One man’s terrorist, another man’s freedom fighter

Already in the 19^th century, armed struggle by non-state actors was perceived by some peace advocates as a legitimate and necessary means to establish a more just, social and political order and achieve a peaceful world. The Ligue internationale de la paix et de la liberté (LIPL)—one of the largest international peace organisations at the time—advocated national liberation and social justice, if necessary, through war. In his speech at the LIPL Peace Congress in Lausanne in 1869, Honorary President Victor Hugo proclaimed, for example: “The first condition of peace is liberation. For this liberation, there will certainly be a revolution, which will be the supreme one, and perhaps, alas! a war, which will be the last. Then all will be accomplished.”

Armed upheaval often leads to a clash of narratives—even long after the events—as one side interprets it as necessary for the liberation against an oppressive regime, while the other side regards it as rebellion and terrorism.

In the context of decolonial struggle—for instance in Algeria, in Vietnam or in Palestine—armed struggle was explicitly defended by some people in Luxembourg. Especially the Maoist groups, such as the Kommunistesche Bond Lëtzebuerg (KBL) argued for people’s power through the barrel of the gun.

The United Nations generally prohibits the threat or use of force, but several resolutions of the UN General Assembly have recognised the right of peoples to self-determination and the legitimacy of their struggle “by all available means, including armed struggle”.