A counter-terrorism strategy for Bangladesh

It is worth putting on record that the UN has adopted a strategy to combat terrorism through a UNGA resolution on Sep 8. And the statement by the President of the 61st session of the General Assembly launching the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy on September 19: "The passing of the resolution on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy represents a common testament that we, the United Nations, will face terrorism head-on, and that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, must be condemned and shall not be tolerated," reflects the commitment of the 192 countries of the UN to see the end of terrorism in the world.

However, there is very little public knowledge about anything substantive that has been done by the government towards formulating a strategy in line with that suggested by the UN. Perhaps Bangladesh is not the only country that finds itself in such a situation. The phenomenon appeared suddenly with a bang, literally, and our exposure to it was abrupt but not entirely unexpected. We were caught off-guard because we were not prepared to accept that the religious extremists did, indeed, have roots in the country, loose as they may be, and that they were capable of projecting threats to the very structure of the nation. It seems that we are also undecided still as to the source of the major threat; whether it will be the Islamic radicals, who have appeared recently, or the ideological terrorists who have the most potent capacity to influence our socio-political-economic fabric?

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

I, for one, hesitate to subscribe to the idea of classifying terrorists as political, ideological etc. A terrorist, whatever his motivation, is propelled by an ideology, whether it is derived from the scriptures or from a particular political or economic philosophy. Their aims and objectives are the same, although the tactical methods that might be employed by these groups in achieving their aims may vary in character. Experts and scholars on the subject of terrorism are of the opinion that the degree of violence employed by a group motivated by religion would be more intensive than one motivated by a political philosophy. (There are explanations for why that is so, but one may not necessarily accept those.)

The state of denial, a psychological state brought upon the administration by the abruptness of the event, was also the result of the political equation in the country, the Islamist parties forming an important part of the ruling alliance but, perhaps, having more influence on policies than their number of seats in the parliament accorded them. The general opinion among the observers is that much of the denial was the result of the pressure from this group, whose ultimate links with the captured members of the Islamic radical group were exposed after their capture in late 2005.

There are several things that came out starkly in the seminar that are worth dwelling upon.

There was consensus on the need to arrive at a common definition of the term terrorism. When people are made victims of indiscriminate bombings, not only by the non-state but also by the state actors, can one readily concur with those that feel that arriving at a commonly accepted definition of terrorism is a fool's errand? However, there is merit in the argument that unless we know what we are up against we cannot devise an appropriate strategy for combating it. Our preferred means of fighting can only be fixed if we know what it is that we are going to counter. Thus, one is not surprised to hear the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan calling upon the heads of state in July to arrive at an acceptable definition of the phenomenon. In fact, he had even gone so far as to call for formulating a "good definition of terrorism." Coming to terms with a working definition has evaded the world since 1973 when three subcommittees were set up by the UN ad -hoc committee to "examine the definition, causes, and prevention of terrorism."

However, it would be costly in terms of human lives if our actions were to be constrained by a lack of proper definition of terrorism. We should address terrorism for what it is, use of violence for attaining political objectives by inducing fear. We should, however, arrive at a working definition, if not on a globally accepted one, to confront terrorist groups.

There was also an acknowledgement of the need to define the threat to us. To suggest that the Islamists will be the only threat in the future would set us on the wrong track. There is the need to take into cognisance the other elements, particularly those that are motivated by leftist ideologies that have as much threat potential as the others. In the view of senior government functionaries in India it is not the jihadists, but the leftists led by the naxalites, that pose the greatest threat to India's internal security. And given that these elements are also served by a common link in the region, established by the Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia to coordinate their activities in the region, it must receive our due consideration. At least we ought to prioritise the expected threats. Each will need a different strategy to combat.

The issue of new legislation to fight terrorism was a matter of debate in the seminar also. My main concern is that when we have appropriate laws to address the phenomenon legally what qualitative difference can one expect from new legislations, either in the operational aspect or on the legal side, that we are not able to achieve at the moment, and which would make counter -terrorism more effective? New laws do not necessarily accord more efficiency, but proper application of those will. The experience of India with TADA and POTA should be good indicator in this regard.

To fight terrorism is not for the governments alone. A good counter-terrorism strategy must take on board all the political parties and all the institutions in the country, both private and public. It must cut across party lines. The plan must be dynamic and flexible enough to ensure change as well as continuity. And for that, setting up a National Security Council is worth considering.

The author is Editor Defence & Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.