The difficult reality, especially for India, is that the future of counter-terrorism cooperation is going to be less cooperative, with counter-terrorism systems becoming toothless.
The difficult reality, especially for India, is that the future of counter-terrorism cooperation is going to be less cooperative, with counter-terrorism systems becoming toothless.
India’s decision to host Special session of the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (UNSC-CTC) Held last month – in Mumbai and New Delhi, it focused on new and emerging technologies – is one of several events by the government to further boost its counter-terrorism diplomacy. Later this month, New Delhi will host the third edition of “No Money for Terror” (NMFT) conference which will consider dealing with future methods of financing terrorism. And in December, when India takes over the presidency of the UN Security Council for the last time before its two-year term at the council ends, India will chair a special briefing on the “global counter-terrorism architecture” looking at the challenges ahead .
While the focus is on the future of the fight against terrorism, it is important to look at some of the challenges that already exist, especially as the world’s attention is turned to dealing with the aftermath of the war in Europe, COVID-19, and the global pandemic. financial crisis.
GWOT – Built on an Uneven Campaign
The first challenge is that the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), as envisioned by the United States after 9/11, has come to an end with the final chapter written last year, as the United States fought against the Taliban. negotiated with, and then withdrew from Afghanistan. The GWOT itself was built on an uneventful campaign – when India sought similar help to deal with the IC-814 hijacking (December 1999) less than two years before the 9/11 attacks (now with the evidence clear). that the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government was forced to release, they were all terrorists who helped plan, financed or provided safe havens to the al-Qaeda leadership), arguments of the US, United Kingdom, United fell on deaf ears in the Arab Emirates (UAE), and of course, Pakistan, all of which were killed by the same terrorists in later years.
Even after the GWOT began, Pakistan’s role as an ally of the US and an “iron friend” of China ensured that The UNSC designations of those who threatened India most, including Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed, never mentioned their role in the attacks in India., The most economic stricture that India received in terms of global cooperation was that Pakistan was placed on the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) gray list – Pakistan was exempted from it in October – indicating that it was responsible for terrorism. There is a global hunger to punish Pakistan. petered out.
Furthermore, the weak international response to the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul and the oppression of women and minorities in the country, demonstrates an increasing level of fatigue in dealing with “the problems of the other country”. The hard reality for India is that the future of counter-terrorism cooperation is going to be less cooperative, and counter-terrorism regimes such as UNSC resolutions 1267, 1373, etc., have become obsolete and toothless.
Blur on definition, new technologies
Subsequently, the growing global polarization over the Russo-Ukraine war is not only diverting attention from terrorism, but also blurring the lines of what constitutes terrorism. For example, the CTC meeting in Delhi was interrupted by Russia’s claim that Britain had helped Ukraine launch drone strikes on Russia’s naval fleet in Sevastopol. The question remains: if the drone attacks by Yemeni Houthis on the oil infrastructure of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia were condemned as terrorist attacks, then the ports used to load grain on Russian ships Why was the line drawn for drone strikes in the U.S., or a bridge bombing that put the lives of many civilians at risk? On the other hand, how will Russia meet the potential recruitment of the former Afghan Republic’s National Army Commando Corps into its war in Ukraine? Do these commandos, who once fought Taliban terrorists, no longer become terrorists themselves?
Away from the battlefield, polarization has paralyzed the body tasked with global peace: because the UNSC is unable to pass any meaningful resolution that has not been vetoed by Russia or Western members, and China is incapable of five terror attacks. able to stop. Designation requested by India and US
Perhaps the biggest opportunity has been lost because of other UNSC engagements, the need to go ahead with India’s 1996 resolution of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT). While every conference, including the CTC meeting in Delhi, makes the CCIT a target, little progress has been made on real issues such as the definition of terrorism, human rights law concerns over conflicts, and the age-old debate on ‘freedom fighters versus terrorists’. Despite several changes to the draft made by India in 2016, the consensus for the convention is still elusive.
The next challenge comes from emerging technologies and the armament of many different mechanisms for terrorism purposes. Drones are already being used to transport funds, drugs, weapons, ammunition and even improvised explosive devices. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have risen about the use of biowarfare, and gain-of-function (GoF) research to mutate viruses and vectors that could be released into target populations. In a future that is already here, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems and robotic soldiers makes it even easier to conduct large-scale attacks while maintaining anonymity. Terror financing uses bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and terrorist communications use social media, the dark web, and even gaming centers.
driver of conflict
Until there is a global consensus on regulating the use of these emerging technologies by all responsible states, it will be difficult to isolate their use by designated terrorist entities, or state-sponsored 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 strikes and cyber warfare. But what is the point of drone attacks by North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, where civilians have been killed, or Chinese government-run hackers who disable urban electric grids?
Nor are there any globally accepted norms of how and by what measure to respond to those attacks: whether it be the US flattening of Afghanistan after 9/11, airstrikes on Pakistan’s own population in Swat and Balochistan, crossing the border of India. Israel’s relentless destruction of buildings in Gaza in retaliation for missile attacks on Pakistani territory (Balakot, in February 2019), or rockets after the UN-monitored Line of Control after the Uri attack (September 2016) and the Pulwama suicide bombing (February 2019). bombing attack. Without some consensus on what constitutes terrorism, no war on terrorism can be truly global.
The truth is that global inequality, food and energy shortages, climate change and pandemics are going to be the next big drivers of conflict and violence in a world where global stakeholders are currently distracted by territorial disputes and narrow political differences. Future terrorist acts will become more and more deadly, require fewer people to execute them, and have more and more anonymity of their sponsors. India, as the host of these counter-terrorism events, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the next G-20 should stop fighting the “final war” on terrorism, and advance the global narrative to prepare for the next war. .
suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in