SUBCOMMISSION CONTINUES DEBATE ON RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

AFTERNOON
HR/SC/98/29
24 August 1998

The Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities this afternoon continued its debate on the rights of children, freedom of religion and international terrorism.

The important link between growing economic disparity and contemporary forms of slavery with regard to children and adolescents could not be emphasized enough, Subcommission expert Miguel Alfonso Martinez underlined.

Subcommission expert Mustapha Mehedi called for international cooperation to combat rising global terrorism and expert Asbjorn Eide emphasized the importance of the rule of law in opposing terrorist insurgencies.

In addition, Subcommission expert Francoise Jane Hampson said the rule of law required that suspected terrorists be brought to justice and put on trial; those who claimed to play the role of international policemen needed to remember that a policeman was subject to and upheld the rule of law. Until there was evidence of the non-cooperation of Afghanistan and Sudan in bringing to justice those suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks against the United States, it was not possible to conclude that that recent U.S. attacks against reported terrorist bases in those countries could be considered legitimate international policing, Ms. Hampson said.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also addressed the issue of international terrorism, with the African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters calling for the development of a working definition of "terrorist" to enable the international community to take concrete action. Centre Europe-Tiers Monde questioned whether the powerful of the world attached more importance to the consequences of terrorism than to its profound causes, and War Resisters International said that if a State used its power through the army to oppress the population, it should expect retaliation from armed civilians.

A number of NGOs addressed the question of the freedom of religion, with Christian Solidarity International stating that the "totalitarian ideology of jihad" was the greatest current threat to religious liberty. In Vietnam, International Prison Fellowship said, the Government controlled all religious activities which had to conform to the principles of the State, a claim echoed by International Federation of Human Rights.

Subcommission experts or alternates Soli J. Sorabjee, Guy Genot, Sang Yong Park, and Halima Embarak Warzazi also spoke, as did a representative of Mexico.

The following UN Agencies and NGOs also addressed the meeting: the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, American Association of Jurists, International Institute of Non-Aligned Studies, International Prison Observatory, Pax Romana, Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations, International Educational Development, World Federation for Mental Health, European Union of Public Relations, Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, World Federation of Trade Unions, International Buddhist Foundation, International Institute for Peace, and Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization

The Subcommission will reconvene on Tuesday, 25 August, at 10 a.m. in closed session when it will examine communications concerning human rights and the report of the Working Group on Communications established under Subcommission resolution 2. The next open session will be at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 26 August, when it will continue its debate on rights of children and developments in fields with which the Subcommission has been or may be concerned.

Statements

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ, Subcommission expert, said that the protection of the rights of children and young people had always concerned the Subcommission, and should be kept on the agenda as problems affecting that issue were likely to continue. The Working Group on contemporary forms of slavery of the Subcommission had dealt with the problems of children and adolescents, and some of the Working Group's conclusions needed to be highlighted. It was correct that the Working Group had considered in its recommendations the link between poverty and ignorance as the essential causes of the contemporary forms of slavery; the important link between growing economic disparity and contemporary forms of slavery with regard to children and adolescents could not be emphasized enough. The growing trade in girl children and adolescents was also linked to their sexual exploitation, and last year, the Working Group had decided to concentrate on the situation of domestic child workers who were also immigrants. The Subcommission had to study how the growing indebtedness of the Third World affected the enjoyment of human rights, without forgetting that this was also of concern in developed countries. The problem of street children was still waiting for appropriate treatment from the United Nations, and the Subcommission could perhaps concentrate on this issue. The Subcommission should continue its work, and hopefully the Working Group would make recommendations as to how to truly protect and promote the rights of children and young people.

SOLI J. SORABJEE, Subcommission expert, said he supported the project undertaken by Ms. Koufa; while no one doubted the need to combat terrorism ruthlessly, it was also important to use legitimate means and to pay attention to how the battle was carried out. States must avoid indulging in terrorism themselves in the course of the battle against terrorist acts; they must avoid human-rights violations while carrying out the task.

GUY GENOT, Subcommission expert, said he had a few thoughts to share on the topic of terrorism, but would distribute them to fellow experts in writing.

CAROL BATCHELOR, of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), said that for persons who did not have an alternative nationality, deprivation of nationality would result in statelessness. Being without a nationality was in essence becoming an outcast from membership in the community of nation states. While significant strides had been made in the drafting of international laws to address the problem of statelessness, the implementation of these laws could be improved. Increases in the number of stateless persons as well as in awareness of the problem had led to a recommendation that UNHCR take a more pro-active approach. While States should not discriminate in the granting of nationality between persons equally connected with the State, distinctions were inherent in nationality legislation. Individuals were not entitled to any nationality of their choice; there were numerous ways therefore in which nationality law and practice had to be scrutinized to determine with which State an individual was most closely connected. The pursuit of the avoidance of statelessness began with a review of where nationality was or could legitimately be held. Once nationality had been granted it should not be arbitrarily withdrawn if statelessness would result. If these principles were actively applied, the problem of statelessness would in essence disappear. UNHCR was interested in cooperating with the Subcommission on this issue of mutual concern.

SANG YONG PARK, Subcommission expert, said the sub-item on human rights and disability had drawn neither debate nor resolution at the panel's 48th session. He reviewed the history of United Nations actions and developments in the field since 1975, when the General Assembly proclaimed the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, including activities undertaken by the Subcommission. Some years ago, the Subcommission had helped its Special Rapporteur finalize an excellent report on human rights and disability; it could make further contributions in years to come; he wished to propose that the Subcommission invite the Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development to speak at the 52nd session of the Subcommission so as to enable it to address the evolving condition of disabled people around the world; it should be noted that the Rapporteur had addressed the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights. The Subcommission might also consider establishing a working group on disabled people
in due course -- the number of such people was on the rise, among other things from man-made causes. Finally, he hoped the Subcommission might find it worthwhile to consider a Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons to set forth effective guidelines and measures for elimination of discrimination against such people.

MUSTAPHA MEHEDI, Subcommission expert, said he was concerned with the results of acts of terrorism and their effect on the enjoyment of human rights. No power in the world, acting alone, could eradicate terrorism. It required international cooperation and solidarity to eradicate terrorism as no State was spared. In Ms. Koufa's report, it would be important to highlight the need for international cooperation within the United Nations; cooperation that would be adapted to the new developing forms of terrorism. There were means for dealing with terrorism, but they were scattered. However useful it may be, international and regional cooperation could hardly be the only response to terrorism; there were legal and territorial constraints to this kind of solution. For example, there was a problem of interpretation for the extradition of criminals; some States may be concerned at the possibility of reprisals that could be provoked if a terrorist was extradited; this could be the main obstacle to international cooperation. This international form of terrorism was a threat to international peace and security. All means needed to be brought in to continue fighting terrorism; it was necessary to declare a Third World War on terrorism. In no case should some states act to ferment terrorism and then act to extinguish it.

ASBJORN EIDE, Subcommission expert, said the right to nationality was an issue of great importance and deserved more attention; the Working Group on Minorities would have a working paper before it at its next session. The study on terrorism had now begun -- a most important task which was long overdue, but which was also very difficult and required great prudence from the Subcommission. One had to balance competing concerns; terrorism arose when conflict dynamics became irrational and the acts used were barbaric; in recent years many new conflicts had emerged featuring unrelenting terrorism. In periods of unremitting conflict, the rule of law could break down and then one had a truly dangerous situation. One had to look at the cause and effect -- the opposition and how it chose to assert its opinion against the Government; it could, in peaceful societies, be peaceful. In less regulated and more confrontational circumstances, however, one could get irrational and violent opposition; matters became much worse when police or security forces responded with human-rights violations -- then you got a downward spiral.

Mr. Eide said there was a great danger when rule of law was neglected by the agents of the State; even when a State was threatened by terrorism, the rules needed to be followed, or else the situation spun out of control; if the State was seen as turning into an instrument of repression -- if civil matters were delegated to the military courts, for example, or if civil justice was contaminated so that it was not impartial -- than confidence disappeared in the rule of law; the opposition then could characterize itself as a contingent that would not receive a just trial, the violence of reactions intensified, and innocent people suffered. Often a spreading of violence over international borders followed -- an example was the recent bombings in Kenya and Tanazania; eventually there was absolutely no concern for the fates of innocent victims. The roots of these disasters had to be addressed -- there had to be ways to increase the practice of tolerance and of resolving disputes without violence. Those responsible for terrorism had to be caught and punished, but it was vital to do so within the rule of law. It also had to be said clearly and loudly that nothing justified acts of terrorism.

ALICIA ELENA PEREZ-DUARTE (Mexico) said that Mexico was one of the first countries to sign the Convention on the Rights of Child. One of the obstacles that prevented children from enjoying all their rights arose from the mistreatment of children which stemmed from many factors including family structures, religious concepts, and group interests. The maltreatment of children throughout the world was condemned both in Mexico and elsewhere. Mexico had undertaken programmes to deal with minors who had been mistreated and was intent on rooting out the causes and the effects. The Government of Mexico had last year invited the Special Rapporteur to visit the country, and it had agreed with many of the points that he had raised. The Government believed that to rectify the situation, there was a need to focus on education that would make everyone aware of the results of mistreatment. National laws were being brought into line with the international instruments that Mexico had acceded to. The Special Rapporteur had made other recommendations that were being implemented. Mexico insisted on the need to eradicate the unacceptable treatment that was being meted out to children all over the world. The international community should ensure that children could attain the dignity they deserved.

FRANCOISE JANE HAMPSON, Subcommission expert, said the "battle of reservations to human-rights treaties" was under way in United Nations agencies; there were clearly a number of issues that needed to be addressed, and she hoped the Subcommission would reply positively to the request of the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination for a study of the matter. The issue of mercenaries also was complex; one man's terrorist was another's freedom fighter or one Government's mercenary was another's foreign military adviser. Also, mercenaries could be acting with the actual or tacit approval of a foreign Government. The current legal position with regard to mercenaries simply did not address the real issues, which were: States needed to be encouraged to be open about their use of foreign forces; any State which proposed to take action involving armed forces in another State but was not prepared to use its own armed forces should be liable for all compensation claims arising out of the activities of the mercenaries, just as they would be for their own forces; and it should be an international offense, subject to universal jurisdiction, for a person to participate actively in a conflict in a territory of which he was not a national or a long-term resident, unless he did so as a member of the armed forces of a State.

As for terrorism, Ms. Hampson said there was no doubt at all that those responsible for terrorist attacks needed to be identified, sought out and brought to justice; it was not only for reasons of legal principle that trials were required; they also served a practical purpose -- they demonstrated that the State was not resorting to the tactics and techniques of terrorists. Where they did employ these tactics, they simply created martyrs. Until there was evidence, for example, of the non-cooperation of Afghanistan and Sudan in bringing to justice those suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks against the United States, it was not possible to conclude that the U.S. attacks on Afghan and Sudanese territory qualified as appropriate responses to terrorism.

ANDRES PERES BERRIO, of the American Association of Jurists said that it wished to address the negative results of sanctions on human rights. Frequently sanctions led to a breakdown in food and medical supplies, and seriously hampered the functioning of health and education. The Security Council, in extending the embargo imposed indefinably on Iraq, was violating fundamental human rights. This was equally applicable to embargoes that were imposed unilaterally. This was the case of the embargoes against Cuba, Iran and Libya. The Helms Burton act had as its declared aim to punish Cuba and to force it to change its economic and political regime. The United States appeared unaware of the fact that the United Nations Charter said that all States had the right to choose their economic system without outside interference, and that they had sovereignty over wealth and economic resources. The International Covenant on Civil and Political rights said that all people could freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources.

REENA MARWAH, of the International Institute of Non-Aligned Studies, said human rights could not be enjoyed without the conditions necessary for that enjoyment; terrorists in many parts of the world had not only been violating the human rights of innocent citizens by themselves but had also provoked States to use indiscriminate and random acts of violence and terror which could not be justified under any circumstances. In the pantheon of human rights, highest place should be given to the right to development, and national sovereignty was a precondition for the realization of human rights; if a State was not safeguarded, the rights of its citizens were a castle in the air. Another threat came from mighty States which on any trivial pretext imposed sanctions against entire countries, often leading to untold suffering; most often sanctions caused severe shortages of food, health hazards, and other sufferings; Cuba, Iraq, Libya, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Yugoslavia all had been victims of sanctions, and recently, on the issue of nuclear tests, India and Pakistan had become subject to them as well. Human rights were intrinsic and non-negotiable, and in the final analysis, gross and massive violations should be regarded as a threat to mankind in general, regardless of whether they emanated from States, non-government entities, or terrorist groups.

MICHEL MONOD, of War Resisters International, said that friends of his in Chad had said that they hoped to have a non-violent army; this might make people smile, but he was appalled to note that 90 per cent of the cases reported by NGOs of forced disappearances, extra judicial executions and rapes were committed by official armed forces and paramilitary groups. In doing so, they were violating the right to life, liberty and the security of the person. If the State used its power to oppress the population, it should expect retaliation from armed civilians. The violence of such groups was to be condemned, but the State was responsible for their appearance - examples included the Kosovo Liberation Army, the Islamic armed groups in Algeria, the PKK in Turkey, and the Zapatistas in Mexico. A democratic government listening to the needs of the population and on good terms with its neighbours did not need an army; a police force was sufficient. Would it be possible for the Subcommission to take a decision to delegitimise all forms of violence?

GWENAELLE FONTANA, of the International Prison Observatory, said prisoners infected with HIV/AIDS in African prisons needed special attention; they were a very vulnerable part of the population, with a higher rate of infection than that of the population at large; in Rwanda the policy of imprisoning all of those even remotely connected with the genocide had had the effect of rapidly spreading HIV. Prison health services did not have the necessary funds or staff to effectively meet demands for prevention and treatment; in some cases there were reports of detainees being subjected to AIDS testing against their will, of HIV-positive detainees being kept in solitary confinement, and of other abuses. It was important that prisoners be sufficiently granted their rights and vital that States develop AIDS-prevention programmes that took into account the situations of prisoners; and that in reasonable cases early releases be given on humanitarian grounds to infected prisoners. Prison staff also had to be trained to help respect rights and effectively combat the AIDS pandemic.

CYNTHIA NEURY, of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, said that recourse to terrorism was an act that aimed to terrorise an individual or a group of individuals. Terror exercised by the powerful and terror exercised by the oppressed had different objectives. Violence therefore had two facets: one was official, sanctioned and accounted for, the other was discrete and daily. In 1996, the powerful of the world had established that the great threat facing us in this century was terrorism, not the inequality between north and south or the suffering of millions of men and women. Did the powerful of the world attach more importance to the consequences of terrorism than to the profound causes? What was the response of the powerful of the world to the many movements that called for respect of their fundamental rights? An eye for an eye was the answer. In this game, the United States presented itself as a champion, believing that it had a special responsibility for efforts against terrorism. But what responsibility was being spoken about? The organization recommended that the Special Rapporteur examine how the balance of power between the powerful and dominant influenced different forms of violence; and to pay special attention to the causes of terrorism and the responsibility of certain actors.

MS. PARES, of Pax Romana, speaking on behalf of the World Organization against Torture, said it would not go into detail, as planned, on the discriminatory election system and anti-blasphemy law of Pakistan; there was not enough time. The organizations were very concerned about the devastating effects around the world of anti-personnel landmines; the relevant Convention, while a great advance forward, was not supposed to be subject to reservations, and so no ratification legislation should be worded in such a way as to weaken the aims of the Convention or allow a misinterpretation of its dispositions; this had been the case with the landmines bill to ratify the Ottawa Convention in the United Kingdom, which contradicted the Convention by separating out the actual laying of landmines in international military operations from other activities which were allowed. States should not create these sorts of loopholes and should be honest when adhering to this international humanitarian process. Mine clearance should be given much greater attention and funding; a demining coordinated should be appointed for relevant countries to bridge the gap between technology that was too expensive and complicated for use without guidance.

KASHINATH PANDITA, of the African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, said that a large number of resolutions had been passed by UN bodies condemning terrorist acts. However, on the ground, the situation had not improved in any way. Terrorists had upgraded their tactics, and terrorism had spread from one place to another. Was it not time to move beyond resolutions and take considered measures to combat the menace. A major difficulty in the way of an accepted definition was about the wars of national liberation. Keeping in mind the growing crescendo of terrorism worldwide, was it not time that a universally accepted definition of terrorism was forged. Perceptions had now converged that a struggle leading to disintegration of a State, or challenging its territorial integrity would not be accepted as a struggle for the right of self-determination. The content of the Subcommission's resolution 1996/20 should be acceptable as the reasonable basis to build the universally accepted definition upon.

GEORGE WILKES, of the Consultative Council of Jewish Organizations (CCJO), said it was worth remembering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been signed in the wake of the slaughter of millions of Jews in Europe; but the organization felt pride that the first CCJO President, René Cassin, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was involved in all stages of the development of the Universal Declaration. A speech he had given in 1970 had pointed out the importance of brotherhood founded on religious and moral concepts rather than on material and economic interests, and of the profound influence of moralists and political philosophers who had come up with the concept of limited power, together with the notion of the unconquerable dignity of man; Cassin also had contended that whereas in former times religion was solely concerned with the spiritual salvation of humanity, today it also held itself responsible for preventing injustice, violence, and all the ills capable of weakening the texture of the social fabric.

DAMACIO LOPEZ, of International Educational Development, said that concerns about the negative effect of economic sanctions were not limited to Iraq - the organization had also raised the effect of sanctions on the people of Burundi. The use in armed conflict of weapons containing depleted uranium constituted a violation of existing humanitarian and human rights laws standards; the organization had prepared a memorandum on these issues which had identified four criteria for weapons under existing humanitarian and human rights law. Under these criteria, depleted uranium weapons were inherently illegal. The work of Clemencia Forero Ucros on weaponry was part of a major contribution by the Subcommission to international efforts by Governments and NGOs alike to secure peace and security.

WILDA SPALDING, of the World Federation for Mental Health, said the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was unlike any other -- it assigned rights and responsibilities to every person on the planet; they were truly people's rights. A two-week Fete d'Excellence in Geneva had recently celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration; there had been numerous artistic and NGO events; the strong emphasis on the rights of the disabled was especially noteworthy. The world was now poised on the edge of a new millennium; people the world over were grappling with personal and societal challenges; the enlightening spirit of the Universal Declaration must be used for both hope and strength, inspiration and encouragement, and each person must be still more committed to bringing the Declaration's words to life; all must create an era of respectful understanding and advancement.


JOHN EIBNER, of Christian Solidarity International, said the organization was pleased to note great progress over the past decade in the religious liberty landscape, especially in the former Soviet Empire and Latin America. The greatest current threat to religious liberty and other fundamental human rights was the totalitarian ideology of Jihad or holy war. Systematic and brutal religious discrimination and terrorism continued and was becoming more evident in some countries; forced conversions, the imposition of the discriminatory status of “dhimmitude and kafir” on other religious and ethnic communities, and prohibition on conversion from Islam to another faith were all hallmarks of this ideology. This was the ideology of Osama bin Laden, Gama Islamiya, Hamas suicide bombers, and of some States such as Sudan. The Subcommission was implored to condemn the terrorist ideology of jihad which should not be allowed to stain the next century with further rivers of blood.

DIGAMBAR BIR THAPA, of the European Union of Public Relations, said that between 1989 and 1998, nearly 20,000 people had been killed in terrorist-infested Indian Jammu and Kashmir; the killings were the result of support by Pakistan of a group called Lashkar whose activities had been lauded, among other things, by Pakistan's current Minister for Information during a visit to their base camp on 18 April of this year. The Lashkar mercenaries exulted after they killed innocent people in Jammu and Kashmir and the plight of the Kashmiri Pandits driven from their homes and forced to live like refugees was proof of the effectiveness of this terrorism; terrorism was the most heinous violator of human rights, and those who permitted terrorists to operate openly from their land were criminals who should be called to justice; the world community should try the authorities of Pakistan. Then the world could move forward towards preventing abuse of human rights by terrorists.

K. WARIKOO, of the Himalayan Research and Cultural Foundation, said that without diluting the importance and relevance of the reports of the Special Rapporteur charged with examining incidents and Governmental actions in all parts of the world inconsistent with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination on the Basis of Religion or Faith, it was important to take note of the social processes which promoted intolerance and encouraged discrimination. There were instances where Governments promoted intolerance and unleashed social processes which resulted in discrimination and placed the lives of minorities in danger. The Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan had given a free hand to the extremists, and the Government had refused to repeal the laws despite concern expressed by human rights groups. It was a matter of grave concern that ministers visited Madrasshas and blessed the activities of the managers as these institutions promoted religious intolerance. Before the religious extremism promoted, patronized and exported by Pakistan took menacing forms, the international community should put pressure on the country to reverse this process to save humanity from the onslaught of extremism.

VO VAN AI, of the International Federation of Human Rights, said the Universal Declaration, on its 50th anniversary, should be seen as a bulwark of the right to freedom of thought and religion; States should respect that right and ensure that their legislation conformed to it; but they also should implement that legislation; in Vietnam, for example, religious rights were protected in the Constitution, but in reality there was strict political control over religious activity; religion had to be practiced in accordance with the "guidance" of the State; "illegal religious activities" were severely punished, and these included importation of religious books and the raising of funds to rebuild churches. The ambiguous crime of abuse of religion was systematically invoked to justify religious repression; Protestants had been in one case subjected to destruction of their church; they had been imprisoned and beaten. Members of a Buddhist church had been forced into various forms of conformity, including pressured into joining the State-sponsored Buddhist Church. Some Buddhists had been imprisoned unjustly for years; the relevant Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion should be given free rein to carry out an in-depth investigation of the situation during a visit to Vietnam.

HALIMA EMBAREK WARZAZI, Subcommission expert, said last year there had been a draft resolution on the harmful consequences of economic sanctions on human rights. The authors of this resolution had been concerned with embargoes, and this applied to the situation of the population in Iraq, especially the most vulnerable. It had been encouraging to note with regard to Iraq that international opinion had increasingly been condemning the embargo which over 8 years had led to many deaths and had paralysed the medical system. The embargo had also been condemned by Iraqi opposition leaders, Spanish and Latin American intellectuals, and students. There had been much talk about oil for supplies, but UNSCOM did not seem to be carrying out its activities as it should. The representative of the Secretary-General had said that 26 percent of school age children no longer went to school. Through sanctions, the United Nations was preventing children from having access to school, and this was a situation that should not last. The sanctions were not a political issue, but a moral one facing not just the United Nations, but also the international community.

ELISABETH BARTHER, of International Prison Fellowship, also speaking on behalf of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said the right of religious freedom and freedom from discrimination on the grounds of religion continued to be constantly violated around the globe; there was a great problem of religious intolerance in Vietnam; the 8 to 9 million Christians in the country faced restrictions and harassment on a day-to-day basis from security forces and local Government officials; of particular concern was a new directive on management of religions in Vietnam issued on 2 July by the Politburo of the Vietnamese Communist Party; it stated that the Government would issue additional regulations on religious activities and that it would have regulations and detailed instructions for the operation of religious groups. Ten per cent of the population of Vietnam was Roman Catholic; the Government controlled all religious activities, required all clergy to belong to the Government-controlled Catholic Patriotic Association, and determined who could attend seminaries; any appointment by the church had to be approved by the State; Protestant Churches faced difficulties in gaining official registration; in the last 23 years not a single Protestant church organization had received legal recognition; the vast majority of these Christians were forced to meet "illegally". Vietnam must be pressured to ensure that religious freedom was respected.

KAREN TALBOT, of the World Federation of Trade Unions, said that adequate focus on the impact of terrorism on human rights had been absent because the media and international human rights community had dwelt almost exclusively on the activities of States and had treated terrorists as non-State players. It had been ignored that even while claiming to be fulfilling the demands of the international community on the question of human rights, some nation States were setting up parallel structures to systematically violate the human rights of their adversaries. Romanticism had made the human rights community slow to censure the contemporary terrorists. The laskar e Taiba and the Harkat ul Ansar would do to Jammu and Kashmir what the Taliban had done to Afghanistan. The Subcommission should press on international donors of economic assistance to stop giving funds to countries until terrorist groups were disbanded, camps closed, and terrorists arrested.

CHANDRA PINNAGODA, of the International Buddhist Foundation, said sub-human activities were performed by terrorists, whether Governments or groups or individuals. Examples of sub-human acts were Governments that had suspended their Constitutions and democratically elected parliaments, as well as constitutionally established courts; recent events in Northern Ireland, Kenya, and Tanzania; and heinous crimes by the Tamil Tigers or LTTE, which had been designated a terrorist group in many countries because of its murderous campaign against the people of Sri Lanka. The LTTE had attacked the most sacred Buddhist shrine in Sri Lanka in January of this year; it terrorized people of other ethnic groups and carried out a kind of ethnic cleansing -- over 100,000 Muslims had been driven out of the northeast of the country. An action-oriented programme should be established to eliminate the 10 worst terrorist groups in the world; criteria could be clearly defined, based on such matters of assassinations and human-rights violations, sacrilege, gun-running, and ethnic cleansing. The world had the capability to eradicate terrorism and should act to do so.

SYBILLE RUPPRECHT, of the International Institute for Peace, said that terrorism assumed a much more dangerous dimension when it became an instrument of State policy used to fulfil political or territorial objectives. Today many incidents of this nature could be traced back to one country, Pakistan, which had coveted the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir since the partition of the Indian subcontinent. It had used terrorism and insurgency as a policy instrument. The objectives of the massacres of the Lashkar e Taiba were clear: it was to cleanse the state of Jammu and Kashmir of minority communities so that the terrorists trained and indoctrinated in Pakistan could fulfil their ambition of installing an alien extremist polity in the Indian State. If the fate of those who had been the target of terrorism flowing from bases in Pakistan were considered, then there would be no option but to accept that the world community would be far more secure if Pakistan were kept in check. Pakistan should be called upon to dismantle the terrorist bases and cadres whose existence was a blot on the face of the world.

KEITH BENNET, of Afro-Asian People's Solidarity Organization, said terrorists treated the whole world as a killing ground; it was therefore not strange that the Lashkar e Taiba based in Pakistan called for a jihad against Hindus, Jews and democracy and all things western; the laws of civilized societies were ill-equipped to battle such groups; a new opus of laws was essential to deal with such threats; it was time to drop double standards that had informed the world’s dealings with terrorism; the British for years had not allowed the voice of an IRA activist to be broadcast, yet British Governments had allowed terrorist groups from many countries to open offices, disingenuously explaining that Britain was a free society and that as long as the groups did not affect British peace and security they could not be banned; the U.S. had launched an international manhunt to catch one man for one single incident of terrorism at the World Trade Centre in New York, yet the Lashkar e Taiba could hold regular and frequent meetings in Pakistan and hardly any reaction occurred. All had to be careful that the international human-rights agenda was not hijacked by terrorist violence.