Other nations find 'terrorist' label useful

America's zero-tolerance policy against terrorism is being adopted by other countries confronting protracted internal or regional conflicts - sometimes with negative consequences.

So far in Afghanistan, the US has demonstrated that blunt force can produce results. Now, other countries are tracing the American template: They're defining their own conflicts with a much heavier emphasis on "terrorism," and - as the US did with Afghanistan's Taliban regime - they're issuing ultimatums to adversaries to either topple "their" terrorists, or face war.

Israel, for example, lost little time after President Bush made the war on terrorism his central priority before it began labeling Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat a "terrorist." Russian President Vladimir Putin has made clear that he expects greater international understanding now of his country's equation of Chechen separatists with terrorists.

And now, India is seeking an international label for rival neighbor Pakistan - a key US ally in the war on terrorism - as a "terrorist state."

India's campaign in particular is forcing the US into a tricky diplomatic dance - and raising questions about how broadly the war on terrorism should be defined.

Just how the "terrorism" label is used could have far-reaching consequences. In some cases, it could provide a cover for internal crackdowns on dissident or minority groups. The label could also become the first step in ratcheting up already-dangerous cross-border conflicts.

As India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, sit on the brink of war, India is taking every opportunity to draw parallels between its conflict with Pakistan and the war on terrorism. It is taking that message to Washington, where its Home (Interior) Minister L.K. Advani was to meet with Secretary of State Colin Powell yesterday.

"India's strategy to deal with the situation, as expressed by the prime minister, is that it will be a decisive fight against terrorism," Mr. Advani said before leaving India Monday.

India's strategy highlights one of the pitfalls of a war against something that - as evil as it may be - remains subject to interpretation. "There's an open-ended element to the definition of terrorism, and that leaves it open to political manipulation," says David Phillips, deputy director of the Center for Preventive Action of the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "It gives license to any country to label its opponents and enemies as terrorists."

With Washington's "singular focus" on the war on terrorism, he adds, it's unlikely any country claiming to follow the American lead "is going to have its feet held to the fire for excesses."

Page: 1 | 2