the
Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims,” Council on Foreign Relations (2009), accessed June 21, 2017,
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/abu-nidal-organization-ano-aka-fatah-revolutionary-council-arab-revolutionary-
brigades.
80
Spiros Giannaros, “Terrorism in the Wake of the Cold War Order,” Master’s thesis, Georgetown University, 2009.
81
​Giannaros, “Terrorism in the Wake of the Cold War Order,” 2009.
46
 demands of the West.82 The continued conflict between Arabs and Israelis

as well as with the U.S.’ continued support for Israel were all apparent

factors in creating a fertile ground for terrorism to grow there.

In identifying the terrorist organization post-Cold War, this

chapter utilizes several website articles that provide lists of terrorist

organizations around the world. Furthermore, lists provided by both the

United States and Russia with regard to their identified terrorist

organizations will be shown. In doing so, a comparison of the articles as

well as with data provided by both states will show differences in both

states’ perception on their identification of terrorist organizations. These

differences will then be discussed and analyzed in the later parts of the

chapter.

Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)

Known officially as ISIS or ISIL, the group controls parts of

northern Iraq and of Western Syria. Founded by Abu Bakr

al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State has performed acts of terrorism that

were so cruel it was condemned even by Al-Qaeda.83 Fox News

Point cites the organization as the most dangerous all over in the

world, as the group inflicts violence and terror attacks in all

countries.84 According to Bhattacharyya, the Islamic State was

alleged to have committed acts of great atrocity and blatant human

82
Ibid.
83
Chris Diamond, “Top 15 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World,” ​The Clever (2017), accessed June
23, 2017, http://www.theclever.com/top-15-most-dangerous-terrorist-organizations-in-the-world/.
84
“Top 10 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World 2017,” ​Fox News Point, accessed June 23, 2017,
http://www.foxnewspoint.com/top-10-most-dangerous-terrorist-organizations-in-the-world-2017/.
47
 rights violations, having been known to open-firing on civilians,

including children.85 The Islamic State’s claim to be a caliphate has

raised concerns that its ambitions are not bound by the borders of

Iraq and Syria.86 Insurgent groups in countries like Afghanistan,

Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines,

Saudi Arabia, and Yemen have sworn allegiance to the terrorist

organization.

The conflicts in Syria and Iraq have attracted foreign

fighters from all over the world. Middle Eastern and Western

intelligence agencies have raised concern that their citizens who

have joined the fighting in the two countries return to their home

countries carrying out attacks.87 Another issue of concern is the

fact that the IS calls on its followers worldwide to carry out attacks

against Western countries.

Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network, considered

to be the top terrorist threat to the United States as it is the culprit

behind the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and

the Pentagon.88 With the death of the organization’s top leader

85
Rikarnob Bhattacharyya, “Top 10 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World,” ​Listovative (2014),
accessed June 23, 2017, http://listovative.com/top-10-most-dangerous-terrorist-organizations-in-the-world/.
86
Zachary Laub, “The Islamic State,” ​Council on Foreign Relations (2016), accessed June 23, 2017,
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islamic-state?cid=ppc-Google-grant-isis_backgrounder&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0
afqsafP1QIVIL69Ch3MFwgZEAAYASAAEgIR4vD_BwE.
87
​Laub, The Islamic State,” 2016.
88
​Jayshree Bajoria & Greg Bruno, “Al Qaeda aka Al-Qaida, Al-Qa’ida,” ​Council on Foreign Relations (2012), accessed
June 23, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/al-qaeda-aka-al-qaida-al-qaida.
48
 Osama bin Laden serving as a significant blow to the organization,

Al-Qaeda’s capabilities have diminished compared to the event

during 9/11. Nevertheless, Al-Qaeda remains deadly with its

networks spread all over the world, as well as a number of its

affiliated groups gaining prominence in the recent years.89

Taliban

An Islamist fundamental group in Afghanistan,

Mohammed Omar is the founding member of the Taliban and has

been the spiritual leader ever since its commencement in 1994.90

The organization was trained by the ISI and organized by the U.S.

to liberate Afghanistan from Soviet control during the Cold War.

They have reportedly perpetrated heinous acts of human rights

violations like rape, ethnic cleansing, and recruitment of child

soldiers; hence, obtaining their position as one of the most

dangerous terrorist organizations in numerous news articles and

websites.

Boko Haram

Boko Haram, now sworn to ISIS, is an Islamist based

militant group in Nigeria, and is affiliated to and receives funding

from Al Qaeda.91 Its name literally meaning “western education is

sin”, Boko Haram is extremely vocal for their intolerance on

89
Bajoria & Bruno, “Al Qaeda aka Al-Qaida, Al-Qa’ida,” 2012.
90
​Bhattacharyya, “Top 10 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World,” 2014.
91
Diamond, “Top 15 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World,” 2017.
49
 western education. The terrorist organization has been responsible

for the bombings of the UN headquarters in Abuja in 2011, as well

as the abduction of around 200 Nigerian school girls.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah is a Shiite Muslim political party and militant

group considered by the United States and European Union as a

terrorist organization. The Hezbollah was founded mainly to

counter Israeli occupation of Lebanon in 1982, wherein their

objective was to expel western, most especially American, forces

from Lebanon. Supported by both Iran and Syria, the group

maintains an extensive security apparatus, political organization,

and social services network in Lebanon.92

In relation to the Syrian Civil War, Hezbollah fight

alongside the Assad regime to keep them in power. Syria has long

been a defender of Hezbollah and is one of its primary sources of

weapons, mostly originating in Iran and then smuggled to

Lebanon.93 The involvement of the group in the conflict of Syria is

a cause of unrest among the Lebanese Shiite community, in that

they worry about Hezbollah’s abandoning its commitment to

protect Lebanon from Israeli occupation in favor of its alliance

with Iran and Assad’s Syria.

92
​Jonathan Masters & Zachary Laub, “Hezbollah,” ​Council on Foreign Relations (2014), accessed June 23, 2017,
www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hezbollah.
93
“Hezbollah: History & Overview,” ​Jewish Virtual Library.
50
 Hamas

Hamas, which stands for Harakat Al-Muqawama

Al-Islamia, is a Palestinian socio-political terrorist organization

which was established in 1987 as a branch of the Muslim

Brotherhood.94 Hamas is considered as a terrorist group by many

countries such as Israel, the U.S., EU, and U.K., as well as other

states. The group was founded to carry out jihad against Israel and

securing Palestine’s freedom from Israeli occupation, an operation

widely supported by Hezbollah.

I. Identification of Terrorist Organizations

Cold War Era

Authorities Responsible for the Identification of

Terrorist Organizations, and Designation

The United States

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), along with

the National Security Council were both established under

the National Security Act of 1947, allowing the Central

Intelligence Agency to be responsible for discovering

intelligence, securing its validity, and deciding the level of

national security.95

94
​ Diamond, “Top 15 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World,” 2017.
95
​Derek Rhule, “The Central Intelligence Agency,” ​The Cold War Museum, accessed June 25, 2017, www.
coldwar.org/article/40s/CentralIntelligenceAgencyCIA.asp.
51
 The CIA proved to be of great source of America’s

information gathering during the Cold War era with the

Russian Federation. Additionally, the CIA played the

biggest role in counter-espionage against Russia. Quite

similar to the KGB of Russia during the Cold War in terms

of its counterintelligence operations, the CIA performs

secretly under the United States Department and is known

to have hosted several covert operations that helped in

destabilizing Russia.

The Russian Federation

The KGB, or the ​Komitet Gosudarstvennoi

Bezopasnosti is the most known organization that deals

with counterterrorism-- or terrorism -- during the Cold

War era. It involved itself in all aspects of security

including intelligence in other nations, conducting

counterintelligence, maintaining the secret police,

suppressing internal resistance, and conducting electronic

espionage. It was also responsible for numerous operations

that involved the destabilization of the United States

through the use of propagandas and employment and

training of terrorist organizations.

52
 Post Cold War Era

Authorities Responsible for the Identification of

Terrorist Organizations, and Designation

The United States

Under the U.S. Department of State, the Bureau of

Counterterrorism (CT) and Countering Violent Extremism

(CVE) handles the task of identifying and designating

terrorist organizations worldwide, as well as implementing

programs that deal with combating terrorism. Known

before as the Office for Combating Terrorism which was

created in 1972 by President Richard Nixon following the

attack at the Munich Olympics, the office was needed

within the State Department to provide day-to-day

counterterrorism coordination and to develop policy

initiatives and responses for the U.S. government.96 In

1985 it was renamed the Office of the Coordinator for

Counterterrorism, and then the Bureau of

Counterterrorism in 2012. According to the website, the

Coordinator for Counterterrorism is appointed by the

President with the advice and consent of the Senate. With

this, the coordinator will be responsible for the overall

supervision of international counterterrorism activities,

96
U.S. Department of State, accessed June 24, 2017, https://www.state.gov/j/ct/about/index.html.
53
 and will act as the principal adviser to the Secretary of

State on matter of international counterterrorism.

The Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT) leads the the

Department of State in the whole-of-government effort to

counter terrorism abroad and to secure the United States

against foreign terrorist threats.97 In working with the

National Security Staff, U.S. Government Agencies, and

other Department of State bureaus, the Bureau develops

and implements counterterrorism strategies, policies, and

operations. The Bureau leads the government in terms of

counterterrorism diplomacy and ensures U.S. foreign

policy objectives are integrated into the preparation and

execution of operations on countering terrorism.

Programs and initiatives of the Bureau include

managing and overseeing foreign assistance to build the

civilian capabilities of foreign government partners to

counter terrorism and violent extremism in an effective

and sustainable fashion.98 The Antiterrorism Assistance

Program (ATA), Countering Violent Extremism (CVE),

Countering the Financing of Terrorism Finance (CFT),

Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST), and many

others are among the programs held by the Bureau of

97
​ U.S. Department of State, accessed June 24, 2017, https://www.state.gov/j/ct/about/index.html.
98
Ibid.
54
 Counterterrorism that partner up with other states in order

to combat terrorism and extremism.

In identifying terrorist organizations, the Bureau of

Counterterrorism (CT) continually monitors the activities

of terrorist groups active around the world. CT not only

looks at the terrorist attacks perpetrated by a group, but

also if the organization has engaged in planning and

preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains

the capability and intent to carry out such acts.99 Once a

target has been identified, CT prepares a detailed

administrative record, a compilation of information

including both classified and open sources information,

implicating that the statutory criteria for designation have

been met. Process to make the designation into effect will

then be held, and upon the expiration of the seven-day

waiting period and the absence of Congressional action to

block the designation, the designation takes effect. Based

on the U.S. State Department’s website, Legal Criteria for

Designation are as follows100:

1. It must be a foreign organization;

2. The organization must engage in

terrorist activity, as defined in section 212

99
​ Ibid.
100
​Ibid.
55
 (a)(3)(B) of the INA or terrorism, as defined

in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and

1989, or retain the capability and intent to

engage in terrorist activity or terrorism;

3. The organization’s terrorist activity

or terrorism must threaten the security of

U.S. nationals or the national security

(national defense, foreign relations, or the

economic interests) of the United States.

The designation acted upon by the United States

helps support their efforts to curb terrorism financing by

freezing the assets of the concerned designated

organizations. Additionally, it heightens public awareness

about the terrorist organizations which help deter

donations or contributions to and economic transactions

with the named organizations. It also signals to other

governments the Bureau’s concerns about the named

organizations.

The Russian Federation

The Federal Security Service (FSB), previously

known as Federal Counterintelligence Service (FSK) is a

successor of the KGB and has the responsibility for all

56
 security operations in and out of the state. The FSB’s power

is rooted in the influence of President Vladimir Putin, a

former director, and a vast network of former officers that

has permeated all sectors of Russian government and

society.101

With increased surveillance and activities in several

foreign countries that were sponsoring arms to terrorist

organizations, Russia was able to increase its success in

counterterrorism by successfully killing Shamil Basayev, a

perpetrator of several high profile terrorist attacks, and

other presidents of terrorist organizations. In 2003 the

FSB was further restructured into accommodating more

services: the Counterintelligence Service, Service for

Protection of the Constitutional System and the Fight

Against Terrorism, Directorate of Military

Counterintelligence, Economic Security Service, Analysis,

Forecasting, and Strategic Planning Service, Organizational

and Personnel Service, Border Service, Control Service,

Science and Technical Service. It is to be noted that the

FSB does not only exercises its powers through

counterterrorism; it is also responsible for internal security

101
​“Federal Security Service (FSB) Federal’naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti,” ​Global Security, accessed June 25, 2017,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/russia/fsb.html.
57
 of the Russian state, counterintelligence, and fights against

organized crime and drug smuggling.

II. State Response

Cold War Era

The United States

The United States did not necessarily see communism as a

form of terrorism; nevertheless, this form of ideology was seen as a

threat in the destabilization of a world order and of liberalization

and democracy. Russia and its ideology proved to be a threat to

the United States; moreover, based on the fact with how the

Soviets were trying to win the Cold War, there was little that the

United States could but to counter the actions of Russia through

several policies, which were not necessarily about countering

terrorism.

It is imperative to understand that the Russian Federation

has been using terrorism as a tool even before the Cold War;

however, it is during its deterrence with the United States that it

use of terrorism has heightened, in that it was considered to be

their main weapon to defeat their adversary. Military aggression

by the Russian Federation and their occupation of several states

were not necessarily terroristic acts; rather, it is their ideology,

58
communism, that was the underlying reason for such acts of

terrorism, hence equating the ideology with terroristic activities

during the Cold War.

State responses with regard to terrorism include the

Containment Policy, which was one of the very first concrete

policies to have tackled Soviet aggression. Moreover, the

Containment Policy served as the outline and guide for all other

foreign policies conducted by the United States in combatting

Russian forces, whether politically, socially, economically, or

militarily.

In order to combat terrorism, one of the strategies of the

Containment Policy included monetary and fiscal policies to deter

newly independent states from seeking help from Russia.

President Kennedy ensured that the call for an arms buildup, more

flexible conventional forces, and more imaginative

counterinsurgency techniques were made possible. CIA activities

in certain countries dealt with counterterrorism as well. The

operation known as the Phoenix Program was designed to weed

out Vietnamese communist in rural areas, winning support among

villages for the U.S. and South Vietnam.

Operations done by the CIA during the Cold War were

more known as ‘covert operations’, which were sponsored by the

United States government against foreign states or groups that

59
were very well planned and executed that U.S. responsibility for it

is not evident. The Presidential Directive NSC-63, not declassified

until January 2001, is an example of such operation. President

Carter outlined the reaction of the administration to Soviet

advances in the Afghan region, in that defending vital interests in

the region would mean building U.S. capabilities, developing

military response options, enforcing economic and diplomatic

sanctions on Russia, assisting other countries in the region,

improving access to facilities in the region, and taking a regional

approach to securing economic and political interests.

The Russian Federation

The KGB was seen during the Cold War as perpetrating the

acts of terrorism rather than stopping them. With regard to

counterterrorism efforts in the said era, it can be noted that not

much can be researched on the topic; articles implicating Russia as

solely responsible for creating a new form of terrorism--

international terrorism-- are numerous, yet topics on Russian

counterterrorism during the Cold War were scarce. Cold War and

terrorism with regard to Russian context provided articles relaying

information like large-scale sabotage operation prepared by the

KGB, state-sponsorship of terrorism, and propagandas aimed

directly at destabilizing the United States.

60
 Post Cold War

The United States

Counterterrorism since the attacks on September 11 have

been given importance on by the United States. Prior to the 9/11

attack, the United States admittedly stated that its country’s

military and intelligence services were not structured to meet the

threat, with its main focus on deterring aggression from

nation-states.102 However, with the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. came to

view radical Islamist terrorism as an existential threat to the

values and way of lives of Americans.

During the administration of President Bush the

government’s counterterrorism resources have dramatically

expanded. President Bush placed terrorism as the U.S.’ top

national security priority, adopting a strategy that pursued the

United States’ enemies no matter where they were.103 The Bush

administration’s counterterrorism strategy, more known as “The

4D Strategy”, had four objectives from which, at times, its

operative goals were derived:104

​Defeating ​terrorist organizations with a

global agenda and global aspirations by

102
​Michael McCaul, “A National Strategy to Win the War Against Islamist Terror,” ​House Homeland Security
Committee (2016), accessed July 20, 2017,
https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/A-National-Strategy-to-Win-the-War.pdf.
103
​Michael McCaul, “A National Strategy to Win the War Against Islamist Terror,” 2016.
104
​Ibid.
61
attacking their leadership, their command

and control systems, their bases, their

communications systems and their

financing;

Denying the continued support of terrorist

organizations and insisting that countries

take upon themselves the responsibility to

act against entities in their territory that are

threatening the world, by demonstrating

zero tolerance for the phenomenon of

countries supporting terrorism, creating

unified standards for combating terrorism

and creating a unified international front by

building a strong coalition of countries

fighting terrorism;

Defending the United States and its citizens

and interests, both at home and around the

world, while identifying and neutralizing

threats as early as possible by increasing the

public’s awareness of the dangers of

terrorism, streamlining the integrative

activity of the security systems in the U.S. in

times of crisis, and establishing the

62
 Department of Homeland Security with the

aim of mobilizing, organizing, and

improving U.S. security preparedness;

Diminishing the conditions exploited by

terrorist organizations by creating

international partnerships for reinforcing

weak States and preventing the

development of terrorism in these countries

as well as achieving victory in “the war of

ideas”, preventing conditions and ideologies

that create fertile ground for the support of

terrorism, instilling the principle that all

terrorist activities are illegitimate and

reinforcing the drive for liberty among

communities ruled by supporters of global

terrorism.

During President Obama’s administration however, he

sought to end several controversial programs by pulling U.S.

forces back from overseas, and effectively declaring an end to the

“global war on terror”. The President pursued a narrower

counterterrorism strategy, focusing almost exclusively on

Al-Qaeda.

63
 The official document of the administration details the

main goals of the Obama’s administration in this field: defending

the American people, the homeland and American interests,

defeating Al-Qaeda, its agents and supporters, and attacking their

network; preventing the terrorists’ development and ability to

obtain weapons of mass destruction; eliminating their sanctuaries;

establishing and reinforcing international alliances in the field of

counterterrorism; coping with Al-Qaeda’s ideology and the

support that the organization receives; neutralizing the

motivations for violence that Al-Qaeda exploits for its own needs;

and depriving terrorists of the means that motivate them.105

Overall, numerous counterterrorism initiatives by the

United States have taken effect from as early as the 1980s,

partnering with several countries worldwide. Programs such as the

Antiterrorism Assistance Program (ATA), Countering Violent

Extremism (CVE), Countering the Financing of Terrorism Finance

(CFT), and the Regional Strategic Initiative (RSI) are among the

few programs of the Bureau of Counterterrorism that prove to be

effective against fighting terrorist organizations both domestically

and internationally.

105
​Ibid.
64
 The Russian Federation

Terrorism has been tightly associated with the activities of

Islamic militants in Chechnya and the broader North Caucasus

region.106 The latter has been an area with the highest

concentration of terrorist attacks, and Chechen guerilla fighter

have been implicated in the vast majority of hostage-taking

incidents and terrorist crimes in Russia. As a result, Russia

adopted the Federal Law “On Combating Terrorism” in 1998,

becoming the main pillar of Russian anti-terrorism efforts.107 The

law defines terrorist activities omitting political motivation as one

of the defining characteristics of the crime. According to the

website Terrorism Research Initiative, the law also sketched out

the legal regime of the counterterrorist operation, and defined

organizational basis of counterterrorism placing Russia’s Federal

Security Service (FSB), and the Ministry of Interior (MVD) at the

top of the list of agencies responsible for counterterrorism.108

However, actions done by the mentioned organizations including

the country’s Defense Ministry, the Ministry of Emergency

Situations, and the Border Service were seen to have perpetrated

indiscriminate acts of violence by the use of overwhelming military

force characterized by brutalizing the local population. Frequent

106
​Mariya Omelicheva, “Russia’s Counterterrorism Policy: Variations on an Imperial Theme,” ​Terrorism Research
Initiative (2009), accessed July 23, 2017,
http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/61/html.
107
​Omelicheva, “Russia’s Counterterrorism Policy: Variations on an Imperial Theme,” 2009.
108
​Ibid.
65
 abductions, summary executions, and torture have had a

radicalizing effect on the population as well.109 In 2006, a new

Federal Law “On Counteraction to Terrorism” entered into force

and replaced the earlier version. The law legalizes the application

of legal forces in and out of the country. Additionally, the law

allows suspension of certain individual liberties and media

freedoms in the zone of counterterrorist operations, and

authorizes counterterrorism units to carry out searches and

demolition of suspicious airplanes and ships.

Definition of Terrorism

Terrorism, like all the other elements of international relations, is a social

construct. Its identity is not a given in this world; rather, it is an interpretation of

events and their presumed causes. The often quoted statement that ‘one’s

terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’ is a reminder that the definition of

terrorism is based on how it is being constructed by an individual or state.110 The

construction of terrorism as a threat, therefore, is purely social and is dependent

on who says it, based on their preconceived notions as well as perceptions and

interests.

In reading the studies provided in the previous chapters, the Russian

Federation, formerly known as the Soviet Union, has been known to facilitate

terrorism by sponsoring revolutionary and insurgent groups in other states. The

state’s involvement on revolutionary violence, according to the Central

109
​Ibid.
110
​ Krishnaswamy, “How Does Terrorism Lend Itself to Constructivist Understanding?,”2012.
66
 Intelligence Agency, has been part of the Soviet policy, pursued in the interests of

weakening unfriendly societies, destabilizing hostile regimes, and advancing

Soviet interests.111 Additionally, Soviet attitude to terrorist activities depend on

whether or not the tactics advance or harm Soviet interests. This can be seen

through the Soviet policy towards the nihilistic type of revolutionaries; Russia has

often condemned nihilistic terrorism in public and on occasion on private as it

considers the group’s main practitioners as uncontrollable adventurers whose

behavior antagonizes other governments unduly, provokes reaction damaging to

the state’s interests, and on occasion endangers Soviet personnel and undermines

the Soviet objective of fomenting more broadly based revolutionary movements.

112
Although some nihilists appear in training camps of Russia and have received

funding and East Bloc arms from a variety of sources, the Soviets have not made

their support for these friends contingent on their desisting from aiding nihilistic

terrorism.

The view of the United States with regard to communism as equated with

terroristic activities is socially constructed. In the era during the Cold War, many

identified terrorist organizations were leftist or Marxist, often state-sponsored by

Russia and its allies. Alexander Wendt stated that in a Social Constructivist

theory, repeated interactions form stable identities. This is seen through

revolutionary groups and national insurgencies working under communist

ideologies performing terroristic acts. Moreover, leftist revolutionary groups have

earned a pejorative reputation as terroristic. Although this is the case, the CIA, in

111
​ “Soviet Support for International Terrorism and Revolutionary Violence,” 1981.
112
​Ibid.
67
 its 1981 SNIE, distinguished between revolutionary insurgent groups and strictly

terrorist groups, while acknowledging that many insurgent groups use terrorist

tactics, and many terrorist groups have revolutionary goals. Nevertheless, the

aftermath of the September 11 attacks have resulted in the demarcation of these

two elements to become blurry.

It is obvious that the definition of terrorism used by the United States and

Russia during the Cold War are very different. Terrorism, to the United States,

are acts including hijackings, assassinations, kidnappings, bombings, and other

acts that victimize innocent civilians. Moreover, it is a frequent component of

revolutionary violence, or violence aimed at undermining or overthrowing a

political status quo.113 According to another article of the CIA, terrorism also

means premeditated, politically motivated violence directed against

noncombatant targets by nongovernment groups or clandestine state agents,

generally to intimidate a target audience.114 It is to be noted that not all

revolutionary groups or national insurgencies were identified as terrorist groups

by the United States, but only those who fit under their own definition of

terrorism. On the other hand, Russia’s support for national insurgencies are

justified by describing such insurgencies as ‘national liberation’ movements.

Support for revolutionary violence, including its terrorist component, provides

Russia with a means of inciting or exploiting violence and at the same time

destabilizing conflict on a regional as well as global scale, with a small risk or

military confrontation and retaliation from the United States. The Russian view

113
​Ibid.
114
“The Soviet Bloc Role in International Terrorism and Revolutionary Violence,” ​Central Intelligence Agency (1986),
accessed July 25, 2017, www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000518060.pdf.
68
 of terrorism is different from the United States, in that the Soviet leaders’

approach to terrorism derives from their broader view that violence is a basic,

legitimate tool of political struggle to be applied or sponsored in those settings

where its use will benefit the state. As a result, Russia has no moral compunctions

about supporting foreign insurgent and terrorist groups; the primary

consideration is whether the activities of these groups further Soviet interests.115

The view on terrorism after the Cold War presents a slightly different

case. The media has the most impact on how terrorism is viewed today. Views on

terrorism can be traced back to the information provided on television news

programs, online news articles, and newspapers. However, the government’s view

on terrorism should still not be dismissed. In the construction of terrorism, there

is a tendency to label acts of violence as terrorists attacks because of governments

using it to refer to attacks on military and foreign military forces within the

country. Al-Qaeda, which was supported and funded by the United States to

defeat Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the Cold War, has become the number

one enemy of the country, what with its attack on the World Trade Center and the

Pentagon. The ‘War on Terror’ or the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ is a prime

example as to how terrorism is shown as a social construct. After the terrorist

attacks of 9/11, the Bush administration declared a worldwide ‘War on Terror’,

calling other states to join the fight against terrorism and asserting that it was

either the other states were with the United States or with the terrorist.116

115
​“The Soviet Bloc Role in International Terrorism and Revolutionary Violence,” (1986).
116
​“War on Terrorism.” ​Global Policy Forum, accessed July 26, 2017,
https://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism.html.
69
 As a conclusion to this chapter, there are differences and similarities in

the definition of terrorism during the Cold War era and after. Physically, the

difference of terrorism during the Cold War and the Post-Cold War were based

on the actions of the terrorist groups, as well as the ideologies that they carry.

Before 9/11, the ‘typical’ terrorist was seen as a single male, aged 22 to 25, trained

at a university, and had grown up in middle to upper class urban environment

and held anarchist or Marxist ideologies.117 The 9/11 attacks resulted in the

construction of a new profile of what a terrorist is supposed to be. Muslims began

to be characterized as enemies, framing them as radical people seeking to

overthrow the United States government. The Islamic religion has also been

stigmatized, whose essence was reduced based on religious extremism, which

does not entirely represent it. An ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality has been

constructed, in that there is a separation placed between the ordinary citizens and

Muslims, now perceived as terrorists. As a result, it gives the impression that

there is a clash between Islam and the Western world, and that the two are

constantly at war with one another. Therefore, the obvious difference between

Cold War and Post-Cold War definition of terrorism is on who is identified as a

terrorist, and what their ideology or religion is. The difference in terrorism only

shows the physical and obvious attributes of how it is defined. This is due to the

fact that the findings in this chapter has garnered more evidences as to the

similarities between both era in their definition.

The similarities in the definition of terrorism, will be concluded

accordingly. In the Cold War era, both the United States and Russia have, at some

117
​Isabelle Duyvesteyn, “How New is the New Terrorism?,” ​Studies in Conflict & Terrorism (2004), accessed July 26,
2017.
70
point, used terrorism as a strategy or have funded terrorist organizations as tools

in order to destabilize one another. The use of terrorism was not much of an issue

for both so long as it advances their interests. However, designation of a terrorist

organization happens when a revolutionary group or a national insurgency no

longer benefits a specific state, in this case United States and Russia. There is a

condemnation of certain activities done by terrorist organizations, yet these same

activities were once perpetrated by the groups that they have sponsored during

the Cold War. Another similarity is that in both states and eras state-sponsored

funding of these groups were justified; Russia’s sponsorship of several

revolutionary groups was considered a terrorist act, yet the United States had also

sponsored the Mujahedeen, which then became the state’s primary enemy

decades later.

With these in mind, the definition of terrorism can be rooted more on the

similarities presented rather than the differences. Terrorism, in its purest form, is

a socially constructed term, whose definition is dependent as to who uses it, and

benefits/loses from it. It is a useful tool used by governments and states to justify

their actions with regard to several operations on interventions as well as

counter-terrorism strategies, which proves to be effective even until now.

71
 CHAPTER VI

THE SHIFT ON THE PERCEPTION OF TERRORISM IN RELATION TO NUCLEAR

DETERRENCE

This chapter answers the research question on the shift on the perception of terrorism

with regard to Nuclear Deterrence. It also tackles Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as an

important concept during the Cold War era, and talks about how it relates to Nuclear Deterrence

and Social Constructivism. In reading this chapter, viewers will come to understand how

Mutually Assured Destruction came to influence the events that had transpired during the Cold

War, as well as how, through the lens of Social Constructivism, leaders in both the United States

and the Russian Federation had confronted this dilemma and made improvisations to defeat

one another.

Mutually Assured Destruction and Nuclear Deterrence Theory

Through the lens of Social Constructivism, the concept of Mutually Assured

Destruction (MAD) is the primary explanation as to the absence of a direct military and

nuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia during the Cold War. When

Russia achieved nuclear parity with the United States, the Cold War became a conflict

more dangerous and unmanageable than anything the Americans had faced before.118

Mutually Assured Destruction is a military theory of nuclear deterrence: neither side will

attack the other with their nuclear weapons because both sides are guaranteed to be

destroyed in the conflict. Because of this notion, MAD helped in the prevention of the

Cold War.

118
​“Mutual Assured Destruction,” ​Nuclear Files, accessed July 27, 2017,
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/strategy-mutual-assured
-destruction.html.
72
 The theory of MAD developed during the Cold War, when the United States,

Russia, and other allies held nuclear weapons of such number and strength that they

were capable of destroying the adversary completely and threaten to do so if attacked.

Proponents of the theory argued that the fear of a mutually assured destruction was the

best way to secure peace. However, an alternative of the theory is to develop an effective

first strike capability that one’s adversary cannot fire back, which proponents of MAD

had feared that the ability had already been achieved.

Because of the recognition of both the superpowers that an all-out nuclear war

promises an assured destruction by both sides, the theory of Nuclear Deterrence became

important for both parties. The strategic concept of deterrence aims to prevent war. It is

also a justification for nuclear states to maintain nuclear arsenals in order to launch

preemptive attacks or a second-strike. As a result of the recognition of this theory during

the Cold War, both the United States and Russia made important modifications in

military and diplomatic strategy.

Russian Policy of Deterrence

The Soviets recognized the objective reality of assured destruction in an

all-out war. Consequently, this led to the increase of conventional military forces;

furthermore, it has become an important element in the country’s diplomatic

strategy. Conventional military power has been an important tool in expanding

Russian influence in the Third World. Without a secure strategic balance, the use

of conventional forces in the Third World would create greater risks of

unacceptable escalation.

73
 As stated in the previous chapters, Russian policy during the Cold War

focused on neo-colonialism through military and political intervention in Third

World countries in order to expand their communist ideology. The Russians also

supported revolutionary and insurgent groups from Third World countries by

funding and training them, which helped them greatly in terms of weakening the

U.S. government and their allies.

As a result, it is clear that Russia gave much importance on its

improvement of its conventional military forces as its policy. It is proven to be an

effective strategy as can be seen in its successful military inventions in other

states, and has helped Russia expand its communistic ideology throughout the

world.

United States’ Policy of Deterrence

The first policy of deterrence employed by the United States was the

policy of Containment, a strategy to limit the influence of its adversary through a

number of policies. Policies under the containment included political

intervention in other states, financial and military aids to those in danger of being

occupied by Russia, and the formation of alliances with other states, most notably

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

All throughout the Cold War era, the Containment Policy served as the

main policy pursued by the United States in order to defeat Russia; it is only

when presidents changed that its strategies changed also, nevertheless, its goal in

containing Soviet expansionism was still the main motivation of the policy.

74
 Under the administration of Reagan, it was Operation Cyclone that

became famous in the United States’ defeat of the Russian Federation. The

invasion of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was seen as a turning point in the

U.S.-Russian relations. ​Having done specific actions in order to contain further

Russian expansionism, the U.S. enacted one more strategy that played a crucial

role in the defeat of Russia: the direct aid and assistance of an anti-communist

force, which was the Mujahedeen. The funding, arming, and training of these

fighters paved way in the defeat of the Russian forces, making it one of the most

famous operations done by the United States during the Cold War.

In conclusion, because of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, there is

nuclear deterrence, leading both states to pursue foreign policies and strategies that

destabilize one another without inciting a direct military and nuclear confrontation. This

created a shift in the perception of terrorism due to the actions done by both states in

replacement for war against each other.

75
 CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

The analysis in the previous chapters prove that there are ​a number of differences when

it comes to how terrorism was defined in the Cold War era and the post-Cold War. In citing the

main argument of the research in that Nuclear Deterrence shaped the definition of terrorism

during the Cold War era, it can be noted that the initial statement that ‘through the various

policies employed by both the United States and Russia during the Cold War which were

Neo-Colonialism and state-sponsorship of terrorism, Nuclear Deterrence helped shape the

definition of terrorism’ remains true even until the end of the data analysis. Both chapters in the

data analysis supported the main argument, in that they provided numerous cases which helped

explained the shift on the perception of terrorism. Furthermore, it is important to note that the

role of Social Constructivism has greatly helped explain the incidents found in the two chapters

of the data analysis.

The first chapter of the data analysis answers the first research question on how the

Western definition of terrorism differs during the Cold War period compared to the post-Cold

War. Social Constructivism helped in the construction of the analysis by providing an insight on

the definition of terrorism, relating it to the findings in the chapter. Several elements were used

in the chapter, and a cross comparison on the actions employed during the Cold War era and the

post-Cold War were given, as well as with a separate analysis on the United States and the

Russian Federation. Elements such as the identification of terrorism, how they were designated ,

and how the two states responded with regard to the issue were shown. In concluding the

chapter, the definition of terrorism was provided.

76
 The conclusion stated that terrorism was a product of Social Constructivism, like all the

other elements of international relations. The construction of terrorism is conditional; its

meaning is not permanent because it is dependent on who uses it. It should also be regarded

that terrorism is based on the preconceived notions as well as perceptions and interests of those

who define it. Terrorism during the Cold War was mostly identified with communism; the fact

that the saying ‘repeated actions form stable identities’ rings true as most terrorist organizations

were identified as having leftist or Marxist views during the Cold War era. These were identified

by the United States and its allies, while the Russian Federation was indifferent to them, so long

as they proved to be beneficial to them. Also, the Russians were known to have sponsored these

groups as part of their policies. The view of terrorism after the Cold War presented a slightly

different case. The media has the most impact in shaping the view of the public when it comes to

terrorism; nevertheless, the government’s role should not be dismissed. Acts of violence were

considered terroristic when used against governments and military forces. State-sponsored

terrorism was not given much importance as can be seen on how the United States dismissed

the fact that they were responsible for the growth of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda.

The chapter concludes that there were both differences and similarities in the definition

of terrorism during the Cold War era and after it. The difference was that identification of

terrorism was based on the actions of certain groups, as well as the ideologies that they carried.

Both eras showed that there was a discrimination in pointing out who were likely to be

terrorists, though there were differences in both eras as to how they were described: the Cold

War era has shown a discrimination on people with Marxist views while the post-Cold War

discriminated those who were Islam or were Muslims. The similarities in the conception of

terrorism proved to be more essential however. Both the United States and Russia have used

terrorism as a strategy as tools to destabilize and defeat one another. The use of terrorism in

77
specific cases were not much of a problem to both sides, so long as they were benefiting from it.

However, designation of a terrorist organization happens when a certain group no longer

advances the interests of a state, or when it becomes a threat to them. In referring to these

things, terrorism is defined as a socially constructed term. It is a useful tool used by

governments to justify their actions and advance their interests which proves to be effective even

now.

The second chapter of the data analysis provides information on the shift on the

perception of terrorism in relation to Nuclear Deterrence. The concept of Mutually Assured

Destruction is used heavily here as the research emphasizes its importance in influencing both

states with regard to their policies during the Cold War. The fear of a direct military and then

nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and Russia led both states to employ the theory of

Nuclear Deterrence, meaning that neither side will attack the other with their nuclear weapons

because both sides are guaranteed to be destroyed in the conflict. In practicing this theory, both

states were led to pursue other policies to defeat one another without rousing a direct

confrontation. Both sides’ ‘Policies of Deterrence’ revolved around neo-colonialism and the use

of terrorism. For the United States, the Policy of Containment proved to be the most effective in

defeating Russia; the Russian Federation made use of state-sponsored terrorism as it main

policy of deterrence.

In conclusion, theories specified in the research were the main influence on the shift on

the definition of terrorism. It can be seen that the theories provided a ‘cause-and-effect’ kind of

relationship in the whole research, in that the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction proved

to be the main cause as to why terrorism is now regarded differently. MAD was the cause as to

78
why both states employed Nuclear Deterrence, which led them to pursue different policies to

defeat one another, which then influenced how terrorism was viewed relatively.

Terrorism then, proves to be highly relative and gives a double-standard meaning of

itself. It is purely constructed because it does not provide a permanent meaning as to what

terrorism is, only a temporary definition depending on who uses the term and who their

adversaries are. Therefore the saying ‘one man’s terrorist is another’s freedoms fighter’ rings

true; the communist revolutionary groups during the Cold War did not see themselves as

terrorists, only that they were trying to reclaim their country by employing violence as their

main strategy, this is the same for Islamic terrorists whose goals are mainly to resist influence

from colonial states, which have suppressed them for decades.

79
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), aka Fatah Revolutionary Council, the Arab Revolutionary

Brigades, or the Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims,” Council on Foreign Relations

(2009), accessed June 21, 2017,

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/abu-nidal-organization-ano-aka-fatah-revolutionary-counci

l-arab-revolutionary-brigades.

Bacon,​ ​Leanne M.J. “George F. Kennan’s Strategy of Containment: An Assessment of Kennan’s

Coherence and Consistency.” Master’s thesis, The University of Birmingham, 2010.

Bajoria, Jayshree & Bruno, Greg. “Al Qaeda aka Al-Qaida, Al-Qa’ida.” ​Council on Foreign

Relations (2016), accessed June 23, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/al-qaeda-aka

-al-qaida-al-qaida.

Bergen, Peter & Schuster, Courtney. “The Golden Age of Terrorism.” ​CNN (2015), accessed June

21, 2017, www.edition.cnn.com/2015/07/28/opinions/bergen-1970s-terrorism/index.html.

Bhattacharyya, Rikarnob. “Top 10 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World.”

Listovative (2014), accessed June 23, 2017, listovative.com/top-10-most-dangerous-terrorist-

organizations-in-the-world/.

Billard Jr., Robert D. “Operation Cyclone: How the United States Defeated the Soviet Union.”

Undergraduate thesis, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, 2010.

80
Butler, Taryn. “The Media Construction of Terrorism Pre and Post- 9/11.” University research

paper, McKendree University.

Carson, Clarence. “World in the Grip of an Idea: 28. The Cold War: The Third World.”

Foundation for Economic Education (1979), accessed April 20, 2017,

https://fee.org/articles/world-in-the-grip-of-an-idea-28-the-cold-war-the-third-world/.

“Cold War: A Brief History.” ​National Science Digital Library, 2015, accessed May 03, 2017,

www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page15.shtml.

DePetris, Daniel. “The 5 Deadliest Terrorist Groups on the Planet.” ​The National Interest

(2014), accessed June 23, 2017, www.nationalinterest.org/feature/washington-watching-the-

5-deadliest-terrorist-groups-the-11687?page=3

“Deterrence, Doctrine and Strategy.” ​Nuclear Darkness, Global Climate Change and Nuclear

Famine, accessed April 28, 2017, http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/

deterrencedoctrineandstrategy.

Diamond, Chris. “Top 15 Most Dangerous Terrorist Organizations in the World.” ​The Clever

(2017), accessed June 23, 2017, www.theclever.com/top-15-most-dangerous-terrorist-

organizations-in-the-world/.

81
Ehrenfeld, Rachel. ​Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed--and how to Stop it. Bonus

Books, Inc., 2005.

Falola, Toyin and Heaton, Matthew. “Neocolonialism - Bibliography.” accessed April. 20, 2017,

http://science.jrank.org/pages/7920/Neocolonialism.html

“Federal Security Service (FSB) Federal’naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti.” ​Global Security, accessed

June 25, 2017, http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/russia/fsb.html.

Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. 2017. Accessed June 28, 2017.

www.fsb.ru/fsb/npd/terror.html.

Fletcher, Holly. “Egyptian Islamic Jihad.” Council on Foreign Relations (2008), accessed June

21, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/egyptian-islamic-jihad.

Giannaros, Spiros. “Terrorism in the Wake of the Cold War Order.” Master’s thesis, Georgetown

University, 2009.

Heywood, Andrew. ​Global Politics. Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2011.

“Hezbollah: History & Overview.” ​Jewish Virtual Library, accessed June 21, 2017,

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-hezbollah.

82
“History of Terrorism,” ​International Terrorism and Security Research, accessed April 23,

2017, https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/717/05/.

Huth. “Deterrence and International Conflict: Empirical Findings and Theoretical Debate.”

Annual Review of Political Science, 1999. 25-48.

Kraszkiewicz, Nolan. “Operation Cyclone (1979-1989): A Brief Analysis of the U.S. Involvement

in the Soviet-Afghan War.” accessed June 21, 2017,

http://www.academia.edu/2897792/Operation_Cyclone_1979-1989_A_Brief_Analysis_of_the

_U.S._Involvement_in_the_Soviet-Afghan_War.

Krieger, Tim & Meierrieks, Daniel. “What Causes Terrorism?” University of Paderborn, 2009,

Accessed June 12, 2017, http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=33100509.

Laird, Robbin F. and Herspring, Dale R. ​The Soviet Union and Strategic Arms. Westview Press,

1984.

Laub, Zachary “The Islamic State,” ​Council on Foreign Relations (2016), accessed June 23,

2017, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/islamic-state?cid=ppc-Google-grant-isis_

backgrounder&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI0afqsafP1QIVIL69Ch3MFwgZEAAYASAAEgIR4vD_BwE.

83
Leffler, Melvyn P. “Containment.” ​Princeton University Press, accessed April 26, 2017,

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/pons/s2_9143.pdf.

Lockwood, Nick. “How the Soviet Union Transformed Terrorism.” ​The Atlantic (2011), accessed

April 24, 2017,

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/how-the-soviet-union-transforme

d-terrorism/250433/.

Masters, Jonathan & Laub, Zachary. “Hezbollah.” ​Council on Foreign Relations (2014), accessed

June 23, 2017, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hezbollah.

Michael McCaul, “A National Strategy to Win the War Against Islamist Terror,” ​House

Homeland Security Committee (2016), accessed July 20, 2017,

https://homeland.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/A-National-Strategy-to-Win-the-W

ar.pdf.

Moore, John. “The Evolution of Islamic Terrorism: An Overview.” ​Public Broadcasting Service

(2014), accessed June 21, 2017,

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html.

“Mutual Assured Destruction,” ​Nuclear Files, accessed July 27, 2017,

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/stra

tegy-mutual-assured-destruction.html.

84
Nkrumah, Kwame. “Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism.” accessed April 24, 2017,

https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.html.

“Nuclear Deterrence.” ​Politics.co.uk, accessed May 03, 2017.

www.politics.co.uk/reference/nuclear-deterrence.

Omelicheva, Mariya. “Russia’s Counterterrorism Policy: Variations on an Imperial Theme.”

Terrorism Research Initiative (2009), accessed July 23, 2017,

http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/61/html.

Pacepa, Ion Mihai. “Russian Footprints.” ​National Review (2006), accessed April 25, 2017,

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/218533/russian-footprints-ion-mihai-pacepa.

“Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).” ​Encyclopaedia Britannica (2009),

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Palestine-Liberation-Organization.

President Jimmy Carter. State of the Union Address, January 23, 1980.

Ramin, Georgina. “Terrorism- The New World Order.” ​The Isthmus (2017), accessed June 22,

2017, www.theisthmus.com.au/2017/06/terrorism-the-new-world-order/.

Rhule, Derek. “The Central Intelligence Agency.” ​The Cold War Museum, accessed June 25,

2017, www. coldwar.org/article/40s/CentralIntelligenceAgencyCIA.asp.

85
Smith, Paul J. "The Italian Red Brigades (1969-1984): Political Revolution and Threats to the

State." ​Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism, and Counterinsurgency

(2008): 15-28.

“Soviet Support for International Terrorism and Revolutionary Violence.” ​CIA Historical

Review Program (1981), accessed April 24, 2017,

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000272980.pdf.

“The Cold War (1945-1989).” ​Centre Virtuel de la Connaissance sur l’Europe (2016), accessed

April 24, 2017, http://www.cvce.eu/obj/the_cold_war_1945_1989_full_text-en-6dfe06ed-

4790-48a4-8968-855e90593185.html.

“The Cold War and Imperialism.” ​Global Learning (2013), accessed April. 20, 2017,

http://www.globallearning-cuba.com/blog-umlthe-view-from-the-southuml/the-cold-war-and-i

mperialism.

“The KGB.” ​The Cold War Museum (n.d.) accessed April 25, 2017,

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/kgb.asp.

“The Soviet Bloc Role in International Terrorism and Revolutionary Violence,” ​Central

Intelligence Agency (1986), accessed July 25, 2017,

www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000518060.pdf.

86
Tierney Jr., John J. “Cold War Geopolitics: Containment.” ​The Institute of World Politics

(2016), accessed April. 26, 2017,

http://www.iwp.edu/news_publications/detail/cold-war-geopolitics-containment.

U.S. Department of State, accessed June 24, 2017,https://www.state.gov/j/ct/about/index.html.

Walt, Stephen. “Rethinking the “Nuclear Revolution”.” ​Foreign Policy, 2010. Accessed May.

04,2017. foreignpolicy.com/2010/08/03/rethinking-the-nuclear-revolution/.

“War on Terrorism.” ​Global Policy Forum, accessed July 26, 2017,

https://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism.html.

“What is Terrorism?.” ​International Terrorism and Security Research, accessed April 23, 2017,

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/717/05/.

Zubok, Vladislav. ​A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to

Gorbachev. University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

87