|
|
|
|
Strategic Analysis:
A Monthly Journal of the IDSA
Terrorism: The New Context
B. Raman, Director, Centre for Topical Studies
Abstract
The article traces the evolution of catastrophic terrorism and draws a parallel between Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front for Jihad and Carlos' united front of ideologically-akin terrorist organisations. The focus then shifts to identifying such terrorist groups that have the capability and those that in actuality advocate the resort to catastrophic terrorism. To complete the picture, states from where such acts of terrorism emanate are mentioned. The article also looks into the options for India in the post-September 11 scenario.
In the evolution of international terrorism, there are two landmarks-1975 and 1998. In 1975, Carlos Marighella, now in jail in Paris, took to terrorism after killing two officers of the French Counter-Terrorism Agency, the DST (Direction Pour La Surveillance du Territoire), and then brought about a united front of ideologically-akin terrorist organisations, such as the Red Army Faction of Germany and Japan, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) of George Habash, etc. According to the ground rules of this united front, while each component of the front would be free to undertake its own operations in the pursuit of its own organisational and national objectives, it would identify certain common targets for all the organisations so that they could in turn jointly attack those targets. Two common enemies, international Zionism and capitalism were identified.
Having identified their common enemies, together they organised a number of attacks, and looked upon these attacks not as objective terrorism to achieve certain demands, but as punishment terrorism to punish the common enemy. Whenever individual components resorted to an act of terrorism for achieving a demand or an objective, they identified themselves because they wanted the people, on whose behalf they claimed to be fighting, to know their identity. Whenever they carried out an act of terrorism as a punishment, they refrained from identifying themselves.
However, there were instances of punishment terrorism when the perpretrators did identity themselves. A good example was the kidnapping of the OPEC oil ministers in Vienna towards the end of 1975. Though this was an act of punishment terrorism, the perpretrators could not conceal their identity because the group was led by Carlos himself. Normally, Carlos assigned others to undertake operations, but on occasions when he led an operation, no attempt was made to conceal the identity.
The united front of terrorists led by Carlos had three State sponsors, providing sanctuaries and other assistance-the then East Germany, the USSR and Yugoslavia. After the post-1989 collapse of these states, this united front sought sanctuary in Syria. However, due to US pressure in 1994, Syria drove all of them out except the PFLP. Consequently, this united front and most of its component organisations practically ceased to exist, and many of their leaders, including Carlos himself, are in jail in different countries-either facing trial or undergoing imprisonment after their conviction.
The New Phase
The year 1998 is a second important landmark because a new united front of terrorist organisations, based on the Carlos model, came into being under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. This is called the International Islamic Front for Jihad against the US and Israel. It consists of three terrorist organisations of Egypt and Pakistan, bin Laden’s Al Qaida, the Taliban of Afghanistan, two organisations of Uzbekistan, an organisation of Xinjiang in China and a group operating in southern Philippines.
Each of them has its own national and organisational objective. For example, the three organisations of Egypt claim to be fighting to achieve an Islamic state in Egypt. The Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM) and the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) of Pakistan proclaim their objective as the merger of Jammu & Kashmir, an integral part of India, with Pakistan, and as the “liberation” of Muslims living in other parts of India. The Sipah Sahaba wants Pakistan to be proclaimed as a Sunni state and the Shias to be declared non-Muslims. The Al-Qaida is fighting for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy, and for the withdrawal of the American and British troops from Saudi Arabia. The Taliban advocates an Islamic Emirate. One of the organisations of Uzbekistan is fighting for an Islamic state and the other for an Islamic Confederation of Central Asian States. The Xinjiang group wants independence for the Uighurs and the Abu Sayaaf group of southern Philippines is fighting for an independent Islamic state in that area.
While continuing to pursue their respective national and organisational objective, these organisations agreed in 1998 to unite as an International Islamic Front, under the leadership of bin Laden, and to undertake joint operations against what they described as the common enemies of Islam-the US and Israel. Whenever the component organisations undertook any operation for achieving their individual demands or objectives, they identified themselves. Whenever they jointly undertook an act of punishment terrorism against their common enemies, they did not; nor did they articulate any demand or objective. Such terrorist actions were done in order to vent out their anger against the common enemy.
Since the formation of the International Islamic Front in 1998, there have been three major acts of punishment terrorism undertaken by them. The first was the explosions in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998; the second was the attack on USS Cole, in Aden, in 2000; and the third was the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington, DC on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden wears two hats: He is the head of the Al-Qaida, a Saudi Arabia specific terrorist organisations, whose objective, is to overthrow the Saudi monarchy, and the withdrawal of the American and British troops from Saudi Arabia. He is also the head of the International Islamic Front for Jihad against the US and Israel, whose objective is punishment terrorism directed against the two countries.
Most of the terrorist acts in the past, by those forming part of this Front, were generally undertaken on a Friday. However, the terrorist strikes on September 11, was a Tuesday. While I have no satisfactory explanation for this, Sridhar Krishnaswamy of The Hindu, has come out with an explanation which appears plausible. According to him, the sentence against the accused, who were under trial in a court in New York for their involvement in the explosions 1998 near the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, was to be pronounced by the court on September 12. According to this explanation, the terrorist strikes in the US seemed to have been timed to coincide with this.
The International Islamic Front has two state-sponsors-Pakistan and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Unless and until the world acts against these state-sponsors, their acts of terrorism would most probably continue. The US may kill bin Laden today, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of his supporters all over the world who would keep up the fight in his memory.
Catastrophic Proportions
Few points about catastrophic terrorism needs to be highlighted. The world-wide debate on this subject started after the bombing of the New York World Trade Centre in February 1993. It has passed through three phases-between 1993-95; 1995; and 1996. Between 1993-1995, the new or catastrophic terrorism was viewed purely in terms of the possible use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by international terrorist groups.
In 1995, there were two important events. First, the Chechen terrorists threatened to seize control of a nuclear power station in Russia and blow it up if the Russians would not concede to their demands. They did not attempt, but only threatened to do so. The very threat created a lot of panic. Second, a young hacker based in Europe reportedly penetrated the information network of an US Air Force base near New York and distorted the stored data, in the process, creating a lot of dislocation in the working of the base. Following these incidents, international counter-terrorism experts expanded the definition of the new or catastrophic terrorism to include not only terrorism involving WMD, but also terrorism which is designed to create; or which could create mass hysteria; or panic and catastrophic acts of cyber-terrorism, which could seriously damage national, regional or global economy and other vital infrastructure.
In 1996, terrorists struck at the US military personnel based in Saudi Arabia. William Perry, the then US Defence Secretary, set up what was called the Forces Protection Task Force to recommend measures for the protection of US military personnel and bases abroad from terrorist attacks. The testimony before the Task Force underlined the possibility of catastrophic acts of terrorism, involving large fatal casualties being committed even with conventional means such as the use of a large quantity of explosives in a truck.
While there are still many definitions of what constitutes catastrophic terrorism, many experts are coming round to the view that catastrophic terrorism causes or is designed to cause fatal human casualties of more than 1000; or which involves the use of WMD; or which involves a serious act of cyber-terrorism causing medium and long-term damage to the economy and other vital infrastructure.
Since 1996, counter-terrorism experts have been discussing the possible methodologies for dealing with catastrophic terrorism. During these discussions, it was agreed that since there are many terrorist organisations in the world, hence it would not be possible for the intelligence agencies to focus on all of them in their efforts to prevent catastrophic terrorism. Subsequently, they would have to identify those organisations, which resort to catastrophic terrorism; those which seek and those which have already acquired a capability to organise acts of catastrophic terrorism. It was also agreed that the experts should identify those countries from acts of catastrophic terrorism could emanate.
In light of this, the terrorist organisations were divided into two groups. The first group pertains to those which are known to have a capability for organising acts of catastrophic terrorism, even though they do not resort to it. Only the LTTE operating in Sri Lanka figured in this group because it already has a large quantity of cyanide for issue to its cadres for committing suicide, if caught by the security forces. Cyanide could be converted into a simple form of chemical weapon by mixing it with acid. The resulting casualties may not be in their thousands, but the panic effect could be the same as other chemical weapons of a more serious nature.
The second group lists out those terrorist organisations, which advocate the resort to catastrophic terrorism, but which were not yet known to be having a capability for it. In this group figured bin Laden’s Al Qaida and the other components of the International Islamic Front. In their various statements, these organisations in no uncertain terms stated that it is their religious duty to acquire any weapon, including WMD, which might be needed for the protection of their religion, and that they would not hesitate to use such weapons if they considered it necessary to do so. They were mostly talking in terms of chemical weapons. While they thus expressed their willingness to resort to catastrophic terrorism, there was no evidence before September 11, that they had acquired such a capability.
During these discussions, the counter-terrorism experts were also trying to identify, first, the various indicators by which intelligence agencies could conclude that a terrorist organisation was trying to acquire a WMD, or was planning to undertake an act of catastrophic terrorism and secondly, the worrisome states from which acts of catastrophic terrorism could emanate. They identified five states as particularly worrisome-Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Greece. Greece was included in this category not because it was involved in promoting terrorism, but because, in their assessment, the Greek counter-terrorism apparatus was the weakest in the world and terrorists could safely operate from its territory, without coming to the notice of the local intelligence agencies.
Identifying the Source
In June 2000, a bipartisan commission of the US on terrorism called the National Commission on Terrorism, headed by Paul Bremer, former head of the Counter-terrorism Division of the State Department, submitted a report to the Congress in which it had, inter alia, identified the above mentioned five countries as worrisome from the point of view of catastrophic terrorism. The report pointed out that Iran and Syria had already been declared by the US as state-sponsors of international terrorism and recommended that the US should keep up the pressure on them. It further suggested that Taliban-controlled Afghanistan should be declared a state-sponsor of international terrorism. In the case of Pakistan, it felt that the evidence was not yet conclusive enough to warrant such a declaration. It, therefore, suggested the creation of a new category of states that did not satisfactorily cooperate with the US in its counter-terrorism measures and the consequent imposition of appropriate sanctions against them. It felt that Pakistan and Greece would be the ideal candidates for inclusion in such a list. Unfortunately, the report was not acted upon by the US Administration. After September 11, there has been a complete reversal, and one finds the US viewing Pakistan not as a worrisome state, from the point of view of catastrophic terrorism, but as a frontline ally against it.
Many commissions and study groups in the US have examined in detail the various aspects of catastrophic terrorism, how to prevent it and the crisis management if preventive measures fail. Counter-terrorism war games have also been held. The latest counter-terrorism war game under the code name ’Dark Winter’ was held in June, three months before the terrorist strikes.
A joint Congressional Commission called the Hart-Rudmann Commission on National Security during the 21st Century, in its report submitted in three parts in 1999, 2000 and 2001, had given greater priority to measures to counter catastrophic cyber-terrorism. Only in the third part of its report, submitted in February last, did it adequately highlight the threats from other types of catastrophic terrorism involving conventional means and WMD. It said that acts of catastrophic terrorism with conventional means and WMD in the US territory against the US interests and nationals were likely to arise in the next 25 years. The threat arose in the next seven months. It recommended a total revamping of the internal security set-up with an internal security czar at the top co-ordinating the work of all the agencies dealing with various aspects of internal security. The Bush Administration was so preoccupied with possible threats from China, the national missile defence, etc, that it did not find the time to act on the various reports relating to catastrophic terrorism. Only after September 11 has the Administration been propelled to take actions on an urgent basis.
From India’s perspective, the post-September 11 developments have had certain positive and certain negative aspects. The negative aspects relating to Pakistan, is all too familiar, that is, how suddenly Pakistan from a suspected state-sponsor of terrorism of yesterday became a privileged ally of the Western countries today in the war against terrorism.
An Emerging Global Awareness
However, there is one positive change that merits attention. Previously, the US and other Western countries adopted a highly legalistic approach vis-à-vis India and other victims of terrorism, to take action against terrorist groups operating from their countries in matters such as freezing of their bank accounts, stopping the flow of funds, etc. During my participation (before my retirement in 1994) in many discussions with counter-terrorism experts from these countries, I had experienced how frustrating it was to persuade them to act against terrorist elements supporting acts of terrorism in our country, and to act against Pakistan for using terrorism as a weapon. However, strong the evidence, it was rejected either as being weak or inadequate. After 11 September, a greater willingness becomes apparent on the part of these countries to put a stop to the funding of terrorist groups, even if the available evidence was not complete in all respects. There is also a greater urgency in implementing the various international conventions relating to terrorism and organised crime, which had remained unimplemented till now, since the required minimum number of countries had not ratified them. Amongst other positive aspects, one could note that the perceptions are changing. There is a greater willingness to condemn acts of terrorism, whatever be the objectives of the terrorist organisations involved.
In conclusion, it has to be emphasised that despite these positive aspects, one should keep in mind that the US is primarily interested in securing itself from further acts of terror. It is unlikely that the US will take up the cudgels on behalf of the world once it achieves its objective. Certainly it will not take care of our terrorism. We have to take care of it ourselves. However, there are positive aspects of close cooperation in counter-terrorism. For example, in matters such as drying-up the flow of funds to terrorists, exchange of intelligence, etc. Apart this, India has to find its own ways of dealing with the problem.
The US and the Western world were praising our democracy till yesterday and criticising Pakistan’s military dictatorship. Today, we continue to be a democratic state and Pakistan continues to be under a military regime. But, nobody now talks about our democracy; rather they close their eyes to Musharraf’s dictatorship. Yesterday, India’s huge market was the talk of the US. It is no longer so today. Pakistan was seen as a failing or failed state yesterday, today, it is seen as the state of the future.
All this shows how opportunistic the US and other countries of the West are in the pursuit of their national interests. In the wake of the September 11 attacks and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, Pakistan has assumed more importance than India. Ironically, in the US war against terror, Pakistan is part of the solution. For India, however, it remains part of the problem. Such selective means to tackle terrorism is highly deplorable, after all innocent civilians are dying at the hands of terrorists sponsored by Pakistan.
India has to wake up and effectively tackle the menace of terrorism. Whatever measures are required to protect our citizens should be undertaken. Depending on the US, the UK or any other country, is a futile exercise. They are doing what they think is necessary in order to protect their citizens and their national interests. We should do what we feel is necessary to protect our nationals and our national interests. Our priority should be our nation, our lives, our interests.