Kofi Annan’s speech at the “extraordianary plenary session” of the Club de Madrid meeting on Terrorism, Democracy and Security\ was surprisingly meaty. I was expecting diplomatic fluff and was pleasantly surprised to see some concrete proposals. And, given the difficult discussions our team had been having for two days, I was thrilled to see him articulate defense of human rights as one of the major pillars in a struggle against terrorism.

A talk like this raises some questions of what it’s useful to try to do as a blogger at an event like this. On the one hand, one of the main issues of the Club de Madrid event was that it was very difficult for the press to get access the conference sessions – does that imply a blogger “responsibility” for covering events like a major Kofi Annan speech? Because I can’t really imagine that this speech hasn’t been reported in the mainstream press by someone who’ll likely do a better job of summarizing it than I will. (And when I get off this airplane, I’ll see if can find said article.) But hey, I took pretty good notes, so here were Annan’s main points, as I heard them:

Terrorism can strike any time anywhere. The UN considers terrorism an attack on core UN values: the rights of civilians, mutual respect between different cultures, the ability to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. As a result, it’s an issue it’s appropriate for the UN to focus on.

We cannot compromise human rights or the rule of law in a fight against terrorism. Terrorism is, fundamentally, a fight against human rights and the rule of law.

The UN’s strategy (which he referred to as “the D’s”), focuses on dissuade groups from choosing terrorism as means to attempt change, denying groups the means to carry out attacks, deter states from supporting terror, develop state capacity to prevent terrorist attacks, and to defend human rights in the struggle against terror.

On the subject of dissuading disaffected groups from using terror:

Groups use terror because they think it’s effective, and becuase they think their supporters approve of it. We need to prove them wrong. Terrorism is unacceptable under any circumstances.

We need a convention explicitly outlawing terrorism – the UN is weakened by protracted negotiations we’re having on the topic. Deliberate use of armed force against civilians is already prohibited. The right to resist occupation cannot mean the right to kill or maim civilians. Any action is terrorism if it causes death or bodily harm to noncombattants while intimidating citizens or attempting to force a government to act.

Civil society leaders need to denounce terrorism as criminal and unacceptable. Civil society has accomplished amazing things with global campaigns against war crimes and land mines – we now need a global campaign against terror.

We need to ensure that the voices of victims of terror are heard. The UN is especially conscious of this based on attacks on UN in Baghdad. The UN supports the creation of a fund for terrror victims, funded by assets seized from terror groups.

On denying terrorists means to carry out attacks:

We need to make it difficult for terrorists to travel, to financial support and to acquire nuclear material. We’ve already got a convention on suppression of financing of terrorism. This includes travel and financial sactions against Al Qaeda and related entities, but we need more enforcement.

We need to take action against money laundering, following eight reccomendations on financing suggested by an OECD task force.

Most importantly, we need to ensure that terrorists don’t obtain nuclear or radiological material. It sounds like science fiction, but there’s simply too much nuclear waste distributed around the world for us not to take this threat seriously. A nuclear attack would not only kill people directly, it would severely damage the global economy. There would be a second death toll from the economic impact of a global financial crash on the developing world.

(EZ – I thought this was one of the most interesting points Annan made. The concept of a “second death toll” is an interesting way of linking terrorism and development issues.)

We have to consolidate, secure and eliminate nuclear materials, and implement effective export controls. He’s proposing a convention on the prevention of nuclear terrorism.

On deterring states from supporting terror groups:

We have not shrunk from confronting states that support and sponsor terror. Thanks to sanctions we’ve imposed, several states have stopped sponsoring terror. We need to maintain a hard line on this subject.

(EZ – This section of the talk really was this brief – perhaps thirty seconds in total. I found that a bit odd.)

On developing state capacity to prevent terrorism.

Terrorists exploit weak states, where they can hide from arrest and train recruits. Making all states more responsible and accountable must be a cornerstone of our anti-terror efforts. This includes better policing and better respect for human rights.

Many poor countries can’t afford to build the security capacity that they need. The UN is working on developing technical assistance for these nations. Every state must have an efficient criminal justice system.

UNDP is increasingly focused on strengthening governance. We all know that good governance is critical for development. The UN’s electoral assistance division has been working on key elections: Afghanistan, Iraq, Burundi, Palestinian territories. Member states need to support funds that allow for election monitoring and state support.

Terrorists find it easiest to recruit from people with narrow and distorted worldviews. We can combat this by encouraging education, scientific inquiry and free thought, topics UNESCO focuses on.

(EZ – I was pleased to see this comment, which echoed sentiments Martn had expressed when presenting our document – I think it’s critically important to look at broadening the sphere of ideas everywhere in the world, and especially places where information is strictly controlled or inaccessible.)

There are few things scarier than the prospect of bioterror. Neither states nor international organizations have adapted to the new world of genetic engineering and its’ promise and peril. Soon there will be tens of thousands of labs around the world capable of producing designer bugs. The best defense is to strengthen public health. Local health systems will be on the front line – in many poor countries, they’re inadequate or nonexistent.

On “the last D” – defending human rights:

“I regret that human rights experts are finding that state methods to combat terror are infringing on fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Human rights laws give ample room for the struggle against terror.

Compromising those laws helps accomplish the terrorists’ objectives.” It cedes to him the moral high ground and supports recruitment efforts.

Combatting terror and upholding human rights are not just compatible – it’s an essential element of the struggle against terror.

The UN is creating a special reporteur to Human Rights council on government anti-terror responses and human rights laws.

Tomorrow morning, we commemorate March 11th, when 192 innocent people who were so brutally and inexcusably murdered. We affirm our solidarity with their family and friends, as well as the two thousand equally innocent people who were injured in the explosion and with people killed or injured in terrorist attacks around the world. The Spanish people have suffered from terrorism but have remained true to their democratic principles, for which they are to be commended.

—

Here’s The Boston Globe’s take on the speech. And the Guardian, and the Financial Times.

Kofi Annan’s speech at the “extraordianary plenary session” of the Club de Madrid meeting on Terrorism, Democracy and Security\ was surprisingly meaty. I was expecting diplomatic fluff and was pleasantly surprised to see some concrete proposals. And, given the difficult discussions our team had been having for two days, I was thrilled to see him articulate defense of human rights as one of the major pillars in a struggle against terrorism.

A talk like this raises some questions of what it’s useful to try to do as a blogger at an event like this. On the one hand, one of the main issues of the Club de Madrid event was that it was very difficult for the press to get access the conference sessions – does that imply a blogger “responsibility” for covering events like a major Kofi Annan speech? Because I can’t really imagine that this speech hasn’t been reported in the mainstream press by someone who’ll likely do a better job of summarizing it than I will. (And when I get off this airplane, I’ll see if can find said article.) But hey, I took pretty good notes, so here were Annan’s main points, as I heard them:

Terrorism can strike any time anywhere. The UN considers terrorism an attack on core UN values: the rights of civilians, mutual respect between different cultures, the ability to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. As a result, it’s an issue it’s appropriate for the UN to focus on.

We cannot compromise human rights or the rule of law in a fight against terrorism. Terrorism is, fundamentally, a fight against human rights and the rule of law.

The UN’s strategy (which he referred to as “the D’s”), focuses on dissuade groups from choosing terrorism as means to attempt change, denying groups the means to carry out attacks, deter states from supporting terror, develop state capacity to prevent terrorist attacks, and to defend human rights in the struggle against terror.

On the subject of dissuading disaffected groups from using terror:

Groups use terror because they think it’s effective, and becuase they think their supporters approve of it. We need to prove them wrong. Terrorism is unacceptable under any circumstances.

We need a convention explicitly outlawing terrorism – the UN is weakened by protracted negotiations we’re having on the topic. Deliberate use of armed force against civilians is already prohibited. The right to resist occupation cannot mean the right to kill or maim civilians. Any action is terrorism if it causes death or bodily harm to noncombattants while intimidating citizens or attempting to force a government to act.

Civil society leaders need to denounce terrorism as criminal and unacceptable. Civil society has accomplished amazing things with global campaigns against war crimes and land mines – we now need a global campaign against terror.

We need to ensure that the voices of victims of terror are heard. The UN is especially conscious of this based on attacks on UN in Baghdad. The UN supports the creation of a fund for terrror victims, funded by assets seized from terror groups.

On denying terrorists means to carry out attacks:

We need to make it difficult for terrorists to travel, to financial support and to acquire nuclear material. We’ve already got a convention on suppression of financing of terrorism. This includes travel and financial sactions against Al Qaeda and related entities, but we need more enforcement.

We need to take action against money laundering, following eight reccomendations on financing suggested by an OECD task force.

Most importantly, we need to ensure that terrorists don’t obtain nuclear or radiological material. It sounds like science fiction, but there’s simply too much nuclear waste distributed around the world for us not to take this threat seriously. A nuclear attack would not only kill people directly, it would severely damage the global economy. There would be a second death toll from the economic impact of a global financial crash on the developing world.

(EZ – I thought this was one of the most interesting points Annan made. The concept of a “second death toll” is an interesting way of linking terrorism and development issues.)

We have to consolidate, secure and eliminate nuclear materials, and implement effective export controls. He’s proposing a convention on the prevention of nuclear terrorism.

On deterring states from supporting terror groups:
We have not shrunk from confronting states that support and sponsor terror. Thanks to sanctions we’ve imposed, several states have stopped sponsoring terror. We need to maintain a hard line on this subject.

(EZ – This section of the talk really was this brief – perhaps thirty seconds in total. I found that a bit odd.)

On developing state capacity to prevent terrorism.

Terrorists exploit weak states, where they can hide from arrest and train recruits. Making all states more responsible and accountable must be a cornerstone of our anti-terror efforts. This includes better policing and better respect for human rights.

Many poor countries can’t afford to build the security capacity that they need. The UN is working on developing technical assistance for these nations. Every state must have an efficient criminal justice system.

UNDP is increasingly focused on strengthening governance. We all know that good governance is critical for development. The UN’s electoral assistance division has been working on key elections: Afghanistan, Iraq, Burundi, Palestinian territories. Member states need to support funds that allow for election monitoring and state support.

Terrorists find it easiest to recruit from people with narrow and distorted worldviews. We can combat this by encouraging education, scientific inquiry and free thought, topics UNESCO focuses on.

(EZ – I was pleased to see this comment, which echoed sentiments Martín had expressed when presenting our document – I think it’s critically important to look at broadening the sphere of ideas everywhere in the world, and especially places where information is strictly controlled or inaccessible.)

There are few things scarier than the prospect of bioterror. Neither states nor international organizations have adapted to the new world of genetic engineering and its’ promise and peril. Soon there will be tens of thousands of labs around the world capable of producing designer bugs. The best defense is to strengthen public health. Local health systems will be on the front line – in many poor countries, they’re inadequate or nonexistent.

On “the last D” – defending human rights:

“I regret that human rights experts are finding that state methods to combat terror are infringing on fundamental human rights and freedoms.
Human rights laws give ample room for the struggle against terror.
Compromising those laws helps accomplish the terrorists’ objectives.” It cedes to him the moral high ground and supports recruitment efforts.
Combatting terror and upholding human rights are not just compatible – it’s an essential element of the struggle against terror.

The UN is creating a special reporteur to Human Rights council on government anti-terror responses and human rights laws.

Tomorrow morning, we commemorate March 11th, when 192 innocent people who were so brutally and inexcusably murdered. We affirm our solidarity with their family and friends, as well as the two thousand equally innocent people who were injured in the explosion and with people killed or injured in terrorist attacks around the world. The Spanish people have suffered from terrorism but have remained true to their democratic principles, for which they are to be commended.

—

Here’s The Boston Globe’s take on the speech. And the Guardian, and the Financial Times.