Egypt joins the world as it closes rank to battle terrorism. Dina Ezzat reports The international struggle against terrorism -- which is not identical to the US declared war on terror -- appears to be gaining ground. In the wake of the devastating London and Sharm El-Sheikh attacks, a UN General Assembly session is intensifying its efforts to reach an agreement on the details of an international treaty against terrorism. The treaty, which has been subject to UN negotiations since its original draft, was presented by India to the UN General Assembly Legal Committee eight years ago. Originally, the treaty was an initiative of the 1997 Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) summit in Tehran, which met to agree upon an international treaty against terrorism. India, after consultations with several OIC countries, developed a draft and introduced it to the UN. Since then, the details of the proposed treaty have been subject to negotiations. Yesterday, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan stressed that the General Assembly must work harder to reach an agreement on the details, particularly after the recent events in London and Sharm El-Sheikh. The permanent Egyptian delegation to the UN, which has been heavily involved in the negotiations, has observed increasing interest by different world bodies on the issue, even from parties who were previously unenthusiastic about an attempt to reach common definitions of what constitutes terrorism. "There is certainly a growing interest and intensive debate. Some delegations are hoping that we can reach agreement on the matter before September when the UN General Assembly convenes for the 60th summit/anniversary of the world organisation," said Maguid Abdel-Fattah, Egypt's permanent representative to the UN in New York. "Egypt is keen to reach an agreement on all the debated details. However, Egypt has to make sure that whatever is agreed upon is solid and effective," he added. The draft of the international treaty offers a detailed account of the legal, security and financial commitments to be taken by the international community which will deny terrorists access to the means and resources to launch attacks. However, UN member states do not see eye to eye on some of the most crucial details. Among the points of disagreement is the distinction between terrorist activity and legitimate resistance to occupation. "An Egypt that stands firm against terrorism cannot accept to call resistance to occupation terrorism," Abdel-Fattah said. Disagreements have also proved hard to overcome in relation to the definition of state-sponsored terrorism. The US has insisted on using language that prevents the aggression of the Israeli army in the occupied Palestinian territories from being labelled state-sponsored terrorism. On Tuesday, in New York UN Secretary-General Annan and visiting Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa argued that inflicting deliberate harm upon civilians should be qualified as act of terror. The two officials, however, still need to clarify whether or not the definition of civilians could be applied on the armed settlers in occupied Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, some third world countries -- mostly in Africa -- have been determined to stress the right of the state to use military force to quell revolutions and dissent. The line between anti-terrorism measures and human rights violations must also be defined. "There are different views and it is very important that we do not end up with an agreement that does injustice to many countries in the interest of a few. Egypt is insisting that the final draft presented for UN ratification should be balanced and non-biased," Abdel-Fattah stressed. Egyptian sources insist that Cairo has been doing everything in its power to convince militant resistance movements in Palestine and, as one source revealed, to an extent in Iraq, to consider the negative implications of militant attacks on the image of resistance movements in today's world, a world which is governed by fear of terror and -- as some admit -- of Muslims. That said, Egyptian officials say they cannot succumb to the persistent wish of some world powers to sign on to language that undermines the right of resistance movements or that puts Hamas and Islamic Jihad members in a position where they will be subject to international legal persecution. Egyptian officials add that such language will give Israel added legal pretext for its aggression against Palestinians in the occupied territories. "This is a red line for Egypt. No matter how much we suffer the horrors of terrorism we will not sign on to language proposed by the Americans that aims to eliminate the difference between terror and resistance," a senior Egyptian diplomat told Al-Ahram Weekly. Concessions, said Abdel-Fattah, have to be made by all parties and in accordance with the regulations of international law. In the absence of such concessions, he added, agreement on what constitutes terrorism will be hard to achieve. "Then we will end up with a document that means different things to different nations which will be hard to implement," Abdel-Fattah said. Meanwhile, coordination has to be secured between the proposed draft of the international treaty against terrorism once adopted, and a set of previously existing world agreements related to different elements of the struggle against terrorism. Abdel-Fattah is not sure whether the treaty will be ready for signature next September. However, he is sure that work on this treaty will gain steam with the growing outcry against terrorism. This week, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said that all countries of the world currently face the threat of terrorism. Following talks in London with his British counterpart, Tony Blair, the French premier said, "No country is safe today -- each and every one of us is faced with this threat." Blair, for his part, underlined that the attacks of Sharm El-Sheikh brought home that "the global state of terrorism means the murder of wholly innocent people for reasons that I think are beyond any form of excuse or justification." Both Blair and De Villepin discussed ways to upgrade bilateral coordination in efforts to deradicalise Muslim communities in their countries. Britain is also discussing bilateral agreements with several North African countries to extradite immigrants who constitute a security threat. A deal is in the offing between London and Algiers and another is being discussed with Cairo. Meanwhile, official British sources say, bilateral efforts cannot be a substitute for global and coordinated action. This week, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said that London is willing to support the proposal of an international conference which was presented by Egypt several years ago. Moscow also voiced support for an international conference against terrorism provided agreement is possible on a comprehensive package of anti-terror measures. "This can only happen once the agreement we are working on in the UN General Assembly is ready. Once this agreement is ready, the international conference on terror will take place," Abdel-Fattah said.
