Global Terrorism: 'Pre-emption' is the recourse

Dr VN Arora

In the wake of long drawn terror strikes, particularly the tragic events of 26/11 and a perceived threat from our neighboring country Pakistan, India has been forced to promulgate a New National Security Strategy. One critical element of this strategy is the concept of �Pre-emption�- the use of military force in advance of a first use of force by the adversary. In its New National Security Strategy purportedly discussed and approved by the Political Affair Committee on Sunday last, this critical element has been approved with a modifications � India may go for unilateral precision strikes if the situation warrants. It�s a contentious doctrine under International Law, the claim of a sovereign country to use pre-emptive course.

Although, traditional International Law required to be �an imminent danger of attack� before pre-emption would be permissible, the situation forces that �India must adapt the Concept of Imminent Threat to the capabilities and objectives of today�s adversary�. The world public opinion approves that Pakistan has become epicenter of Global Terrorism and its political objectives against India are also not under veil.

In fact greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction and more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves.

Under the U N Charter paradigm for the use of force, unilateral preemptive force without an eminent threat is clearly unlawful. But this charter framework is for the states. What about those outfits, which are controlled by �non state actors� and operating from adversary�s soil. I repeat by non state actors operating from adversary�s soil.

From the age of Kautilya to Machiavelli to Clausewitz to Quincy Wright phenomenon of war has been linked to politics but now the trend is deviating from the state. Horizontal expansion of terror strikes, globalization of violence and world discourse affecting peace and security is not on the line of age-old direction � the �direction of armed conflict�. The academics like us know that war is an act of violence which permits to carry on armed conflict by two or more states. But this act of violence now stands transformed into a Global phenomenon almost de-linked with politics.

Yes the phenomenon of present day terrorism called International Terrorism has transformed the concept of use of violence by state. If we accept Clausewitz�s famous dictum that war is politics by other means, then we ought to conceptualize terrorism as war by other means. Terrorism wages war by intimidation, by seeking to provoke mass fear and demoralization so as to undermine public confidence in governments and break the public will to resist. Terrorism applies violence for political ends.

The present day Terrorism manifests two frameworks. 1- Age old terrorism: Terrorists strikes inside or outside country for essentially national objectives. 2- Global Phenomenon: Not directed specifically against any territory or any regime but is transcendental in aiming to transform the belief system.

This new form of terrorism emanates from a belief system of one community, but seeks through mass violent means to transform the belief system of their targets; a belief system which is global. This new terrorism is essentially global in its purview rather than national or country specific. This is the reason world leaders landed one after another in Indian capital after 26/11.


The international peace and security have seldom felt so far away as it is today. Today the peace and security stands threatened worldwide. The impotence to understand the dynamics of conflict has paved the way for this monster � global terrorism. Now every suffering nation is busy in promulgating a pre-emptive policy having a shift from conflict prevention, diplomatic management and deterrence be it a developed country like U S or developing country India.

The discussion of peace and security today is stale. It is also dangerous. Though the dynamics of conflict since 1989 has vigorously changed but states still believe in mechanism of joint action. By using wrong mechanisms and by reacting to fear we are playing into the hands of those whose only skill is management of fear.

The need of doctrine to be used against Global Terrorism is: The macro violence can only be addressed through micro-control.