Features
The ‘terror card’ fast becoming ‘trumps’ in global South
The international community could very well be paying a prohibitive price for its inability to arrive at clear and intelligible definitions of the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘national security’. Restive Myanmar, for example, cogently bears out this point. Following the leveling of a slew of charges against her by Myanmar’s military junta,
Of particular importance is a recent statement made by junta chief General Min Aung Hlaing in relation to the military’s continuing crackdown on civilian opposition to his administration. He said: ‘Our country was forced to make strenuous efforts to overcome the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic while dealing with violent riots and terrorism’.
As is known, the military re-take-over of Myanmar’s governance last February has been met with widespread civilian protests, demanding a return to civilian rule under Suu Kyi. The military in turn is making it abundantly clear that it would not hesitate to use even extreme coercion to put down the revolt. For instance, in early August the military executed four pro-democracy activists, disregarding international calls for restraint. It is continuing to deal with protesters with a heavy hand, compelling some pro-democracy activists to take to the jungles and mount an armed challenge to the military from there, which could turn out to be a long drawn guerrilla campaign.
As is evident from the Myanmarese military strongman’s statement, pro-democracy protests are being labelled by the junta as ‘terrorism’. Besides, if ‘convicted’ by a military court protesters could be executed as ‘terrorists’.
Democratic opinion the world over has been veritably agonizing over establishing a universally acceptable definition of ‘terrorism’ over the decades very unsuccessfully. It is a conundrum that has been proving most difficult to resolve and for very understandable reasons.
Reduced to its basics, this is because someone’s ‘terrorist’ could be another’s ‘freedom fighter’ and vice versa. We in Sri Lanka are most familiar with the intricacies of such ‘discourse’ relating to ‘terrorism’. At the height of the anti-LTTE war, for example, although LTTE militants were ‘terrorists’ to the Sri Lankan state and a considerable number of its backers, they were ‘freedom fighters’ to some others.
Basically, it was a question of where one’s allegiances lay. An absolute and rigorous definition of ‘terrorism’ has, thus, not emerged and this failure is being cynically exploited by both state and non-state actors the world over to further their power ambitions. As the Myanmarese theatre illustrates, it could be used by authoritarian rulers to ruthlessly put down legitimate challenges to their rule.If peaceful protests against unjust rule are recognized by a country’s Constitution as constituting a fundamental right, then, in no way could such protesters be branded as ‘terrorists’. Even more unacceptable and revolting to the democratic world is the suppression of such activists, their ‘conviction’ and execution.
The Sri Lankan authorities need to handle issues of this kind with utmost care at present lest they be also seen as using the ‘terror card’ to suppress legitimate opposition to their rule. There is no way in which the prevailing and un-amended Prevention of Terrorism Act of Sri Lanka could be used by the present regime to suppress legitimate dissent. States need to be wary of being accused of unleashing ‘state terror’, a widespread phenomenon in the conflict and war zones of the global South in particular.
There is also the case of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan who is being accused of unleashing ‘terror’ against some highly placed quarters because some of his comments are seen as insulting in nature. Such developments only underscore the urgency of the democratic world arriving at a consensus on how ‘terrorism’ needs to be defined.
The term is currently being used very carelessly, broadly and subjectively to cover a number of phenomena that could in no way be construed as ‘terror’ by sensible opinion. It ought to be obvious that this lacuna in conceptual thinking could have grave implications for the fundamental rights of citizenries unless rectified. On the face of it though, the unconscionable shedding of civilian blood for whatever cause is terrorism and the world needs to use this standpoint for a more detailed and rigorous definition of terrorism. None else qualifies to be described as ‘terror’.
The use of the phrase ‘national security’ is proving problematic for the South as well. The concept of ‘national security’ could be said to be having too narrow a focus in contrast to ‘terror’ which has come to be used too broadly and generally. During the 30 year anti-LTTE war in Sri Lanka, for instance, the responsibility of ensuring national security was seen by Lankan governments as referring in the main to the neutralizing of the military threat emanating from the LTTE to the state. Thus, ensuring stringent law and order was seen as closely bound up with national security. While this conceptualization is to some extent correct, it is not broad enough to cover the entirety of issue areas that come under the rubric of national security.
For example, meeting the material and emotional needs of a citizenry needs to be seen as integral to national security, since a bypassing of these needs by the state could lead to civilian disaffection, unrest and eventually rebellion. This has come to pass in quite a few countries of the South and South-east Asian regions, including, of course, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. Accordingly material development too goes to the heart of national security.
Governments cannot afford to forget the fact that the UN recognizes development and peace as fundamental human rights. Accordingly, UN member states are obliged to work towards the fostering of development and peace, lest social unrest leads to the fragmentation and break-up of countries. The government of Sri Lanka is reportedly revisiting the concept of national security. It will do well to focus on the above human-centric parameters if it intends re-conceptualizing and upgrading the idea of national security.