Measures to prevent terrorism, protection of diplomats discussed in legal committee.

Measures to prevent terrorism, protection of diplomates discussed in Legal Committee

Debate on measures to prevent international terrorism and to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives dominated the work of the Sixth (Legal) Committee in October.

Circulated during the month in the Committee were three draft resolutions on the international terrorism item.

The first, sponsored by Colombia, would have the General Assembly urge all States to contribute to the progresive elimination of the causes of international terrorism, to take all measures for a speedy and final elimination of the problem, and to support and strengthen the international agreements against terrorism.

The second, sponsored by Angola, Cuba and other States, would have the Assembly recognize that, in order to contribute to eliminating the causes of international terrorism, the Assembly and the Security Council should pay special attention to all situations that might give rise to such terrorism, with a view to applying, where feasible and necessary, relevant Charter provisions, including Chapter VII.

The third draft--sponsored by 17 States, most of them Western--would have the Assembly urge all States not to permit "alleged political motivation or circumstances' to obstruct the application of all appropriate law enforcement measures provided for in relevant conventions to persons who committed acts of international terrorism covered by those conventions.

Terrorism

Carl August Fleischhauer, United Nations Legal Counsel, told the Committee that as at 5 August 1985, the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages had been ratified or acceded to by 27 States and signed by 40 nations. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, now had 65 States parties. In 1983, he said, the Assembly had appealed to States to become parties to existing international coventions on terrorism. Participation by States in such agreements was part of international cooperative efforts to deal with terrorism, he said.

In his report on the work of the Organization (A/40/1), the Secretary-General had stated that acts of terrorism had spread "to virtually all parts of the globe' and were "exceptionally difficult to cope with since they involve desperate acts by desperate people willing to violate national and international law regardless of the risk to their own lives'. The most tragic aspect of that problem was the "increasing loss of innocent civilian lives', he said. Governments should implement the relevant international legal instruments, and might wish to consider what further measures of international co-operation could be effectively devised.

Debate

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. Political, economic and social situations that gave rise to terrorism must be remedied. Ideological divergences must be transcended and universally acceptable measures adopted. (Continued on page 102)

Angola said the growing practice of terrorism made it necessary to differentiate between all other forms of terrorism and state terrorism, which was the most dangerous and the favoured method of action of certain States to dominate others. Terrorist acts were fomented under various pretexts, such as safeguarding the vital interests of the West and "constructive engagement'. Angola, Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho and Zimbabwe had been victims of terrorism at the hands of South Africa which supported armed groups aiming to destabilize those countries.

Belgium, on behalf of the European Community, Portugal and Spain, said because of its barbarity, terrorism could not be justified by the objectives pursued. Criminal attacks and the taking of hostages must no longer be treated as acts whose political character protected their perpetrators from extradition or prosecution.

The USSR urged the adoption of the strongest possible measures to suppress acts of international terrorism, one form of which--state terrorism--had particularly grave consequences. States should not present terrorists as criminals in some cases and as "heroes' in others. States must eliminate the causes of terrorism, among which were colonialism, aggression, violation of the political independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, racism, and apartheid, fascism and neo-fascism. The USSR condemned any attempt to equate terrorism with the legitimate struggle of peoples for their national, economic and social liberation, and categorically rejected allegations that socialist countries participated in international terrorism.

The United States said that existing conventions on interference with civil aviation, protection of diplomats and hostage-taking were based on the prosecute-or-extradite approach. 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 such acts. Every terrorist attack subverted the existence of laws and every concession to terrorists diminished the humanity of all. States needed to rededicate themselves to intensified co-operation to prevent acts of terrorism. It was hardly conducive to international co-operation to "mouth tired, anachronistic slogans about capitalism, imperialism, counter-revolution and so forth'. The complete elimination of terrorism required the elimination of its breeding-grounds, the solution to problems which divided nations. To assert that nothing should be done about terrorism until all violence in inter-State relations had been eliminated was simply a "smoke-screen' to hide an unwillingness to act.

Protection of diplomats

In considering effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, the Committee reviewed a report of the Secretary-General (A/40/453 and Add.1-3) including details of incidents of violations of diplomatic security, including assault, assassination, abduction and bombing.

Belgium referred to the attack on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization headquarters in April 1985, and the placing of explosives in front of a building used by the Consul General of Turkey and the first counsellor of the Embassy of Greece. The United Kingdom reported on the kidnapping and murder of a senior official of the Indian High Commission in the United Kingdom in February 1984, and the subsequent trial of the perpetrators.

Austria reported the fatal shooting in November 1984 of Evner Ergun, Assistant Director of the United Nations Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs. Canada reported the serious injury in March 1985 of the Turkish Ambassador to Canada. In both cases, the "Armenian Revolutionary Army' claimed responsibility.

Turkey cited violations of security of Turkish diplomatic and consular missions in both Canada and Iran in 1984 and 1985. Kuwait reported the assassination there in March of the Iraqi assistant cultural attache. The Philippines reported that the son of a diplomat had been assaulted by two New York City transit policemen in October 1984. Spain reported the killing in December 1983 of an employee of the Jordanian Embassy in Madrid. Portugal gave a summary of various incidents that had occurred over a 10-year period.

Legal Counsel Fleischhauer, introducing the report, said the document did not reflect the situation as it currently stood: incidents were increasing in number. Violence seemed to be gaining ground not only against diplomatic and consular officers, but also against other classes of people employed at the international level.

Debate

Finland, on behalf of the five Nordic countries, said that reporting procedures concerning serious violations of the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular representatives could be seen as a way to strengthen diplomatic protection. Violations of the safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives were increasing at an alarming rate.

The USSR condemned the taking of four Soviet diplomats in Beirut as hostages by an "extremist rightist organization'. The subsequent murder of one diplomat was "an act of barbarous terrorism'. Embassies, permanent missions to international organizations and consular establishments were often the target of hostile and criminal activities and defamation campaigns, waged with the complicity and even participation of the authorities of certain States and aimed at inciting scorn and hostility towards diplomatic representatives of other States. Steps must be taken without delay, at national, regional and international levels, to combat criminal activities against diplomats.

Belgium, on behalf of the European Community, said no country was immune from attacks against diplomats and their missions. All countries should therefore firmly oppose such criminal actions through joint and concerted efforts. Current international legislation offered sufficient means to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives. Governments, however, were not always able or willing to make use of those means in specific situations.

The United States said all Member States must take firm action to end attacks against diplomats. One way would be to ratify the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, which, provides for the obligation to extradite or prosecute alleged offenders. The reporting procedures outlined in General Assembly resolution 39/83 were a means to the international community aware of the extent of the problem. A consultative mechanism should be established as a way for Member States to consider measures against States which failed to carry out their obligations under the Convention.