UNITED NATIONS: The lack of a clear definition of terrorism is taking on new urgency as the UN General Assembly debates the issue and the Security Council prepares to enforce sweeping new measures to combat terrorism.
Debate in the General Assembly began this week. Many nations have spoken of the need for concerted action under UN authority in light of last month’s terrorist attacks in the United States but, other than cutting off funding for terrorists, there is no consensus on how to proceed.
“Some of the most difficult issues relate to the definition of terrorism,” Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his opening address to the Assembly on Monday. “I understand and accept the need for legal precision. But let me say frankly that there is also a need for moral clarity. There can be no acceptance of those who would seek to justify the deliberate taking of innocent civilian life, regardless of cause or grievance. If there is one universal principle that all peoples can agree on, surely it is this.”
However, the festering issues of state terrorism, resistance to foreign occupation and the ‘terrorist vs. freedom fighter’ debate are not closer to being resolved than they were before September 11.
The lack of a definition has taken on new meaning since the Security Council acted on September 28 to mandate states to act against terrorism. Resolution 1373, adopted unanimously without any public debate, requires member states to cut off funding for terrorists, suppress recruitment of terrorists, ensure that asylum laws are not abused by terrorists, and take action against terrorists. All this, without defining the word “terrorist.”
The Council framed its action under the UN Charter’s Chapter 7 provisions on maintaining international peace and security, thus automatically making the resolution international law, binding on all states.
Without a definition of “terrorist”, Amnesty International’s UN representative Yvonne Terlingen said, “Every government will then be able to define a terrorist and that means political opponents ... can easily be branded a terrorist. Therefore (the resolution) gives these governments scope to take measures that violate human rights.”
The resolution was adopted “so very quickly that the enormous implications have not yet been thought through,” Terlingen added. “But governments felt they had to act forcefully.”
One of the few tactics to combat terrorism that likely will gain new support is restricting the financing of terrorism. Looking critically at the free flow of capital that has been a hallmark of globalization, speakers noted how this has helped terrorists operate globally. —Dawn/InterPress News Service.
