TERRORISM LAW & POLICY

SEARCH TERRORISM LAWS, REPORTS, HEARINGS, BRIEFINGS, PAPERS...

There is absolutely no law, Islamic or secular, in Pakistan that admits the monstrous acts of 11 September 2001 that caused killing of the innocent people and destruction and terror on the American soil. The Pakistani nation too stands indiscriminately against all acts of violence that mar the security, peace and liberty of an innocent individual or a civil society; and it also firmly believes in taking all defensive measures and retributive actions against such acts. To this extent, there exists an overwhelming consensus in Pakistan on "war against terrorism". Beyond the ambit of this conceptual consensus, however, the difference of opinion may well be found over the specifics such as, time, objectives, design and extent of any "war against terrorism".

In the case of America’s "war on terrorism", firstly, there is a general feeling that it terminated prematurely the very limited and inflexible mandate of the diplomatic exercise. It has largely been a rushed reaction in which adherence to the fundamental prerequisites of large scale retributive actions were missing. For example, the basic evidence that linked the acts of terrorism of 11 September 2001 with the perpetrators is still hidden from the most nations. In the absence of hard evidence due to any pending investigations or security measures, at least, the presumptive evidence was needed to be shown to provide a legitimate basis for a fair, just and sound precedent under international law for "war against terrorism". It is feared that the instant manner of the America’s war on terrorism would rather reflect judicial imbalances created by the nations that are superior in their might, economies and laws for their own interests and which imbalances may potentially cultivate not only disliking among the weaker nations for the stronger but nurture unruly and destructive ideas and beliefs.

Secondly, some obscurity also exists about the objectives of the America’s war on terrorism. It now seems that the war is primarily between the two governments of the United States and Taliban; and that even if the Taliban government handed over the root culprits of terrorism of 11 September 2001 to the United States, the America’s war would still not end. The various political overtones of the present design of the war point out that the Taliban would be left with no choice but to hand over both the most-wanted men and their own government in order to give way to the establishment of a new regime in Afghanistan that fully understands the American interests in Afghanistan and the neighbouring countries. Given the above paradigm about America’s war, it becomes almost impossible to believe that the Taliban government would ever elect anything other than to continue with the war till a very long time and until their majority is won over by the Americans on the ground, which will be an extremely daunting task.

Thirdly, a prolonged war in Afghanistan is in the interest of none. It has all the elements of causing a big humanitarian hazard not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan but in the neighbouring countries too. Various humanitarian issues have already inflamed in the region concerning the influx and status of refugees and their livelihood, growth and natural rights. A nation’s economy and society cannot develop if all the time it is in the process of addressing such issues. Pakistan has experienced several unwanted social and economic changes in its northern province since the early influx of the Afghan refugees during the Russian war. It certainly is not capable of sustaining any further a larger number of Afghan refugees for a longer period of time. It may well be recognized that the borders of Pakistan neighbouring Afghanistan are porous enough to allow frequent infiltration of the Afghan refugees. There is apparently a direct correlation between such refugees and the growth of extremism in the distant valleys of Pakistan.

Fourthly, any prolonged war would also adversely affect the economics, politics and society of Pakistan. Pakistan has just started taking effective steps towards rescuing its economy, developping a balanced political system and reforming its old and antiquated laws. This whole remedial and reformatory exercise would only halt because of any long war in the neighbourhood, which would consume the whole attention and resources of the government and people of Pakistan.

Fifthly, in the whole saga of the America’s war on terrorism, it is simply not conceivable by any standards of domestic and international laws that the innocent, destitute and war-stricken people of Afghanistan will be made the objects of the America’s most advanced and sophisticated weaponry. These innocent Afghan people, who have got nothing to do with the misdeeds of their minority countrymen, always immensely needed the Western compassion but each time they were subjected to the rigours of world power system and then deserted. To bring these Afghan people out of their miseries by bombing them cannot be a realization of the past mistakes.

We understand that the nature of the crisis at hand indicates that there is not just one cause and reason behind it. The ruling party of the majority of Afghanistan is undoubtedly conducting an extreme form of governance and which may be promoting anti-American beliefs but a deep search is required into the causes behind such extremism and beliefs. It would be grossly rash to say that there are institutions that create such extremism and which must be crushed or suppressed by a war without the need of doing anything else. At least, any such suppression of opposition while it was in its infancy did not work and instead the problems have aggravated. In the words of Martin Luther King: "And if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition".

For the resolution of the present crisis, we understand that there is a dire need for:

a. the cessation of America’s war against Afghanistan on immediate basis;

b. the presence of a "peace force" of the United Nations along with the American forces in the region for surveillance and control;

c. the resumption of diplomatic efforts through a specially created "Afghan dispute resolution mission" led by the Government of Pakistan because of its proximate position and including representatives from the United Nations;

d. a certain degree of flexibility, balance and objectiveness in the mandate of the Afghan dispute resolution mission; and

e. a framework under the International law by which "acts of terrorism" and "defensive and retributive actions against terrorism" are defined and explained for future conduct.

We hope that sincere dialogues and balanced diplomatic efforts carrying economic benefits that would otherwise be wasted in the use of force will be able to provide the required peace and prosperity.

October 21, 2001

—————————————————————————————