State-sponsored terrorism is terrorist violence carried out with the active support of national governments provided to violent non-state actors. States can sponsor terrorist groups in several ways, including but not limited to funding terrorist organizations, providing training, supplying weapons, providing other logistical and intelligence assistance, and hosting groups within their borders. Because of the pejorative nature of the word, the identification of particular examples are often subject to political dispute and different definitions of terrorism.
A wide variety of states in both developed and developing areas of the world have engaged in sponsoring terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, state sponsorship of terrorism was a frequent feature of international conflict. From that time to the 2010s there was a steady pattern of decline in the prevalence and magnitude of state support. Nevertheless, because of the increasing consequent level of violence that it could potentially facilitate, it remains an issue of highly salient international concern.
Definition
There are at least 250 definitions of "terrorism" available in academic literature and government and intergovernmental sources, several of which include mention of state sponsorship. In a review of primary documents on international law governing armed conflict, Reisman and Antoniou identify that: The Gilmore Commission of the U.S. Congress gave the following definition of state-sponsored terrorism:
The U.S. Government, which has repeatedly engaged in sponsorship of terrorism as a feature of its foreign policy, provides its own definition in the U.S. State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Authorities and scholars of terrorism and conflict, such as Alex P. Schmid (former Officer-in-Charge of Terrorism Prevention at the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), Daniel Byman, Richard Chasdi, and Frank Shanty, have pointed to problems in the U.S.' definition, including that it is politicized, analytically unclear, and inherently self-serving.
Background
The use of terrorist organizations as proxies in armed conflicts between state actors became more attractive in the mid-20th century as a result of post World War II developments like the increasing costs of traditional warfare and the risk of nuclear war. Speaking about the effect of nuclear capability on traditional military conflict KGB agent Alexander Sakharovsky said that "In today's world, when nuclear arms have made military force obsolete, terrorism should become our main weapon." Though state-sponsored terrorism persists in the post-9/11 era, some scholars have argued that it has become less significant in the age of global jihadism. On the other hand, Daniel Byman believes its importance has increased. Organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are heavily dependent on state support. According to the US Counter-Terrorism Coordinator's Office this support can include "funds, weapons, materials and the secure areas" that organizations use for "planning and conducting operations".
The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law notes that international legal institutions currently lack a mechanism to prosecute terrorist leaders who "instruct, support or succour" terrorism. At the conclusion of the Lockerbie trial, some commentators continued to harbor doubts about the legitimacy of the only conviction secured during the trial, and thus also about Libyas involvement. The domestic trial proved to be insufficient to identify those who had given the instructions.
By country
Afghanistan
The United States and Pakistan have accused Afghanistan's KhAD agency of being responsible for numerous terrorist attacks on Pakistani soil in the 1980s and early 1990s.
According to a report by the US Defense Department, approximately 90% of the estimated 777 acts of international terrorism committed worldwide in 1987 took place in Pakistan. By 1988, KhAD and KGB agents were able to penetrate deep inside Pakistan and carry out attacks on mujahideen sanctuaries and guerrilla bases. There was strong circumstantial evidence implicating Moscow-Kabul in the August 1988 assassination of Zia ul-Haq, as the Soviets perceived that Zia wanted to adversely affect the Geneva process. WAD/KhAD has also been suspected behind the assassination of Palestinian jihadist Abdullah Yusuf Azzam alongside his son in 1989.