Foreign Correspondence

[fuagf]

‘War on terror’ termed misleading notion
Meena Menon

British Foreign Secretary distances his country from U.S.-led campaign label


British Foreign Secretary David Miliband being welcomed
by Tata Group Chairman Ratan Tata on his arrival for an
interactive talk “After Mumbai, Beyond the War on Terror”
at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai on Thursday. —

MUMBAI: In an indictment of the controversial U.S.-led “war on terror” in which Britain was in cohorts with it, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said the phrase was misleading and based on a mistaken notion. Historians would judge whether the “war” had done more harm than good, he remarked, addressing a gathering of Mumbai’s leading citizens at the Taj Mahal Hotel on Thursday.

Still insisting that the phrase “war on terror” had some merit, Mr. Miliband said that for a couple of years now the British government had used neither the idea nor the usage. He said terrorism was not invented or started on 9/11. But since then the notion of a “war on terror” has defined the terrain. “It captured the gravity of the threats that we face, the need for solidarity amongst allies and the need to respond urgently and where necessary with force.”

“The issue is not whether we need to attack the use of terror at its roots, with all the tools available to us. We must. The question is how best we do so,” he told the audience, which included industrialist Ratan Tata. The Taj hotel reopened last month after the terror attack.

The call for a “war on terror” was a call to arms, he said, an attempt to build solidarity by portraying a fight against a single shared enemy. He believed the foundation for solidarity between people and nations should be based on the values they shared instead of who they are against. “The notion of a war on terror gave the impression of a unified, transnational enemy, embodied in the figure of Osama Bin Laden and the organisation of Al-Qaeda. In fact, as India has long known, the forces of violent extremism remain diverse. Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology,” Mr. Miliband explained.
The tools

In the fight against terror, he said one needs to use all tools. “We need a political process,” he said. He emphasised that the war on terror implied a belief that the correct response to the terrorist threat was primarily a military one: to track down and kill a hardcore of extremists. “But as General [David] Petraeus [the U.S. General who led action in Iraq] said to me and the others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife.”

He advocated a path of cooperation between India and Pakistan instead of confrontation. The governments of India and Pakistan have in recent years sought to establish a new relationship based on shared interests, he said. He knew from his own conversations with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari that he was equally keen to change the relationship for the better.

Three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots currently under investigation in the U.K. have links to terrorists in Pakistan. “So what is at stake is not just the security of this region, but the security of us all,” he said. The Lashkar-e-Taiba needs to be tackled at the roots. He said that in Islamabad [where he would be on Friday], he would emphasise that there must be zero tolerance for such organisations.

He commended the Indian government for showing “good sense” and refusing to be drawn into any rhetoric of isolation or retaliation. He said the trial for the November 26 attack can take place in Pakistan.

In response to questions, he clarified that the Pakistan government wants to prosecute the culprits on the basis of its own evidence. In the last six months in Pakistan the judiciary and the lawyers had showed a lot of independence. “We should hold the government to their promises.”

He expressed the sympathy and support of the British people and the British government for the people of Mumbai.

Mr. Miliband praised the staff members of the hotel for risking their lives to protect the guests.

He commended India’s and Mumbai’s response to the terror attacks, and said it was exactly the opposite of what the terrorists would have wanted.

By refusing to be cowed and quickly resuming their daily lives, the people of Mumbai have shown remarkable strength and courage, just as the people of London did in July 2005 [after a terror attack].

Democracies must respond to terrorism by championing the rule of law, not subordinating it, he said.

“If we want to promote the politics of consent instead of terror and of democratic opportunity rather than fear and oppression, we must uphold our commitments to human rights and civil liberties both at home and abroad. That is surely the lesson of Guantanamo and it is why we welcome President-elect Obama’s clear commitment to close it.”

http://www.hindu.com/2009/01/16/stories/2009011655091200.htm