The lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism complicates efforts to combat state-sponsored glorification of untold terrorism.
The recent terror attacks on the fifitieth anniversary of the Yom Kippur war by Hamas aided with Hezbollah and supported by Iran is a dangerous signal. It displays the cowardice of attacking unarmed civilians, raping women and killing children and filming this savagery for showing it to the world. Which religion permits this? Whatever the cause no one can legitimize these actions. One is shocked all this is being done in the name of a people who are the silent majority who in their wildest dreams do not support. Terrorists are those who cannot win in a democratic process, hence they want to dominate by fear of untold violence. They are savages and it is necessary for all the civilized world to condemn such hate and violence on a people who are different and diverse. Terrorists are averse to a democracy where they will be held accountable; they would rather hijack a religion to legitimize their plunder, loot, rape and savagery.
Terrorism as a state tool involves the intentional use of violence or the threat of violence to achieve political objectives. It transcends borders and encompasses a spectrum of tactics, from proxy warfare to covert operation. The moral dilemma arises from the stark contrast between international condemnation of terrorism and states’ pragmatic pursuit of strategic goals. States depict vast hypocrisy as they condemn terrorism in rhetoric while engaging in covert support for such activities. There are unintended consequences. Historical examples showcase instances where states, in supporting terrorism, faced unintended consequences, including blowback and instability. Pakistan is a great example. It sought to destabilize and terrorize India and its populace by fostering support to and actively funding terror groups but now bears the brunt of terrorism.
What are the motivations behind state sponsored terrorism? It is an eye-opener for all democracies when countries like Pakistan, Qatar, Canada and Iran sponsor or give refuge to terror. National interests include expanding geopolitical influence, the quest for regional dominance, and the protection of economic or security concerns that prompt states to engage in sponsoring terrorism. It is effectively a war by other means. Moral considerations often take a back seat when states prioritize strategic objectives. Morality in IR is lopsided and often gets triumphed when hard realities come into play.
Hence, do-gooder states that show moral repugnance towards terrorism are, ironically, found to support it when they see an opportunity to use terrorism for their benefit. In other words, states find moral principles less attractive for perceived greater goods like power in global politics.
What is the reason that states support terrorism as an instrument of state policy? It is a low-cost affair with lucrative short-term gains. They can do anything and the victim state should not retaliate. In this case they have given a legitimate rationale for the entire civilized world to come together. The economic appeal of supporting terrorism is unavoidable to many states, particularly given the precarious nature of the global economy that remains fragile for a variety of reasons. And in such situations, terrorism is a cheap yet effective way to get what they want. States’ belief in the short-term benefits of supporting terrorism is more prominent and prevalent despite the historical evidence of blowback. The covert nature of state-sponsored terrorism involves carefully orchestrated actions to maintain plausible deniability. Although it comes with risks and consequences, it remains an attractive reason for states to sponsor terrorism.
Genocide and calls to it of an entire group have to be condemned, like the Hamas or Hezbollah and their state sponsors have called for the extermination and annihilation of non-Muslims. These statements need to be condemned by the Muslim world for it is necessary that such terror groups cannot be allowed to have a free rein to spread such hatred in the name of their imagined world and universe. There are also double standards in the West. The long history of Western involvement in state-sponsored terrorism illustrates how lucrative and alluring it is. During the Cold War, the US and others actively supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to achieve strategic victory over the erstwhile USSR. A detailed exploration of the Iranian regime’s use of proxies in various Middle Eastern countries showcases how dependent some states have become on supporting terrorism as part of their foreign policy agenda. And now the wokes support jihadi terror which sends signals of hypocrisy and duplicity.
There are challenges to combating such faceless, cowardly violence and brutalities. The first and foremost is the challenge of an accepted definition as one man’s terrorist is another person’s revolutionary. The danger is the level of brutality and savagery. Which religion and civilized society will support this? One is shocked to see support being given in the name of the identity of the terrorists. The lack of a universally accepted definition of terrorism complicates efforts to combat state-sponsored glorification of untold terrorism. Proposing potential frameworks for clearer definitions and the challenges in achieving consensus would be a necessary yet very challenging task. The competitive nature of international relations exacerbates the prevalence of state-sponsored terrorism. Also, the unevenness of power leads states to conclude that they cannot afford a direct war. Hence, terrorism seems a cheap, quick and easy way to obtain strategic superiority.
What is the way forward for a polarized world? Is this a clash of civilizations coming back to haunt us? Are terrorists going to dictate the world order? Are there no universal values, is it narrow, based on identity that is constructed? While it’s acknowledged that supporting terrorism has become an expensive endeavour for states today, given the extensive counterterrorism measures involving sanctions, isolation, and public condemnation, states persist in supporting terrorism. In the Cold War era, the use of terrorism by states, be it Palestinian, Khalistani, or Mujahideen terrorism, was frequent and somehow acceptable within the Cold War context that allowed for an ethos of “anything and everything”. The phrase “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” encapsulated this mindset. Such acceptance diminished post-Cold War as global fears, tensions, and competition reduced in international relations. Yet, there’s a resurgence of states employing terrorism as a foreign policy tool, notably under the reprehensible practice of identity politics. Canada serves as a glaring example, where the government, in an attempt to appease Sikh votes, jeopardizes decades of diplomatic cooperation by supporting Khalistani terrorism and promoting Hinduphobia.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of JNU.