Author: Barry Rubin
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 28, 2008
URL:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/DisplayContent.aspx?ContentID=137436&URLName=India-like-Israel-has-to-fight-terror-on-its-own
For years, India has been subjected to periodic
terrorist attacks throughout the country. But what happened in Mumbai is something
new and different: A full-scale terrorist war.
This is the kind of threat and problem Israel
has been facing for decades. What are the lessons for India from Israel's
experience point also reflected by India's own recent history?
First, India needs and has the right to expect
international sympathy and help. It will get sympathy but will it get help?
Once it is clear that other countries must actually do something, incur some
costs, possibly take some risks, everything changes.
If the terrorists come from bases or training
camps in Pakistan, after all, India wants international action to be taken.
Pakistan must be pressured to close such camps, stop helping terrorists, and
provide information possessed by Pakistani intelligence agencies.
But how might this happen? Will Western countries
make a real effort? Are they going to impose sanctions on Pakistan or even
denounce it? Will they make public the results of their own investigations
about responsibility for the terror campaign against India?
Not likely. After all, such acts would cost
them money and involve potential risks, perhaps even of the terrorists targeting
them. Moreover, they need Pakistan for various things, notably to cooperate
on keeping down other Islamist terrorist threats, not spread around nuclear
weapons' technology too much, and being cooperative on maintaining some stability
in Afghanistan.
This parallels Israel's situation with Syria,
Lebanon, and Iran. For decades, the United States and some European countries
have talked to the Syrian Government about closing down terrorist headquarters
in Damascus. The Syrians merely say "no" (though sometimes they
have just lied and said the offices were closed). The United States even did
put on some sanctions. But by being intransigent, pretending moderation, and
hinting help on other issues, Syria has gotten out of its isolation.
So, despite all the pious talk about fighting
terrorism, in real terms, India -- like Israel -- is largely on its own in
defending itself from terrorism.
Another problem India faces, like Israel in
the case of Lebanon, is that it is dealing with a country that lacks an effective
Government. Pakistan is in real terms a state of anarchy. Even within the
intelligence apparatus, factions simply do as they please in inciting terrorism.
Given popular opinion and Pakistan's Islamic framework, even a well-intentioned
Government would be hard-put to crackdown.
In Israel's case, the whole rationale for
regimes like those in Iran and Syria is a radical ideology. So pervasive is
the daily incitement to hatred and the lies, that popular opinion supports
the most murderous terrorism. The murder of Israeli civilians brings celebrations
in the Arab world. The usual types of appeals to law and order, holding Governments
responsible for their actions, shaming them, or going over their heads to
appeal to the masses on humanitarian grounds simply don't work.
So what's a country to do? It will consider
cross-border raids against terrorist camps or retaliation to pressure the
terrorist sponsor to desist. Sometimes it will actually take such action.
But can India depend on international support for such self-defence measures
or will it then be labeled an aggressor?
How much is India willing to risk war with
Pakistan even though it has a legitimate casus belli due to covert aggression
against itself by that neighbour? And let's not forget that Pakistan has nuclear
weapons, a situation which Israel may soon face in regard to Iran.
Now we can see the logic of terrorism as a
strategy by radical groups and countries pursuing aggression by covert means.
The terrorists and their supporters have lots of advantages; the victims are
not only put on the defensive but have to make tough decisions about self-defence.
Finally, there is the dangerous "root
cause" argument. Many Western intellectuals and journalists -- as well
as some Governments -- are ready to blame the victim of terrorism. In Israel's
case, despite desperate efforts to promote peace, making of concessions, withdrawals
from territory, and offer of a Palestinian state, it is said to be the villain
as not giving the Palestinians
enough.
The terrorists and their sponsors use this
situation to their advantage. By being intransigent -- demanding so much and
offering so little -- they keep the conflict going and are able to pose as
victims simultaneously.
Will some suggest that if India merely gives
up Kashmir and makes various concessions, the problem will go away? This might
not happen but it is worth keeping an eye on such a trend.
The Indian Government is thus going to have
some very tough decisions to make. How will it try to mobilise real international
support, not just expressions of sympathy for the deaths and destruction?
In what ways can it seek to destroy terrorist installations and deter their
sponsors?
Israel's experience offers some lessons: Depend
on yourself, be willing to face unfair criticism to engage in self-defence,
take counter-terrorism very seriously, mobilise your own citizens as an active
warning system, and decide when and where to retaliate.
Defending yourself against terrorism is not
easy. Unfortunately, even in an era of "war against terrorism" those
truly willing to help in the battle are few and far between.
- The writer is director of the Global Research
in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review
of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.