Time to Reinforce Sovereignty

Time to Reinforce Sovereignty 

Dr Geeta Madhavan

Published in  The New Indian Express 

Thursday 27 March 2015

Ever since the term global village became fashionable and the idea of a shrinking world became universally accepted as a positive move, the concept of sovereignty has been considered as outdated and archaic. Subsequent to  the two devastating  World Wars   the United Nations Organization  was established to uphold the  common goals  of humanity and to ensure that all nations would act in the best interest of all mankind and have common purposes in matters affecting global issues .Therefore ,those who considered the element of  sovereignty as essential for the creation ,existence and identification  of nations were often questioned for upholding the theory and criticized for being antiquated in a world that was promoting  and celebrating multilateralism.  Nations which had thus far acted independently for their self-gain seemed to agree to act in concerted moves to promote multilateralism.

Following the two devastating World Wars, nations sought to come together to build a safe world ensuring  peace and security for all mankind. The outcome of this excitement was that countries and their leaders began to believe that for the general wellbeing of all people , nations should no longer think solely in terms of national issues and that global concerns should be paramount in framing national policies. Elated analysts regarded these actions as the end of the narrow reading of the principle of sovereignty as recognized by international law.  The world, it seemed, had moved beyond national self- interest and finally recognized  inter- dependence for existence, even when these other countries lay beyond their regions and were not in geographical proximity to each other.

.The concept of sovereignty, however, is the essence of the existence of nations. Sovereignty is the ultimate power, authority and jurisdiction of the ruling entity over a territory and its people. The ruling authority may be created or may exist in diverse forms as monarchy, autocracy, democracy or any other form. A sovereign authority is recognized as the power which   can administer its own territory and create laws without external influence subject  to equity and justice and with regard to the established principles of international law.  In that sense, it means that no foreign power has any authority within the territorial limits of a country or upon its citizens within that territory.   It is based on the simple theory that nations  have a right to rule their territory and a duty to protect their territorial integrity and ensure the safety and security their  citizens and within that reasonable power, can do all such actions as required to ensure it. Along with these powers international law  placed upon nations the responsibility to ensure that no such actions take place within their territory that cause damage to others. The power is further restricted by those principles that recognize and govern those areas regarded as “common heritage of all mankind” e.g. the high seas.

The backlash for the erosion of the unassailable doctrine of sovereignty is evident now, though many still do not accept the absolute need to maintain the principle in international relations. It  is impossible to reject   the need to restrict the immunity of the State authorities in all actions, especially in issues that deal directly with basic civil, political and human rights. However, the interference of strong global powers in the guise of supporting self determination and freedom in the internal affairs of less strong and strife-torn nations can hardly be accepted as acting for global good. The unilateralism of the two super powers with least regard to the cultural , ethnic and religious diversity of the nations facing internal strife and conflict has led to the situation the world is in today. While countries tried to grapple with extremism and violence political, ethnic or religious; the operations conducted by these powers have exacerbated the conflicts as is apparent around the world today. Although the operations have been termed as humanitarian interventions and securing freedom for those suffering under repressing regimes and have also  been explained as curtailing impunity of the state, it is rather clear  that these actions have invariably  resulted in  a vacuum into which non state actors like terrorist and extremists have comfortably settled in. Afghanistan, Iraq , Ukraine are  countries that are disarray  and while the world has tired itself out with their problems , for the people  of these countries the terrible sense of hopelessness persist albeit in another form.  Therefore, relegating the principles of national sovereignty to multilateralism and consigning it to textbooks of international law has proved to be a threat to the existence of less powerful and smaller nations. Global strategies have shown that the autonomy assured to every country under the principle of territorial sovereignty have been consistently eroded by hegemonic powers.  These powers have over a period of time used the diluted sovereignty concept to serve selfish interests. Therefore, it has been made easier for the US, Russia and others to act either unilaterally (or with allies cobbled together) to justify their incursion into the territory of other nations.

 Developed countries have also used the whittling down of the principle of sovereignty   to extend their influence and increase their hold on global economics and trade to benefit themselves and their allies. They did this by the creation of international institutions that had at their inception apparent laudable principles but in reality were skewed in favour of the technologically advanced and economically strong nations. Thus emerged world financial institutions and global trade organizations that have ensured markets for the advanced nations but have left the newly emerging economies of Asia and the resourcefully rich but ravaged post colonial African countries in a defensive economic position. With state sovereignty on the wane and the ability to create regulations within its territory curtailed by global economic issues, it would seem that   multinational corporations have emerged as the new policy makers. In the new era   global strategies policies and foreign relations of nations are, therefore, driven not by sovereign authorities acting in national interests but by trade linked priorities of major state-owned or private corporations.

Every country has not only an interest in the use of all natural  resources  but also has an obligation in its rightful exploitation .Environmental concerns and ecological interdependency are real but the manner in which nation chooses to  deal with the resources within its territory cannot be dictated by other powers .  International law in its general principles and various cases brought by nations before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has   reiterated that no nation can allow such action takes place within their territory that causes damage to others. The power is further restricted by those principles that recognize and govern those areas regarded as “common heritage of all mankind” e.g. the high seas and outer space. Most nations are parties to agreements that ensure sustainability of the environment and even non-signatories are bound by obligations under international law.

Sovereignty, the ability of nations to rule themselves should be reinforced.  To resolve several of the issues that concern nations today dealing with problems of internal strife and conflicts or with failing economies, these  countries should be allowed to act with autonomy restricted only by obligations recognized by international law ;  and not by the imposition by other countries of what they deem as good for that country. 

Indian Ocean Region

MARITIME MESS IN INDIAN OCEAN 

Article Published  in New Indian Express 

May 6th  2014

Two major discussions that dominate any discourse on maritime challenges in the Indian Ocean region are piracy and the emergence of China as a major naval power and its growing ambitions. Both these issues raise grave concerns for both major and smaller powers in the region and other extra regional global powers. Trade and livelihoods of the people of the countries surrounding the Indian Ocean, as well as those of the small island nations, are contingent on the living and non-living marine resources of the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile, several other land locked countries in the region like Nepal, Afghanistan, and Bhutan depend on access to the Indian Ocean for international trading and for the steady growth of their economies.  Transnational and non-traditional threats in this region are increasing and should be addressed with far more diligence than being done at present as they will decide the future balance of power in the region. Maritime challenges of this region extend beyond national strategic ambitions and are far more complex. These challenges may not be perceived as being compelling at present but they will have significant impact over a period of time. It is therefore, incumbent to not only identify these other issues but also to include them while framing national policies and concluding multilateral and international conventions and agreements.

 The Indian Ocean region consists of 26 countries in various stages of social and economic development. There is disparity among these countries in terms of economic growth, social development and societal stability which has resulted in competition for scarce resources among the nations, as in the case of fishing and other living resources. It has also led to the disproportionate exploitation of the constantly depleting resources by some technologically developed countries to the detriment of others in the region.  As the region is rich in mineral resources like uranium, cobalt, nickel, gold and also has 55% of the world’s oil reserves and 40% of global gas reserves - foreign powers, too, which are not geographically placed in the region, are displaying their keenness to gain a foothold here. Besides, counter-piracy efforts and counter terrorism measures have approved the naval presence of

these foreign powers in the Indian Ocean region. With the extra regional power like the US positioning itself here, regional powers like China India, Russia, Iran and Pakistan are strengthening their positions and increasing their naval prowess to counter potential strategic threats by US and the US aligned states. Thus, new maritime disputes stemming from geo-strategic interests and new maritime boundary claims are the result of the new players in the region.

There are various other non-traditional threats that exist in the Indian Ocean region that require regional cooperation. Development of port security is essential for healthy sea-borne trade and safe harbours and ports are essential for the economic development of the entire region. However, the spurt of recent attacks in which technologically superior warships have been threatened by low-tech attacks has also raised serious concerns. Many of the ports are vulnerable, as are the various off shore installations in these countries. The island nations and archipelagos are most vulnerable as they can be accessed from any point of exposure. Environmental threats also abound in the region. 40% of the 4 billion people in Asia live within 100 kilometres of the coast. Rising ocean level, changing weather patterns due to global warming will increase the stress in the coastal regions. The island nations face greater threats as the seas close in on them and this will result in demographic changes from migration that will create severe stress and perceivable imbalances in the mainland. Destruction of natural barriers in the seas will also lead to erosion which will adversely affect the population and their lives in the coastal areas as well as in the mainland abutting coastal regions. The overall effects of these factors will be serious destabilisation in the countries of this region creating conflicts among the nations as they will struggle with the new changing realities. Depletion of water resources due to costal salinization will affect not only the life of the people along the coast but also affect food production elsewhere. Land based pollution from sewage and drainage discharges and marine based pollution from spillages, ballast waters and illegal waste dumping affects not just a single nation but has impact on the region as a whole. All these issues are hardly addressed by the countries that place huge reliance mainly on the enhancement of their naval capabilities.

Resources of the Indian Ocean have to be brought under the scrutiny of protection.  Illegal and unregulated fishing by local vessels has led to depletion of stocks in national waters of several countries while similar action by foreign vessels has caused antagonism among nations. The constant engagement of Sri Lanka and India in the fishermen issues is well known but other countries in the region face similar confrontations. Indonesia faces an estimated loss of $ 4000 million annually due to illegal and unregulated fishing.  The link of this component to maritime security issues is that these vessels are also used for trafficking humans, arms, drugs and other illegal activities.

Non-state actors in the Indian Ocean region raise different threat issues. Terrorists groups have attacked oil tankers, passenger ship and off shore installations with impunity. The attack in Aden of USS Cole, of the French super tanker Limburg and several such incidents has underlined these dangers. Weak governments and insufficient border controls along the coast have exposed their vulnerability. The attack that took place in Mumbai in 2008, where the terrorists group chose the sea route to enter India, highlighted the dangers of the unregulated maritime domain. Numerous Incidents of piracy in the Indian Ocean region in recent times has resulted in the creation of private security agencies to safeguard the ships. However, recent incidents especially in the Indian context; namely, the Enrica Lexie case and the Seaman Guard Ohio case have underlined the dangers of the presence of private armed guards aboard ships. Lack of regulations and insufficient coherent policy framework has created more issues and concerns than solved the safety issues .The flouting of norms of international laws by the agencies is the undesirable fallout of these security concerns.

Maintaining good order at sea and constant engagements between the nations of the Indian Ocean region is the only way to address all these issues. International maritime assistance and building strategic confidence will lead to the increased safety of the sea lanes for trade. Transparency in the national maritime policies will reduce maritime coercion and mitigate the tensions created by the strategic placement of large and imposing naval assets. The countries of the Indian Ocean region have to redefine the roles of their navies from that of constabulary and expand it to one of maintaining good order at sea and of protection of maritime resources. 

STRENGHTEN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

STRENGTHEN  INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

Article Published  in New Indian Express 

Feb 15 2014

Kings and emperors from ancient times have sealed agreements at the end of wars and concluded treaties for restoring peace, for acceding and annexing territories and for trade with each other. Customs have also dictated how emissaries have to be treated, wars fought and peace negotiated at the end of wars. Earliest record is of   a treaty drawn up and sealed in 1283 B.C between the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite King after a bitter battle. Romans and Greek kingdoms also signed numerous treaties, most of them at the end of battles, as did the European monarchs in later times. The progression of international treaties in modern times has its beginnings in the 1864 Geneva Convention which dealt with the treatment of wounded soldiers during war, and this was signed by major kingdoms in Europe in the background of extensive political and military upheavals. Placing checks on the brutality of war, the four Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereof, sought to regulate armed conflict and limit its excesses as well as protect innocent persons not fighting or caught in the aftermath.  

  Today all major concerns that impact every aspect of human life as well as those that govern State practice are the subject of international conventions. International conventions have also been initiated by countries when specific needs have risen to regulate State behaviour in matters of global concerns. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which deals with all aspects of the use of the sea, the oceans and the deep seabed is one such international treaty. It divides the waters of the world into specific zones and delineates and limits the use in a manner which will benefit all mankind. Similarly,  the ten core international conventions and protocols dealing with human rights which were signed and ratified by countries between the periods 1965-2006 addressed specific concerns ranging from  torture and forms of discriminations to civil and political rights, rights of women and children , rights of migrant workers and rights of  persons with disabilities. Conventions therefore govern and protect national and international interests over land, sea, high seas, air and outer space. There are several international treaties that have been concluded that deal with criminal acts by both states and non state actors like the unlawful seizure of protected persons, or of aircraft and ships. There are also several international instruments that deal with nuclear safety and nuclear liability, with proper and sustainable use of resources and protection of the environment.  It is apparent that the purpose of most of the Conventions is to secure the kind of world envisaged in the Preamble of the United Nations Charter i.e.  to ensure the dignity of the individual and international peace and security. However, sixty eight years thence, various forms of discriminations against people for diverse reasons   and   behaviour contrary to these principles continue by many nations. Nations justify their reluctance to be parties to an international treaties on several grounds most of which arise from the notion of sovereignty  and their unwillingness to limit their authority to global consensus by enacting  national laws in accordance with obligations created by  international instruments i.e. global control over domestic policy.  

 The United States, despite its well-articulated stance of honouring global commitments has proved to be the foremost defaulter in ratifying international treaties. Although it   has initiated several conventions and signed some of them, it has failed to ratify several important and significant conventions.  For example, the most compelling and speedily ratified treaty in human history is the Convention on the Rights of the Child which secures to all children civil, social, political, economic, health and cultural right.  Although signed by the US in 1995 it has not yet been ratified by it. The only other country not to do so is Somalia; an associate in action that the United States would not be proud of. The argument placed by the US for non-ratification is that it would undermine the rights of the parents. It also views it as UN interference in the raising of children. This is significant because a number of states in the US still permit corporal punishment in schools and homes. Furthermore, the resistance to ratification also stems from the fact that ratification of the treaty would interfere with the parent’s choices in religious and sex education. Similarly, the United States signed the CEDAW (Convention Against Discrimination Against Women) in 1980; it has not ratified it along with countries like Iran and Somalia. Similarly other nations that wield great influence in geo politics have often chosen not to become parties to several important conventions. China has not signed or ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and several other instruments relating to human rights.  While the US has been vociferous in backing a Resolution in the UN Human Rights Council on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka, it holds a dismal record of human rights violations in the actions taken by it in its war against terror.

India has been a major adherent of innumerable international instruments, signing and ratifying almost all the major international treaties. Several Indian laws have been enacted in accordance with the international obligations.   However, India has strongly opposed the setting up of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It abstained in the vote for the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 and under which the ICC is set up on several grounds.  The arguments for refusal to sign and ratify include the definition of crimes against humanity in the Statute and the inclusion of non-international conflicts in the category of war crimes. These inclusions would lead to all internal disputes in India becoming subject to the ICC and would be a flagrant interference in the domestic policy of the country. Besides the well-structured and robust judiciary under the democratic system in India, it is argued, is well equipped to deal with violations of rights of the individual.

International conventions are based on customary practices followed by nations since the formation of nation states. They are the reflections of the aspirations of the world community to create global consensus about matters that affect all. It is rather disquieting to observe that many of the global disputes and confrontations are the result of nations not accepting the norms of international law With influential global powers shirking the responsibility of strengthening international conventions, issues and disputes are left to unilateral interpretation impelling further conflicts. Without the template of an instrument to guide the interpretation, the stronger nation will enforce its will on other weaker nations.  Far more worrisome is the fact that nations that wield great influence in geo politics often choose not become parties to important conventions and operate outside global indicators. The recent trend of the US to create a series of multi-lateral treaties called  “initiatives” is a bad precedent .These initiatives allow the US not only  to draw benefits from existing international norms but also absolve it of both responsibilities and obligations under specific international conventions. If other nations adopt similar “initiatives” to serve personal objectives, it will lead to the displacement of the norms of international law. Instead, all major powers should reinforce their commitment to global peace and security by supporting international conventions through the process of ratification.  

PIRACY AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS

PIRACY AND GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS

GEETA MADHAVAN

Published in 

The New Indian Express

Thursday 14  November 2013

Serious concerns have risen for the international community with the resurgence of piracy in the last two decades. In international law, piracy is considered to be the vilest of all crimes at sea.  Cicero, the Roman legal theorist, summed up the perception of pirates thus: “For a pirate is not included in the number of lawful enemies, but is the common enemy of all …. an enemy with whom treaties are in vain and war remains incessant”.  International law identifies pirates as communis hostis omnium: common enemy of all. Under international law, therefore, all countries have a right to apprehend pirate ships, attack and board them and bring the pirates to trial and punish them under their national laws. Also all  countries have jurisdiction to capture pirates  not only for piracy committed within their territorial sea ( 12 nautical miles from their shores) and over the waters they have control   but also  for  acts of piracy committed in the high seas - the area that is  considered as belonging to all mankind . Hot pursuit of the pirates can also be done up to the territorial waters of another country. This explains and justifies the recent actions taken by the international community against piracy.

  Piracy attacks are concentrated in busy sea lanes of commerce through which much of the world trade passes. The number of attacks on ships worldwide in 2013 have been reported to be 206 although several attacks go unreported for various reasons e.g. for reasons of insurance claims.  Pirates seize the ships and hold the crew as hostages demanding high ransom for the release of these ships and their crew. Piracy has been re-established in modern times as lucrative business and the modern day pirates use heavy duty firepower like automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades, satellite phones for communications and other technologically advanced gadgets that allow them to track the movements of ships.  Pirates also seize ocean-going fishing or merchant ships and then turn them into “mother ship” and use them as base for further attacks on other ships. They force the crew of the captured ships to sail within attacking distance of the unsuspecting ships. These modern developments  in piracy has created the need for ships to install new technology to warn and protect themselves and also has led to the practice of carrying armed guards on board ships. 

 Four major maritime areas have been identified where ships laden with cargo and oil tankers are most susceptible to attacks. The areas are the : Gulf of Aden and the southern entrance to the Red Sea ;Gulf of Guinea near Nigeria and Niger river delta; Malacca Straits between Indonesia and Malaysia and the region around the Indian subcontinent.  The international community is effectively staving off the pirate attacks by conducting joint maritime military operations and joint naval deployments for patrolling the waters. For instance, in the Gulf of Aden - Russia, France, United Kingdom, India, China and the United States are engaged in patrolling the waters.  Operation Ocean Shield is conducted by NATO in the Gulf of Aden and off the Horn of Africa. The Djibouti Code of Conduct adopted in 2009 to repress piracy has eighteen member countries of the western Indian Ocean region. There are several such military operations and initiatives around the world that clearly indicate that most countries are committed to fight piracy. India has to protect 2.013 million square miles which is equal to almost two-thirds of its land area. Most of the attacks by pirates have been in the waters surrounding India and around India’s extended neighbourhood and have been by Indonesian and Somali pirates. In the case of the ship Alondaro Rainbow the Indonesian pirates were apprehended by the Indian Coast Guard and the Indian Navy. India assumed jurisdiction and brought them to trial in Mumbai and won the praise of the international community.

While the fight against piracy and the protection of sea lanes has been quite successful resulting in a reduction in the number of pirate attacks reported and in some cases these attacks have been successfully thwarted; some major concerns have risen about the global implications of the anti-piracy measures. In the face of danger to peace and security, the anti-piracy measures adopted   could   have other far reaching and less desirable consequences. Like the counter terrorism measures adopted in the aftermath of 9/11which were severely criticised, the desire to secure the seas and oceans could have counter effect and create schisms in the global order.  

The first concern is regarding the presence of foreign naval powers in the territorial waters of other nations. Some nations fear the presence of the navy of major international and  regional powers as not only invasion of their sovereign rights by the entry of armed  vessels   into their territorial waters but also as a strategy adopted for subtle geo- strategic balancing. For instance, China views anti-piracy patrolling by the United States as an attempt by the United States to place its naval ships closer to the Chinese mainland.  India has had to face the suspicion of some of its smaller neighbours, who are constantly voicing their apprehensions of supposed hegemonic intentions and India’s desire to command the

seas. Malacca Straits, where international patrolling has been welcomed by most sea faring nations, is the territorial waters of Malaysia and Malaysia has fears about the constant presence of foreign ships in the Straits. The old adage “he who seeks to rule the land must rule the seas“ is seen as a possible revival of the old strategy by powerful countries.

The second concern that needs to be addressed is the expansion of the naval prowess of nations to combat piracy. There is a well-founded fear that piracy could be used as an ostensible reason for all major powers to increase their naval power and justify many nations becoming “blue water” naval powers. There is a genuine fear that the theatre of war will shift from land warfare to maritime warfare. This also stands to reason in an era where countries are not only seeking to make themselves more and more energy efficient and are favouring feverish activity to bring the energy into their country by oil tankers and underwater pipelines. The unexploited potentials of the deep sea bed can also become the cause for serious maritime conflicts in the coming years. For example, China has protested India’s exploration for oil in the contested South China Sea while Vietnam claims sovereignty over the region and has backed India’s right to exploration. With scientific and technological advancement one can envisage the increase of similar disputes in the scramble for exploration rights in the deep seabed.

The third major concern is the new trend of armed guards aboard merchant ships and armed anti-piracy vessels. . Armed guards aboard ships and anti-piracy fighting ships of private firms are running into trouble regularly for defying maritime law and flouting the principles of sovereignty. In February 2012, the Italian ship Enrica Lexie shot and killed two Indian fishermen off Kerala coast claiming that they suspected them to be pirates. In October 2013, the US ship MV Seaman Guard Ohio carrying 35 assault rifles and more than 5000 rounds of ammunition was impounded for entering Indian waters near Tamil Nadu without required permission. Under international law only government authorized ships and war ships are allowed to carry ammunitions and they have restrictions of movements. Private firms obviously find anti-piracy measures like these lucrative businesses but there is apprehension that armed guards aboard ships and anti-piracy ships of private security firms may create a problem larger and more complex than the actual problem of piracy. Out sourcing the protection of the seas and oceans may not be best the long term solution but it could very well become a long term complication.     

TIME TO DEMISTIFY TERROR MYTHS

TIME TO DEMISTIFY TERROR MYTHS 

Published in 

The New Indian Express

Thursday 17 October 2013

Convenient untruths have persisted about terrorism and terrorist activities committed world-wide for too long. Most of these untruths have been popularised by terrorists groups, terrorist organisations and their supporters because they have found it to be in their favour to perpetuate these myths. While the community of strategic thinkers and analysts have found these explanations to be deceptions generated for convenience; general populace have been led to believe that these myths are sacrosanct undeniable truths. Terrible and horrifying acts of violence have been committed and subsequently justified on the basis of these falsehoods.

The first myth often touted as reality is that there is no definition of terrorism. The truth is that there are innumerable varied definitions of terrorism both in national legislations and international conventions – definitions that clearly underline certain common elements. The common denominator in all these are the terms “use of force or threat of use of force” and “non-combatants “or “civilians”. These definitions also list various circumstances where such force or threat of force is used, for example  the United Nations definition of terrorism  alludes to the reasons being:  political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or of any other nature. These definitions therefore, include not only the acts of international terrorist organisations but also religious groups and all civil movements that preach and support violence. The absence of an all-encompassing comprehensive definition does not mean that there are no working definitions of terrorism. Therefore to accept that the absence of a perfect definition for terrorism allows all recognizable and reprehensible acts of terror to be subjective is obviously unacceptable. It is true that an all-encompassing definition of terrorism that weaves all the varied elements of terror does not exist, (more due to failure to reach an international consensus as a result of lack of political will than any other actual reason) but this does not mitigate the horror of terror.  The failure to find a universal definition should never be allowed to serve as a reason to allow the perpetrators of terror to justify their actions.  

The second myth that should be buried permanently is the oft quoted but entirely out of place adage: one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. This term was coined in the post-colonial era when countries fought for freedom from their imperial masters. India too has a rich history of the sacrifices of those freedom fighters that were called “terrorists “by the British government during the pre- independence era. The core difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that those who fought their colonial masters to free their county from repressive regimes targeted symbols of such oppression. Those who commit terrible acts of terrorism and violence target ordinary people going about their daily lives. Bombs on trains and offices, indiscriminate shooting and killing civilians, car bombs in market places cannot be considered to be fight for freedom even if the terror organisations take great pride in announcing their responsibility for such acts.  To talk of freedom fighters and terrorists in the same breath is truly reprehensible. Terrorists kidnap busloads of children, bomb malls and shopping districts killing people indiscriminately, most of the time causing the death of those very people whose cause they pretend to espouse. The numerous attacks in several Indian cities have killed innocent people with no regard to their religion or faith. Attacks in cities around the world have shown that despite the tall claims made by the terrorist organisations that they are fighting for the rights of certain people, the dead are from all sections of that society.  In international law, wherein principles of conduct of war are laid down, the belligerents do not have unlimited freedom of use of violence. A terrorist cannot use any and all means of violence however justified they may claim their cause to be   Therefore, using the maxim merely underlines the fact that  unjustified acts of violence and terrorism continue to masquerade as acceptable and justified attempts to secure  rights that are seemingly denied. In countries, like India, where there are constitutional structures that protect and secure rights of people, resorting to terrorism has no justification. Even in countries where such access to legal recourses are  denied and freedom and rights have to be wrested from the ruling powers, violent acts can be justified if they are concerted efforts to gain rights and not acts of terror against innocent civilians to attract national or global attention.

The third myth is that it is the poorest person of a marginalized section in a society who has used violence and terrorism as the only possible means of getting anything for him or herself. This romantic notion is paraded to make the killings and acts of violence committed by the person more acceptable and forgivable. Taking away the right to life of others cannot be justified as a means of securing right for oneself, in the same manner as an individual cannot secure his or her right by lopping off the head of another. Yet this seems to be a blind spot in most cases where the person committing the act of terror garners sympathy as someone who has been denied rights and all the people who died in the dastardly act of the terrorist attack as those who are responsible in some indirect way of enjoying those rights and therefore can be killed .This convoluted argument, preached in sermons has recruited more foot soldiers for terrorism than any other argument.

The fourth myth often accepted by most is that good governance will lead to mitigation of terrorism. Based on this, an argument is made that the State, instead of dealing with domestic terrorism in an appropriate and strong manner; should concentrate on building infrastructures to deal with issues. While it is true that the State should restructure itself to address the core issues that have caused grave discontent, it also true that “soft power” alone cannot deal with terrorism. Good governance is not the panacea for the scourge of domestic terrorism. In the case of international terrorism, the terrorist organisations seek not to create any ideal governing system and are also are not fighting to seek better economic conditions but are more concerned with the destruction of the existing systems .They seek to impose a grand design for the world which does not include the freedom of each person but the imposition of their brand of religious or social belief.

The fifth myth is that all laws seeking to deal with terrorism are against individual rights. It is the fundamental duty if a state to protect its territorial integrity and to secure for its citizens safety and security and in that context a State enacts anti -terror laws.  After the spate of hijackings in the 1970s, and especially after 9/11 airport security worldwide was tightened and restrictions placed on passengers. While no one protests these invasions into privacy, there is a strident group that refuses to accept that partial infringement of individual rights is required to ensure safety for all. Similarly, organisations that consistently and vociferously propagate violence or secessions need to be watched and monitored by intelligence agencies. . Failure of such assessment , although the Aum Shinrokyo group had been articulating their intentions for a long time and  carried on a massive stock piling of chemicals led to the Tokyo subway sarin gas attack. Similarly, proscribing organisations that have clear agendas of terrorism is the prerogative of any State that intends to secure its territory against terrorist attacks.  

Terrorists are constantly jostling for space in the world theatre by unleashing terrible acts of terror.  The leaders and harbingers of terrorism use religion, philosophy or ethnicity to appeal to their followers and fringe groups.  Terrorism is not a profession, it is an aberration; and terrorism should be recognised and condemned. It is indeed time for the international community to act in concert and debunk the myths as well as unmask and hold up the real frightening and macabre face of terrorism to the world.        

LOGIC FOR INTERVENTIONS IN A BIND

LOGIC FOR  INTERVENTIONS IN A BIND

Published in 

The New Indian Express

Saturday 28 September

Before one gets  into the discussion of the necessity  for interventions , before one considers the  scope and legality of interventions and before one even turns to international law to discuss the  circumstances when interventions are permitted ;  the primary question is  of  the greater and the  lesser evil . This moral dilemma looms large before us – is the intervening too much or is there not enough intervention? Will there not be more deaths due to inaction than the direct action of intervention?   The Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992-93 in accordance with the provisions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter did not fulfil the expectations of effective and emphatic collective action and came under severe criticism by the international community. Similarly the interventions by external military forces in 1995 in Bosnia and 1999 in Kosovo were controversial. In the case of Rwanda in 1994, however, it was felt that the Security Council had failed to take necessary actions resulting in great human tragedy and it underscored the dangers of delaying timely action. Therefore, it is clear that the basic question in the matter of interventions is: is the use of military force entirely justifiable to enforce the obligation and responsibility to protect human lives and individual rights?

 In the above context it is important to note that around the world there is an emerging demand for efficient action for the protection of the rights of an individual when it comes in conflict with the use of the powers invested in the sovereign State. The general assumption that the political independence of a State will lead to a naturally heightened improvement in the lives of is citizens assuring them of political and personal freedoms has come to naught. Events around the world have shown that the conflict of State sovereignty and individual freedoms has led to the evolving of political and social crises resulting in the deepening of human tragedy and the destruction of lives. Errant States, therefore, have to be reconstructed into instruments that serve the interest of its citizens for in the converse, the State turns into the instrument that destroys the rights of its own people. Citizens today are well -informed and empowered persons who expect their governments to work towards securing them their individual freedoms and rights; they also expect their governments to be conscious that a duty is cast upon the State to ensure that those freedoms and rights are preserved.  

The Westphalian concept of the sovereignty of the nation State in which there is no role for external agents in domestic structures is clearly irrelevant in modern times and there are many who support interventions on humanitarian grounds as the only available means of power to secure human rights. The interfacing of Chapter VII and Chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations reveals the integration of the international system into the process of taking pre-emptive action for freedom from violation of human rights. A military strike by a Sate on another is always regarded as an act of aggression but to be free from obscurity of pre-emptive action in case of  interventions , all pre-emptive actions and interventions have to be sanctioned and concerted actions. The United Nations Security Council has supported State-backed interventions in those situations where inaction was not a choice offered to the international community. One of the major purposes of interventions is to ensure that they do indeed result in containment of those acts that have required such interventions in the first place. Further, interventions should not only ensure that they do not prepare a way for subsequent interventions in the same State , but should also reduce the likelihood of all further interventions in the region also. That is to say, an intervention backed by a consortium of the “willing and able” should not become the norm in every international crisis or result in a continuous action that affects the other States in the region as a result of the initial intervention. For those arguing in favour of international intervention to resolve the present crisis in Syria and complaining of inaction by the United States , it should be noted that a reluctant hegemon is preferable to an over-eager one.  The United States, therefore, has to consider its role within the international institution’s agenda and eschew initiatives which fall outside the United Nations for it to be supported unequivocally by the international community.

Although there is a continuing support by international community for the norm of non-intervention, one  is able to observe that in the present world there is also an urgent and rising demand for action to prevent human disasters. In this background,  the Canadian government in September 2000 set up an independent International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) to study the juxtaposition of these two concepts of international law.  In international law under the theory of just war (bellum iustum) which is ruled by the principles of the right causes to go to war, it is accepted that the principles set forth to justify going to war is not restricted in cases of humanitarian interventions.  The prevention of more deaths is in itself justification for direct action through humanitarian intervention. The will of the international community thus can be translated as the desire not only to contain, restrict and

prevent the actions that threaten the human rights of the people living in that particular State or region but also to prohibit the rise of all other kinds of interventions that may escalate into civil wars and enduring conflicts. Therefore, to use military forces with the sanction of the international institution like the UN and under the auspices of the Security Council, to quell forces that threaten human rights and lives of persons within the territorial jurisdiction of another State is not only permitted by international law but also supported and endorsed as a means of ending conflicts and civil wars. The use of military force and the action has to be proportionate to the threat that is perceived as requiring humanitarian intervention. There is of course always the danger that the “rebel” forces may create situations that seek international intervention to push for their own political power and both the international community and the military forces in action in such interventions have to very carefully study and assess the situation to prevent being used as a means to any private ends. The narrow confines imposed by the  Article 2 (4)  of the UN Charter which prevents  member States from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, has now been expanded by international consensus  to permit humanitarian interventions and to secure to all people their rights. When conflicts cannot be contained and threaten human existence and dignity it is incumbent upon all others to ensure that order is restored , lives saved ,  massacres stopped and further deaths  prevented.

  2013

A RELUCTANT REGIONAL POWER

  A RELUCTANT REGIONAL POWER 

Published in 

The New Indian Express

Tuesday 13 August 2013

At almost every international or regional conference, seminar or workshop one attends, the recurring refrain from the foreign delegates is that even as India is historically poised to play a major role in the region, India seems reluctant to seize the moment. These are the assessments  of not only those who are our immediate neighbours  but also of  others who come  from countries further away and  who have long term ties and interests with India . It becomes imperative, therefore, for us to examine whether their analyses of India’s policies towards its neighbours and regional counterparts are correct. While it is true that in recent times India has developed greater influence in south east Asia, it is also true that India’s support is sought by major global players to fashion the future geo-strategic balances in south east Asia and further. Not only has the United States declared   India as its “strategic partner” to counter the rising power and influence of China in the region but also the two countries have projected their allied interests in the rebalancing of power in the region. There are many intricate issues that underline India’s foreign policy and it’s not possible to examine each in detail here. Notwithstanding those countries that do not have favourable relationship with India, even the countries that do have a favourable disposition often turn critical about India’s stand on issues and policies towards them and those that affect them directly or indirectly.

Sri Lankan politics and policies during the turbulent years of ethnic conflict and the present time of rebuilding itself have greatly concerned India. During the conflict years Sri Lanka turned to India, as its immediate and influential neighbour, for all forms of co-operation.  After the conflict came to an end with the defeat of the LTTE in the Fourth Eelam war, while the mainstream establishment continued to view India as a friend, there were rumblings from other elements within the establishment that feared growing Indian influence. Flushed with their victory in the war and the decimation of the LTTE and the destruction of the Eelam dream permanently, many in Sri Lanka changed their earlier view about India and strident voices have been

rising about India’s role in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan establishment has diversely wanted India to play a greater role as well as to keep its hands off. With due reverence to the principle of sovereignty, India has reiterated throughout the ethnic conflict and subsequently too  ,  that it was never in favour of the creation of a new independent  state in the island but completely acquiesced with the principle of devolution of power to the Tamils to end the ethnic disparity. The Sri Lankan establishment, on the other hand, has spoken in different voices regarding the extent to which it will permit India to be involved. That is to say, while India’s aid for infrastructure development in the fractured North is accepted; Sri Lanka has different thoughts about the 13^th Amendment and prefers India to be a passive bystander. India merely desires that Sri Lanka adhere to its commitment to provide limited autonomy to Tamil dominated North and Eastern provinces and find an acceptable long term solution to the imbalances of power sharing between the ethnic groups. However , India is seen by  many in the Sri Lankan majority as “interfering “ and by many of  the Tamils as “betraying”. Both these emotional judgments are based on their personal frustrations and aspirations which have stemmed from events that have happened solely on their soil. Therefore , for members of both sides  to imply that India is reluctant to play a greater role suggests that the role they envisage for India is one wherein their personal aspirations are endorsed and approved  by India .

Bangladesh’s history books will find it hard to expunge India’s role in the creation of the nation in 1971.Yet it seems that somewhere in the course of history Bangladesh has developed dissatisfaction with India. One of the many major concerns for Bangladesh has been the sharing of the waters of the Ganges River. A subject matter that  has for 35 years  been extremely emotional in Bangladesh and which has affected the eastern states in India , even after several bilateral agreements and rounds of talks has not been resolved in a manner that has appeased Bangladesh . The result is a deficit of trust where the indication has been that India being a larger nation  in size has staked a larger claim. Perhaps the underlying problem lies not so much in the water-sharing process but in the information-sharing process about the use and the principles of distribution of the waters by India. Despite a comprehensive

bilateral treaty signed in 1996 which has established a 30 year water-sharing arrangement, one often hears in Bangladesh voices about the “unfairness” of the arrangement. Bangladesh, which would like to see India play a greater role on several other matters concerning the region which have direct impact upon it, prefers that India play a minor role in all  direct bilateral matters. There are several other issues where Bangladesh prefers that India stay away but it also expects India “to do something” and support Bangladesh in matters which affect it directly. One of these issues is the Chinese proposal and graded execution of diversion of water to the water- starved regions of northern China which would result in irreparable damage to the lower riparian states and chiefly Bangladesh.

 Nepal which has very close ties with India is currently caught in the vortex of uncertainty and inquietude. During the bloody and turbulent transition from the monarchy up to its present form of desired democracy, the Royalists on the one hand and the Maoists and other political parties on the other have been dissatisfied by India’s responses to the events as they unfolded. India’s slow and measured responses during the period of turmoil were confused with unwillingness to take a definite stand for one side or the other. Keen to see proper governance return to Nepal, India has encouraged the resolution of the issues of ethnic federalism. Analysts and the establishments in Nepal, however, have misconstrued this as attempts by India to impose its will upon the people and parties of Nepal.

India is the largest regional provider for the humanitarian and reconstruction of Afghanistan. India has invested more than $ 2 billion in Afghan infrastructure, which includes highways and hospitals and rural electricity projects. India is also helping in the rebuilding of the police forces, judiciary and diplomatic services in Afghanistan. Pakistan and China have been crying foul about India’s intention alleging that India seeks to establish its influence in Afghanistan and benefit post withdrawal of American troops. Strategists and academics in Afghanistan, however, often express hope of an India-Iran-Afghanistan cooperation that would benefit all the three countries and keep Chinese and Russian influence at bay.

It is obvious that the size of India, both geographical and economic, causes serious concerns among our neighbours. The fear is further amplified with China’s allegations that India treats Bhutan as a “protectorate” and has been interfering with the elections in Bhutan.  China also perpetuates the myth that India behaves as a hegemonic power in the region and uses it to spread its own influence among India’s neighbours. However, while addressing many regional issues, India has been displaying sensitivity to the national interests of its neighbouring countries. Whether it is called upon to deal with the internal dynamics of Maldives or continue bilateral relations with the progressively evolving military junta of Myanmar, India has shown its ability to follow the accepted principles of statecraft. Those that consider careful assessment and considered action as a mark of reluctance to be a regional power, it is necessary for them to understand how seriously India takes its responsibility to maintain regional peace and stability.