By Abdul Basit Alvi
Attacking military installations is a serious and complex crime with far-reaching effects on national security, international relations, and civilian safety. Such assaults present distinct challenges and threats, highlighting the importance of understanding their severity and the reactions they provoke.
Military installations—encompassing bases, warehouses, and strategic facilities—are vital to a nation’s defense and operational capabilities. Attacking these sites can disrupt national security, jeopardize sensitive operations, and endanger both military personnel and civilians. Depending on the context and the attackers’ motives, these assaults are often classified as terrorism or acts of war. Extremist groups or hostile entities may target military sites to further political or ideological objectives, aiming to weaken a nation’s defense, instill fear, and draw international attention. Terrorist organizations may view military targets as valuable symbols of state power, using attacks to showcase their reach and influence public opinion. Similarly, state actors might strike military installations to damage an adversary’s defense infrastructure or gain strategic advantages, often as part of broader military strategies during conflicts or disputes.
Such attacks can severely affect a nation’s security, leaving it vulnerable to additional threats and compromising its defense systems and resources. They often lead to diplomatic tensions and international condemnation, potentially escalating conflicts and involving other countries or international organizations. Casualties and injuries among military personnel and nearby civilians can occur, with significant psychological and economic impacts on affected communities. International law, including the Geneva Conventions, forbids attacks on military installations that disproportionately harm civilians or lack clear military objectives, with violations potentially leading to war crimes charges and international legal consequences. Attacking one’s own military installation is considered particularly egregious, aligning the perpetrators with rival nations.
In advanced and organized societies, the treatment of criminals is a subject of significant debate, balancing justice and humanity. A primary goal of strict criminal treatment is deterrence. Severe and consistently enforced punishments aim to discourage potential offenders by making the consequences of criminal behavior clear, thereby enhancing public safety. Rigorous enforcement is crucial to protect society from individuals who pose substantial threats, particularly in cases of violent crimes or repeat offenders, ensuring they remain removed from the general public to prevent further harm. A fundamental aspect of a civilized society is the principle of justice. Criminals must be held accountable for their actions to ensure justice is served, providing victims and their families with closure and fairness. Strict treatment reinforces the commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring appropriate consequences for violations. However, these measures must be applied in a way that adheres to the ethical standards of a civilized society, ensuring that law enforcement and punishments are both fair and humane. It is crucial that the strict treatment of criminals is supported by a strong system of due process, which includes fair trials, legal representation, and the opportunity to defend oneself against charges. Ensuring transparency and impartiality in the legal process is vital for preventing wrongful convictions and maintaining public trust in the justice system. Punishments should be commensurate with the severity of the crime. While strict measures are necessary, they should be appropriate and proportionate. For instance, non-violent offenders should not receive the same punitive measures as violent offenders. Adhering to proportionality helps prevent excessive and unjust punishment, preserving the integrity of the justice system.
Incitement to violence, particularly against military installations, represents a serious threat to national security. Countries must respond decisively to mitigate such threats and maintain stability. For example, Saudi Arabia has faced significant threats from extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, which have incited attacks on military and security installations. In response, Saudi Arabia has implemented stringent counterterrorism laws targeting those who incite violence, including severe penalties for promoting extremist ideologies or attacking military sites. The government has also launched programs to counteract extremist propaganda and rehabilitate individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses. This approach combines strict legal measures with preventive strategies to address extremism and safeguard military infrastructure.
Similarly, following the Arab Spring upheaval, Egypt encountered significant threats from extremist groups seeking to incite violence against military and security forces. Egypt enacted strong anti-terrorism laws criminalizing the incitement of violence against military installations and enhanced its intelligence and surveillance capabilities to monitor and intercept such activities. This includes tracking extremist content online and on social media platforms. Egypt’s approach underscores the importance of legal enforcement and intelligence operations in combating incitement and protecting military facilities.
After the 2016 coup attempt, Turkey faced serious threats from factions inciting violence against military institutions and government buildings. In response, Turkey took aggressive legal action against those involved in inciting violence, including prosecuting individuals who spread propaganda or attempted to mobilize attacks against military targets. The government also conducted extensive purges within military and governmental institutions to remove individuals suspected of involvement in or sympathy for the coup plotters or extremist ideologies. Turkey’s response highlights the necessity for both swift legal actions and comprehensive institutional reforms to tackle incitement and protect military installations. These examples illustrate that countries take a hard stance against those who attack military sites, enforcing strict punishments rather than providing leniency or privileges.
Turning to universities, they are not only educational centers but also crucial in shaping future leaders and professionals. Ensuring these institutions operate with integrity and transparency is essential. A key element in maintaining this integrity is having a management team that is free from criminal activity. Universities handle significant public and private funds, and a crime-free management is vital for upholding public trust. Transparency and accountability in financial and administrative practices are crucial to preventing corruption and misuse of resources. When university management is free from criminal activities, it sets a positive example for students, faculty, and staff, reinforcing essential values of honesty and integrity. Such ethical standards are crucial for academic and professional success, and institutions known for their integrity are better at attracting talented students and esteemed faculty. This reputation enhances their ability to recruit and retain top talent, which is key for academic excellence and innovation. Universities with a clean management record are also more likely to secure funding from government bodies, private donors, and industry partners, as clean governance boosts their chances of receiving grants, donations, and collaborative opportunities that foster growth and development. A criminal-free management ensures that resources are used effectively and prevents issues like financial mismanagement, fraud, and embezzlement. Effective oversight and adherence to legal and ethical standards safeguard the institution’s assets and ensure proper use. Compliance with regulations is more feasible for a management team with no criminal history, reducing legal complications. Furthermore, a crime-free management is essential for a fair and equitable work environment, preventing discriminatory practices and unethical behavior that can harm staff morale and institutional culture. It promotes a culture of accountability and integrity, encouraging all members of the university community to contribute positively. To maintain this standard, universities should implement thorough background checks, regular audits, and robust internal controls. Promoting integrity through ethics training, clear policies, and transparency, along with encouraging open communication and reporting of unethical behavior, supports a clean management structure. Additionally, ensuring that universities are free from terrorist influences is vital for maintaining their integrity and security. Several esteemed institutions have confronted challenges related to terrorist activities or affiliations and have responded with stringent measures to effectively address these issues. The University of London, for example, has faced scrutiny over extremist affiliations within its student body, with past concerns about extremist groups exploiting university platforms for radicalization. In response, the university has enacted strict policies to prevent such activities on campus, including enhanced background checks for new staff and more rigorous vetting processes for student organizations. The University of London collaborates closely with law enforcement agencies to monitor and address potential terrorist threats or radicalization linked to the institution. This proactive approach, which includes implementing robust security measures and working with authorities, has helped reduce risks and maintain a secure educational environment.
Similarly, the University of Edinburgh has addressed concerns related to extremist content and individuals with potential terrorist affiliations within its academic community. The university has implemented stringent security measures to identify and address potential terrorist threats. This includes conducting regular campus security audits and maintaining heightened vigilance against extremist activities. The university also offers training for staff and students to recognize and report extremist behavior, fostering a culture of awareness and cooperation in preventing terrorist influences. By emphasizing security and education, the University of Edinburgh protects its community from terrorist activities while maintaining a focus on academic excellence and safety.
Similarly, the University of Pennsylvania has tackled challenges related to extremist ideologies affecting its community. Concerns have included the risk of radicalization and the impact of extremist rhetoric. To address these issues, the university has established strict governance policies, including comprehensive background checks and adherence to national security guidelines, to prevent individuals with extremist affiliations from participating in university activities. The University of Pennsylvania also collaborates with federal and local agencies to manage any threats and ensure a secure campus environment.
The University of Sydney has faced issues with radicalization and extremist ideologies within its academic community. In response, the university has put in place rigorous vetting procedures for new staff and students to prevent individuals with extremist agendas from gaining influence. Additionally, the University of Sydney works closely with Australian security agencies to monitor and address potential threats, including providing regular updates and training on counter-terrorism measures.
In the context of Pakistan, the actions of Imran Khan and his group on May 9 were unprecedented in their severity. The attack on military installations by his supporters was comparable to what even Pakistan’s adversaries could not achieve over seven decades. This act of terrorism was egregious, and it is perplexing that some people continue to support Imran Khan and advocate for his release, questioning if there could be a greater betrayal than the events of May 9. It is further disconcerting that such a so-called leader is now seeking a position as chancellor of a leading global university. It’s essential to uncover the underlying motives behind these intentions.
Universities, as centers for education, research, and leadership development, can sometimes attract individuals with harmful agendas who seek to misuse their resources and influence. Understanding why terrorists might want to infiltrate university management is key to creating effective countermeasures and protecting academic environments. Universities often manage significant financial assets, such as research grants, donations, and endowments. Terrorists might aim for management positions to access these funds, potentially diverting them to support their activities or operations. Additionally, universities serve as hubs for influential intellectual and professional networks, including policymakers, industry leaders, and academic experts. By gaining control of university management, terrorists could exploit these networks to further their own objectives. Terrorists might seek to impact academic curricula and research priorities by infiltrating or controlling university management roles. By doing so, they could attempt to promote extremist ideologies, manipulate research outcomes, or disseminate propaganda under the pretense of legitimate academic inquiry. Universities, with their diverse and impressionable student and faculty populations, are potential targets for such infiltration. Terrorists could use management positions to recruit vulnerable individuals, spread extremist views, and radicalize young minds within a controlled environment. Associating with a reputable institution like a university could lend credibility to extremist groups. By placing individuals in leadership roles, terrorists might gain a façade of legitimacy and respectability to further their cause and attract supporters.
Given universities’ significant role in shaping public opinion and policy, terrorists might exploit this influence to manipulate discourse, advance their ideologies, and undermine societal values that oppose their goals. The commitment to academic freedom and open exchange of ideas at universities could be misused by terrorists to shield their activities from scrutiny, leveraging the guise of academic freedom to promote extremism. Additionally, access to cutting-edge research and academic resources might be misappropriated by terrorists who gain control over research agendas, potentially redirecting scientific or technological advancements for harmful purposes.
Universities offer various facilities and resources that could be exploited for recruitment, clandestine activities, or training programs. Infiltrating university management could also provide terrorists with valuable insights into security protocols, administrative practices, and institutional vulnerabilities, which could be used to plan and execute attacks more effectively, either directly on the institution or through other strategic operations. Another potential motive for such infiltration could be to assume a leadership role to obscure past crimes and present oneself as innocent.
The prospect of a notorious criminal becoming a chancellor at a prestigious institution like Oxford University is no trivial matter. As a global benchmark of academic excellence and historical prestige, Oxford University upholds rigorous standards not only in academics but also in its management and leadership. To protect its esteemed reputation, Oxford University has implemented stringent measures to guard against criminal influence in its administrative and leadership structures. The university’s governance framework ensures that its practices adhere to principles of integrity and transparency. The university operates with a well-defined system of checks and balances designed to uphold ethical behavior and accountability. Maintaining a culture of ethics and professionalism is fundamental to Oxford Univesity’s operations. The university underscores the importance of ethical conduct in all aspects of its administration, including financial management and hiring practices. Oxford University performs thorough background checks for candidates applying for management and leadership roles. These checks encompass reviews of criminal records, financial histories, and previous employment to ensure candidates align with the institution’s high ethical standards. For senior administrative and departmental positions, Oxford University mandates rigorous background investigations to screen out individuals with any history of criminal or unethical behavior. The university has developed rigorous vetting procedures to detect any signs of criminal affiliations or extremist tendencies among candidates. This process includes thorough interviews, reference checks, and personal history evaluations. Recently, Oxford University has strengthened its vetting measures in response to evolving security concerns, verifying candidates’ backgrounds through multiple sources to ensure no connections to criminal or extremist activities are missed. Oxford University has also implemented robust security measures to oversee and control access to sensitive management roles. Regular compliance audits and internal reviews are conducted to uphold security and prevent unauthorized influence, with periodic assessments of administrative functions and vulnerability to potential threats. The university collaborates with local and national law enforcement agencies to stay informed about criminal threats, sharing information and coordinating to prevent infiltration. This partnership has led to enhanced security measures and increased vigilance. Oxford University fosters a culture of ethics through continuous training and awareness programs, which emphasize integrity and educate staff and students on recognizing and reporting suspicious activities. The university offers ongoing ethics training for management and staff, covering compliance, reporting mechanisms, and maintaining high ethical standards. Additionally, Oxford University has established confidential reporting mechanisms for staff and students to raise concerns about criminal behavior or misconduct safely. This system ensures prompt and effective resolution of issues. As a prestigious institution, Oxford University maintains strict standards for selecting individuals for its Chancellorship, ensuring that this key role is filled by candidates with impeccable credentials and a clean legal background to uphold the university’s integrity and reputation. Oxford University conducts thorough background checks on all candidates for the Chancellorship, including an in-depth review of criminal records, financial histories, and any past allegations or investigations. These checks ensure that candidates have no criminal convictions or ongoing investigations. Financial histories are scrutinized for issues such as fraud or embezzlement. Candidates must demonstrate a strong commitment to ethical behavior and professional integrity, assessed through references, interviews, and evaluations of their past conduct. The university examines candidates’ professional histories for signs of misconduct or unethical behavior and investigates any potential conflicts of interest or affiliations that might compromise their impartiality or the institution’s integrity. Assessments are conducted to ensure that candidates for the Chancellorship have no conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment or decision-making. The university scrutinizes any affiliations with organizations or groups that might jeopardize its values or reputation. Oxford University collaborates with law enforcement agencies to verify candidates’ backgrounds and uncover any hidden criminal activities or affiliations. The university works with relevant authorities to gain additional insights into the candidates’ backgrounds and potential security concerns.
Oxford University has a longstanding tradition of excluding individuals with criminal backgrounds from the Chancellorship. For instance, in the early 2000s, a prominent business figure considered for the position was disqualified after a background check revealed a prior conviction for financial fraud. This decision demonstrated Oxford University’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of financial integrity and ethical conduct.
In a similar vein, a few years ago, a candidate under investigation for corruption related to their previous political role was also not selected. Despite their accomplishments, the ongoing legal issues raised doubts about their suitability, leading to their exclusion. This case underscored Oxford University’s policy of prioritizing candidates with a clear legal standing and a proven record of ethical behavior.
Another candidate, with a background in academia but linked to extremist political groups, was also removed from consideration after concerns about their affiliations and potential conflicts of interest emerged during the vetting process. This decision reinforced Oxford University’s commitment to maintaining its values and ensuring that leadership positions remain free from extremist influence.
Recently, The Guardian, a British newspaper, has critically examined the potential candidacy of Imran Khan, founder of PTI, for the position of Oxford University’s Chancellor. The Guardian raised concerns about Khan’s suitability, citing his previous praise of the Taliban and controversial statements, including referring to Osama bin Laden as a martyr. The newspaper questioned whether Khan, with his past comments and affiliations, would be an appropriate choice for the role. The Guardian newspaper criticized the nomination of the PTI founder, suggesting it is an affront to Oxford University’s female students and alumni, both current and past. The paper expressed disbelief over the nomination and urged Imran Khan and his supporters to reconsider. Instead, The Guardian endorsed Lady Elish Angiolini as the ideal candidate for Oxford University’s Chancellorship, praising her as a valuable asset to the institution. The election for the position of Chancellor at Oxford University is set for October 28, with 250,000 former students and staff voting online. The new Chancellor will serve a 10-year term.
Pakistan does not recognize Israel and condemns its actions against Palestinians. Despite this, Imran Khan has been linked to Israel, which has faced criticism from human rights advocates, Muslims, and many Pakistanis. An Israeli newspaper recently suggested Khan could play a key role in fostering relations between Pakistan and Israel, citing his potential willingness to normalize ties through connections with the Goldsmith family. Israeli blogger Ainor Bashirova has argued that Khan’s unique perspective and connections might help bridge gaps between Israel and the Islamic world, and has urged him to return to politics. There is also speculation that Khan may use his Israeli connections to pursue the Oxford University Chancellorship.
Imran Khan should confront the reality of his actions and acknowledge that his attempts to obscure his past crimes by seeking the Oxford Chancellorship will fail. The resolution of his legal issues will be determined in court, not through public opinion or external influence.