Egypt's proposal for an international conference on terrorism is still on the table. Dina Ezzat reports Egyptian security officials and diplomats, who have been communicating with British officials over the alleged involvement of Egyptian biochemist Magdi El-Nashar in masterminding the London attacks, wasted no time in reminding their counterparts of their many previous warnings of the risks Britain takes by harbouring Islamists wanted by Egyptian authorities. British officials, Egyptian sources say, were also reminded of Cairo's repeated requests to extradite wanted Islamist militants who were offered asylum in Britain to protect them from likely human rights violations upon their return to Egypt. Renewed calls for extraditing alleged terrorists were met this time with less resistance by British officials, but with no promises either. In the absence of an extradition treaty, British officials argued that any potential exchange of wanted individuals, on both sides, must be administered on an individual, case by case, basis. Barely mentioned during the Egyptian- British security and diplomatic talks was a long-standing Egyptian proposal for an international conference to combat international terrorism. Despite statements made earlier in the week by Kamal El-Shazli, state minister for parliamentary affairs, on the need for the world to pursue Egypt's proposal for an international conference to combat terrorism, Egyptian officials still feel that the time is not ripe to re- launch the effort. The conference, proposed by Cairo over a decade ago, has received verbal support but little concrete action. Many Western capitals, including London, that offered initial support have expressed concern that such a conference would fail to reach an international consensus on the definition of terrorism. For many Western governments, terrorism includes all forms of militant attacks against civilians, even in the cases of resistance to military occupation, including the obvious case of the Palestinian territories and now Iraq. Accordingly, matters related to the rights of civilians under occupation should be dealt with in the framework of the Fourth Geneva Convention. For Arab countries and most members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, however, any international definition of terrorism should draw a clear line between resistance to foreign occupation, a right stipulated by the charter of the UN, and terrorism. UN Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in the wake of the 11 September attacks, is the current international yardstick for world action on combating terrorism. The resolution calls for stopping the financing of all terrorist acts. It also calls upon all UN member states, which unanimously adopted the resolution, to refrain from providing any form of support to entities or persons who are involved in acts of terrorism. Despite the fresh horror of the London attacks, many still believe that this resolution offers an adequate anti-terrorism mechanism. British and Egyptian sources tell Al-Ahram Weekly that joint security cooperation between the two sides in the wake of the allegations against El-Nashar failed to change their fundamental positions regarding the definition of terrorism. British sources say that the initial positive response of London to the Egyptian conference proposal remains, but so do concerns over the mechanism and outcome of such a meeting. For their part, Egyptian sources say that in view of the failure of Egypt and European countries to reach a clear understanding on issues related to the definition of terrorism within existing frameworks, including the Barcelona Process, it is unlikely that the call for an international conference on terrorism will be acted upon any time soon. Both sides admit the need for closer cooperation, not just between Egypt and Britain, but between Arab/Muslim and European governments in general to prevent further acts of terrorism. The expected increase in cooperation, however, does not require the convocation of an international conference. For some Egyptian commentators, though, an international conference on anti-terrorism measures might be the answer to growing world fears of terror attacks like those of London or New York. "One has to look at the root cause of acts of terror. This is the key issue," argued Nabil Abdel-Fattah, a senior political analyst and writer at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies. According to Abdel-Fattah, the terror attacks that hit Egypt in the 1990s were a reaction -- sad but expected -- to miscalculated government policies that failed to address acute problems related to social, economic and political rights. The state tolerated many forms of radical Islam either within the official religious institution or within other quarters of society simply because it found it compatible with its political interests. "It was the regime of late President Anwar El-Sadat who condoned the establishment of radical militant groups to aid the US-led war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and then gave room to Islamist student groups to expand in Egyptian universities during the mid-1970s to terminate left-wing influence," said Abdel-Fattah. The attacks in London last week and New York in 2001, Abdel-Fattah added, were also a reaction to suppression. "Those were reactions to the political suppression and double standards exercised by the US in its policies toward the Arab-Israeli conflict." What the world needs, Abdel-Fattah argued, is not necessarily an international conference on terrorism. "Government conferences are talk-shops. They are diplomatic carnivals that produce documents which receive little attention from world governments." Democracy, development and an end to political and military injustice is the way to combat terrorism, said Abdel-Fattah. "This is the message put across by the Chatham House report issued earlier in the week." According to the report, titled "Security, Terrorism and the UK," a key problem for the UK in preventing terrorism in Britain is the British government's position as "pillion passenger" to the US 'war on terror'. The report, which also blamed London for overlooking dormant Islamist groups in Britain, argued that the UK is at particular risk because it is the closest ally of the US and has closely supported the deployment of British troops in the military campaigns to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Meanwhile, Abdel-Fattah argues that a collective Islamic effort to promote enlightened readings of Islam has become essential for the stability and security of societies. "The past few years have witnessed a growing rise of Asian radical Islam that offers extremist interpretations of Islam. This is a job for leading Muslim countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and not for an international conference," Abdel-Fattah stressed. Egyptian diplomats argue that it's only a matter of time before the international community realises the need for world agreement on what terrorism really means and the best ways to collectively battle it.
