Homeland Security

The Challenges of Global Terrorism
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Vol. 29.3 Jul-Sep 2014 | Date : 05 Oct , 2015

There should be no distinction between a good and a bad terrorist which is what some countries are trying to do. The scourge will consume all unless it is ruthlessly eliminated. Countries sponsoring terrorism might realise that it is like riding a tiger that, one day, they might fall prey to. The biggest worry of these countries which have suffered at the hands of terrorists is that Weapons of Mass Destruction may fall into the hands of the terrorists and that catastrophic consequences would follow. A worldwide integrated approach to tackling terrorism is, therefore, a must.

Currently, the terrorists’ threat is magnified by their acquiring aerial capability, and the very real prospects of them acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction in pursuit of their endeavours.

Terrorism is neither definable within geographical boundaries nor is it within traditional moulds of rationality. Modern technology and globalisation do not recognise geography. State sovereignty stands diluted; it is easily challenged. Terrorist groups do not owe loyalty to any national flag, religion or even ethnicity. They extinguish innocent lives as legitimate victims and seek ‘martyrdom’ in suicide missions. Currently, the terrorists’ threat is magnified by their acquiring aerial capability, and the very real prospects of them acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction in pursuit of their endeavours.

Terrorism is ‘violent tactics’ strategy, being used increasingly to influence and change political, social and economic policies of those in authority. It has the capacity to produce, in large masses, a widespread belief in the futility of resistance and a loss of faith in the state and its agencies and their ability to protect life, liberty and property. These patterns of thought gradually create a denial among the people of their own fear and an increasing justification of the terrorist cause. Not only people but also the leadership and state itself can become susceptible to this sentiment of futility, the implicit justification of terrorism – as in the various ‘root causes’ theories advanced – and the erosion of the will to fight across the nation.

Relevance of State Vis-a-Vis Terrorism

The war on terror has proved to be a catalyst that validates the state’s method and centrality. America and NATO started a war against terror out of a deep sense of vulnerability and fear of terrorists attacking other major powers in the future. Earlier in history, the Roman Empire fought against Jewish zealots due to a similar fear. This is the language of power which has its own tone and temperament. But the logic of power politics has not changed throughout history. If, with alliance, proxy, band-wagoning, aid and other political variables as controlled, any weak power like Malaysia or Bangladesh, was attacked by terrorists in this manner, the reaction would have never been so internationalised.

Any weaker state without the support of a major power, would have never been so internalised. Any weaker state without the support of any major power, would have never been able to launch such a massive military campaign against bigots or terrorists though the fear and vulnerability would have been similar. It requires a state with a certain magnitude of “power” to defend itself and teach attackers a lesson. Apart from the debate of state power and the level of threat to its security, there is another variable that one should take into account i.e. the threatening actor and its identity, state or non-state.

Low-intensity conflict is neither a new nor an isolated phenomenon; it is, in fact, the most common form of warfare today and ranges from terrorism to insurgency, revolution, sabotage, paramilitary operations and other forms of unconventional combat.

The presence of dangerous actors and events has never been denied in history. But regardless of the threatening actor, the objective of strategy is to ensure security. A state’s behaviour is rightly according to its prudent strategic interests. Every watershed event like September 11 is not a transforming event for state methodology and statecraft. Moreover, current terrorism is not new. This is another phase of violent asymmetric conflict in world politics between states and non-state actors. It is a part of what is commonly referred to as low-intensity conflict that is widely spread in geographic terms, since it is typically less violent than modern conventional warfare. Low-intensity conflict is neither a new nor an isolated phenomenon; it is, in fact, the most common form of warfare today and ranges from terrorism to insurgency, revolution, sabotage, paramilitary operations and other forms of unconventional combat.

The Present Situation: Rise of Non-State Actors

The rise of non-state actors in terrorism can be traced back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, apart from Pakistan taking the lead and becoming a frontline state in the fight against the Soviet invasion, they encouraged, religiously motivated youth to come under the umbrella of various terrorist organisations and that is where Al Qaeda under Osama Bin Laden came into being. Pakistan thought that it would be able to control these Jihadi groups but the script went awry.

Soon the non-state actors went out of control of their patrons. Terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hizbul Mujahedeen, Lashkar-e-Toiba and many others came up. Thereafter, the Al Qaeda organised the worst terrorist strike in the world – bombing of World Trade Centre in USA and the complete landscape of terrorism by non-state actors underwent a revolutionary change. In this game, Pakistan has become the epicentre of terrorism. The latest in the rise of non-state actors is ISIS in Iraq that is not satisfied with terror strikes but wishes to create an Islamic state based in rule by the Sunni Muslims and establish a Caliphate. Their leader is a shadowy figure – Baghdadi who installed himself as the Imam in the conquered areas in Iraq.

Regimes Supporting Terrorism

A worrisome trend today is the emergence of regimes which support terrorism as a state policy. It may be religious terrorism or any other form of terrorism.

State sponsors of WMD programs represent a facet of WMD terrorism.

Cyber Terrorism

Another recent phenomenon is cyber terrorism wherein some states are raising armies of hackers to hack into sensitive sights of adversaries to obtain data. Hacking is also being employed to disable important nets and cause a large scale economic devastation.

WMD Terrorism

State sponsors of WMD programs represent a facet of WMD terrorism. This could provide terrorists with access to materials and expertise that are hard to acquire. There are transnational groups operating in a nuclear proliferation environment.

Effects of Terrorism

The pace of political change in the world is revolutionary and the aftermath is far-reaching both vertically and horizontally around the globe. This trend is strange, having contradicting trends kept in the same basket of time and space. Since 2001, the world has witnessed several terror-related events, some of which are:

  • Attack on the most powerful nation in the world, the US by non-state actors (Al Qaeda).
  • The subsequent revival of a preemptory military alliance.
  • Violation of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution.
  • Military takeover of two states in three years i.e. Iraq in 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001).

The resultant security dilemma has pushed politics of great powers towards increasing economic interdependence, larger military budgets and the creation of a state – ISIS in Iraq.

  • Revival of imperialism.
  • Refusal of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and Kyoto Protocol by the US – the torchbearer of democracy.
  • A new wave of serious violations of human rights like genocides (e.g. Sudan, 2004), honour killings and trafficking of women and children along with rising terrorist attacks by non-state militias.
  • A slump in economic activity since the fall of 2007 and then constantly falling economic indices (e.g. the fall of Lehman Brothers in the US). The credit market collapsed in tandem with rising military budgets of some of the developing and developed nations. Not only this, the world also saw rising economic powers with distinct features like Russia with its gas, oil and gold reserves; India with its trillion-dollar economy, a civilian nuclear deal with the US and a provocative military doctrine and China with its rising military and economic power.
  • The addition of new members of the nuclear club (North Korea and Iran) after the failure of diplomacy and economic sanctions. Overall, the global was on terror has resulted in severe consequences. The distant military power, the US, has become regional to the Asian powers sitting at the doorsteps of Western, Central and Eastern Asia. The resultant security dilemma has pushed politics of great powers towards increasing economic interdependence, larger military budgets and the creation of a state – ISIS in Iraq.

Terrorism in South Asia

Geo-politically, South Asia represents an integral security zone and in that, with each of her neighbours, India has special ties of ethnicity, language, culture, common historical experience or of shared access to vital natural resources like water of a degree of intensity that is not shared by any others. Currently, the whole of South Asia – India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Afghanistan and Pakistan – is going through internal unrest and upheavals due to insurgency, ethnic conflicts, religious fundamentalism or just political polarisation that encourages and uses terrorism.

Currently, the whole of South Asia is going through internal unrest and upheavals due to insurgency, ethnic conflicts, religious fundamentalism or just political polarisation that encourages and uses terrorism.

Their terrorist activities also have a long history of crossing national boundaries and leading to inter-state tensions. The impact of terrorism in neighboring states is always felt in India. As Harish Khare, the well-known journalist stated recently, “In this age of globalisation and the internet, it would be foolish to insist that not a single Muslim should allow himself to be brainwashed by the global Islamist fervour.” The general impression is that the terrorist situation in South Asia has deteriorated due to lack of political consensus, a comprehensive collective strategy, a will to implement and inadequate capacity building.

A few nations in South Asia still carry the belief that someone’s terrorist can be another’s freedom fighter. Such a notion is puerile. Any pre-meditated and unlawful act of violence against the innocent or non-combatants, irrespective of its cause and motive is nothing but terrorism. Some nations also believe that terrorism is a weapon of the small to bleed bigger nations. Such notions and advocacy reflect lack of commitment to war against terror. ‘Terrorism is a double-edged weapon. It is like a wicked dog, which often bites the hand that feeds it.’ India experienced it with Bhindranwale and LTTE of Sri Lanka during the 1980s. Pakistan is realising it now, after sponsoring the Afghan Mujahideen in the 1980s and the 1990s. Even the Pakistan military, which supported and controlled them earlier, is finding it difficult to control the situation in FATA and other areas of the NWFP. ‘A proxy or sub conventional war through terrorists’ activities can easily escalate into a conventional war’.

Global Counter Terrorism Strategy

Establishment of a Regional Counter Terrorism Centre with experts from different countries who would work under a common umbrella to provide professional guidance and secretarial support to the SAARC political leadership and to monitor implementation of their Resolutions in letter and spirit.

Capacity building in combating terrorism by intelligence, police, para military and military in each other’s schools of instructions and thus learning from varied experience.

Some nations also believe that terrorism is a weapon of the small to bleed bigger nations.

Greater liaison and coordination for counter-terrorism operations would require certain amount of inter-operability. The backbone of such inter-operability is sets of common inter-operable communication systems and operating procedures.

Updating of equipment required for counter-terrorism operations. This does not involve heavy weaponry but force multipliers which enable better day and night surveillance, faster decision making and reaction, as well as accuracy to avoid collateral damage.

A common database at the regional level, a multilateral/bilateral intelligence sharing and a mechanism for joint interrogation of terrorist leaders and important suspects.

Trust and transparency of action against sanctuaries in foreign territory and against States sponsoring terrorism. Effective action against terrorist-funding, gun running and narcotics production and smuggling.

Legal assistance to watch others in matters relating to investigations and prosecution.

Strategy to Counter WMD Terrorism

Determine terrorists’ intentions, capabilities and plans to develop or acquire WMD. Understand and assess the credibility of threat reporting and provide technical assessments of terrorists’ WMD capabilities.

Deny terrorists access to the materials, expertise and other enabling capabilities required to develop WMD, with a particular focus on weapons-usable fissile materials, dangerous pathogens and poisonous chemicals. Denial efforts extend to the methods of transport, sources of funds and other capabilities that could facilitate the execution of a WMD attack. In addition to building upon existing initiatives to secure materials, develop innovative approaches that blend classic counter proliferation, non-proliferation and counter terrorism efforts.

The biggest worry of these countries which have suffered at the hands of terrorists is that Weapons of Mass Destruction may fall into the hands of the terrorists and that catastrophic consequences would follow.

Deter terrorists from employing WMD. A new deterrence calculus seeks to deter terrorists, facilitators and supporters from contemplating a WMD attack and, failing that, to dissuade them from actually conducting an attack. Traditional deterrence by punishment may not work because terrorists generally show a wanton disregard for the lives of innocents and, in some cases, for their own. Accordingly, develop a range of deterrence strategies that are tailored to the various WMD threats and the individual actors who facilitate or enable those threats. Employ diplomatic strategies that seek to address extremism and defuse volatile conditions in order to discourage consideration of WMD as a tool to address real or perceived injustices.

Detect and disrupt terrorists’ attempted movement of WMD-related materials, weapons, and personnel. Expand our global capability for detecting illicit materials, weapons and personnel transiting abroad. Utilise global partnerships, international agreements and ongoing border security and interdiction efforts to promote detection capabilities. Continue to work with countries to enact and enforce strict penalties for WMD trafficking and other suspect WMD-related activities.

Prevent a WMD-related terrorist attack and develop a response capability. Once the possibility of a WMD attack has been detected, work to contain, interdict and eliminate the threat. Continue to develop requisite capabilities to eliminate the possibility of a WMD operation and to prevent a possible follow-on attack. Prepare ourselves for possible WMD incidents by developing capabilities to manage the range of consequences that may result from such an attack.

Define the nature and source of a terrorist-employed WMD device. Should a WMD terrorist attack occur, the rapid identification of the source and perpetrator of an attack would facilitate response efforts and may be critical in disrupting follow-on attacks. Work to maintain and improve our capability to determine responsibility for the intended or actual use of WMD via accurate attribution using the rapid fusion of technical forensic data with intelligence and law enforcement information.

There should be no distinction between a good and a bad terrorist which is what some countries are trying to do. The scourge will consume all unless it is ruthlessly eliminated. Countries sponsoring terrorism might realise that it is like riding a tiger that, one day, they might fall prey to. The biggest worry of these countries which have suffered at the hands of terrorists is that Weapons of Mass Destruction may fall into the hands of the terrorists and that catastrophic consequences would follow. A worldwide integrated approach to tackling terrorism is, therefore, a must.

Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Maj Gen Sheru Thapliyal, PhD

served in the Regiment of Artillery and was awarded a Doctorate for his research & thesis on "Sino-Indian Relations".

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left