|Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York|
6015th Meeting (AM)
CHAIRMEN OF THREE COUNTER-TERRORISM BODIES BRIEF SECURITY COUNCIL ON FRESH EFFORTS
TO DEFEAT SCOURGE, STRESSING EXPERTS’ COMMON STRATEGY TO ASSIST MEMBER STATES
The Chairman of the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee, speaking on behalf of the Security Council’s three subsidiary bodies dealing with terrorism, affirmed that global cooperation remained crucial to fight that scourge, as he briefed the Security Council this morning along with the Chairmen of the other two Committees.
Jorge Urbina of Costa Rica said the committees -- the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee, the Counter-Terrorism Committee, and the Committee dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- had increased their cooperation with each other. Their three experts groups had followed a common strategy, approved by the Committees in 2007, in order to assist States to fulfil their obligations. Workshops had been organized in cooperation with the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), and the experts were working towards a strategy for cooperation with key international, regional and subregional organizations and relevant United Nations bodies.
Speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) concerning the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Mr. Urbina said that his July report revealed the development of new institutional mechanisms and the adoption of new legislation and enforcement measures. As of 5 November, 159 States had submitted the first reports required by the resolution, with 102 among them having provided additional information. The data received in those reports showed qualitative progress in implementation of the resolution, although more work was needed.
Jan Grauls of Belgium, Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) on Taliban and Al-Qaida sanctions, said the Committee had been working, as a matter of priority, on the review of all the names on the Consolidated List of those targeted by sanctions, and the posting on the Committee’s website of the summary of reasons for their listing. As of today, the Consolidated List comprised 503 names. Since 6 May, 21 individuals and one entity associated with Al-Qaida had been added, and two individuals had been de-listed. In addition, improvements had been made to the existing identifying information of 44 individuals and three entities.
Neven Jurica of Croatia, Chairman of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001), the Counter-Terrorism Committee, said that the Committee continued to analyse the preliminary implementation assessments of every Member State. It had, thus far, adopted some 188 of them, with the remaining five expected to be formally approved in the coming months. Member States had been given time to send their responses to the assessments. The first deadlines for responses had expired, so the Committee had recently started a process of taking stock of implementation of the resolution by each Member State, through subcommittees and dialogue with the States concerned.
Throughout the period, the Counter-Terrorism Committee had also been performing visits to monitor and promote implementation of the resolutions, always with the consent of the countries involved. Since the last briefing, visits had been conducted to Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, South Africa, Egypt and Madagascar. The Committee was now engaged in a follow-up visit to Kenya and, immediately afterwards, would visit Uganda and the United Kingdom. A new list of visits for the period to the end of 2010 had also been approved. To promote transparency, States would be invited to meet in an informal setting with the Committee before consideration of final visit reports.
The Committee, he said, was also playing its part in the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and was participating actively in the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, assisting Member States in implementing those provisions that fell within its mandate.
Speakers in the ensuing debate, stressing that strengthening counter-terrorism measures was one of the most important tasks of the Council, welcomed steps that had been taken to make the Committees more interactive, cooperative and transparent to Member States and to expand their interactions with international, regional and subregional organizations. Most felt that technical assistance to countries to help them comply with their obligations under the related resolutions was of crucial importance.
On the work of the Taliban and Al-Qaida Committee, speakers welcomed the publication of summary explanations of the reason for listing persons and entities subjected to sanctions. They urged the Committee to keep updating the List and ensure that the listing process was fair. Many also approved of efforts to facilitate appeals to the listing process. Speakers praised steps by the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) to improve dialogue with States.
They also affirmed the critical importance of compliance with resolution 1540 (2004), and technical assistance to countries for that purpose. Libya’s representative, however, maintained that the best way to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists was to rid the world of such weapons.
The representatives of Council members France, United States, Italy, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, China, Burkina Faso, Viet Nam, Panama, Indonesia and South Africa spoke. There were also statements by the representatives of Australia, Switzerland, Japan, Cuba, Israel and Venezuela. The representatives of United States, Cuba and Venezuela took the floor for a second time.
The meeting began at 10:10 a.m. and adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
The Security Council met today to hear briefings by the Chairs of its three “anti-terrorism” committees: the Counter-Terrorism Committee, also known as the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001); the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities; and the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) concerning the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. A debate on the subject was expected to follow.
In the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1373, which, among its provisions, obliges all States to criminalize assistance for terrorist activities, deny financial support and safe haven to terrorists, and share information about groups planning terrorist attacks.
Seeking to revitalize the Committee’s work, in 2004 the Security Council adopted resolution 1535, creating the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) to provide the Counter-Terrorism Committee with expert advice on all areas covered by resolution 1373. The CTED was also established with the aim of facilitating technical assistance to countries, as well as promoting closer cooperation and coordination, both within the United Nations system of organizations and among regional and intergovernmental bodies.
During the September 2005 World Summit at the United Nations, the Security Council -- meeting at the level of Heads of States and Government -- adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism. The resolution also stressed the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws.
With resolution 1540 (2004), the Council adopted the first international instrument dealing with weapons of mass destruction, their delivery means and related materials, in an integrated and comprehensive manner (see Press Release SC/8076 of 29 April 2004). The main objective of the text is preventing the proliferation of mass destruction weapons and deterring non-State actors from accessing or trafficking in such items.
The Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities monitors implementation of the provisions of that resolution, including a freeze of funds and financial assets of designated individuals and entities put on a list by the Committee; a travel ban of designated individuals; and an arms embargo on designated individuals and entities.
JORGE URBINA ( Costa Rica), speaking on behalf of the Chairmen of the three Committees, said the Committees had continued to enhance ongoing cooperation among them, including among the expert groups. The expert groups had continued to implement jointly their common strategy, approved by the Committees in 2007, in order to assist States. Three workshops had been organized in cooperation with the Terrorism Prevention Branch of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The success of those workshops had been reflected in the content and quality of the new reports and additional information on States’ implementation received by the Committees. The expert groups were working towards a common strategy to assist the Committees in their cooperation with key international, regional and subregional organizations and relevant United Nations bodies.
He cited as another example of cooperation the visits to Member States carried out jointly by the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) and the experts of the 1267 Committee’s monitoring team. The two groups were also preparing for participation with the 1540 experts in a new series of regional workshops on implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). The three expert groups were encouraged to share information and work in common areas of interest, among other things, relating to technical assistance and sharing experiences.
The three expert groups continued to cooperate within the framework of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, established to ensure overall coordination and coherence in the counter-terrorism efforts of the United Nations, he said. Avoiding duplication of efforts was of paramount importance. An updated version of a comparative table to highlight the main aspects of the respective mandates and areas of competence of the three Committees had been posted on their respective websites.
In conclusion, he said terrorism remained one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and cooperation by all remained crucial. The Committees remained committed to the fight against terrorism and were convinced that their work contributed to the overall United Nations and international efforts in assisting States to fully implement the respective resolutions.
Then speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), Mr. Urbina said that, in accordance with resolution 1810, the 1540 Committee had agreed to establish an open-ended working group to develop its next annual programme of work. In July, he had presented the second report on the status of implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), which had identified several specific measures taken by Member States, including developing new institutional means and adopting new legislation and enforcement measures.
He said that as of 5 November, 159 States had submitted first reports, with 102 among them having provided additional information. The data presented in the July 2008 report demonstrated qualitative progress in implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), although more work was needed. Resolution 1819 encouraged the 1540 Committee to work more closely with global and regional intergovernmental organizations and arrangements. Committee members and experts had participated in 14 outreach conferences, seminars and workshops. They continued to engage in dialogues with participating officials from Governments and organizations particularly interested in the Committee’s work. Describing the several types of outreach activities since May 2008, he expressed the Committee’s appreciation to the UNODC, the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, the Government of Norway and the European Union for their ongoing support.
Resolution 1810 had enhanced the Committee’s clearinghouse function, involving the gathering of information, by adding the role of matching assistance requests with the potential offers of assistance, he noted. Further to developing an assistance template to facilitate requests, the Committee was currently processing assistance requests from four States and one from a subregional intergovernmental organization.
He said that the 1540 Committee had continued to maintain close cooperation with the Counter-Terrorism and 1267 Committees. The expert groups of the three Committees had intensified their collaboration to complete the common strategy for improving responses from African States and by developing a common strategy to cooperate with key international, regional organizations and United Nations agencies and entities. The three expert groups had also conducted small group discussions on issues of border, export and customs controls.
After describing efforts to develop closer cooperation with international and regional organizations, he said that implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) was a long-term process, requiring continuous efforts at national, regional and international levels on capacity-building and assistance.
JAN GRAULS ( Belgium ), Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999), said the Committee had been working, as a matter of priority, on reviewing its guidelines. Several sections had been restructured and new provisions had been added, as well as a section detailing the procedure for requests for exemptions from the travel ban. The Committee and the monitoring team had also devoted great attention to the implementation of two new mechanisms introduced by resolution 1822 (2008), namely, the review of all the names on the Consolidated List and the posting on the Committee’s website of the narrative summary of reasons for listing. Time was needed for the full implementation of the two exercises.
Following the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the [Yassin Abdullah Kadi] Qadi and Barakaat cases on 3 September, the Committee had provided on 21 October, on a non-precedent basis, the narrative summaries of reasons for listing Mr. Qadi and the Barakaat International Foundation, he said.
He said that, as of today, the Consolidated List comprised 503 names. Since 6 May, 21 individuals and one entity associated with Al-Qaida had been added and two individuals had been de-listed. Improvements had been made to the existing identifying information of 44 individuals and three entities. The Committee had conducted a comprehensive update of its website and improved its user-friendliness. It had been working on explanation of terms papers for the assets freeze, the travel ban and the arms embargo.
The Committee continued to greatly value its cooperation and interaction with Member States and international and regional organizations. The monitoring team had provided the Committee with detailed reports on country visits, sanctions workshops, and participation in several international seminars. The Committee had also continued to develop its cooperation with international organizations. INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization)-United Nations Security Council Special Notices for entities included in the Consolidated List were now available, in addition to the notices for individuals developed since 2005.
In conclusion, he said the Committee was committed to assist Member States by responding to their requests, as well as by continuing to ensure that fair and clear procedures existed. The continued cooperation of all Member States was crucial in achieving the overall objective of countering and preventing terrorist acts.
NEVEN JURICA ( Croatia), Chairman of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001), the Counter-Terrorism Committee, said that the Committee had accomplished several key initiatives since his last briefing to the Council on 6 May. In that period, it had adopted a survey of the implementation of its resolution by Member States, regions and subregions, the first report of its kind. It contained priority recommendations for the Committee’s future action.
He said that the Committee continued to analyse the preliminary implementation assessments for every State. It had, thus far, adopted some 188 of them, with the remaining five expected to be formally approved in the coming months. Member States were also given time to send their responses to the assessments. The first deadlines for responses had expired, so the Committee had recently started a process of taking stock of each Member States’ implementation of the resolution through subcommittees and dialogue with the States concerned.
The reorganization plan of the CTED mandated the establishment of five cross-cutting technical working groups, covering major areas of implementation of both resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005), he recalled. Their work aimed at harmonizing criteria for technical consideration of elements of resolution 1373. Throughout the period, the Committee had been performing visits to monitor and promote implementation of the resolutions, always with the consent of the countries involved. Since the last briefing, visits had been conducted to Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, South Africa, Egypt and Madagascar. The Committee was now engaged in a follow-up visit to Kenya and, immediately afterwards, would visit Uganda and the United Kingdom. A new list of visits for the period to the end of 2010 had also been approved. To promote transparency, States would be invited to meet in an informal setting with the Committee before consideration of final visit reports.
The Committee, he said, was also engaged in following up on its fifth special meeting with international and regional organizations, and continued reminding States that they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism complied with international law obligations. As for implementation of resolution 1624 (2005), the Committee had initiated discussions to explore technical assistance needs of States, as well as to facilitate the provision of such assistance. He encouraged Member States that had not yet reported in that regard to do so.
He added that the Committee also continued to play its part in the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and was participating actively in the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force through contributing to the work of several working groups. It was regularly conducting discussions and assisting Member States to implement those provisions of the Strategy that fell within its mandate. It cooperated and coordinated its activities with the two other Council bodies on counter-terrorism.
Its activities had shown the Committee to be a useful tool in combating terrorism, he said. In the forthcoming period, its work would focus on the stock-taking exercise, as well as preparing for an interim review of the CTED by 30 June 2009, as mandated by resolution 1805. It also expected to receive new revisions of the survey on implementation of resolution 1373 by Member States, and pursue, with enhanced vigour, contacts with relevant countries to facilitate the delivery of technical assistance. With an inclusive but pragmatic approach by all members, the collaborative effort would bear fruit and meet the Council’s expectations.
JEAN-PIERRE LACROIX (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that measures taken to combat terrorism must comply with human rights, refugee and international law. Respect for human rights and the rule of law were essential to counter-terrorism, he said, adding that, “We must not renounce our values in trying to defeat those that reject them.” He welcomed the joint briefings by three Security Council subsidiary bodies, noting that they should strive for greater coherence. In that context, he requested the Secretary-General to locate the three bodies in a common space as part of the Capital Master Plan.
On the work of the three committees, he said that the European Union supported sanctions against Al-Qaida and the Taliban and noted favourably the evolution of the sanctions regime. Ensuring that targeted sanctions were governed by fair and clear procedures was a core element for their efficient and effective implementation. The key upcoming priority for that Committee would be implementing changes on notification, providing reasons for listing, and review of the list, as called for in resolution 1822 (2008). Those changes would help the Union with its own framework for sanctions implementation, following the ruling in the Kadi case by the European Court of Justice.
The Union further welcomed new methods of work by the Counter-Terrorism Committee to improve dialogue with States, aimed at enhancing implementation of resolutions 1373 and 1624, particularly regarding respect for human rights and helping States to define strategies to defeat incitement and radicalization, he said. Also welcome was the preliminary implementation assessment and the global survey of implementation presented to the Council in June. He also supported the work of that Committee to strengthen cooperation with regional and specialized organizations. The “1540 Committee” was an essential and legitimate instrument to counter the threat of nuclear, bacteriological and chemical terrorism, and the Union welcomed the extension of its mandate and duration under resolution 1810 (2008). It called for the text’s immediate implementation.
ROSEMARY DI CARLO ( United States) said the 1267 sanctions regime had been one of the great success stories of the United Nations counter-terrorism efforts. The Council had created a useful tool to help prevent Taliban and Al-Qaida members from travelling and acquiring arms. The regime had evolved in a short period of time. A focal point had been established for individuals and entities to petition the Committee. The Council’s adoption of resolution 1822 (2008) had been a leap forward in ensuring fair procedures for listing and de-listing. The discussion about procedures should not distract from the ultimate goal, however, namely, eliminating the threat posed by the Taliban and Al-Qaida.
She said that the Counter-Terrorism Committee’s survey of Member States’ implementation of resolution 1373 (2001) had been a step forward. Welcoming the fact that the CTED had visited five countries in six months, she said the United States supported such targeted visits. Some 188 preliminary implementation assessments had been adopted, and she supported the initiative to conduct a stock-taking of each Member’s implementation of the resolution.
The report of the 1540 Committee had identified measures that States had taken to implement the resolution and contained important recommendation. The report should be used as a guide for the Committee’s future work. Her country strongly supported the Committee’s outreach activities. The three Committees constituted an important contribution to the United Nations counter-terrorism strategy.
ALDO MANTOVANI ( Italy), aligning himself with the European Union statement, said the 1267 Committee’s sanctions were still effective and important. The Consolidated List was a living document that should be constantly updated, with clear and fair procedures. Respect for human rights was important in combating terrorism.
Regarding the Counter-Terrorism Committee, he said his country appreciated the efforts made by the CTED to improve dialogue with Member States. The recent biennial report of the Committee’s activities showed that further efforts were required to implement resolution 1540 (2004). Consistent with the new approach of resolution 1810 (2008), he welcomed the Committee’s outreach efforts, including a seminar organized in Rome on coordinating regional efforts to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. As for the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, Member States had the responsibility to implement its plan of action. He appreciated the contribution of the monitoring team and the CTED in that regard.
VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) welcomed the Counter-Terrorism Committee’s review processes and hoped they would provide guidance for future work. Preliminary implementation assessments were now prepared by almost every State and, as the Committee was now preparing its analysis, he expected such work would be orderly and done in dialogue with Member States. He backed the recent visit to Madagascar, which served as confirmation of the coordinated counter-terrorism strategy of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Regarding the 1267 Committee, he noted the continued terrorism activity of Al-Qaida and the Taliban, and he called upon all States to unswervingly implement restrictive measures against those on the list, which must be kept updated. He urged States to designate individuals for listing and provide additional information on those already on the list.
In regard to the 1540 Committee, he expressed satisfaction that it had continued to step up efforts to assist Member States, which his country would continue to support. There was a need to focus on the practical implementation of those efforts, and the new composition of the group of experts assisting the Committee should be determined quickly. Finally, he supported expansion of cooperation among the three Committees and with related bodies.
KAREN PIERCE ( United Kingdom), aligning her statement with that of the European Union, said that the 1267 Committee must continue to work hard to update the Consolidated List to match current conditions through continuous and proper reviews. Adequate and transparent procedures for listing and de-listing were crucial. Regarding the 1373 Committee, she said that the May report provided useful benchmarks, and she supported targeted country visits, including to her own country.
Turning to the 1540 Committee, she welcomed the quantitative progress in reporting and said that efforts could now turn to qualitative considerations, including the monitoring and analysis of previous activities. More focused outreach in that area was also welcome. The experts for that Committee were vital, and she urged finalization of the new appointments as soon as possible.
LIU ZHENMIN ( China) said that all activities of the 1267 Committee had steadily moved ahead, including implementation of resolution 1822 (2008) and improving the completeness and accurateness of the Consolidated List. He encouraged Member States to provide the most detailed information possible and to work with the Committee in order to improve the effectiveness and fairness of the sanctions regime.
He said the Counter-Terrorism Committee had also improved its work. The survey of implementation of resolution 1373 (2001) provided a good analysis of the remaining gaps and was a guide for developing a long-term plan. The Counter-Terrorism Committee and the Executive Directorate had also increased transparency of and improved the format for country visits. He hoped the Counter-Terrorism Committee would continue to improve Member States’ understanding of preliminary implementation assessments.
Since its creation, the 1540 Committee had played an important role in the consideration of the country reports, carrying out outreach activities and facilitating international assistance. The Committee should continue its efforts in accordance with resolution 1810 (2008) and work at a complete programme of work in order to prevent proliferation.
In spite of efforts by the international community to combat terrorism, violence and terrorism had increased around the world, he said. The United Nations still had a long way to go to accomplish its counter-terrorism mission. The Assembly resolution that mandated an assessment of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy reflected the unity and determination of Member States in combating terrorism and was important in the coordination of United Nations efforts to do so. He appreciated the cooperation between the three Committees and hoped that they would continue with their efforts to share resources and improve efficiency.
PAUL ROBERT TIENDREBEOGO ( Burkina Faso) said the 1540 Committee had done excellent work. The large number of States that had submitted a first report bore witness to States’ interest in achieving the objective of preventing terrorists from acquiring mass destruction weapons. The implementation survey of the Counter-Terrorism Committee had enabled an assessment of progress, by region and areas. He welcomed the large number of preliminary implementation assessments adopted by the Committee, as well as the successful field visits of the Counter-Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate.
He said the 1267 Committee had achieved excellent results. The review of the Consolidated List and the annual updating and introduction of narrative summaries constituted progress in transparency. The intent was to ensure reliable and transparent procedures for listing and de-listing. The revision of guidelines would provide respect for human rights in the listing and de-listing procedures. The Committee and its monitoring team required States’ full cooperation. As his country had always stressed the need for concerted action by the three bodies, he welcomed the increased coordination of efforts.
HOANG CHI TRUNG ( Viet Nam) took note of the Counter-Terrorism Committee’s intention to further improve the survey of the implementation of Security Council resolution 1373. He emphasized that any regional or subregional approach undertaken by the Committee should pay attention to each country’s particular conditions and should encourage the participation of all nations in the region or subregion. Viet Nam would continue to supporting the Committee in carrying out its work programme, including through participating in, promoting and implementing the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. At the same time, he encouraged the Committee’s efforts to improve dialogue with Member States, such as providing opportunities for countries to present their views on country visits or preliminary implementation assessments.
Turning to the 1267 Committee, he said that its efforts to implement the new mechanisms introduced in resolution 1822 (2008) should continue to receive the Council’s guidance and support. In addition, the Committee should find ways to improve Member States’ understanding of those new mechanisms, such as providing interested States with opportunities to seek clarification or exchange views with the Committee, in informal settings. The 1540 Committee had also made important achievements, he said, including the adoption of the Second Report on the Status of Implementation of Resolution 1540, in July. He took note of that Committee’s outreach activities and expressed an interest in learning more about its enhanced role in facilitating assistance requests from Member States.
Cooperation and coordination among the three Committees and their expert bodies was important, he said. As such, his delegation would follow with interest the preparation of the third subregional common strategy workshop for the Northern and Eastern African States, to be held in Kenya in November. In conclusion, he called on the Committees to continue to look for ways and means to engage in constructive dialogue with Member States to enhance their support for the Committee’s initiatives.
GIADALLA ETTALHI ( Libya) welcomed the targeted visits by the 1373 Committee to cover all States, the provision of technical assistance, and transparency in working methods. Technical assistance by the United Nations should be improved to be able to replace bilateral assistance. It was important to ensure that the Committee also tackle the conditions that bred terrorism and, at the same time, ensure human rights for all. Harm to cultures and peoples and suppression of their aspirations fuelled terrorism. The time had come to focus on that issue. The suppression of financing of terrorism and the issue of asylum should also garner more attention.
He urged the Al-Qaida and Taliban Committee to rapidly submit narrative summaries explaining the listing of individuals on the Consolidated List. It should also constantly review and update the List, determining which individuals needed to be de-listed. He welcomed recent steps towards transparency, but they were not enough. He encouraged waivers be issued, for humanitarian purposes, in conformity with Council resolutions.
Turning to the 1540 Committee, he said weapons of mass destruction posed a serious threat, but mechanisms to limit them had not been implemented universally. The only way to prevent proliferation was the total elimination of those weapons. He urged all States to submit their reports, and welcomed the assistance by the Committee to Member States that needed it, encouraging the increase of such assistance in line with requirements. He finally backed all efforts to stem terrorism, particularly through addressing its causes.
ANGELICA JACOME ( Panama) said that positive enhancements had been made to the work of the 1267 Committee, which found itself at a complex crossroads. She agreed that any entity should be able to submit de-listing requests. In addition, efforts to make the work of the 1373 Committee more transparent would encourage dialogue with Member States. She urged the Committee to participate with Member States in review of the preliminary implementation assessments. Human rights should be respected in the context of the fight against terrorism, including the right to trial. Regarding the 1540 Committee, like previous speakers, she also encouraged further dialogue with Member States, and urged the appointment of a new group of experts, with balanced geographical representation.
MARTY M. NATALEGAWA ( Indonesia) welcomed the 1267 Committee’s efforts to ensure that fair and clear procedures existed in the listing and de-listing of individuals and entities on the Consolidated List and on granting humanitarian exemptions. There was a perception that the current procedures had some legal deficiencies. The increasing number of cases in national courts would potentially pose challenges to the credibility of the 1267 sanctions regime. As resolution 1822 (2008) had directed the Committee to review its guidelines, the Committee should continue to focus on that task. A review of all names on the Consolidated List should be carried out to ensure that it was as updated as possible.
He welcomed progress made by the Counter-Terrorism Committee, in particular in the analysis of the preliminary implementation assessments. The preliminary implementation assessments process should be continued. He also supported the stocktaking exercise of the implementation of the resolution 1373 (2001) by each Member State.
As for the 1540 Committee, he said Indonesia would continue its active support of the Committee’s work in all its areas and welcomed the second report on the status of implementation of the resolution, underlining that implementation of that text was a long-term objective. He welcomed the continued coordination between the three Committees and expert groups. Such cooperation was essential for synergy and coherence in the Council’s contribution to countering terrorism.
DUMISANI KUMALO ( South Africa) noted the improvements to the coordination of the work of the three counter-terrorism Committees and their respective expert structures, as well as the greater synergy between the Security Council and the General Assembly, as called for in the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Noting South Africa’s tireless work to bring the Al-Qaida and Taliban sanctions regime in line with basic standards of procedural fairness and legal due process, he said the European Court of Justice’s judgement in the case of Qadi and Al Barakaat had sent a clear message that sanctions regimes would fail if Member States’ concerns on legal rights of individuals and fair procedure were not incorporated. The adoption of resolution 1822 (2008), which provides for the public disclosure of narrative summaries of the motivation for each listing and seeks to enhance the quality of information on the Consolidated List, marked a positive step in reforming the sanctions regime. Yet, more work was needed for that resolution to be effectively implemented. An independent review mechanism for listing and de-listing was also urgently needed.
He said South Africa was pleased that the Counter-Terrorism Committee’s preliminary implementation assessments and country visits were proving useful tools in promoting dialogue. The joint CTED-1267 monitoring team country visit hosted by South Africa this year had been beneficial in assessing and improving his country’s national anti-terrorism systems. South Africa hoped that other countries would follow its example of including a human rights expert in those visits. The practical experience his country had gained as one of the few countries to have successfully prosecuted suspects in the A.Q. Khan network highlighted the value of international cooperation in addressing the illicit transfer of nuclear-related technology. But the reluctance of some countries to prosecute key suspects in their jurisdictions also demonstrated a great disparity between rhetoric supporting resolution 1540 and concrete steps needed to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Consequently, South Africa looked forward to giving practical effect to the reference to proliferation networks -- South Africa’s proposal -- included in resolution 1810 (2008).
ROBERT HILL ( Australia) said his country’s long-term objective with regard to engagement in counter-terrorism efforts was to develop the ability of partner countries to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. Collaboration with countries in the Asia-Pacific region to implement relevant resolutions and international instruments was part of that effort.
He said he welcomed the proactive approach taken by the Counter-Terrorism Committee in implementing its mandate and supported the renewed emphasis on delivery of technical assistance. The Committee’s close cooperation with the Group of Eight (G-8) Counter-Terrorism Action Group in delivering more targeted capacity-building assistance was worthy of support. Other innovations were also welcome, including the technical guide being developed for implementation of resolution 1373 (2001). The Committee’s transparent approach through its programme of outreach and briefings was also welcome.
On the 1267 Committee, concerning listings, he said the effort to engage more closely with States and regional bodies was welcome, as was the effort to disseminate information on those listed and to provide updates. The greater transparency called for in the new resolution would contribute to the Committee’s success. States should designate terrorists domestically and implement obligations to freeze assets, as appropriate.
Regarding the work of the 1540 Committee on non-proliferation, he said the focus on facilitating assistance to Asia-Pacific countries was particularly welcome. Australia had participated in the Asia-Pacific 1540 regional implementation workshop for border, customs and regulatory officials, held in Bangkok, from 27 to 30 October. Australia’s contribution had been to address the workshop on practical, operational measures for border control and support of export controls. Such workshops complemented Australia’s own outreach on non-proliferation in the region.
PETER MAURER (Switzerland), speaking also on behalf of Liechtenstein and focusing his remarks on the 1267 Committee, recalled Security Council resolution 1822 (2008), by which that body had introduced measures aimed at establishing enhanced listing procedures, including to make public, via the Committee’s website, the reasons for listing. The resolution had also provided for a comprehensive and periodic review of all names on the Consolidated List, with clear timelines. While those measures were welcome, the ideas put forward by Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden -- to establish an expert panel to assist the Sanctions Committee to consider de-listing requests, with panellists appointed by the Council -- had not been echoed in the resolution.
He also noted that the Court of Justice of the European Communities had ruled on 3 September that the “Community Act” was unlawful and an infringement of the fundamental rights of appellants under community law, and that it had provided three months to remedy the situation. The group of countries he represented had repeatedly drawn attention to the “discrepancy” between obligations of the Security Council and the requirements of the Court. Explaining that the intention behind their proposal to create an advisory panel on de-listing had been to narrow positions on that issue, he urged the 1267 Committee to take account of the reasoning of the European Court of Justice and of the concerns that many States had on the subject. He also referred the Council to an informal report of the seminar on counter-terrorism targeted sanctions and the rule of law, organized by Liechtenstein and the American University in September, in Washington, D.C.
For its part, Switzerland had provided financial support and experts to several activities of the Task Force Working Group on tackling the financing for terrorism. With Liechtenstein, it had also decided to financially support a study on terrorist financing indicators in response to a request by the Al-Qaida and Taliban monitoring team. It had facilitated meetings with representatives of the private sector to enhance financing for “prevention of terrorists”. It was also supporting a pilot project by INTERPOL to detect stolen and lost travel documents more effectively. In the first six months, Switzerland had been able to detect double the number of false documents, compared to the other 183 INTERPOL member countries combined.
SHIGEKI SUMI ( Japan) said that in order for collaborative efforts against terrorism to succeed, the mandate of the Counter-Terrorism Committee remained essential. He commended the contributions of Committee members, as well as those of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, particularly in identifying specific needs in the area of counter-terrorism technical assistance. As Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Action Group, Japan had been making every effort to promote effective coordination with the Executive Directorate. The Group of 8 industrialized countries (G-8) and the “CTED” were jointly striving to promote consideration by Action Group members of their counter-terrorism technical assistance.
He said that the 1267 Committee also remained crucial, despite the fact that various problems had been identified with the administration of the Consolidated List. Achieving the right balance between security and due process required careful consideration, and he commended the Committee’s work in improving both the List and its procedures. His country also attached great importance to the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), and was actively promoting its universalization through its position as G-8 Chair and through dialogue with the Committee. He reiterated his country’s commitment to strengthen United Nations counter-terrorism efforts.
ILEANA NUÑEZ MORDOCHE ( Cuba) said that for several years, Cuba had provided the Council with detailed information on terrorist acts against her country perpetrated by individuals and organizations, and the protection given those terrorists by the United States Government, but nothing had been done. Luis Posada Carriles, who had been called the most notorious terrorist of the western hemisphere, had been released from prison in the United States. Despite the fact that the United States Government had itself admitted that he was a dangerous terrorist, Posada Carriles had only been charged with petty immigration offences. News media were giving an account of how he now kept in touch with terrorist and extreme right-wing elements in the States, and how he participated in events held in Miami in his honour and in recognition of his terrorist acts against Cuba.
She said her Government once more demanded the return of the terrorist to Venezuela or the prosecution of him on United States territory, under article 7 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. While unscrupulous terrorists were being released, the United States Government kept five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters as political prisoners. They had only been trying to obtain information on the Miami-based terrorist groups in order to prevent violent acts and save the lives of Cuban and United States citizens. She, therefore, demanded their immediate release.
Her country requested the Council and its Counter-Terrorism Committee to urgently take into consideration the comprehensive information provided by Cuba, she said, adding that her country was ready to interact directly with the 1373 Committee if it considered that to be useful. “Double standards must not prevail. The Security Council must not continue to keep conspiratorial silence in view of this blatant affront to the victims of terrorism in the world”, she said, adding that Cuba had never allowed, nor would it allow, its territory to be used for terrorist actions against any State, without exception.
AMIR WEISSBROD ( Israel) stressed that there was never any justification for terrorism, and that the struggle against it must be global, reflecting the globalized realities of the twenty-first century. Noting that his country had been challenged by terrorism from its very beginning, he said it was incumbent upon all States to adhere to their obligations under international law to bring terrorists to justice. Unfortunately, some States continued to offer safe havens to terrorists and, in certain cases, actively hosted and sponsored terrorism, threatening international peace and security. The Council must address those breaches of its resolutions in a concrete and determined manner.
He commended the ongoing work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate, and supported the adoption of a working plan for the latter body earlier this year, as well as its efforts to enhance transparency. Welcoming also resolution 1822 (2008), he further encouraged efforts to ensure that fair and clear procedures continued to be utilized in the listing and de-listing of terrorist suspects and other efforts to ensure that the List was updated and accurate. He fully supported resolution 1540 (2004), saying that the nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction remained a principal concern for the country. He urged all Member States to reassess and redouble their efforts towards compliance. He finally welcomed enhanced cooperation between the terrorism committees with each other and related entities, and offered his country’s continued contribution as a donor to the Executive Directorate and as a possessor of vast experience in fighting the terrorism scourge.
JORGE VALERO BRICEÑO ( Venezuela) said impunity for terrorists was the absence of justice. Its prevalence over time was as harmful as the terrorist act itself. Venezuela advocated strengthening international legal standards and regional cooperation in the fight against terrorism. On 28 May, the Organization of American States (OAS) had issued a statement on the strengthening of the fight against terrorism and the prosecution of perpetrators on the basis of resolution 1373 (2001). Among other things, it had affirmed the importance of extradition as an effective tool in fighting impunity and had urged States to duly process extradition requests.
He said 32 years had gone by since the explosion of a Cuban plane where 73 people had lost their lives as a result of a terrorist act by Luis Posada Carriles. He had been convicted in Venezuela, but had escaped from prison with outside assistance. The Government had issued an extradition request to the United States, in accordance with the cooperation mechanisms that governed both countries. The freedom enjoyed by Posada in the United States was an expression of impunity that threatened the security of States, including of the United States, and made the fight against terrorism ineffective. The United States, a permanent member of the Council, showed serious contradictions when it came to the fight against terrorism.
Responding to the statements of Cuba and Venezuela, CAROLYN WILLSON ( United States) said her country had acted consistent with international and national law regarding the Carriles case. The safeguards of due process in national law prevented an individual from being extradited unless sufficient evidence had been provided that the person had committed the act he or she was to be extradited for. Posada had entered the United States illegally in 2005, had been detained and placed in removal proceedings. In December 2005, an immigration judge ordered Posada to be removed from the United States, on order that remained in effect, but that he could not be removed to Venezuela or Cuba, as it was more likely than not that he would be tortured.
She said the United States had sought a criminal indictment on violations of immigration laws. That indictment had been dismissed in first instance. On appeal, that decision had been reversed and the case would now go to trial. Posada was without legal status in the United States, because of the removal order, and was submitted to certain restrictions.
As for the five Cubans accused of spying, she said the facts of the case contradicted the misrepresentations by Cuba. All five individuals had been convicted for being unregistered agents of the Cuban Government. The defendants had benefited from legal protection and assistance and had taken advantage of their rights, rights that millions of Cubans on the island had been awaiting for 50 years. The five convicted spies were serving sentences in penal institutions with the same privileges and duties as the general prison populations.
RODOLFO ELISEO BENITEZ VERSON ( Cuba), responding to the comments of the representative of the United States, said that the reality of the case was that that country had taken extreme measures to protect a terrorist. Only when the press published interviews with Mr. Posada in Miami had he been arrested. At no time had he been prosecuted for his terrorist actions. The United States Government knew full well he was not a simple illegal immigrant. It had complete knowledge of his guilt in the terrorist actions concerned.
He asked why the immigration services did not use the tools at its disposal to keep Mr. Posada in prison, and said that it was to keep him from speaking about the cooperation of the United States Government with his activities. In regard to the other matter spoken of by the United States representative, he said that the arrest of the five persons concerned was determined to be arbitrary after analysis by international legal experts. The five remained imprisoned, however. He hoped that justice would be served and that the five would be returned to their homeland.
Reacting to the comments by the United States’ delegation, Mr. BRICEÑO ( Venezuela) said Mr. Posada had been arrested and tried in Venezuela. He had not only confessed, but had even boasted about his crimes, which had included the bombing of the plane referred to earlier. Even in a Venezuelan prison, he had boasted of his acts. Because the United States’ representative had pointed out that a judge had declared that he could not go to Venezuela or Cuba, as he could be subjected to torture, he assured that guarantees had been offered to the United States Government that Posada would be subjected to the laws of due process and that his human rights were guaranteed.
It was unfathomable, he said, that a country that practised and justified torture would point out a risk of torture in Venezuela for Posada. The United States justified certain forms of torture, such as in Abu Ghraib and in Guantánamo, as necessary, in the interest of national security. Posada was a well-known and dangerous international terrorist, yet the United States Government wanted to let his crimes go unpunished, maybe because he had been a member of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and could talk about other crimes committed while on that organization’s payroll. He reiterated his request to the Council to mediate with the Government of the United States.
* *** *
For information media • not an official record