Defining terrorism

IT appears doubtful that the world summit preceding the coming UN General Assembly session will be able to agree on a common definition of terrorism. Speaking to reporters on Monday, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan underscored the need for the world to agree on a “good definition of terrorism”. What Mr Annan wants is that an accepted definition of terrorism should be part of a declaration which the world leaders’ summit will approve in September. Even though the UN has been seized of the matter for a long time, the need to focus on a commonly accepted definition was reinforced after 9/11. Since then more acts of terror — in Bali, Madrid, Istanbul and more recently in London and Sharm el-Sheikh — have highlighted the need for crafting a definition that the UN could adopt. The basic principle behind the fight against terrorism is to save innocent human beings from being killed or maimed for life. As in the attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, so also the blasts in other cities, all victims were civilians. What the terrorists hoped to achieve by murdering innocent men, women and children is beyond comprehension. As Mr Annan told the reporters, the “maiming and killing of civilians is unacceptable regardless of one’s cause.”

The secretary-general has repeatedly emphasized the need for action in this regard and came out last March with a five-point agenda to combat terrorism. These points included dissuading people from supporting and funding terrorist organizations, discouraging states from sponsoring terrorism, developing counter-terrorism strategies, and promoting and defending human rights. The latest step in this direction is a draft on UN reforms prepared by General Assembly President Jean Ping. Mr Annan believes that the draft has “all the key elements” in it and hopes the world summit will manage to adopt a common definition of terrorism. However, the issue is complex.

There is a difference between targeting civilians and taking actions in which civilians are killed as part of what developed nations call “collateral” damage. In the attack on the WTC and the London tube, the targets were purely civilian and constituted a criminal slaughter of the innocent. However, how do we categorize military action by states that results in the death of civilians? In Iraq, for instance, the US and Britain do not believe they are guilty of terrorism, even though their post-war military action in Iraq has led to 100,000 civilian deaths. The same holds true of civilian deaths in Palestine and occupied Kashmir where Israel and India use their military might to kill civilians in the name of fighting terrorism or insurgency. But when Palestinians and Kashmiris fight for freedom, the ‘collateral damage’ in this case is quickly labelled terrorism. This brings us to the need for defining terrorism in a way that promotes the cause of freedom and human rights and does not help the oppressor.

Both Israel and India have used the US-led war on terror as a cover for their repressive actions. In both cases, the aim is to de-legitimize the freedom struggles of the Palestinian and Kashmiri peoples by branding their fight as terrorism. Those grappling with this issue must know that the UN guarantees the right of self- determination to all peoples. Any definition of terrorism that in principle denies the right to struggle for self-determination violates Chapter One of the UN Charter.

A welcome promise

THE acting chief election commissioner’s announcement that “punitive action” will be taken against those who prevent women from contesting or voting in the forthcoming local body elections deserves to be welcomed. The acting CEC’s remarks are directed against some conservative and bigoted organizations in the NWFP’s Dir and Battagram districts who have formed a group to prevent women from participating in any way in the local body polls scheduled for August. Violation normally results in a fine being imposed on the family of the ‘offending’ woman. In the case of these two districts (where a similar arrangement during the 2002 local polls proved successful), initially it was reported that all major political parties had agreed to the ban on women. However, later the PPP and the PML-N distanced themselves from it.

A senior election commission official has also quoted a Peshawar High Court judgment of March 2004 to back the acting CEC’s decision. The court had held that such prohibitions or agreements were an infringement of the rights of women voters and were illegal. However, it is important that this time around, the CEC’s decision on the issue is strictly enforced. This means that the obscurantist groups in Dir and Battagram planning to keep women out of the coming electoral process need to be told in the plainest possible terms to desist from their ill-advised course of action or face action under the law. The election commission should see to it that no pressure is created anywhere to prevent women from exercising their right to take part in the election and that no attempt, covert or overt, is made by any person or group to discourage women from taking part. It is important that the CEC’s promise does not remain just that but carries the unmistakable possibility of punitive action against those involved in the wholesale disempowerment of women. In fact, given that this so-called pact in Dir and Battagram was widely reported in the national press, there might already be grounds for some kind of action by the election commission. Voting is such a cherished right that some democratic societies actually impose a fine on citizens who do not vote — and here we have fanatics going about disenfranchizing half the country’s population.

Beach safety

WHILE the weekend death of eight members of a family at Karachi’s Sandspit beach must have dealt a shattering blow to the families and friends of the victims, the tragedy should serve as a warning to beach-goers to refrain from sea-bathing, at least until the monsoon season is over. There have been attempts lately by the city government and concerned groups to install safety measures at points along the city’s coastal stretch to prevent deaths by drowning. These include the setting up of orange flags at certain points to indicate the presence of lifeguards along with a greater effort to warn beach-goers of the dangers of the sea. But considering that there have been drowning tragedies this summer despite these measures, one does not know how seriously the public is taking the warnings, as weekends continue to see holiday crowds wade in the waters well past the safety limit and without knowing how to swim.

It must be emphasized that while safety measures, including the presence of lifeguards, motorboats, life jackets, are necessary, what is really needed is a serious and sustained awareness campaign to drive home crucial points about beach safety. There are simply not enough lifeguards, or even law enforcement personnel, to keep people away from the waters or rescue those swept away by dangerous undercurrents. The onus of warning friends and families must rest with the citizens themselves. So far, there have been no signs that the public is the least bit interested in shouldering this responsibility, and it is feared that even tragedies on the scale of Saturday’s incident, might not be sufficient deterrents. This tendency of flouting safety rules must be checked, and for that it is important to disseminate as much information as possible on beach safety.