Why Ahn is not a terrorist

By Jason Lim

On Oct. 26, 1909, Ahn Jung-geun shot dead Hirobumi Ito at Harbin railway station in Northeast China and instantly became a hero to the Korean people who were then just beginning a period of forced annexation under Imperial Japan. Ahn caught the imagination of the Chinese as well, who were also being brutally subjugated by Japan. More than 100 years later, a memorial was recently dedicated in Harbin to honor him.

This did not go over well in Japan, which is currently undergoing a resurgence of nationalism under Prime Minister Abe’s leadership. Yoshihide Suga, Japan’s Cabinet Secretary, stated that Ahn was a terrorist and “The coordinated move by China and South Korea based on a one-sided view of history is not conducive to building peace and stability.”

Of course, Korea and China saw this as the pot calling the kettle black, with the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman hitting back by saying, “If Ahn is a terrorist, what do you call the 14 Class A war criminals at the Yasukuni Shrine?” And he didn’t have to add, “What else do you call it when your whole political leadership goes en masse to Yasukuni to pay their respects?” It’s certainly, not conducive to building peace and stability.

Which all goes to show how true the clichéd saying is: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. A slightly different version tweaked for Japan could be, “One man’s war criminal is another man’s venerable ancestor.” It all depends on which side you are on. In other words, it’s subjective.

This also goes to show how difficult it is to arrive at an objective definition of terrorism. According to a 2005 book on Political Terrorism by Alex P. Schmid and Albert J. Jongman, there are more than 109 different definitions of terrorism that they obtained by surveying the leading academics on the subject.

However, the sundry definitions shared some common themes, which they organized as follows in the frequency with which they appeared: “[1]: Violence, force (appeared in 83.5 percent of the definitions); political (65 percent); fear, emphasis on terror (51 percent); threats (47 percent); psychological effects and anticipated reactions (41.5 percent); discrepancy between the targets and the victims (37.5 percent); intentional, planned, systematic, organized action (32 percent); methods of combat, strategy, tactics (30.5 percent).”

Let’s examine what Ahn did in this framework.

Was it violent? Yes, shooting someone dead is extremely violent.

Was it politically motivated? Yes, he stated that he killed Ito on behalf of Korea’s independence and peace in East Asia.

Was there an emphasis on fear and terror? No, Ahn was specifically targeted Ito Hirobumi, he did not threaten random acts of violence against the population.

Was there a threat? No, see above.

Was there a psychological effect or anticipated reaction? Probably yes, since I suspect that Ahn was aware of the symbolic nature of his killing and how it might impact both Koreans and Japanese.

Was there a discrepancy between the target and victim? No, since the intended target was the victim. There were no unintended victims of Ahn’s act.

Was it intentional, systemic, planned, and organized? Yes, it was a well-planned operation.

Was there a method of combat, strategy, and tactics involved? Yes. In fact, Ahn proclaimed that he was acting in his position as a Lieutenant General in the Korean Resistance Army.

Do these questions help objectively figure out whether Ahn engaged in terrorism or not? Unfortunately, no.

Japan could make the case that Ahn was a terrorist by pointing out that he committed an act of violence against an unarmed civil servant for political aims; this argument does satisfy several elements of the above framework. Conversely, Korea and China could argue that Ahn was a freedom fighter precisely because he engaged in an act of violence for a political aim. So it’s still subjective according to which political side you are on. In fact, this necessarily means that “motives are entirely irrelevant to the definition of terrorism,” according to Boaz Ganor, Executive Director of International Institute for Counterterrorism.

Rather, he proposes a definition that states that terrorism is the “intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims.” In other words, terrorism is the use of indiscriminate violence against a civilian population to make a political point; in fact, there is no target per se. And that’s the point of terrorism.

This means that Ahn Jung-geun was not a terrorist. In Ito, Ahn chose no less than the architect of modern Japan and first resident governor of Korea. As such, Ito was a carefully selected target who was central to the brutal narrative that Korea was going through. His violence was very discriminate.

Certainly, whether Ahn was a hero or not can depend on where your political sympathies lie. But just because you might not consider Ahn a hero doesn’t mean that you can label him a terrorist.

Jason Lim is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture. He has been writing for The Korea Times since 2006. He can be reached at jasonlim@msn.com, facebook.com/jasonlimkoreatimes and @jasonlim2012

.