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