GA MEETING ON UN GLOBAL COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001136 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PTER UNGA SUBJECT: GA MEETING ON UN GLOBAL COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY OFFERS CONSTRUCTIVE DEBATE REF: STATE 162362 ¶1. SUMMARY: The General Assembly (GA) convened an informal meeting to review the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy on December 4. Member States expressed broad support for the Strategy and held a constructive debate that lacked the polemics of previous meetings on the Strategy. Representatives of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF) briefed the GA on UN efforts to implement the strategy and said the CTITF would soon have a single point of contact that States could engage for assistance requests. Pakistan's PermRep cautioned against references to radicalism as a "root cause of terrorism" and said the Strategy still needed a definition of terrorism. Ambassador Wolff delivered the U.S. statement as instructed by reftel. The GA plans to convene a formal review of the Strategy in September 2008. END SUMMARY. ¶2. The General Assembly held an informal meeting on the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy on December 4, the first such meeting since the adoption of the Strategy in 2006 (A/RES/60/288). (NOTE: The General Assembly plans to hold a formal review of the Strategy in September 2008. END NOTE.) Ambassadors Baki Ilkin (Turkey) and Elbio Rosselli (Uruguay) chaired the all-day session that began with opening remarks from the President of the General Assembly and Secretary-General Ban. ¶3. Member States discussed their national implementation efforts and listened to reports on the Strategy's implementation from the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, the Al Qaida/Taliban Monitoring Team, the World Bank, the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),INTERPOL, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The structure of the debate followed the major themes outlined in the Strategy: measures to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism; measures to prevent and combat terrorism; measures to build States' capacity to prevent and combat terrorism and to strengthen the role of the UN system in this regard; and measures to ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism. ¶4. In their statements, Member States expressed broad support for the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and underscored its importance as a "historic achievement" and the first universal, comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism. Delegations emphasized the need to closely monitor the Strategy's implementation and said that success would depend on the collective efforts of all Member States. Many delegations reiterated that the implementation of the Strategy was not the responsibility of the UN, but of the Members themselves. ¶5. Most delegations, including Syria, Sudan and Iran, delivered pro-forma, constructive interventions. Israel and other delegations told USUN the atmospherics were a welcome change from the polemics of previous meetings. Among the few naysayers, Cuba repeated its earlier criticisms of the U.S. with respect to Luis Posada Carriles. In a right of reply, Iran accused Argentina of covering up "judicial inadequacies" in response to Argentina's reference to five Iranian citizens that were implicated in the 1994 bombing of a synagogue in Buenos Aires. ¶5. Commenting on the significance of the Strategy, Pakistan's PermRep Munir Akram said it was a "potentially historic" document; however, he criticized the lack of a definition of terrorism and the exclusion of State terrorism in the Strategy. In thinking about terrorism, Akram said one needed to distinguish between local terrorist networks motivated by local grievances, and transnational networks, like al-Qaida, that exploit grievances genuinely felt by Muslims throughout the world. Akram warned that measures that proposed to deal with the root causes of terrorism by addressing radicalization ultimately would be counterproductive, arguing that radicalism was not a cause of terrorism, but the result of oppression. Akram said defining radicalism as a cause of terrorism, and referring to Islamic ideology within the context of radicalization as "Islamo-fascism", would only bolster support for groups like al Qaida. ¶6. Turning to the UN role in counter-terrorism, Algeria said the Organization needed to move away from the Chapter 7 measures of the Security Council and toward a more inclusive approach that gives equal representation to all Member States. Algeria suggested the establishment of a special counter-terrorism unit in the UN that would serve as the sole body responsible for combating terrorism comprised of members from the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Human Rights Commission. ¶7. As to implementation monitoring and the effectiveness of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF), Canada said the review of the Strategy mandate in 2008 should not create burdensome reporting requirements and also suggested more regular meetings among donors to coordinate assistance. CTITF Chairman Robert Orr (U.S.) said the Task Force welcomed the opportunity to assist States with implementation and said that States would eventually be able to engage the CTITF with a single request. Khalilzad