LOGIN
Click here to receive automatic email updates on the most recent developments of your favorite GGW topic.
UN to Discuss Terrorism without Definition of Terrorism
Category: National Security
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
This week’s 63rd UN General Assembly agenda includes a session on “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism.” As a starting point, the Assembly’s discussion would be facilitated by a clear definition of terrorism. However, defining the term has become an impossible task in the face of the opposition from both the Organization of The Islamic Conference (OIC) and Nonalignment Movement (NAM).
Soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 to establish a UN Counter-Terrorism Committee. Yet, since the committee’s creation, not a single state sponsor of terrorism, terrorist organization, or individual terrorist has been designated. Instead, the committee has enjoyed the membership of states like Syria, which is currently listed on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism.
Following the disappointing performance of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, the UN adopted its Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy in 2006. The document issues a condemnation of terrorism and urges member states to adopt existing international anti-terrorism conventions and protocols. The Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy also states that the UN Charter and international human rights law should take priority over the anti-terrorism policies of national governments, raising questions of sovereignty in the U.S. and Europe.
In general, without a clear definition of terrorism, existing UN institutions and treaties designed to combat terrorism will be difficult to take seriously. The UN’s inability to define terrorism starts with OIC states, which have opposed calling attacks inspired by “liberation” movements terrorism. According to the OIC, “Peoples’ struggle including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law shall not be considered a terrorist crime.” Defining terrorism in this way would “exclude blowing up certain civilians from the reach of international law and organizations,” says the Hudson Institute’s Eye on the UN.
As the General Assembly meets this week to discuss the myriad challenges facing the world, it will be hard pressed to truly engage the problem of terrorism. Until the UN defines the term, Hudson Institute fellow Anne Bayfesky believes “it can hardly be expected to play a serious role in the war against terrorism.”
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
