Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, Poverty & SDGs

POLITICS: UN Treaty Targets Rogue Nukes

Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 13 2005 (IPS) - Many of the world leaders gathering here this week for a major summit on development and security are poised to endorse a new treaty against nuclear terrorism, although diplomatic opinion on a broader definition of terrorism remains divided.

The proposed treaty is the latest of 13 major multinational conventions covering various “acts of terrorism”. Of these, five were negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations and are deposited with the Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

“Acts of nuclear terrorism may result in the gravest consequences and may pose a threat to international peace and security,” reads the draft text of the latest Convention, noting that existing multilateral legal provisions “do not adequately address these attacks”.

U.N. officials say so far over 60 nations have indicated their willingness to sign the treaty, including five declared nuclear powers – the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China.

It is still not clear if the four other nuclear countries – India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea – will also sign on.

U.N. legal experts acknowledge that nations may not be able to resolve their differences on the definition of terrorism, but say that is not the purpose of the new treaty.

“These acts are defined in a precise way according to the criminal law,” said Nicholas Michel, a U.N. legal counsel. “It’s not an abstract general definition. It’s a precise definition of acts that have to be criminalised.”

The lack of resolution on the definition of terrorism stems from the argument that one person’s “terrorist” can be another’s “freedom fighter”.

A high-level panel, which made a list of recommendations for U.N. reforms, suggested a definition of terrorism as “any action, in addition to actions already specified by the existing conventions on aspects of terrorism, the Geneva Conventions and Security Council resolution 1566, that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants.”

It adds “when the purpose of such acts, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government, or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act”.

Since the treaty requires extradition and prosecution of those implicated, diplomats involved in negotiations said it would strengthen the global legal counter-terrorism framework.

“This convention will not create an immediate change,” said a key delegate in the negotiations on the terrorism convention who did not want to be named. “But it will help prosecute perpetrators effectively.”

Currently, diplomats are engaged in talks on another convention on terrorism, which “would just round up the whole process”, the source said.

Recently, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that expands the world body’s sanctions against al-Qaeda and Afghanistan’s Taliban.

In July, the U.S.-drafted resolution was adopted unanimously by Council’s 15 members. It requires all nations to immediately freeze the funds and other financial assets of individuals and businesses associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

U.N. officials say that in the past four years, business assets valued at about 80 million dollars have been frozen in more than 40 countries. They belong to groups and individuals both proven and suspected of having links to al-Qaeda.

The resolution on financing for terrorism clarifies and defines who should face sanctions. Currently, the U.N. has a consolidated list that includes over 400 individuals and business concerns believed to be related to al-Qaeda.

They include parties said to participate in financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating acts to support the unlawful terrorist groups.

The resolution also requires nations to extend sanctions to “any cell, affiliate, splinter group, or derivative thereof”, as well as any group of individual recruiting for al-Qaeda, or supplying it with arms.

On the eve of the World Summit, Annan “urged presidents and prime ministers to sign the convention on nuclear terrorism and endorse 31other key treaties which remain unsigned or unratified”.

“Ours is an age of unprecedented interconnectedness,” he said in a letter to heads of states and governments inviting them to participate in the treaty signing event, which coincides with the first day of the Summit.

“The destinies of people around the world and the threats they face are interwoven,” he added.

In a related development, the British government has proposed a U.N. Security Council resolution that would give governments a pretext to suppress peaceful expression, Human Rights Watch said Tuesday.

The Security Council is expected to vote tomorrow on this resolution, which urges countries to enact laws against incitement of terrorist acts.

“Those who incite others to commit terrorism must be prosecuted,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But the resolution’s sponsors have made it easy for abusive governments to invoke the resolution to target peaceful political opponents, impose censorship and close mosques, churches and schools.”

The Security Council should define the term “incitement to terrorist acts” narrowly and unambiguously so as not to permit prohibitions on lawful expression and association, Human Rights Watch said.

The resolution should require that laws only prohibit expression that is intended to incite an imminent terrorist act; is likely to incite such an act; and is directly and immediately connected to the likely occurrence of the terrorist act.

“By encouraging the ‘prevention’ of incitement, the resolution opens a loophole in free speech guarantees that an army of censors could drive through,” said Roth.