Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
Why this quibble over terrorism?

Why this quibble over terrorism?

Author: Manoj Mitta
Publications: The Indian Express
Dated: September 20, 2001

Three days after Black Tuesday, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad denounced terrorism saying "Islamic countries should not side with fellow Islamic countries" on the issue. India has reason to feel particularly vindicated by Malaysia's reaction. This is because barely a year ago Malaysia, for all its reputation as a moderate Muslim nation, led the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) group in the UN General Assembly to undermine a major Indian initiative against terrorism.

Being one of the worst victims of terrorism in the world, it was apt on India's part to have proposed the first-ever "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." In fact, India can claim to have been prescient in suggesting that the existing anti-terrorist conventions are all too "sectoral" or "specific" to have any effect on a scourge that has been striking in increasingly unpredictable ways. Take, for instance, the 1997 convention, which is specifically on terrorist bombings, and the 1999 convention, which is limited to financing of terrorism. Thanks to such narrowly defined conventions, India could hardly invoke international law to deter Pakistan from carrying on with cross-border terrorism in Kashmir.

The legal committee of the General Assembly has so far held two rounds of talks on the proposed comprehensive convention: in October 2000 and February 2001. The next round of talks is due to be held next month. In the situation that followed the terrorist attack in the US, India has been expressing optimism that it would be able to gather greater support now for its proposed comprehensive convention.

For the record, in the two rounds of talks, all the countries, including Pakistan, have accepted in principle the need for a comprehensive convention. The differences have only been on details. But those differences are serious enough to defeat the whole purpose of having such a convention. Hence, there is a need to examine closely the amendments that have been proposed to India's draft. The Muslim countries have raised two key issues. Firstly, whether the comprehensive convention should override the existing anti-terrorist conventions. Secondly, what exactly constitutes terrorism.

In February 2001, Pakistan came up with a disingenious amendment saying where any convention dealing with "a specific category of terrorist offences" applies to an offence also covered by the comprehensive convention, the existing convention shall continue to "prevail." If Pakistan's amendment is incorporated, it will render India's proposal toothless as the comprehensive convention can hardly ever be enforced. To be sure, the existing piecemeal approach suits Pakistan fine because of all the loopholes it offers to escape any liability under international law.

The amendment related to the definition of terrorism poses an even greater challenge to India. This is because the proposal was submitted by Malaysia on behalf of the entire OIC group. The bone of contention is that the draft convention does not anywhere define terrorism. As it happened, India purposely did not put any definition of terrorism so that the comprehensive convention is flexible enough to cover any and every form of terrorism. But the Muslim countries, covertly pushing the Pakistan line on Kashmir, asserted that the comprehensive convention, like its sectoral counterparts, should have a clear definition of terrorism. What really gave away their game was their contention that the definition should "clearly differentiate between terrorism and the legitimate struggle in the exercise of the right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under foreign occupation." Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf made much the same point later in Agra when he insisted on calling terrorists in Kashmir "freedom fighters".

The exact amendment proposed by the OIC group is the insertion of the following clause: "People's struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime." Thus, the rather radical principle being espoused by the Muslim countries is, "peoples involved in a legitimate struggle were entitled to fight, by whatever means, including those that would not be condoned by the occupying power." Meaning, it can't be helped, as Musharraf suggested in Agra, if innocent civilians happen to be killed by terrorists.

The dangerous implications of the OIC's stand prompted other countries to strike a note of caution. In the February talks, India's supporters argued that though the people's right to struggle was as such legitimate, it could not be carried out "by whatever means necessary but only within the confines of the rules of armed struggle." It remains to be seen if Dr Mahathir and other Muslim moderates will, in the changed environment, still insist on a restrictive definition of terrorism.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements