Share

Print this Page

What's New

Resources updated between Monday, February 12, 2007 and Sunday, February 18, 2007

Friday, February 16, 2007

On Thursday February 15, 2007 the UN concluded its eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to negotiate a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. It ended by agreeing to meet again - 8 months from now. Rather than fulfilling the promise of September 2005's "Reform" Summit of world leaders to define terrorism and finalize this treaty, stalemate was the result of two weeks of negotiations and the free spending of your taxpayer dollars.

Why the impasse? Cutting through the verbiage, there are many states at the UN that think it's acceptable to kill civilians - especially Jewish and American ones - and there are many other states that refuse to stand up to the thugs.

As far as actually addressing terrorism, the summary of this week's discussions included:

    "Some...delegations emphasized the importance of including...a legal definition of terrorism to distinguish it from the legitimate struggle of peoples for self-determination. In addition, some other delegations expressed the view that State terorrism would have to be included in any comprehensive convention on international terrorism. It was reiterated that acts of State terrorism were of serious concern to the international community and that such acts only contributed to a vicious cycle of terrorism."

And so the UN continues labeling victims as perpetrators and provides an aura of legitimacy to terrorism. The Sri Lankan Chairman of the Committee, Rohan Perera, reassured the Pakistani delegate that all proposals for completing the draft convention on terrorism were still on the table - including the proposal of the Organization of the Islamic Conference which includes an exemption for terrorists who are supposedly committed to fighting "foreign occupation". A justification for murder driven in reality by anti-semitism, intolerance and a thirst for violence itself.

How did the UN describe this state of affairs? The Chairman was "encouraged" by this "momentum." UN-speak for describing a world organization totally unable to condemn the killing of innocents regardless of race, ethnic origin or religion. And totally contrary to its raison d'ętre.

Anne Bayefsky

On Thursday February 15, 2007 the UN concluded its eleventh session of the Ad Hoc Committee set up to negotiate a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. It ended by agreeing to meet again - 8 months from now. Rather than fulfilling the promise of September 2005's "Reform" Summit of world leaders to define terrorism and finalize this treaty, stalemate was the result of two weeks of negotiations and the free spending of your taxpayer dollars.

Why the impasse? Cutting through the verbiage, there are many states at the UN that think it's acceptable to kill civilians - especially Jewish and American ones - and there are many other states that refuse to stand up to the thugs.

UN Terrorism Talks End in Failure Editor's Note

February 15, 2007

February 14, 2007

February 13, 2007

Monday, February 12, 2007

Notwithstanding that terrorism is the modern calling-card of the foes of civilization, the UN still cannot define either terrorism or its perpetrators. The problem is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which obviously has a vested interest in keeping terrorism off the books.

Back in September 2005, world leaders arrived at the UN to proclaim that the Organization would "make all efforts to reach an agreement on and conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism during the sixtieth session of the General Assembly." Not surprisingly, the sixtieth session of the General Assembly has come and gone.

Last week, the interminable negotiations over a comprehensive terrorism treaty began again. Handed the global UN platform one more time, here is what it was used to communicate – with no sign of embarrassment on the part of terrorism's champions.

  • Azerbaijan, speaking for the OIC (56 UN members) "reaffirmed its determination to make every effort to resolve outstanding issues related to the legal definition of terrorism, particularly the distinction between terrorism and peoples' struggle against foreign occupation."
  • Suriname, on behalf of CARICOM (15 Caribbean states): "Any definition should recognize legitimate struggle of peoples for self-determination in accordance with Charter and international law."
  • North Korea opined that the current pressing task of the UN's Ad Hoc terrorism committee is to eliminate "state terrorism" – the "US illegal invasion of Iraq and Israel's occupation of Arab territories and invasion of Lebanon."
  • Cuba hoped that terrorism would be defined "in all its forms and manifestations, including state terrorism...and a distinction [drawn] between terrorism on the one hand and the struggle of peoples for self-determination as prescribed by charter of the United Nations."
  • Libya asserted the "need to make a clear distinction between acts of terrorism... and the rights of peoples to exercise rights such as the right to resist occupation, the right to self-determination and the right to legitimate defense."

In other words, the recent murder of Michael Ben-Sa'adon, 27, Israel Samolia, 26, and Emil Almaliakh, 32, by a suicide bomber in Eilat, Israel is fine by the thugs who have a chokehold over the General Assembly of the United Nations. This is the same United Nations that promised equal rights for men and women and of nations large and small – albeit, in the very distant past.

Anne Bayefsky

Notwithstanding that terrorism is the modern calling-card of the foes of civilization, the UN still cannot define either terrorism or its perpetrators. The problem is the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which obviously has a vested interest in keeping terrorism off the books.

Back in September 2005, world leaders arrived at the UN to proclaim that the Organization would "make all efforts to reach an agreement on and conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism during the sixtieth session of the General Assembly." Not surprisingly, the sixtieth session of the General Assembly has come and gone.

The UN Still Can't Define Terrorism Editor's Note