Defining Terrorism At The UN Would Be A "Miracle"

Dr. Al-Hussaini Al-Sharif doesn't expect universal agreement on any single interpretation of those events and others like it. And that is precisely why he believes it will be a "miracle" if the 191 members of the United Nations accept a legal definition of terrorism by September, a contentious point of debate in the international forum for nearly a decade. "The problem is that we call it terrorism after it happens, not before," says Dr. Al-Hussaini Al-Sharif, speaking to Embassy on Aug. 8 only days before wrapping up a seven-year posting to Ottawa. "So, here comes the problem with the definition. Every act of terrorism depends [on the circumstances]. It's a problem of being subjective ­ you can't be objective or neutral when it comes to terrorism." The terrorist of one nation might be the freedom fighter, insurgent, human rights defender, or law enforcement officer of another, he says. The attempt to establish a universal definition of terrorism at the United Nations is, importantly, being led by political leaders and not lexicographers. In the wake of July's London bombings, British diplomats have stepped up pressure to break a 10-year global impasse on the word's meaning. An agreement could re-start the negotiation of an idling comprehensive treaty against terrorism. The big push, however, is to reach a single definition that world leaders can approve at the UN Millennium Summit next month. "It will be a miracle if there is a definition agreed upon I think. I don't call it an achievement. It would be something unusual," says Dr. Al-Hussaini Al-Sharif. UN General Assembly President Jean Ping released a draft definition of terrorism in July that said "the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and noncombatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance." He added that a move taken "to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any ground and constitutes an act of terrorism." Dr. Al-Hussaini Al-Sharif says he cannot derive meaning from Mr. Ping's statement because the murkiness of language within it. "Are civilians those who are recruited, or who have had military training? Do you consider them [civilians] if they are wearing uniforms?" he asks. http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2005/august/17/defining/

Note: http://www.embassymag.c...