Terrorism threat justifies cutting civil liberties: Ruddock

Attorney-General says there are provisions within the United Nations' Human Rights Convention, which justify tougher security measures against terrorism.

Philip Ruddock is due to deliver a speech to the American-Australian Association in New York later today.

Mr Ruddock says Article 3 of the UN Human Rights Convention specifies that governments have an obligation to protect human life, and that may come at the expense of civil liberties.

The Government is already discussing ways to increase security measures, although what those measure may entail has not been revealed.

The Prime Minister, John Howard, says he will be looking into the effectiveness of introducing more surveillance cameras or a national ID card.

Coalition backbencher Steve Ciobo advocates stripping terrorist sympathisers of their Australian citizenship.

"It's an issue that does help to send a clear message about the people in this country and what we stand for," Mr Ciobo said.

"People that are inciting, supporting or engaged in terrorist activity that adopt Australia as their new country ought to have that citizenship annulled."

Better intelligence But Labor leader Kim Beazley says making new laws is not enough.

"What stops the terrorists is effective defences and good intelligence," Mr Beazley said.

"What I want to hear the -General say is: 'I'm going to ask John Howard to create a Department of Homeland Security over which I'll preside'.

"'I will accept responsibility, as the man with whom the buck stops, to ensure that terrorist attacks do not occur here'."

However, Mr Beazley agrees with the Attorney-General that a government's first and foremost responsibility is protecting the population.

"There is nothing to deprive you of your civil liberties as effectively as somebody killing you, so we have to protect our populations," Mr Beazley said.

United Nations working on defining terrorism
Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS — UN diplomats have revised their blueprint for reforming the world body to include a definition of terrorism, indicating nations are moving toward consensus on a contentious global issue.

World leaders are to consider the plan at their summit in September and, if approved, the definition could break the impasse over a comprehensive treaty against terrorism.

The United States strongly supports such a treaty, which has been stalled for years over the question of what constitutes a terrorist. The debate has focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the argument that one nation's terrorists are another's freedom fighters.

Jean Ping, president of the UN General Assembly avoided the topic of terrorism in a reform plan he drew up in early June, calling on governments to do more to alleviate poverty and ensure human rights.

His revised plan issued Friday would commit world leaders to adopting a comprehensive convention against terrorism by September 2006.

Ping's new blueprint not only gives a political definition of terrorism but spells out how two new UN bodies would be established; the Peacebuilding Commission to ensure countries emerging from conflict don't start fighting again and a Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights.

The Geneva-based commission has been criticized for allowing the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect each other from condemnation for human rights abuses. The latest draft said members of the new council should be elected on the basis of regional balance and their contribution "to the promotion and protection of human rights."

The document also outlines a series of UN management reforms — a key U.S. demand — and elaborates on what to do to stop genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

The new draft would authorize the Security Council to take action to stop such atrocities "should peaceful means prove insufficient and national authorities be unwilling or unable to protect their populations.

"This is, of course, work in progress," said the Netherlands' UN Ambassador Dirk Jan van den Berg, who has been helping Ping find agreement among the 191 UN member states on a blueprint. "We think it constitutes an important step forward towards the preparation of the summit. It will not be the last version of the document."

The new draft would have world leaders affirm "that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and noncombatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance." They would also affirm that any such action "to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any ground and constitutes an act of terrorism."

Secretary-General Kofi Annan endorsed such a definition when he started the reform effort in March with his own proposals for a sweeping UN overhaul.

Ping's first draft of the final document used similar language — but left out the words "constitutes an act of terrorism."

UN members are still wrangling over reform of the powerful Security Council and several of Annan's proposals have been dropped because of deep differences, including principles for the use of force.

Nonetheless, David Shorr of the Washington-based Stanley Foundation, which organized a half-dozen programs on UN reform, said efforts by some countries to weaken the outcome of the summit have failed.

"Those who want the summit to succeed have protected some of the really important ideas on how the UN can be more effective," he said.

"There is now real momentum for the world leaders to be changing the way things are done at the UN and delivering a round of reforms that are more significant than earlier attempts

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.