“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” — Mahatma Gandhi. In the light of the above statement, critically examine the challenges in addressing terrorism through a unif
GS3
Terrorsim
“An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” — Mahatma Gandhi. In the light of the above statement, critically examine the challenges in addressing terrorism through a unified global approach, particularly in the context of violence, peace, and international cooperation.
Examine
INTRODUCTION
- “An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.” Gandhi’s warning highlights that retaliatory violence perpetuates cycles of conflict. Addressing terrorism therefore requires a unified, peace-oriented global approach grounded in cooperation rather than vengeance.
WHAT WORKS: ELEMENTS OF GLOBAL COOPERATION
- Multilateral frameworks: UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, FATF norms provide institutional mechanisms.
- Regional cooperation: Platforms like SCO and its RATS enable intelligence sharing and coordination.
- Norm-building: Growing consensus against terrorism as a threat to international peace and security.
WHERE IT FALLS SHORT: STRUCTURAL AND POLITICAL LIMITATIONS
- Double standards: States selectively label groups as terrorists based on strategic interests.
- State-sponsored terrorism: Some nations support proxy actors, undermining collective efforts.
- Lack of common definition: Absence of a universally accepted definition of terrorism stalls legal coherence.
- Geopolitical rivalries: Power politics weakens trust and sustained collaboration.
CONTRADICTIONS AND GAPS
- Peace vs coercion: Counter-terror operations often rely on force, contradicting ideals of non-violence.
- Sovereignty vs cooperation: States resist external intervention, limiting collective enforcement.
- Selective condemnation: Inconsistent responses erode credibility of global norms.
CONCLUSION
- While a global consensus exists in principle, it remains fragmented in practice. Effective counter-terrorism demands consistent definitions, zero tolerance for all forms of terrorism, elimination of double standards, and trust-based international cooperation, aligning security measures with the broader goal of sustainable peace.
Directive: CRITICALLY EXAMINE — Intro (state the claim as given) → What works / holds true (brief) → Where it fails / falls short (dominant) → Contradictions, gaps, or missing dimensions → Verdict conclusion
- Intro (claim): Gandhi → retaliation escalates violence; need unified, peace-based global response to terrorism
- What works (brief): multilateral efforts (UN norms, SCO cooperation, RATS) → coordination, intelligence sharing
- Where it falls short (dominant): double standards, state-sponsored terrorism, lack of common definition, geopolitical rivalries
- Contradictions/gaps: peace vs counter-terror force; sovereignty vs collective action; selective condemnation undermines credibility
- Verdict: global consensus exists in principle, but fragmented in practice → needs consistent norms, zero tolerance, trust-based cooperation
Write. Evaluate. Improve. Repeat.
Don’t just write—know where you stand and how to improve.
👉 Unlock EvaluationInstant AI Evaluation
Paid users get detailed feedback. Free users can evaluate today free questions.
Score
--