The UN and the terror spectre

A wave of anger is sweeping some parts of the world in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden but we would be wrong to contend that this is the world of Islam speaking. The clarification needs to be made very urgently that sober opinion anywhere does not identify itself with the calls for vengeance that the bin Laden killing has triggered off and the best that the international community could do in these circumstances is to not only denounce any calls to arms that the killing of the Al qaeda leader has precipitated, but act as a bridge-builder among the relevant diverse sections of opinion.

This is, in fact, a time of test for the entirety of the world community. It has to not only ensure that the killing of bin Laden and the contentious issues arising from it do not have a disruptive impact on international peace and stability, but strengthen the current International Law regime for the purpose of ensuring that all actors on the world stage, whether big or small, act always within this international legal framework. Terror emanating from anywhere cannot be countenanced and condoned by the right thinking, but the latter cannot overlook the violation of the Rule of Law either and it would do international law and order immense good for the international community to deliberate soberly on the issues the bin Laden killing has given rise to and to reconcile their differences over them.

The US, very rightly, acted in the belief that terror cannot be condoned and the bulk of world opinion is likely to be on its side on this question, but the challenge before it and other major international political actors is to ensure that world peace is in no way threatened by this decision. Moreover, the justifiability of quelling locally-based terror, in particular, should be seen as a fundamental right of the states of the world. There cannot be double standards on this issue. Unfortunately, this is not so, and the Darusman Report currently confronting Sri Lanka, on the final stages of the Lankan conflict, is one glaring piece of evidence of this major anomaly.

As we mentioned in this commentary last Saturday, one basic essential on the question of eliminating terror collaboratively on the part of the international community, is to arrive at a consensual definition of terror and this would not prove to be an uphill task if a sincere and open-minded effort is made in this direction. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case and the bigger powers of the world, in particular, seem to be finding it to be in their interests to keep the issue of a clear cut definition of terror very much open.

The world has come a long way from the dismal failure of the League of Nations of the early decades of the last century. In contrast to the League, the UN has faced a multiplicity of challenges over the decades and sailed through, constantly reflecting an ability to serve the world in diverse spheres. The secret of the UN’s success is the considerable and consistent support the biggest powers of the world have been lending it, despite many a crisis situation when squabbling among these powers almost plunged the principal organs of the UN into a state of inner paralysis.

Sri Lanka joins those right thinking sections of the world in proclaiming, ‘Long live the UN!’ Harmonious international relations and collective survival would be unthinkable without the UN and the poor and the powerless of the world, in particular, would always find it in their interests to staunchly back the UN system.

However, inasmuch as the UN must be preserved, it must be protected and constantly strengthened too. The latter aims could not be served effectively if the organization lacks unity of purpose. This need is clearly underscored by the issues arising from the controversial Darusman Report, although the UN is in no way connected with this Report which was a purely personal initiative.

However, issues surrounding the Report have clearly illustrated the negative consequences to the world from the inability of the international community to arrive at a consensual understanding of terrorism. If the world was united in its views on terror and was collectively opposed to it, the Darusman Report would have not been drafted and, in fact, the Report would have proved a non-event. The UN could prove a principal instrument in forging this unity of perception. As matters stand, there seem to be varied perceptions of terror and of who a terrorist is. As we argued on Saturday, the taking or maiming of human life for a political purpose is terrorism and there needs to be a consensus on this issue. Going by this yardstick, bin Laden and Prabhakaran are terror masterminds and call for identical handling, but International Law cannot be violated in the process.

Accordingly, the international community should arrive at a meeting of minds on these issues and ensure that it does everything possible to bring harmony among peoples and cultures, particularly in the current juncture. May the UN stand tall.