Striking a Blow for Common Sense: Justice Stevens, Jimmy Carter Make Powerful Case against Voter Fra
May 5, 2008
May 5, 2008
Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
What is a Terrorist? Don’t Ask the United Nations
Guest Column | By Tim Wilson | March 19, 2008
The War on Terror is too important to allow the UN to continue at its normal deliberate pace and in its normal way.
Seems
like a simple question doesn’t it? We all use the term freely and we
all know what we mean when we call al Qaeda terrorists, but when it
comes to actually defining the word, it becomes more difficult. In fact
the problem is so difficult that the United Nations, which one would
expect to take a leading role in any global conflict, with its
Counterterrorism Committee and its Security Council Resolution 1373
criminalizing assistance to terrorists (among other things) has not
been able to agree on a definition. This leaves the UN in the
interesting position of having a Counterterrorism Committee, with staff
(a Directorate), facilities, actions (including worldwide visits) and
plans to deal with something they cannot describe. Indeed it also
leaves the Secretary General (nominated by some as the Chief Diplomat
of the world) and various UN staffs in the position of condemning
something they cannot characterize. They are thus hindered from taking
any meaningful action through their usual channels. This is a key
reason why this international organization has been so ineffective in
the War on Terror.
The
problem is actually not simple, with over 100 definitions of terrorism
in use according to a U.S. Army study. For the United Nations it is
exacerbated by the determination of some countries, notably led by
members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), to
distinguish between terrorists and “Freedom Fighters.. The problem as
these diplomats see it is that any common sense definition of terrorism
would immediately “de-legitimize” Hamas, Hezbollah (designated a
terrorist organization by the U.S., but not the UN), Fatah (to the
embarrassment of the State Department) and other Palestinian groups.
The fact that these groups target and kill indiscriminately, killing
innocent civilians and children, makes no difference to the politicians
involved. Their concern is to avoid criminalization of the groups they
support.
Some of the definitions in use have legal implications here in the U.S.A. For example, the U.S. Department of Defense defines terrorism as “The
calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to
inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or
societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political,
religious, or ideological.” Not a bad effort, which has the benefit of
providing a legal justification for the arrest, detention or death of
anyone engaging in unlawful violence. But in dealing with other nations
the problem, apart from dealing with such legal arguments as trying to
prove calculation and/or intention, is moved to the definition of
“unlawful violence.” Currently, many members of the UN see armed
struggle as a tool of international diplomacy and consider it useful to
maintain the ability to deploy or support “lawful” violence. They are
prepared to go to considerable lengths to avoid definitions which would
put their clients at risk, even though those clients clearly use
terrorism as a means to their end.
Complex
problems often benefit from simple (or at least simplistic) solutions.
Accordingly, I use the following simple definition of terrorism: “the
deliberate physical attack of, or threat of physical attack against,
civilian targets with the aim of causing fear.” Even this simple
definition can be misconstrued, but has the benefit of leaving little
room for political or legal wrangling. The more complex a definition,
the more room those with reason to be concerned about the results of
defining terrorism have to argue and debate. There can be no doubt that
rockets fired against civilian towns or planes flown into civilian
buildings are, under this definition, the work of terrorists.
In
this global fight, it is puzzling why the UN does not make more use of
its judicial ally, the International Criminal Court (ICC) (as opposed
to the UN subsidiary – the International Court of Justice – which is,
like so many organizations under the UN umbrella, toothless), to assist
in the fight against terrorism. Even without a legal definition of
terrorism, the ICC could take action against a great many terrorists
for War Crimes. Principle amongst the actions it could pursue, as
ratified by 106 nations so far (but notably excluding the U.S.A. and
the OIC nations, with the single exception of Jordan, although many,
including the U.S.A., are signatories who have not yet ratified the
Treaty), would be the prosecution of terrorists for the crimes listed
as coming under the jurisdiction of the ICC which do have an agreed set
of definitions. Their ability to prosecute includes for such matters as:
- Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
- Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health (of non-combatants or Prisoners of War)
- Torture or inhumane treatment
- Taking hostages
- As part of an international conflict:
- Directing attacks against civilians
- Using civilians as shields
- As part of a non-international conflict:
- Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
- Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
- Taking hostages
- Summary execution
No
matter how much the OIC members may disagree or try and twist the legal
implications, positioning “freedom fighters” in different scenarios
from one incident to the next, one section or another of the above list
of crimes encompass the entire range of excuses by which terrorists try
to avoid censure. The murderers who make up al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas
and various other terrorist organizations are, under at least one if
not all of the definitions given above, guilty of War Crimes which fall
under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Furthermore, no matter how Islamist
Imams may justify such actions when undertaken by their followers, the
majority of the International Community consisting of the 146 nations
who have signed up, under the Treaty of Rome, to the establishment of
the ICC have agreed to these definitions of War Crimes. As such, the
justification of such crimes by religious and/or political leaders
amounts to incitement to break international law.
The
War on Terror is too important to allow the UN to continue at its
normal deliberate pace and in its normal way. The Secretary General
should be demanding action against international terrorism and leading
the way with every means at his disposal. If that means upsetting a
large and influential block of members such as the OIC, his duty to the
UN Charter and the prevention of barbaric attacks on civilians around
the world demand he do so. To do any less is to further erode any
remaining moral standing the UN might have left after the scandals and
failures of the recent past. The question is whether the UN Secretary
General and the international community want the UN to become even more
corrupt and unhelpful than they already appear to be or whether Ban Ki
Moon is willing to show that the moral (and physical) corruption of the
UN is finally being beaten back.
Defining
terrorism is important. Definitions drive application of the law and in
a global war on terror, all justification for the law enforcement and
judicial process derives from the relevant definitions. Without a UN
definition, that world body cannot be effective in any meaningful way
in helping to establish peace. Without defining terrorism, as with the
genocides in Srebrenica, Rwanda and Sudan,
the UN cannot and/or will not meaningfully intervene to prevent the
ongoing terrorist atrocities which are being carried out on a daily
basis around the globe. That is why it should be focusing its efforts
towards the ICC which would both allow a meaningful role and put
pressure on the politicians who are deliberately prevaricating for
their own purposes.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Tim Wilson is a retired British Army officer who served in a variety of command appointments on numerous operational tours during a 30 year military career. He now works as an independent consultant and over the last 2 years worked for USAID in Iraq.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
0 Comments | Post a Comment
