Armed Revolt—a Growing Menace
“IT MAY be that in the decade ahead of us, civil war, not war between nations, will be the main danger we will face.”
Those words of warning came from Britain’s prime minister, Edward Heath, late in 1970. They were addressed to the United Nations General Assembly.
How widespread has armed revolt become? Time magazine said: “The terrorist activity is worldwide, and most of it is carried out by a new type in the history of political warfare: the urban [city] guerrilla.”
The number involved in armed revolt in any one country is usually small, perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand. But when they find the right pressure point, they can affect the entire nation. And history shows that in many instances governments have been overthrown and the course of history changed by only a handful of men. Lenin’s group that brought Bolshevism to Russia in 1917 was very small.
The political ideologies of modern-day revolutionaries may differ widely—from extreme ‘left’ to extreme ‘right,’ but most are ‘leftist’ in political orientation. Generally, they hold the belief in common that the government they live under is incapable of bringing about the kind of change they want. The more extreme groups feel that the ‘establishment,’ the ruling authority, can be toppled only by force of arms. Thus, their aim is to destroy what they feel cannot be reformed.
North America’s Problems
Most people did not suspect that Canada had problems with urban revolutionaries. But late in 1970, terrorists kidnapped James Cross, a senior British trade commissioner in Quebec. Five days later the terrorists struck again; Quebec’s Labor Minister Pierre Laporte was also kidnapped.
Who were the kidnappers? They were members of a group called the F.L.Q., the Front for the Liberation of Quebec. They want the province of Quebec to be independent from the rest of Canada, and so for at least seven years have been committing acts of terrorism. What price did they demand for their hostages? The release of twenty-three political prisoners, $500,000 in gold and a plane to fly them to Cuba or Algeria.
The government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau declared all-out war on the terrorists by invoking Canada’s 1914 War Measures Act. This drastic measure had been used before only in the two world wars, never in peacetime. It suspended civil liberties and gave police extraordinary powers.
Less than two days later one of the hostages, Pierre Laporte, was found murdered. The country was stunned. The other hostage, James Cross, was held prisoner for fifty-nine days but then was released in an exchange. Canada’s government allowed the kidnappers and some of their relatives safe passage out of the country.
What of the United States? Bombings and other terroristic activity there has “approached what one political leader called a “clear and present danger to the government of the United States.” Senator James Eastland said: “An organized ‘war upon the police’ threatens to undermine law and order in the United States.” The killing of policemen has risen ominously. And Time magazine reported an average of about 300 bombings and 5,000 threats of bombings each month during 1970.
Latin America in Turmoil
Armed revolt has mounted in most of Latin America in the last few years. At least twenty-two diplomats have been kidnapped. Hundreds of people have been killed and wounded.
With the kidnapping and ransoming of the United States ambassador to Brazil in exchange for the release of fifteen jailed political prisoners, revolutionary groups learned that a few guerrillas could force even strong governments to give in to some of their demands. And in Brazil, the price went up. U.S. News & World Report noted: “Brazil, to now, has paid off terrorist kidnappers. Result: The price is up from 15 prisoners released for one U.S. ambassador, to 40 prisoners out for a West German ambassador, to 70 prisoners sent to Chile for a Swiss ambassador.”
What can happen when governments refuse to bargain? The same thing that happened to Quebec’s Labor Minister Laporte; the hostage may pay the ultimate price—his life. Similarly, when Uruguay refused to make concessions to guerrillas, a United States police expert there was murdered. In Argentina, a former president and two other politicians have been murdered. And Guatemalan terrorists killed an American ambassador and also one from West Germany.
Across the Atlantic
On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean armed revolt brews in many places. In the Middle East late in 1970, Palestinian guerrilla groups skyjacked, or pirated, four huge jet aircraft and their passengers. One, a $24 million jumbo 747 jet, was blown up at Cairo Airport minutes after its passengers were released. Three other jets were forced to land at an isolated airport in Jordan, their hundreds of passengers held hostage. The guerrillas demanded freedom for seven of their members being held in Europe. They got them, released their hostages, and then blew up the jets.
Europe also has its share of terrorism. The Italian province of Alto Adige on the border of Italy and Austria has seen about two hundred bombs go off and ten policemen killed in the past five years. Here German-speaking separatists are demanding reunification with Austria.
Spain’s troubles center in the northern Basque region. The kidnapping of a West German consul in late 1970 threw the area into a turmoil and the Spanish government sent extra police into the Basque provinces. Guerrillas there want “Basque Land and Liberty,” that is, a separate government for the Basque area.
In Northern Ireland and elsewhere the trend is the same—to settle differences by armed revolt. In Africa, thirty out of thirty-six black countries have experienced revolts in recent years.
How They Think
What kind of people are these present-day terrorists? How do they think?
The Toronto Daily Star reported: “Terrorism begins in the minds of young men who see the world in simple black and white terms. Their cause is just and everything that might thwart their cause is evil. They have the right then to destroy anything and anyone by any means if it will help advance their cause.”
Some are blue-collar workers, some white-collar, others idealistic youths. Many come from ‘middle-class’ or even ‘upper-class’ homes. Some are adventurers and romantics. But what leads most of them to revolutionary activity are the dehumanizing conditions found in so many places, particularly in large cities.
A historian at the American University in Beirut, Lebanon, said: “The individual is overcome by despair that he will ever accomplish anything by conventional means.” So he turns to armed revolt. Leila Khaled, member of a Palestine Liberation group, said: “If we throw bombs, it is not our responsibility. You may care for the death of a child, but the whole world ignored the death of Palestinian children for 22 years. We are not responsible.”
A young rebel in the United States was asked what he hoped to gain by armed revolt when he represented such a small minority in the country. He answered: “You can’t tell. You cannot plan a revolution. Do you think Stalin knew, when he robbed a bank, that it would lead to a revolution? When Lenin studied, did he visualize himself a revolutionary leader? You try things. You blow things up. If this won’t work, we will try something else.” The young man came from a wealthy family and his parents shared their son’s hatred for the ‘establishment.’ The father declared: “The system is rotten at the core.”
While the actual number engaged in violence is as yet small, they do have many sympathizers. Authorities feel that some of these sympathizers can be drawn into action when a revolutionary movement seems to have a fair chance of succeeding.
The Reaction
Obviously, established governments and their supporters are not willingly going to give up authority to a revolutionary group. They will react to protect their interests.
In a dictatorial land, reaction can be swift and deadly. Those in authority use every means at their disposal to wipe out rebels. The threat of such crushing force is what has kept armed revolt from gaining ground in Communist countries so far. Still in mind is the experience of Russian troops swiftly moving in to crush rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
In nations classified as democracies, governments usually do not take such drastic action. But when the two officials were kidnapped in Canada, and the War Measures Act was invoked, any peace officer was empowered to search and arrest a person without a warrant. They could detain anyone up to ninety days without bail, and for three weeks without any charges being laid.
That a liberal country such as Canada would resort to such drastic measures shocked many. Some felt that this power could be misused. The New York Times said in December: “There is little question that legitimate political dissent in Canada is today much more difficult than it was two months ago.”
Many feel that winning out over terror is of little benefit if it leads to a police state in which citizens have their rights permanently curtailed.
What Is Legitimate?
However, when all is said and done, which is more legitimate: the rebels, or the government against which they rebel? Of course, all governments would answer that the present governments are legitimate.
Yet, how did many present-day governments come into power? The Communist regimes that crush armed revolts in their lands—how did they originate? Was not Communism brought to power in Russia, China and Cuba by armed revolt, and in Eastern Europe by the might of Soviet armed forces?
How did the government of the United States come to power? By a revolution against the ‘establishment’ of the 1770’s—the British government. What of France? Is she not the product of the French Revolution of 1789? Many governments in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere have come to power as the direct result of armed revolts against the previous ‘establishment.’
Facing this fact squarely, editorial writer Sydney Harris, in a San Francisco Examiner article entitled “We Are All Outlaws,” comments as follows:
“There is no world law. Each nation is a law unto itself. This means, in effect, that each nation is an outlaw, in the literal sense of the word.
“If we want something, we grab it, and then we try to justify our act. We go to war when we feel like it, and make ‘peace’ when we feel like it. Self-interest is the sole motivating force of nations. . . .
“There is no difference between a band of nationalist or revolutionary guerrillas and a ‘duly constituted’ government. Success sanctifies legitimacy. When the revolutionary group achieves power (as our own colonists did in 1776), it becomes the ‘established government.’ . . .
“Only the weak appeal to ‘morality’; when they acquire strength, they behave just as ruthlessly as the oppressors they rebelled against. . . .
“Today’s guerrilla . . . is just tomorrow’s ‘patriotic forebear.’
“The world will be rid of war only when we live under equal law. Until then, one gun is as good as another, and the hijacker is no more a ‘criminal’ than any commander-in-chief of a glittering army.”
From the record of history, and from the growing trend toward armed revolt today, it is becoming apparent to more and more thinking people that the system of human rule among the nations has not, and is not working for the benefit of all mankind. Something better is very much needed.
Will there ever be a superior government that can establish righteous conditions, with law, order and justice for all? Yes, and it will happen without fail. Long ago, Bible prophecy foretold that such a government would rule over all the earth, in these words recorded at Daniel chapter 2, verse 44: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.” That is the righteous government for which Jesus Christ taught Christians to pray.—Matt. 6:9, 10.
The time when God’s kingdom will rule without any rival is fast approaching. And persons of honest heart long for it, because under its administration armed conflict will become a thing of the past.—Ps. 46:8, 9.