Counter-terror diplomacy
Introduction:
- Despite the fact that the fight against terrorism is primarily focused on the future, it is crucial to consider some of the present-day difficulties, particularly in light of recent newsworthy events involving the European conflict, dealing with COVID-19’s aftereffects, and the global economic downturn.
For India, the following scheme of things applies:
- New and emerging technologies were a major topic of discussion at the most recent UNSC-special CTC session, which was held in Mumbai and New Delhi. The Indian government has several such projects in the works to bolster its counterterrorism diplomacy, and this is only one of them.
- The third “No Money For Terror” (NMFT) conference, which will talk about potential new ways to support terrorists, will take place in New Delhi later this month. Additionally, India will receive a special briefing on the “Global Counter Terrorism Architecture” when it assumes the UN Security Council (UNSC) Presidency for the final time before its two-year term in the Council ends in December. This lesson will address the upcoming problems.
Details of ‘GWOT’:
- With the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), as it was conceptualised by a post-9/11 United States, has come to an end. India had requested comparable assistance prior to the 9/11 attacks to deal with the hijacking of IC-814 in December 1999, but the United States, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Pakistan ignored their requests; as a result, all of these nations were later targeted by the same terrorists. The GWOT was established as a result of an unfair campaign.
- The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) named Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed among the top threats to India, but the UNSC never brought up their involvement in attacks on India because Pakistan remained an ally of the United States and China’s “iron friend” even after the start of the Global War on Terror. The economic restrictions Pakistan was subject to under the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Grey List until they were withdrawn in October were the best concession India obtained in terms of global collaboration.
- Another sign of a rising lack of concern for “problems in other nations” is the underwhelming response of the international community to the Taliban’s occupation of Kabul and their persecution of the country’s minorities and women. India must embrace the harsh reality that future counterterrorism cooperation will be less cooperative and that counterterrorism regimes like the UNSC Resolutions 1267, 1373, and others will grow stale and useless.
Emerging technologies and ambiguous definitions:
- The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has polarised society, clouded understanding of terrorism, and diverted focus away from it. For instance, Russian accusations that the UK assisted Ukraine in using drones to strike the Russian naval fleet in Sevastopol caused the CTC summit in Delhi to be postponed.
- The organisation in charge of maintaining international peace is ineffectual as a result of the polarisation away from the front lines. Up to five terrorist designations that India and the US had requested have been halted by China. Any significant decisions that are not opposed by Russia or the West cannot be ratified by the UNSC.
- The biggest opportunity missed as a result of the UNSC’s other objectives is probably the necessity to forward India’s 1996 Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism proposal (CCIT). The same goal is shared by all conferences, including the CTC gathering in Delhi: passing the CCIT. The underlying issues, such as the definition of terrorism, worries about potential infractions of human rights legislation, and the ongoing “freedom fighter vs. terrorist” argument, haven’t made much headway, though.
- A proposed treaty called the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism aims to make all types of international terrorism illegal and impose restrictions on the distribution of weapons and safe havens to terrorists, their backers, and funders. This concept was first put up by India in 1996, but the UNGA has not yet approved it.
CCIT demands:
- There is neither a good terrorist nor a bad terrorist, according to the definition of terrorism.
- All organisations, no matter where they are, are forbidden.
- Halt the flow of money and havens.
- Prosecution of every organisation, even international ones.
- Making domestic law prohibit international terrorism.
Issues brought on by technology:
- The next question is how to combat terrorism while developing new technology and militarising existing ones.
- Currently, drones are used to convey goods including money, drugs, weapons, ammo, and even improvised bombs.
- Concerns over the potential of biowarfare and Gain-of-Function (GoF) research to alter viruses and vectors that could be used to transmit illnesses into targeted populations have increased since the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The employment of robotic warriors and artificial intelligence (AI) makes it simpler to carry out massive covert strikes.
- Terrorists utilise bitcoin in addition to social media, the dark web, and even casinos to generate money.
The source of the argument:
- It will be challenging to distinguish between the use of these new technologies by designated terror organisations or state-sponsored terrorism without a global agreement to restrict their use by all responsible states.
- The most well-known instances of nations where the establishment has sponsored terrorist groups involved in cross-border attacks, drone operations, and cyberwarfare are Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea.
- In addition, there are no established rules for responding to such assaults. Examples include Pakistan using missiles to strike Balakot in February 2019 in response to the Pulwama suicide bombing and India breaching the Line of Control, which is monitored by the UN, after the Uri incident in September 2016. Additionally, aerial attacks have been started against Pakistani citizens in Swat and Balochistan (February 2019).
- A serious worldwide effort to combat terrorism cannot be made if there is not agreement on what terrorism is.
Conclusion:
- It is unquestionable that these wars and atrocities will be brought on by global injustice, energy and food shortages, climate change, and pandemics, despite the fact that international actors are currently preoccupied with territorial disputes and minor political confrontations.
- Future terrorist attacks will be more lethal, require fewer people to complete them, and a higher proportion of their financiers will stay unidentified. India must cease fighting the “last war” on terrorism and shift the global narrative toward preparing for the next ones given that it is hosting these counterterrorism meetings, the SCO, and the upcoming G-20.
