UN Deadlock On Defining Terrorism Persists

By Victor Comras

The UN General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal) Committee again failed this session to break the deadlock preventing progress on a Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Convention and a Definition of Terrorism that would be binding on all countries. The Committee adjourned November 21st after rescheduling further discussions for February, 2007. While the Committee issued its own condemnation of terrorism it failed to make progress on key issues including the definition of terrorism and scope of application of the convention. The deadlock involves differences between Western Countries and the Countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC countries continue to insist on language that would exempt armed resistance groups involved in so-called ”struggles against colonial domination and foreign occupation.” At the same time they want the convention to specifically cover the activities of regular armed forces, which, because they are covered by other humanitarian and Law of War Conventions, now fall outside the purview of the terrorism convention. (For more details on these issues see my October 25, 2005 Blog).

Why is a terrorism 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. For a further discussion of these issues see my previous blog posted March 14, 2006.

TrackBack