Quote:
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2004, 10:20 AM
I agree in substance that a definition of terrorist would be useful. The problem, of course, is that the definition would provide something for those who regard "Group X" as "freedom fighters" to quibble over with those who regard them as terrorists.
Can a state commit terrorism and disguise it as collateral damage? If the Palestinians confined their attacks to Israeli military forces, would they cease to be terrorists? Don't see how a definition is going to clarify much.
|
I think there are always problems with definitions. They are never complete. The intent of the panel is not just to define the security problems of the 21st century but also to identify the collective actions that can solve them and set up an apparatus to do just that.
Hopefully this will start the process of a dialogue that will lead to an agreement on what the major problems of today are and what are acceptable solutions rather than the problems of 1945 which the UN was chartered for. The UN needs an overhaul in that regard.
Unfortunately, The UN Security Council can only be effective when all 5 permanent members are in agreement. And then it works through intimidation and bullying tactics. "Stop that or we'll invade and/or slap sanctions on you".
Can't say I'm hopeful but we should at least have the dialogue. If the UN is to play a key role in the future of security issues it will have to tackle these questions. Otherwise it will be ignored.