UN 60th GA Summit Misses Its Mark in Combating Terrorism

By Victor Comras

�This week's United Nations summit in New York was billed as the largest gathering of heads of state and government in history. So it is a pity the document they came to endorse is not so much a recipe for radical reform of the international system as a damp squib.� So says an editorial in the September 16th edition of Australia�s Sydney Herald. I�ve chosen that quote as it so aptly captures the tone, texture and result of the UN�s 60th General Assembly Summit, particularly when it comes to their handling of international terrorism.

Terrorism was among the loudest issues being discussed at the UN these passed weeks. But, there is relatively little to show for it. Terrorism certainly got its due in the rhetoric department. There was plenty of condemnation, but little else. At the end of the day the Summit's Outcome Document was left only with �We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.� Other paragraphs of the document pledged to consider the Secretary General�s Counter-Terrorism strategy, to work for the adoption of a comprehensive Anti-Terrorism Convention and to address the root causes of terrorism.

But compare this to the proposed language contained in the August 5, 2005 Draft Outcome Document which was subsequently dropped (See my Earlier Blog) and its clear that the General Assembly once again fell short.

�We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security�.We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism.�

The GA aside, the Security Council did take an important new step. It adopted Resolution 1624 (2005) which clearly fingers those who incite terrorist acts as terrorists themselves. This resolution is an important warning call to countries that support, tolerate, or give safe haven to the preachers of extremism, intolerance and violence. In the words of the resolution:

� incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights,
threatens the social and economic development of all States, undermines global
stability and prosperity, and must be addressed urgently and proactively by the
United Nations and all States,�

The resolution also

� Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to: (a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts; (b) Prevent such conduct; (c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;�

While this resolution is only hortatory (and imposes no new Chapter VII obligations on any Country) it presages a new intention on the part of several major democratic countries to expand their counter-terrorism actions to cover also the preachers of religious hate, violence and oppression that give rise to terrorism. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and other countries that support religious groups that preach religious intolerance should mark this resolution as a clear condemnation of such activities.

The UN�s Counterterrorism Committee (CTC) is charged with overseeing the application of this resolution and the steps taken by states to carry out its provisions. Hopefully the CTC will do a better job in carry out this mandate then it has done with its other counter-terrorism mandates.

TrackBack