Antiterrorism and shared responsibility

Antiterrorism and shared responsibility

Abdullah Saleh Mbamba, Director, United Nations Information Center,
Jakarta

The tragic events of Sept. 11 and those that took place
recently in Bali have brought home the challenge of keeping
deadly options from terrorist groups, who may have weaker
capabilities than states, but have less hesitation about using
such weapons.

In a sense, the events of "9/11" and of "10/12" have sent the
United Nations back to its inception, when, in the aftermath of a
devastating war, the world body was established to stabilize
international relations, and give peace and security a stronger
foundation. The UN has long been active in the fight against
international terrorism.

Reflecting the determination of the international community to
eliminate this threat, the Organization and its agencies have
developed a wide range of international legal agreements that
enable the international community to take action to suppress
terrorism and bring those responsible to justice.

Dating back to 1963, these agreements provide the basic legal
tools to combat international terrorism in its many forms -- from
the seizure of aircraft to hostage-taking to the financing of
terrorism. The topic of international terrorism has constantly
been on the UN agenda since the 27th session of the General
Assembly (1972) 30 years ago.

The Organization has played an important role in establishing
a legal framework for the eradication of terrorism through one of
its basic roles: The codification of international law -- more
specifically through the 12 UN anti-terrorist conventions and
protocols.

More significantly, in 1996 the UN General Assembly mandated
the eventual creation of a comprehensive legal framework for the
norm against international terrorism -- the "Comprehensive
Convention on Terrorism".

Such a framework is intended to consolidate the bit-by-bit
approach in the 12 conventions. However, the most difficult part
of this undertaking has been to reach a consensus on a legal
definition of the term "terrorism".

Such a definition has so far proved indefinable, hence the
previous Conventions only defined "acts of terror" (e.g.,
hijacking or terrorist bombing).

Many states use the term "terrorism" or "state terrorism" to
describe any act of intimidation committed against them by a
foreign government. Other states insist that a legal definition
of terrorism should make a distinction between terrorists and
"freedom fighters" struggling for a legitimate cause for which
there is no peaceful recourse (such an end to foreign military
occupation).

These states have argued that in the absence of an explicit
definition of terrorism, it is important to distinguish between
terrorism and for example, acts of national resistance against
foreign occupation, which they argue, is a legitimate right under
international law and the UN Charter.

So, clearly, the absence of a definition has seriously
undermined international efforts to tackle this grave threat to
international security and humanity.

However, in spite of these disagreements, an extraordinary
amount of consensus on defining an international norm against
specific terrorist acts has already been achieved.

Most states have given strong support to the creation and
codification of these legal norms. The reason being all states
recognize the common interests in the fight against terrorism,
which according to the Secretary-General Kofi Annan, must begin
with ensuring that the 12 legal instruments on international
terrorism must be strictly observed and effectively implemented
if terrorism is to be defeated.

The Secretary-General has also emphasized that it will also be
important to obtain agreement on a comprehensive convention on
international terrorism.

But after the events of Sept. 11 and the recent tragedy in
Bali, the greatest expectation at the UN is to move aggressively
against the possibility of further horrible acts of terrorism.
However, many member states have argued that while the
international community must be resolute in countering terrorism,
it must be scrupulous in the ways in which this effort is
pursued.

For example, they maintain that the design and enforcement
means to fight terrorism should be carried out in strict
adherence with international human rights obligations.

They strongly feel that the fight against terrorism should not
lead to the adoption of measures that are incompatible with human
rights standards.

Such a development would hand a victory to those who so
blatantly disregard human rights in their use of terror. And so,
they argue that greater respect for human rights, accompanied by
democracy and social justice, will in the long term prove
effective measures against terror.

Similarly, the Secretary-General has also emphasized that, as
the UN unites to defeat terrorism in the months ahead, he said,
"We must act with equal determination to solve the political
disputes and long-standing conflicts which generate support for
terrorism. To do so, he said, is not to reward terrorism or its
perpetrators; it is to deny them the opportunity to find refuge,
in any cause, any country. Only then can we truly say that the
war on terrorism has been won.

The UN, Secretary General Annan said, "has an indispensable
role to play in providing the legal and organizational framework
within which the international campaign against terrorism can
unfold".

This position is fully supported by UN member states who
maintain that since the UN represents the foundation of
international law, the focal point of international endeavor, and
the place where nations of the world come together to assert
universal ideals and to look to new horizons of joint action, it
must continue to be the primary body to deal with the matter of
international terrorism, as that scourge operates transnationally
and no state alone can solve the problem on its own.

Finally, it is also important to remember that the legitimacy
that the UN conveys, and the moral authority that the UN carries,
ensures that it can and should have a central role in addressing
these challenges and to ensure that the greatest numbers of
States are able and willing to take the necessary and difficult
steps -- diplomatic, legal and political -- that are needed to
defeat terrorism.

The above is based on the writer's address at a gathering at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta on Nov. 5.