The 2018 Raisina Dialogue took place in the midst of a jilted global political environment. Beyond the questions of global governance, economic stability and growth, and evolving nature of globalisation, the issue of terrorism had become more serious as the threats took on new forms. The supposed fall of the Islamic State (IS) has hardly made a dent in reducing the levels of violence in the Middle East, while attacks in Europe, Africa and other regions rose as part of the fallout of the so-called “caliphate.”

The very idea of offering “innovative solutions” to terrorism is mired in a lack of basic, globally accepted norms on how to approach/manage the problem.

Most analysts agree that there is little hope, if at all, for lasting peace in Iraq and Syria. Further, the question of tackling global terrorism efficiently and proactively is rendered even more complex by other issues: there is no consensus over the definition of the term “terrorism” at the United Nations; there is ongoing debate about whether or not there are categories of “good” and “bad” terrorists; and there is also the issue of state-sponsored terrorism. The very idea of offering “innovative solutions” to terrorism is mired in a lack of basic, globally accepted norms on how to approach/manage the problem.

Gen. Bipin Rawat, India’s Chief of Army Staff, kicked off the session with a brief presentation that raised thougt-provoking questions on the narratives around terrorism. First, Gen. Rawat called on panels such as the Raisina Dialogue, to form a cohesive and acceptable framework for defining who a “terrorist” is. This has been an old call by India — triggered by the fact that Western powers have tackled Islamabad for its terror activities relating to Taliban and the Al-Qaeda, but not for its support to jihadist groups against India. However, little has been achieved in concrete terms. Gen. Rawat’s views, especially on what he defines as “terrorism,” highlighted the very same conundrum that he asked the panel to simplify.

---

There is little hope, if at all, for lasting peace in Iraq and Syria.

---

“Anybody who uses violence as a means to an end and causes disruption to the civilian life within his own nation or outside the boundaries of their own nation should ideally be called a terrorist,” Gen. Rawat said. Perhaps it is this loose gathering of thoughts, which has put the exercise of defining ‘terrorism’ into a spiral for years. Gen. Rawat’s co-panelists further expounded on the challenges to the global effort against terrorism.

The panelists raised other contentions, too: for example, the approach to distinguish between the political and military wings of a terror group. This is a globally contested view where opinions are most divergent. Despite some panelists’ insistence that the political and military wings of a terror group be regarded equally, the examples from Afghanistan — where a military solution has failed — offer a counter-argument. Afghanistan’s lesson points to how a political wing of a terror group may become critical for last-resort negotiations.

This hypothesis on the lack of political outcome in fighting terrorism was echoed by panelist Ambassador Husain Haqqani. He also highlighted the fact that in the 16 years since former US President George W. Bush declared the “war on terror,” global commitments toward this aim have in fact been eroded, and the concept of a “universal” war on terrorism seems even less of a joint global response than ever before. Haqqani correctly highlighted the selective approaches on bringing terror suspects to justice by drawing a contrast between the prosecution of the suspects time it took to prosecute suspects of the Lockerby bombing in Libya, and of those in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks with the suspects roaming free in Pakistan.

---

What eventually divides a unified fight against terrorism is, of course, an individual nation state’s interest. It is rare that a non-state militant actor is capable of thriving without one or the other state’s support.

---

What eventually divides a unified fight against terrorism is, of course, an individual nation state’s interest. It is rare that a non-state militant actor is capable of thriving without one or the other state’s support. Panelist Dr. Vyacheslov Nikonov, member of the Russian State Duma, highlighted the fact that the most crucial element in the fight against terrorism is the state — he said, “only functional states and legitimate governments can fight terror.” This observation added colour to the question as to why Moscow supported Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. While Nikonov appreciated that a concert effort is needed globally to tackle terror, his Israeli colleague on the same dais, Maj. Gen. (Retd) Amos Gilead expressed, expectedly, a more cautious outlook towards waiting for a global narrative against terrorism and giving more leeway to a state’s taking matter into individual hands. Gilead agreed with most of the points, and used as a study the case of Moscow targeting Sunni terror groups but not Shia ones. He also said that from his Israeli experience, states should not depend entirely on a unified international cooperation for fighting terrorism.

Perhaps looking for innovation within a global understanding of countering terror was too big a task to ask when basic and definitive understandings of the issues are yet to be achieved. The panelists, more than offering solutions only managed to double-down on the fact that a lot more needs to be done to bring all interest groups in the same page against terrorism. The crux would be to solve the cliché, “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter,” as author Jonah Goldberg called it. It may not be as much of a cliché as many would think.

• America
• Bhutan
• The Pacific
• East and Southeast Asia
• East Asia
• 26/11
• COUNTER TERRORISM
• Iraq
• Islamic State
• Raisina 2018
• Syria

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.