UNITED NATIONS: The UN remains deadlocked on a major international treaty against terrorism because of sharp political divisions among member states.
“A Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism”, the treaty has been touted as the last word on anti-terrorism - because it incorporates most of the key provisions from the existing 12 UN conventions against terrorism. The new omnibus treaty covers subjects ranging from hijacking and hostage taking to terrorist bombings and funding for terrorism.
Rohan Perera, chairman of the Adhoc Committee on Terrorism, said his committee will make another attempt early next year to help bridge the differences. The committee is scheduled to meet here on Jan 28-Feb 1.
The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve round several politically sensitive issues: How to define terrorism, distinguish terrorist organizations from liberation movements, and handle activities of national armed forces perceived as acts of terrorism.
The Organization of Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States insisted that the treaty should exempt from consideration as terrorists all those engaged in conflicts against “foreign occupation.”
This would include national liberation movements, including the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Hezbollah. Syrian diplomat Ghassan Obeid maintained Palestinians’ resistance against Israeli occupation was legal while their daily repression by Israelis is ”state terrorism”.
Australian diplomat Richard Rowe, singled out article 18 of the treaty as especially divisive. This clause specifically deals with the scope of the convention, in particular the activities of armed forces.
The US has said that its bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 was accidental - an explanation which China has rejected. If the bombing was not accidental, the US pilots responsible for the bombing could be brought to trial on the grounds that the bombing was an act of terrorism. The US’s emissaries have sought to the activities of armed forces from the provisions of the treaty.
In October, Israeli armed forces attacked and briefly occupied the offices of the Palestinian Authority in the occupied territories. Arabs argued that this was clearly an act of “state terrorism” which should come within the ambit of the treaty.
Seen from another perspective, said Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, the treaty, in its current form, is worrying because it undermines refugee protections, freedom of expression, and the laws of war.
The draft treaty also restricts freedom of expression by treating a journalist who supports a political objective as a potential terrorist, he said. —Dawn/InterPress Service.
