Oh, race of mankind! What storms must toss thee, what losses must thou endure; what shipwrecks must buffet thee as long as thou, a beast of many heads, strivest after contrary things!”

— DANTE, De Monarchia

POVERTY, hunger, disease, ignorance, conflict and war have afflicted mankind through all ages and millennia. Terrorism is the scourge of the new millennium. It is a universal phenomenon and an evil that transcends all boundaries.

In recent years it has deeply impacted the political, economic and security environment of all regions, countries and societies. It is a faceless enemy which lurks in the shadows of fear and frustration, breeds on despair and disillusionment, and is fed by poverty and ignorance.

In March 2005, a high-level UN panel on global threats and challenges described terrorism as any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.”

At the World Summit in New York in September 2005, the world leaders unequivocally condemned terrorism “in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes” as one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. They also resolved to conclude work on the draft convention on international terrorism, including a legal definition of terrorist acts, during the sixtieth session of the General Assembly.

Not only the sixtieth but even the sixty-first session of the UN General Assembly has ended without any progress on the draft. The UN ad hoc committee on this issue is now scheduled to meet next month to expedite the elaboration of a comprehensive convention against terrorism, and to consider the convening of a high-level international conference to consider “international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.”

While the essence of the challenge including the scope of the proposed convention is yet to be determined, the world is already engaged in what is labelled as a “global war on terror.” This US-led war is being fought on Muslim soils with the stated purpose of eliminating the roots of violence and religious extremism. But in effect, it is not the root but the symptom which is being targeted. Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan today epitomise the worst case scenario of this botched and ill-motivated ‘war on terror.’

Pakistan, in particular, has become the “ground zero” of the war on terror with a full-fledged military conflict going on in its tribal areas suspected of being a “terrorist sanctuary.” There has been a huge collateral damage in this on-going operation. The biggest casualty, however, is Pakistan’s own credibility. It has staked everything in this proxy war, and has killed hundreds of its own people, yet it is being blamed for “not doing enough.”

There seems to be no end to this “tragedy of errors” and incessant blame-game. Hamid Karzai is playing the comic “farceur” to divert attention from his own statecraft deficiencies and to use Pakistan as a scapegoat for all his failures and limitations. The world also watches us with anxiety and concern as we claim the distinction of having captured about 700 Al-Qaeda “coyotes” and receiving millions of dollars from CIA as a bounty over the heads of more than half of them who were turned over to the US.

Instead of always blaming “outsiders” for domestic violence and terrorist incidents, we should have the courage to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with our own governance patterns. We have been unable to enforce the rule of law. Our high security-risk VVIP culture is now the biggest user of police and security forces and has seriously undermined the public safety and law and order capability of the government.

Our involvement in this campaign against terrorism complicates our tasks, both at home and at regional and global levels. Our sovereignty is being violated with impunity. Our freedom of action in our own interest is being questioned and undermined. We are accepting the responsibility for crimes we have not committed. But this is only one side of the problem.

What is most worrisome at this juncture is that Pakistan is going through one of the most serious crises of its history. It is being weakened methodically by keeping it engaged on multiple external as well as domestic fronts. It is the only Muslim country with an on-going military operation against its own people in the name of war on terror. It is time to rethink our combative approach and to wind down baneful domestic hostilities. Force solves no problems. Grievances must be addressed through political and economic means.

According to the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, terrorism is the product of what he once described as “a broader mix of problems caused by bad governments, opportunistic politicians and militant leaders who exploit grievances”. At one time, he also believed that “when there are no legitimate means of addressing the massive and systemic political, economic and social inequalities, an environment is created in which peaceful solutions often lose out against extreme and violent alternatives.”

President General Musharraf also subscribes to this view and believes that terrorism stems from unresolved disputes and issues which give rise to forces of “hatred and violence.” But his actions seem to be at variance with his convictions.

He must understand that “excessive use of force and indiscriminate killings”, instead of addressing the root causes, will only weaken him politically among his own people and strengthen the popular support base of terrorists who are no friends of mankind but are gaining global sympathy and support because of the belligerent “Bush syndrome.”

Terrorism will not disappear through campaigns motivated by retaliation and retribution alone. It is a perverse mindset that needs to be treated like a disease.

Only a steady, measured and comprehensive approach encompassing both short-term and long-term political, developmental, humanitarian and human rights strategies that focus on the underlying disease rather than the symptoms would bring an enduring solution to this problem.

Use of military power within a state and against its own people has never been an acceptable norm. Some people view it as a recipe for intra-state implosions, a familiar scene in Africa. In our own country, we have had very bitter and tragic experiences in the past and must not repeat the same mistakes. We cannot afford any more tragedies and national debacles. These are exceptional times warranting exceptional responses to our problems. We must avoid reaching points of no return.

A special remedial effort would be needed to address the causes of “injustice and instability” and to purge society of extremism and obscurantism which have crept into its ranks over the decades of instability and poverty in our region. This is not an easy task but a sustained and persuasive effort on the part of the government as well as all influential segments of our society could make the difference.

Efforts at the international level also need to be geared toward evolving a comprehensive global strategy and an international legal framework to fight terrorism in a holistic manner. The text of the proposed comprehensive international convention against terrorism must now be finalised on the basis of an agreed legally-clear definition of terrorism and a scope that does not exclude military actions against “innocent civilians and non-combatants” anywhere in the world, not even in the name of the “war on terror.”

In its report, the UN’s high-level panel on global threats and challenges had called for a definition of terrorism which would make it clear that in addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, “any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population…”

The outgoing UN secretary-general, in the final year of his tenure, had propounded what he called his “five-D vision” of a “comprehensive” global anti-terrorism strategy based on five pillars: dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it; denying terrorists access to funds and materials; deterring states from sponsoring terrorism; developing state capacity to defeat terrorism; and defending human rights.

The majority view at the UN, however, was that no strategy or roadmap in the war on terror would be comprehensive without focusing on the underlying political and socio-economic problems. The war on terror has to be waged at all levels — national, regional and global — in a non-selective but steady and measured manner to root out the causes of political oppression and socio-economic injustice which fuel hatred and violence.

To address these problems, the world community also needs to build global harmony through inter-faith tolerance and understanding, promoting peace and stability, as well as sustainable development, and protecting political freedom, genuine democracy and respect for fundamental rights, particularly the inalienable right of self-determination.

In combating terrorism, states must reorder their national priorities to focus on the socio-economic uplift of their societies. They must also ensure compliance with their obligations under international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law. Any strategy that compromises human rights will play into the hands of the terrorists.

The writer is a former foreign secretary

THE Indo-US nuclear agreement has generated a great deal of concern particularly among Pakistanis who want to know why India has signed this agreement and what it implies for Pakistan. Before we consider this, let us look at the main points of the agreement.

The accord provides that the US will sell enriched uranium to India for use in civilian nuclear power reactors; sell dual-use civilian nuclear reactors; help India in space and missile technology; and it persuades other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to endorse this.

On its part India will separate its civilian and military nuclear reactors; place the former under IAEA safeguards; sign an additional safeguard protocol; maintain a unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests; accept all the obligations of an NPT member without becoming a party to it; follow the guidelines of the NSG; and work with the US for the early conclusion of the Fissile Material Cut off Treaty (FMCT).

This agreement means a reversal by the US of its 30-year policy of non-cooperation with India in the nuclear field that it had adopted since India’s nuclear test in 1974. But it failed to discourage India from acquiring nuclear weapons or prevent Pakistan from following suit. India did not sign the NPT or renounce its right to become a nuclear weapon state. Consequently, Pakistan launched its own programme. By the mid-1980s both were in effect nuclear weapon states. Nevertheless, both maintained a policy of ambiguity until May 1998 when India, for some inexplicable reason, decided to conduct tests. Pakistan followed by carrying out its own in the same month.

These tests obliged the US and other NPT members to impose sanctions and cut off aid to both countries. However, on the quiet the US began a fundamental re-examination of its non-cooperation policy with India by offering to sell it nuclear fuel and technology if only India would sign the CTBT, stop further production of fissile material and cap its nuclear arsenal. But India refused and the US under Clinton kept the ban on nuclear cooperation. The Bush administration has changed that policy in violation of the NPT and is trying to justify it on the grounds that India needed an alternative source of energy to reduce its rapidly growing demand for fossil fuels, that the agreement would prevent their prices from rising to unacceptable levels as well as produce less global warming gases.

However, there are four reasons behind this deal. One is that President Bush and the neo-cons believe that the most serious threat to their ambition to make the 21st century an American one comes from the growth of Chinese economic and military power which needs to be countered by strengthening India, an old enemy of China, for influence in the Asia-Pacific region.

Second, the possibility of a US-China confrontation over Taiwan at some point in time cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the US would like India to become a naval power so that it can be used to close the Indian Ocean sea lanes to China. During his visit to New Delhi last year, President Bush revealed that “after the attacks of September 11, the Indian navy provided vital support to Operation Enduring Freedom, by relieving American ships securing the Strait of Malacca, and we thank the Indian navy.” But China has been alive to this danger for a long time. It was as far back as 1978 that Deng Xiao Ping had expressed to Gen Ziaul Haq China’s apprehension that in case of a major conflict between China and another power its enemy would like to cut it off by blocking the Strait of Malacca. Hence it started building naval bases from its sea ports to the Strait of Hormuz.

Three, the US would like to help India become a space power to counterbalance China’s rapid advances in space technology. President Bush said in India that the US would help India in this field to “modernise its infrastructure as a prerequisite for the continued growth of the Indian economy”.

Four, President Bush and his team want to prevent India from developing nuclear cooperation with Iran. It is well known that the US and Israel are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as that would end Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the region and undermine their hegemony.

In this backdrop a natural question arises: what were India’s reasons for signing this agreement? The Indians believe that without US support they cannot compete with China in any field, control Pakistan, become a permanent member of the Security Council and achieve the status of a world power.

Considering Washington’s reasons for this deal one would think that it should be a cause of worry to China and Pakistan. China has shown no concern because it knows that it has acquired adequate strength to withstand US pressure in all areas. However, Pakistan appears to be concerned, perhaps more out of ignorance and habit than any real threat to its security.

Pakistan has achieved nuclear parity with India. To put it simply, it is not the number of nuclear weapons that matters but the ability to retaliate after the enemy has struck first. So long as a country’s nuclear capability is not destroyed in the first surprise attack, its deterrence remains intact and prevents the enemy from starting a nuclear war. That is why nuclear weapons are called the great equaliser as one strike is enough against a hundred, provided the second strike capability remains intact.

Also, Pakistan’s geo-strategic importance for the US as a global power is undiminished. That is why it seeks to make Pakistan a strategic partner whenever it faces a crisis. It could not establish Cento or Seato without having Pakistan as a member and needs Pakistan to achieve a breakthrough in its relations with China. It could not defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan without the support of Pakistan and cannot win the war on terrorism without Islamabad’s help.

The US will need Pakistan for a permanent peace in the Middle East and it cannot put real pressure on China without the cooperation of Pakistan. Does it mean that Pakistan has become an impediment to its “Pax Americana” ambitions? Perhaps, but as a nuclear power Pakistan’s integrity is a safer option than its destruction so long as it does not pose a direct military threat to Israel’s security.

It is for these reasons that Pakistan’s importance was acknowledged by President Bush, of all places in India, when he said after signing the nuclear deal, “I will leave India to travel to Pakistan, another important partner and friend of the United States. There was a time when America’s good relations with Pakistan would have been a source of concern here in India. That day is passed. India is better off because America has a close relationship with Pakistan…On my trip to Islamabad I will meet President Musharraf to discuss Pakistan’s vital cooperation in the war on terror and our efforts to foster economic and political development so that we can reduce the appeal of radical Islam. I believe that a prosperous and democratic Pakistan would be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbour for India and a force of freedom and moderation in the Arab world.”

Thus while neither China nor Pakistan need to worry about the Indo-US nuclear agreement, the world should be concerned about it and the NSG should not approve it because it would make the world tension-ridden rather than tension-free which is the need of the hour. Information technology has made it abundantly clear that all nations are part of a single humanity and their survival depends on cooperation and conflict-free relations if they are to successfully face the challenges of a nuclear winter, global warming, population explosion, growing poverty, increasing desperation among the poor to migrate to richer lands, possibility of pandemic and eventually the prospect of humans becoming extinct as a species.

The writer is a former ambassador.