In contemporary global politics, the terms “terrorism” and “national interest” have been wielded with significant impact, often shaping international and national policies in profound ways. However, the absence of comprehensive definitions for these terms has led to their exploitation, resulting in both international conflicts and regional disputes.
One of the most significant issues in addressing terrorism is the lack of a universally accepted definition. Despite numerous attempts, no comprehensive definition has been formulated by the United Nations or any other international forum. Even the United States, a key player in the global war on terror, has not provided an official, all-encompassing definition. This ambiguity has allowed different actors to label groups, countries, and individuals as terrorists based on subjective criteria. Historically, the term “terrorism” has been applied selectively. For instance, Osama bin Laden and his associates were declared terrorists, followed by the Taliban. Subsequently, Iraq and Libya were also branded as terrorist states. This trend reflects a pattern where entities that oppose or challenge American interests are often labeled as terrorists, despite differing global perspectives.
The power dynamics in international politics, particularly the dominance of the United States, have further complicated the issue. The global community, influenced by American leadership, has largely aligned itself with the U.S. stance on terrorism, even though the term remains poorly defined. This has led to situations where actions, such as Israel’s military operations against Palestinians, are justified under the guise of combating terrorism. Innocent civilians, including children in Gaza, are often the victims, while the U.S. and U.K. support these actions, illustrating the double standards in the application of the term.
Similar to terrorism, the term “national interest” has been subject to significant misuse, particularly in Pakistan. Over the past fifty years, Pakistani rulers have invoked national interest to justify various actions, often without a clear or consistent definition. From Liaquat Ali Khan’s alignment with the United States to General Ayub Khan’s democratic reforms, and from Yahya Khan’s disastrous policies leading to the loss of East Pakistan to Zia-ul-Haq’s religious extremism, the term has been used to rationalize a wide range of political decisions. The exploitation of national interest reached new heights during Zia-ul-Haq’s regime, where religious extremism was promoted under the pretext of national interest. Pakistanis were sent to fight in Afghanistan, and political opponents like Benazir Bhutto were ousted from power. The creation of the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) and the rise of Nawaz Sharif were also justified in the name of national interest. However, these actions often served the personal or political agendas of those in power rather than the true national interest.
The inconsistency in defining national interest has continued into recent times. The support and subsequent abandonment of the Taliban, the rise of Imran Khan’s political movement, and its current suppression have all been justified as actions taken in national interest. This fluid and often contradictory use of the term raises concerns about its future implications.
The lack of clear definitions for terrorism and national interest has serious implications. Without a universally accepted definition, these terms can be manipulated to serve various agendas, leading to unjust actions and policies. The arbitrary labeling of groups as terrorists can justify military interventions and human rights violations, while the vague notion of national interest can be used to rationalize political oppression and corruption. If this trend continues, there is a danger that individuals and institutions will increasingly use national interest to justify their actions, no matter how egregious. For example, those who embezzle national funds might claim they did so for the sake of national interest. Similarly, terrorists might argue that their acts of violence were in the greater national interest. This could lead to a situation where the judicial system itself is compromised, with judges potentially acquitting criminals by citing national interest.
Moreover, the misuse of these terms can erode public trust in governmental institutions. When leaders and policymakers frequently invoke national interest to justify controversial or unpopular decisions, it creates cynicism and skepticism among the populace. Citizens may begin to question the legitimacy of government actions and the true motivations behind them, leading to social unrest and a breakdown in the social contract.
To prevent the misuse of these terms, it is imperative to develop clear and comprehensive definitions. The international community, particularly influential bodies like the United Nations, must lead efforts to define terrorism in a manner that is inclusive and universally acceptable. This definition should distinguish between legitimate freedom movements and acts of terror, ensuring that the term cannot be exploited to suppress legitimate political dissent or justify state-sponsored violence. A comprehensive definition of terrorism should address the root causes of violence, such as political oppression, economic inequality, and social injustice. By understanding and addressing these underlying issues, the international community can develop more effective strategies to prevent terrorism, rather than merely responding to its symptoms.
Similarly, the concept of national interest needs to be clearly defined within each country. In Pakistan, for example, a national dialogue involving intellectuals, policymakers, and civil society could help establish a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes national interest. This definition should be enshrined in law to prevent its misuse by political leaders and institutions.
Furthermore, the definition of national interest should reflect the broader goals of society, including economic development, social justice, and the protection of human rights. It should not be used as a tool for political manipulation or to justify actions that undermine these goals. A clear and comprehensive definition of national interest can help ensure that government policies are aligned with the true needs and aspirations of the people.
