Antiterrorism and shared responsibility<\/p>\n
Abdullah Saleh Mbamba, Director, United Nations Information Center,
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
The tragic events of Sept. 11 and those that took place
\nrecently in Bali have brought home the challenge of keeping
\ndeadly options from terrorist groups, who may have weaker
\ncapabilities than states, but have less hesitation about using
\nsuch weapons.<\/p>\n
In a sense, the events of \"9\/11\" and of \"10\/12\" have sent the
\nUnited Nations back to its inception, when, in the aftermath of a
\ndevastating war, the world body was established to stabilize
\ninternational relations, and give peace and security a stronger
\nfoundation. The UN has long been active in the fight against
\ninternational terrorism.<\/p>\n
Reflecting the determination of the international community to
\neliminate this threat, the Organization and its agencies have
\ndeveloped a wide range of international legal agreements that
\nenable the international community to take action to suppress
\nterrorism and bring those responsible to justice.<\/p>\n
Dating back to 1963, these agreements provide the basic legal
\ntools to combat international terrorism in its many forms -- from
\nthe seizure of aircraft to hostage-taking to the financing of
\nterrorism. The topic of international terrorism has constantly
\nbeen on the UN agenda since the 27th session of the General
\nAssembly (1972) 30 years ago.<\/p>\n
The Organization has played an important role in establishing
\na legal framework for the eradication of terrorism through one of
\nits basic roles: The codification of international law -- more
\nspecifically through the 12 UN anti-terrorist conventions and
\nprotocols.<\/p>\n
More significantly, in 1996 the UN General Assembly mandated
\nthe eventual creation of a comprehensive legal framework for the
\nnorm against international terrorism -- the \"Comprehensive
\nConvention on Terrorism\".<\/p>\n
Such a framework is intended to consolidate the bit-by-bit
\napproach in the 12 conventions. However, the most difficult part
\nof this undertaking has been to reach a consensus on a legal
\ndefinition of the term \"terrorism\".<\/p>\n
Such a definition has so far proved indefinable, hence the
\nprevious Conventions only defined \"acts of terror\" (e.g.,
\nhijacking or terrorist bombing).<\/p>\n
Many states use the term \"terrorism\" or \"state terrorism\" to
\ndescribe any act of intimidation committed against them by a
\nforeign government. Other states insist that a legal definition
\nof terrorism should make a distinction between terrorists and
\n\"freedom fighters\" struggling for a legitimate cause for which
\nthere is no peaceful recourse (such an end to foreign military
\noccupation).<\/p>\n
These states have argued that in the absence of an explicit
\ndefinition of terrorism, it is important to distinguish between
\nterrorism and for example, acts of national resistance against
\nforeign occupation, which they argue, is a legitimate right under
\ninternational law and the UN Charter.<\/p>\n
So, clearly, the absence of a definition has seriously
\nundermined international efforts to tackle this grave threat to
\ninternational security and humanity.<\/p>\n
However, in spite of these disagreements, an extraordinary
\namount of consensus on defining an international norm against
\nspecific terrorist acts has already been achieved.<\/p>\n
Most states have given strong support to the creation and
\ncodification of these legal norms. The reason being all states
\nrecognize the common interests in the fight against terrorism,
\nwhich according to the Secretary-General Kofi Annan, must begin
\nwith ensuring that the 12 legal instruments on international
\nterrorism must be strictly observed and effectively implemented
\nif terrorism is to be defeated.<\/p>\n
The Secretary-General has also emphasized that it will also be
\nimportant to obtain agreement on a comprehensive convention on
\ninternational terrorism.<\/p>\n
But after the events of Sept. 11 and the recent tragedy in
\nBali, the greatest expectation at the UN is to move aggressively
\nagainst the possibility of further horrible acts of terrorism.
\nHowever, many member states have argued that while the
\ninternational community must be resolute in countering terrorism,
\nit must be scrupulous in the ways in which this effort is
\npursued.<\/p>\n
For example, they maintain that the design and enforcement
\nmeans to fight terrorism should be carried out in strict
\nadherence with international human rights obligations.<\/p>\n
They strongly feel that the fight against terrorism should not
\nlead to the adoption of measures that are incompatible with human
\nrights standards.<\/p>\n
Such a development would hand a victory to those who so
\nblatantly disregard human rights in their use of terror. And so,
\nthey argue that greater respect for human rights, accompanied by
\ndemocracy and social justice, will in the long term prove
\neffective measures against terror.<\/p>\n
Similarly, the Secretary-General has also emphasized that, as
\nthe UN unites to defeat terrorism in the months ahead, he said,
\n\"We must act with equal determination to solve the political
\ndisputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for
\nterrorism. To do so, he said, is not to reward terrorism or its
\nperpetrators; it is to deny them the opportunity to find refuge,
\nin any cause, any country. Only then can we truly say that the
\nwar on terrorism has been won.<\/p>\n
The UN, Secretary General Annan said, \"has an indispensable
\nrole to play in providing the legal and organizational framework
\nwithin which the international campaign against terrorism can
\nunfold\".<\/p>\n
This position is fully supported by UN member states who
\nmaintain that since the UN represents the foundation of
\ninternational law, the focal point of international endeavor, and
\nthe place where nations of the world come together to assert
\nuniversal ideals and to look to new horizons of joint action, it
\nmust continue to be the primary body to deal with the matter of
\ninternational terrorism, as that scourge operates transnationally
\nand no state alone can solve the problem on its own.<\/p>\n
Finally, it is also important to remember that the legitimacy
\nthat the UN conveys, and the moral authority that the UN carries,
\nensures that it can and should have a central role in addressing
\nthese challenges and to ensure that the greatest numbers of
\nStates are able and willing to take the necessary and difficult
\nsteps -- diplomatic, legal and political -- that are needed to
\ndefeat terrorism.<\/p>\n
The above is based on the writer's address at a gathering at
\nthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta on Nov. 5.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/antiterrorism-and-shared-responsibility-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}