Mr. Chairman,
It is indeed gratifying to note the surging interest and seriousness of purpose that has been clearly evident in the international community during the past year to end the scourge of terrorism. At the 50th session by its Resolution 50/53, the General Assembly reaffirmed the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism. The Secretary-General underscored his own commitment to work towards the adoption of concrete measures to end terrorism at the Peace Makers Summit in March this year. The horrific and deeply tragic occurrences of the past year - in various parts of the world and in my own country, Sri Lanka, where over two hundred men, women and children have been massacred over a period of less than 10 months in this year alone, and that too taking into account just a few incidents, would seem to have awakened the somnolent conscience of the world and stimulated the international community to action with a new sense of responsibility and urgency.
The summit meeting of the Group of Seven and the Russian Federation in Lyons and the subsequent Ministerial meeting on terrorism in Paris is evidence of this encouraging trend. We sincerely hope that this new found enthusiasm will not evaporate with time and the tedious process of negotiations and interminable disputes. We need therefore to show a new determination and will, to pursue our goal to eradicate this plague for all time.
I advert to this danger of an erosion in interest or enthusiasm in the task before us because we must not underestimate the difficulties to be encountered in fashioning a multi-lateral instrument that is able to command widespread agreement, if not general consensus. The difficulties are of some magnitude and are likely to entail prolonged argument and negotiation.
As Hersch Lauterpacht commented many years ago: "If international law is, in some ways, at the vanishing point of law, the law of war is perhaps even more conspicuously, at the vanishing point of international law". This observation is perhaps even more relevant and more appropriate when we consider another aspect of the law of war - the subject of terrorism, which in countries such as Sri Lanka, is not an aspect of inter-state armed conflict but of internal armed conflict. This kind of conflict has only incidentally, an international dimension, yet without any evidence of direct complicity or active connivance on the part of another State. In such cases, another State is involved only indirectly, or passively and through omission or acquiescence or by a mere failure to take preventive action. In such situations where it is not the consequence of State sponsored action, but activity that it is permitted or tolerated in another State, the problems that arise may be said to lie between the interstices of domestic law and international law, which may even require the development of new legal principles.
From this point of view, the adoption of the Declaration of 1994 was a major step. While the Declaration has not, of itself, any binding force, being of recommendatory nature, yet its significance in the development and creation of new legal norms cannot be underestimated. By becoming a party to a solemn declaration of legal principles which also recommends a course of conduct, there arises a commitment publicly made, and a duty of compliance or an obligation to act. More importantly, the Declaration is essentially a call to action and not merely the affirmation of a consummation devoutly desired.
From the standpoint of terrorism which arises in the context of an internal conflict, I wish to underscore the importance of certain cardinal principles embodied in the operative part of the 1994 Declaration which are of particular importance and need to be emphasises: - Firstly, "The unequivocal condemnation by the international community of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable wherever and by whomsoever committed, which, inter alia, threaten the territorial integrity and security of States" Secondly the Acceptance of the Principle that: "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 any other nature that may be invoked to justify them".
These two principles, it seems to me enunciate by implication a total prohibition of terrorist acts as criminal and unjustifiable, which admits of no exceptions and whatever be the motivation for such acts, even though the political purposes or ends be considered justifiable. It is an affirmation of the principle that the end does not justify the means. On the contrary in such cases, the means adopted may vitiate the end. The legitimacy of a cause does not therefore legitimise the use of extreme forms of violence, especially against unarmed innocents.
Thirdly, in discharging the obligation to eliminate terrorism, States are enjoined while being guided by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and other relevant rules of international law, to refrain from, inter alia, acquiescing in activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts. This is even more important than the first two principles because it is a challenge to take effective action and adopt practical measures.
The duty not to acquiesce in such activities contemplates a State taking positive steps calculated to prevent the commission even of acts which are preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts in another State. As paragraph 5 states, States are expected "to take effective and resolute measures for the speedy and final elimination of international terrorism". These are spelt out in sub-paragraph (a) - (f) of paragraph 5 and may need further elaboration. Sub para (a) of para 5 of the Declaration inter alia, refers to the duty to refrain from tolerating activities and of " the need to take appropriate practical measures for the speedy and final elimination of international terrorism". These are words of wide scope and sufficient amplitude which we believe will enable states to put an end to terrorism. Considering the question of implementation particular attention should be paid to the problem of proof when it comes to the operation of a clandestine organisation, with operations being carried on with a high degree of secrecy. Once an organisation or movement is shown to engage in terrorist activity in one country, and there is cogent evidence of such involvement, its designation as a terrorist organisation in the country where such acts are committed should be prima facie evidence, if not conclusive proof, anywhere in the world, of the nature of its activities and sufficient to include for purposes of liability, front organisations and other colourable devices set up to conceal its true identity.
The prohibition against States "financing" terrorist activities should include the act of permitting or allowing the collection of funds, whether through voluntary contribution or by coercion or duress, or otherwise, by any non-State entity intended to be used for the benefit of a terrorist organisation and its activities. The concept of terrorist installations should include establishments operating as "liaison offices" or designated as "information offices" which, apart from disseminating false propaganda and inciting or encouraging terrorism, are also secretly engaged in the preparation and organisation of terrorist acts.
One of the principle causes for the continuance of terrorist movements is the sustenance obtained from hard core supporters and sympathisers resident abroad who have exploited rights granted under the Geneva Convention of 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees. The extreme laxity in enforcing the provisions concerning the conditions of entry has led to enormous problems both for countries that have indiscriminately admitted them as well as the countries of their nationality.
It is therefore necessary to re-examine the whole question of the grant of refugee status having regard to the need for a realistic appraisal of the actual circumstances of each applicant. Particular attention needs to be paid to prevent the abuse of the provisions of the Convention, especially ruses and stratagems adopted as a cloak for sustaining terrorism elsewhere. Even after the admission of the asylum seeker, it becomes necessary to maintain a strict surveillance of his subsequent activities.
Likewise the conditions of expulsion from the admitting State or return to the country of his origin needs to be considered in the light of not merely present but also potential danger of his continued stay in the receiving State, as well as to the State from which he has sought refuge.
It seems obvious to my delegation that the widespread phenomenon of vast sums being contributed by so-called refugees, who even manipulate and abuse the welfare systems generously provided for them by the receiving State, to siphon off funds for terrorist activity in the home country, represents a gross distortion of a system of protection that has now been transformed into an engine of oppression against the State of origin and its People. In this way the protecting State has unwittingly become the providers of those who seek to terrorise and torment the People of the country from which they have emigrated.
My delegation welcomes the several initiatives that are being taken especially by the Governments of the United States, United Kingdom and France to address this problem and are grateful for the valuable studies undertaken. There are however certain aspects of the problem which in our opinion have not yet received sufficient attention. Indeed some are unique to particular countries. I refer to the problem of the suicide bomber who does not value his or her own life and therefore cares naught for the lives of others. This must surely show an utter disregard for human life itself. Those who glorify such heartless men and women as martyrs to a cause have strangely perverted minds. How do we cope with this pathological phenomenon? It would seem that in such cases there is little hope of effective deterrence, prevention, prosecution or punishment.
Terrorism is beyond dispute a crime against humanity. It is a strange irony that those who call themselves liberators, professing to liberate others, seem to be liberated from every moral scruple and the essential quality of humanness. Indeed in such a context, when the supreme right - the right to life as human being is at stake - to be overly concerned with the punctilious observances of lesser rights, even though they be designated human rights, is somewhat akin to straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel. We must therefore seek to formulate clear principles against the continuance of this great evil in our midst. Such principles will undoubtedly form part of the whole body of humanitarian law, that has hitherto developed and must no doubt be consistent with it. My delegation unreservedly supports the initiatives that have been placed before this Committee and express the hoe that our efforts will see the fruition in a Convention that will receive general acceptance by the international community.
Thank you.