Religion in UN Anti-Terrorism Countermeasures
Despite the vehement advocacy of the United Nations that terrorism cannot be readily equated to religious acts, in an attempt to thwart persecutions or discriminations based on religion, particularly Islam because of perceptions of its link to terrorism, religion remains at the core of the terrorism issues. Although the definition of terrorism is still evolving and subject to debate, existing conceptualisation of this issue do not equate terrorism with religion or religious fanaticism. In 1937, the convention of the League of Nations proposed the definition of terrorism as any “criminal acts directed against a State intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public”. From this definition, there was no explicit or implicit mention of religion. However, this definition does not rule out the possibility of religious groups heading this form of criminal action. In 1999, the language of UN Resolution proposed the definition of terrorism as the “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them”. This definition extended the previous proposed conceptualisation by recognising that this form of criminal actions may be justified by a number of factors including religious beliefs. Based on the current understanding of terrorism, this is a criminal action intended to provoke fear in particular groups or the general public and justified by a number of reasons including religious beliefs and issues.
Although the UN does not and cannot condemn any religion for the terrorist acts of individuals or groups adhering to these religious belief systems, the international organisation cannot deny that in some acts of terrorism, religious beliefs have been used to justify terrorist actions. In developing countermeasures, the UN has to resolve two issues. First is developing a definition or conceptualisation of terrorism through the consensus of the General Assembly. This is necessary because continuing debates on the definition of terrorism has hampered efforts to develop effective countermeasures that prevent loss of innocent lives instead of adding to the number of terrorist victims. Second is determining the link or place of religion in the conceptualisation of the definition of terrorism to draw the cooperation of various member countries in advocacies or actions against terrorism. The UN is composed of various member countries with some countries having a religiously concentrated population.
As such, it is fitting and significant to investigate existing UN anti-terrorism countermeasures to determine the extent that the United Nations have progressed in developing a definition of religion that recognises its use as justification in some terrorist acts but does not develop discriminatory perceptions against any religion. It is only by focusing on this task that the UN can effectively draw the active participation and cooperation of religiously concentrated states and nations in developing and implementing anti-terrorism countermeasures.
Culture as a Context in Clarifying Terrorism
Immediately after the shock of the 9/11 incident, efforts were made to determine the group behind this act of terror and the justifications for these acts. Soon enough, the group Al Qaeda admitted to planning and implementing these acts. Osama bin Laden and other group leaders made this admission public. This group claimed that this was payback for all the atrocities of the US government against the Muslim people. From the events, it appears that the justification for the acts of terrorism was socio-cultural. Reference to the ‘western culture’, specifically the American culture because of its dominance as a western culture has been mentioned now and again by leaders or terrorist groups. They claim that the interventionism of the US government and the imposition of its culture and systems have contributed to the decline of their own culture and national pride. It seems that the terrorist acts were an expression of anti-western sentiments of groups adhering to the Islamic faith and belonging to the Arab culture. It cannot be denied that culture was used as justification for terrorist acts but it is a different issue altogether whether these anti-western claims have strong historical and factual basis.
Culture and inter-cultural exchanges can constitute a context for terrorism. This is because of differences, which may be irreconcilable that could cause conflict when un-accommodated or suppressed. Cultures have different perceptions of justice, with some cultures leaning towards compensation and correction as means of settling disputes while others consider retaliation as the fitting response to conflicts. Cultures also have varying hate-retention degrees across generations with some cultures adjusting to intercultural conflicts in the centuries past while others cultivate the continuity of the cycle of atrocities and retaliation in the younger generations. In some instances, younger generations cultivate hatred and do actions against people of a different culture without really understanding the reasons for doing so.
The ethnic cleansing in Bosnia has resulted to deaths, division of families, rapes and other atrocities made all under the guise of cultural or ethnic cleansing. However, this was not considered as terrorist acts by the United Nations. It was considered as an internal political problem that needed the intervention of peace-keeping forces. The cultural justification of Al Qaeda in hijacking planes and crashing these in landmark western institutions was considered as acts of terrorism. This creates the problem of understanding the role of culture in terrorist acts apart from determining what constitutes terrorism, whether acts justified by culture or culture-based atrocities constitute terrorism for purposes of not only intervening to keep the peace but also to identify, apprehend and try the people involved for the criminal act of terrorism.
United Nations, as the international body charged with providing channels for intercultural exchange, introduced laws addressing discrimination because of ethnicity or culture; and resolutions calling for multiculturalism and tolerance. However, there is need for the UN to do more by determining terrorism in the context of culture to determine the appropriate anti-terrorism measures and clarify while some acts linked to culture are considered acts of terrorism while others are not.
Distinguishing Political from Terrorist Acts
Two decades of involvement of the UN, in violence in different countries for various reasons, has muddled the distinction between legitimate political acts and acts of terrorism. Differentiating these kinds of actions is important in determining policies or regulations to use in dealing with the issue. Terrorist actions constitute criminal infractions subject to the appropriate action of UN and its various institutional arms. A number of individuals linked to the Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations have been apprehended. Political movements can constitute legitimate developments in the political life of states. A region within a state by using arms to establish its own political identity outside of the state could become legitimate if these efforts succeed such as in the case of East Timor extended recognition to become a new legitimate state.
However, in some instances political acts also become linked to terrorism. Initially, Iraq was widely criticised by a number countries, especially the US for developing its nuclear arms. The adamant move of states against nuclear weapons is valid because of the concern for security since nuclear weapons when detonated can reach miles extending outside of national borders. This concern was addressed by the UN by sending people to inspect the alleged installations used in developing nuclear weapons implied for use in terrorism. As it turned out, there were no substantive reports stating that Iraq has been testing nuclear weapons. Positive results could have justified the entry of military troops in Iraq. Due to this roadblock, the US justified its entry and intervention in Iraq with the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein for which he was executed.
This situation is problematic because of the interchanging of claims of terrorist and political acts depending upon the intervening factors so that this muddled the difference between political acts, which could be valid, and terrorist acts that could never legitimate. The United Nations has to be involved in delineating political from terrorist acts to prevent the grouping of all actions under the term ‘terrorism’. This is important for the purpose of determining whether the acts of states are political acts that may not necessarily warrant the intervention of the UN or other states in interest as well as whether the acts of groups and states constitute terrorist acts that warrant the intervention of the UN or concerned states in keeping the peace and apprehending criminals. This is to prevent future interchanges in terrorism and political actions in determining one act as terrorism but justifying a similar act as politically legitimate.
In the case states involved in civil conflicts, actions may be necessary as acts of self-determination but in other instances, the persecution and acts of violence by one group against another distinct group could constitute terrorism that involves due action from the United Nations. In the apprehension of individuals, the distinction also plays an important role to prevent the consideration of people involved in political acts as terrorists and terrorists from receiving the justification for their actions as exercises of political will.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment