"The time has come" the Walrus said, "To talk of many things..."

By Mike Chandler

The findings of the Gingrich-Mitchel Task Force (GMTF) with respect to how the UN might deal with 'catastrophic terrorism' are quite encouraging. So too is the recognition that the United States can and should play a more active role in this regard. Of particular interest are the recommendations, highlighted by Vic Comras in his posting of the 15th June, about the importance of "naming and shaming". But I must ask why is it that the GMTF is trying to "re-invent the wheel" on this subject and is not concentrating more acutely on the "naming and shaming" authority that the UN Security Council had supposedly already put in place? I speak of the sanctions measures against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated individuals and entities and of the (1267) Committee and the Monitoring Group that had, originally, been charged with the responsibility of reporting on what is, and what is not actually being done to implement these measures.

Is it perhaps because the United States was itself instrumental in the demise of the mechanism? Or is it that the Task Force was not fully briefed on that mechanism by the appropriate US Government authorities? Perhaps the GMTF chose simply to ignores the existance of the Monitoring Group and the results achieved during its mandates under resolutions 1390 and 1455? Afterall, it would not, apparently have been the first time according to one of Doug Farah's earlier reports. I was surprised to note that in the body of their report (page 68) the GMTF states that "In January 2004, following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban collapse and al-Qaeda's dispersal, the council revised UNSCR 1267. UNSCR 1526 focused on assets freezes..." There appears to be somwhat of a 'time warp' here. The council did indeed revise UNSCR 1267 following the collapse of the Taliban. But that was in January 2002 and was largely the result of a Franco-Russian initiative. That initiative put in place the first set of truly global sanctions against the al-Qaida network via UNSCR 1390.

What is also overlooked in the the GMTF report is the fact that the Security Council had taken quite firm measures to strengthen UNSCR 1267 well before 9/11. I refer to resolutions 1333 and 1363 - the latter establishing an independent monitoring group with the mandate to look, see and report on what was actually occurring to deal with the Taliban and al-Qaida. I had the honour to chair that group. Yes, we were required to report factually and objectively and, as a result, "named names". It was this group, rolled-over to continue its monitoring and reporting work under resolutions 1390 and 1455 (January 2003) that actually drew the attention of the council to those countries that were not in full compliance with the resolutions. It was this work and the reports that laid bare the weaknesses of previous resolutions and led to their subsequent strengthening. Unfortunately, this independent and objective function was lost with the adoption of UNSCR 1526. This latter resolution did away with an independent monitoring group and replaced it with a more pliant monitoring team under the close direction and supervision of the Security Council members themselves. It appears that the GMTF was not aware of this!

I see it as very positive therefore, that the GMTF has now recommended the resurrection of this effective "monitoring" and "naming and shaming" tool in the fight against terrorism. How much more important also that this process be applied to the implementation of other measures designed to curb the proliferation and misuse of WMD.

However, I should also point out another important counter-terrorism omission in the GMTF report - namely that of UNSCR 1566. "1566" was adopted, predominantly in response to the appalling atrocity which was perpetrated in cold blood against the children of School Number 1 in Beslan on 1st September 2004. By any standards, even those to which the people of Iraq are being subjected on a daily basis, this was a horrific attack on humanity. UNSCR 1566 set-out to provide the means by which terrorists and terrorist groups, other than those linked to Al-Qaida, could also be designated and subjected to international sanctions. To-date, eight months down the road, little if anything has transpired. Without wishing to appear cynical, is this yet another politically correct white elephant with "Uncle Norman" painted on its flanks? The fact is that it does not feature in the Task Force report and in view of the strength of the wording of this resolution, the question should be asked - Why has it not been taken into account?

I can understand why certain states wish to pursue the fight against terrorists on a bi-lateral basis. However, whereas this may appear beneficial in the short term, it can have a negative impact for the medium and long-term. One must remember that this is a long-haul process. The GMTF report recognises that "UN organisations have a comparative advantage unavailable to the United States acting alone or even with coalition partners. They bring an added dimension of perceived legitimacy and objectivity that can help place effective pressure on reluctant countries to cooperate and meet their obligations." True: But only if the Security Council has mandated an effective means to independently monitor and report on the "...reluctant countries..." And, only if the UN is prepared to take a tough line with those that do not comply with the requirements stipulated in a Chapter VII resolution. Without such a renewed sense of purpose any reforms, with or within the UN, in regard to fighting terrorism, will come to naught.

TrackBack