As we remember the victims of terrorism, offer homage to millions of innocent people who have perished, terrorists continue to strike at will, utilizing the latest that technology has to offer such as missiles and drones, which extend the reach of their attacks. Terrorist groups are taking full advantage to consolidate their networks making the spread of propaganda and recruitment easier. The acts of violence carried out by lone individuals or small, non-state groups of people, bring great tragedy into other people’s lives. At the same time it must be acknowledged that even greater damage is done when terrorism is state-sponsored. Terrorism of any kind destroys efforts to establish peace among nations. Terrorism is rooted in every human being’s need to belong to a group of peers. In these times it has become ideologically acceptable to indiscriminately murder innocents to meet a terrorist’s goal.

Every year hundreds of people are killed through suicide attacks resulting in untold pain and destruction. The terrorists, like the egotist, somehow cannot consider the feelings or the life of others as important. They require instant, exact and complete obedience to their orders and tenets, as verified by the actions of human suicide bombers. Part of the background to the current waves of terrorism is the lack of a proper balance between the liberty of the individual and the needs of society. The rights of an individual to act as he or she wishes can never be absolute. Such craving for extreme freedom leads to sedition and overstepping of the bounds of propriety, while it debases the individual to depravity and wickedness. Even when the cause which the terrorist group espouses is driven by a sense of injustice, there is no real justification for the acts of violence. A United Nations Convention for prevention of terrorism is still a work in progress. In addition to treaties that address particular manifestations of terrorism, the international community has endeavored to develop treaties that address terrorism on a more inclusive basis. India first proposed this convention in 1996.

It has been pushing for the treaty consistently at the sessions of the UN General Assembly, in 2014 and again in 2016. Although consensus has not yet been reached for the wording of the comprehensive terrorism convention, discussions have yielded three separate protocols that aim to tackle terrorism: the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, adopted on 15 December 1997; the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, adopted on 9 December 1999; and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, adopted on 13 April 2005 The negotiations are deadlocked because of differences over the definition of terrorism. The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues. For example, what distinguishes a “terrorist organization” from a ‘liberation movement’? Does it exclude activities of national armed forces, even if they are perceived to commit acts of terrorism? If not, how much of this constitutes ‘state terrorism’? Even so, national governments must make these rules work.

In a system of sovereign states, the role of the UN organization in checking or reversing these human rights abuses remains severely limited and largely dependent upon the political will of the member states. As a consequence, part of the price paid for protecting national security against threats posed by cross border terrorism may well be the curtailment of some human rights and civil liberties within the liberal democratic state. Religion is also frequently used by terrorists as an excuse for their actions, despite the fact that every religion forbids murder, and demands that individuals live in harmony. Until some sort of world laws are established, terrorism can never be eliminated. And different states around the world will continue to offer refuge, supply, finance, train and sponsor terrorist groups for their own ends. Citizens in every country repeatedly voice their readiness for peace and an end to the tormenting trails in their daily lives.

Yet in the same breath uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and therefore incapable of building a social system that is progressive, harmonious, and peaceful. In order to move forward, humanity must overcome this fundamental contradiction; it demands a reassessment of the assumptions upon which the commonly held view of humankind’s historical predicament is based. It also calls for understanding the true nature of human beings and the moral imperatives that should govern the functioning of global community. Such an understanding will enable all people to set in motion constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human nature and would encourage harmony and cooperation instead of conflict and war. The UN system must evolve into a world super-state in whose favour all the member-states would willingly secede every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such aspirations should not be dismissed as utopian ideas.

There is no other alternative. The world’s leadership must take affirmative action at this juncture when efforts at ending the war between Ukraine, supported by Nato, and Russia threatens to escalate into World War III. Time is running out, all the forces of history are impelling humankind to take immediate action. Freedom from terrorism is just one important element in the larger scheme of things – climate emergency, unprecedented economic crisis, massive social breakdown, to list just a few.

Whether collective security among all nations is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. It is my firm optimistic conviction that root causes of international terrorism can be curbed not through constant conflicts among nations and within each sovereign state but by enforceable world law, effective global governance and peace education.