Harsha Kakar
In recent years, terrorism has become an ugly menace and innocents are being killed in the garb of striking back at countries and governments, for a variety of reasons, as also on account of clash of ideologies and religion. Though the recent attack in France dominated headlines, yet similar incidents have simultaneously occurred in countries located in the vicinity of troubled spots or in those engulfed in civil war. Amongst those recently affected have been Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Lebanon. Boko Haram and other groups have been striking in Africa. India has over the years faced the brunt of terrorist actions from Pakistan sponsored groups.
The world reaction varies with each incident. While they voice concern and share India’s grief, they always suggest restraint and not retaliatory action. Nor has any diplomatic action or economic sanctions enforced against Pakistan, in spite of it employing terrorism as an instrument of state policy. The other smaller or less fortunate nations, which have also suffered, have barely received a word of sympathy, nor have been able to react, simply because they lack military might or a strong alliance, such as the EU or NATO, to support them. They have only attempted to protect their population from further strikes.
Serious response to terrorist strikes has occurred only when developed nations have been attacked. This is due to public pressure, a powerful military, strong economy and the existence of coalitions and mutual support defence pacts. The last time the world saw a serious attempt to eliminate a terrorist group was post 9/11.
The Paris strike and the downing of a Russian aircraft (both near simultaneous), led the leaders of both countries to announce their resolve to deal with ISIS. In a rare show of camaraderie they vowed to operate together against the same group (albeit with conditionality’s and differences in the ultimate goal). France has also appealed to the EU nations to join operations against the ISIS. The US is already involved and the UK would soon become a part of the coalition.
This is an irony of the world in which we live. Retaliation and retribution against terrorist strikes, is only official and justified for those nations which possess military power and have the capacity to retaliate. The mass of humanity from other nations subjected to similar or worse attacks do not get the desired support and hence either continue to suffer or migrate to safer locations.
The west should realize that as casualties due to terrorist actions increase, so would the desire of affected population to flee the combat zone. The movement may commence as a trickle and subsequently become a flow, as is happening today, to those states where there is likely peace and stability. Presently all fleeing from west Asia or Africa are heading to Europe. This mass movement of population would not only be a financial drain but would also affect existing population dynamics as well as the very existence of the EU as an international body.
Retaliation is also justified only against non- nuclear nations, Iraq and Afghanistan being clear examples. At the same time, popular movements have also supported against rulers of non- nuclear nations, the Arab Spring being a recent case. Therefore, in spite of all its actions, threats and misdemeanors, no military force is ever contemplated to be applied against North Korea. In the same breath, Pakistan continues to be treated with kid gloves and gets both military and development aid, in spite of being a state sponsor of terrorism. The aim appears to be to maintain stability in nuclear armed states to ensure no proliferation takes place.
It is equally interesting to observe the involvement of the UN Security Council. The UN has almost no significance as nations retaliate at will and without sanction. In most cases it is either bypassed or manipulated since the main contributors for the application of force are permanent members of the Security Council. In the present instance, France put forth a resolution on elimination of ISIS, which was immediately accepted. By then, the US and Russia were already involved, without any sanction. Attacks in Africa, India or other West Asian countries have only received sympathy and consolation, not action.
The UN in seventy years has also been unable to achieve a global census on ‘Comprehensive convention against international terrorism’. This is mainly due to differences in perceptions between the very nations, which have presently joined hands to deal with ISIS.
An idealist world would be when world powers function in unison and clip any terrorist movement as soon as it begins to take root, irrespective of location, rather than wait for it to grow and strike developed nations, before a decision to act against them militarily is taken. Historically in the past the US and Russia tried to eliminate the Taliban and al Qaeda, but left the battle midway, for different reasons. Subsequent non- action fuelled further rise and created instability in an entire region. It also led to the mushrooming of other groups, ISIS being one of them.
Nations with powerful militaries need to be responsible for the security and well- being of nations less fortunate. The world body should also be harsh on nations which sponsor state terrorism and compel them to eliminate the very creatures they have created and nurtured. The world needs to be moving towards peace, rather than being engulfed in war and terror.
(The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel