In the post-9/11situation, successfully checking political violence and terrorism in Pakistan through preventative legal measures remains a challenge at both state and local levels. Anti-terrorism generally refers to passive, defensive, protective, or legal measures against terrorism. Efforts to deter terrorism may take the form of severe penalties under anti-terrorism laws, such as circulating descriptions or photographs of terrorists in the media, offering rewards for information, or might involve a naturally evolved deterrent.
Anti-terror laws crosscut boundaries between administration, constitution, criminal, immigration, military law, and laws of war within and beyond. That is, one cannot analyse the anti-terror regime of any state in isolation from its domestic environment that is composed of political, administrative, societal, and economic variables. Equivalent to this, the impact of the regional and the international factors cannot be minimised. The state reserves the right to make and amend laws for the security of its citizens. Rule of law is the key to the success of anti-terror mechanisms within the state. Anti-terror laws form a critical component of the comprehensive counterterrorism policy of the government. Public support, political will, and state capacity are vital in lessening the gap between anti-terrorism goals and their practice or implementation. September 11 soon changed the whole scenario of the anti-terrorism regime, not only for Pakistan, but for the whole world.
Pakistan’s regime was provided an opportunity and a challenge to strongly implement its anti-terror craft at home and in its bilateral, regional, and international interactions. Pakistan’s strategic location and influence on Afghanistan, its role in the US-led war on terrorism (WoT) implied changes in its domestic and global strategic posture.
By joining the international coalition, Pakistan became the frontline state in the WoT and enacted laws to ban extremist and militant groups that organised or participated in acts of violence both inside and outside the country.
As an immediate measure, an operation to expand the number of anti-terrorist courts was undertaken to strengthen existent anti-terror mechanisms. During September and October 2001, eleven new courts were established in the KP and four in Sindh.
By the end of October 2001, Pakistan had 41 anti-terror courts. In January 2002, Anti-terrorism Amendment was promulgated. This enhanced the single bench to three members of the anti-terror courts and introduced “military personnel” as a third member. The government held that this step was taken “to speed up the lengthy negotiation process.” Under the new law, “All terrorism cases will be transferred to the new courts .Courts will function until November 30 but can be extended .The entire “terrorist network” was to be targeted. People who aid and abet terrorists face possible death penalty. A person found guilty had the right to appeal.”
Anti-terrorism laws are essentially of preventative nature and work in combination with the political, military, and administrative aspects of the overall response to terrorism. To ensure that laws are implemented successfully depends on political will complemented by public support as well as institutional capacity. In the case of Pakistan, even application of anti-terror laws remains an unfulfilled objective.
In summary, the dilemma for policy makers remains how to deny breathing space to terrorists – legally, morally, socially, and politically. The mindset that favours violence as means to an end must be changed through investment into public education, social development, and political representation.
In short, to institute a cohesive anti-terror strategy on the sustained footing remains an uphill task for the present and future generation of policy makers and shakers alike.
MADIHA SAFDAR
Lahore
