A Protocol For Terrorism

Almost all nations in the world agree that terrorism ought to be fought.

In fact, the United Nations has at least 12 anti-terrorist conventions and protocols -- dealing with specific issues like money laundering, hijackings and bombings, among others -- which were ratified by most member nations long before 9/11. 

The fact that many member states blatantly violate these treaties is another issue.

Then there are numerous regional treaties on terrorism. The European Convention for the suppression of terrorism, '77, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation Convention on Suppression of Terrorism, 1987,  the Treaty on Cooperation Among States Members of the Commonwealth of Independent States in Combating Terrorism, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference convention on Combating International Terrorism, both '99,  are just a few  of the dozens in existence. All of them have some definition of terrorism.

Most nations too have clear laws defining terrorists and terrorism. In India, it's called the Prevention Of Terrorist Act, or POTA. 

A comprehensive UN treaty would allow the collection of all these laws under a single umbrella. After plugging the loopholes (and there are many) it could be used to threaten members who do not prosecute or extradite suspected terrorists, or refuse to share information with other governments, with isolation, or perhaps even sanctions.  

'Planes were hijacked, but the cluster of conventions on hijacking provide for action only against the hijackers; on September 11, they killed themselves with their victims,' said then Indian Ambassador to the UN Kamlesh Sharma. 'The conventions on terrorist bombings have precise definitions of what constitutes an explosive; no one thought a plane would ever be used as an explosive.'

'The international community could not take action (under existing treaties) against those who recruited, trained, ordered, supported, instigated or harboured the terrorists who committed the most horrendous act of terrorism the world has ever seen.'

He was speaking a meeting on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism at the United Nations in early October 2001, a few blocks away from the still smoldering Ground Zero. 

But despite five days of wrangling,  despite 167 speakers -- making it the largest number of nations ever to take part in a General Assembly debate on a single issue -- member states could not agree on how to define terrorism.

Last heard, they were still trying.

The clichéd phrase 'one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' explains why.  Democracy and majority agreement has its drawbacks.

So while the US and the European Union insist that targeting of civilians must be part of the definition; the 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference demands that 'national liberation movements' and 'resistance to foreign occupation' be exempted from this clause.

In other words, those killing civilians to 'free' Kashmir, the West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem and Chechnya cannot be described as terrorists. 

Meanwhile, African leaders still recall that people like South African President Thabo Mbeki appeared on US State Department terrorist lists while then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher repeatedly described Nelson Mandela's African National Congress as a 'typical terrorist organization.'

They remember that the US supported rebel groups in Angola and in Mozambique as well as white-minority regimes in South Africa and Zimbabwe. They are thus wary of any definition that emanates from the West. 

India's Prevention of Terrorism Act defines a terrorist as one who, among other things, causes 'loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community.'

Rights activists in the European Union believe such a definition would ultimately infringe on 'fundamental democratic rights' like trade union activity and protests against globalisation.

But the nitpicking over the fine print (the UN debate on the definition stretches way back to early sixties) did not  stop US President George Bush from clearly defining Afghanistan and now Iraq as the targets of his war against terror.

It did not stop India from demanding that cross-border terrorism must stop before any dialogue with Pakistan.

It has not stopped Moscow from taking action in Chechnya, or the Chinese in Tibet and Xinjiang. Or the British government from tackling the IRA. Or the Sri Lankan government from fighting the LTTE. Or the Nepal government's battle with the Maoists. And, of course, the Israelis from tackling the Palestine movement.

All these mini wars against terror have been continuing for some time now. And despite the Oslo accord on West Asia; despite the talks between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE; despite the Lahore declaration and the aborted Agra summit between India and Pakistan and  despite the apparent calm in Ireland, peace still tiptoes through these regions, if at all, ready to fly at a moment's notice. It has been startled by terrorist tactics too many times. 

The lack of any common denominator in all these movements, except for the fact that they somehow involve acts of terror against the State, is what makes terrorism hard to define.

Even the dictionaries define it differently.

Terrorism : 'the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion' says  the Merriam Webster Dictionary on the Net.

Terrorism is 'the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act' says the Oxford English Dictionary.

A terrorist is 'One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. -- Burke' says the Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

In December, the EU suggested terrorism be defined as 'offenses intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country.'

And the US Department of Defence says terrorism is 'the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.'

Which, no matter which way you cut it, is precisely what Pakistan is doing in India.

And what the US has done in Afghanistan. And is doing in Iraq.