Need for broad strategy to combat terror

The POST, Sun, September,17, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Pakistan’s assertion to pursue a comprehensive strategy globally to combat the scourge of terrorism on the fifth anniversary of terror attacks in the United States is indeed appropriate and could effectively check this menace. Comprehensive strategy implies not just the military actions against the perpetrators of terrorist activities but entails a long term well thought out plan to deal with political disputes, removing grievances and addressing the socio-economic issues. The long term strategy should also effectively address all those factors that are making the war against terrorism as ineffective.

Among the factors that are effectively slowing down the war against terrorism include the lack of a consensus definition, blurring of acknowledged distinction between the freedom movement and terrorism, quick acceptance of one sided interpretation, non-focus on money trail, and not addressing the causation properly etc. A comprehensive strategy means that all aspects that can help in making counter measures meaningfully effective and accelerate the winning process in the war against terrorism must be seriously addressed. Admittedly it is difficult to address all the above mentioned factors with a similar degree of seriousness but efforts could be directed to ensure that all of them are subjected to intense considerations.

Let me first discuss the definitional problem of terrorism. What exactly is terrorism? Many studies have highlighted the existence of innumerable definitions of terrorism.  According to Oxford dictionary the word terror means extreme fear. If we accept this meaning then a terrorist is the one who attempts to instill extreme fear among the target audience. Terrorism is defined ‘as an act or threat of violence against non-combatants with the objective of exacting revenge, intimidating or otherwise influencing an audience’. A generally accepted definition of a ‘terrorist’ is ‘a person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercion’. The essence of this definition is the employment of violent methods in order to instill fear and influence the targets, which may be a government or a community or a particular individual.  Terrorists are defined not by their goals but by how they opt to attain them. It needs to be highlighted that by this definition only a non-state actor is portrayed as a terrorist, which is not necessarily true. There are states that are known to indulge in acts of terrorism somewhat regularly. Not only the Israeli state machinery is employed to terrorize the Palestinian but the Indians are also not too far behind in their brutal suppressive activities against the Kashmiris.

A plethora of definitions is available with each one of them reflecting requirements of the changing political environments in different countries. How one defines terrorism reflects the thinking and profoundly affects the likely response. There are those who consider premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national or clandestine agents as acts of terrorism, whereas there are others who define terrorism as a process of deliberate employment of psychological intimidation and physical violence by sovereign states and sub-national groups to attain strategic and political objectives in violation of the law.

Despite the existence of so many definitions, the international community is still unable to agree upon a comprehensive and universally acceptable definition of terrorism. Perhaps seeking out an all-encompassing definition appears to be an illusive target. While no one doubts that all acts of terrorism whether committed by an individual, a group or state authorities are condemnable developments, the question how does one categorizes act in which the loss of lives of non-combatants have taken place does need more scrutiny. The problem has become even more complex when one realizes that terrorism today is constantly undergoing all kind of mutations. ‘New adversaries, new motivations, and new rationales which have emerged in recent years can couple with today’s increased opportunities and capabilities to launch terrorism on a trajectory towards higher levels of lethality, mass destruction and mass killing, and to challenge the conventional knowledge about it’.

Second, important aspect is to avoid the deliberate blurring of acknowledged differences between the terrorists and the freedom fighters. Who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist is a question that needs to be responded? The answer really depends upon whose point of view you are looking at. A freedom fighter is a politically motivated and committed individual who joins the collective struggle for securing independence for what he believes to be his nation. The opponent often dubs this movement as political separatists’ efforts to break away from the legal authority or describe them as terrorist’s movements. Almost all Indian analysts, academicians, journalist, bureaucrats and politician have demonstrated a tendency to dub the freedom struggle in Kashmir as terrorist movement. Similarly the Israeli also tend to regard almost all actions of the Palestinians as acts aimed at terrorist activities. The Chechen freedom struggle is even dubbed as a movement of bandits. It is indeed very difficult to find convincing and logically argued articles in these countries describing the freedom struggles in their true perspectives. What is even more amazing is the fact that most of the ongoing freedom struggles are being waged in democratic countries such as India, Israel and Russia.

States have employed terrorism as an instrument of its policy irrespective of the nature of the regime. Since democracies are deemed to have an inbuilt mechanism for accountability, it is believed that democracies are less likely to use terrorism. Contrary to general belief that democracies are unlikely to indulge in such terrible pursuits, one is surprised to find out that so many democracies are actually practicing terrorism as a state policy. But for obvious reasons none of the democratic regime would acknowledge that they are indulging in terrorism. One distinction, which needs to be highlighted here, is that in some democracies there may be one or two developments that would fall in the categories of terrorism whereas some other democracies may have sustained the adopted policy of state terrorism.

There exists a long list of democracies that are involved in some of the worst forms of state terrorism. Among the democracies that are constantly engaged and blatantly practice of state terrorism targeting freedom movements include Russia, Israel and India. However there are others who have employed terrorism intermittently or few of their developments could be regarded as part of state terrorism. Following what has happened to Iraq many consider USA as the biggest terrorist, which does not even care for the collective will and has bypassed the universal organization like the UN when it suited its policy pursuits. Interestingly in all these three above-mentioned cases the instrument of state terrorism is applied against the freedom fighters. All of these states are experiencing intensified freedom struggles. To opt for state terrorism reflects ruler's inclination towards fascism. Invariably the exponents of such policies are either fascist or reactionary (both civilian and the military) regimes. Since we are more concerned with terrorism that is used in countries where freedom movements are well established, concentration would only be on the above‑ mentioned democracies.

The third factor that appears to be absent from the war on terrorism revolves around non- focus on monetary trail. All terrorist movements are financed by some sympathizers either from outside the area of operation or within domestic environment. For instance it has been frequently reported that the external supporters of LTTE (Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka) are financed by many Tamils living in various countries. No movement could last for even few months without the monetary support from some sources.

Admittedly some efforts have been made to investigate and follow the money trails but they all seem to reflect half heartedness. One interpretation is that the danger of financial source turning up in the backyard of those who are ostensibly fighting the war on terrorism is real and continuously haunting them. Hence the effort on this score is some what limited.

The fourth factor that deserves some considerations is avoidance of quick interpretation of events by one’s own media. It is a well known fact that almost all media machines in various countries are nationalistically orientated and hence ready acceptance of one’s own media interpretation. It would be appropriate to have others interpretation and then formulate policy or take action. But the experience indicates that nobody wait to analyze others version and in consequence quickly become dependent upon one’s won media interpretations.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.