Sixth Biennial Review of the Un Global Counter-terrorism Strategy

INTELBRIEF

Intelbrief / IntelBrief: UN Updates the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy: 2021 Review

IntelBrief: UN Updates the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy: 2021 Review

Image Credit: United Nations

Bottom Line Up Front end

• United Nations diplomats are scheduled to formalize the review of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy past adopting the resolution on Wednesday.
• Although a non-binding resolution, the GCTS provides an important normative framework and operational guidance for the piece of work of over forty United nations entities.
• Traditionally adopted past consensus, the difficult negotiations stand for a common ground agreed upon by all 193 states in the UN General Associates.
• A comprehensive assessment of what has and hasn't worked, and its touch, respectively, should inform a "reboot" of the UN counterterrorism strategy before the side by side review.

Diplomats and counterterrorism experts at the United Nations have concluded a review of the United nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS), a biennial negotiation to update the General Assembly's keystone counterterrorism framework. Owing to the COVID-xix pandemic, the 2020 review was postponed to this year, making it an unusual year for international counterterrorism, with several awaiting decision points regarding the role and function of UN counterterrorism bodies, including the Security Council'southward Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) and the Al-Qaida/ISIL Sanctions Monitoring Squad. Although the GCTS is a not-bounden resolution, it provides an important normative framework, representing a mutual position taken by 193 states when adopted by consensus (i.eastward., without any vote or opposition). Moreover, information technology shapes the operational direction for many United nations funds, agencies, and programs tasked with developing and implementing counterterrorism-related capacity-building projects through regional and state-based offices globally. Since the adopted resolution represents the volition of the Fellow member States, it tin be a valuable reference point or create much needed political space and fundraising opportunities for United nations entities.

Negotiations over the GCTS—precisely because the endgame is some class of agreement across all Member States—are traditionally difficult and contentious, and this twelvemonth appears to accept been no different. 2 key issues were identified early on equally potential flashpoints: the repatriation of Islamic State-affiliated individuals and families from camps in Northeast Syria, and the inclusion of references to trigger-happy far-right groups and right-wing terrorism. The customary divide among states between those who favor a counterterrorism approach grounded in human rights, prevention, and a multi-stakeholder approach that includes civil society organizations, and those favoring a narrower formulation of counterterrorism focused on security and law enforcement, remains. While adopting the resolution by consensus adds value in making information technology representative of global opinion, it besides means compromising on priorities to accomplish a mutual denominator. However, the current draft, which passed silence (a formal process where if no 1 "breaks the silence," a text is adopted) concluding calendar week, makes several gains regarding the inclusion of civil society; reaffirmation of the importance of gender and the roles of women; and protections of the rights of the kid.

On the question of repatriation, where there are deep divisions betwixt states—especially between the Permanent Members of the Security Quango (China, France, Russian federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States)—it appears states were willing to take some references, carefully caveated by the acknowledgement that these would demand to be voluntary and determined on a case-by-case ground. Some states have argued that repatriation is essential, and that legal, security, and humanitarian considerations make it incumbent upon states to have back their nationals from camps and prosecute them at home. Others, especially those with a higher number of nationals in the camps, have argued that individuals should go through the justice system in the countries where crimes accept been committed. The difficulties in obtaining testify from disharmonize zones and securing prosecutions or sentences commensurate with the crimes even when prosecutions practice become forward, combined with competing priorities for resources, accept also made it politically difficult for many governments to commit to repatriation. Nonetheless, United nations entities and several states have extensively supported states who do wish to repatriate nationals and have promoted several related capacity-development initiatives.

On the question of far-right trigger-happy extremism, it appears at that place is more understanding among states on the risk itself than on the terminology. Some states opted for framing the threat in racial and ethnic terms, some in terms of political ideology, and others in terms of faith. While the Strategy is not limited in application to any specific grouping or region, Un Secretary-General António Guterres had expressed promise that states would exist able to name and acknowledge this emerging threat and present a unified front end. Much as the terminology in the contempo U.South. National Strategy to Counter Domestic Terrorism aroused a not bad deal of involvement among policymakers and practitioners, some understanding on terminology could have demonstrated collective international resolve. Nonetheless, it appears the new text does in fact acknowledge the threat and introduces a reference to the Christchurch Call, an international try to accost right-wing terrorism in the aftermath of the March 2019 attacks in New Zealand that killed over fifty Muslim worshippers.

The original Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted in 2006 was novel in fostering a preventive approach and a focus on human rights, together with more traditional aspects of countering terrorism, like police force enforcement, criminal justice, and measures to counter the financing of terrorism. The four pillars of the GCTS, reminiscent of the UK'due south counterterrorism strategy, Contest, focus on addressing conditions conducive to terrorism (prevention); preventing and combating terrorism (law enforcement, criminal justice, and financing measures); building state capacities; and promoting and protecting homo rights. While the private components were non unique, the combination was a rare argument of collective intention on the office of states. The biennial review is intended to provide an opportunity to highlight new priorities and create a complementary "activity plan." All the same, at over 100 operative paragraphs and xxx pages, many of which are repetitive and echo preexisting legal obligations, there are questions most the usability and impact of the review in its electric current form. Before the next review in 2023, Member States and United nations bodies should undertake a comprehensive assessment of lessons learned and impact over the past ii decades, and consider a drastically streamlined "reboot" of the Strategy and the review process to ensure it reflects electric current threats, challenges, and resources.

attawayaturneve69.blogspot.com

Source: https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2021-june-30/

Share this post