Based on my journal entry dated August 8, 2006, “The Foiled Terrorist Plot, International Terrorism, and the New Rome,” I looked at United Nations proposals for an International Convention on Terrorism, and found that there is no agreement among the world’s nations as to what would constitute such a convention. Indeed, the nations of the world have not managed to approve a definition of international terrorism. Oh yes, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has composed a mountain of written material on the subject, but has not been able to vote to accept a worldwide policy on international terrorism. This despite the fact that the UNGA has recognized for at least ten years that an international approach to terrorism is necessary. For instance, in December of 1994 the UNGA did approve a policy that enumerated “measures to eliminate international terrorism” without a vote. *

“Attempts to suppress international terrorism on a selective geographical basis had little hope of lasting success, the representative of India told the Sixth Committee this afternoon, as it concluded its discussion of measures to eliminate international terrorism. Efforts by the rich industrialized countries to limit the battle to their own territories and the Middle East were no substitute for a comprehensive international approach, he said.” *2

That statement by the representative from India would imply that the United States own anti terrorist activity is part of the solution, NOT, and I repeat, NOT THE SOLUTION. Of course each nation is responsible for the suppression of home grown terrorism within its own borders, and participation at the international level to prevent and destroy international terrorism. The documents written by the UNGA's Sixth Committee, the organization responsible for UN policy on international terrorism so states. At the same time, states must not instigate or organize terrorist activities.

“States, guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and other relevant rules of international law, must refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts, in territories of other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts;” *3

I cannot find a statement in the UNGA published policies that sanction unilateral action by a single nation or group of nations outside the purview of the UNGA against international terrorism as expressed through the occupation of any nation with the purpose of eliminating terrorist activity in that nation. Thus, it would appear that the preemptive strike in Iraq is not legal in the eyes of the UNGA, though that body has taken no steps to censure the United States. Suffice it to say, that much of the world community of states views that invasion as, at a minimum, not sanctioned by the United Nations.

Of course, the United States approach to International Terrorism has long been suspect. Consider a bizarre move by the Bush administration in 2004, the lobbying of the United States for the release of international terrorists Guillermo Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon, and Gaspar Jimenez in Panama. These men were responsible collectively for various international acts of terror that included the following; “…fired a bazooka at the United Nations headquarters in New York, served time in connection with the first state-sponsored act of terrorism in the United States, or actively participated in secret groups that claimed responsibility for dozens of bombings in New York, New Jersey and Florida…” *4

Ah well, I realize that this president and his administration are responsible for implementing a neoconservative preemptive international policy that makes no sense on many levels, is downright dangerous, and may be responsible, at least in part, for creating international tensions that lead the way to possible worldwide conflict. Is it too late to hope that we may create a new Democratic Party majority in Congress and Senate this fall in order to put a curb on the Neoconservative misdirection of this President and his administration, thus allowing a change in our nation’s failed unilateral approach to international terrorism?



*1 “Article 29,” United Nations General Assembly Declaration 1994: Resolutions adopted on the reports of the Sixth Committee, http://meaindia.nic.in/warterror/background/unga-94.htm, viewed Saturday, August 12, 2006, 9:30 AM EDT.

*2 GA/L/3013, Sixth Committee, United Nations Press Release http://www0.un.org/apps/press/ter.asp, November 1, 1996, viewed Saturday, August 12, 2006, 9:22 AM EDT.

*3 “Part II, #4, Article 29,” United Nations General Assembly Declaration 1994: Resolutions adopted on the reports of the Sixth Committee, http://meaindia.nic.in/warterror/background/unga-94.htm, viewed Saturday, August 12, 2006, 9:30 AM EDT.

#4 Sanchez, Marcela, “Moral Misstep, in the washingtonpost.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com/. Friday, September 4, 2004. Viewed Sunday, August 13, 2006, 9:42 AM, EDT.