Introduction: No attempt should be made to score points over Pakistan as this will convey the wrong impression regarding our intention behind joining the coalition against terrorism.
The Terrorist attack of September 11 on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington and the U.S. response in the form of the launch of a global campaign against terrorism, heralds a new era in international relations. It has created a new divide in the world, on one side are those who are with the U.S. in the campaign and, on the other, those who ``are with the terrorists''. Every nation has to decide on which side it wants to be. There is an avalanche of nations wanting to be on the U.S. side. The Government of India has taken the right decision in casting its lot on this side of the divide.
The U.S. lost no time in declaring the September 11 attack a war against it. This was followed quickly by the U.S. Congress formally adopting a resolution declaring war and authorising its President to take all necessary steps to win it. This not only reflected the widespread anger and revulsion at the unprecedented breach of U.S. security and the resultant massive loss of life and property and the resolve to prevent its recurrence, but also paved the way for the U.S. to act unilaterally in pursuit of the campaign. In taking the contemplated measures, the U.S. will be well within international law. For, according to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, it will be exercising its ``inherent right of... self defence'' in the event of an armed attack against it.
The U.S. has left the world in no doubt that the campaign will be on a global scale and of a long term nature. It is busy mobilising maximum support and forging a global alliance. The U.S. has also defined its objective in the broadest possible terms. To quote the U.S. President: ``It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated''. Further, ``our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign''. Senior American officials have defined the objective as destroying ``networks'', ``removing systems'' and ``ending states'' which support terrorism. This should leave no doubt that the contemplated assault on the Taliban is but the first phase of the campaign and that terrorist camps in Pakistan from where the proxy war is carried out in Kashmir, and which are indisputably an extension of the global network, cannot escape the sweep of the campaign.
There should also be no doubt regarding the determination of the U.S. Government to act decisively, comprehensively and over the long haul, to stamp out the international networks, systems and movements of terrorism. The U.S. has amply demonstrated its ability of a single-minded pursuit of its cherished value through its 40-year campaign against `totalitarianism'. Now that it has begun a new campaign, there is no reason to doubt its ability to sustain it. Like any other nation, the U.S. would, of course, deviate and depart from the main path for tactical reasons and in its near-term interests, but the main objective is likely to remain intact.
Given its experiences, the U.S. is unlikely to get bogged down anywhere. Its targets will be specific and achievable in the short run. Each of its operations will be short, swift and effective. The duration of the campaign will be much shorter than that of the Cold War because of the greater clarity of its objective and the likelihood of its eliciting near unanimous support. The U.S. is not going to wait until there is a foolproof definition of terrorism. Is it not enough that you have identified the terrorists?
There is no scope for an overcautious approach towards supporting the campaign launched by the U.S. on the ground that even Russia, China and most European countries have made their support conditional. This is based on a complete misreading of these nations' reactions. After all, there cannot be a more emphatic endorsement of the U.S. declaration of war against terrorism than the invocation of the NATO article which would regard this war as a war against all other member- states. Russia has agreed to the movement of hundreds of U.S. combat aircraft to the skies and bases in the Central Asian Republics adjoining Afghanistan. So far as China is concerned, there has not been a single instance since the end of the Cold War of the Chinese opposing a U.S. resolution in the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. The fact is that after the end of the Cold War a new alliance of major powers has emerged, drawn from both East and West and including China, which sees its common interest in maintaining the status quo. The emerging coalition against terrorism will, therefore, have the full support of the new alliance.
Some experts and political parties including the Left and the Congress have suggested that India should join the campaign only if it is mounted under the aegis of the United Nations. This is totally unrealistic. The fact is that the campaign is already on and it is led by the U.S. This cannot but be so. The U.N. has long ceased to carry out peace-keeping operations requiring large scale deployment of force or involving the security of a permanent member. It is a different matter that this state of affairs has been brought about by a conscious policy of the major powers to prevent the U.N. from carrying out such operations. The U.S. must be working behind the scenes to have the Security Council adopt an enabling resolution under which the campaign will be carried out. But U.N. is unlikely to insist on authorising each operation under the campaign.
Those who are pleading for initiating international action against terrorism under the framework of the Indian-sponsored International Convention on Terrorism are being even more unrealistic. The Convention will be the lowest common denominator of the positions of 160-odd U.N. members. Even after that, individual countries will enter reservations. Then some countries, including perhaps the major ones, would take years to ratify it. And when the Convention enters into force, it will be difficult to ensure its implementation. Thus to predicate the launching of a campaign against terrorism on the proposed international Convention on the subject betrays a lack of desire to take any action.
India has no alternative to joining the campaign. As one of the worst sufferers of terrorism and consistent with our adherence to the path of tolerance and non-violence, we cannot afford to be seen on the other side of the divide. Besides, in whatsoever way the campaign unfolds itself it will redound to India's benefit. We do not necessarily have to compete with Pakistan to be a frontline state in order to reap that benefit. To take full advantage of our membership of the emerging global coalition we should support the campaign without ``ifs'' and ``buts''. For, credibility and identification with the cause is the crux of the matter. However, we should not be in an indecent hurry to spell out, even before we are asked, all the logistical support we can give.
We should apply extreme caution and restraint in pronouncing ourselves on the subject. Our political leaders should resist the temptation of making pronouncements out of turn. No attempt should be made to score points over Pakistan as this will convey the wrong impression regarding our intention behind joining the coalition. Over the coming weeks and months, the most important role that we can play will be by way of contributing to the definition of the over-all objective of the campaign.
Some of the elements that should
be sought to be included in such a definition are: terrorism is a crime
against humanity; terrorism is indivisible; there should be a comprehensive
and integrated approach to dealing with it; that democratic governments
are particularly vulnerable to international terrorism which attacks their
very way of life and freedom; terrorism cannot be justified on the ground
of jehad or struggle for freedom; no religion sanctions terrorism. Therefore,
a campaign against it cannot be a campaign against any religion.