General Assembly condemns terrorism wherever and by whomever committed; hostage-taking and abduction condemned by Security Council.

General Assembly condemns terrorism wherever and by whomever committed; Hostage-taking and abduction condemned by Security Council

In action that was described as "historic" and "a truly important achievement", the General Assembly on 9 December 1985 unanimously and "unequivocally" condemned as "criminal", all acts, methods and practices of terrorism "wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize friendly relations among States and their security".

Nine days later, the Security Council, also acting unanimously, unequivocally condemned "all acts of hostage-taking and abduction", and called for the immediate safe release of all hostages and abducted persons "wherever and by whomever they are being held".

Assembly President Jaime de Pinies of Spain on 9 December said: "At a time when the world-wide escalation of acts of terrorism in all its forms endangers or takes innocent human lives, it is particularly gratifying that during this fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, all Member States have found it possible to agree on how to deal with an issue of such importance for the international community." The passage of the resolution was, he said, "an event that can be truly called historic".

On the same day, Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar called the assembly action "a truly important achievement" of the fortieth session. "It reflects a major move, on the widest possible scale, to deal with a problem having universal implications" he asserted.

The action was, he said, "an expression of the kind of international solidarity and mutual confidence that should always mark the endeavours of the United Nations--a solidarity for which, I believe, has been the principal thrust of the statements made during this session."

He concluded: "We need increasingly to cultivate this way of functioning in our Organization, in the interest of all Member States and the peoples of the world whom we serve."

At a press conference on 18 December, the Secretary-General said the adoption of the resolutions by the Assembly and the Security Council would give "a very, very constructive message to the whole international community, which is very much concerned about the increase in terrorist activities in the world."

Assembly text: By resolution 40/61, on measures to prevent international terrorism, the Assembly asked all States to take appropriate measures at the national level with a view to "the speedy and final elimination" of the problem, such as the harmonization of domestic legislation with existing international conventions, the fulfilment of assumed international obligations, and the prevention of the preparation and organization in their respective territories of act directed against other States.

States were called on to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other States, or acquiescing in activities within their territory directed towards the commission of such acts. They were also urged to co-operate with one another more closely, especially through the exchange of relevant information concerning the prevention and combating of terrorism, apprehension and prosecution or extradition of the perpetrators of terrorist acts, and the conclusion of special treaties "and/or the incorporation into appropriate bilateral treaties of special clauses, in particular regarding the extradition or prosecution of terrorists".

The Assembly urged States to contribute to "the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism". States were asked to pay special attention to all situations, including, inter alia, "colonialism, racism and situations involving mass and flagrant violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and those involving alien occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security".

The Assembly asked States that had not done so to consider becoming party to existing international conventions relating to international terrorism. States were urged not to allow any circumstances to obstruct the application of appropriate law enforcement measures provided for in relevant conventions to which they were party to persons who committed acts of international terrorism covered by those conventions.

States were also asked to take all appropriate measures to prevent terrorist attacks against civil aviation transport and other forms of public transport. The International Civil Aviation Organization was requested to continue efforts to promote universal acceptance of and strict compliance with international air security conventions, while the International Maritime Organization was asked to study the problem of terrorism aboard or against ships with a view to making recommendations on appropriate measures.

The Assembly also reaffirmed the principle of self-determination of peoples as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and deplored the loss of innocent human lives resulting from acts of international terrorism and their "pernicious impact" on relations of co-operation among States.

Delegates applauded the passage of the resolution, which had been recommended for Assembly action in the Sixth Committee (Legal) on 6 December by a vote of 118 in favour to 1 against (Cuba), with 2 abstentions (Burkina Faso, Israel).

Security Council resolution: In its resolution 579 (1985), the Security Council affirmed the obligation of all States, in whose territory hostages or abducted persons were held, urgently to take all appropriate measures to secure their safe release and to prevent the commission of acts of hostages-taking and abduction in the future.

It appealed to all States that had not done so to consider becoming parties to the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents, the 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, the 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, and other relevant conventions.

The Council urged the further development of international cooperation among States in devising and adopting effective measures "which are in accordance with the rules of international law" to facilitate the prevention, prosecution and punishment of all acts of hostage-taking and abduction "as manifestations of international terrorism".

The text was submitted by Australia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Trinidad and Tobago, the United Kingdom and the United States.

In a 16 December letter to the Council President, the United States requested the meeting "in view of the serious situation created by acts of hostage-taking and abduction".

Debate

In the Sixth Committee, there were 57 speakers on the subject of prevention of international terrorism. Among them was Israel, which said no cause could justify acts of terrorism or serve as a pretext for States to escape obligations under international law. International terrorism was aimed at destroying the rule of law. It must be condemned and fought whatever its origins or the causes invoked for it. Israel, often the victim of acts of terrorism, vigorously condemned terrorism as a means of attaining political objectives. The reference to self-determination in the draft could be interpreted only as an attempt to "blur the important truth that acts of terrorism were unjustifiable in themselves, regardless of their professed aims".

Colombia called for an end to terrorism which had become a form of war against the interests of free nations, democratic practices and any peaceful solution guaranteed by international law. It said terrorism was assuming its current form because it was tolerated and justified whenever it occurred. To counter that "scourage", it was first essential to remedy the political, economic and social situations that gave rise to it, "despite any satisfaction that can be derived from certain political circumstances". It was also necessary to transcend ideological divergences and adopt universally acceptable measures to eliminate such acts of barbarism.

Albania strongly condemned all manifestations of terrorism--"in the first place State terrorism organized by the two super-Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and other imperialist Powers which constitute the main force of aggression and war and international terrorism". Individuals were not responsible for the recent upsurge in terrorism, which, as an instrument of State policy, was primarily attributable to the profound economic, political, social and moral crises in "the capitalist revisionist world".

Chile said a powerful nation had elevated interference in the internal affairs of States to the status of a doctrine. That State was unable to tolerate the fact that a small country had freed itself from the grip of its totalitarian ideology. Discredited in the eye of its supporters by that major failure, it was now promoting domestic terrorism, chaos, anarchy and hatred in the country in question.

Honduras said that the root causes of terrorism must be examined in order to eliminate "that increasingly destructive scourge". But the Sixth Committee was not the most appropriate forum to do so. The Secretary-General, in collaboration with the United Nations University and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, was better suited for that task. Honduras looked forward to the early completion of such a study and the drafting of a document reflecting the concerns of all parties.

The United States said terrorism struck at the very fabric of law. To lose sight of human rights concerns in the pursuit of eliminating terrorism would be to further the "barbaric goals of those who engaged in acts of terrorism", which could not be justified or tolerated. States had to rededicate themselves to intensified co-operation to prevent such acts. Its "breeding-grounds" had to be eliminated, and the solution to problems which divided nations found in a manner consistent with the Charter. To assert terrorism until all violence in inter-State relations had been eliminated was simply a "smoke-screen to hide an unwillingness to act".

The USSR urged the adoption of the strongest possible measures to suppress acts of international terrorism. One form--State terrorism--had particularly grave consequences, and Israel's criminal attack against Tunisia was an example of that. It condemned any attempt to equate terrorism with the legitimate struggle of peoples for their national, economic and social liberation. Those who "trampled on the legitimate rights and interests of sovereign States and peoples, encouraged the ideology of racial and national hatred, supported reactionary and dictatorial regimes kept in power only through the use of terror, heightened tension in the world, accelerated the arms race and generated a climate of military psychosis" were the sources of "arbitrariness, violence and terrorism on the international scene."

Iraq said no agreement had yet been reached on defining the concept of international terrorism, on how to guarantee application of the definition, or on the question of whether measures to combat terrorism, should be preventive or punitive. For such measures to be successful, the underlying causes of terrorism had to be examined, and political will to tackle those causes must exist. No measure aimed at preventing terrorism should in any way encroach on the right of peoples to achieve self-determination and to liberate themselves from a colonial or racist regime, which were underlying causes of acts of violence. Those causes should not be overlooked when measures to prevent international terrorism were being considered.

Belgium on behalf of the European Community, Spain and Portugal, said those countries were determined to combat acts of terrorism vigorously, without yielding to the pressure of their perpetrators terrorism could be achieved only if the political, economic and social situations which nurtured it were improved. Terrorism could not be justified by the objectives pursued. The prevention and punishment of criminal attacks should be ensured, and the taking of hostages and other crimes must no longer be treated as "acts whose political character protected their perpetrators from extradition or prosecution". A campaign to combat terrorism effectively must be waged in full compliance with the norms of international law and of domestic legality.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said that possibly the most dangerous form of international terrorism was that experienced by the South African, Namibian and Palestinian peoples. Some States had been using the expression "State terrorism" perniciously as a propaganda weapon to vilify many States with which they simply disagreed on somt tissue, or to harass peoples struggling to regain their freedom and exercise their right to self-determination. Some States observed a double standard in the matter of State terrorism. An act perpetrated by an individual was considered State terrorism, as opposed to a more serious act whose perpetrator was regime based on State terrorism. It was inadmissible for a State to violate the law under the pretext of combating terrorism. The best way to combat terrorism was to study its underlying causes and pay adequate attention to practical measures for eliminating them.

The Syrian Arab Republic said it had proved that it was combating acts of terrorism by participating in the release of hostages and endeavouring to protect their lives. Syrian legislation prohibited acts of terrorism for which it imposed the severest punishments. To allow, as Israel and the United States did, State terrorism to be used to respond to individual terrorism only created a vicious circle. Only by studying the underlying causes of terrorism and combating them would it be possible to combat terrorism itslef, for instance by allowing Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination in an independent State. A distinction must be made between national resistance and terrorism.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) said it, and the Palestinian people, who had always been the victim of international terrorism, and condemned terrorism. Israel had adopted State terrorism as an instrument of its policy of aggression and expansion. Strong in the knowledge of their military superiority and comforted by the massive support they received from Washington, the racist regimes of Pretoria and Tel-Aviv continued to cultivate the confusion between the concept of legitimate national resistance and that of terrorism. In the struggle against terrorism, one could not ignore the underlying causes of certain acts of violence, for instance the "exasperation and despair engendered by persistent denial of the fundamental right to self-determination".

Kuwait said a satisfactory solution to the problem of terrorism would be achieved only by tackling its underlying causes. States had been responsible for certain acts of terrorism. Political considerations must be taken into account in the search for solutions because most acts of terrorism were political in nature. Measures adopted to combat terrorism must not prejudice the right of peoples to self-determination, but must be directed against the underlying causes of international terrorism. International terrorism must be defined so as to protect fundamental freedoms and tackle its underlying causes.

Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic countries, said acts such as hostage-taking and the murder of innocent persons had never served any legitimate cause. The legitimacy of a cause, such as the struggle for self-determination and independence, did not in itself legitimize the use of certain forms of violence, especially violence against innocent persons. There must be no safe haven for terrorists. To await a solution to the wrongs of the world before dealing with the problem of terrorism would not seem justified. What was urgently needed was a confirmed willingness by States to act in accordance with their international obligations and to cooperate in good faith to stem the rising tide of international terrorism.

Algeria said the true nature and dimension of "isolated acts of despair engendered by oppression, domination and racism" must be recognized. There could be no parallel between terrorism, as such, and the struggles waged by liberation movements. Any attempt to equate national liberation struggles with terrorism must be rejected. State terrorism was a reality which could not be ignored; it was "the most fearsome and the most dangerous form of terrorism". Zionist acts of aggression and those of South Africa were examples of that form of terrorism. No formula would succeed in resolving the problem of terrorism unless its underlying causes were removed.

Egypt recognized the distinction between acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, punishable both nationally and internationally, and the activities of guerrillas and freedom fighters, whose legal rights and obligations had been endorsed and confirmed in relevant international legal instruments. It condemned all acts of violence and terrorism and all acts of reprisal, whether by individuals or by States.

China said the need to combat international terrorism should not lead people to overlook the importance of eliminating its causes. The imperialist, colonialist, hegemonist and racist countries violated the sovereignty and independence of other States and invaded their territories by force of arms. They also slaughtered, expelled or persecuted innocent people, driving them from one place to another, and plunging them into misery. Those illegal acts constituted more serious international terrorist activities and were often the direct cause of other international terrorist activities. The ever-widening gap between the rich North and poor South had locked many developing countries into a situation which accentuated misery, frustration and despair prompting some people to commit terrorist acts at the risk of their own lives in an attempt to effect radical changes. A clear distinction should be made between international terrorism and national liberation movements.

Iran said it had been the victim of terrorism supported by foreign Powers. It was ironic that some aggressive and terrorist Governments were sponsoring draft international conventions against terrorism. Iran rejected all efforts to equate terrorism with the struggle of oppressed peoples to liberate their homeland from foreign occupation and domination and to establish justice and freedom. The aggressive acts of the Zionist occupiers in southern Lebanon, the air raids on the PLO headquarters in Tunis, the racial violence in South Africa and Namibia, the concerted acts of terrorism against the sovereignty and independence of Nicaragua, Angola and Mozambique and the acts of mass repression and murder against the Moslem people of Afghanistan deserved particular condemnation.

Jordan said a distinction should be drawn between acts of terrorism against the legitimate rights of the human being and acts of resistance intended to recover rights that had been wrested away or human rights that had been flouted, for those who were subject to terrorism must struggle to defend themselves. Jordan condemned all forms of terrorism. The only way of combating that scourge was for countries to accede to relevant international conventions on the matter.

Tunisia said some regimes used violence and terrorism as policy instruments. Israel's aggression against Tunisia on 1 October 1985 had resulted in the deaths of 78 people; more than 100 others were wounded, and considerable material damage had been inflicted. For Israel, State terrorism was a mode of governmen; its leaders had always practised terrorism; it was clearly not a peaceful State. The acts of common criminals could not be placed on an equal footing with those of combatants, just as it was impossible to attack the fundamental right of peoples to self-determination and the legitimacy of the struggle of liberation movements against colonialism and other forms of oppression. Sustained and concerted measures must be taken against State terrorism--the most dangerous form of terrorism--since it prevented the use of peaceful means to solve conflicts and exacerbated situations by creating a vicious circle of terror and reprisals.

Cuba said some States could not be considered opponents of terrorism because they were the very ones which generated economic, political, social and cultural instability in such convulsed regions as Central America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. States which advocated national and international co-operation to combat terrorism had not expressed any regret about the massacres of thousands of Salvadorians, Nicaraguans, Angolans and Vietnamese, nor had they made any disinterested contribution towards improving the economic structures of third world countries with a view to helping them eliminate their hunger, poverty and external indebtedness. Cuba rejected terrorism and opposed the "trend in vogue" in imperialist countries of equating terrorist activities of groups of individuals with the legitimate struggle of national liberation movements.

Angola said State terrorism was the most dangerous form of terrorism, "the instrument used by some States to dominate other States and impose on them their political terms." Terrorist activities were being promoted on pretexts such as "the safeguarding of vital Western interests", "restoring public order and democratic institutions", "self-defence" and even "constructive engagement". Acts of terrorism could not be equated, under any pretext, with the acts of those who were fighting against colonial and racist oppression and for their freedom and independence. Angola, Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho and Zimbabwe were the victims of terrorist activities directed by South Africa, which was also carrying out direct military operations against the countries of souther Africa.