494

Emporium Current Essays

Combating Terrorism In American Style

The United States air strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan baffled the entire civilised world.
Whereas there were no two views about condemnation of terrorism, the methods to deal
with this evil are also laid down. Both at the international and national levels, various
agencies under the United Nations and individual countries are at work to counter and
contain this menace. If any game is not played according to laid down rules then the law
of the jungle catties into' force. Might is Right, has long been rejected and buried. That
was why the League of Nations' came into being. The world was plunged into the Second
World War because the powerless League of Nations proved toothless to check the
freshest trends of Adolph Hitler, Mussolini and many others. At the virtual cost of the
destruction of the whole of Europe and many other continents and countries, the bitter
lessons learnt led to the establishment of the United Nations organisation. This
organisation has been struggling for the past 55 years to implement and enforce its
charter of establishing international peace, preventing wars and other activities in
the social and humanitarian sectors. >

However, the "big powers" invariably defied the United Nations whenever and wherever
it suited their purpose. The former Soviet Union and the United States were the major
culprits. The United States retains the distinction of being the only country on this earth
to use atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After destroying one whole
city, the costly exercise had to be repeated just for the testing of a newly acquired atomic
device. Hundreds of thousands of human beings were killed as if they were guinea pigs in
a laboratory. No lessons were learned and no. feelings of shame or even regret were ever
expressed. Owning up to misconduct is a great quality at a national as well as an
individual level. That is the reason everyone around the globe admires President Clinton
for his admission to have made a mistake. However, successive American governments,
ever since the establishment of the United Nations, have somehow chosen a solo flight,
starting from the military action in Korea, followed by Vietnam and similar other
ventures in many parts of the world. The

Emporium Current Essav.s

495

Gulf war is perhaps the only exception where the umbrella of the 'Security Council was
exploited to the extreme. Unaware of the real US strategic objectives in the region, many
nations fell in the trap in order to support the implementation of Security Council
resolutions. The rest is history. AH these nations have by now learned their lesson,
consequently, no country, including European allies of the USA has condoned any
ongoing of futuristic US global designs. There was a split over treatment of Iran, use of
force in Iraq, and clear cut split over the imposition of sanctions on India and Pakistan
after the nuclear.

Sensing its isolation, the United States did not even bother to consult either the United
Nations or other G-8 allies with regard to its mad military action against two Muslim
countries, namely Afghanistan and Sudan. The US decided to act as the "policeman" of
the world on its own. From the moment the president of the US announced the air strikes
against other sovereign independent countries, without any backing of the international
community and the Security Council, the United Nations organisation was virtually dead.
Its formal ceremonial burial may take place in due course of time. • •

The actual operational details of this act of aggression by the world's sole superpower
against two weak and defenceless countries were unnecessary and irrelevant. Whatever
the pretext, such military intervention and violation of airspace of other nations is
contrary to the UN charter. That is the reason most countries in the world have not
approved US transgression of Afghanistan and Sudan. It would have been a different
matter if the acts of terrorism in Kenya and Tanzania were brought to the Security
Council table and suitable measures were adopted to meet such terrorist activities. Any
action including air strikes or demand from Afghanistan to have over any terrorist leader
could have justification.

Millions of people listened to the US president as Veil as the Secretary of Defence and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. None could offer any valid grounds to justify the
proposed air strikes. It was law of the jungle, pure and simple, being applied to the so-
called modern and civilised democratic world, in the year of the Lord 1998. Is this
reflective of the New World Order in the 21st century under the leadership of the USA?

Let us briefly examine what the United States has achieved as a result of this latest
bravado. This action has estranged USA for many of its own allies. Secondly, the US
image of a champion of . democracy has been badly tarnished. Washington's claims
of496

Emporium Current Essays

upholding high moral values, non-interference in the affairs of other countries and respect
for international law, has all become a casualty. During the missile attacks many
Americans and foreign diplomats at Islamabad and Lahore were bewildered at what they
described as a "very dangerous precedent." Should other countries follow the same
pattern to deal with every country's perception of terrorism, this world would be soon
tuned into an out of control roller coaster. All efforts of stabilising peace in South, West
and Central Asia have been suddenly thrown out of gear. Pakistani air space has been
violated because the cruise missiles reportedly used in these t :at';s, are alleged to have
been Tired from US ships positioned in the Arabian Sea, close to the port of Karachi. The
US has warned that there could be more strikes in addition to the six at Afghan bases and
one at a Sudanese Pharmaceuticals factory. While claiming to protect US citizens, the
concrete result of the attacks has been counter-productive because of the anti-US feeling
stirred around the globe. The terrorists are bound to react in their own style sooner or
later. Afghanistan has not been intimidated and the Taliban have vowed to protect Osama
bin Laden at any cost.

This action of the US is reflective of Washington's future strategy on how to deal with
this region. Its worst aspect is the setting of a dangerous precedent of a country taking
matters in its own hands with regard to dealing with terrorism or other such/ issues. For
instance, tomorrow India might declare to follow in the footsteps of Washington and rain
missiles on Azad Kashmir, or for that matter anywhere in Pakistan, under the pretext of
dealing with terrorist camps. The US may or may not realise the horrendous
consequences of their recent air strikes against the so-called terrorist bases in Afghanistan
and Sudan. The issue has raised multi-dimensional concerns about Pakistan's national
security. It has also added to the current political and economic challenges being faced by
Pakistan. -

Now, it is undertaking a solo military action in Afghanistan and Sudan because a few
American lives have become the unfortunate target ot terrorism in Kenya and T_~»ania.
A human . life is a human whether it is that of an American, a K^mir!, a Palestinian, a
Chechnian, or an Albanian. If by virtue of its position as the sole superpower on the
globe. Washington has assumed the Divine Right of combating terrorism and
dispensation of justice on earth, Pakistan' expects this supreme function to be performed
judiciously in an even-handed manner, treating all human beings equally, regardless of
their race, colour, creed or religion.

Emporium Current Essays

497

Legacy of Afghan War:

From 1850 onward, the British rules of India watched with growing nervousness as
Tsarist Russia stepped up its ruthless conquest of the fabled cities and Khanates of the old
Silk Route. Tashkent submitted to the Tsar in 1865, Bokhara and Samarkand in 1868,
Khiva in 1873 and finally in 1881, Geok Tepe, the desert fortrecs of the fierce Turkomans
was smashed. The British feared that after swallowing the whole of Central Asia, the hard
riding Cossacks would then begin the final assault on India - 'the greatest and richest of
all imperial prizes.' With the harrowing events of
1857 still fresh it was reckoned that merely a northward movement of Russian armies
might trigger off a second mutiny by the 'Enemy Within'- the native troops.

The century long struggle of the British to fend off the threat posed by Russian forward
policy and the lattcr's relentless drive towards India's thinly defended and untamed
frontier became known as the Great Game - 'that never ceases day or night.' Although
Tsarist officials dismissed this perception as a 'tournament of shadows,' poring over a
map told a different story. While 2000 miles had separated the British and Russian
empires in Asia at the start of the 19th century, at the end of it the distance had shrunk to
a few hundred miles, and in some parts of the Pamir region to less than 20, within exactly
the distance of a single spring.

Afghanistan with its historical gateways to India thus became the focal point, the buffer
of conflicting Russian and Raj interests. Under the" fatal influence of the Great Game,
the British from their base in India sought to extend their control over Afghanistan
resulting in the three Afghan wars, 1839-1842, 1878-
1880 and 1919 (when Lenin looked at India with the eyes of the 'deliverer from the
north.') These wars broadly demonstrated the ease of overrunning Afghanistan and the
difficulty of holding it because of tht inho^^.^ble terrain of the .««nd and inbred
resentment of infidel invaders among the insular minded and martial Afghan tribes.
Secondly, mere c pture <f Kabul did not automatically extend sway over the enlir;
coiT.try, as the Soviets also learnt to their cost in 1979-89. Though t? c British were
unable to subdue the people and occupy the country, Afghan foreign policy came under
their control in 1879 after the Treaty of Gandamak. This gave Britain control of the
Khybcr Pass, an important route between India and Central Asia which alienated the
Pakhtun tribes of Afghanistan. 498

Emporium Current Essays

When, under the 'mysterious rhythms of history,' the Soviet hordes finally pouted into
Afghanistan in December 1979, one of the original Great Game players had long since
departed the scene, and Pakistan overnight assumed the unenviable mantle of a frontline
state.

Orchestrated by the West, with the USA holding centre stage, a well-funded, armed with
state-of-the-art weaponry, but splintered, resistance movement grew up and spread all
over the country'' The war quit dy settled into a stalemate with 100,000 Soviet troops
holding ti.e cities, large towns and major garrisons, while the mujahideen re amed
relatively freely over the countryside, specially after shoulder -fired anti-aircraft missiles
were supplied by the USA.

The call for Jihad against a religion-spurning superpower attracted thousands of Muslims
youth from various Islamic countries including Pakistan, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and
Algeria. The likes of Osama and Yousaf Ramzi, though anti-American and anti-Zionist,
collaborated with the Americans in the struggle against the invaders on the grounds of
experience, as being the lesser evil at the stage. As Churchill had proclaimed during
Wqrld War II, if Hitler invaded hell, he would feel obliged to put in a good word for the
Devil in the House of Commons. The long drawn out guerrilla war provided an excellent
schooling in the art of war, handling of sophisticated weaponry and matching wits against
the advanced tactics and strategies of a modern military superpower, spawned in think-
tanks, research institutes and war games.

With the exodus of Soviet troops in 1989, the jihad was over, but disillusionment soon set
in when the fragmented Afghan mujahideen groups turned their guns on each other,
engaging in bloody in-fighting, and various factions making selfish attempts to grab
power for themselves. *

The Afghan war ended .00 years of Durrani ascendancy in Afghanistan which had prov*
ed a fragile modicum of unity and ethnic equilibrium and also e "oded the traditional
patterns of power of tribal and family chieftains. Within the Pakhtun tribes themselves,
the r-val Ghilzai confederacy, the second largest, all but evaporated tne long established
primacy of the majority Durrani element and no longer aiicptc'! its pivotal role in the
post-war scheme of thingr. Li'.wmse, the ethnic groups of Hazaras, Tajiks and Uzbeks,
formerly peripheral players in Afghan polity, assumed disproportionate importance and
influence, with the emergence of warlords such as Rashccd Dostum (now in forced exile
in Turkey) and Ahmad Shah Mossoud, who drew their support from purely

Emporium Current Essays

499

ethnic and sectarian loyalties. They, in effect, became unwitting pawns in the
manipulations of the USA of transform the situation to its benefit and its address. The
USA and its sword-bearer, Margaret Thatcher, instead of brokering a broad-based
coalition and a ceasefire, followed by elections, insisted on a purely military solution to
remove president Najibullah because 'victory is at hand/

Although Moscow itself admitted that the invasion of Afghanistan was a 'sin', a 'mistake'
or a 'misadventure' and in February 1989, on a visit to Pakistan, Soviet FM Eduard
Shevardnadze 'literally begged for a political settlement,' all his pleas went unheeded. The
UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar also repeatedly called for establishment of
a broad-based coalition government through an intra-party Afghan dialogue. The USA by
its obstinate stand, which it thought would perhaps wipe out the stain and humiliation of
the Vietnam debacle and position it in the soft underbelly of USSR, to exploit unrest in
the Central Asian Republics (the Great Game in reverse) made Afghanistan a 'bleeding
wound', which it remains to this day. This rigid mind-set strengthened the fundamentalists
and, in particular Gulbuddin Hikmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami, which was virulently. anti-West,
'detested by most Afghans, and willing to fight to the last Afghan.'

The Afghan war, by hastening the demise of an already tottering Soviet Union, allowed
the USA to emerge as the. sole superpower, bestriding the world like a Colossus. Its
subsequent overtly hostile actions against the various Muslim states, under one garb or
the other and its collusion with and acquiescence in Israel's intransigence in Palestine and
Lebanon arc increasingly being confronted by its own angels of the Jihad now turned into
the devils of terrorism. 'The unforeseen outcome has an ugly trick of knocking on the
door an*d peering in at the windows' and what the world is now witnessing! is merely the
USA's chickens coming home to roost. And despite j^Jisler's hat being firmly upon the
pole, the reflexaction tendency of kneeling before it is conspicuously absent, much to
their exasperation. '
The legacies of the Afghan war still continue to haunt Pakistan with a vengeance. After
the victory was gained, the USA left its long-time ally in the lurch, clamping .sweeping
sanctions and generally distancing itself from the seamier and ugly consequences of the
war. It abandoned Pakistan, a frontline st«te which is still paying a high cost in terms of
social instability and other Herculean, myriad problems, without any qualms of
conscience, true revealing the essentially realpolitik nature of its role as the defender of
democracy. At home, the rise of sectarian violence and militant500

Emporium Current Essays

ethnic parties, the effects of the destruction of the social fabric through induction of
narcotics, weapons culture, and the spillover of millions of refugees continue unabated
today, even after decades.

Abroad, the fluid, perennially unsettled situation in Afghanistan has turned it (until
recently at least) into a safe haven for the remnant warriors of the jihad from where these
'foreign legionnaires' have cross-pollinated with other Islamic groups such as Hamas, the
FIS in Algeria and the Kashmir freedom fighters. Apparently, for these battle-hardened
and ideologically committed 'wild geese* there is no lack of scope for 'gainful'
employment, and the market seems to have improved further after recent events.

But all these developments have poisoned Pakistan's traditionally cordial relations with
Iran, while its ties with friendly Islamic countries like Turkey, Algeria and Egypt have
also soured on the issue of alleged training and 'export' of fundamentalism from bases in
Afghanistan, over which it has no control. Osama bin Laden is also reported to have
visited Kashmir to concert the freedom struggle and Indo-Pak relations have hit a
'flashpoint' low. Pakistan also appears to have missed the bus in exploiting its strategic
location vis-a-vis the landlocked Central Asian Republics with their vast mineral and
energy resources and immense potential as trading partners, as they perceive Pakistan's
support of the Taliban as posing a threat by nurturing nascent Islamic forces in their
states.

Thus the 'witches brew' of the Afghan war continues to simmer and boil; and, to the
overwhelming chagrin of the sponsors, and later perverters, of the Afghan jihad, from the
helpings and servings so far, it is turning out to be an unpalatably over-peppered dish.

Missile Spree & International Law:

The US missile attacks on Afghan and Sudanese territories i msi inn Igi ;"g questions of
international law. While Afghanistan and Sudan have condemned these acts as
'aggression' against their sovereignty, the US has called the attacks a 'self-defence'
measure against anticipated terrorist strikes. An examination of the international law
concepts of 'Aggression' and 'Self-defence' would help place the US action in perspective.
The definition of aggression was the subject of debate within the UN for twenty years. In
1974 the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the Resolution On The Definition
of

Emporium Current Essays

501

Aggression. The Resolution spells out the doctrine of aggression at international law.
Article I takes the general definition approach of aggression, like Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter, Article 3 of.the Resolution takes the enumerative approach, listing the acts that
constitute aggression. Article 1 defines 'aggression' as the 'use of armed force by a state
against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.'

The Article qualifies that the term 'state' is used without prejudice to its recognition by the
international community, or to its membership of the UN. This reference to recognition
and UN membership is intended to protect entities whose status is disputed, or who have
been denied recognition or membership for political or other reasons. Thus, although
Afghanistan's Taliban government does not hold the country's UN seat and has not been
recognised by the US, these two factors do not take away its status as a sovereign state,
meriting treatment commensurate with the acknowledged norms of international law.
Sudan's sovereignty is unhindered by such theoretical doubts.

Although a General Assembly Resolution is not binding on the Security Council, the
Resolution on Aggression is intended to assist the Council in its task of maintaining
international peace and security. The concept of aggression enunciated in the Resolution
has frequently been referred to in draft resolutions and debates in the Security Council.
Again, the General Assembly Resolution on the Principles of International Law 1970
condemns 'the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any state' and calls such use of force a violation of international law and the UN Charter.

At the root of the problem is the nature.of international law itself: the rudimentary
character of the institutions that make and apply it, the absence of an executive authority
that can enforce it, and of an effective legislature that can modify and interpret it to
changing situations. It is enforced more by the law-habit that states find in their interest to
observe. Its violations are few, but they are spectacular. The power structure of. the UN,
the fact that the General Assembly and the Security Council are political rather than
judicial bodies, are major determinants of the law's drift. Because practice of states
crystallises into general practice acceptable as law, acts like the US attacks are
detrimental to the UN's scheme of maintaining international peace.