Terrorists are aware that their success in executing sporadic attacks of retribution and fear depend on the ineptitude of governments and society in the manner they react to an existing threat
by Dr Ruwantissa Abeyratne
Writing from Montreal
Scratch any ideology and beneath it you will find a terrorist ~ Edmund Burke
The above quote may not necessarily apply in reverse – that if one scratches a terrorist, one would find an ideology. But on the other hand, one might. Walter Lacqueur and Christopher Wall in their book The Future of Tourism quote Professor David Rapoport – former academic at the University of California, Los Angeles - as saying that terrorism is not a new phenomenon and that it has occurred historically in four waves: firstly in Europe targeting the Kings and the elite of the time; a nationalist wave following the signing of the Treaty of Versailles( signed on 28 June 1919 after World War 1) pushing for decolonization; a terrorist wave supporting the Vietcong against the American war effort in Vietnam in the Sixties; and the current wave carried out by radical Islamists. Lacqueur and Wall go back into history to 66AD-73Ad when the Sicarii – a group pursuing the struggle for Palestine - launched surprise attacks randomly spaced out during holidays and during daytime, as possibly the start of the phenomenon.
A terrorist act is one which is mala in se or evil by nature and has been associated with the political repression of the French Revolution era where, it is said, the word terrorism was coined. A terrorist is a hostis humani generis or common enemy of humanity. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines terrorism as “the use of force or violence against persons or property in violation of the criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation, coercion, or ransom”. International terrorism has so far not been defined comprehensively largely due to the fact that owing to its diversity of nature the concept itself has defied precise definition. However, this does not preclude the conclusion that international terrorism involves two factors. They are: the commission of a terrorist act by a terrorist or terrorists; the “international” element involved in the act or acts in question, i.e., that the motivation for the commission of such act or acts or the eventual goal of the terrorist should inextricably be linked with a country other than that in which the act or acts are committed.
Looking at these definitions one could only surmise that they are generic and general in nature. In the context of the current wave of terrorism identified by Professor Rapoport - the series of acts carried out by radical Islamists – and the acknowledgement of ISIS that it is responsible for the recent attacks in Sri Lanka, one could refer to the ISIS journal Dabiq which reflects that their hatred is primarily aimed at disbelievers who reject the oneness of Allah and also blaspheme him by claiming Allah has a son; those who fabricate lies about prophets and messengers; those who indulge in unacceptable practices; those who, in their secular liberal societies permit the things Allah has prohibited; atheists who disbelieve in the existence of Allah; those who commit crimes against Islam; those who commit crimes against Muslims; and those who invade lands of Muslims. It is unquestionable that the overall philosophy here is international in nature.
Terrorists are aware that their success in executing sporadic attacks of retribution and fear depend on the ineptitude of governments and society in the manner they react to an existing threat. They are adept at evaluating the strength and weaknesses of governments and the absence of charismatic leadership.
Acts of international terrorism that have been committed over the past two decades are too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say, that the most deleterious effect of the offense is that it exacerbates international relations and endangers international security. From the isolated incidents of the sixties, international terrorism has progressed to becoming a concentrated assault on nations and organizations that are usually susceptible to political conflict, although politics is not always the motivation of the international terrorist. International terrorism has been recognized to engulf acts of aggression by one State on another as well as by an individual or a group of individuals of one State on another State. The former typifies such acts as invasion, while the latter relates to such individual acts of violence as hijacking and the murder of civilians in isolated instances. In both instances, the duties of the offender-State have been emphatically recognized. Such duties are to condemn such acts and take necessary action.
The responsibility of governments in acting against offences committed by private individuals may sometimes involve condonation or ineptitude in taking effective action against terrorist acts. The United Nations General Assembly, on 9 December 1999, adopted the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ratified by Sri Lanka in September 2000), aimed at enhancing international co-operation among States in devising and adopting effective measures for the prevention of the financing of terrorism, as well as for its suppression through the prosecution and punishment of its perpetrators.
The Convention, in its Article 2 recognizes that any person who by any means directly or indirectly, unlawfully or, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out any act which constitutes an offence under certain named treaties, commits an offence. One of the treaties cited by the Convention is the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December 1997 (Sri Lanka ratified this Convention on 23 March 1999).
The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism also provides that, over and above the acts mentioned, providing or collecting funds toward any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in the situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, would be deemed an offence under the Convention.
The most pragmatic approach to the problem lies in identifying the parameters of the offense of international terrorism and seeking a solution to the various categories of the offense. To obtain a precise definition would be unwise, if not impossible. Once the offense and its parasitic qualities are clearly identified, it would become necessary to discuss briefly its harmful effects on the international community. It is only then that a solution can be discussed that would obviate the fear and apprehension we suffer in the face of this threat.
The author is a former senior official of the United Nations system.
Post a Comment