NATIONAL 4 - (Spotlight Weekly)

‘Regional Initiatives Against Terrorism Required’

— PROF. DHRUBA KUMAR

In a small room with books scattered in a corner and a computer on his desk, Professor DHRUBA KUMAR, a research scholar at Tribhuvan University’s Center for Asian Studies is busy writing his new book. Kumar, one of the well-known strategic analysts of Tribhuvan University, has written many books and articles on the strategic importance of Nepal. Following are excerpts from a half-hour conversation KESHAB POUDEL had with Kumar on various issues in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in United States and their implication for South Asia:

As the United States has declared a war against terrorism, how do you visualize the scenario in South Asia, including Nepal?

Terrorism has many dimensions in liberal society. People demand the right to self-determination. There is not only a human dimension but also a criminal dimension. One cannot justify the killing of innocent people to achieve ends. From the perspective of human rights, it is very difficult to explain terrorism, but killing people can only be termed as criminal activities. In a country like Nepal, even possession of arms itself is regarded as a crime. Even in the post-Cold War and pre-Cold War periods, the state has a monopoly

over the possession of arms. The demand to end the monopoly of state over arms is also growing. The world is in turmoil. If we take the case of Third World countries, it is not easy to define terrorism. Many groups are waging war against the state demanding the right to self-determination by killing innocent people. If we see the term terrorism in the South Asian context, the region endorsed liberation war during the period of de-colonization. There is also a demand for ethnic and religious revolution for self-identity. Some are waging holy wars.

How do you see the decision of the United States to ‘wipe out’ terrorism?

The United States is one of the democratic and open societies in the world. As an island-like nation cut off from the Atlantic on the East Coast and Pacific in the west, it has never entered major wars on its soil. However, in the context of globalization, the United States is also integrated with the world. Americans and Europeans are more dependent on technology. The terrorists’ decision to hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon both were symbolic in the changing context. The attacks showed how vulnerable even a technologically superb country like the United States is in front of terrorists. What is the use of National Missile Defense system at a time when a small terrorist outfit threatens a big country? The recent example shows that the world has become unsafe in the context of terrorism. It seems that the United States lacked mechanisms to tackle terrorism. The US-led coalition may bring positive results.

What would be the global effects of the war against terrorism?

It is very difficult to eliminate international terrorism but it can be contained. For the time being, the United States pursuit may reduce terrorist activities, as every state will watch it very carefully. Even countries of the world will watch the Maoist activities and lend necessary support to contain it. The government may receive support. If the United States moves with concrete proposals and determination against the terrorism, the number of cases of terrorism would drastically subside.

Were the recent attacks in United States terrorist acts or part of a larger war between cultures and civilizations assumed by Samuel P. Huntington?

If we see the case as define by Samuel P. Huntington, it may be the beginning of the clashes of civilizations. He points out that the Third World War is going to be between the culture and civilization. In the context when a Muslim group is attacking the United States, Huntington's assumption comes very close. I do not believe that terrorism is just a part of religion. When almost all Muslim countries have supported the US move to wage war against terrorism, Huntington's hypothesis may have long way to go. If we consider the identity of the hijackers and the perpetrators, we may say that it is a part of a clash of civilizations. Even the United States has declared it as a war. But the question is, how long will it sustain the battle?

South Asia is regarded as a hotbed of terrorism as many dreaded groups, ranging from the LTTE to Osama bin Laden’s network, are said to be based in the region. How do you see the implications of terrorism in South Asia in the context of the US declaration to wage war against terrorism?

Experience and events have shown that the region is a hotbed for terrorism as all countries in the region are victims of terrorism. India is directly and indirectly accusing Pakistan and both nations have long relations of hostility. Will the countries of the region agree to a regional coalition? India has been engaged in international lobbying to declare Pakistan a terrorist state. The Pakistanis have been doing the same against India.

How do you assess India’s role as the biggest country in the region?

We can see opportunism in the foreign policy of India in dealing with different aspects. When Sino-American relations witnessed certain deterioration, the Indians even supported the US National Missile Defense program. India is a very powerful and resourceful country of 1.2 billion people, but the approach and attitude of the Indian government has always been dubious. Indians are playing the role of surrogates of the Americans. India should develop a long-term policy rather than going for immediate expediency. Even America’s foreign policy is not consistent. In its dealing with India, Pakistan and China, it is not easy to understand US foreign policy. There need to be consistency in the policy thrust. If Americans wants to eliminate terrorism from the world, they must bring a firm policy against all kinds of terrorist activities in the globe, including in the region. There is no doubt that America needs to play an important role to wipe out terrorist activities from the region — whether it is allegedly backed by India, Pakistan or Afghanistan.

How vulnerable is South Asia to terrorism?

Undoubtedly, South Asia is very vulnerable to terrorism, as the deadliest outfits have been working in the region. If these different groups develop a network for close operations, they will change the course of the region. One cannot rule out the possibility of the LTTE joining hands with other terrorist outfits active in the region. The economic development and poverty alleviation of the region is not possible without wiping out terrorism. As long as India and Pakistan do not limit their military might, the future of the region will remain bleak. In Kashmir, the violence was not entirely an indigenous revolt, as veterans of the Afghan war entered the region through Pakistan.

How do you evaluate Indian policy regarding terrorism in the region?

The Indian state needs to develop a coherent policy towards terrorism. Just by placing paramilitary forces along the Indian-Nepal border, India can not stop infiltration. India needs to have clear-cut policy regarding neighboring countries. How does it see the insurgencies in the region as a whole? In many cases, India is mired in an unclear policy relating to terrorist activities in the region.

How do you assess India’s own insurgency problems?

Until India fully democratizes its whole system, dissension will continue and will be expressed through violent means. Even the Jammu Kashmir problem, many Indian believe, can be solved by allowing full democratic exercise in the state. The problem in India is not insurgency but democratization. Once the system allows expression of the aspirations of the people in the political system, insurgency will not find roots.

Almost every South Asian country is gripped by terrorism. Terrorists believed to have links in the region have penetrated the most powerful country in the world. How do you evaluate the situation of Nepal in the context of the Maoist insurgency?

We have to be very careful now. Nepal, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Bhutan are also facing the spillover effects of terrorism. In such a situation, it is strange that no government is taking the leadership to identify the problems. If we do not develop and activate the regional mechanism, we cannot stop the growing effects of multiple insurgencies. Because of the human rights dimension, even the state cannot use excessive power to suppress insurgencies. The state has to keep in mind international opinion. States are not able to teach internal and external opinion about the need to quell the insurgencies. In the Nepalese context, the government has not clearly defined who the Maoists are — whether they are a political force or terrorists. The government is now in political negotiations with a group that it earlier declared as terrorists. The Maoist insurgency surged because of the oppressive acts of the state in the early days. Had the state not taken extra-constitutional actions, the situation would not have been like this.

Do you see any possibility of a flare-up in the insurgency?

As the government and Maoists are sitting for dialogue, I do not think there is any possibility of a flare-up. The crisis will subside but it will take time. It is natural for Maoists to have links with various groups across the border. Most of Nepal’s political leaders have certain links with India, as they received their higher education from Indian universities. There are also problems with governance. In the last 12 years, Nepal has had governments without governance. One can understand the situation in a state without governance. As Maoist and government have started negotiations, they will find out settlement.

What are your specific observations on the situation?

We are very fortunate that even in such a lawlessness situation, many ethnic groups are not assimilated with the Maoists and that the Maoists have been unable to generate popular sentiment. Our political leaders loosely accuse that terrorists are getting support from India. When two leaders recently opened their mouth, India also seems to have realized the apparatus because both countries have an open border. India is itself mired in terrorism and it has been facing a tough time. This may be one of the reasons why India posted large paramilitary forces along the border with Nepal. If we compare our situation with those in Kashmir and North-eastern India, where insurgents have declared war against the state, Nepal still seems to be in a position to contain it. It is up to the government to decide what support it needs from other countries to resolve the problem.

Do you see the possibility of any agreement between Nepal and India to combat terrorism?

India and Nepal often express commitment to stop terrorist activities in their border through official declarations. On many occasions, we can see this commitment in joint statements. But no one mentions what level of support Nepal would get from India and vice versa. The message must be conveyed to India that the flourishing of terrorism in Nepal will spill over into India as Nepal and India share a long open and natural border. We should have basic understanding in the operational and bilateral levels. We can even talk about it at the SAARC level, as there are a bundle of documents and resolutions on the suppression of terrorism.

How do you view the problems in the government?

There is confusion in the government. The government must conclude whether the Maoists are a political or terrorist problem. The government has to single out a policy on the Maoists. If it considers their activities as terrorism, the government can declare them as such and mobilize state power. The government can contain such problems as the legitimate body of the state, it can also ask for help from other states. The government has not shown its strength in social mobilization and administration. The government has problems of slackness. At a time when the world's only super power asks for global support against terrorism, what impact will Nepal have in the Maoist movement? Globally all governments are now developing an anti-terrorism approach. Therefore, it is not going to be easier to wage violent acts in a country like Nepal. After the attacks in the United States, we can see concern growing throughout the world.

Don't you see the possibility of a stronger alliance and networking amongn South Asian terrorist groups?

This region can be a very fertile ground for terrorists. As you know, the Hind Kush mountains stretch from Myanmar in the east to Afghanistan in the west. If the terrorists of North-east India establish some kind of link with Afghanistan and the Golden Triangle and Mekong Valley and the state of Molucca in the east and the LTTE further south, terrorism will pose a great threat. As most Afghan warlords are now fighting in Jammu and Kashmir, one cannot rule out the possibility of their expanding links with insurgents in western Nepal. Because of the drug trade, they have an economy to sustain in the east. They don't have problems of weapon, as there are big weapons markets. It is not possible to control terrorism if it expands from east to west. Once the insurgents develop their capability and nexus between the northern part of India and Nepal, they will create havoc. Indians seem to be very suspicious now.

Why is it so difficult to contain terrorism?

In the hills, there is much rocky terrain and terrorists can hide in the many caves and river basins. The terrain is very suitable for terrorist groups. If these groups establish a network, I don't think technology and manpower alone would be enough to control the situation. The decision of the Indian government to deploy security forces along the border with Nepal may be a result of their suspicion on this score.

If you visualize such a grim scenario, is this not the right time to take initiatives to wipe out terrorism from the region?

This is the right time to wipe out terrorism. There is a global uproar against terrorism so we must exploit the situation for the benefit of the region as a whole. If we remove violent acts from the country and develop as a fort, Nepal can at least help to break the link between the insurgents group of the east and west. If ULFA and Bodos enter Nepal like they do in Bhutan, it will immediately flare up the problem in the region as a whole. If we can curtail the emerging nexus of various terrorist and insurgent groups, it will be major contribution for the region.

How do you see the Maoist problem in the changing context?

It must be contained, as this is the right moment to do something to resolve the problem. If the insurgency lasts longer, the insurgents will approach other groups for their survival. At a time when there is a global wave against terrorism, Nepal must take appropriate steps. As the government and the Maoists are expressing their commitment to peace talks, I think the insurgents would eventually come to the mainstream.

How do you visualize the future of Nepal?

Provided it exploits its manpower and develops a long-term approach, Nepal need not be worried too much. Along with geographical handicaps, we have many geo-strategical advantages.