Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: UN is unable to recognize terrorism | Forums

  1. #1
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    Sep. 20, 2003
    The UN is unable to recognize terrorism, By Anne Bayefsky


    On Tuesday, September 23, President Bush will address the UN General Assembly. His speech will mark the opening of the 58th session's General Debate.

    At this pivotal moment in the war against terrorism, what does the world body need to hear?
    Recent UN actions indicate that the role of the UN is to encourage terrorism rather than to fight it.
    It begins with the UN refusal to define terrorism. Even today it is unable to produce a comprehensive international treaty against terrorism that would identify universal standards of behavior. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has the UN working group on the subject in a choke-hold.

    The OIC claims there is a difference between murder in the name of self-determination and terrorism. As an OIC treaty claims, terrorism is not "armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination." Or as the Arab terrorism convention puts it, "all cases of struggle by whatever means" for approved causes are exempt.

    In April 2002 in Kuala Lumpur the OIC adopted a "Declaration on International Terrorism," in which they made the point even plainer: "We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism."

    These formal declarations are not an abstraction. In the UN they find a willing partner. Free from the constraints of a definition of terrorism, on September 3 and 4, UN Headquarters hosted a conference called "End the Occupation!". UN officials went on a spending spree: 10 hours of webcast, films in the lunch break, a photo exhibit in the official UN conference room, and multiple publications from nongovernmental organizations.

    EXAMPLES OF the information flow under UN auspices: criticism that the "Zionism is racism" General Assembly resolution was revoked, a large map describing "the Zionist Invasion of 1948," various documents describing the "catastrophe/Al Nakba" of the creation of the state of Israel as "the largest planned ethnic cleansing in modern history," an advertisement for "The Killing Zone... a documentary about... occupied Palestine," discussions of an invited participant's proposal for a "one-state solution" in which the Jewish population would be outnumbered within a short space of time. The final "plan of action" painted Israelis as the "brutal" villains, accountable for their own bloodshed.

    For his part, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan thanked the responsible UN committee "for organizing this event."

    The UN's inability to recognize terrorism makes it equally incapable of recognizing self-defense against terrorism, or of distinguishing a "cycle" from cause and effect.

    On September 8, the secretary-general "condemn[ed] [the] attempt by Israel to assassinate the Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin." Annan said it was an "extrajudicial killing" "in violation of international law."

    On September 10, a few hours after Israelis were butchered in a Jerusalem caf in a suicide-bombing perpetrated by Hamas, Israel attempted to kill senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar. UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Terje Roed-Larsen, said he "deplores Israel's bombing of a Hamas leader's house in a densely populated Gaza neighborhood, which killed three and injured at least 30."

    On August 21, two days after Hamas massacred 23 people, from age three months, and mutilated 115 others on the streets of Israel's capital, Israel killed Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab. Annan said: "Israel does not have the right to resort to extrajudicial measures, as it used today in the Gaza Strip... The secretary-general calls upon the government of Israel to... halt its current military actions."

    THE UN role in the war against terrorism? While the terrorists take aim, Secretary-General Annan pins the victims' arms behind their backs.
    Israel targeted Yassin, al-Zahar and Shanab because they were a central part of the command and control structure of a terrorist organization. They were combatants in a war. They were therefore not entitled to a judicial process before an attempt to kill them. Their deaths would therefore not be "extrajudicial killings."

    Israel grants such combatants greater protection by holding back when arrest is possible, or when the Palestinian Authority is willing to arrest. Each case is examined individually. In these cases, Israel was unable to arrest these individuals and the Palestinian Authority made it clear it had no intention of doing so. In such circumstances international law makes them legitimate targets.

    The UN's denial of the necessities of self-defense when it comes to Israel takes another form. The key international rule governing the use of force against terrorists is the requirement of proportionality. The Geneva Conventions say an attack on a military target "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life" is prohibited if "excessive." Only in Israel's case does the UN apply this rule to mean zero civilian deaths.

    On September 9, Israel targeted and killed two senior Hamas military-wing terrorists, Ahmed Uthman Muhammad Badr and Izzedin Hadr Shams-Edin Misq, in Hebron. At the time the two were "ticking bombs." They were engaged in planning suicide attacks in Israel in the very short term. Weapons and ammunition were found on their bodies.

    The response from the UN? Roed-Larsen "expressed serious alarm over the latest violence in the Middle East... after an Israeli operation yesterday in Hebron, in which a 12-year-old boy was killed... Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and refrain from the use of disproportionate force."

    THIS IS a complete fabrication of the tenets of international humanitarian law.

    The Geneva Conventions say the presence of "civilians shall not be used to render... areas immune from military operations... in attempts to shield military objectives from attack."
    It is the Palestinian Authority that violates international humanitarian law by putting civilians, deliberately and directly, in harm's way. Permitting killers to live, socialize, and plot freely in densely populated civilian neighborhoods is the violation of international law.

    The UN's refusal to deplore the Palestinian Authority's cold-blooded complicity in the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields encourages terrorism.

    As for the kingpin, Yasser Arafat, the Security Council convened immediately in response to Israel's suggestion that Arafat is a terrorist deserving of concomitant treatment. On September 16, the US was forced to exercise its veto, as 11 of 15 members voted in favor of the draft resolution. The resolution expressed grave concern about "extrajudicial killings and suicide-bombing," objected to any threat to remove Arafat, and made no mention of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and company.

    Israeli officials have repeatedly given hard evidence: the Karine A arms shipment from Iran to the Palestinian Authority, the checks for the Palestinian Preventive Security Services' terrorist weapons manufacturing operations, the money flowing to the Tanzim and Aksa Martyrs Brigades from the Palestinian Authority, the speeches in Arabic encouraging martyrdom.
    But at the UN, in Israel's case, smoking guns do not a terrorist make.

    President Bush needs to tell it to the General Assembly straight. In the war against terrorism the UN is now part of the problem, not the solution. Without radical change, those pointing weapons at the occupying power in Iraq will find in the UN a ready-made partnership.

    The writer is an international lawyer and professor at York University, Toronto, Canada. She represented the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists at the Durban NGO Forum, and UN Watch at the World Conference Against Racism.


    "Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  2. #2
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    Sep. 20, 2003
    The UN is unable to recognize terrorism, By Anne Bayefsky


    On Tuesday, September 23, President Bush will address the UN General Assembly. His speech will mark the opening of the 58th session's General Debate.

    At this pivotal moment in the war against terrorism, what does the world body need to hear?
    Recent UN actions indicate that the role of the UN is to encourage terrorism rather than to fight it.
    It begins with the UN refusal to define terrorism. Even today it is unable to produce a comprehensive international treaty against terrorism that would identify universal standards of behavior. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has the UN working group on the subject in a choke-hold.

    The OIC claims there is a difference between murder in the name of self-determination and terrorism. As an OIC treaty claims, terrorism is not "armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination." Or as the Arab terrorism convention puts it, "all cases of struggle by whatever means" for approved causes are exempt.

    In April 2002 in Kuala Lumpur the OIC adopted a "Declaration on International Terrorism," in which they made the point even plainer: "We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism."

    These formal declarations are not an abstraction. In the UN they find a willing partner. Free from the constraints of a definition of terrorism, on September 3 and 4, UN Headquarters hosted a conference called "End the Occupation!". UN officials went on a spending spree: 10 hours of webcast, films in the lunch break, a photo exhibit in the official UN conference room, and multiple publications from nongovernmental organizations.

    EXAMPLES OF the information flow under UN auspices: criticism that the "Zionism is racism" General Assembly resolution was revoked, a large map describing "the Zionist Invasion of 1948," various documents describing the "catastrophe/Al Nakba" of the creation of the state of Israel as "the largest planned ethnic cleansing in modern history," an advertisement for "The Killing Zone... a documentary about... occupied Palestine," discussions of an invited participant's proposal for a "one-state solution" in which the Jewish population would be outnumbered within a short space of time. The final "plan of action" painted Israelis as the "brutal" villains, accountable for their own bloodshed.

    For his part, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan thanked the responsible UN committee "for organizing this event."

    The UN's inability to recognize terrorism makes it equally incapable of recognizing self-defense against terrorism, or of distinguishing a "cycle" from cause and effect.

    On September 8, the secretary-general "condemn[ed] [the] attempt by Israel to assassinate the Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin." Annan said it was an "extrajudicial killing" "in violation of international law."

    On September 10, a few hours after Israelis were butchered in a Jerusalem caf in a suicide-bombing perpetrated by Hamas, Israel attempted to kill senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar. UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Terje Roed-Larsen, said he "deplores Israel's bombing of a Hamas leader's house in a densely populated Gaza neighborhood, which killed three and injured at least 30."

    On August 21, two days after Hamas massacred 23 people, from age three months, and mutilated 115 others on the streets of Israel's capital, Israel killed Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab. Annan said: "Israel does not have the right to resort to extrajudicial measures, as it used today in the Gaza Strip... The secretary-general calls upon the government of Israel to... halt its current military actions."

    THE UN role in the war against terrorism? While the terrorists take aim, Secretary-General Annan pins the victims' arms behind their backs.
    Israel targeted Yassin, al-Zahar and Shanab because they were a central part of the command and control structure of a terrorist organization. They were combatants in a war. They were therefore not entitled to a judicial process before an attempt to kill them. Their deaths would therefore not be "extrajudicial killings."

    Israel grants such combatants greater protection by holding back when arrest is possible, or when the Palestinian Authority is willing to arrest. Each case is examined individually. In these cases, Israel was unable to arrest these individuals and the Palestinian Authority made it clear it had no intention of doing so. In such circumstances international law makes them legitimate targets.

    The UN's denial of the necessities of self-defense when it comes to Israel takes another form. The key international rule governing the use of force against terrorists is the requirement of proportionality. The Geneva Conventions say an attack on a military target "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life" is prohibited if "excessive." Only in Israel's case does the UN apply this rule to mean zero civilian deaths.

    On September 9, Israel targeted and killed two senior Hamas military-wing terrorists, Ahmed Uthman Muhammad Badr and Izzedin Hadr Shams-Edin Misq, in Hebron. At the time the two were "ticking bombs." They were engaged in planning suicide attacks in Israel in the very short term. Weapons and ammunition were found on their bodies.

    The response from the UN? Roed-Larsen "expressed serious alarm over the latest violence in the Middle East... after an Israeli operation yesterday in Hebron, in which a 12-year-old boy was killed... Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and refrain from the use of disproportionate force."

    THIS IS a complete fabrication of the tenets of international humanitarian law.

    The Geneva Conventions say the presence of "civilians shall not be used to render... areas immune from military operations... in attempts to shield military objectives from attack."
    It is the Palestinian Authority that violates international humanitarian law by putting civilians, deliberately and directly, in harm's way. Permitting killers to live, socialize, and plot freely in densely populated civilian neighborhoods is the violation of international law.

    The UN's refusal to deplore the Palestinian Authority's cold-blooded complicity in the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields encourages terrorism.

    As for the kingpin, Yasser Arafat, the Security Council convened immediately in response to Israel's suggestion that Arafat is a terrorist deserving of concomitant treatment. On September 16, the US was forced to exercise its veto, as 11 of 15 members voted in favor of the draft resolution. The resolution expressed grave concern about "extrajudicial killings and suicide-bombing," objected to any threat to remove Arafat, and made no mention of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and company.

    Israeli officials have repeatedly given hard evidence: the Karine A arms shipment from Iran to the Palestinian Authority, the checks for the Palestinian Preventive Security Services' terrorist weapons manufacturing operations, the money flowing to the Tanzim and Aksa Martyrs Brigades from the Palestinian Authority, the speeches in Arabic encouraging martyrdom.
    But at the UN, in Israel's case, smoking guns do not a terrorist make.

    President Bush needs to tell it to the General Assembly straight. In the war against terrorism the UN is now part of the problem, not the solution. Without radical change, those pointing weapons at the occupying power in Iraq will find in the UN a ready-made partnership.

    The writer is an international lawyer and professor at York University, Toronto, Canada. She represented the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists at the Durban NGO Forum, and UN Watch at the World Conference Against Racism.


    "Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  3. #3
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    Not surprised at all Geist. In my opinion the UN building in NYC is a waste of valuable space. Diplomats here constantly break our laws because they are protected by the UN. I can never understand that reasoning. If they have no respect for the law why would they defend or make an International terrorism laws. Define terrorism? ask them to define a PARKING VIOLATION.
    The U.S should get out of the UN because it's obvious that the weak wants to lead the strong.

    <center>


    The beatings will stop when morale improves.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #4
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    Let's not forget that many of those nations are despotisms where the concept of democracy is a threat. And of course, we also have nations like Syria on the Security Council, Libya and Sudan on the Human Rights Council and Iraq as head of the disarmement council.

    "Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #5
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    Like I said, the UN is nothing more then a bad joke and a big waste of our money. How can you make Lybia and Sudan head of the Human rights council and Syria head of the Security council? It's like making a street drug dealer head of the correction facility. But then again wasnt Iraq head of the dissarmament committee?

    <center>


    The beatings will stop when morale improves.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #6
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    Don't be to harsh on the UN.

    After all, they are going to clean up the mess that the US made in Iraq.



    <center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #7
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    buccaneer wrote:
    - Don't be to harsh on the UN.
    -
    - After all, they are going to clean up the mess that
    - the US made in Iraq.


    ....which if they had any balls before the war it could have been avoided. But that is ok because under the US command they will look strong again.

    <center>


    The beatings will stop when morale improves.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #8
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    The problem with finding a final definition for terrorism is that it suffers greatly from cultural relativism. A terrorist for one group usually means a freedom fighter, rebel or separarist for the other.

    So all nations seem to have their own preferences and agendas. Before the war started there were several Kurdish orginastions fighting for a common goal. A sovereign state of their own. Interestingly, one group was labled a terrorists orginasation whilst the other received US funding. One final definition on terrorism would make such actions illegal and therefor undesireable for virtually all nations.

    The situation before the war in Iraq was quite interesting.

    Among the separatist groups, the Kurdistan Workers Party - active in Turkey is labled "terrorist", but not the KDP or PUK, which are Kurdish organisations active in Iraq fighting Saddam. Among opposition groups, the Iranian People's Mujahedeen is banned, but not its Iraqi equivalent, the INC, which happens to be financed by the United States.





    <center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #9
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    buccaneer wrote:

    - The problem with finding a final definition for
    - terrorism is that it suffers greatly from cultural
    - relativism. A terrorist for one group usually means
    - a freedom fighter, rebel or separarist for the
    - other.

    If they are freedom fighters how come their people are not free?
    -
    - So all nations seem to have their own preferences
    - and agendas. Before the war started there were
    - several Kurdish orginastions fighting for a common
    - goal. A sovereign state of their own. Interestingly,
    - one group was labled a terrorists orginasation
    - whilst the other received US funding.

    One was killing inocent civilians and their children and the other was killing the terrorists.

    One final definition on terrorism would make such actions
    - illegal and therefor undesireable for virtually all
    - nations.

    If the UN stop playing games and say all members of Hamas, Al quada, Mujahadeen fighters etc, that target civilians purposely should be taken out of deplomatic avenues and should be terminated.and then go out and actually do it, that should take care of that.

    buc you sound like Clinton, in his sex scandle with Monica, he was trying to play with words like depends what alone means or what is.....is, or that a B.J is not realy sex so it is not cheating/adultery on your wife.

    <center>


    The beatings will stop when morale improves.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. #10
    XyZspineZyX
    Guest
    Hornet57 wrote:

    - If they are freedom fighters how come their people
    - are not free?

    Because if they were free they wouldn't have to fight for it, now would they.

    - One was killing inocent civilians and their children
    - and the other was killing the terrorists.

    Which one?

    - If the UN stop playing games and say all members of
    - Hamas, Al quada, Mujahadeen fighters etc, that
    - target civilians purposely should be taken out of
    - deplomatic avenues and should be terminated.and then
    - go out and actually do it, that should take care of
    - that.

    Oh but I agree. The problem is that you can't include individual groups into one solid definition of terrorism. The mujahadeen, for instance, was of great importance to the US to fight of the Russians in Afghanistan. They were financed by the US, trained by the US (including that scumbag Osama) and the US wouldn't even consider to lable them terrorist. now their new friends are the Northen Alliance which by any definition are a terrorist group. Same goes for the KDP or PUK in Iraq (the ones that opened the northen front in Iraq in may)





    <center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •