UN Diplomats Drop Efforts to Define Terrorism

By Victor Comras

No one ever thought that reforming the United Nations would be an easy task or that we were about to return the United Nations to its role as an effective protector of international peace and security. Yet, we should all be saddened by news that the negotiators in New York have dropped the inclusion of a clear definition of terrorism from their reform program. Previous efforts, extending over 8 years, had failed to come up with an agreed terrorism definition. This time there was high hope that the UN would �get it right.� Drawing from the recommendations of its own High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, Secretary General Kofi Annan had put great emphasis on a definition of terrorism and a strategy aimed at combating terrorism and terrorism support and financing. It was time to make it clear, he said, that any deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes was terrorism. He lobbied for, and received strong support for such a definition from international leaders at both the Riyadh Counter-Terrorism Conference and the Madrid Terrorism Summit. So what happened?

Unfortunately, too many countries, particularly in the Middle East, are still wedded to the same terrorist tactics they have used for decades to address their perceived grievances. They maintain that there must be a right to resistance against occupation and that such right encompasses tactics of violence against civilians. Such a "right to resistance" concept carries with it nefarious implications not only for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also for the coalition presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. For a while it looked like Saudi Arabia, in the face of its own struggle with terrorists, was willing to break from this mold. Last February the Saudi Government hosted an international counter terrorism Conference in Riyadh. The final document produced by that conference recommended, inter alia that � The problem of definition {of terrorism} needs to be overcome.� It went on to say that �The proposals contained in the UN High Level Panel Report on New Threats and Challenges could provide a useful basis to facilitate an urgent compromise in this field.� Just this week King Abdullah again made reference to the work of the Counter-Terrorism Conference and the need to move forward with its recommendations. He again emphasized the important role the UN must play in this endeavor. At the same time the Saudi negotiators, along with Syrian diplomats, in New York pressed their opposition to the very definition of terrorism outlined in the high level panel report.

The definition put forth by the High Level Panel is clear and straightforward. �Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.� Why is such a definition so important? First of all it provides common ground for international cooperation in combating terrorism. It lays the foundation for requesting and receiving the mutual assistance and support required under the various UN counter terrorism resolutions and the 12 international counter -terrorism conventions now in place. The absence of a terrorism definition seriously hinders any effort to coordinate an international response to terrorism. Without a common definition countries remain free to interpret their own obligations and define for themselves which groups are terrorists and which are �freedom fighters.� Saudi Arabia uses this distinction, for example, to get away with funding Hamas, while Iran and Syria use it to provide funds and support to Hezbollah. But, many other countries have also used it to avoid taking steps to freeze funds or take other civil or criminal action against those individuals or groups which they support.

When the world's statesmen gather in New York September 14th to open this session of the General Assembly they will grapple with UN reform. Perhaps they will make some progress toward that end. But, they will fail in strengthening the UN's role in combating terrorism if they fail to lay the necessary common foundation for fighting terrorism that a clear definition would provide. Let's hope that some of these statesmen will speak up and force a vote on this issue. Let those who support defining terrorism for what it is stand up and be counted, and leave those opposed remain seated for history and posterity.

TrackBack