JAIPUR: The official silence between India and Pakistan notwithstanding, the two countries remain in close touch, keeping communication channels open between foreign secretaries and NSAs, revealed foreign secretary, S Jaishankar to a counter-terrorism meet here. "It is only on the basis of remaining in touch that progress can happen on these issues."
On Tuesday, NSA Ajit Doval, addressing the same conference, highlighted the importance of keeping terrorism at the crux of discussions with Pakistan.
Outlining India's diplomatic approach to countering terrorism, both at the conceptual level and in its neighbourhood, Jaishankar stressed how the positive relationship with Bangladesh had helped both countries move against terrorism on India's eastern flank. "We have had problems with Myanmar, and have had some discussions with them. There is now a greater receptivity and response to our concerns. Terror a attacks from there will come down..."
India is moving towards a "whole of government" approach in countering terrorism, which means the government is attempting to integrate its various departments and agencies in a concerted battle against terror. Outlining the diplomatic steps taken by India in recent years, foreign secretary S Jaishankar told a counter-terrorism meet here this was reflected in the response to recent terror attacks as well as the appointment of a special envoy for counter-terrorism.
The world, he says now has conventions forbidding possession and use of chemical and biological weapons and limiting the use of nuclear weapons. Why is it so difficult to delegitimise the use of terror as state policy? This is due to the presence of "non-state actors, which he says sometimes reflects governance deficits, but more often is an "escape clause".
Since it is difficult for such actors to sustain themselves without the support of states, "If we can move in the direction of a state-centred regime based on strict responsibility and accountability, that would certainly have a major impact on the freedom of non-state actors to propagate, operate and perpetrate."
Just like the world outlawed and made difficult, physically to and morally, the use of chemical weapons and restricted the use of nuclear weapons, Jaishankar said, "we are, I believe, in that phase of deliberation today where the aim could be a consensus among the states of the international community to outlaw terrorism and delegitimize it as a tool of politics."
There are certain global frameworks already in place which could be the building blocks for such an international response. "The embryo of building such response exists in frameworks like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that sets standards with respect to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Or the Egmont Group, which is an informal network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIU). Others such as the al-Qaida, Taliban and ISIS Sanctions Committee of the UNSC are also relevant instruments."
But the world is still far away from such a consensus, even though it has become more and more difficult for countries to justify acts and groups of terror. "We have seen in the 1267 Committee and sometimes even in the FATF how specious arguments are advanced to block action on ostensibly technical grounds. But as the footprint of terrorism expands and assumptions of immunity erode, this is going to be harder to sustain."
On Tuesday, NSA Ajit Doval, addressing the same conference, highlighted the importance of keeping terrorism at the crux of discussions with Pakistan.
Outlining India's diplomatic approach to countering terrorism, both at the conceptual level and in its neighbourhood, Jaishankar stressed how the positive relationship with Bangladesh had helped both countries move against terrorism on India's eastern flank. "We have had problems with Myanmar, and have had some discussions with them. There is now a greater receptivity and response to our concerns. Terror a attacks from there will come down..."
India is moving towards a "whole of government" approach in countering terrorism, which means the government is attempting to integrate its various departments and agencies in a concerted battle against terror. Outlining the diplomatic steps taken by India in recent years, foreign secretary S Jaishankar told a counter-terrorism meet here this was reflected in the response to recent terror attacks as well as the appointment of a special envoy for counter-terrorism.
The world, he says now has conventions forbidding possession and use of chemical and biological weapons and limiting the use of nuclear weapons. Why is it so difficult to delegitimise the use of terror as state policy? This is due to the presence of "non-state actors, which he says sometimes reflects governance deficits, but more often is an "escape clause".
Since it is difficult for such actors to sustain themselves without the support of states, "If we can move in the direction of a state-centred regime based on strict responsibility and accountability, that would certainly have a major impact on the freedom of non-state actors to propagate, operate and perpetrate."
Just like the world outlawed and made difficult, physically to and morally, the use of chemical weapons and restricted the use of nuclear weapons, Jaishankar said, "we are, I believe, in that phase of deliberation today where the aim could be a consensus among the states of the international community to outlaw terrorism and delegitimize it as a tool of politics."
There are certain global frameworks already in place which could be the building blocks for such an international response. "The embryo of building such response exists in frameworks like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that sets standards with respect to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Or the Egmont Group, which is an informal network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIU). Others such as the al-Qaida, Taliban and ISIS Sanctions Committee of the UNSC are also relevant instruments."
But the world is still far away from such a consensus, even though it has become more and more difficult for countries to justify acts and groups of terror. "We have seen in the 1267 Committee and sometimes even in the FATF how specious arguments are advanced to block action on ostensibly technical grounds. But as the footprint of terrorism expands and assumptions of immunity erode, this is going to be harder to sustain."
No comments:
Post a Comment