General Assembly’s Opening Debate Dampens Hope For UN Progress in Dealing With Terrorism and Nuclear Proliferation

By Victor Comras

As the UN General Assembly ends its final day of principal level debate, the prognosis for its future work remains both murky and morose. As in the past the world’s ills have been laid plain for world leaders (if they are taking any notice) to see. Yet, there is still no sign that the divisiveness of the international community has, or will diminish. Such is particularly the case for the GA’s treatment of the twin challenges of terrorism and nuclear proliferation. As the statements by the principals now comes to an end, hardened battle lines already mark the difficult negotiations on these issues that are about to begin in the hallways and in the GA’s various committees.

While the GA’s new president, Ex-Nicaraguan Foreign Minister Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, called for a General Assembly session of “Reconciliation,” he did little to set a positive tone for furthering constructive discussions on these issues. Rather, his prescription, in his first remarks as GA President, was to blame the United States, Israel, and other Western countries for these challenges to peace. “Any act of terrorism,” he said, “whether or not it is committed by a Government, engenders more terrorism. Initiatives to stop this vicious cycle must begin at the level of State terrorism.” And he wasn’t talking about the state-supported terrorism of such countries Iran, Syria, Sudan, or other countries that provide direct funding to support international terrorist organizations such as Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He was referring to the coalition forces and efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel’s responses to attacks from Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. His conclusion, “terrorism by powerful States against relatively weak States must stop.”

Brockmann’s opening statement also underscores continued resistance on the part of many countries in the Middle East, and among certain iconoclastic states such as Venuezela and Nicaragua, to achieve a workable consensus definition of terrorism and a Comprehensive Anti Terrorism Convention - efforts that have preoccupied the General Assembly and its Sixth Committee for over a decade. Rather, they reject the approach Western Democracies have taken in these negotiations to concentrate on terrorism as a distinct issue. Instead, they seek to stalemate the issue by including within the definition of terrorism forceful actions undertaken by countries which are now already the subject of the Laws of War and Conventions on Human Rights. They also seek to exempt so-called ‘”freedom fighters,” from a definition of terrorism, even when they employ terrorist tactics.

Brockmann also criticises Western countries that, in the absence of any effective UN action against terrorist groups, use their own national authority to designate terrorists pursuant to the principles laid down in UN Security Council Resolution 1373. He admonishes that :
'

No State should appropriate the right to decide on its own which States are terrorists or sponsors of terrorism, and which are not. Less still should States that are guilty of wars of aggression, the worst form of terrorism imaginable, presume to arrogate that right unto themselves, and further, to unilaterally take action against those it has stigmatized.”

Brockmann’s words concerning nuclear proliferation are no less disturbing. The precondition he sets for achieving any success against further proliferation of nuclear weapons (eg Iran, North Korea et al), is for those possessing such weapons to first begin to dismantle and destroy their own nuclear arsenals. This has long been the mantle behind which those states now seeking to develop their own nuclear weapons capabilities usually hide. He says:

“Non-proliferation can not be used by those possessing nuclear arsenals as a ploy to divert attention from and to shrug off their obligation as a State to disarm. Taking steps in this direction would demonstrate to the rest of the world that they are genuine in their commitment to address what is still one of the gravest threats to Humanity’s survival.”

If these are the concepts and positions that are to be carried over to the upcoming Sixth Committee discussions on the definition of terrorism, and the work of the General Assembly on Proliferation, little real progress should be expected from the General Assembly on these issues during this important 63rd Session.

TrackBack