Terror’s multiplier effect

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, will be remembered as a day when the supreme military power of the world, the USA, came under direct attack from the forces of international terrorism. These attacks, carried out almost simultaneously on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon building, occurred in a pattern of a very precise military operation.

The operation is unusually significant in the methods used, in the strategic planning of targets, in terms of advance planning and in overall political impact. Apart from the fact that the final death toll could be in the region of 10,000, the use of the planes as explosive battering rams was totally unexpected and achieved the most important requisite for a terrorist attack — namely, utter surprise. US intelligence agencies had been anticipating large-scale terrorist attacks inside the country from extremist Islamic militant organisations since the bombing of American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam and the consequent US missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan. Official statements from the US in the aftermath of the recent attacks however indicate that they did not anticipate terrorists using this totally unique method of attack.

The objects targeted for these attacks were strategically determined to achieve maximum impact. Destroying the twin towers located in the economic capital, not just of USA but perhaps even of the world, was proof of the terrorists’ capability of disrupting the American economy and, by ramification, the international economy, at their foundations. Attacking the defence department and the US army headquarters in the Pentagon building was to convey a parallel message that regardless of USA’s military and technological supremacy, the terrorist can reach the very nerve-centre of its strategic capacities. The intended targets of White House or Camp David —the presidential retreat in Pennsylvania — would have had devastating political symbolism. The planning of this entire operation in terms of resources and training must have taken between eight months to one year. That support for such a large-scale act of terrorism could only come from well-organised global terrorist organisations, backed up by one state or another, is obvious. This is what has provoked President Bush’s policy statement that the USA will ‘‘hunt down’’ the perpetrators of this violence.

These developments have complex political implications, particularly for India, and West and South Asia in general. Officials at the highest levels of the US establishment have given indication that the terrorist attacks against the US originated in Afghanistan, under the overall organisational guidance of Osama bin Laden. They have also hinted that Algeria, Iraq and Sudan could be points of origin of this violence. Pakistan also stands targeted because of its links with the Taliban regime and extremist Islamic terrorist organisations. USA plans punitive military operations against the target countries, beginning with Afghanistan — unless of course, the public focusing on Afghanistan is a ploy to launch attacks somewhere else! In any case, it has received unqualified sympathy and general international support for actions which it plans against international terrorist entities. Members of NATO have invoked Article 5 of the Treaty, providing the legal basis of their joining the USA in military operations against the terrorists.

There are four macro-level consequences of these recent strikes. First, they reveal that international terrorism really does pose a threat to the international community, even to its most powerful states. Second, a consensus is developing that an international coalition should be formed to counter terrorism not just by political but also military means. Third, there is the view that it would be preferable if operations being undertaken under the US leadership are carried out under the umbrella of appropriate UN resolutions. Four, since the declared focus of operations is Afghanistan in our region, India has to cope with critical ramifications of this terrorist event. India was prompt in expressing sympathy and, more importantly, full support to the US in the measures that it would take against the phenomenon of international terrorism.

The US approach to Pakistan for cooperation against Afghanistan-based terrorists and the Pakistani response has complex implications for India. Pervez Musharraf, despite opposition from extremist Islamic organisations within his own country, has offered support to the US. He has accepted the US demand to allow Pakistani airspace and territory to be used for anti-terrorist operations. The only pre-condition stipulated is that operations launched from Pakistani territory should be a multilateral force. He has agreed to close down the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and stop essential supplies to the Taliban government. He has already sent a special diplomatic mission to Kandahar to ask the Taliban to extradite Osama bin Laden. He has, however, demanded first that India and Israel should be kept out of the US-led anti-terrorist coalition. He has also conveyed that the jehad struggle in J&K should be excluded from the anti-terrorist operations. He has requested that President Bush intervene to settle the Kashmir dispute. Apart from this he has demanded the lifting of sanctions against Pakistan and asked for either writing off or delaying Pakistan’s foreign debt repayments of Pakistan. The first three demands are clearly aimed at assuaging the feelings of Islamic extremists and to preserve Pakistan’s terrorist subversive options against India. The remaining two demands aim at rescuing Pakistan from its difficult economic predicament.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s statement on September 16 that the US would take note of Pakistani sensitivities regarding Israel and India into account is not a very encouraging signal as far as India is concerned. Both Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh and National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra, are visiting Washington in the second half of September for consultations on these matters. Our policy of giving full support to the US will remain logical only if the US shows an equal willingness to share India’s concerns about cross-border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan.

The US should be supportive of the steps that India would take to eradicate cross-border terrorism, politically and operationally. The lifting of sanctions and economic relief sought by Pakistan from the US need not concern us. But we should not rule out the US advising us to exercise restraint in dealing with the terrorism we face. If this happens, it would be a set back to the cooperation India has tried to build with the US over a decade.

Since President Bush has announced that the USA’s anti-terrorist campaign will be a prolonged and continuous one, the international community should be sensitive to the impact of such a long-term operation on the civilian populations of the countries of origin of terrorist activities. The targets should be terrorist entities, not innocent people.

Earlier Columns