The images streaming out of Israel over the weekend and the visuals which follow out of Gaza must shake the core of humanity. There is no verbal camouflage which can shield terrorism. The notion of impregnable deterrence lies battered by a barbaric attack and the twisted rhetoric of resistance groups is splattered with blood.
The loss of innocent lives is an unprecedented tragedy. The defacement of innocence resulting from the weaponisation of language steeped in moral equivalence should worry the world. The byte brigade seems wilfully blind to the complex circumstance. The bloody history of the Israeli-Palestine conflict cannot be a justification for what is unadulterated terrorism. Neither is the call for untrammelled retribution—risking the lives of the civilians of Gaza and the Israeli abductees—realistic or defensible.
The discourse about the massacre is marked by comparisons—the Tet Offensive, the 9/11 terror attacks, the targeting of Mumbai on 26 November. The narrative is punctuated with what-ifs—the accuracy of the warning from Egypt, the possibility of cyberattacks, the mess represented by the Netanyahu regime. The indisputable fact is that the cause and consequence of terrorism are visibly riveted at the hip.
Terrorism is thriving amid rising global disorder. For years now, countries have sought refuge behind verbal calisthenics of the dreadful cliché—one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Every major terror attack finds the world divided in silos of contextual interests. The standard approach is to condemn terrorism but offer cover to terrorist organisations. The cosy refuge offered by opportunistic regimes has emboldened terror attacks across the world.
The UN is the designated custodian of human rights. It has an obligation to live up to its charter. Engulfed by its inadequacies, the United Nations can only lament and bleat. In the past week the UN has been a spectator as the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other countries worked to prevent a conflagration.
The global body has struggled to even define terrorism. The first debate on defining terrorism in the UN was in 1972 in the aftermath of the attack on Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. The best the UN could do was to set up a committee. On December 18, 1972, the 27th General Assembly set up a committee to examine measures and passed a resolution with a 58-word title which stretches from acts of terrorism to the desperation of terrorism to the causes of terrorism. The title is an eloquent testimony of the cross-currents of interests which render the UN ineffectual.
Even after the horrific 9/11 terror attacks there was no consensus. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the UN, told the General Assembly, "Increasingly, questions are being raised about the problem of the definition of a terrorist. Let us be wise and focused about this: terrorism is terrorism... What looks, smells and kills like terrorism is terrorism." That didn’t help either, as members were stuck in their rut. Indeed, on December 2, 2004, at the 59th General Assembly, Secretary General Kofi A Annan, responding to the calls to “articulate an effective and principled counter-terrorism strategy”, said, “One of the obstacles hitherto, I believe, has been the inability of the membership to agree on a definition of terrorism.”
For years India has voiced concern that the global body has neither a common definition nor a policy to tackle the scourge and dismantle its networks. It is not just the lack of definition that has afflicted the ability of the UN to act. Its processes are disabled by the operating system. The lack of representative legitimacy and a governance structure dominated by veto wielders has shackled any attempt to coordinate counter-terrorism measures.
Notwithstanding the absence of a definition, the UN has a Global Counter Terrorism Strategy. It is empowered by a 2006 resolution (A/RES 60/288) which obliges member nations to “take practical steps, individually and collectively, to prevent and combat terrorism”. The term ‘prevent’ appears 20 times in the resolution but it hasn’t prompted members from acting on known facts about who is harbouring terrorists. The UN General Assembly has passed nearly 45 resolutions as part of its global strategy to prevent financing of terrorism and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. The problematic absence of a globally accepted definition and adoption of convenient interpretations shields terrorists . Terrorism has spiralled and state sponsors of terrorism have escaped action.
ASLO READ | The economics of caste-quota politics
The UN has till date placed 31 regimes under sanctions—beginning with Southern Rhodesia in 1966. Currently 15 regimes are under sanctions. The UN has also placed under sanctions over a thousand individuals and entities involved in terrorism. The list is remarkable for who or which entities are not on it. The fact that Taliban is ruling in Afghanistan spells the saga. This June, China vetoed a proposal moved by the US and India to place sanctions on those involved in fomenting terror in Punjab and Kashmir. It is instructive to note that there are UN sanctions and then there are US sanctions. Hamas is on the US sanctions list but not on the UN sanctions list.
The faultlines causing global disorder are widening. The rules-based order which came in 1945 is flailing. The events across the world unfolding on our screens illuminate the spectre of uncertainty caused by a lack of visionary global leadership. The horrors of terrorism may seem geographically distant but they represent a global threat which must be addressed.