Annan calls for universal definition of "terrorism"
UN chief Kofi Annan is seeking a globally defined and accepted definition of terrorism.
The UN chief Kofi Annan is urging world leaders to come to an agreement on a universal definition for 'terrorism'.
The international body’s Secretary General believes there is a dire need for a definition with “moral clarity” and for a UN convention against terrorism following the devastating bomb attacks in Red Sea resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh and London.
A UN treaty has been held up for years over the definition of a terrorist.
A new UN proposal calls terrorism any act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act.
"The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance," it adds.
Annan is hoping the proposed UN terrorism convention will be agreed on by world leaders in time for a UN world summit in September.
"A simple, clear statement bringing in moral clarity that maiming and killing of civilians is unacceptable regardless of one's cause I think will satisfy all of us," he added.
The proposed convention on terrorism has been stuck in a committee since 1996 with the debate focusing on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, where some countries see groups as “terrorist”, others view them as as freedom or resistance fighters.
Reacting to the terrorism chapter in a revised draft blueprint on sweeping UN reform released Friday by Jean Ping, the current president of the General Assembly, Annan said: “All the key elements are in there, and I hope the definition of terrorism will be agreed to by the member states.”
“I don’t think it will be understood by their own citizens and by the world if the UN is unable to act on that. I think the president’s definition is acceptable. I thought mine was a little stronger but we can live with that,” said Annan.
The latest draft by Ping would commit member states “to conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism, including a legal definition of terrorism” during the upcoming General Assembly session.
The Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, has also backed Annan's latest definition, telling a news agency that it could serve as the "basis for consensus".
However, "resisting occupation is a different issue altogether", he said.
According to Annan's chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, the UN is mindful of objections to the definition on the basis that people who take up arms against a state to protect their freedoms do not have equal rights to strike back.
The UN needed to be understanding and protective of issues of political freedom and political participation, he said.
However, the behaviour of states was already heavily circumscribed by conventions governing the use of force, such as the Geneva conventions, he added.
"The argument now is that individuals who use violence for political purposes must similarly be constrained by similarly unambiguous definitions, and that there must be clear straightforwardness in condemning them," he said.
America wants to put an end to Iraq’s attempts to threaten its neighbors (a.k.a. Israel) with weapons of mass destruction. The US is acting as the champion of good against evil. But America forgets that the reality is that no other nation used weapons of mass destruction against CIVILIAN populations as the US did to Japan. Is this not terrorism? America politicians should set an example by attempting to repent for America’s past wrongs.
They should attempt to deter weapons proliferation EVERYWHERE in the Middle East. The US should also ask Israel to rid itself of its 100 or so estimated stock of nuclear warheads. Already one of the right wing politicians who recently resigned from the Sharon government suggested using them against the High Dam in Aswan, Egypt. That would kill many in the CIVILIAN population of Egypt. Terrorism, do you think?
