Kofi Annan's Double Talk On Terrorism 

By Aaron Goldstein 
March 14, 2005
American Daily
Original Source: http://www.americandaily.com/article/7101mailto:jillian_writes@yahoo.com

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan spoke in Madrid on March 10th to launch a global strategy against terrorism. Of course, Annan spoke the day before the anniversary of the al Qaeda terrorist attacks on Madrid’s commuter railroad that killed 192 people. It was in this context that Annan called upon member states to adopt a common approach to fighting terrorism. He described this common approach as the “five Ds”. They consist of: 

- Dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic to achieve their goals;
- Deny terrorists the means to carry out their attacks;
- Deter States from supporting terrorists;
- Develop State capacity to prevent terrorism;
- Defend human rights in the struggle against terrorism.

This all looks and sounds quite nice. However, I would like to add a sixth D – Double Talk.

Two days prior to this speech, Annan was commenting on an impending UN Security Council Resolution concerning the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. When questioned about disarming Hezbollah Annan commented, “we need to recognize that they are a force in society that one will have to factor in as we implement the resolution.”

That statement is a far cry from the statements he made in Madrid such as, “It should be clearly stated, by all possible moral and political authorities, that terrorism is unacceptable under any circumstances, and in any culture.” Or consider this one. “Not only political leaders, but civil society and religious leaders should clearly denounce terrorist tactics as criminal and inexcusable,” the Secretary General declared, “I should like to see an equally strong global campaign against terrorism.”

If terrorism is unacceptable under any circumstances and in any culture why must the world then recognize Hezbollah as a force in society? How can Annan wage a strong global campaign against terrorism if Hezbollah must be taken into consideration when drafting a UN Security Council Resolution against Syria? It is worth remembering that Hezbollah is a force because they are supported by totalitarian regimes in Syria and Iran. How does Annan intend to deter Syria and Iran from supporting Hezbollah when he is afraid of dealing with Hezbollah when trying to address actions taken by Syria and Iran?

Consider what Annan had to say with regard to deterring member States from supporting terrorist groups:

In the past the United Nations has not shrunk from confronting States that harbour and assist terrorists, and the Security Council has repeatedly applied sanctions. Indeed, it is largely thanks to such sanctions that several States which used to sponsor terrorists no longer do so.

This firm line must be maintained and strengthened. All States must know that, if they give any kind of support to terrorists, the Council will not hesitate to use coercive measures against them.

Oh, really? Let me see if I have this straight: that because of UN Security Council sanctions several countries that used to sponsor terrorists no longer do so? And which countries would these be? Of course, the UN Security Council repeatedly sanctioned Saddam’s Iraq which was notorious for sponsoring terrorists. How did this deter Saddam? It did not until the United States and Coalition forces liberated Iraq. As I recall, for his part, Annan declared this action “illegal.”

If all member states know that if they give support to terrorists that the Security Council would not hesitate to use coercive measures against them why is Annan taking Hezbollah into consideration when drafting a Security Council resolution against Syria? It must be noted that Syria just finished a two year stint on the UN Security Council. 

Kofi Annan’s so-called “global strategy against terrorism” and the “five Ds” may be music to the ears of UN bureaucrats but Hezbollah simply tunes it out. His equivocation on Hezbollah is shameful when one considers that Britain and the European Union are considering deeming Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and outlawing it. Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has earned the enmity of Hezbollah as he has blamed it for carrying out attacks against Israelis.

If Kofi Annan is serious about getting Syria out of Lebanon he must not appease Hezbollah. If Kofi Annan is serious about an independent Lebanon he must not legitimize Hezbollah. If Kofi Annan is serious about stopping terrorism then he must stop his double talk on terrorism.