Seminar Paper

8 December 2004 at CIRDAP auditorium

International Terrorism: Bangladesh Context

C M Shafi Sami

Introduction

Historically the term “terrorism” related to France’s Reign of Terror in 1793-94 instituted by the French Government. The leaders of the Revolution saw “terror” as the most effective means to weed out “traitors” among revolutionary ranks and the best way to defend liberty. As guillotines proliferated the term assumed an unsavory connotation of state violence. Accordingly, the Webster Dictionary defines terrorism as “the act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation.” At its origin terrorism was thus an instrument of the state and it was perpetrated by the state on the people. The Jacobins, who led the French government at the time, were also revolutionaries and with the passage of time the term “terrorism” came to be associated with violent revolutionary activity in general. But the use of “terrorist” in an anti-government sense is not recorded until 1866 (referring to Ireland) and 1883 (referring to Russia)[1]. Later the terminology gained such acceptance in British India as Indian “freedom fighters” were persecuted as “terrorists” by the colonial government.

Definitional Dilemma: National Perspectives

A dictionary meaning of terrorism provides a broad generalized view of terrorism “as systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.” According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language terrorism is “the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made in 1937 when the League of Nations sought to draft a convention on the issue which never came into existence. It defined terrorism as “all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public”. Since then the definition of terrorism has been under intensive debate of the international community but a universally accepted definition seem to elude scholars, experts and diplomats till date.

Some elaboration of various elements that constitute terrorism came in a definition that viewed terrorism as “the systematic use of terror or unpredictable violence against governments, publics, or individuals to attain a political objective. Terrorism has been used by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and ethnic groups, by revolutionaries, and by the armies and secret police of governments themselves.” The definition in the Code of Federal Regulations of the USA more or less conforms to this perception. It defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

The US State Department provides another variant. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub- national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” The FBI gives a more elaborate description of terrorism. It treats terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of
the terrorists[2]:

• “Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
• “International terrorism involves violent acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which the perpetrations operate or seek asylum.”

In a relatively simpler depiction of international terrorism it is described as “terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country”[3].

Failing to arrive at an agreed definition the United Kingdom tried to overcome the predicament in its latest anti-terrorism law by avoiding a definition and instead listing 21 international terrorist organizations by name whose membership is illegal in the UK.

Lack of International Consensus

If there is a lack of unanimity on a definition at the national levels the situation internationally is even more dismal. The efforts of the UN and other international bodies to define terrorism have been discussed in a recent book that runs into about two thousand pages without reaching any firm conclusion. The main impediments in this respect arose due to the inability of the international community to adequately address and find accommodation on such issues as acts of national resistance exercised against occupying forces, colonizers and usurpers, resistance of peoples against foreign domination, struggles for self-determination and cultural identity of minority groups, rejection of dictatorships and other forms of despotism, resistance against racial discrimination and retaliation against any aggression if there is no other alternative. There was also a reluctance to take into consideration matters relating to colonialist operations including wars and military expeditions, dictatorial acts against peoples and protection of dictatorships, the use of chemical weapons, the shelling of civilian populated areas, the blowing up of homes, the displacement of civilians, etc. There is also a perceptible disinclination on the part of many powerful nations to go along with the recommendation of Dr. Mahathir Mohammad, who as the Prime Minister of Malaysia told an OIC Foreign Ministers Conference on Terrorism that “Armed attacks or other forms of attacks against civilians must be regarded as acts of terror and the perpetrators regarded as terrorists. Whether the attackers are acting on their own or on the orders of their government, whether they are regulars or irregulars, if the attack is against civilians, then they must be considered as terrorist”.

The absence of an agreed definition has hindered adoption of a single comprehensive convention by the UN. Instead at present there are twelve separate conventions and protocols to deal with the issue providing the basic legal tools to combat international terrorism in a piecemeal manner — from the seizure of aircraft to hostage-taking to the financing of terrorism. A list of these international instruments is appended at Annex1.[4]

A UNGA resolution sought to enunciate the elements that constitute terrorism in an indirect manner. It condemned all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as “criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed”. It then stated that  “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them”.

In attempting to arrive at a succinct definition of terrorism, an expert A. Schmid suggested in a report for the UN Crime Branch to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a “war crime” as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes – deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners – is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as “peacetime equivalents of war crimes.”[5]

He proposed a short and snappy legal definition:

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime.

As against this brief depiction there is a broad academic consensus on a rather long winded & protracted definition: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination – the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.”

Ambivalence or Duplicity

In considering a definition of terrorism states display an attitude that ranges from ambivalent at best to duplicitous at worst.  Most definitions are not based on international human considerations but are aimed primarily at achieving narrow interests. In many cases nations twist the essence of their own definitions and tinker with their meanings to suit such interests. At the time of the suicide attack on USS Cole in Yemen which killed 17 American sailors the ship was armed and its crew on duty and yet this was classified as a terrorist activity. This was because the USA considers attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombings against US bases to be terrorism.

In recent years in the West terrorism in the anti-government sense has taken the centre of attention with a consequent relegation in importance of violent activity of a state against civilian population in other countries, unless of course such violence is committed by states perceived as pariah by them. It is well known that in Israeli settlements many settlers are armed with weapons supplied by the army. Additionally the settlements themselves are meant to consolidate a military occupation. As such these can be considered as military targets. Yet the Palestinian attacks on these targets count as terrorism in the eyes of the US State Department. Strangely Israeli rocket attacks on Palestinian civilian communities are not counted as acts of terrorism as that definition precludes infliction of terrorism by a state. By a queer twist of definitional trick the Palestinians are indicted and Israelis left off the hook although the severity of their attacks is much more intense.

A similar picture emerges if we examine the list of terrorist organizations drawn up by the United Kingdom. The list includes Hizbullah which is a legal political party in Lebanon with elected members of parliament. The list banned the Kurdistan Workers Party which is active in Turkey but did not touch the KDP or PUK, Kurdish organizations which were active in Iraq. Iranian opposition group the Iranian People’s Mujahedeen is banned, but its Iraqi equivalent the INC, which was financed by the United States, was not.

There is thus considerable subjectivity in dealing with terrorism. Cynics have observed, not without justification, that one state’s “terrorist” is another state’s “freedom fighter”. But it is remarkable that with shifting interests one state’s “freedom fighter” also turns into the same state’s “terrorist” as evident in the case of the Talibans. This situation has prompted a prominent journalist to provide a rather honest and forthright definition: ‘terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of.’

Agreed Elements

The wide perceptional divergence notwithstanding, there are a few elements of terrorism that have gained reasonably broad international acceptability if not unanimity[6]:

• Premeditated violence.
• Directed against innocent people or non-combatants.
• In furtherance of political objectives.

On this last point there is almost unanimity at the international level. Other generally accepted components pertaining to the methodology of terrorism have been identified as follows[7]:

• It is an asymmetric warfare.
• In it the immediate victim is not the main target but the victim serves as an instrument of communication of a message to the intended target.

As the hard targets are getting increasingly difficult to reach there is a trend now to concentrate on “soft targets” attacks on which will entail the same overall results as an attack against a hard target through ‘a shock wave proliferated by the international media all over the world’.[8]

9/11: Role of Bangladesh

No event in contemporary history has had a more profound impact on the security scenario of the world than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. For more than two hundred years since the emergence of the United States of America as a sovereign independent state it considered itself impregnable from any invasion or foreign attack. Two mighty oceans, the Pacific & Atlantic provided unparalleled strategic depth that could be the envy of any nation. In a single stroke 9/11 exploded that myth of impregnability as the terrorists successfully attacked the centre of American military power, the Pentagon & its symbol of economic strength, the twin towers and nearly succeeded in attacking the embodiment of US political prestige, the White House. Understandably there was a sense of deep humiliation and intense anger in the USA that gave rise to a firm resolve to take revenge. Accordingly the USA attempted to forge a broad international coalition under the auspices of the United Nations to combat terrorism and a large number of countries joined that coalition.

Subsequent events in Afghanistan and, the invasion of Iraq in defiance of overwhelming  world public opinion and  on grounds, that many across the globe saw as dubious,  based on hidden agenda & that  were demonstratively proven  as  unsubstantiated, diluted  the international resolve and weakened the coalition to face the menace. The violent content of the current war on terrorism and large scale violations of human rights have raised serious fears and misgivings   as to if the combat has become self defeating and if instead of curbing it has proliferated terrorism.

As a not too distant neighbor to the theatre of the ensuing combat on terror that would ensue after 9/11 Bangladesh was catapulted into the focus of US strategic importance. Bangladesh has always unequivocally condemned acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations including state terrorism, irrespective of motives, perpetrators and victims, as terrorism poses a serious threat to international peace and security and is a great violation of human rights.

In keeping with Bangladesh’s deep and abiding principled stand on terrorism it joined the coalition along with other south Asian and Muslim countries. Bangladesh’s  image as a peace loving moderate Muslim nation with a population that has a profound and enduring faith in democracy was further consolidated & enhanced by its participation in that international resolve to combat terrorism. Tragically, however, Bangladesh failed to maintain that position for long because of a series of developments and the government’s inability to appropriately respond to these events. These acts of commission and omissions have seriously tarnished the image of Bangladesh like never before; these have cast serious doubts in the minds of those who matter internationally about the resolve and determination of the country to combat terrorism.

As a part of the international action against terrorism the UN Security Council established a Counter Terrorism Committee to monitor  implementation of counter terrorism measures by the member states  and to bring them to an acceptable level of compliance with terrorism related  conventions and protocols. The government submitted but only one report to the CTC and that too pertaining to the activities of the Care Taker Government. Following closely on the heels of the last general elections there was a massive eruption of violence, mostly of a communal nature. Governmental response to these acts of widespread violence ranged from ambivalence to acquiescence and finally to blatant encouragement. Since then there was a series of premeditated bomb and grenade attacks on religious, cultural and political targets by the terrorists culminating in 8/21. On that day this year a well planned assassination attempt on the leader of opposition was launched. It is seen by many observers as a part of a well thought-out conspiratorial process of anti-liberation and fanatic political elements to eliminate the leadership of the pro-liberation forces as an integral part of a process that was initiated in 1975 with the assassination of the Father of the Nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.  While the life of the leader of the opposition was saved through an act of providence, a senior leader of that party Mrs. Ivy Rahman lost her life and many others sustained injuries in that grenade attack. While this attack shook the very foundation of the country’s democratic polity & shocked its entire peace loving population the government displayed an attitude of apathy and indifference. Similarly a number of sensational cases of arms smuggling also failed to evoke appropriate response from the government. In another incident the British High Commissioner for Bangladesh was injured as an attack was launched at a religious site frequented by Muslim devotees. The government failed to conduct any reliable and trustworthy investigation on any of these terrorist acts that were tearing the fabric of the nation and to bring any of the culprits to justice fuelling further doubts and undermining its own credibility. There were also attacks on churches as well as violent attempts at capturing Ahmadiya mosques at various places preceded by demands and threats that the sect be declared as non-Muslims that created an impression of religious intolerance in the society.

Coincidentally, during this period the Wall Street Journal followed by Far Eastern Economic Review published reports portraying Bangladesh as an emerging hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and militancy. To this was added a new strident note in India’s open allegations of a nexus between Pakistani intelligence agencies and the rising Islamic forces in Bangladesh. At the same time the United States of America also added Bangladesh in the list of terrorist prone countries.

Late last year the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) published an edited report expressing concerns that Bangladesh was emerging as a major hub of jihadi terrorism linked to Al-Qaeda elements and alleging that the Government was unwilling to crack down on terrorism.

The reticence and inability of the government to firmly curb violence and terrorism was commented upon by the national press. The editorial comments of Bangladesh Observer on December 12, 2003 captured the prevalent public mood and that of the media. It said: “True to its character, the alliance government has promptly rejected the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) report that Bangladesh may emerge as a ‘haven for Islamic terrorists’. ….  It is too early to say if there is any truth or not in the CSIS report. But the powerful bomb blasts at the Udichi function in Jessore, at Bangla New Year’s function at Ramna Botomool and at the Communist Party meeting at Paltan are an unmistakable indication of the choice of targets. It is a fact that none of these bombing incidents has been conclusively investigated. ………..If those alarming incidents were seriously followed through, no one possibly could accuse the Government of non-action against terrorists. Sure enough, we have passed the phase when crying hoarse that some quarters are busy tarnishing our non-secular image abroad would be of any use. If the process continues, we will soon be facing a credibility crisis. We must be alive to the sensitive issue of terrorism because its global connotation is far stronger than we can appreciate.”

Bangladesh: Disturbing Trends

 Rise in terrorist activities

Terrorism has been a major problem in most countries in South Asia. Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka have experienced severe forms of terrorism for long and in recent times in Nepal there has been a significant rise in terrorism. In contrast the severity of terrorism has been less pronounced in Bangladesh,[9] albeit in recent times it is registering a steady increase presumably with the blessings of a section of people in the government. This is not to say that there was no presence or threat of terrorism in Bangladesh in the past. It may, however, be recognized that with the exception of a couple of major terrorist acts or activity, in the past these never posed any severe threat to either the integrity of the country or the governance of it until recently.  The assassination of the Bangabandhu was the first major act of terrorism in the country that struck at the very root of constitutional governance of the country and put its sovereignty at peril. It is a sad commentary on the conscience of the nation that instead of being brought to justice the assassins were rewarded with diplomatic assignments – a fillip to terrorism. This was followed in quick succession by another act of terrorism, the infamous killing of four leaders of the liberation struggle while in judicial custody, known as jail killings. At another time the activities of the Shanti Bahini in the Chittagong Hill Tracts as these grew in intensity also threatened the integrity of the country.

From the early days of emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation it was menaced by some politically motivated terrorist groups, like the Naxalites and the Sarbaharas (the proletariat). They are essentially offshoot fractions of ultra-left political organizations, which did not support the war of liberation.[10]  After the liberation of the country, initially the tribal people of Chittagong Hill Tracts launched a political movement under the banner the Chattagram Jana Sanghati Samity (PCJSS) demanding autonomy and the continuation of the institutions and offices of the tribal chiefs. Soon thereafter they established their armed wing the Shanti Bahini that waged an armed struggle and indulged in acts of insurgency and terrorism. At one stage there was a massive migration of the tribal people to the neighboring Indian state of Tripura where Shanti Bahini received assistance and training. The Bahini conducted their insurgency activities against Bangladesh from their safe hide outs in India.

In 1996, with the coming of the Awami League Government to power in Bangladesh serious political negotiations were initiated and the following year a historic Peace Accord was signed between the government and the PCJSS, the political wing of the Shanti Bahini. The Shanti Bahini renounced armed struggle and the refugees returned to Bangladesh.  This heralded an auspicious beginning of an era of peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, however, all of the terms and conditions of the peace accord have not been fully implemented and the tribal people are getting restive. The PCJSS have vowed to continue their political struggle for the full implementation of the Peace Accord. Although there are reports of criminal activities like killings, armed robbery abduction etc. in the area, these can not be categorized as terrorist activities.[11] However, there is a growing disappointment among the tribal people at what they see as governmental insincerity and apathy to implement the terms of the accord. This unfortunate state of affairs which contains the seeds of a relapse into terrorism needs to be tackled with imagination, courage and farsightedness.

Over the last couple of years there have been some worrisome developments with a discernible rise of extremism of both religious and secular kind.  At one end of the spectrum there has been resurgence in the activities of the Purba Banglar Communist Party, an extremist Communist group that is ideologically close to the Marxist-Leninist groups of India. Its objective is to launch a joint movement along with progressive parties in India, particularly the Naxalites of West Bengal. Since the beginning of 2002 there has been a surge in the activities of the PBCP in the south-west region of Bangladesh, bordering the Indian State of West Bengal. Its activities are concentrated in the greater districts of Khulna, Kushtia, Jessore and Barisal.

On the other end of the spectrum the Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), a self-proclaimed Islamist vigilante outfit is dedicated to eliminate the left wing extremist groups, principally the Purbo Banglar Communist Party (PBCP). The leaders of this organization, whose activities first came to light in early 2004, aim to usher in an Islamic system in Bangladesh through Jehad. The organization, which claims to derive its ideology partly from Taliban philosophy, has reportedly carried out over 100 vigilante operations including murders and attacks on people who they believe have committed crimes, in the greater districts of Rajshahi, Jessore, Rangpur, Bogra and Khulna. The leader of the outfit, popularly known as Bangla Bhai, has claimed that it commands the allegiance of 300000 activists across the country of which about 10,000 are full-time activists. There have been persistent press reports that the JMJB enjoys the blessings and support of some powerful political leaders in the government as well functionaries in the bureaucracy and the police establishment.[12]

The activities of two other organizations the Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami (HuJI) and the Islami Chhatra Shibir have drawn attention and widespread coverage in the national and foreign press over the last few years. The Islami Chhatra Shibir, the student wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, is opposed to forces of modernization, secularism and democracy. The Harkat attracted attention through its slogan: Amra Shobai Hobo Taliban. Bangla Hobe Afghanistan. (We will all become Taliban and we will turn Bangladesh into Afghanistan); indoctrinated in that hardcore mould the Harkat cadres, estimated to be 15,000 strong, are believed to be significantly drawn from stateless Rohingyas. Reportedly this group has links with foreign intelligence agencies as well as terrorist groups. The key suspect in the plot to assassinate the then Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina in July 2000, Mufti Abdul Hannan is an activist & leader of this outfit.

These are worrisome developments, although compared to the situation in other South Asian countries the incidence of terrorism and religious violence would still be relatively small in Bangladesh. One also recognizes that the socio-economic and political realities in the country with its moderate culture would preclude the emergence of any Al-Qaeda type violent extremism in Bangladesh.[13] Nonetheless this disturbing trend point towards a deeper malady that needs to be faced with steadfastness and tackled with decisiveness. Failure to do so would spell disaster for the nation which will have to pay an extremely heavy price in social, economic and political terms.

Rise in Criminality and Violence

Over the years there has been a phenomenal deterioration in the law and order situation in Bangladesh. Violence, murders, extortion, rape, abduction for ransom, hijacking, acid throwing and armed robbery have registered an alarming increase. To add to this there is rampant corruption in the country that does not exclude even the judiciary. The law enforcement agencies have ‘effectively commoditized themselves and offer services to complainant or law breakers’ whoever is willing to pay.[14] Rampant violence has pushed the country into an abyss of misgovernance. In short there is a complete breakdown in law and order. The society is on the verge of collapse and civilized existence is threatened.

The principal actors in all this and the main perpetrators of these anti-social crimes and violence are musclemen mostly operating under political patronage. In Bengali language these criminals are known as ‘Mastans’ or more popularly ‘Shantrashi’. Incidentally, the word ‘Shantrashi’ is also the Bengali word for a ‘terrorist’ as understood internationally. Reports of the activities of such criminals are often translated in English, with slight linguistic inaccuracy, as those of ‘terrorists’ thus creating confusion in the mind of an international audience about the extent and dimension of ‘terrorism’ in Bangladesh. This, however, is not to underestimate the pernicious and destructive impact of these criminal acts and violence on the society. One also needs to recognize that the wide spread presence of criminality in the above forms provide a potential source and breeding ground for all pervasive terrorism.

To respond to the extra-ordinary situation the Government constituted the rapid Action Battalion (RAB) and pressed it into an anti-crime drive last June. The activity of the RAB has generated mixed reaction in the society. In examining this issue the following observations made in the press recently may be of some relevance and need to be borne in mind:

• Since its inception the RAB has gone on what appears to amount a killing spree, euphemistically called deaths in crossfire.[15]The stories relating to ‘cross fire’ lack credibility and are seen as extra-judicial killing.
• There are allegations that some of these killings are politically motivated and executed at the instance of political parties in power.[16]
• There is an element of doubt whether all those killed in the ‘cross fire’ were really involved with criminality.[17]

Undoubtedly at an intellectual level and from the view points of jurisprudence, morality and human rights these activities would appear highly indefensible. It is a universally recognized principle of civilized existence that no life can be taken away by any one, not even the state, except in accordance with law and procedures prescribed there under i.e., through a due judicial process sanctified by law.

Notwithstanding these there has been a fair amount of public support for the RAB activities with an element of discernible relief over the fact that this special squad has achieved a laudable goal by striking fear in the minds of hardened criminals,[18] and ridding the society of these dreaded criminals. Though there has been some criticism in the press and by the Human Rights Organizations, generally these have been rather low-key & muted, and not at all vocal & strident. Some widely circulated news papers like the Daily Star publicly acknowledged that they have not been ‘as vocal in our protests against the killings as we might have been.’[19]

This calls for a deep, all-embracing and far reaching soul-searching on the part of the intellectuals, the civil society, the law makers, the administrators of law and order, the judiciary, the political leaders and most importantly the government that shapes the destiny of the nation. A thorough introspection is called for to determine if this attitude at the level of the ordinary people symbolizes an expression of a massive no confidence on these institutions of the state arising out of their shared failure to uphold the rule of law. The first task that faces all these institutions is a painstaking, meticulous and exhaustive soul searching to rediscover our collective conscience and make sustain endeavors to restore the confidence of the general mass on these vital institutions.

Causes, Prevention and Combat

At the national levels there are many factors that influence the promotion of terrorism by to providing a fertile breeding ground for recruitment to its ranks. Some of the crucial features that would seem to be germane in the context of Bangladesh would include the prevalence of extreme poverty, injustice, illegitimate exclusion and deprivation, denial of legitimate rights, political marginalization, low levels of education, limited health services, malfunctioning & subversion of democracy, misgovernance & corruption, suppression & violation of human rights, cultural alienation of ethnic groups, communal intolerance and narrowing of the mind caused by fundamentalist indoctrination. To this list could be added a recently developed trend of illegitimate exclusion, deprivation and marginalization on considerations of narrow party politics, including in administration, in commerce and in economic development efforts of the country. Governmental actions in this respect lack transparency & appear to be based neither on merit nor regulations; they seem to emanate from the whims & caprices of individuals instead of being anchored in the precepts of the rule of law.

Terrorism can not be prevented or combated in the context of a constricted water- tight compartmentalized law and order problem; it requires a holistic approach that would entail formulation and implementation of appropriate government policies that address the above issues and seek to redress them.

Simultaneously specific counter measures against terrorism have to be put in place that would entail strengthening of the machinery for intelligence gathering and analysis of the information; this would provide the required early warnings to take adequate preventive measures.  Another key issue relate to the strengthening of the agencies to combat terrorism by giving them a clear legal framework for operation that enhances their capacity and speed but does not infringe on the principles of jurisprudence & fundamental human rights.

Concurrently with this, serious & sustained efforts need to be marshaled and mobilized to revive and restore the confidence of the society on judiciary, by guaranteeing & upholding its independence; and on the law enforcing and investigative agencies by ensuring their neutrality & impartiality. The credibility and integrity of these organs of state is vital in any campaign to combat terrorism; there should be no attempt to politically maneuver any of these organs nor should they be perceived in the public mind as having succumbed to such unscrupulous moves. The captured terrorists should be prosecuted with utmost speed and justice meted out with great immediacy for which appropriate laws ma be enacted. We need to constantly bear in mind that an unblemished image of the judiciary together with neutrality and impartiality of the supporting agencies is a sine qua non in any effort to contain terrorism.

At the regional level, cooperation of neighboring countries to develop agreed strategies to curb terrorism that may have trans national character would be mutually beneficial; additionally efforts may be directed towards enlisting cooperation and support that no such activities are encouraged from beyond the borders of Bangladesh. Similarly this will enjoin upon Bangladesh to assure and convince South Asian neighbors of reciprocal cooperation. Maintenance of good neighborly relations could also serve as effective means to prevent terrorism.

At the international plane, one of the reasons that has stymied efforts to prevent the spread of terrorism is an inexplicable reticence on the part of international community to address the root causes of terrorism and to launch sustained efforts to remove them. There is a universal recognition that long & persistent deprivation of political and fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people, some of which have been referred to earlier in this paper, constitutes one the main reasons for spread of terrorism. The threat from terrorism also calls for a global approach with a very broad multinational cooperation under the aegis of the United Nations. Given the spread of terrorism and wide choice of soft targets, no single country, however powerful and mighty it may be, can face this threat alone. Formulation of an internationally agreed comprehensive strategy is thus the crying need of the hour with the incorporation of the security of the people as an integral part of it with equal importance as the security of the state. An introspection is also called for to have a thorough & careful review if the pursuit of the current war on terror with its violent content as in Iraq is proliferating terrorism instead of curbing it. President Jacques Chirac on a visit to the UK stated in clear and unambiguous terms that these have made the world more dangerous than it was before the war.

Diplomatic efforts of Bangladesh could be geared towards achieving a comprehensive international strategy that takes into account these and related concerns of the international community.

Annex 1.

International Legal instruments on Terrorism.

• Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, signed at Tokyo on 14 September 1963
  Developed by ICAO; 171 States parties as of 17 September 2001
  Authorizes the airplane commander to impose reasonable measures on any person who has committed or is about to commit such acts, and requires States parties to take custody of offenders.
• Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, signed at The Hague on 16 December 1970
  Developed by ICAO; 174 States parties
  Requires parties to punish hijackings by “severe penalties”, and either extradite or prosecute the offenders.
• Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on 23 September 1971
  Developed by ICAO; 175 States parties
  Requires parties to punish offences by “severe penalties”, and either extradite or prosecute the offenders. This convention is supplemented by the:

— Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, signed at Montreal on 24 February 1988
107 States parties
Extends the provisions of the Convention to encompass terrorist acts at airports.

• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, New York, 14 December 1973
  Adopted by the General Assembly; 107 States parties
  Requires parties to criminalize and punish attacks against State officials and representatives.
• Convention against the Taking of Hostages, signed at New York on 18 December 1979
  Adopted by the General Assembly; 96 States parties
  Parties agree to make the taking of hostages punishable by appropriate penalties; to prohibit certain activities within their territories; to exchange information; and to carry out criminal or extradition proceedings.
• Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, signed at New York and Vienna on 3 March 1980
  Developed by IAEA; 68 States parties
  Obliges parties to ensure the protection of nuclear material during transportation within their territory or on board their ships or aircraft.
• Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, signed at Rome on 10 March 1988
  Developed by IMO; 52 States parties
  Obliges parties to either extradite or prosecute alleged offenders who have committed unlawful acts against ships, such as seizing ships by force and placing bombs on board ships. This convention is supplemented by the:

—Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, signed at Rome on 10 March 1988
48 States parties
Extends the requirements of the Convention to fixed platforms such as those engaged in the exploitation of offshore oil and gas.

• Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, signed at Montreal on 1 March 1991
  Developed by ICAO; 67 States parties
  seeks to curb the use of unmarked and undetectable plastic explosives.
• International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted in New York on 15 December 1997
  Adopted by the General Assembly; 26 States parties
  Seeks to deny “safe havens” to persons wanted for terrorist bombings by obligating each State party to prosecute such persons if it does not extradite them to another State that has issued an extradition request.
• International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted in New York on 9 December 1999
  Adopted by the General Assembly; four States parties; will enter into force when ratified by 22 States
  Obligates States parties either to prosecute or to extradite persons accused of funding terrorist activities, and requires banks to enact measures to identify suspicious transactions.

The Legal Committee of the General Assembly is elaborating a convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism and a comprehensive convention on the elimination of terrorism.

Other Conventions

In addition to bringing about four of these conventions, the General Assembly has adopted the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (1994) and the Declaration to supplement the 1994 Declaration (1996). These condemn all acts and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever committed, and urge all States to take measures at the national and international level to eliminate international terrorism.

The Vienna-based United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention (CICP) researches terrorism trends and assists countries in upgrading their capacities to investigate – but, above all, to prevent — terrorist acts.  The Branch is an arm of the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention

[1] Brian Whitaker, Guardian Unlimited, Guardian Newspaper Limited,2004

[2]  Brian Whitaker, Guardian Unlimited, Guardian Newspaper Limited,2004

[3] Ibid.

[4] Source: Dag Hammarskjold Library.

[5] Source:. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

[6] Muchkund Dubey, Work that needs to be done on terrorism: Conclusions, Terrorism in South Asia, ed., Sridhar K Khatri & Gert W. Kueck,Shipra Publications,Delhi

[7] Georg Witschel, Global Terrorism: Trends  and Response,Terrorism in South Asia, ed., Sridhar K Khatri & Gert W. Kueck,Shipra Publications,Delhi

[8]  Georg Witschel, Global Terrorism: Trends  and Response, Terrorism in South Asia, ed., Sridhar K Khatri & Gert W. Kueck,Shipra Publications,Delhi

[9] A KM Atiqur Rahman, Economic Cost of Terrorism in  South Asia: The Case of Bangladesh, Terrorism in South Asia, ed., Sridhar K Khatri & Gert W. Kueck,Shipra Publications,Delhi

[10] Matiur Rahman, impact of Terrorism on Development and the Democratic Process: Bangladesh Perspective, Terrorism in South Asia, ed. Shridhar K. Khatri & Gert W. Kueck, Shipra Publications,Delhi.

[11] Matiur Rahman, impact of Terrorism on Development and the Democratic Process: Bangladesh Perspective, Terrorism in South Asia, ed. Shridhar K. Khatri & Gert W. Kueck, Shipra Publications,Delhi

[12] Source: The Daily Star, May 5, 2004

[13] Abdur Rob Khan, Impact of September 11 on South Asia with Special Reference to Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka, Strengthening Cooperation and Security in South Asia Post 9/11,ed., Farooq Sobhan, University Press Ltd.,Dhaka.

[14] Prof. Rehman Sobhan as quoted by Matiur Rahman, impact of Terrorism on Development and the Democratic Process: Bangladesh Perspective, Terrorism in South Asia, ed. Shridhar K. Khatri & Gert W. Kueck, Shipra Publications, Delhi

[15] Editorial, The Daily Star , November 21, 2004.

[16] The DailyJanakantha, December1,2004.

[17]Op. cit .The Daily Star

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.