Needed- A More Active Role for the UN in Curbing Terrorism

On 15 January 2016, the United Nations has promulgated more than 70 recommendations as part of a comprehensive five-point Plan of Action to prevent violent extremism in the world. The five overarching themes enunciated under the guidance of Secretary General Ban Ki Moon are: prevention first, principled leadership and effective institutions, promoting human rights, an all-out approach, and UN engagement. The common thread that runs through the recommendations, which are primarily crafted to address the scourge of global terrorism,is the common adage ‘prevention is better than cure’.  It is also emphasised that, single-minded focus on the heavy-handed approach to tackle violent extremism is short-sighted and counter-productive. The UN recommends a unified, long term approach, where due importance is concurrently given to using lawful means as well as resolving the causative factors. The Plan also cautions that “sweeping definitions of terrorism or violent extremism are often used to criminalise the legitimate actions of opposition groups, civil society organisations and human rights defenders. Governments should not use these types of sweeping definitions as a pretext to attack or silence one’s critics.”

            Let us take a closer look at the Plan of Action before we consider whether it would be enough to deal effectively with terrorism, which is one of the primary threats confronting the global community today. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the threat of terrorism is reaching critical levels. The Plan of Action however focuses more on altruistic solutions, couched in typical diplomatese, to address peripheral issues, rather than the problem of terrorism itself. The Plan appears to ignore the well-accepted fact that much of the terrorism today has emanated from past actions of various member nations of the United Nations, some prominent, who have utilised their religious ideologies,moneyand military power to promote their economic, ideological or parochial interests. While it is also adequately emphasised that harsh reactions to violent actions of terrorist groups only contribute to serving the heinous cause of the perpetrators, the general approach appears too prescriptive, with no mention of anything punitive, and hence is not likely to fetch any tangible results.

            It needs no emphasis that, in such a serious matter as terrorism, it is the actions of the Security Council, especially the P5, which actually matter, rather than just the Secretary General or the departments of the United Nations. The scourge of terrorism could have been wiped out long ago if the P5 had resolved to do so in a focused and coordinated manner. Even today, when the world recognises that the Islamic State, the latest and starkest reminder of previous inactions, poses the most potent threat to global security, the Security Council is yet to speak in a united voice to address the problem. To that extent, the United Nation’s latest Plan of Action appears to be yet another expression of platitudes, which are likely to be ignored, rather than seriously implemented.

            So, what should the United Nations and the Security Council be doing to address the problem? Firstly, the UN must start off by defining ‘terrorism’, and formally recognisethat it currently poses the most serious challenge to the security of nations worldwide. The definition by the US Code of Federal Regulations that, ‘terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives’ should suffice for a start. The UN Security Council must identify all terror groups worldwide and specifically notify a ban against each and every one of them and their affiliates. Sanctions, and even more serious punitive action, must be specified by the UN Security Council for groups that indulge in terrorism.  Countries which support terror groups, or promote and participate in terrorist acts against other member nations must be publicly named and shamed, and acted against. Further, those who finance terrorism or contribute to the terrorists’ cause in any manner must not be spared. The underlying principle should be: terrorism in any form is totally unacceptable, all terrorists are bad, there are no ‘good’ terrorists.Existential threat to the Pakistani State as a result of its use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy (‘breeding snakes in its backyard to attack its neighbours’) must be held out as a live example to dissuade other nations from following this path in the future. Nonetheless, given past experience on the issue, the UN Secretary General’s well justified caution against using anti-terror laws “to attack and silence critics” needs to be taken seriously.

            Finally, given that terrorism will pose the most dangerous security threat in the foreseeable future, the UN Security Council must take a serious look at the possibility of reorienting its security structures to deal with terrorism and terror groups. If such a system had already been in place, the likes of Al Qaeda, IS, LeT, JeM, Boko Haram and Jemaah Islamiyah would have been dealt with more effectively long ago. Ideally, the UN peacekeeping mechanism should have been given this responsibility. However, given its existing lack of capability for undertaking serious counter terror military operations, this does not appear a viable proposition.  The current system of UN peacekeeping would need a total revamp before it becomes capable of undertaking surgical operations of the kind required for tackling terrorists and terror groups. Thus, for now, counter-terror operations, undertaken as ‘enforcement actions’ sanctioned under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, under the leadership of a ‘lead nation’, appear to be the only practicable option. Special Forces, backed by air power and seamless intelligence would be the primary weapon against terrorists.But all this will need a major revamp of the existing system.

And most importantly, if the UN has to become more effective in dealing with terrorism, the permanent membership of the UN Security Council must be expanded to reflect the realities of the 21^st century. The concept of a UN sanctioned or controlled counter-terrorist operation will see the light of day only after member nations are better represented in the Security Council, the decision making body on security matters. Today’s system and structures appear ‘colonial’ in mindset, where a small number of developed countries continue to dictate or negate policies and plans on security matters in general, and on peacekeeping, in particular.

In the ever changing security scenario of the 21^st century, terrorism is going to be one of the primary threats facing the global community. Unless the world powers, as represented by the UN, put aside their differences and act decisively to deal with the problem, the day is not far away when terrorists lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction, with catastrophic repercussions for the world and for humankind. By then, it will be too late.

Views expressed by the Author are personal. Author is the Former Vice Chief of Army Staff.