By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 5 1998 (IPS)

The United Nations remains divided over a proposal for a new international convention against nuclear terrorists.

“The best way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely,” says Angelica Arce de Jeannet of Mexico, taking a passing shot at the world’s five major nuclear powers France, Britain, the United States, China and Russia. All have pledged to curb the proliferation of the deadly weapons, but have not agreed to eliminate them completely from their military arsenals.

“As long as there are nuclear weapons, there will be a threat of nuclear terrorism,” argues Wayne St. John McCook of Jamaica.

The question of nuclear terrorism was aired at a week-long meeting of the a U.N. Adhoc Committee – consisting of all 185 member states – which wound up last Friday after discussing a Russian-sponsored, 20-article draft convention against nuclear terrorism.

Several delegates wondered whether there really was a need for a new convention, while others argued that acts of nuclear terrorism could be dealt with by a protocol to two existing treaties on terrorism. One of them was the 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the other was the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings adopted by the General Assembly last December.

Philippe Kirsch of Canada, chairman of the Adhoc Committee, said the possibility of an armed attack on a nuclear installation or the abuse of nuclear materials were issues that deserved to be taken seriously and addressed by the international community.

There was general agreement, he said, that any instrument against nuclear terrorism should complement existing international treaties, although it was recognised that some overlap was unavoidable.

“A convention on nuclear terrorism should not undermine international work against terrorism or already existing instruments designed to secure the physical protection of nuclear material,” he noted.

Kirsch said that there were still “uncertainties” on how to deal with several complex issues, including the exact nature of the offence, the materials or facilities to be included, and the scope of the proposed new convention.

The Committee also remained divided over the need for a clear- cut definition of “terrorists” as against “freedom fighters.” “One man’s liberation fighter always can be another man’s terrorist,” one Third World remarked, repating an old adage.

Muhamad Najm Akbar of Pakistan argued that no discussion of terrorist activities would be complete without a consensus on the definition of terrorism. It was also important to address the underlying causes of terrorism, he added.

Ghassan Obeid of Syria pointed out that the draft convention under discussion only addressed terrorism by individuals. “The Committee should keep in mind that terrorism could also involve terrorist acts by states, especially in the case of nuclear terorrism. It is usually impossible for the average individual to use nuclear weapons without the support of states,” he said.

Sankurathripati Rama Rao of India said his country welcomed all efforts to eliminate and counter terrorism. “Existing conventions and legal instruments were not comprehensive enough to counter terrorism, which had established a global network,” he noted.

India welcomed the introduction of the draft convention by Russia and supported the initiative for any legal instrument to counter any manifestation of terrorism.

Alexandre Zmeevski of Russia said the draft sponsored by his country encompasses the broadest possible definition of terrorist acts related to the use, or threat of use, of nuclear components.

Since the break up of the former Soviet Union, the world has continued to face the threat of “loose nukes”.

In a U.S. television interview last year, Alexander Lebed, a Soviet war hero and former national security chief under President Boris Yeltsin, said there were about 100 suitcase-sized Russian nuclear weapons missing and unaccounted for.

The Russian secret intelligence agency, the KGB, is said to have acquired an unspecified number of small nuclear weapons, each weighing less than 75 pounds, that were never included in any post- Cold War inventory on global disarmament.

After terrorist bombings in 1993 and 1995 in New York and Oklahoma City, President Bill Clinton said: “As horrible as the tragedies were…imagine the destruction that could have resulted had there been a small nuclear device exploded there.”

But the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy said that while the U.S. recognises that the use of a weapon of mass destruction – including a nuclear weapon – is a crime when perpetrated by an individual, it still refuses to recognise that it is also illegal when perpetrated by a state.

In both the 1997 convention against terrorist bombings and the present draft on nuclear terrorism, there is a distinction between terrorist acts committed by non-state actors, which are prohibited, and by state actors, which are are not, the Committee said

Excerpt: