Skip to comments.

Posted on 10/02/2001 5:56:00 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State

U.N. wrestles with key definition: Who's a terrorist?

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - For years, the 189 members of the United Nations have wrangled over a critical question: Who's a terrorist?

The controversy has delayed adoption of a new convention on terrorism that would incorporate key elements from a dozen existing legal instruments, allowing nations to look to one international treaty to fight terrorism.

At the heart of the dispute is the politically charged quagmire that one nation's terrorist is often another's freedom fighter.

But in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, Secretary-General Kofi Annan and a number of member states urged the General Assembly on Monday to come to an agreement and adopt a comprehensive convention.

Diplomats from many nations, including Britain, Algeria, the Netherlands, Mongolia and Burkino Faso, immediately backed his call for the General Assembly to break the definition deadlock.

According to the U.N.'s chief lawyer, Hans Corell, the problem is one of differentiating between terrorism and the right to self-determination and combat foreign occupation.

''I understand the need for legal precision,'' Annan told the opening of a weeklong assembly debate on terrorism.

''But let me say frankly that there is also a need for moral clarity.''

''There can be no acceptance of those who would seek to justify the deliberate taking of innocent civilian life, regardless of cause or grievance. If there is one universal principle that all peoples can agree on, surely it is this,'' he said.

''Even in situations of armed conflict, the targeting of innocent civilians is illegal, as well as morally unacceptable,'' the secretary-general stressed.

Still, he noted, civilians account for an estimated 75 percent of all casualties in conflicts today.

There was unanimous agreement at Monday's assembly that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were terrorist acts.

''What looks, smells and kills like terrorism is terrorism,'' Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said.

''It uses violence to kill and damage indiscriminately to make a political or cultural point and to influence legitimate governments of public opinion unfairly and amorally.''

The British envoy said the 189 U.N. member states will never reach consensus on actions in wars and armed struggles because of legitimate differences on whether they constitute terrorism.

So he urged all countries to let existing international humanitarian law deal with actions in this gray area.

''Our job now is to confront and eradicate terrorism pure and simple: the use of violence without honor, discrimination or regard for human decency,'' he said.

Nasser Al-Kidwa, the Palestinian U.N. observer, backed Greenstock's idea, saying it could solve the definition problem ''once and for all.''

''Terrorism as we have seen it Sept. 11 is clear. Anything of this sort, which smells, looks and maybe tastes like terrorism is clear,'' Al-Kidwa said.

''Issues of wars, armed conflict, foreign occupation, recognized as such by the international community, by the Security Council - those are governed by international humanitarian law, by Geneva conventions, so it's a different issue.''

Burkina Faso's U.N. Ambassador Michel Kafando noted that when a country's national interest were involved, it seemed a distinction was made between ''good'' and ''bad'' terrorists, and between a ''national struggle'' and a ''terrorist act.''

But he said there can be no compromise in the fight against terrorism.

Mongolia's U.N. Ambassador Jargalsaikhany Enkhsaikhan said ''it is widely recognized that it is the political will that is more needed than negotiating or drafting skills of diplomats and lawyers'' to define terrorism.

Mongolia backs the secretary-general's view that ''there can be no acceptance of those who would seek to justify the deliberate taking of innocent human life, regardless of cause or grievance,'' he said.

Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali said the comprehensive convention submitted by India was a step toward the global judicial framework needed to fight international terrorism _ and no country should assume ''the moral responsibility'' of hindering its adoption.

The Dutch U.N. Ambassador Dirk Jan van den Berg called on the General Assembly to complete work on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism without delay and noted the unresolved question of defining terrorism.

''Much has been said on that score. But 'ground zero' has made it painfully clear that terrorism in its true manifestation defines itself,'' he said.

''There is no cause or grievance that can justify these kind of acts. There is no distinction between good and bad terrorists. There are just terrorists.'' - AP

''But let me say frankly that there is also a need for moral clarity.''

''There can be no acceptance of those who would seek to justify the deliberate taking of innocent civilian life, regardless of cause or grievance. If there is one universal principle that all peoples can agree on, surely it is this,'' he said.

''Even in situations of armed conflict, the targeting of innocent civilians is illegal, as well as morally unacceptable,'' the secretary-general stressed.

Still, he noted, civilians account for an estimated 75 percent of all casualties in conflicts today.

This shows the morality amongst the UN members. Moral clarity is non-existant!

Get the U.S. OUT of the U.N.

Get the U.N. OUT of the U.S.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.