Facing Global Terrorism
Tuesday, 27 July 2010 12:40
Despite the fact that a globally accepted definition of terrorism is yet to be agreed upon. Professor Theodore P Seto, of Loyola Law School, Los Angeles writes “ I use the term “terrorism” to mean the killing, disruption, or destruction of something of value for political purposes by someone other than a government or its agents acting overtly. In assessing its morality, however, I treat terrorism as a subset of politically motivated violence (and) explore the morality of politically motivated violence in general, without regard to actor or legality, and then separately ask the question:
For moral purposes, does it matter who the actor is and whether the violence is lawful?” Attempts by the UN to define the term foundered due to lack of unanimity among different groups. The Taliban who were backed by the CIA during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan were regarded as freedom fighters but today they head the list of terrorists. Same would apply to Hammas in Gaza or the Hezbullah in Lebanon. But all agree that when parties-both states and non-state actorsharm civilians with the purpose of provoking a state of terror to realize political or economic gains then the international community under UNSC resolutions, Geneva Conventions or under international law is duty bound to protect civilian victims of genocide, crimes against humanity or as defined by the US Department of Defense violence against non-combatants by sub-national or clandestine groups which are premeditated, and politically motivated. Without knit picking a definition of terrorism it would suffice to say that one of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century is to control and eliminate terrorism from the face of the earth.
India has long experience of cross border terrorism. But the one in Mumbai was particularly galling. The terrorism in Mumbai had the short term objective of bringing about an open warfare between Pakistan and India that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned could have “unintended consequences and difficulties”. Their broader agenda, feared retired US Navy admiral and former Commander-in Chief of the US Pacific Command James Lyons was a declaration of war against the US and every free democratic nations by Iran’s theocratic regime. Admiral Lyons urged the US to be aware of this signal, signals he thought were ignored by the Carter administration resulting in Khomeini revolution and by Reagan administration that resulted in terrorist bombings of the US Embassy and US Marine headquarters in Beirut in 1983. Admiral Lyon’s warning to take heed of the Mumbai massacre as a signal of Iran’s regional ambition appears too far fetched as is his exhortations of undertaking preemptive military actions against Iran’s alleged nuclear infrastructure and other key installations. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly had been putting pressure on the US since 2002 describing Iran as “the center of world terror” who was bent upon acquiring nuclear weapons, notwithstanding Israel’s “nuclear ambiguity”. It was forgotten that the 1981 Osirak attack on Iraq was condemned by the UNSC because “there was no instant or overwhelming necessity for self-defense by Israel.
Despite former President Bush’s firm conviction in the efficacy of the Doctrine of Preemption he had sent Admiral Mullen and Condoleezza Rice to cap the tempers running high in the aggrieved country -- India-- and the one accused of letting its territory to be used by non-state actors. South Asian expert Bruce Riedel was happily surprised by the conciliatory remarks made by President Asif Zardari that included re-opening of trade relation between Indian and Pakistani Kashmir for the first time since the partition of India in 1947, intent to reassert control over ISI, declaring in an interview to the Wall Street Journal that “India had never been a threat to Pakistan” and committing Pakistan to a “no first use policy” of its nuclear arsenal.
Expectedly Indian reaction to Pakistan’s consistent denials relating to the complicity of Pakistani nationals in Mumbai terrorism was one of anger and retaliation. Indian Home Minister threatened Pakistan with ban on trade, ban on tourism, and perhaps, international isolation. India wants Pakistan to walk the talk and to hand over to India people accused of masterminding the Mumbai massacre that Pakistan refused to do. For the first time India through then Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon officially accused Pakistan’s military agency of its involvement in the Mumbai massacre. Menon said that the perpetrators “planned, trained and launched their attacks from Pakistan, and the organizers were and remain clients and creation of the ISI”.
Then Indian Army Chief of Staff General Kapoor said that militants’ camps in Pakistan were thriving and their number increased in the past year. A leader of Indian Congress Party asked the international community to consider declaring Pakistan as a terrorist state following the release from house arrest of Pakistani nuclear scientist who sold nuclear technology in the black market to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Given the past history of unbridled animosity it is difficult to understand the reasons behind Indian Foreign Minister Krishna’s recent visit to Pakistan that by all accounts achieved nothing tangible. Surely Indians did not expect Pakistan to relent on the issue of prosecution of the perpetrators of Mumbai massacre after delivering seven dossiers on their complicity and James Hadley’s confession about ISI’s direct involvement if the terrorist attack.
Equally Pakistan could not have expected resumption of composite dialogue i.e. talks including Kashmir without any movement on the Mumbai issue. The net result was a public display of disagreement at the two Foreign Ministers’ press conference and Pakistan Foreign Minister’s undiplomatic remarks at Islamabad Foreign Officers Academy even before Krishna reached Delhi. The saving grace was perhaps the continuance of talks between two nuclear armed nations that South Asia specialist Bruce Riddell describes as the most dangerous place in the world.
Americans have long suspected Pakistan Intelligence of playing a double game of helping the militants while assisting the US in its fight with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. On July 19th this year in a Town hall meeting at Islamabad Hillary Clinton mentioned US difficulty in meeting Pakistani demand for equal treatment as given to India on nuclear cooperation. She said “frankly the problem with Mr.A.Q.Khan raises red flag for people not just in the US, because we can trace the export of nuclear information and material from Pakistan through all kinds of channels to many different countries”. Pakistan is also the only country standing in the way of the Conference of Disarmament of the World pursuing Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty getting into negotiations. There has to be consensus to reach any conclusion.
Obama administration regards Pakistan as a front line country fighting terrorism and Hilary Clinton described the two countries as “partners joined in common cause” and Pakistan gets more than one billion dollars a year for its help in combating militants. Recently New York Times (Pakistan aids insurgency in Afghanistan) has published documents, albeit unverified and coming from Afghan sources not friendly with Pakistan, alleging very close collaboration between ISI and al-Qaeda and Taliban. The reason the US has not spoken openly is to safeguard NATO supplies flowing enroute through Pakistan to Afghanistan. While Bush Jr’s attack of Afghanistan, applauded by the international community without reservation, is understandable as it was aimed at removing the Taliban who had made possible al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the US soil, President Obama’s continuing war in Afghanistan, termed by neo-con Richard Haas as Obama’s choice of war, is not readily understandable if CIA Director Leon Panetta’s estimate of core al-Qaeda numbering 50 to 100 is to be taken seriously. More so as President Obama aims to “disrupt, dismantle and destroy” al-Qaeda and consequently one may ask why hundred thousand troops are needed to face such a small enemy.
Domestically Afghan war is losing favor with the public and support in the Congress is dwindling. As in Kosovo the US is carrying the burden of war both financially and militarily. The British have given notice on the return of their soldiers from Afghanistan and the contributions of the other NATO members are negligible. Unpalatable though it may be Robert Kagan’s diatribe (Power and Weakness) against the Europeans penchant for negotiations in place of display of muscularity may not be misplaced. But then the argument is not to belittle the threat posed by terrorists to normal way of life both in developed and developing nations. It is to emphasize that arms alone will not defeat this scourge unless fruits of globalization is shared and a more even handed policy is followed in places where the West, particularly the US, has leverage to solve problems like the one in the Middle East. If Chicago university Professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard Professor Stephen Walt’s ( Israeli lobby and US Foreign Policy) elucidation of US national interest in the Middle East is ignored in favor of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington’s criticism of Islam and Clash of Civilizations thesis harking back the revival of the spirit of crusades then the US, already unpopular in the Islamic world, would be handing over on a platter suicide bombers to the militants for terrorism in the name of a distorted version of Islam.
The 20th July Kabul Conference promising more funds to Hamid Karzai with his pledge to take over Afghan security in four years time and reconciliation and reintegration of Taliban who renounce violence, respect Afghan constitution and gender equality (unheard of in tribal societies) appear to be wish list that cannot be delivered. The US has to accept the facts that Pakistan is playing a double game for its own survival without breaking up the country into pieces and to sustain its anti-Indian stance essential for the supremacy of the army to continue and Hamid Karzai is bending backward to accommodate the Taliban because it is the destiny of Afghanistan. US may wish to advise Pakistan that conflict with India is a no-win strategy and China with its vast investment in Afghanistan’s new found mineral deposits would come out the winner without firing a shot.
After 9/11 morality has taken back stage in computing the extent of sovereignty of nation states. Because terrorism can have no legitimate cause that can be argued successfully and its main aim is to cause demonstration effects for political gains by killing unarmed civilians India’s criticism of the US’ arms supply to Pakistan is like offering whisky to an alcoholic and Harvard Professor Jessica Stern’s remarks that “the United States too often ignores the unintended consequences of its actions, disregarding for example, the negative message sent by Washington’s ongoing neglect of Afghanistan and the chaos of post war Iraq” gain value . The choice by the terrorists of Mumbai, the financial capital of India was, perhaps, to discourage investment, be it domestic or foreign, that demands tranquility and flies away at the slightest sign of instability. Attacks on India’s information technology center in the South of the country strengthen the argument that terrorists aim at destabilizing the Indian economy.
Though one has to recognize that Michael Walzer’s prescription on Just and Unjust War may not be applicable to meet the security challenges of the 21st century where non-state actors can cause havoc and international law may have to be amended in accordance with the demands of time, yet to give carte blanche to any nation without the sanction of the UNSC to take military measures against a presumed “aggressor” could be more harmful for the peace and security of the world. Western obsession with security and war on terror, horrific though the al-Qaedist acts are, has caused sharp divides in the world. Therefore despite unquestionable American preeminence the most important conflicts of the future, predicts Samuel Huntington, will occur along the fault lines separating the Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and African civilizations from one another.
Samuel Huntington may prove to be prescient after all if one considers intra-European controversy generated by the invitation extended to Turkey by the European Council to start negotiations for admission into the EU. The French ban on wearing head scarf for Muslim women is a case in point though the ban is equally applicable to public display of all religious symbols. Equally unacceptable would be German political leader Wolfgang Schauble’s explanation about European reservation on Turkish membership not on religious ground but due to European hesitation of potential problems that could arise by admitting a country which shares hundreds of miles of border with Syria and Iran into a Union that all but guarantees freedom of movement to all individuals.
Muslim scholars are reluctant to give much credence to perceived threat from religious extremists on the ground that the better part of the last century was occupied by wars among Europeans, Americans and Japanese not to speak of IRA and Spanish Basque separatists. West’s hesitancy in taking pro-active and coercive measures is understandable due to the possibility of being accused of “neo-colonialism” and also because in pre-9/11 era the nation-states were jealous and zealous in guarding their territorial integrity against external encroachment. The newly independent countries defined neo-colonialism as the influence exercised by the ex-colonialists and super power USA through financial, educational and cultural institutions, such influence being more insidious and undetectable than when the colonies were being directly ruled. Besides the unwitting or even willing collaboration by the compradors (elites brought to power by the ex-colonial masters after giving independence to the colonies) and the pressure of globalization prevented the Third World nations from developing an independent political and economic identity. The Indo-Pak tension furthered by Mumbai massacre has more political content than one based on religion.
It is past time for Pakistan to realize that India of 1947 and India of today have two different persona and India’s economic and political influences have gone beyond the region into global sphere. While the other regional countries are not being asked to be either subservient or to have compressed sovereignty South Asia may not have difficulty in emulating the West where US preeminence supplements Western politico-economic developments.
(The writer is a former Ambassador and Secretary of Bangladesh)
SAAG
SAAG is the South Asia Analysis Group, a non-profit, non-commercial think tank. The objective of SAAG is to advance strategic analysis and contribute to the expansion of knowledge of Indian and International security and promote public understanding. In so doing, the SAAG seeks to address the decision makers, strategic planners, academics and the media in South Asia and the world at large. The group holds the concept of strategy in its broadest meaning-including mobilization and application of all resources to understand national and international security. The aim of the group is not to compete with Governments, Academics, NGOs or other institutions dealing with strategic analysis and national security but to provide another point of view for the decision makers and other national/international think tanks.
