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.