EYEontheUN Transcript

Sixth Committee meeting: Measures to eliminate international terrorism 
October 16, 2006

Zambia:

Zambia welcomes the report of the Secretary General on measures to eliminate international terrorism and aligns itself with the statement of Gambia on behalf of the African Group. Zambia unequivocally condemns terrorism committed by whomever, wherever and whenever. We welcome the recent adoption of the UN Global Counter-terrorism Strategy and we welcome all efforts by the international community, as well as the Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism. In order to reach consensus on the definition of terrorism it is important to accommodate the diverging concerns of member states and to take account of the right to self-determination. Zambia supports the proposal of a High Level conference under auspices of the UN, to formulate a response to terrorism in all its forms. We reiterate our call for flexibility of the member states and we maintain that a strong message should be sent to the perpetrators of terrorism: the world will not tolerate terrorism.

Sri Lanka:

We take note of the report of the Committee. Terrorism is an evil phenomenon. The protection of innocent people is an obligation. The UN is the most suitable forum to address this scourge. Although we condemn terrorism, the divergent perceptions of this phenomenon has overshadowed the debate. Today 90 off-duty unarmed servicemen were brutally massacred; such brutal acts undermine development and democracy. This can only be defeated by the active cooperation of states and with the help of intergovernmental bodies. We deeply appreciate the efforts of some member states to help our country.
Terror is also linked to organized crime, which is a danger to the civilized world.
We hope the Plan of Action will be fully implemented and its scope will be enlarged. Sri Lanka has ratified the Palermo Convention. We attach the highest priority to cutting off funds that support terrorist organizations. We already have a comprehensive legal framework to address the financing of terrorism. We still need to strengthen the sanctions regime of Security Council. We encourage the Security Council to consider imposing measures on all regional groups. Developing countries lack the capacity and the resources for the effective countering of terrorism. The UN plan of action includes provisions that are sometimes difficult to implement. Further clarity is needed on some points. This committee must finalize the Convention as a matter of urgency. We need to continue consultations in the spirit of compromise. We should formulate an effective law-enforcement document.

Yemen:

We highly value the efforts of the Secretary General on his comprehensive report. Terrorism has given concern among many circles, and in my country too. We are determined to combat terrorism in its regional and its international aspects, and have signed many agreements on both bilateral and international levels. This phenomenon of terrorism is foreign to our societies and it arises from a prevalent feeling of the absence of international justice, this includes foreign occupation, as well as premature and misleading judgments towards the beliefs, gender, race of others which sows feelings of hatred and contempt between nations and civilizations and this adds fuel to the fire of extremists and terrorists. We must distinguish between terrorism and the right to self determination of people, and we need to define root causes: the absence of international justice and poverty are among these causes.
We welcome cooperation with Counter-terrorism Committee. We welcome the comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy of the General Assembly. Yemen has joined 9 counter-terrorism treaties.

Morocco:

This question has been one of the priorities of our organization and has been on our agenda since the 1972 session; the number of speakers reflects the interest the international community has in this question. The UN is the appropriate forum to gather all energies to create a joint response to terrorism. In the face of this danger joint action of international community is necessary. Individual actions of states are insufficient and cannot be effective. We plead for a coherent, coordinated strategy to fight terrorism. Despite divergent views, in solidarity we adopted a Global Strategy against terrorism on September 8, 2006; this is an honor for the General Assembly. The General Assembly is the appropriate forum for drawing up a response on the part of all states in the fight against terrorism. This strategy should consolidate the various actions undertaken so far by this and by other organizations. Our challenge is to succeed in implementing this. We have consistently been committed, and unconditionally so, to the fight against terrorism. We condemn terrorism in all its forms no matter its authors or motivations. Terrorism stems from intolerance and does not belong to any country, culture or civilization. The aim of encouraging dialogue among civilizations is very important. We fully subscribe to the resolutions of the Security Council which fight against terrorism. The UN adopted a legal framework made up of juridical instruments; this framework, if incomplete, will not be effective. We need to show proof of pragmatism and goodwill and overcome our differences and we must conclude as soon as possible the discussion on the Convention.  An agreement is now at hand as long as we can distinguish the various areas of international law which are involved. The solutions to article 18 would facilitate finding a solution to other areas that are as yet unresolved. We support the initiative a High Level conference to define a response to terrorism; we also support Saudi Arabia for its initiative in establishing an International Center on Terrorism, as well as Tunisia’s initiative regarding a code of conduct.

Nepal:

We reiterate our condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We attach great importance to the work of the UN. Some progress has been made on the adoption of instruments. We consider the adoption of the Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and the international comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism to be encouraging steps. Implementing the strategy will play a significant role in combating terrorism. We are fully committed with other states. Regarding the lack of consensus on a legal definition and the application of a Comprehensive Convention: we have spent many resources to reach consensus; protracted negotiations undermine efficiency and the momentum gained so far. So it is important to reach consensus now. A comprehensive legal framework will strengthen international efforts and would compliment the 12 sectoral anti-terrorist conventions (we are a party to many of them). We reiterate the need to support developing and least developed states to help them develop capacity. While we discuss the prevention of terrorism, it is imperative to address the situations that harbor terrorism, including the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as poverty, that leads to violence and the destruction of public property. 

Iran:

We condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. As a chronic victim of terrorism, Iran strongly believes that terrorism, irrespective of its motivations, is criminal and unjustifiable. We also believe that state terrorism is the most dangerous form of terrorism. The longest standing crisis, the crisis in the Middle East, as well as current developments, show that foreign occupation is the most lethal, horrific and devastating form of state terrorism. Systematic butcheries and incarceration in secret detention, licensed torture, and other forms of unthinkable violations of human rights in the Palestinian territories, are too egregious to need refreshing. The recent aggression against Lebanon serves as a refresher and so is the report by the experts that was discussed in the media recently. The report estimates that 650,000 more people have died in Iraq since 2003, than would have died if the invasion would not have occurred. In Afghanistan, developments have shown that the eradication of terrorism cannot be achieved through military force—no matter how excessive that force might be. The struggle against terrorism is a battle of hearts and minds. The international community needs to make a courageous decision to understand the root causes of this phenomenon. Otherwise, by following an approach to terrorism which is narrow indeed, we will all be going downward in a vicious circle. The dialogue among civilizations can play a key role. We welcome all the initiatives that seek to promote this paradigm. Despite the indications that some prefer the monologue of might, we must spare no efforts to strengthen the dialogue among civilizations. We reaffirm our commitment to the teachings of Islam which abhors violence. On September 8, 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted  resolution 60/288; we joined the consensus in adopting this resolution, despite a number of reservations, as a demonstration of our support of the fight against terrorism. As the President of General Assembly said that day, a comprehensive strategy was built—which obviously includes state terrorism, as it constitutes one of the biggest dangers. 
The conceptualization of the root causes would help to understand all the aspects of terrorism and would pave the way for motivation to eliminate terrorism by both state and non-state actors. Prolonged, unresolved conflicts are root causes, foreign occupation being the worst case. The task before us now is to implement the strategy in an even-handed manner. A major gap in this instrument is the lack of definition of terrorism, it is prone to political manipulation. We need to work toward achieving an internationally agreed definition of terrorism which shall differentiate between terrorism and the legitimate struggle for liberation of people under foreign occupation. Who shall have the authority to define terrorism? This is a political task. Determining public enemies has become an international issue. This is why there is a political struggle on this question. 
Since the 1970’s the Non-Aligned Movement tried to challenge the discretion of some states in determining the international public enemy; the main cleavage is between some powers that would like to determine the public enemy on a case by case basis, and this is tied to their foreign policy, and those states that would like to tie the hegemonic powers to an international framework that would be applied equally. An objective definition would increase the coherence of the fight against terrorism. This is why they have done their worst to disrupt any negotiation process. We support the working group of 6th Committee and an establishment a High Level meeting.  Regarding other defects of this strategy: review is needed on a regular basis of the Plan of Action; it must take into account all the root causes of terrorism. In our confrontation with terrorism, we will not succeed, if the environment of occupation, and the systematic denial of human rights, is allowed to thrive.

Israel:

Only a month ago, the General Assembly adopted the Global Counter-terrorism Strategy this sent a strong message that this is a global problem. But a number of substantial proposals in the Secretary-General’s report were omitted in the strategy; we hope it will be included later. This marks the beginning of our work, not the end. The conclusion of a comprehensive convention is still a challenge. 
We urge all states to oppose any proposal that justifies or excuses any terrorist acts. W need practical measures to address radicalization and incitement to terrorism. It knows no boundaries: hostage taking, suicide bombing touches us all. We must take into account that terrorists hide among innocent civilians, they hide behind civil society and national institutions. International law is not a suicide pact. No terrorist can claim legitimacy by being democratically elected. It should make no difference to the international community, either. Every state has the responsibility to stop terrorists who use civilians as shields or civil society as masks. Terror is terror even when it is called resistance; it cannot be justified. Terrorism is defined by what they do not by what they say they do it for. Targeting innocents is the clearest indication that they will never implement the humanitarian goals they allegedly espouse. The war against terrorism is a war of the rule of law against those who oppose it. Calls to address the root causes are too often a call to justify the unjustifiable. Terrorism is interdependent with crime and trafficking, we need to effectively address cultivation and trafficking in order to decrease the ability of terrorism to operate. Terrorist groups do not operate in a vacuum; sympathetic states are their providers. State sponsors of terror hide behind a smokescreen and seek to conduct war “on the cheap” by fighting through terrorist proxies. It is their desire to drag the world into chaos and it is their goal that hate should prevail. No state should allow the extremists to use terror to shift the international agenda. We must resolve unresolved conflicts, but not in a way that rewards violence with victory. Terrorism is against every society built on the values of the rule of law. The choice is between those who build and those who destroy; in this battle there is not neutrality.


Syria:

We have a long tradition, going back thousands of years, we have an Arab-Islamic culture that is very tolerant and we aware of our international obligations and we condemn the terrorism of individuals, groups or states. Moral and historical responsibility suggests that we need to have an international conference to define terrorism so that a subject of such importance is not be used for political ends in the short term. The definition of terrorism must also include a clear distinction between terrorism and the just fight of people to repel foreign occupation. International efforts to fight terrorism come up against obstacles put up by certain states; this goes against the Charter of the UN, it goes against political legality and the right of people to govern themselves. The UN has liberated many countries under foreign colonial occupation and my delegation is very proud of what the UN has done in terms of liberating these countries. Unfortunately, some states would like to turn back the pages of history and do not want to have this distinction. In doing so, they want to delete pages of history that contain the fierce fights of people to liberate themselves and want to go back to a time before the UN. This is intellectual terrorism against people here; it is an attempt to convince the victim that their rights can be taken away and that they have no right to defend themselves because otherwise, they are terrorists. The Palestinian people who were chased out of their land are doing nothing other than trying to enjoy their legitimate rights to self-determination; the same rights that the UN bestowed upon Israel. The Lebanese resistance also opposed Israeli occupation, particularly the most recent invasion. This aggression—barbarous—showed barbarity that Lebanon had not seen in its most dark times.  Civilians were targeted. The occupied Syrian Golan, and the people that had to leave their lands—and we saw the spoiling of natural resources—all of this is organized state terrorism. We also see this in other parts of the world.
We support the convention despite its shortcomings. We have to fight terrorism—not just by force—because the war on terror has shown that force alone cannot solve the problem, but it makes it worse in fact. Today, we are living in a world that is less and less secure. Syria, more than any other country, has been subject to terrorist activities and if we were not fighting this terrorism ourselves, the losses would be even greater. That is why states must join together. We must stop the propagation of imperialistic and colonialist policies which dictate to the international community. We must join together to better understand the causes of terrorism. A number of ideas in the report are not in the text because of the opposition of a handful of states: perhaps because of the imperial ambitions of states, perhaps because the ideas were not practical.
Intolerance has to do with a closed human spirit which attempts to propagate doctrines which are no longer relevant and this runs counter to all revealed religions. They have taken up the war on terror to break up what has been acquired over thousands of years of civilization; the true fundamentalists are propagating war and turning their backs on tolerance and dialogue. They have racist policies instead of being tolerant of those that are different. They have created a boogeyman: the Islamic enemy, while we all know that Islam preaches tolerance and is different from terrorism. Terrorism cannot be used by these ignorant people to further their interests. The lax behavior of certain parties and the scorn of the prophet, and the cartoons that depicted the prophet in an unbecoming manner, represent intellectual terrorism and those who hold these doctrines must be held accountable for the resurgence of terrorism and they will roll back the achievements of civilizations. We regret that the General Assembly has not adopted the global convention against terrorism. Political will was not there on the part of certain states, this is what stood in the way of adoption of the convention. The Convention must particularly address the definition of terrorism, making a clear distinction between terrorism and the just fight of people against foreign occupation. This organization has said that occupation is an on-going form of aggression. Also, we cannot exclude acts of aggression of states from this Convention, if we are to be in the spirit of this organization.
We support the Organization of the Islamic Conference on article 18. Syria has adopted very progressive legislation to implement international obligations. 

Azerbaijan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference):

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) strongly condemns all acts and practices of terrorism. We reject any attempt to link this scourge to any race, religion or group. We attach great importance to the implementation of the strategy, including a focus on the root causes on terrorism. There is a need for progress in negotiation. There is a need to resolve outstanding issues, such as the distinction between terrorism and the just fight of people under foreign occupation. We call on all the parties to show flexibility. The OIC renews its call to have a High Level conference to respond to terrorism. We fully support the decision of the conference in Riyadh in 2005 to establish an International Terrorism Center in order to establish and strengthen cooperation in this field; we also support a code of conduct.

Holy See:

We must refrain from selective implementation, otherwise it will weaken resolve. We must extend the treatment of terrorist in accordance with international law. Terrorism cannot be tolerated for any reason. Legal measures are not sufficient; we must respond also with cultural measures. History offers examples of non-violent struggles that were able to redress just grievances. The fight against terrorism must include diplomatic and economic commitment. The recruitment of terrorists is easier in places where rights are trampled for a long period of time, but injustices cannot be used to excuse terrorism. The terrorists’ claim that they are acting on behalf of the poor is a falsehood. Religions must show that dialogue must be chosen over violence.