Asia Times Online


	October 6, 2001	atimes.com

Front

'Terrorism' becomes a question of semantics
By Jim Wurst

NEW YORK - The lack of a clear definition of terrorism is taking on new urgency as the United Nations 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 v 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.

The US authored the resolution. In his first address to the world body, US ambassador John Negroponte called the resolution "an urgent call to action. All of us must emphasize to our governments the critical need to implement the measures it mandates. Resolution 1373 goes to the heart of how terrorism operates - it will deny the terrorists financing, safe haven and other forms of support; the Security Council itself will closely monitor its implementation. Yes, Resolution 1373 will impose on all of us the highest standards of vigilance, but vigilance is the price of freedom."

Indian ambassador Kamalesh Sharma said that the resolution "should provide a framework for collective and individual action, laying down a permanent obligation on all member states. We see it as analogous to the special powers that democratic governments enact to counter terrorism". India is the main sponsor of a draft comprehensive anti-terrorism convention scheduled for debate later this month.

Ambassador Alfonso Valdiviezo of Colombia, a current Security Council member, noted, "This is the only time the Security Council has taken a decision without a specific conflict. It is related to a generic threat to international peace and security. It is a unique decision and a turning point in the role of the Security Council." In an interview, he called this necessary to confront new threats.

Non-governmental organizations, however, do not share in this enthusiasm. Jeffrey Laurenti of the UN Association of the United States, called the resolution "breathtaking in its assertion of the council's power to command the behavior of member states ... in the name of international peace and security". This will lead to "a fundamental debate on where we draw the line to trigger all these measures against international terrorism".

Human rights groups, while welcoming the resolution's recognition of the need for international standards of human rights, also are uneasy with the broad sweep of the resolution. 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. Calling the easy access to funds terrorism's life blood, Sri Lankan ambassador John de Saram said, "It is surely morally unacceptable in contemporary times, whether there be specific legal provision in international conventions to that effect or not, that funds should flow in their millions or tens of millions ... from territories under the jurisdiction of one state for the slaughter of innocents in another."

An International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism was completed in December 1999 but only four states - Botswana, Britain, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan - have ratified it. Twenty-two ratifications are needed for the convention to enter into force. Numerous states have announced this week plans to speed up their ratification.

(Inter Press Service)