Inadequacies of United Nations in Countering Terrorism

In its efforts to combat terrorism especially the twenty-first century terrorism, the United Nations (UN) has adopted various important Resolutions after 9/11, which outlines the need to combat the scourge of terrorism; thereby, reaffirming the right of self-defense by States against terrorism.[1] In other words, the UN has helped rally international efforts to counter terrorism through its various conventions that target different aspects of terrorism. However, with ever increasing mass casualty attacks all over the world and ever growing complexity of actors party to present day terrorism, the UN has been accused of inefficiency when it comes to responding to contemporary terrorism.

There is no doubt that UN faces many critical problems in executing its ‘Counter-Terrorism Resolutions’ into effective actions due to issues such as divide over recognition of an individual as terrorist and the kind of violence by them that really amounts to terrorism. Besides, some UN member states perceive terrorism as a low priority in the light of other challenges such as HIV/AIDS or crime. Such circumstances act as a spoiler against UN’s enhanced role as a counter-terrorism agency. Nevertheless, the fact that the UN has taken action against terrorism, inspite of its inability to agree on how to define the phenomenon signifies the seriousness of UN in trying to counter the scourge of terrorism.[2]

While conventions and definitions are considered as an important pre-requisite for UN successfully leading and accelerating efforts to develop a global counter-terrorism policy, it is the will and responsibility of the Member States which is paramount in deciding UN’s role in international terrorism. Thus, the UN has addressed international terrorism by developing a normative framework that identifies terrorism as a problem common to all Member States and encourages concerted governmental action to develop more specific national and international counter-terrorism instruments.

As an international organisation, the UN has a particular role to play, not only as forum of discussion but also as independent agent of inter-institutional cooperation. As such, the legitimacy of the UN as the coordinating body of the inter-state and inter-organisational response to terrorist menace has been widely recognised.[3] Unfortunately, though the UN has created new systems to counter terrorism, these UN counter-terrorism systems have often been overlooked by counter-terrorism experts and analysts in favour of specific states’ counter-terrorism strategies. Additionally, though the UN counter-terrorism system has evolved significantly over the last decade, it has been argued that this evolution has created somewhat haphazard overlaps and gaps in the system. It has been realised within the UN that ‘ad hoc-ery’ counter-terrorism policies resulted in large, duplicative, and inefficient counter-terrorism bureaucracy within the UN system.[4]

The evolving nature of contemporary terrorism has not only higlighted UN’s ineffectiveness against terrorism but also exposed its inability to coordinate and contain a more militaristic approach of certain powerful member states to counter terrorism. For instance, UNSC Resolution 1368 (2001)[5] considered an important instrument of countering international terrorism is argued to be legitimising the unilateral use of force for countries like US, China and Russia. In other words, for countries like the US, in its war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, the US hinted to the UN that action might be taken against other targets stating that its self-defence might require further actions with respect to other organisations and other States.[6] Subsequently, China and Russia bandwagoned on US’s interpretation of Resolution 1368 – China believed that it helped to legitimise its suppression of opposition groups in Xinjiang, and the Russian Federation saw it as useful precedent in its fight against Chechen rebels. As such, Russian President Vladimir Putin invoked the Resolution and its right to individual and collective self-defence in September 2002 when justifying Russia’s rights to military intervention against Chechen rebels operating in Georgia, with or without authorization of Georgia.[7] Though the UN is considered as a moderating institution on international political consensus on when and how to intervene militarily, unfortunately, with respect to countering international terrorism, UN has been accused of failing to generate an international political consensus.

Though the UNSC adopted US-sponsored Resolution 1373 that obligated all 191 UN member states to change and adopt domestic legislation that would criminalise terrorist acts, including the support and financing of such acts; deny safe haven to terrorists and prohibit any other support for terrorists, such as the provision of arms; and prompt cooperation with other states in the implementation of these measures, unfortunately different member States had different understandings of the Resolution. For instance, states equated the ‘financing of terrorist acts’ with money laundering and dealt with it in that context. Similarly, the information provided on international cooperation was considered sketchy, focusing mainly on formal judicial issues.[8]

The inadequacy of UN in effectively countering international terrorism also stems from political divisions and factionalism that besets the UN.[9] Although there is a international consensus facilitated by the UN on the importance of outlawing terrorist activities, different states hold divergent views on the exact nature of these threats. Further, since there is a lack of commonly accepted definition of terrorism, by legitimising unilateral use of military force in response to terrorist attacks, the Security Council is being accused of broadening the conditions under which states can use military force for self-defense whereby there is a high possibility for abuse of military force.

There is no doubt that 9/11 changed the context of UN activities after which the Security Council became the locus of action against international terrorism. It created a campaign of non-military, cooperative law enforcement measures to combat global terrorist threats. However, UN is accused of lacking in strategies against ongoing changes in technologies used by the terrorists and a lack of rethinking in its approach to CBRN terrorism. Nevertheless, the UN has had clear successes on counter-terrorism capacity building particularly in areas where the UN can facilitate member states’ access to counter-terrorism expertise such as civil aviation and border controls to name a few. With its universal membership, its commitment to peaceful resolution of disputes, the legal authority of the Security Council, and its extensive presence, UN has played a global monitoring role as far as countering terrorism is concerned. States are now much more willing to engage in a dialogue to discuss their incapacities with the prospect of those incapacities being addressed through partnership and support facilitated by the United Nations.