The (very) thin line between vigilantism and terrorism

For decades the South China Sea has been
 one of the most contested areas in the world. Despite years of fervent debate, military bravado and even the occasional international tribunal, the situation is no less uncertain than it was 20 years ago. Progress has been made through neither diplomatic means of negotiation nor less diplomatic acts of aggression, so Chinese hackers have taken matters into their own hands and opened up an entirely new front to the dispute. This raises the question though of where we as a society draw the line between justifiable vigilantism and indefensible terrorism. And, more importantly, it makes us consider just what we can do, if anything, when a state condones ‘vigilantism’ to enforce their own agenda.

Many of us are devoted to the idea that the government ought not to have any jurisdiction over the lives of its citizens. Deep within the realms of an individuals private life, many of us firmly believe that the opinions of a person should remain just that — private and unsullied by the agendas of the government. The notion of governments handing out punishments to people for doing something offbeat or deviant is inconceivable and simply unacceptable to exist within a truly free society. So why is it that whilst we condemn government rulings against private matters do we still accept and condone similarly oppressive social actions, namely through vigilantism? Surely, by imposing social standards upon others in a society through these actions we are no worse than even the most totalitarian of regimes, essentially providing people with an ultimatum between grudgingly following societal standards or facing social ostracization?

Part of the equation, I believe, comes down to the fact that there will always be grey areas within the law which aren’t explicitly codified (for obvious reasons) but are ubiquitously recognised as social norms nonetheless — a restaurant cannot legally be punished for a racial slur but it isn’t surprising when people begin to boycott the establishment as a result of it. This is social justice and is perhaps the one form of vigilantism which can be thought of as just; a means for us to keep our societal values in check on the macro-level.

This argument however has a few flaws, namely in the fact that social justice is a two-sided coin. While boycotting a restaurant could be considered fair on one hand, on the other hand justice could also entail the lynchings of black men from white supremacists, an action perceived as fair by many (including the authorities) at the time but barbaric now, blurring the line between ‘justifiable’ and indefensible acts of social justice. Perhaps then it’s illogical to create a dichotomy like this and acts like these fall on a spectrum instead, ranging from acceptable to reproachable.

So then, with all of this, where do the actions of those Chinese hackers fall? Honestly, I admit, a question like this can never be definitively answered because a question like this is, at its heart, purely subjective. There may be no differentiating factor between vigilantism and terrorism, with the only measure for each action being the reaction it incites from the public, but the reaction in itself will vary drastically from person to person. When a state condones actions like these then we can say little because, from their perspective, they are standing on the moral high ground.

Can anything be done then? Acts of vigilantism are difficult in that direct action simply encourages more crime. This is further compounded though by the fact that these hackers are state-sponsered, with an entire nation on their side. China has already shown that it isn’t afraid to stand up against an authority, dismissing the Hague’s ruling during an international tribunal, and giving the coast guard permission to detain any fisherman caught within the disputed territories. Things can only be resolved by settling on a compromise between China and the Philippines, and lets hope they do lest they escalate any further — China's already been down this path once, and hopefully that remains just once.