The Most Elusive Word 

Thalif Deen 
December 1, 2005
Inter Press Service News Agency
Original Source: http://www.ipsnews.org/news.asp?idnews=31267


When a Sri Lankan lawyer, Rohan Perera, was elected to chair the U.N. Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism about eight years ago, a Western diplomat jokingly told him he was going to be chairman for life-- because the United Nations will never agree on a legal definition of terrorism. 

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 (IPS) - As predicted, the world body has once again failed to agree on the 14th -- and perhaps the final -- international convention against terrorism, primarily because delegates remain deadlocked over definitions relating to terrorists, freedom fighters and state terrorism. 

With the U.N. Secretary-General disheartened by the lack of agreement, his spokesman told reporters Thursday that Kofi Annan was disappointed to learn that the U.N.'s legal committee has failed to reach agreement on a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. 

The 14th convention -- described as the mother of all treaties -- is a 21-article omnibus convention covering elements from the previous 13 treaties against terrorism. As the title suggests, it was meant to be the most comprehensive convention against terrorism. 

Of the 13, the last three treaties against terrorism were the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and the 2005 International Convention Against Nuclear Terrorism. 

The other treaties include conventions against the unlawful seizure of aircraft, unlawful acts of violence at airports, crimes against diplomats, taking of hostages, and unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation. 

But none of these 13 conventions has a clear-cut legal definition of terrorism. 

On Tuesday, the legal committee adopted a draft resolution calling on the Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism to reconvene in February to take another shot at it. 

The committee is expected to resume its elaboration of a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism, which has encountered differences among member states over inclusion of issues ranging from the battle against occupation to the actions of regular armed forces. 

An Arab diplomat told IPS: The current thinking is that there will never be an agreed definition of terrorism -- as long as the Palestinian issue remains unsettled. 

The hardline positions on terrorists, state terrorism and freedom fighters have come mostly from Arab nations. 

Annan said he intends to consult the chairman of the Committee, and other representatives of member states, to see if there are ways for him to assist their efforts to reach agreement on and conclude the convention during the current 60th session of the General Assembly, which ends in September next year. 

When world leaders met for a summit meeting in New York last September, they pledged to finalise the treaty this year, or at least by mid-2006. 

The report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change released last year said the ability of the United Nations to develop a comprehensive strategy against terrorism has been constrained by the inability of member states to agree on an anti-terrorism convention, including a definition of terrorism. 

This prevents the United Nations from exerting its moral authority and from sending an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes, the panel said. 

The report also pointed out that the search for an agreed definition stumbles on two issues. 

The first is the argument that any definition should include a state's use of armed forces against civilians. This is a specific issue raised by countries such as Syria and Lebanon against Israel's state terrorism. 

Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, however, the concept of state terrorism is now being used to also describe the U.S. military occupation of that country. 

But in its report, the High-Level Panel has a different take on state terrorism: We believe that the legal and normative framework against State violations is far stronger than in the case of non-State actors and we do not find this objection to be compelling. 

The second objection, according to the panel, is that peoples under foreign occupation have a right to resistance, and a definition of terrorism should not override this right. 

The right to resistance is contested by some. But it is not the central point: the central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians, according to the panel. 

Syria has taken the position that it is against all forms of terrorism, whether committed by individuals, groups or states. 

The Syrians have also said they will continue to insist on the need for a legal definition of terrorism, distinct from legitimate acts to combat foreign occupation. Additionally, it has supported calls for an international conference to spell out clearly an acceptable definition of terrorism. 

Meanwhile, Annan has urged all member states that have not yet done so to become parties to, and implement, the existing 13 conventions on different types of terrorism. 

He has also expressed hopes that the General Assembly will expedite its work on adopting and implementing a strategy to promote comprehensive, coordinated and consistent responses to counter terrorism. 

Annan said he stands ready to amplify and further refine those elements if so requested by the Assembly. 

And in the meantime he is confident that the Security Council is ready to take any further measures that are necessary to deal with the threat of international terrorism, which continues to cause death and suffering to innocent people in many different parts of the world, the U.N. spokesman said.