A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Saturday, May 4, 2019
Post Parliamentary Election Scenario Developments In Maldives
Terrorists are aware that their success in executing sporadic attacks of retribution and fear depend on the ineptitude of governments and society in the manner they react to an existing threat
by Dr Ruwantissa Abeyratne-2019-05-03
Writing from Montreal
The above quote may not necessarily apply in reverse – that if one
scratches a terrorist, one would find an ideology. But on the other
hand, one might. Walter Lacqueur and Christopher Wall in their book The
Future of Tourism quote Professor David Rapoport – former academic at
the University of California, Los Angeles - as saying that terrorism is
not a new phenomenon and that it has occurred historically in four
waves: firstly in Europe targeting the Kings and the elite of the time; a
nationalist wave following the signing of the Treaty of Versailles(
signed on 28 June 1919 after World War 1) pushing for decolonization; a
terrorist wave supporting the Vietcong against the American war effort
in Vietnam in the Sixties; and the current wave carried out by radical
Islamists. Lacqueur and Wall go back into history to 66AD-73Ad when the
Sicarii – a group pursuing the struggle for Palestine - launched
surprise attacks randomly spaced out during holidays and during daytime,
as possibly the start of the phenomenon.
A terrorist act is one which is mala in se or evil by nature and has
been associated with the political repression of the French Revolution
era where, it is said, the word terrorism was coined. A terrorist is a
hostis humani generis or common enemy of humanity. The U.S. Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines terrorism as “the use of
force or violence against persons or property in violation of the
criminal laws of the United States for purposes of intimidation,
coercion, or ransom”.
International terrorism has so far not been defined comprehensively largely due to the fact that owing to its diversity of nature the concept itself has defied precise definition. However, this does not preclude the conclusion that international terrorism involves two factors. They are: the commission of a terrorist act by a terrorist or terrorists; the “international” element involved in the act or acts in question, i.e., that the motivation for the commission of such act or acts or the eventual goal of the terrorist should inextricably be linked with a country other than that in which the act or acts are committed.
International terrorism has so far not been defined comprehensively largely due to the fact that owing to its diversity of nature the concept itself has defied precise definition. However, this does not preclude the conclusion that international terrorism involves two factors. They are: the commission of a terrorist act by a terrorist or terrorists; the “international” element involved in the act or acts in question, i.e., that the motivation for the commission of such act or acts or the eventual goal of the terrorist should inextricably be linked with a country other than that in which the act or acts are committed.
Looking at these definitions one could only surmise that they are
generic and general in nature. In the context of the current wave of
terrorism identified by Professor Rapoport - the series of acts carried
out by radical Islamists – and the acknowledgement of ISIS that it is
responsible for the recent attacks in Sri Lanka, one could refer to the
ISIS journal Dabiq which reflects that their hatred is primarily aimed
at disbelievers who reject the oneness of Allah and also blaspheme him
by claiming Allah has a son; those who fabricate lies about prophets and
messengers; those who indulge in unacceptable practices; those who, in
their secular liberal societies permit the things Allah has prohibited;
atheists who disbelieve in the existence of Allah; those who commit
crimes against Islam; those who commit crimes against Muslims; and those
who invade lands of Muslims. It is unquestionable that the overall
philosophy here is international in nature.
Terrorists are aware that their success in executing sporadic attacks of
retribution and fear depend on the ineptitude of governments and
society in the manner they react to an existing threat. They are adept
at evaluating the strength and weaknesses of governments and the absence
of charismatic leadership.
Acts of international terrorism that have been committed over the past
two decades are too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say, that the
most deleterious effect of the offense is that it exacerbates
international relations and endangers international security. From the
isolated incidents of the sixties, international terrorism has
progressed to becoming a concentrated assault on nations and
organizations that are usually susceptible to political conflict,
although politics is not always the motivation of the international
terrorist. International terrorism has been recognized to engulf acts of
aggression by one State on another as well as by an individual or a
group of individuals of one State on another State. The former typifies
such acts as invasion, while the latter relates to such individual acts
of violence as hijacking and the murder of civilians in isolated
instances. In both instances, the duties of the offender-State have been
emphatically recognized. Such duties are to condemn such acts and take
necessary action.
The responsibility of governments in acting against offences committed
by private individuals may sometimes involve condonation or ineptitude
in taking effective action against terrorist acts. The United Nations
General Assembly, on 9 December 1999, adopted the International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ratified
by Sri Lanka in September 2000), aimed at enhancing international
co-operation among States in devising and adopting effective measures
for the prevention of the financing of terrorism, as well as for its
suppression through the prosecution and punishment of its perpetrators.
The Convention, in its Article 2 recognizes that any person who by any
means directly or indirectly, unlawfully or, provides or collects funds
with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that
they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out any act
which constitutes an offence under certain named treaties, commits an
offence. One of the treaties cited by the Convention is the
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings,
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 15 December
1997 (Sri Lanka ratified this Convention on 23 March 1999).
The Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism also
provides that, over and above the acts mentioned, providing or
collecting funds toward any other act intended to cause death or serious
bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an
active part in the hostilities in the situation of armed conflict, when
the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a
population, or to compel a government or an international organization
to do or to abstain from doing any act, would be deemed an offence under
the Convention.
The most pragmatic approach to the problem lies in identifying the
parameters of the offense of international terrorism and seeking a
solution to the various categories of the offense. To obtain a precise
definition would be unwise, if not impossible. Once the offense and its
parasitic qualities are clearly identified, it would become necessary to
discuss briefly its harmful effects on the international community. It
is only then that a solution can be discussed that would obviate the
fear and apprehension we suffer in the face of this threat.
The author is a former senior official of the United Nations system.