Cooperating against terrorism - and war

here was no ambiguity on part of Pakistan in condemning the outrage in Mumbai and there is no hesitation on part of our government to extend cooperation in investigation of allegations linking perpetrator to terrorist groups in Pakistan. There was therefore no warrant for mudslinging and suspicion, setback to normalization process and build up of tension which activated alarm bells not only in Islamabad and New Delhi but also in capitals of friendly foreign countries. The problem evidently is not of intent to cooperate against terrorism but of capability on part of both Pakistan and India for efficient intelligence and preemptive administrative action. The two developing countries need desperately to build up capacity to enhance internal security but tragically limited resources are too often diverted for military contingencies. Also the legal infrastructrure needs to be erected for cooperation in investiagtion and transfer of suspects from one country to the other.

The immediate concern in the wake of the November 26 outrage in Mumbai is once again about peace between Pakistan and India. Alarmed at the recrudescence of tension between the two nuclear neighbors, the United States has dispatched its Secretary of State to New Delhi and Islamabad with the aim of preventing another confrontation. Sensing the threat of aggression Pakistan has had to focus efforts on galvanizing the nation for defence. The All Parties Conference on Tuesday placed necessary emphasis on declaration of ‘steadfast resolve of the Pakistani nation to defend its honour and dignity as well as Pakistan’s sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity.’

Obviously the two countries need desperately to develop capacity for ensuring internal security. Unlike the United States which has acted to strengthen homeland security since 9/11, India has not succeeded to seal Mumbai against recurrent outrages that too heavy toll of life and property in 1993 and 2006, again last month. Our plight in Pakistan is even worse. Incidence of terrorist violence and suicide bombings have actually increased. After every major attack authorities announce appointment of investigation committees and issue orders for arrest and punishment of culprits. But seldom does one hear of follow up action or results. A year after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination the masterminds remain untraced and at large to plan and spread death and destruction.

Our government should realize it needs to improve governance. Signs of popular impatience are not confined to India where public opinion is seething against government’s inefficiency in preventing terrorist attacks. Indian authorities ignored reports of sightings of suspicious boats along the Maharashtra coast. A news agency has reported American intelligence agencies conveyed to their Indian counterparts in mid-October information about possibility of attack ‘from the sea against hotels and business centres in Mumbai.’ A week after the Mumbai attacks, Indian authorities apparently have no solid information about identities of ten terrorists who perpetrated the outrage. Only that can explain the New Delhi’s resort to despatch to Islamabad of still another copy of an old list of twenty Indian and Pakistani nationals allegedly implicated in crimes in India who were allegedly provided shelter in Pakistan. Whether any of them was allegedly involved in the latest terrorist attack remains unclear.

Like war, terrorism is a scourge outlawed by established principles of international law, and every state has an obligation to cooperate in efforts to eradicate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Pakistan has been in the front line of the war against terrorism. Adversity has consolidated consensus within the country against terrorism within Pakistan. The parliament adopted a unanimous resolution on October 22 to condemn extremism, militancy and terrorism and affirm commitment to eliminating the menace it poses to our state. The declaration issued by the All Parties Conference on Tuesday reiterates and reinforces Pakistan’s commitment: it ‘abhors any act of violence perpetrated against innocent people.’ Notable too was the fatwa issued by the United Scholars Councils in Lahore and Karachi declaring that suicide bombings are ‘haram’ – prohibited – and Islam does not sanction calls for jihad by any individual.

Another pointer to the emergence of an environment in favour of initiatives for peace and cooperation with India against terrorism is affirmation by the All Parties Conference of ‘Pakistan’s desire to pursue its constructive engagement with India in a comprehensive manner.’ If a similar atmosphere is fostered by the government of India, it would facilitate concrete forms of cooperation against terrorism such as thorough and transparent investigation and even transfer of suspects. The prospect for such cooperation can be strengthened by conclusion of an extradition treaty.

Under established international practice extradition is a legal act requiring arrest and transfer of an accused by authorities of one state at the request of another on basis of a treaty. Such treaties are always reciprocal in obligations and applicable prospectively from a date agreed by them. No law abiding state can undertake extradition without due process and no self-respecting state would acquiesce in an arbitrary demand for unilateral surrender of a person. After such a demand by one of the influential Indian participants in negotiations at the Agra Summit in June 2001 was predictably turned down by Pakistan, he was apparently so chagrined that he sabotaged the Agra declaration that was earlier agreed and ready for signatures.