S/2020/870 Security Council

In accordance with the procedure agreed upon by the Members of the Security Council in the light of the extraordinary circumstances caused by the coronavirus disease pandemic, as set out in the letter dated 27 March 2020 from the President of the Security Council addressed to all members of the Council (S/2020/253), I would like to draw your attention to the following. The members of the Council have discussed a draft resolution, submitted by Indonesia, in connection with the agenda item “Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”. That draft resolution, contained in document S/2020/852 and enclosed herein, has been put in blue. In my capacity as President of the Security Council, I hereby put the above- mentioned draft resolution to a vote. The non-extendable 24-hour voting period for this draft resolution will begin at 2 p.m. on Friday, 28 August 2020 and will expire at 2 p.m. on Monday, 31 August 2020. Please submit your vote (in favour, against or abstain) on the draft resolution, as well as your possible explanation of vote, by sending a letter signed by the Permanent Representative or Chargé d’affaires a.i. within the non-extendable 24- hour voting period set out above to the Officer-in-charge of the Security Council Affairs Division in the United Nations Secretariat (montejo@un.org). It is my intention to circulate a letter listing the outcome of the vote within three hours of the conclusion of the 24-hour voting period. I also intend to convene a video-teleconference of the Security Council to announce the outcome of the vote shortly after the conclusion of the voting period, on the afternoon of Monday, 31 August 2020.

Belgium would like to thank the Indonesian presidency for its considerable efforts to reach a consensus on the important topic of prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration of foreign terrorist fighters. This is an essential theme in our joint fight against terrorism. That is why Belgium voted in favour of draft resolution S/2020/852, on prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration, alongside our European partners, which are members of the Security Council: the E-3 — Germany, France and the United Kingdom — and Estonia. However, Belgium believes that it is a very long and perfectible text and wishes to express its deep concerns on two major issues. First, Belgium recognizes the need to develop specific rehabilitation, reintegration programmes for men and women suspected of being linked to a terrorist organization. At the same time, Belgium is convinced that it is of utmost importance to differentiate the status of children from those of adults and to primarily treat them as victims of terrorism, who — if suspected of crimes — should go through a distinct process from adult foreign terrorist fighters. The obligation to treat children differently and protect them when they are part of a criminal justice process derives from international law, and more particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, as well as the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules). Belgium regrets that the draft resolution voted on today does not sufficiently reflect this aspect. Secondly, Belgium considers that the fight against terrorism can be successful only if it is part of a comprehensive, whole-of-society approach and complies with human rights and international humanitarian law, which constitute a leading principle in all four pillars of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Belgium would therefore strongly encourage the involvement of and coordination among all United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Compact entities. In addition, Belgium wants to recognize the importance of the work of such entities as UNICEF and UN-Women, and more particularly the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, including in the fields of counter-terrorism and combating violent extremism. Belgium underlines the importance of the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in assessing the implementation of the Council’s resolutions on counter-terrorism from a human rights angle in order to help the Council develop a clearer, more balanced United Nations architecture in the counter-terrorism domain. S/2020/870 S/2020/870

France reaffirms its commitment to the fight against terrorism at a time when this threat, in particular that of foreign terrorist fighters, persists. Draft resolution S/2020/852, which the Council just voted on, provided concrete responses to address it. It would have allowed us to strengthen our collective efforts to ensure that members of terrorist groups responsible for crimes, particularly sexual crimes, were brought to justice. It gave special attention to the victims of terrorism. It was also aimed at strengthening efforts to provide a response, as well as prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration efforts adapted to the profile of and threat posed by the individuals concerned. Finally, the text reaffirmed that the fight against terrorism, radicalization and violent extremism must be carried out in accordance with international human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law. France commends Indonesia’s efforts, which made it possible to arrive at a balanced text, and regrets that this draft resolution could not be adopted. For the first time since the adoption of resolution 1373 (2001), on counter- terrorism, the consensus that prevailed in the work of the Security Council on counter-terrorism has been shaken. However, time should not be at the division. France will continue to work with its partners to ensure that the Security Council provides a strong and effective response to the threat posed by the terrorism for international peace and security.

Indonesia regrets that the Security Council failed to adopt draft resolution S/2020/852, on the prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration (PRR) of terrorists, owing to a non-concurrence vote by a permanent member of the Council. As a country that has been a victim of, as well as on the front line of the fight against terrorism, Indonesia fails to understand why, when the world continues to be besieged by the grave threat of terrorism to international peace and security, an important initiative that has added value in addressing this serious threat has not enjoyed acceptance in the Council, owing to the incomprehensible view of one. The draft resolution is intended to provide clear guidance for Member States to develop and implement comprehensive PRR strategies, construct a strong prosecution aspect, provide clear and practical rehabilitation and reintegration elements by developing long-term methods to counter violent extremism conducive to terrorism. It is also aimed at encouraging a proactive whole of Government approach and recognizing the role that can be played by families and civil society organizations, religious leaders, including urging full participation and the leadership of women. The draft resolution calls upon Member States to address conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, including by preventing radicalism and encouraging close collaboration, capacity-building and sharing experience with prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration measures, including criminal investigation, joint investigation and preventing radicalization in prisons. The draft resolution also calls on member States to develop risk and assessment tools, standard methodology and oversight mechanisms. PRR itself is an integral part of a comprehensive approach in addressing the threat posed by terrorists. This approach is instrumental in the overall counter- terrorism effort and, therefore, should be one of the priorities of the Security Council. Without comprehensive prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration measures, there are significant risks that terrorists may fall into endless cycle of recidivism. A PRR draft resolution, if adopted, would become a key tool for the Council and all member States of the United Nations, as well as the United Nations system, to establish a comprehensive and long-term strategy in countering terrorist acts and violent extremism conducive to terrorism and preventing the recurrence of terrorist acts. Therefore, the Council’s failure to adopt this important draft resolution not only paralyses our collective efforts to confront the threat of terrorism but, most important, also sends a damaging signal that the Council, for the first time, is not united in the fight against the scourge of terrorism. As a matter of fact, Indonesia’s initiative on a PRR draft resolution enjoys the overwhelming support of almost all Council members. This is a clear and strong testament to the value and substance that it offers. While the majority of members concur with this important initiative, regrettably there is a member of the Council that has an opposing view on what is best for the world and on how the Council should move forward. The wisdom of the many seems to be disregarded. Our collective endeavour to achieve a meaningful Council resolution on PRR should not end here and now. It is our view that in future this important issue will S/2020/870 S/2020/870 continue to gain the respect and support of all members of the Council, noting that what is at stake is the safety and security of humankind. Let it be known that the world would have been safer had this draft resolution been adopted, and yet we lost a valuable opportunity by not doing so today.

The Russian Federation voted in favour of the draft resolution on “Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts”, submitted by Indonesia (S/2020/852). In doing so, we were guided by the necessity to maintain the unity and effectiveness of the Security Council when it comes to addressing the pressing challenges posed by terrorism, particularly the activities of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs). Allow me to express our appreciation to our Indonesian colleagues for their efforts to ensure the added value of a new decision of the Security Council dedicated to the issues of the prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration (PRR) of FTFs and their family members. Although the Security Council, in its resolutions 2178 (2014) and 2396 (2017), already provided detailed recommendations to Member States on the development of national PRR strategies, we agreed to elaborate on those provisions with a view to ensuring accountability for terrorists and strengthening international cooperation in that regard. Unfortunately, this endeavour did not prove to be as successful as we had hoped. Most important, the present draft resolution (S/2020/852) fails to recognize the primary importance of measures aimed at repatriating FTFs from conflict zones, namely, in Syria and in Iraq. We call on all Member States to enhance efforts aimed at returning their nationals, whether involved in terrorist activities or accompanying terrorists, and to abide by their obligations to bring these individuals to justice. For these purposes, it is absolutely crucial to utilize the existing treaties on mutual legal assistance and extradition more effectively and introduce expedited and simplified procedures for the transfer of terrorists while adhering to the principle “extradite or prosecute” and ensuring the inevitability of punishment. It is worth underlining in this regard that the principle of the inevitability of punishment must be also applied to the family members of FTFs whenever there is sufficient proof of their guilt. Respective penal measures cannot be substituted for by non-custodial rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. All such efforts should be undertaken in prisons. It is true that many States face challenges in obtaining admissible evidence from conflict zones, which may be instrumental in securing convictions that duly reflect the seriousness of offences. The present draft resolution reflects on this issue in general terms. However, we wish to specifically stress several fundamental principles that must be fully observed when States consider the involvement of the military in the process of the collection, sharing and use of evidence. First and foremost, based on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, the authority to collect information and evidence under these exceptional circumstances cannot be delegated to any military personnel in areas of armed conflict. The deployment of a military contingent must be supported by clear legal authorities and regulations. A troop-sending State must receive explicit consent from a troop-receiving State for these purposes. Otherwise, there should be an international legal mandate, namely, on the basis of a Security Council decision. Moreover, the collection of evidence by the military should be in line with national legislation and international law, while the authority to engage in the aforementioned activities should be specifically stated in the mandate provided to them. S/2020/870 S/2020/870

There is no nation on Earth more committed to confronting and defeating terrorism than the United States of America. Under the leadership of President Trump, the United States has crushed the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) and taken out its leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. In January, the United States rid the world of another dangerous terrorist — Iranian Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. The Trump Administration will not waver in the fight against terrorism or give in to half-measures that leave in place the seeds of future terror. While we firmly believe that the Security Council has a critical role to play in countering terrorism, it has fallen far short of its responsibilities today. The Indonesian draft resolution before us (S/2020/852), supposedly designed to reinforce international action on counterterrorism, was worse than no resolution at all. This draft resolution was meant to address the prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration of terrorists, including foreign terrorist fighters and their accompanying family members. And yet it fails to even include reference to the crucial first step — repatriation to countries of origin or nationality. The United States provides the example here, bringing back our citizens and prosecuting them where appropriate. All nations need to take responsibility for their citizens who engage in terror. As Secretary Pompeo has said, “We want every country to take their citizens back. That is step one. It is imperative that they do so”. Our veto today should come as no surprise. Just last week I told the Council how disappointed we were by the obstruction of any efforts to discuss repatriation in this text. I will remind members now of what I said then: the world is watching. It is incomprehensible that other members of the Council could have been satisfied with a draft resolution that ignores the security implications of leaving foreign terrorist fighters to plot their escape from limited detention facilities and abandoning their family members to suffer in camps without recourse, opportunities or hope. If, as this draft resolution suggests, the goal of the Council is to address the drivers of terrorism, how can we ignore these obvious breeding grounds for the next generation of ISIS fighters? I continue to be astonished by the rule of expediency that so often afflicts the Council. Far too often, a problem deferred or obscured is a problem supposedly solved. Terrorist fighters and their families are easily ignored if they are someone else’s problem. But I tell the Council now, and I say this with absolute conviction: failing to address head-on the importance of repatriation will inevitably perpetuate the problem of terrorism. As Secretary of State Pompeo has said, “We must make sure that ISIS never again flourishes and that work begins with carrying out justice against those who deserve it”. This draft resolution fails badly in that crucial objective, and the United States will not participate in such a cynical and wilfully oblivious farce.