No Consensus’ Is Derailing Counter-Terror Diplomacy

Why in news?

• India hosted the special session of the United Nations Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (UNSC-CTC) recently aiming to give its counter-terror diplomacy a greater push.
• The article put emphasis upon the hard reality for India that the future of counter-terrorism cooperation will be more challenging and counter-terror regimes such as the UNSC Resolutions may be rendered outdated and toothless.

 

About UNSC-CTC

• Description: This will be the first such meeting of the UNSC-CTC in India since its establishment in 2001.
  • The Permanent Representative of India to the UN serves as the Chair of the CTC for 2022.
• Theme: It will discuss the overarching theme of ‘Countering the use of new and emerging technologies for terrorist purposes’ and discuss terror-financing (through crypto-currency) and use of drones in the new-age terrorism.
• New conclave: India will also be hosting shortly the third edition of the “No Money For Terror” (NMFT) conference that will look at tackling future modes of terror financing.
  • India also will chair a special briefing on the “Global Counter Terrorism Architecture”,in December 2022 looking at the challenges ahead while taking over the UNSC Presidency for the last time before its two-year term in the Council ends.

 

GWOT – built on an unequal campaign

• Background: The “Global War On Terrorism” (GWOT), was conceived post-9/11 attacks in United States and triggered the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States
  • However, this GWOT seems to be over with the United States negotiating with the Taliban in 2021, and then withdrew from Afghanistan later.
  • Now, while analyzing the GWOT, it seems that itwas built on an unequal campaign.
• Demonstration: For instance, when India had asked for help to deal with the IC-814 hijacking (December 1999) less than two years prior to the 9/11 attacks, her pleas fell on deaf ears in the U.S., the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Pakistan.
  • As per evidence, the then regime (Atal Bihari Vajpayee government) was forced to release were all terrorists, all of whom went on to help with planning, funding or providing safe havens to the Al-Qaeda leadership.
  • The same terrorists hit USA, UAE, UK and Pakistan etc. in later years.
• Limited UNSC support:Even after GWOT was launched, Pakistan’s role as the U.S.’s ally, and China’s “iron friend” ensured that the UNSC designations of those who threatened India the most, including Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, never mentioned their role in attacks in India.
• Only economic sanctions: The maximum India received in terms of global cooperation was actually from economic strictures that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)’s grey list placed on Pakistan.
  • However, Pakistan was cleared from this in October 2022, indicating that the global appetite to punish Pakistan for terrorism has petered out.
• No equivocal stance globally: The weak international reaction to the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul, and its persecution of women and minorities in the country, demonstrate rising fatigue levels in dealing with “another country’s problems”.

 

A blur over definition of terrorism

• New found concerns: The growing global polarisation over the Russia-Ukraine war is not only shifting the focus from terrorism but is also blurring the lines on what constitutes terrorism.
  • For instance, the CTC recent meeting in Delhi was disrupted over Russia’s claims that the U.K. helped Ukraine launch drone attacks on Russia’s naval fleet in Sevastopol.
• Unaddressed questions: If drone attacks by Yemeni Houthis on the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure can be condemned as terrorist attacks, then why not the drone attacks on Russian ships in a port used for loading grain, or a bridge bombing that put so many civilian lives at risk.
  • Also how Russia settles the possible recruitment of the former Afghan republic’s National Army Commando Corps into its war in Ukraine remains to be seen. Would not these commandos who once fought Taliban terrorists, now qualify as terrorists themselves?
• Crippled premier global body: The polarisation has also rendered the body tasked with global peace paralysed as the UNSC is unable to pass any meaningful resolutions that are not vetoed by Russia or western members.
  • Moreover, China has been able to block as many as five terror designations requested by India and the U.S.
• Bygone shot: The biggest opportunity lost due to the UNSC’s other preoccupations has been the need to move forward on India’s proposal, of 1996, of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).
  • Despite several changes in the draft made by India in 2016, consensus for the convention is still elusive.
• Addressing valid pitfalls: Very little progress has been made on the actual issues such as the definition of terrorism, concerns over human rights law conflicts, and the old debate on ‘freedom fighter vs terrorist’.

 

About CCIT

• Description:It is a draft proposed by India in 1996 that provides a legal framework which makes it binding on all signatories to deny funds and safe havens to terrorist groups.
  • It is yet to be adopted by the UNGA.
• Main objectives: To have a universal definition of terrorism that all 193-members of the UNGA will adopt into their own criminal law
  • To ban all terror groups and shut down terror camps
  • To prosecute all terrorists under special laws
  • To make cross-border terrorism an extraditable offence worldwide

 

Threat from emerging technologies

• New risks: The new threat comes from emerging technologies and the weaponisation of a number of different mechanisms for terrorism purposes.
  • For instance, Drones are already being used to deliver funds, drugs, weapons, ammunition and even improvised explosive devices(IEDs).
• Bio war threats: Post COVID-19 pandemic, worries have grown about the use of bio-warfare, and Gain-of-Function (GoF) research to mutate viruses and vectors which could be released into targeted populations.
  • Also, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and robotic soldiers has made it even easier to perpetrate mass attacks while maintaining anonymity.
• Evolved funding and relaying techniques: Terror financing using bitcoins and cryptocurrency, and terror communications use social media, the dark web and even gaming centres are the new perils to be addressed.

 

Ambiguous yardsticks

• State-supported terrorism: Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are the most obvious examples of countries where the establishment has supported terrorist groups carrying out cross-border strikes, drone attacks and cyber-warfare.
  • But what does one make of drone strikes by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, where civilians have been killed, or Chinese government-run hackers who disable urban electric grids?
• No standard criterion:There is also no globally accepted norms on how and in what measure one is to respond to attacks globally as follows:
  • For instance, whether it is the U.S.’s flattening of Afghanistan post-9/11, Pakistan’s aerial strikes on its own populations in Swat and Balochistan or Israel’s relentless bombardment of buildings in Gaza in retaliation for rocket attacks.
  • Also India’s crossing of the UN-monitored LoC post-Uri attack (September 2016) and missile strikes on Pakistani territory (Balakot, in February 2019) after the Pulwama suicide bombing (February 2019) etc. arises questions on ways of tackling terrorism.

 

Establishing global consensus to tackle terrorism

• Unless there is global consensus on regulating the use of these emergent technologies by all responsible states, it will be hard to distinguish their use from those by designated terror entities, or state-sponsored terrorism.
• India, as host of these counter-terrorism events, and of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the next G-20, must stop fighting the “last war” on terrorism, and steer the global narrative towards preparing for the next ones.