The landscape of counter-terrorism is increasingly marked by fragmentation, particularly following events like the Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2023. This incident has amplified scrutiny over the inconsistent global responses to terrorism, revealing stark double standards within international discourse.
Following the Pahalgam attack, many nations condemned the violence. However, key players, including the U.S. and Russia, refrained from categorizing it explicitly as a terror attack. This selective labeling illustrates the politicization of global counter-terrorism efforts, where responses often hinge on national interests rather than objective assessments.
The phrase "my terrorists vs. your terrorists" encapsulates the selective nature of international responses. Countries label acts as terrorism based on geopolitical alignments, undermining the unified front necessary to combat this pervasive threat. This inconsistency weakens the global consensus essential for effective counter-terrorism.
India's persistent efforts to designate Pakistan-based terrorists at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have often been thwarted by vetoes or technical holds from China. Proposals to list individuals like Sajid Mir have faced obstacles, highlighting the challenges of obtaining global consensus on terrorism-related issues.
The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) issued by the Institute for Economics & Peace shows that a significant proportion of global terrorism-related fatalities occur in Asia and Africa. However, international media and responses tend to focus disproportionately on incidents occurring in Western nations, revealing a geopolitical bias in counter-terrorism narratives.
India advocates for a uniform global standard on terrorism, opposing the practice of shielding state-sponsored actors. It criticizes nations like China and Turkey for obstructing UNSC resolutions or adopting ambiguous positions on terror groups targeting India. This divergence is evident in recent examples where China's veto and the U.S.'s hesitance to extradite suspects have highlighted global disparities in addressing terrorism.
Geopolitical interests heavily influence counter-terrorism responses. For instance, the U.S. may downplay strong stances against Pakistan due to strategic military interests, while China's economic ties with Pakistan limit its willingness to act against terrorism emanating from that region.
International legal efforts to combat terrorism are guided by various multilateral treaties, including the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. However, the enforcement of these frameworks largely depends on the cooperation of individual states, which can often be selective and politically motivated.
On the global stage, India is focused on:
The influence of domestic politics and diaspora concerns often shapes global counter-terrorism narratives. In countries like the U.S., UK, and Canada, electoral interests and lobbying can moderate strong actions against terrorism-related entities, particularly in sensitive regions.
Establishing a fair and consistent global anti-terror framework requires:
Q1. What factors have contributed to the global fragmentation in counter-terrorism?
Answer: Global fragmentation in counter-terrorism has been fueled by inconsistent national responses, geopolitical interests, and selective labeling of terrorist acts, particularly highlighted by incidents like the Pahalgam attack.
Q2. How does India address terrorism on the international stage?
Answer: India focuses on advocating for the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, pushing for the listing of terrorists at the UNSC, and forming alliances with nations to combat terrorism financing.
Q3. What role does the UNSC play in counter-terrorism efforts?
Answer: The UNSC is crucial for international counter-terrorism efforts, but its effectiveness is often hindered by vetoes and political maneuvering from permanent members, particularly regarding Pakistan-based terrorism.
Q4. Why is a collective approach to counter-terrorism challenging?
Answer: A collective approach is challenging due to diverging national interests, the strategic use of terrorism by some states, and the lack of a
Kutos : AI Assistant!
