Countering Terrorism Through Enhanced International Cooperation
An International Conference at the Initiative of the
International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council
of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme
in cooperation with the United Nations Terrorism Prevention Branch,
under the auspices of the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Justice of Italy
Courmayeur (Italy)
22-24 September 2000
Opening remarks by
Pino Arlacchi
Under Secretary General
Director-General, United Nations Office at Vienna
Executive Director, United Nations Office for
Drug Control and Crime Prevention
Excellencies, Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Allow me first of all to congratulate the organizers for their initiative in bringing us together in this conference. Our gratitude also goes to the Centro Nazionale di Prevenzione e Difesa Sociale, the Fondazione Courmayeur and the Val d'Aosta for their hospitality and their unwavering commitment to providing a forum where scientific thought can flourish and practical action can be planned.
I am especially gratified to be here today, for both professional and personal reasons.
This is not my first opportunity to participate in an ISPAC activity. My office has taken part in most ISPAC workshops and conferences in the past, dealing with crucial issues like money-laundering, corruption, crime and migration, violent crime and conflict, and of course transnational organized crime.
On the personal side, I had the privilege of being guided for many years of my life by the bright star of President Adolfo Beria di Argentine. His relentless and selfless work in the field of crime prevention was an inspiration to me, as it was, I am sure, to many of you. He would be pleased to see this event -- the largest ISPAC conference ever -- and know that ISPAC is alive and flourishing.
- Una nota personale a proposito di Adolfo Beria d'Argentine: Adolfo Beria é stato per molti di noi una persona che la segnato una svolta nella nostra vita. Portandoci vicino alle tematiche internationali, introducendo in questo Paese il lavoro delle Nazioni Unite. Io credo che a sia poco aggiungere alla commemorazione che il Prof. Mueller ha fatto, e penso dawero che il modo migliore per proseguire il suo lavoro è di continuarlo cosi come nol stiamo facendo in tutle le sedi. -
Such an impressive gathering underlines the determination of the professional and scientific communities and of civil society to come to terms with problems that are central to the efforts of nations to construct, maintain and safeguard an environment conducive to human security and human rights. The fight against terrorism is a fundamental part of this effort.
Terrorism is a problem which has troubled the international community for more than three decades. The need for international cooperation in combating it is well established. Yet the needed degree of cooperation is often absent. I would like to share with you a few remarks on the fundamental obstacles to international cooperation in fighting terrorism.
Four issues are worthy of analysis in this respect:
1 - The definition problem;
2 - The question of 'political' crime;
3 - The possible links between 'organized crime' and 'terrorism', and
4 - The issue of religiously-motivated terrorism.
I will begin with the definition problem : The United Nations has found it hard to achieve a minimum consensus on the definition of the phenomenon. Some Member States want to exclude certain forms of armed struggle, arguing that national liberation and resistance movements against foreign occupation should not be labeled as 'terrorism'. Others argue that it is the means by which a struggle is conducted -- not its goal -- that determine whether it should be labeled 'terrorism'.
In the absence of consensus, the UN has opted for a piecemeal approach. Certain acts of violence and coercion, no matter what the motive, are outlawed in a number of anti-terrorist conventions. These initially included mainly the phenomenon of 'hijacking' and the placing of bombs which were subject to international condemnation under formal agreements.
There now exist a dozen of these UN conventions and protocols. In fact, a possible new one will be discussed next week in New York, based on a draft 'Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism', submitted by India.
Article 2 of the revised draft addresses the definition question. It characterizes certain violent acts as falling under the terms of the draft convention "when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act" (1) Whether this attempt at a definition finds backing remains of course to be seen.
Terrorism is multifaceted. It often encompasses elements of politics, warfare and propaganda next to its criminal element. In some ways, acts of terrorism resemble war crimes -- civilians are deliberately attacked, hostages are taken, and persons taken as prisoners are threatened with death. Yet so far there has been little political support for a definition of acts of terrorism as peacetime equivalents of war crimes. And sometimes one gains the impression that the lack of consensus on a definition may not result as much from conceptual reasons, confusion as from political factors.
The political nature of some forms of terrorism has been a second notable obstacle to enhanced international cooperation. Terrorists themselves stress the political element of their struggle, while law enforcement agencies point to the criminal nature of their activities. Yet these two perceptions do not have to be mutually exclusive.
The concept of 'political crime' raises sensitive legal issues. In fact, the notion of 'political offense' has a special place in extradition law and in the granting of political asylum.
States claim what might be called a "monopoly on violence" within their own territory. They prosecute the private use of violence for private as well as for public, that is, 'political' purposes. But they often take a less vigorous stand when the use of private violence for public purposes is taking place in another country.
A member of an armed opposition group who has fled from his country is often considered to be a political offender rather than a common criminal and is less likely to be extradited. While most states make no distinction between common and political crimes for their own citizens, they sometimes do so for foreign citizens, depending on the nature of the foreign government and the gravity of the offense of the 'political criminal'. (2)
The current trend is away from this distinction when it comes to 'terrorist crimes', and extradition is becoming more widespread. In practice, however, humanitarian, political and human rights considerations tend to slow down this trend.
A third issue that gives rise to much controversy is the existence and the nature of links between terrorist groups and organized crime groups , especially those involved in drug trafficking. The issue is politically sensitive because it affects extradition policies with regard to persons involved in either terrorism, drug trafficking or both.
In the last decade, we have seen a decline of state-sponsored international terrorism. There are many reasons for that - the end of the cold war, more energetic international action, and, I believe, the work of the United Nations played a role in this positive development. This has meant that different sources of financing have been sought by terrorist groups. Since few of these groups can live from so-called 'voluntary contributions' from their constituency, they engage in other fund-raising practices, some legal, most not. 'Revolutionary taxes' are extracted from businessmen. Wealthy individuals or company executives are kidnaped for ransom. Profits are sought from trafficking in human beings and drugs. There is a common pattern all over the world, and we see it in many practical ways in the work we do in several continents in fighting narcotics, in places such as Colombia and Central Asia. It is one of the major concerns we have today. The fact that illegal activities have become the main source of funding for these groups and the contamination between criminal and terrorist and sometimes insurgent, not strictly terrorist groups, is becoming a matter of major concern.
We can also find these practices in organized crime groups that have no political agenda. Even more confusing, some organized crime groups use acts of terrorism, such as bombings, as a tactic. Such acts are devoid of any political content but not without political impact. This has led to the use of the term 'narco-terrorism' in some countries affected both by drug-related organized crime and politically-motivated terrorist violence.
While it is true that terrorists break the law and commit vicious crimes, and it is true that they are organized, these facts alone do not make a terrorist group the equivalent of an organized crime group. Of course, some terrorist groups cooperate with organized criminal organizations. And some armed political groups - terrorist or not - sometimes 'degenerate' into 'organized crime' groups.
All of this makes the line separating the two phenomena sometimes a very thin one. But it would, in my view, be unwise to fuse the fight against international terrorism with the fight against transnational organized crime.
This is a very difficult issue. The position of several member states is that even if there are strong linkages between the two phenomena, even if we are seeing a growing degree of interaction between mafias all over the world and terrorist groups or terrorist acts and so on, we should not identify these two phenomena with each other. The issue comes up on a daily basis at our office in Vienna. Some member states want to treat the fight against terrorism and the fight against organized crime as a single issue. Many other member states do not agree. The discussions that prepared the new convention against organized crime were very interesting from this point of view. The latter view prevailed, that we should keep separate the international instruments governing these two phenomena, even if they contain references to acts of terrorism and organized crime tactics that are more and more similar.
A fourth issue of concern is the relationship between religion and terrorism . In recent years we have seen the labeling of certain terrorist movements that carry religion in their banner as 'Islamic'. Yet hardly anybody speaks about 'Christian terrorism' or 'Hindu terrorism'. The religion of Islam has unfortunately been linked to terrorism by groups of political entrepreneurs. These groups misuse the Islamic notion of a Jihad to mobilize young men and women, inducing them to fight for causes that might or might not be related to religion. Like ethnicity, religion is a tool for mobilization and, like nationalism, it can be abused.
The notion of 'sacrifice' -- sacrificing innocent lives or sacrificing one's own life to become a martyr for a cause -- this notion is one that terrorists have, as it were, 'borrowed' from religion. Religious groups often claim to be in possession of absolute truth, and some terrorist groups do the same. Religion also appears to offer the terrorist a seemingly 'moral 'justification for immoral deeds. Human rights violations are 'justified' in the name of an invoked 'divine law'. Brutal violence can take on a seemingly 'sacred' character and elevate the slaughter of innocents to a 'holy war'. In social psychology terms, this is a "neutralization" mechanism, which redefines actual murder as sacrifice.
When does religion fuse with political violence? Poverty, social injustice and repression are often listed as prime causes of insurgent terrorism. If desperate enough, such situations can drive people to migration, revolt, crime, suicide, madness or religious fervor. The terrorist often fanatically combines several of these.
How to deal with such fanatic terrorism, with its dogmatism and intolerance, is a question to which we need urgent answers.
I have tried to sketch some conceptual problems which form obstacles to enhanced international cooperation. I ask for your support in overcoming these obstacles. As you know, we have, since last year, a small but dynamic Terrorism Prevention Branch at the United Nations Office in Vienna. It devotes itself, for the time being, mainly to research. The team seeks out promising approaches to combating terrorism. These 'good practices' will form part of a toolbox of counter-terrorist measures for use in technical assistance.
Our objective is to establish a link between the strategic insights from research and the need for greater international cooperation based on 'best practices' and 'lessons learned'.
While the Terrorism Prevention Branch deals with research and technical assistance, the legislative action against international terrorism is the domain of the Office of Legal Affairs in New York, under the leadership of my colleague Hans Corell, who is here with us. I thank him for his participation. His Office and the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism are working hard to bring about a greater legal consensus among Member States so that there are no safe havens and escape routes for international terrorists.
The United Nations and the law enforcement agencies of its Member States cannot defeat international terrorism alone. We need knowledge and wisdom from academia and professional organizations. And we need the help of NGOs and civil society on the other. It is my strong conviction that only a combined effort will prevent and finally eliminate international terrorism.
I wish you success and thank you for the invitation.
1. Art. 2 of the revised draft for a comprehensive convention on international terrorism submitted by India.
2. For a discussion of "What is a Political Crime?", see A.P. Schmid, Political Terorrism. A research guide to concepts, theories, data bases and literature. Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Comp., 1984, pp. 25-38.