Terror is said to define our present era. Accordingly, it is ironic that there is no agreed definition of the concept. One reason is the vast amount of hypocrisy and double standards that surrounds the issue. The US Army Manual defines terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature…through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear, typically targeting civilians." This seems reasonable. The problem is it refers only to the terrorism of enemies.

If the UN General Assembly were to adopt it, many "civilised states" and their celebrated war leaders would be designated terrorists. We all know about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fewer know that in the 1920s Churchill pushed for the use of poisoned gas against Kurds and Pakhtuns. He insisted: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes...we will use every means that science permits us."

I was in India when 9/11 happened. The US ambassador told me that history for the US now began with 9/11, and no one should look for root causes. I told him the world, including Pakistan, shared America's outrage, but if we were determined to ensure against its repetition we should examine what caused it.

Three years before 9/11, Eqbal Ahmad said: "Osama bin Laden is a sign of things to come… The US has sowed in the Middle East and in South Asia very poisonous seeds. These seeds are growing now. Some have ripened and others are ripening. An examination of why they were sown, what has grown, and how they should be reaped is needed. Missiles won't solve the problem." The British expert on Al Qaeda, Jason Burke, noted that "every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden, helping him mobilise the constituency he hopes will see the West as Crusaders trying to destroy the Muslim world."

Unfortunately, the US response to 9/11 was anything but wise. The world was told: "You are either with us or against us," and the UN was given a choice: be relevant by being with us or become as irrelevant as the League of Nations. The Bush Doctrine justified illegal pre-emptive shock-and-awe aggression to defeat terror and bring democracy in the broader Middle East. International law was considered obsolete. The US Foreign Affairs magazine approvingly dubbed the doctrine as "the new imperial grand strategy."

During the 2006 Israeli destruction of Lebanon, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice observed that the birth pangs of a new democratic order entailed pain. In the region, millions are dead who should be alive today. Her predecessor, Madeline Albright, candidly said the death of half-a-million Iraqi children due to Western-imposed sanctions was worth it. And today, Israeli outrages are condoned and threats of "severe consequences" are in the air again. The current US administration rejected the Goldstone Report on crimes committed during the January 2009 Israeli assault on Gaza. Is this leadership in a war on terror?

The latest Obama security strategy claims to put the Bush Doctrine aside. This will need to be reflected in policies on the ground. When the Mujahideen were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan they were proclaimed by President Reagan to be "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers." A few years later they were on the receiving end of Clinton's cruise missiles. Similarly, Osama bin Laden was once an ally of the US and the CIA. Gulbadin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani were also once the rough diamonds of a jihad seen as freedom struggle, while today they are the villains of a jihad seen as terrorism. So who is a terrorist depends on whose team you are playing for at any particular time: ours or theirs.

Is a War On Terror a legal phenomenon? Or a media name for a policy? Like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs? What is an "unlawful combatant"? It is neither known to international law nor mentioned in any of the Geneva Conventions. Can there be a category of human beings without any legal or human rights?

The Nuremberg Tribunal established the precedent that a war crime pertained only to acts exclusively committed by the defeated party, and not to acts that were committed by both the defeated and the victorious parties, and never to acts perpetrated only by the winning side. As a result, today, the US, the UK, Israel, etc., may commit errors, but never crimes. Only enemies do that. Also at Nuremburg aggression was defined as "the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

There is the correct view that the Iraq invasion of 2003 was not authorised by the UN Security Council and was, accordingly, aggression. There is also the mistaken view that the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the UN, and was therefore a just war. The truth is different. The UN Security Council condemned the 9/11 attacks and called on states to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of terrorist acts. It also reiterated the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence. None of this constituted an authorisation of the use of force. It was also aggression.

Since 9/11 there has been an effort to conflate legitimate armed resistance to military occupation and repression, with terrorism. This is legally untenable. In December 1987, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution denouncing terrorism, adding: "Nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence" of a people forcibly deprived of that right. A liberation struggle for this right is not terrorism.

Armed resistance should not, however, be resorted to unless all peaceful options for a settlement have been exhausted, or is in response to repression. Even so, acts of terror can never be condoned. Equally, advocates of a War on Terror who ignore the root causes of conflict and human rights situations abet terror on two counts: one, through the violence and terror involved in the War on Terror itself and, two, through the inevitable terror it provokes in response. It is nonsense to suggest there can be a case for a good side to commit terrorist acts in the name of combating terror.

In Afghanistan, does the civilian population, particularly in targeted areas, believe counter-terror operations are carried out with their interests in mind? Or do they see them as adding to their misery and suffering? How do they react to drone attacks, killings, collateral damage, night raids, disappearances? They see all of this as the essence of terror itself. Is the new Obama Doctrine going to make a difference in their sufferings and perceptions? Kandahar will show.

If it does, there should be a positive spillover effect in Pakistan. If not, the US will keep asking Pakistan to do more in support of a policy that has no future–and the gap of mutual suspicion, resentment and recrimination will continue to widen. Any US "gains" will be measured in terms of horrific suffering for the peoples of the region. Pakistan has to make efficient choices in the interests of its own people, something its wretched rulers have never done and today look less inclined than ever to do. Pakistanis will have to ensure their criminally corrupt ruling elite do not continue to destroy their future. Among the many challenges they will face are the policies of the leaders of the War on Terror.

In conclusion, terrorism is of many kinds and the overwhelming preponderance of it is state-conducted and -supported terror. A War on Terror which ignores root causes is an exercise in double standards and hypocrisy, and causes terror. Accordingly, foreign military control and occupation must end if terrorism is to significantly decline. It does not assist good governance. Proper compensation to victims of the War on Terror must be promptly paid. Reconciliation and accountability procedures must be put in place. Good governance and massive reconstruction and rehabilitation programs must become major international and domestic priorities.



The writer is Pakistan's former envoy to the US and India. Email: ashrafjqazi@yahoo.com