actions undertaken to effect certain stated objectives, conditions and actors that lie beyond its territorial legitimacy’ (Williams 2005: 5). Foreign policy in this view is about the use of national instruments to stimulate change(s) at the international level which will be of benefit to the nation domestically, in economic, political or security terms. It is about meeting ‘objectives’ and altering ‘conditions’ and the behaviour of various ‘actors’ in the international system, whether these actors be other states, sub-state actors, non-stateactors, trans-state actors
characteristics. First, wars were fuelled no longer by ideology but by ethnic concerns. Second, these wars were fought by new kinds of actors – sometimes by states but often by non-stateactors. Third, they were not financed over state budgets but through other, often criminal, ways. Finally, the leaders of these ‘new wars’ did not seek to achieve physical control of a territory but rather political control of populations – often through the use of fear and terror.
Kaldor’s book, New and Old Wars , written on the experience of the Balkan wars, stirred a big debate
, is morally so abhorrent. Many of the definitions currently on offer in the literature stipulate that the agents of terrorism must be ‘non-stateactors’ (thereby conveniently ruling out even the conceptual possibility that states can be guilty of terrorism; the most that states can do is to ‘sponsor’ terrorism), or that the targets of terrorist action must be non-combatants rather than, as I suggest, innocent people (thereby raising the question why violent police action does not count as terrorism), and so on. I think that these and other proposed restrictions on