Global Terrorism: With Reference To Narendra Modi, Jacinda

Ardern And Donald Trump’s Policies To Fight Terrorism

A PROJECT ON TRANSNATIONAL CRIMES

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Parvesh Kumar Rajput Toshan Chandrakar

(Faculty, Criminal Law (Hons.)) Semester: VIII (A)

Roll no: 182

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH

Date of Submission: 08/04/2019

I
 DECLARATION

I, Toshan Chandrakar, hereby declare that this project report entitled ‘Global Terrorism: With
Reference To Narendra Modi, Jacinda Ardern And Donald Trump’s Policies To Fight
Terrorism’ submitted to Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur is record under original
work done by me and that no part of this work has been plagiarized without citations.

Toshan Chandrakar

Semester- VIII

Roll No- 182

II
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I, Toshan Chandrakar, feel myself highly exulted to come out with the work ‘Global Terrorism:
With Reference To Narendra Modi, Jacinda Ardern And Donald Trump’s Policies To
Fight Terrorism’ as it gives me tremendous pleasure of having done thorough research on the
subject to present in a comprehensive manner.

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to my guide Dr
Pravesh Kumar Rajput for his exemplary guidance and constant encouragement throughout the
course of this work.

Toshan Chandrakar

Semester- VIII

Roll No 182

III
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Project work entitled ‘Global Terrorism: With Reference To
Narendra Modi, Jacinda Ardern And Donald Trump’s Policies To Fight Terrorism’ is a
bonafide record of independent research work done by Mr. Toshan Chandrakar, bonafide student
at Hidayatullah National Law University, under my supervision and submitted to the University
for the academic session 2018-2019.

IV
 Table Of Contents

DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................................... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ III
CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................................................................. IV
Table Of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... V
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1: Jacinda Ardern: An inspiration in the face of terrorism .............................................................. 3
1.1 The Way Forward For New Zealand: Gun Control Bill Expected To Become Law Within Weeks....... 5
Chapter 2: A closer inspection of Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy ................................................. 6
Chapter 3: Narendra Modi and Terrorism: A perspective after Pulwama.................................................. 10
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 13

V
Introduction

In 2016, deaths resulting from terrorism decreased by 13 per cent to 25,673. Deaths have now
fallen by 22 per cent from the peak in 2014. There has also been an increase in the number of
countries that improved their GTI score: 79 countries improved while 58 countries deteriorated.
Some countries, including Nigeria and Pakistan saw large improvements. However, overall the
index deteriorated because the countries that deteriorated did so by a much larger degree than
those that improved. The decline in deaths is encouraging but 2016 was still the third deadliest
year for terrorism since 2000 with a nearly eight-fold increase in the number of deaths over this
time period.

ISIL was the deadliest terrorist group in 2016 and killed 50 per cent more people than in 2015.
The year 2016 was the group‟s deadliest year ever with ISIL accountable for 9,132 deaths; the
majority of which occurred in Iraq. ISIL undertook attacks in 15 countries, which is four more
than the previous year. ISIL affiliated groups killed a further 2,417 people and undertook attacks
in another 11 countries, although this is six less than the previous year.

On 15 March 2019, two mosques in Christchurch were attacked by a gunman. The shootings
killed 50 people and injured 50 others, making this the deadliest mass shooting in New Zealand
history. Two improvised explosive devices were found attached to a car and were subsequently
disabled. A 28-year-old Australian man and white supremacist was arrested and charged with
murder. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern described the shootings as a terror attack.

On 14 February 2019, a convoy of vehicles carrying security personnel on the Jammu Srinagar
National Highway was attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber at Lethpora in the Pulwama
district, Jammu and Kashmir, India. The attack resulted in the deaths of 40 Central Reserve
Police Force (CRPF) personnel and the attacker. The responsibility for the attack was claimed by
the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed. The attacker was Adil Ahmad
Dar, a local from Pulwama district, and a member of Jaish-e-Mohammed.

In US, the lack of gun control laws has caused several attacks of terrorism. The Florida School
shooting was one such incident. Other school shootings have also been reported in the recent

1
years under Trump administration. The Project takes a look of the respective incidents and their
leaders‟ reactions in those events.

1.1 Statement Of The Problem

The project deals with the question of Terrorism in the modern world taking into account 3 major
and recent countries faced with terrorism and tries to analyse the policies of the governments and
takes an in depth approach towards the problem.

1.2 Aim & Objectives

To analyse and discuss and put up a picture of laws and policies in three different administrations
of three different countries in three different continents.

1.3 Chapterisation

Chapter 1: Jacinda Ardern: An inspiration in the face of terrorism

Chapter 2: A closer inspection of Trump‟s new counterterrorism strategy

Chapter 3: Narendra Modi and Terrorism: A perspective after Pulwama

1.4 Research Methodology

Doctrinal research includes studying books and established literature and not actually going to
the field and doing empirical research. Source of research work: The sources of this project are
both primary (bare acts, statutes, etc) and secondary sources (books given by different authors,
journals, internet, etc).

2
Chapter 1: Jacinda Ardern: An inspiration in the face of terrorism

The FBI cites three factors that have contributed to terrorism: the internet, social media and
homegrown violent extremists. All of those factors were present in the recent bloodbath of 50
Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, perpetrated by a 28-year-old Australian white
supremacist.

Terrorism is difficult to define, but it has one aim — to intimidate and create fear in the public. It
ignores borders and laws and uses different players and targets at different times. The rise of
white supremacy, driven by right wing populism and targeted at Muslims, hopes to divide
progressive societies. Shockingly, in pandering to that right wing, some politicians are unwilling
to confront facts.

The 38-year-old prime minister of New Zealand was having none of any duplicity. She did not
flinch from calling out white supremacy or Islamophobia. And she went further.

She gave the victims a collective and poignant voice by saying, “They are us.”

With three simple words, Jacinda Ardern raised the leadership bar for politicians dealing with
terrorism. Her inclusivity and compassion, similar to the values of progressives like Barack
Obama and Justin Trudeau, starkly contrasts with leaders who vow revenge or even worse, like
Donald Trump, deny that white supremacy is a growing threat.

Ardern did not falter. Donning a hijab as she mourned with the Muslim community, she inspired
many New Zealand women to do likewise in solidarity with the mourners.

She also instinctively knew that words and gestures were not enough.

Her decision making was strong and swift. Gun reform legislation is expected by April 11 and in
the meantime, the purchase of military style weapons and assault weapons are restricted.

A Royal Commission was quickly announced, which will examine how the attacks may have
been prevented. She further understood that “people want answers” and want to ascertain
whether the activity of the terrorist, whom she refuses to name, was someone “we should have
known about.”

3
She even managed to send another message to Trump when he asked how he could help. She
replied with “sympathy and love for all Muslim communities.”

Canada is no stranger to Islamophobia. Two years ago, we were confronted with a hate filled
slaughter of six Muslims at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City. The vicious act injured
many others. Alexandre Bissonnette, 27 at the time, was recently sentenced to 40 years in prison.

Therefore, it was surprising that Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer initially failed to
mention that Muslims were killed at Christchurch. His first tweets condemned the “vile hatred,”
but unlike Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh, who condemned Islamophobia, Scheer seemed
reluctant. Was this a dog whistle to his right-wing supporters? After criticism from some of his
own party members, Scheer later released a fulsome statement, which said that “we stand with
our Muslim brothers and sisters.”

Like Canada, New Zealand has a big, brawling neighbour, Australia, where the terrorist grew up.
Ardern also had to quickly respond to an Australian senator who blamed the Christchurch attack
on the immigration programs that allow Muslim “fanatics” to come to our countries. Ardern
called such comments “a disgrace.”

Finally, Ardern had to deal with the intensely cruel dimension of the live streaming of the
murders in the first mosque. Although Facebook has now banned white nationalism and white
separatism comments linked to organized hate groups, Ardern wants to go further. She is calling
for a co-ordinated global effort to tackle extremist material.

Her own roots have given her courage. New Zealand was the first country that granted all
women the right to vote in 1893 and she is already the third female prime minister. Elected as the
youngest MP in 2008, Ardern calls herself a small town, rural girl. Raised as a Mormon, her
father was a police officer and her mother a school cafeteria worker.

Terrorism is hard to define. It reinvents itself in many ways. It finds new ways of attempting to
intimidate. But one thing is clear — there is no wiggle room for opaque messages by politicians
to make it easy for the haters.

4
Only inspiring leadership can confront terrorism of any form. Jacinda Ardern has just shown us
the way.

1.1 The Way Forward For New Zealand: Gun Control Bill Expected To Become
Law Within Weeks

New Zealand's government has introduced legislation that would ban most semi-automatic
firearms, including the types of weapons used in shootings at two Christchurch mosques that
killed 50 people.

The bill's introduction marks the next step in passing gun control reform announced by Prime
Minister Jacinda Ardern following the March 15 attacks. Days after the shooting, Ardern vowed
that "every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack last Friday" would be banned.

New Zealand immediately imposed some gun control measures on March 21. Police Minister
Stuart Nash says the bill under consideration now, which is a broader ban, would go into effect
on April 12 if it passes. That legislation reportedly has support across party lines.

"This will mean that within four weeks of the Christchurch terrorist attack, New Zealand will
have passed legislation banning all military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles,"
said deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters.

The Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill, introduced by
Nash, would make it illegal to own certain parts that can be used to assemble prohibited
weapons. Nash said 1st April, 2019 that the gunman in the Christchurch attacks created military-
style weapons from legally purchased semi-automatic guns and high-capacity magazines.

"The loophole that this terrorist used to kill 50 people was totally unacceptable," Nash said,
according to The Associated Press. "We're closing that down."

In addition to banning most semi-automatic firearms, the bill also prohibits the sale, import,
supply or possession of pump-action shotguns that can be used with detachable magazines or that
hold more than five cartridges. It excludes pistols, as well as some guns — "small-calibre rimfire
semi-automatic firearms and lesser-capacity shotguns" — often used by farmers and hunters. The

5
measure also provides exemptions for groups such as "bona fide collectors of firearms" and pest
controllers.

The bill provides amnesty covering the surrender of firearms, magazines and parts through Sept.
30. Ardern has said the government will create a buyback scheme to compensate owners of
banned firearms, a program that could cost up to 200 million New Zealand dollars (about $137
million).

Following reports over the weekend that the New Zealand gang Mongrel Mob would not turn in
illegal firearms; Peters said that there would be "consequences" for anyone who did not conform
to the law.

"Our message is, yes, you will be handing them back," he said.

New Zealand police said in a statement on 1st April, that 211 firearms have been handed in since
March 15 and that some people handed in their guns before the government announced any
proposed changes to the law. But that's just a fraction of thousands of firearms in the country
covered under the ban, as NPR's Rob Schmitz has reported.

The bill is set to have its first reading on April 2 and then head to the Finance and Expenditure
Committee, New Zealand newspaper Stuff reports. A second tranche of gun control measures,
including a weapons registry, is expected later this year.

Chapter 2: A closer inspection of Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy

In his 2016 election campaign, then-candidate Trump emphasized the threat of terrorism, and
counterterrorism is now a significant part of US foreign policy. Despite this focus, the
administration‟s National Strategy for Counterterrorism (the first since 2011) was released in
October without much attention.

No one was talking about terrorism when President Donald Trump sought to remind Americans
about it earlier this month, warning without evidence that a migrant caravan in Central America
headed toward the U.S. border had been infiltrated by “unknown Middle Easterners.”

6
It was a short-lived attempt to revive fears about Islamic terrorism, one quickly turned upside-
down by two major domestic attacks with no apparent links beyond America‟s borders, and
which Trump has struggled to address politically.

While the radicals of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, were an ideal foil for Trump during
his 2016 campaign — when he fired up supporters with talk of ruthless airstrikes, a Muslim ban
and even torture — he now finds himself awkwardly confronting a homegrown threat for which
critics say he bears some responsibility, and which defies the simple-sounding solutions he
offered for fighting ISIS.

In political terms, Trump has been a victim of his own success: The multinational military
campaign launched against ISIS in 2014 has succeeded in devastating the radical terrorist
group‟s infrastructure and has recaptured nearly all the territory ISIS once controlled in Syria and
Iraq. The pace of the group‟s attacks in Europe and the U.S. has dramatically slowed.

Americans have not witnessed a major foreign-directed terrorist attack on U.S. soil for more than
a year, when an ISIS sympathizer drove a truck into pedestrians on a bike path along New
York‟s Hudson River on Halloween 2017, killing eight people.

“We haven‟t had a major attack in a year,” said Seth Jones, a terrorism expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, who has advised U.S. government officials on
counterterrorism. “I don‟t think foiled plots or arrests sell.”

But that has also deprived Trump of a political theme that he used to powerful effect in 2015 and
2016, when grisly ISIS-planned and -inspired attacks — from a November 2015 massacre at the
Bataclan nightclub in Paris to a mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., the next month —
instilled fear across Europe and the U.S., and Trump insisted that campaign rivals of both parties
weren‟t up to the task of protecting Americans from maniacal foreigners.

Trump himself has said that fear of ISIS was crucial to his political rise — as he explained to
supporters after winning several major GOP primaries on March 15, 2016.

“Something happened called Paris. Paris happened,” Trump said, while explaining how he had
come to dominate the GOP field. “And then we had a case in Los Angeles,” he added, in
reference to the ISIS-inspired San Bernardino shooting that left 14 people dead.

7
“And what happened with me was this whole run took on a whole new meaning … And the
meaning was very simple: We need protection in our country, and that‟s going to happen.”

“And all of a sudden,“ Trump added, “the poll numbers just shot up.”

Seeing a winning issue, candidate Trump talked about ISIS constantly, vowing to “knock the hell
out of” the sadistic terror group, and attacking his rivals for alleged weakness in confronting it.
Trump argued the ISIS threat warranted extreme measures that only Trump himself dared to
propose. “They chop off heads and they drown people in cages with 50 in a cage in big steel
heavy cages, drop them right into the water, drown people — and we can‟t waterboard and we
can‟t do anything and we‟re playing on different fields,” Trump said in a typical comment to Fox
News in April 2016.

Fear of ISIS also formed the backdrop for one of Trump‟s signature campaign promises: A ban
on Muslims entering the U.S. “until we are able to determine and understand this problem and
the dangerous threat it poses,” as he put it in a December 2015 statement.

The ISIS threat also offered a convenient way to change the subject. Trump mentioned ISIS five
times during an October 2016 presidential debate in response to a question about a bombshell
2005 recording of Trump bragging about making unwanted advances on women.

The political effect of the recent package bombs mailed to several top Democrats and Saturday‟s
massacre at a synagogue in Pittsburgh remains hard to gauge. But with critics denouncing him
for stoking political, racial and ethnic tensions within the U.S., it seems unlikely to bring Trump
political gain.

And in contrast to his gleeful denunciations of ISIS and vows of punishing action in 2015 and
2016, over the past week Trump has recited careful statements about the recent attacks within the
U.S., but has shown little interest in discussing them at length, although Trump is scheduled to
visit to Pittsburgh on Tuesday. Nor has Trump offered any clear policy responses to the two
episodes.

As for ISIS, experts agree that its threat has been diminished, but they warn not to totally dismiss
the terrorist group.

8
“The Islamic State of today is a mere shadow of what it was in 2015 and 2016,” said Peter
Vincent, a counterterrorism expert and former Obama administration Department of Homeland
Security official. “They may be relatively small in numbers, but they remain extraordinarily
lethal and able to operate in small, cellular groups and continue to look for opportunities to
engage in terrorism.”

Vincent also warned against declaring that ISIS is defeated, as both Trump and those close to
him have done. Trump‟s son Eric recently told Trump supporters at a rally in Texas that “ISIS is
gone.”

“That is music to the ears of every ISIS leader, organizer, fighter and fundraiser, because that
takes the global emphasis off their proverbial efforts to rise like a phoenix from the ashes,”
Vincent said.

Analysts also say Trump deserves less of the credit for degrading ISIS than he has been
claiming. Much as many economists say that he inherited positive economic momentum from the
Obama administration, Trump also took office as U.S.-led forces were preparing for major
assaults on key ISIS strongholds, including the major Iraq city of Mosul, which fell in July 2017
after a military offensive that Trump originally ridiculed.

Without ISIS, Trump has found new foils and re-emphasized old favorites — from the media,
which he again called the “true enemy of the people” on Monday, to liberal billionaire George
Soros. In the run-up to the midterms, Trump has focused much of his attention on a caravan of
migrants traveling from Central America to the U.S.-Mexico border.

The president has drawn on similar themes in highlighting both issues, warning of the influence
of unknown others and playing on Americans‟ fears.

Instead of continuing to warn about “Middle Easterners” in the caravan, Trump has doubled
down on his insistence that there are criminals in the group, including members of the gang MS-
13, which the president has spotlighted in his immigration crusade.

“Many Gang Members and some very bad people are mixed into the Caravan heading to our
Southern Border,” Trump wrote on Twitter on Monday. “Please go back, you will not be

9
admitted into the United States unless you go through the legal process. This is an invasion of
our Country and our Military is waiting for you!”

There‟s evidence that the focus on immigrants is rallying Trump‟s base. When asked to rank
their anger about immigration on a scale of 1 to 10, Republicans 55 and older averaged a 7.9 in a
recent poll.

“Trump is capable of exploiting just about any kind of fear that people might have and will do so
at the drop of a hat,” said Daniel Benjamin, director of the John Sloan Dickey Center for
International Understanding at Dartmouth College and the State Department‟s former
coordinator for counterterrorism. “He‟s got elderly women in northern Minnesota worried that
immigrants are going to go up there and invade their home. He‟s doing just fine in scaring
people.”

While the rhetoric has changed over time, people close to the president say the strategy is the
same.

“He‟s looking for any ways to instill fear and anxiety. That was the hallmarks of the 2016
rhetoric: We are a country that is anxious that has a whole variety of things to fear because of the
failed rhetoric of the past,” a former White House official told POLITICO. “And he still believes
that fear and anxiety are the best motivators in terms of voting in elections.”

The official continued, “All of the immigration stuff, there are policy reasons behind it, but the
political reason behind it is the anxiety that people have about MS-13 and violence and crimes
and immigrants disrupting society.”

Chapter 3: Narendra Modi and Terrorism: A perspective after Pulwama

On 26 February, the Indian Air Force carried out an airstrike on terror camps belonging to Jaish-
e-Mohammed (JeM), the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group near Balakot. The strike came
12 days after JeM claimed responsibility for attacking an Indian Central Reserve Police Force
convoy in the Pulwama district in Kashmir that led to the death of 40 personnel.

The very next day, Pakistan launched a retaliatory airstrike in which, according to Indian
authorities, both sides lost an aircraft each and Pakistan captured the pilot of India‟s Mig-21

10
bison jet, Abhinandan Vathaman. These tit-for-tat attacks raised great concern amongst the
international community which feared a nuclear conflict in South Asia.

Although things quickly de-escalated with Pakistan immediately releasing Vathaman, the crisis
triggered an intense debate: did the Indian Government launch airstrikes merely to assuage
domestic outrage, or has New Delhi finally found the missing piece to its counterterrorism
strategy?

India has long borne the brunt of cross-border terrorism, but has never truly held perpetrators
accountable for their actions.

Since both their nuclearisation in the summer of May 1998, the two South Asian neighbours
have frequently come close to the brink of catastrophic stand-offs. The Kargil Conflict in 1999,
for example, saw Pakistan‟s Army, emboldened by its de facto nuclear capability, launching
covert military operations within Indian territory.

Similarly, after terror attacks in 2001 on India‟s parliament, the government of Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee ordered a full-scale mobilisation of troops along the border. Moreover, the
series of terror strikes in major Indian cities as well as on military bases over the past two
decades has led to growing calls to punish Pakistan.

Indian policymakers, however, have remained wary of launching a military offensive in fear of
such conflict escalating into nuclear warfare. As a consequence, New Delhi hasn‟t been able to
deter jihadi groups and insurgency in Kashmir from launching terror strikes against its territory.

Over the past three decades, India has practically remained silent and has largely refrained from
undertaking any overt military action against its attackers.

But since 2016, when it initiated a series of surgical strikes against a terrorist group based in the
then Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, the Indian military appears to have been slowly overcoming
its fear of „uncontrolled escalation‟. Ultimately, it‟s beginning to help its large conventional
military power realise its full potential.

More recently, India has been sending a clear message to sponsors of jihadi terrorism in
Pakistan. In what is seen as a major change in attitude, the Indian Air Force has been employing

11
Mirage 2000 aircraft in Balakot to bomb terror camps suspected of housing JeM terrorists,
trainers, and senior commanders.

India is unambiguously demonstrating its resolve to strike Pakistan should it fail to remove the
terror camps that reside within its territory.

More importantly, the strikes signify India‟s strong determination to hold Pakistan accountable
for its alleged attacks despite knowing the potential risks involved.

They also reflect New Delhi‟s confidence in its military to address Pakistan-based terror groups
engaged in sub-conventional warfare and to punish those who have been nurturing and
supporting them. The airstrikes apparently saw the Indian military deftly suppress Pakistan‟s air
defence, denying it the opportunity to even react. As a result, New Delhi successfully avoided
any nuclear escalation during this period of conflict.

Some have suggested that the Balakot airstrikes were merely a means for the Modi Government
to assuage its domestic audience in the lead up to the upcoming elections. Previous governments,
however, namely the National Democratic Alliance government led by Vajpayee, have shown
that there is no direct causal link between such pressure and meaningful military action.

On the contrary, the Modi Government seems to have taken a calculated risk to break free from
constraints posed by a hypothetical escalation. It has even prepared itself for possible reactions
from the international community by arguing Pakistan‟s complicity in aiding and abetting
terrorism. Pakistan‟s military is currently under the spotlight for facilitating jihadi groups against
India.

Had India responded to the terror strikes in 2001 or in 2008, it would have possibly been spared
from the more recent of those that have in total claimed more than 21,000 Indian lives between
1988 and 2019. Risk aversion has not only restrained India from deploying air power, but has
also enabled Pakistan-based terror groups to carry on with impunity.

Critics may highlight the „non-military‟ nature of the airstrikes and question whether they will
have any influence at all. It must also be noted, however, that the speed at which the situation in
Islamabad de-escalated might say something about Pakistan‟s readiness to defend itself against
India‟s military.

12
In all probability, it appears likely that Balakot will not be a one-off airstrike. If anything, it has
encouraged the Indian Military to explore new ways of dealing with its problems with Pakistan.

New Delhi finally seems to be consolidating a strategy that combines military action with other
tools in its statecraft artillery while slowly learning the „intricate art‟ of deterring sub-
conventional threats under a nuclear overhang. By placing the onus of nuclear escalation on
Pakistan, India seeks to limit its options.

To what extent the new strategy will change India and Pakistan‟s relations remains unclear.
What can be said for sure, though, is that New Delhi will no longer be a passive victim of
terrorism.

Conclusion

In the recent years, terrorism has played a decisive role in shaping the countries‟ future. The rise
and fall of ISIL and the home grown terrorism in integration with lack of gun control laws in
several states have caused a major policy shift and thus has been a matter of controversy.

The analyses of the policies takes an interesting turn showing that the three countries have
tackled the terrorist activities in whole different ways.

While problems in USA and its terror attacks are mostly a result of its lack of gun control laws,
New Zealand just introduced a bill in that regard. Trump administration has been very lethargic
and Islamophobic in its approach whereas the New Zealnad Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has
shown the world that Love and Peace and Unity is the way to go forward for any country in
deaking with terrorism. While in India and USA the acts of terrorism are politically motivated
and utilized and used to influence voters in the elections, the New Zealand administration has
acted as a much more mature one.

13