A/60/PV.99 General Assembly

I should like to express my sincere thanks to Ambassador Abdullah Alsaidi of Yemen and Ambassador Solveiga Silkalna of Latvia, the two Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group, who so ably conducted the discussions and the complex negotiations of the Working Group. I am sure the members of the Assembly join me in extending to them our sincere appreciation. I now give the floor to the representative of Japan, who wishes to speak in explanation of position following the adoption of the resolution.

I would like to express my appreciation to you, Mr. President, as well as to the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the General Assembly — Ambassadors Alsaidi and Silkalna — for the outstanding efforts to reach consensus on the adoption of the report (A/60/999) and now, thanks to your efforts, Sir, of the draft resolution as well. Japan believes that a strong and relevant General Assembly is in our common interests. We have therefore taken an active part in the discussion of this agenda item. My delegation is of the view that all interested parties should be welcome to participate in such exercises. We feel compelled to mention that we noticed irregularities at one stage of our discussions. Allow me also to point out that we have been discussing this agenda item — “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly” — every year for the past 15 years. We have achieved some real progress during that process, about which we should feel very proud. But there is a principle in the field of economics known as the principle of diminishing returns. We should admit that, despite the tremendous amount of time and resources we devote to this matter, the fruits are becoming more marginal and that we are sending out a negative image of the General Assembly. My delegation would therefore like to propose that we begin to consider the biennialization of this exercise in the next round of discussions.

The handling of that proposal will be taken care of by my successor, and by the representative of Japan. In the meantime, we take note of your proposal. I again thank the Co-Chairs, who did a great a job and contributed to a consensus resolution — for which we are all grateful. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 116?

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/60/L.63. I should like to inform the Assembly that the following countries have become sponsors of draft resolution A/60/L.63: Angola, Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Indonesia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Zambia. The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/60/L.63, entitled “The Peacebuilding Fund”. May I take it that the Assembly decides to adopt draft resolution A/60/L.63?

I now give the floor to the representative of Turkey, who wishes to speak in explanation of position following the adoption of the resolution.

Turkey warmly welcomes the Secretary-General’s report (A/60/984) on arrangements for the establishment of the Peacebuilding Fund. One of the historic achievements of the reform agenda of the United Nations this year has no doubt been the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission. Coupled with that achievement was the establishment of a Peacebuilding Support Office and a Peacebuilding Fund. We all know that effective peacebuilding requires sound financial support. The Peacebuilding Fund is expected to generate that support and to ensure the immediate release of the resources needed to launch peacebuilding activities. As such the Fund will play a crucial role in the success of post-conflict recovery efforts, particularly on the African continent. Recognizing its critical importance, the Turkish Government made a voluntary contribution of $800,000 to the Peacebuilding Fund. Turkey was indeed pleased to sponsor the draft resolution entitled “The Peacebuilding Fund”, and will continue to give its full support to all peacebuilding efforts in the future.

I should like to express my appreciation for Turkey’s contribution to the Peacebuilding Fund. The Assembly will now turn to draft resolution A/60/L.62, entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy”. We are here today to take action on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. If adopted, that strategy would reaffirm and strengthen the role of the General Assembly in the work of countering terrorism. That is imperative, as the scourge of terrorism affects us all. The Strategy forms the basis for a concrete plan of action to address the conditions conducive to terrorism, to prevent and combat terrorism, to take measures to build States’ capacities, to strengthen the role of the United Nations and to ensure respect for human rights. This draft resolution would constitute the foundation on which the role of the General Assembly can be further built and further developed. At its sixty- second session, the Assembly will examine progress made in the implementation of the Strategy and consider updating it to respond to a changing environment. The Strategy must thus remain a living document. In considering the Strategy, the Assembly should keep in mind that many of the measures can be achieved immediately. Some will require sustained work through the coming years. Some others are long-term tasks and objectives. Two factors have made it incumbent upon us, members of the General Assembly, to take decisive action and unite around a United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. One is the clear mandate given by our leaders in the 2005 World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1). The other is the reality of terrorism — its continued violent and tragic manifestation in all its forms. By taking decisive action today and adopting the United Nations Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, we will once again send a strong message that the General Assembly, with its members, is ready to shoulder its responsibility to act in the spirit of the Charter on a growing global menace. We will tangibly demonstrate that the General Assembly can take assertive action on one of the most serious threats to our common and our individual security. This we owe to the hundreds of thousands of people who have through the years, directly or indirectly, suffered the effects of terrorism in all its forms. I urge members to adopt the Strategy by consensus. By doing this we would strengthen the mandate given to the General Assembly. We need to stand united in the international fight against terrorism. We are all aware of the contentious issues that have plagued the terrorism discussion for a long time. The Strategy is not intended either to avoid or to solve those controversies, but rather to address them by building on already agreed language. It recognizes that these are important and sensitive matters which we should continue to discuss in relevant forums, not least the General Assembly. There are some important issues related to the text that I would like once again to underline. First of all, it is important that we build on our consistent, unequivocal and strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. Secondly, we have conceptualized and developed the issue of conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. It is vital for our common endeavour that we address those conditions in a serious and comprehensive manner. Thirdly, strong national capacity is a cornerstone of all global counter-terrorism efforts. We need to bring together all actors to enhance the capabilities of all States to secure their own territories. The United Nations system, other international, regional and subregional organizations and Member States all have roles to play. Fourthly, we need to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, while countering terrorism. We have devoted an entire section to respect for human rights and the rule of law, at both a national and an international level. Fifthly, we also need to ensure that any action taken to combat terrorism will comply with all obligations under international law. Finally, the plan of action sets out a number of practical and operational measures that will enhance our efforts to fight terrorism. These include the call for Member States as well as the United Nations system to step up their efforts and strengthen their counter-terrorism measures in a number of concrete areas. This draft resolution is my and my Co-Chairs’ best attempt to reach a consensus agreement on a counter-terrorism strategy. The text is carefully crafted, and every word has been scrutinized. There is no delegation in this Hall which got all it wanted. Some wanted more, some wanted less. But the text is, in our view, balanced. Let us now unite around this Strategy and have it launched at a high-level segment of the General Assembly later this month. And let us then start implementing it. I want to conclude by thanking Ambassadors Menon of Singapore and Yáñez-Barnuevo of Spain and their great teams for the leadership they have shown. Without their tireless, skilful and committed efforts we would never have been where we are today. I also want to thank the Secretary-General for his support and his inspiration to our efforts. We know how thoroughly and intensively the Secretary-General and his colleagues in the Secretariat have worked with these difficult issues. Finally, my warm thanks go to you, the member States. Without your contributions, your flexibility and your sense of responsibility we would have no Strategy to adopt today. We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/60/L.62. In connection with draft resolution A/60/L.62, I would like to give the floor to the representative of the Secretariat.

In connection with draft resolution A/60/L.62, I wish to put on record the following statement of financial implications on behalf of the Secretary-General, in accordance with rule 153 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. By paragraph 5 of part III of the annex to the draft resolution, the General Assembly would “welcome the intention of the Secretary-General to institutionalize, within existing resources, the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force within the Secretariat in order to ensure overall coordination and coherence in the counter- terrorism efforts of the United Nations system”. To institutionalize the Task Force, a small support function would be created within the Executive Office of the Secretary-General. In that regard, it is estimated that expenditures in the amount of $481,000 would need to be incurred in the year 2007, to provide for three posts, as well as relevant operating costs. Paragraph 5 calls for the institutionalization of the Task Force from within existing resources. In that regard, it may be recalled that in its resolution 54/249 of the fifty-fourth session, in paragraph 45, the General Assembly endorsed an observation of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions regarding references to “existing resources”, whereby the Advisory Committee emphasized the responsibility of the Secretariat to inform the General Assembly thoroughly and accurately about whether there are enough resources to implement a new activity. Should the General Assembly adopt draft resolution A/60/L.62, a detailed statement of programme budget implication would be submitted to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session indicating arrangements for absorption of those requirements.

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution A/60/L.62, entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy”. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to adopt draft resolution A/60/L.62?

Before I call on representatives who wish to speak in explanation of position, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their position on the resolution just adopted.

My delegation wishes to explain its position on resolution 60/288 on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. My country, Syria, emphasizes and reaffirms its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, regardless of its source or perpetrators, be they individuals, groups or States. In 1986, Syria was among the first States to call for the convening of an international conference to define terrorism and to distinguish between it and the right of peoples to self- determination and independence in order to lay a sound foundation for genuine international cooperation between all States in the framework of international legitimacy in the fight against terrorism. Syria therefore supports the establishment of a comprehensive international counter-terrorism strategy based on clear concepts in which there is no ambiguity, subjective interpretation, or potential for abuse for political purposes to justify an agenda that has no link to genuine counter-terrorism efforts. Since the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the General Assembly was established under your presidency, Sir, my delegation has called tirelessly for the creation of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Our aspirations therefore aimed considerably higher than the resolution that we have just adopted. We believe that the resolution, while apparently positive at the level of international counter-terrorism, remains far below our hopes for a genuine fight against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including State terrorism. That issue was not reflected in the text we have just adopted by consensus. Furthermore, the resolution’s text is not fully consensual, since negotiations were not conducted directly among member States but through mediation, as we all know. That has made the text unbalanced and riddled with faults and shortcomings. We will not make a detailed criticism of the document, but we must refer to one of its most problematic aspects. It does not establish, in our opinion and that of many other States, a clear definition of terrorism, which means that the implementation of this Strategy will be based on the interpretations of States, which naturally reflect clear differences and variations in that regard. We have repeatedly insisted that creating a legal definition of terrorism is a precondition for the implementation of such a Strategy, particularly in formulating the distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggles of people under occupation for self- determination and independence. A few weeks ago, the world witnessed the barbarity and terrorism of Israel’s aggression against Lebanon and Palestine, leading to the deaths of hundreds of innocent people, mostly civilians, children and women. The document’s credibility will suffer from its failure clearly to condemn State terrorism and its deployment. It is essential to address the roots of terrorism if any such counter-terrorism strategy is to be successful. Syria sympathizes with the victims of individual and State terrorism alike. A few amendments were made to the draft resolution to include victims of State terrorism among the victims of terrorism in general, but regrettably they did not find their way into the final text. Syria did not call for a vote on resolution 60/288 because we wished to join the consensus under your presidency, Sir, which all agree has been one of integrity that has reaped great positive rewards for the work of the General Assembly in general. Syria did not call for a vote despite its conviction that the resolution has many shortcomings that do not reflect the interests of all States. Our joining in the consensus is intended to stress our adherence to the struggle against terrorism through international consensus and comprehensive international action in that field. It is our understanding that the implementation of the Global Strategy laid out in the draft resolution will not prejudice the right of peoples to self-determination and to fight for their own independence — a right guaranteed under international law and by numerous resolutions of this Assembly, all of which were adopted by consensus. We also believe that the Strategy will not be seen as an alternative to the need to define terrorism or used to justify ending the negotiations on a comprehensive counter-terrorism treaty. We continue to believe that the proposal that Syria has advocated since the 1980s to convene an international conference to define terrorism and to distinguish between it and the right of peoples to self- determination should be given due attention as soon as possible in order to reify the concept of a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy, which is of great importance, especially in the current critical circumstances. In conclusion, we wish to commend the two Co-Chairs, the representatives of Spain and Singapore, for their important work and to thank them for their patience. As I said earlier, we hope that international efforts will soon lead to the holding of an international conference to define terrorism.

At the outset, the Cuban delegation wishes to commend the Co-Chairs of the process and you personally, Mr. President, for your efforts to complete the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and bring about its adoption. The General Assembly — the principal and most democratic body of the United Nations system — using its normative powers and reaffirming its role on issues concerning international peace and security, has adopted a key instrument that must now guide our global fight against the scourge of terrorism, which has claimed so many innocent lives over the years. For the Government and the people of Cuba, the fight against terrorism is an issue of crucial interest and importance. As has been widely documented, for more than 45 years we Cubans have been the victims of innumerable terrorist acts conceived out of hatred and the irrational desires of an international Power that has not ceased in its attempts to put an end to the economic, political and social system that we have chosen in exercise of our right to self-determination and independence. The cost of the policy of State terrorism and sabotage that that Power has directed against my people has been very high in terms of human lives and economic damage. Cuba reaffirms its unshakable rejection of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, by whomsoever and against whomsoever committed, wherever they occur and whatever their motivations, including those in which States participate. Aware of the great responsibility that we all bear in the fight against terrorism, and committed to multilateral efforts to put an end to this scourge, which claims countless human lives every year, the Cuban delegation participated actively in the process of consultations to draw up the Strategy we have adopted today. However, in the process of its future implementation, the Strategy must be improved to overcome a number of deficiencies, controversial elements and ambiguities remaining in the text, including the following elements. My delegation does not agree with the idea expressed in the first sentence of section IV, paragraph 7, of the annex. In that regard, we wish to reaffirm that the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) must be carried out with respect for the mandate established in resolution 48/141. We recall that reform of the human rights machinery is still under way and that the issue of UNHCHR’s presence on the ground has yet to be negotiated — a process that includes reviewing all the mandates, functions and responsibilities of the new Human Rights Council. Likewise, with regard to the invitation in paragraph 3 of the same section, which urges States to consider accepting the competence of international and relevant regional human rights monitoring bodies, the delegation of Cuba wishes to reiterate that such acceptance requires the express consent of the State concerned, in the light of recognized principles of the Charter of the United Nations and prevailing international law. Moreover, we are unhappy that the text as adopted does not contain a clear and precise definition of terrorism. That will no doubt serve as an incentive, spurring us to arrive at a definition of this phenomenon in the future, which will help put an end to the political manipulation and the double standards with which it is interpreted in various contexts. In that connection, we note with satisfaction the call to resolve the outstanding issues related to the negotiation of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism, including the legal definition of the acts covered by such an instrument. Cuba joined in the adoption of resolution 60/288 by consensus as a demonstration of its firm commitment in the fight against terrorism and in defence of multilateralism. The Cuban delegation would like to stress the political value represented by the following points, which are included in the Strategy. The Strategy covers all acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including in particular State terrorism. Cuba believes that section II, paragraph 1 of the annex, “Measures to prevent and combat terrorism”, is clear in that regard, because it obviously includes the commitment of States to refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities. We must pay special attention to the inclusion in this paragraph of the verb “participating”, which constitutes a clear recognition of State terrorism, an idea that until a few days ago was objected to by a number of States — mainly those that resort to that kind of practice. The Strategy refers to the resolve of all States to uphold the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination or foreign occupation. The exercise of that sacred right — which is inherent to all peoples without distinction and which is clearly enshrined in various international instruments, including the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration annexed to resolution 2625 (XXV) — must not be equated with terrorism. The document represents an appropriate balance between the role of the General Assembly and that of the Security Council. The General Assembly is strengthened as the centre of multilateral efforts in the fight against terrorism, using the powers conferred on it in the Charter. The text we have adopted also includes references to key documents in the fight against terrorism, such as resolution 46/51 and the Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, contained in the annex to resolution 49/60. Those instruments are now fully in force, and their universal implementation is an inherent part of the Strategy we have adopted. With regard to the “conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”, my delegation notes with satisfaction the inclusion of conditions such as discrimination, socio-economic marginalization, political exclusion and prolonged unresolved conflicts. The latter should be interpreted as requiring the determination of States to do all they can to resolve conflict, end foreign occupation and confront oppression, as expressed in the adopted resolution. The Strategy clearly refers to the obligation of States to cooperate in the fight against terrorism in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts. It also refers to the obligation not to grant asylum or refugee status to terrorists. Those are particularly important elements in a fight against terrorism without double standards and that does not distinguish between “good” and “bad” terrorists. The Strategy reaffirms the obligation of States to ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular human rights law and international humanitarian law. This is a clear message to all those who resort to torture and other inhuman and degrading practices in their supposed campaign against terrorism. Cuba totally rejects the use of the combat against terrorism as a pretext to justify interference in the internal affairs of other States, aggression and the undermining of the national sovereignty of States. Terrorism is a phenomenon that must be fought by the international community as a whole in a context of close cooperation and in full respect of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. Finally, I should like to state the firm will of the people and the Government of Cuba to cooperate in the context of multilateral efforts to put an end, once and for all, to all terrorist acts, methods and practices, in all of their forms and manifestations.

We wish to congratulate the co-Chairpersons, Ambassador Yáñez- Barnuevo and Ambassador Menon, for the objectivity that they displayed throughout the informal consultation process and for having brought us to a successful outcome. The process has been difficult, and the current draft is a reflection of the compromises that have been made by Member States. It follows that it may not totally address the concerns raised previously by my delegation and others. This process was not about victors and losers; it was about developing a coherent global counter-terrorism strategy. In that regard, we are pleased to note that there has been significant progress, and the adoption of this resolution is an indication thereof. My delegation supports the current draft but has to place on record the fact that we continue to have concerns regarding the failure of the strategy which we have adopted to address fully State terrorism, extrajudicial killings, extraordinary renditions and illegal detention. Specifically, we wish to place the following on record. The first operative paragraph of the plan of action — a paragraph which is closely based on language from the World Summit Outcome document — ought not to be interpreted as a basis for a definition of terrorism or as an attempt to exclude the right of national liberation movements to resist foreign occupation. Paragraph 4 of section I of the plan of action on terror refers to our “obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct”. We wish to put on record that such an obligation under international law, if it does exist, does not arise from Security Council resolution 1624 (2005), as that resolution is not mandatory, having been adopted under Chapter VI. Paragraph 5 of section II refers to the need to curb the illicit trade in man-portable air defence systems. Ideally, this issue should have been dealt with under disarmament processes, and our acceptance of this resolution is without prejudice to our position in future disarmament discussion regarding this very same issue. We are concerned that paragraph 7 of section II of the plan of action appears to undermine the right of asylum and would also be practically difficult to implement. The proposal to create a single comprehensive database on biological incidents and to update rosters of experts and laboratories and to bring together all biotechnology stakeholders should not be used to undermine the sovereignty of developing countries or their right to exploit biotechnology for peaceful purposes. Questions would also need to be answered as to how this ambitious project would be funded. Furthermore, this proposal should not be used to create an enabling platform for intrusive actions by the Security Council. We are concerned at the invitation, in paragraph 17 of section II of the plan of action, to the Security Council to develop guidelines for the necessary cooperation and assistance in the event of a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction. We are concerned that this invitation is only to the Security Council, and therefore we expect that there will be consultations with the General Assembly on this issue. Finally, we would want to see a focussed implementation of section IV on human rights and international law to ensure that human rights are at the centre of the counter-terrorism strategy. We are hopeful that this resolution will be translated into a practical, cohesive strategy with the objective of countering — in an effective manner — the scourge of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. My delegation gives the assurance that we will support its implementation and assist in the continued refinement of this strategy. Finally, we wish also to congratulate you, Mr. President.

I should like to start by congratulating the co-Chairmen and the presidency for the work that has led to this document and enabled us to create this very important instrument in the fight against the universal scourge of terrorism. The Mission of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, with the best will possible, joined the consensus on the adoption of draft resolution A/60/L.62, because we deem necessary this urgent response to the scourge of terrorism. However, we would like to make a statement on specific elements within the resolution. It is important to point out that the resolution does not specifically mention the acts of violence committed by certain States aimed at ensuring the submission of other peoples, and that therefore it is ambiguous with respect to the appalling form of terrorism that is State terrorism. We hope that this lack of precision will not also be reflected in the comprehensive convention against terrorism, because that convention is going to require much greater clarity. We must avoid creating a new order that protects the strong and oppresses the weak. We wish also to state our reservations as concerns the preambular paragraph of section I, entitled “Measures to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism”, and operative paragraph 7 of that same section. We cannot ignore foreign occupation as a cause of terrorism — acts of terrorism that lead to terrorism. We also have reservations as concerns the reference to lack of good governance. This term, because it has no exact definition, always gives rise to suspicion and doubt. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela warns that terms such as these could be used to apply double standards in judging countries of the South. Who decides what good governance is for other countries? Is it the most powerful? It is those who practice unilateralism? I think that it is useful to recall the conflicts and acts of aggression resulting from the unilateral use of power that have led to upheaval in the international arena in the last few years. Combating terrorism requires resolve, determination and sincerity. It is on that basis that we joined in the consensus on the draft resolution.

At the outset, I would like to sincerely thank the two Co-Chairs, Ambassador Menon of Singapore and Ambassador Yáñez-Barnuevo of Spain, and their teams for the commendable job that they have done. By means of their hard work and their constructive approach, they have successfully given comprehensive dimensions to an operational strategy. Let me also thank you, Mr. President, for your commitment to the role of the General Assembly. We have taken note of the fact that some aspects of the Counter-Terrorism Strategy have been stated clearly and directly in resolution 60/288 and the annexed plan of action, while others require explanation or need beefing up. This could involve a process of redefining some elements of the Strategy. However, we support this approach, as it helps to evolve a broader consensus. For my delegation, the most important aspect of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy is that it is dynamic and will be implemented by the General Assembly. We appreciate the fact that the General Assembly will examine progress made in its implementation and will consider updating it. We also appreciate the fact that Member States have recognized that objectives contained in the Strategy could be achieved in the short, medium or long term. That means that the process of review and updating would also be extended until the achievement of the long- term objectives. In this context, you, Mr. President, rightly concluded yesterday that the Strategy will remain a living document — and you reiterated that in your statement today. We welcome the fact that General Assembly resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991 is recalled. That is an unequivocal acknowledgement of the legitimacy of national liberation movements, as in the fifteenth preambular paragraph of that resolution Member States reaffirmed “the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of alien domination and foreign occupation, and [upheld] the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”. The Strategy has a full-fledged section on the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. We believe that the conceptualization and development of perspectives on the root causes of terrorism would help to eliminate the motivation for terrorist acts. The list of conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism given in the plan of action of the Strategy is not exhaustive; however, an acknowledgement of the fact that prolonged unresolved conflicts are among the root causes of terrorism is a clear reflection of a fact. Such conflicts arise mainly from foreign occupation and denial of the right of people to self-determination. Those root causes will have to be addressed and overcome vigorously if the Strategy is to succeed in countering and eliminating terrorism. The Strategy rightly recalls that in the September 2005 outcome document (resolution 60/1), our leaders rededicated themselves to supporting all efforts to uphold the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation. We hope that this provides inspiration for the implementation of General Assembly resolutions on self-determination, as it has not been possible for many of those to be implemented to date. We also welcome the fact that the Strategy addresses the problem of foreign occupation. The preambular part of the resolution highlights the support of world leaders for peoples under foreign occupation. Elsewhere in the preambular part, the resolution affirms the determination of Member States to do all they can to end foreign occupation. We recognize that in addressing this important root cause of terrorism we have taken a step forward. We understand the challenges faced by the Co-Chairs in the articulation of State terrorism. We therefore appreciate the strong condemnation, early in the preambular part of the Strategy resolution, of terrorism committed by “whomever, wherever”. We also appreciate paragraph 1 of section II of the plan of action, which expresses the resolve of States to refrain from participating in terrorist activities. These are adequate guidelines to prepare plans for the fight against State terrorism. The Strategy acknowledges that socio-economic marginalization creates conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. We support your view, Sir, that these conditions should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner. However, the General Assembly will need to develop appropriate strategies to transform those ideas into actions. The listing and delisting procedures of the Security Council sanctions committees lack due process and the right to effective remedy. These are recognized as fundamental human rights by jurists. We appreciate the fact that the Counter-Terrorism Strategy has taken note of those problems and has asked for fair and clear procedures for placing individuals and entities on the sanctions lists, for removing them from the lists and for granting humanitarian exceptions. We hope that the relevant Security Council sanctions committees will address these problems and provide a statement of case with regard to listed individuals and entities to concerned States for judicial proceedings. The United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy does not address our concerns on some issues. We would like to explain our position on a few of them. Regarding paragraph 2 (a) of the plan of action, we would like to point out that Pakistan constructively participated in the process to review the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and its Protocol to ensure the safety and security of maritime navigation against the threat of terrorism. Those instruments have obligations related to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Pakistan is not a party to the NPT. Therefore, we cannot accept NPT-related obligations which are reflected in the amendments to the Convention. Regarding paragraph 11 of section II of the plan of action, we consider that control of biological weapons is primarily a concern in the industrially advanced States, owing to their extensive use of biological agents. The Biological Weapons Convection should therefore be strengthened, in particular by reviving the initiative for a biological weapons verification protocol. The process of the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference is the best forum in which to deliberate upon and seek an agreed solution, including on the threat of bio-terrorism. We should not, therefore, rely on restrictive regimes in addressing such threats. Treaty regimes take time, but once they are agreed they command wider respect and legitimacy. Regarding paragraph 9 of section III of the plan of action, we are of the view that the last portion of the paragraph violates the national implementation mechanism established by Security Council resolution 1540 (2004).

As a demonstration of its firm support for the struggle against international terrorism, my delegation joined the consensus in adopting the draft resolution contained in document A/60/L.62, despite our many reservations. We contributed actively to the consultations on this document, with a view to enabling the General Assembly to finalize by consensus its work on the draft resolution on the United Nations global counter- terrorism strategy. We condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever it is committed. We are convinced that it can never be justified in any circumstances. We attach great importance to the mandate contained in the 2005 World Summit document, namely, that the General Assembly should develop without delay the elements for a counter-terrorism strategy identified by the Secretary-General. At the same time, we believe that the substance of such a strategy is of great importance to the key role that the United Nations should play in combating terrorism. In the light of the foregoing, it is imperative that the counter-terrorism strategy just adopted by the Assembly, which is to lay the groundwork for future activities, be a comprehensive one that deals with all the important elements needed to fight the scourge of terrorism resolutely and effectively. We believe that the global counter-terrorism strategy contained in the resolution just adopted falls short of all the necessary requirements and, rather, will complicate the universal efforts to combat terrorism. In our view, it is imperfect, as it fails to appropriately address the situations conducive to the spread of terrorism that terrorist groups use to recruit people and receive contributions. I will give some examples. The resolution fails to refer to State terrorism, whose upsurge has been evident in recent months in Palestine and Lebanon; unilateral military policies that give rise to terrorism are overlooked, and even the question of cooperation is left out. Iraq and Afghanistan are cases in point. There is no doubt that the military interventions in those countries have fuelled terrorism in the region. We reiterate the importance of resolution 46/51, which reaffirms the inalienable right to self-determination and the independence of all peoples under colonial and racist regimes and other forms of foreign domination and occupation. That resolution also upholds the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter and the Declaration on Principles of International Law. Given the shortcomings to which I have referred, we believe that the resolution just adopted does not satisfy the need to lay the foundations for a truly global response to the vicious course of global terrorism. In conclusion, I would be remiss in not seizing this opportunity to thank you, Mr. President, as well as the Co-Chairs and their teams, for your serious efforts in drafting and finalizing this document.

At the outset, my delegation would like to commend the sincere efforts made by the two Co-Chairs, the Permanent Representatives of Singapore and Spain. I should also like to thank you, Mr. President, for sponsoring those efforts, as well as for all your own efforts during your presidency of this session of the General Assembly, which has produced real and valuable achievements. My delegation introduced several substantial amendments to the draft of the resolution that has just been adopted. We continue to believe that those amendments were very important and essential to bring about balance in the resolution and to produce a global strategy to combat terrorism effectively and in a manner in keeping with the principles of international law. However, those amendments were not taken into account. The resulting document is therefore weak and fails to refer to matters without which no counter- terrorism strategy can be developed. For example, the document contains no definition of the term “terrorism”. That is a clear deficiency. How can a strategy combat an enemy that it does not know or define? That loophole will open up the way for varying interpretations and uses. The same can be said as regards other vital issues — such as foreign occupation and State terrorism — with regard to which no strategy can be developed in the absence of a definition of terrorism. It has become clear that this resolution was adopted in haste owing to the fact that we were compelled to adopt a counter-terrorism strategy before the end of this session of the General Assembly. It was therefore all the more important that we adopt a cohesive and effective document. For that reason, my delegation has very serious basic reservations on this document. However, we did not want to oppose the consensus that was developed. We nevertheless wish our comments to be included in the record of this meeting.

At the outset, I should like to congratulate the two Co-Chairs, the Permanent Representatives of Singapore and Spain, who have put forward several successive draft resolutions since May of this year in order to produce a final text that we could all live with. Ideally, my delegation would have liked to have seen the United Nations convey a far stronger message directed at countering terrorism. We wanted to send a clear signal to terrorists that their actions will not be tolerated, irrespective of the motivations underlying them. Even today terrorists killed over 35 persons in Malegaon, India. That kind of senseless slaughter of innocents reinforces the urgency with which we should be united and resolute in confronting terrorism everywhere and at all levels. We must also firmly reject the notion that any cause can justify terrorism. Nothing can ever justify the targeted killing of innocent men, women and children. In that regard, we would have liked to have seen the retention of paragraph 11 of the 31 July draft text, which reiterated what was affirmed in the 1994 Declaration and in various General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism. That paragraph unequivocally asserted that criminal acts of terrorism 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. That widely accepted principle should have been reflected in the strategy. The condemnation in the strategy of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations signals the international community’s will to no longer tolerate the actions of the sponsors and abettors of terrorism or of those who wilfully fail to prevent terrorists from utilizing their territories. A strong response to terrorism requires broad- based international cooperation, reducing the space for terrorists and increasing the capability of States to address terrorist threats. It requires sustained and specific cooperation by a variety of national, regional and global agencies. We hope that the Strategy will provide the impetus to unite the international community in its fight against terrorism via practical measures that facilitate cooperation by way of extradition, prosecution, information flows and exchange, and capacity-building. We have gone along with the present process, while remaining convinced that the comprehensive convention against international terrorism that we have been negotiating would have provided the requisite legal framework upon which a counter-terrorism strategy could have been based. The timeline set by the 2005 world summit outcome document envisaged the adoption of the comprehensive convention at the sixtieth session of the General Assembly. We continue to believe that agreement on it is attainable. We must now work together for the early finalization and adoption of the comprehensive convention.

I should like at the outset to extend my thanks to the presidency and its staff for their strenuous efforts to develop the Strategy. I wish to stress our condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and regardless of its source. Our adherence to today’s consensus arises from our conviction that we should adopt a counter-terrorism strategy in which the General Assembly would have a pivotal role to play. We believe that the Strategy represents a very important step, but that it is insufficient. We would have hoped that it would reflect the following principles: a definition of terrorism, a distinction between terrorism and resistance, a condemnation of State terrorism, and the need to address the conditions from which terrorism emerges. Our sincere and clear adherence to the principle of rejecting terrorism and our hope for cooperation with all States in a genuine counter-terrorism partnership have prompted us to support the Strategy, which, we would emphasize, should be a living document that can be amended and developed to adapt it to all contingencies. I would conclude by expressing our sincere and profound thanks and appreciation to you, Sir, for your wisdom and sincerity in realizing many of the world summit’s objectives.

I thank you, Sir, and your staff, as well as the Secretary-General for having honoured us with his presence during the adoption of the resolution. Many thanks go also to the co-chairs, the Ambassadors of Singapore and Spain, who have worked so hard on this important task that unites us all, and to the staff of the Secretariat who have spared no effort during all these months of work. The initiation of a strategy to counter global terrorism is an important step forward in the war on terror. Adopting the Strategy reiterates the international community’s strong universal condemnation of terrorism. Terrorism, by whomever, whenever and wherever practiced, is entirely unacceptable. There can be no pretext, no explanation and no justification for terror. However, the success of the Strategy will be determined not by consensus today, but by implementation. Terrorism will be sufficiently addressed only when Member States fulfil their binding obligations under Security Council resolutions 1267 (1999), 1373 (2001), 1540 (2004), 1566 (2004) and 1624 (2005). Those resolutions define the obligations of Member States to the international community in our global fight against terror. Moreover, combating terrorism requires the full cooperation of Member States with the counter-terrorism subsidiary bodies of the Security Council. While those Security Council resolutions defined our obligations as Member States, we must ensure that they are enforced and that measures are taken against States harbouring or assisting terrorists. Regrettably, a number of practical proposals suggested by the Secretary-General’s report, which could have made a significant contribution to combating terrorism, were omitted from the Strategy adopted today. We hope that those proposals and other practical measures can be incorporated into the Strategy in the future and implemented to better equip us in the fight against international terror. In that respect, we support the President of the General Assembly when he stated yesterday that this Strategy will remain a living document to be adapted and updated to respond to a changing world. There is profound symbolism in today’s adoption of a Global Strategy against terror. As we are on the eve of 11 September, the unveiling of the Strategy represents a culmination of the international community’s efforts to address the growth of such global threats as of today. We in Israel unfortunately continue to experience the realities of terrorism daily. In just the past few months, Israel has been confronted by terrorist attacks in the North, instigated by Hizbollah and sponsored by two States Members of this Organization, Syria and Iran — whose representatives spoke just a few minutes ago — and terrorist attacks in the South, carried out by Hamas and fully supported by the same. Terrorism remains a serious threat to Israel, and indeed to the entire world. Although Israel has developed measures to counter the threat of terror — more than 125,000 attacks have been thwarted in the past six years — we remain convinced that only through international cooperation will terror be effectively confronted and eventually eliminated. For Israel, and sadly for a growing number of States, terrorism is not some abstract idea. For those touched by terrorism, the menace could not be more real. Everyone in Israel has been struck by terror, be it a family member, a neighbour or a friend. Some 1,122 Israelis have been killed in terrorist attacks since September 2000. In five years, there have been more than 25,000 terrorist attacks against Israel. I know that to be true because I myself, here representing the State of Israel, was wounded by terrorism. In 1992, my immediate family and I were severely and directly attacked by international terrorism. I lost loved ones to Hizbollah’s murderous terror, evil promoted and directly supported by Iran. So may I add, on a personal note, that I know what I am talking about. To those who try to justify terror, terrorists and their supporters, financiers and protectors — justifications which have been made by some in this very Hall — I say “no”! There is no justification for terrorism, be it political, social, religious or cultural. Never should we accept the targeting of innocent civilians as a means of achieving any kind of goal. Terror is terror is terror. Terror must be wholly eradicated, plain and simple. The adoption of this Strategy affirms that terrorism cannot be effectively combated by a handful of States. It is an international threat and a common enemy that plagues us all. It remains a moral imperative for us to fight this dangerous phenomenon and its proliferation. Cooperation and the implementation of all binding obligations related to the prevention of international terrorism are the only way to secure our global future.

I would like to convey my gratitude to you, Mr. President, for the achievements made during the sixtieth session under your leadership. Among them is the United Nations Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy, which we have now adopted. I would also like to thank the Co-Chairs for their efforts to develop and finalize the Strategy. We joined the consensus in adopting this important document because it contains elements crucial for the establishment of a strategy and plan of action to combat terrorism. However, we believe that some significant factors have not been dealt with clearly, most important among which are agreement on a definition of terrorism, drawing a distinction between terrorism and the struggle of peoples for freedom and self-determination, and defining State terrorism in the same way as terrorism committed by individuals or groups. My delegation stresses that those points and concerns should be taken into consideration at future negotiations to reach a comprehensive international counter-terrorism convention.

I shall now give the floor to those representatives who wish to take the floor in exercise of the right of reply.

As everyone in the Hall is aware, we are a country that cherishes peace. We have always contributed to the development of human civilization. I also know that the Lebanese people — and our emigrants in particular — have contributed a great deal to the development of civilization in every country represented at the United Nations. We would have preferred not to take up the General Assembly’s time, but instead join together with the entire Assembly to counter terrorism in a constructive spirit of cooperation. We would also have preferred to spare the General Assembly unwanted discussions, because we believe that the lives and future of many people depend upon our efforts and because we want to foster a constructive and positive spirit in order that we can together build a better future for our peoples and make tomorrow a better day than today. But, unfortunately, one representative has once again not failed to take the opportunity to offend his neighbour: that is part of their culture and tradition. It is our responsibility to tell the truth. The Irish philosopher Edmund Burke used to say that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. The Israeli invasion of my country in 1972, the Israeli invasion of my country in 1978, the Israeli invasion of my country in 1982, the Israeli invasion of my country in 1986, the Israeli aggression and extensive destruction of my country in 1993, the Israeli aggression and extensive destruction of my country in 1996, the carnage at Qana — which every country represented in the Hall remembers — the Israeli aggression against my country in 2006 and the great number of civilian victims and the enormous level of destruction that has been inflicted on my country — we bluntly refer to all of that as evil. Our resistance, and especially that of Hizbollah, was that of good men who had enough guts to stand up to that evil. Another thing I would like to say is that Hizbollah is being blamed today because it dared say to the Israelis: Stand away from our sunlight! We want to see the light of the sun. We want to see the light of liberty. Everyone knows that, for an entire month, my country was subjected to harshest aggression to which a country can be subjected. Everyone one knows that Hizbollah did not exist during previous instances of Israeli invasion and acts of aggression against my country. Everyone knows about, and witnessed, how in 1972 an Israeli tank rolled over a civilian car loaded with five passengers, crushing them to death. Everyone has also seen on the news how the Israelis also tried to crush another car, whose driver was lucky enough to leave the car, although he was followed and killed. If we do not call those acts State terrorism, I do not know how we are going to define State terrorism. I shall not take up any more of the General Assembly’s time, so that we can think about issues that can be constructive for our future, the future of this institution and the future of all peoples.

Israel always tries to paint a false picture. I believe that it has not truly succeeded in doing so, and never will. No statement can mask Israel’s own brutal image of terrorism and evil. I shall not refer much to the past in my comments. However, I will say that Israel was founded on terrorism by Zionist gangs who destroyed the King David Hotel, killing Count Bernadotte, the eminent international personality sent by the United Nations to the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel’s State terrorism began at that moment, and it continues to this day. My Lebanese colleague has pointed eloquently to a number of incidents that reflect this aggression and evil. I could cite many similar cases, but we would prefer not to waste the General Assembly’s time at this moment of international solidarity when we have all agreed to combat terrorism. Rather, I shall respect this occasion and emphasize international efforts aimed at combating and eliminating terrorism. That brings us to the need to deal with the roots of terrorism, the most important of which is State terrorism. We have seen much of that type of terrorism in our region as a result of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territories and its deliberate targeting and killing of innocent civilians, United Nations civil servants and emergency relief workers of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, including four United Nations observers killed in Lebanon. These crimes continue, and so does terrorism. We believe that the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy must be implemented immediately. But we should concentrate on the roots of terrorism and realize that the most important way to address the roots of terrorism is to put an end to the occupation. Israel is trying to hide the sun, but the sun will continue to shine brilliantly.

I did not intend to take the floor again. But the baseless allegations made by the representative of the Israeli regime — they are not new to us, of course — have caused me to reply. The delegation always misuses the opportunity of speaking to direct baseless allegations against my country. It is a very sad irony that a regime which is rooted in, and continues, unfortunately, to be nourished by occupation, suppression and aggression, is complaining about terrorism. It is also a mockery that the representative of a terrorist war machine is teaching and lecturing this body on the necessity of implementing a counter-terrorism strategy. The words of our colleague from Lebanon, about the history of Israeli terrorism, aggression and occupation, have made it unnecessary for me to elaborate on those very evident facts. We also hope that by implementing the Strategy we can come to a time when there are no terrorist incidents and no manifestations of terrorism on this earth.

I thank Member States very much for their important contributions to the issue and to the debate on the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. I appreciate that, in spite of sometimes serious reservations and strong emotions, all members have chosen to join the consensus decision. Thus, the General Assembly has assumed its responsibility and has sent a powerful and unified message to the world. Yes, we have established a strong strategy for fighting terrorism. Yes, this scourge affects us all. Yes, we must and shall continue to work together and to deal with this vital issue, both inside and outside the United Nations. This is a living document and, as we have all noted, the debate will continue. Next, I have to make an announcement concerning mandate review. I would like to recall for the members that in paragraph 163 (b) of the 2005 World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1) the Assembly called for the review by the Assembly and other relevant organs of all mandates older than five years originating from resolutions of the General Assembly and other organs. In that connection I invite the attention of the General Assembly to a letter dated 7 September 2006 addressed to the President of the General Assembly from the Co-Chairs of the Informal Consultations of the Plenary on Mandate Review, His Excellency Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan and His Excellency Ambassador David Cooney of Ireland. The letter was circulated this afternoon. In it, the Co-Chairs describe the progress of work by the informal Working Group and attach a non-paper setting out guidelines and working methods for carrying out the mandate review. The Co-Chairs have stated that it is their shared view, based on extensive consultations with delegations, that these guidelines and working methods enjoy a wide measure of acceptance across the membership of the General Assembly and, they are convinced, represent the best prospect for moving forward in the process of mandate review during the remainder of the year. I should like to take this opportunity to extend to the Co-Chairs my deep gratitude for their tireless efforts in the consultations they have undertaken, as well as to all Member States for their active participation in the process. I urge Member States to support these guidelines as proposed by the Co-Chairs to enable the mandate review to progress further during the remainder of the year. The General Assembly has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of agenda items 46 and 120.

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee). I should like to say just a few final words. I know that many representatives will be leaving New York over the weekend to attend the important meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement, to be held in Havana. Let me therefore thank those representatives who will be leaving for the cooperation and friendship that they have extended to me during my presidency, which will end on Monday of next week.