The United Nations and the Fight against International Terrorism: Its Successes and Challenges

Vicheth Sen

Introduction

The world in the 20th century experienced two major catastrophic world wars resulting in millions of casualties of both combatants and civilians. As the 21st century unfolds, the world has faced with a number of major global problems such as global warming and decreasing ozone layer, deforestation, growing population, progressively increasing energy demand, desertification, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and international terrorism, just to name a few. The dawn of this century witnessed a new form of threat to the global security—the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United States. This terrorist attack has awakened many world leaders as well as many international and regional organizations to revisit their existing counter-terrorism laws, redefine the term and seek international cooperation to fight against terrorism. For many, terrorism has been put forward as a new threat to security, especially “the possibility that chemical or nuclear weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists” (Ziegler, 2000, p. 152). To deal with this new threat of international terrorism, one country alone cannot solve this problem and international cooperation is needed (Deutch, 1997). Global problems require global solutions and worldwide cooperation. With rapidly developing advanced technology available and the ushering in of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism has been one of the major threats to the existence of mankind. International and regional organizations, such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the League of Arab States, the European Union, the African Union, just to name a few, have been working hard to fight against terrorism of transnational nature. However, this paper will focus on the efforts of the United Nations and its organs only. Thus, this paper is to investigate the nature of terrorism as an international problem, the efforts of the United Nations and its bodies to deal with it, the successes they have attained and the challenges they are confronting.

Terrorism Defined

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon (Koufa, 2006), yet there is still no consensus on a definition of terrorism among the international and regional bodies. Each country, organization or institution seems to have different definitions of the term “terrorism,” depending upon the contexts and laws of the individual countries or institutions. And that is also true among academics. Before looking into the common characteristics of different definitions put forward by various countries, organizations and scholars, first of all, it is important to look at each definition.

According to Brian Jenkins, Director of the Rand Corporation, terrorism is “an act or threat of violence calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm” (as cited in Ziegler, 2000, p. 148). This definition suggests that the primary purpose of terrorist acts is the manufacturing of “psychological terror” (Ziegler, 2000, p. 148) or “[p]sychological effects” (Jeong, 2008, p. 62). In addition, seeking the widest publicity, the intentions behind the act and the criminality of the act are the other major characteristics of terrorism (Ziegler, 2000). In other words, terrorist acts must be the ones considered criminal, ones with well-defined goals, and ones aimed at capturing the attention of the most possible public. In order to maximize fear and to create the impression that the impossible is possible, the perpetrators of terrorist acts are willing to “carry out their attacks in audacious, unexpected, and even bizarre manners—using methods that are, ideally, unimaginably cruel” (Homer-Dixon, 2002, p. 58).

By adding the targets and intended outcomes of terrorist acts, Deutch (1997) defined terrorism as “acts of violence committed against innocent persons or noncombatants that are intended to achieve political ends through fear and intimidation” (p. 12). Similarly, Benjamin Netanyahu stated that the main focus of terrorism is “the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear in order to gain political ends” (as cited in Ziegler, 2000, p. 148). This definition indicates that to achieve their political goals, terrorists target the civilians by means of creating and magnifying fear and terror.
The United States Department of State defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (as cited in Alexander, 2001, p. 4). As for the United Kingdom, the latest definition of terrorism proposed is “the use or threat, for purposes of advancing a political, religious, or ideological course of action which involves serious violence against any person or property, endangers the life of any person, or creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public” (as cited in Alexander, 2001, p. 5).

The definition of terrorism adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 54/109 is “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature, that may be invoked to justify them” (as cited in Alexander, 2001, pp. 6-7).

Despite the fact that there is no consensus of what terrorism means among various governmental, intergovernmental and academic views, there seems to be an agreement on several components such as “the nature of the act, perpetrators, objectives, intended outcomes and motivations, targets, and methods” (Alexander, 2001, p. 7). By combining all the major aspects of all the definitions proposed above, a working definition of terrorism, which is proposed by Alexander (2001), is “[t]errorism is defined as the calculated employment or the threat of violence by individuals, sub-national groups, and state actors to attain political, social, and economic objectives in the violation of law, intended to create an overwhelming fear in a target area greater than the victims attacked or threatened” (p. 7). Moreover, international terrorism is terrorism which involves citizens of the territory of more than one country or which is committed outside of the territory of the terrorists.

The United Nations and Counter-Terrorism

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. In fact, the beginning of the modern age of terrorism could be traced back to 5 September 1972, with the Palestinian terrorist attack on the Israeli Olympic team in Munich (Deutch, 1997, p. 11). The dawn of the 21st century ushered in a series of transnational terrorist attacks. The attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 by religious fundamentalists, the coordinated bombings against the commuter train system of Madrid on 11 March 2004 by Islamist extremists, the suicide bombings on London’s public transport system on 7 July 2005 by British nationals of Pakistani descent, and the suicide bombings on three hotels in Jordan’s capital Amman on 9 November 2005, just to name a few, are some examples of international terrorism (Jeong, 2008). Because this kind of terrorism “does not operate within clear boundaries or abide by diplomatic niceties” (Hutchings, 2004, p. 70), controlling it will require “new mechanisms of cooperation—both nationally and internationally—between intelligence and law enforcement agencies” (Deutch, 1997, p. 10). Moreover, to deal with this problem over the long term, we must address the “underlying causes” rather than just the “symptoms of the problem” (Hutchings, 2004, p. 70).

The following part will discuss the efforts invested by the international community to fight against international terrorism. This section will look into the strategies that have been used, successes attained and challenges of the United Nations (UN) and its bodies.

The first attempt of the international community to define terrorism was articulated in the Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism, which was adopted on 16 November 1937 by the League of Nations, the predecessor of the United Nations, following the assassination in Marseilles, on 9 November 1934, of the King of Yugoslavia and of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs by a Croatian exile (Gioia, 2006). This Convention, however, never entered into force due to the outbreak of the Second World War; however, it served as a model for later conventions which deal with the issue of terrorism. As pointed out by Gioia (2006), the later conventions were based on a step-by-step “sectoral” approach by the UN specialized agencies. These conventions are related to the activities of terrorists according to specific categories. For example, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), dealing with the safety of civil aviation, adopted a number of conventions, including (1) the 1963 Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, (2) the 1970 Hague Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, (3) the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, and (4) the 1988 Montreal Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation (Gioia, 2006). The other conventions following the “sectoral” approach include (1) the 1988 Rome Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and (2) the 1988 Rome Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf, under the International Maritime Organization; and (3) the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, under the International Atomic Energy Agency (Gioia, 2006).

Gioia (2006) also pointed out that the United Nations, following the “sectoral” approach, adopted a number of important conventions, such as (1) the 1973 New York Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, (2) the 1979 New York Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, (3) the 1997 New York Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, and (4) the 1999 New York Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

The UN General Assembly, according to Koufa (2006), has adopted a significant number of resolutions and Declarations concerning international terrorism and human rights and terrorism, and a number of important multilateral instruments which address crimes of international terrorism. Resolution 2625 of 24 October 1970 on the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, for instance, addressed terrorism under two key principles: (1) refraining one State from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State and (2) the duty of one State not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of another State (Koufa, 2006). In its effort to prevent a State from “organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts” in another State, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2734 of 16 December 1970 on the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security (Koufa, 2006, p. 48). Following the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, the General Assembly adopted a number of resolutions on human rights and terrorism in the effort to broaden its interest in the relationship between human rights and terrorism and its attitudes toward terrorist acts committed by non-State actors (Koufa, 2006).

Following the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, most states, under Security Council Resolution 1373 of 28 September 2001, have revisited their legislation regarding terrorism in order to address emerging issues concerning terrorism. Under this Resolution, the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC)—a Committee which consists of all the members of the Security Council—was established “to monitor implementation of this resolution, with the assistance of appropriate expertise” (Koufa, 2006, p. 58). In addition, the Security Council established two central “counter-terrorism regimes”: (1) the 1373 regime and (2) the 1267 regime.

First, the 1373 regime, which is based on Security Council Resolution 1373 of 11 September 2001, aims at “capacity building within States and in international, regional and specialized organizations, with emphasis on terrorist financing” (Marschik, 2006, p. 70). It requires Member States not only to enact national counter-terrorism laws and freeze assets of those involved in terrorist activities but also to intensify international cooperation to fight against terrorism (Marschik, 2006). It should be noted that the implementation of this regime is monitored by the CTC.

Second, the 1267 regime, which is based on Security Council Resolution 1267 of 15 October 1999, developed out of “sanctions against the Taliban and members of Al Qaeda” (Marschik, 2006, p. 70). Its implementation being monitored by the 1267 Committee or “Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee,” the regime focuses on specific sanctions such as arms embargo, travel ban, and freezing of funds, of “individuals and entities enumerated on a comprehensive list” (Marschik, 2006, p. 70).

Furthermore, the recent adoption and entry into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is a significant progress toward bringing international criminals to court (Gioia, 2006). An analysis of Article 7 of the Rome Statute provides an alternative to the prosecution of crimes of terrorism. As pointed out by Arnold (2006), prosecuting terrorism under the heading of crimes against humanity under Article 7 “would present several advantages and could provide for a valuable alternative to the existing international anti-terrorism instruments” (p. 137). This is a major step in bringing to justice the terrorists or their groups that are directly or indirectly being protected by a State.

The Factors Contributing to Success

The adoption and establishment of resolutions, Declarations and Committees show the commitment and efforts of the United Nations in general, the General Assembly and the Security Council in particular, and the Member States to fight against international terrorism. This also demonstrates the success to certain degree of the international community to cooperate at the international level to counter terrorism of trans-boundary nature. This level of success achieved by the United Nations in the fight against international terrorism attributes significantly to the following two main factors (Marschik, 2006). First is the “unity and commitment” in the Security Council. It is vital to note that the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council have so far demonstrated unity and determination in fighting against international terrorism. This cooperation is really essential because the P5 play a key role in ensuring the world peace and security. Without this close cooperation among the P5 in counter-terrorism, there would be more challenges for the international community and many counter-terrorism resolutions would not have been adopted. The second key factor is the “acceptance and cooperation” by the Member States. This has a tremendous effect on the implementation of various resolutions, Declarations and the two counter-terrorism regimes. The acceptance and cooperation of the Member States significantly contribute to the improvement in the fulfillment of their obligations to the fighting against international terrorism.

The Challenges Lying Ahead

Despite the close cooperation in the United Nations and among its Member States, many challenges are still awaiting in countering terrorism of trans-boundary nature, some of which are discussed as follows. First, the lack of “an agreed definition of terrorism among UN Member States” is still a major concern in counter-terrorism (Rosand, 2006, p. 85; Paust, 2006). This problem has long been a problem for the General Assembly (Hafner, 2006). An outstanding issue with regard to the definition of terrorism is the “relation of terrorism and wars of national liberation, on the one hand, and state terrorism, on the other” (Gioia, 2006, p. 13). Without a precisely specified definition and a common understanding of the term “terrorism,” some States may take advantages of this loophole and directly or indirectly “serve as safe havens or shelters for terrorist activities” (Gioia, 2006, p. 21). In particular, although there have been efforts to restrictively define the term “terrorism,” there still exist “regional definitions” which seem to be so broad and make it difficult to differentiate the acts of terrorism from those of common crimes (Gioia, 2006). It is therefore imperative that an agreed definition of “terrorism” at the global level is adopted and endorsed by all Member States in order to reduce the risk of making some States vulnerable to the acts of terrorism. As emphasized by Hafner (2006), “a common definition is necessary and indispensable to any serious attempt to combat terrorism. Without such a definition, a coordinated fight against international terrorism can never really get anywhere…the definition is needed in order to enable international cooperation” (p. 35).

The second challenge is whether the UN in general and the CTC in particular will be able to “maintain the overwhelming support” they have received from almost all Member States in the counter-terrorism efforts (Rosand, 2006, p. 86). As can be seen, the implementation and enforcement of the existing resolutions, Declarations and regimes very much depend upon the “political willingness of the State Parties” (Arnold, 2006, p. 121). Without this firm and sustained support from the Member States, the international cooperation to counter terrorism will be in vain. Thus, it is crucial that the UN maintain the cooperation and support from its Member States while pushing hard in its direction, so that this coordinated endeavor will not be weakened or eroded as time passes by.

The third challenge is in the technical assistance. The UN plays a key role in “helping States to develop their capacity to combat terrorism” (Rosand, 2006, p. 84). Without adequate capability-building and advanced technologies, weak States are more likely to become safe havens where terrorists can hide and train their new recruits. At the present, given the available advanced technologies and the fact that terrorist groups seem to be better trained and equipped, making all States, especially the weak ones, more capable must be the priority of this global effort to fight against international terrorism.

The fourth challenge concerns the protection of human rights while combating terrorism (Koufa, 2006; Rosand, 2006). It is possible that while countering terrorism, some opportunistic states may be trying to get rid of their political or other opponents under the name of the fight against terrorism. It is important to make sure that the implementation of counter-terrorism measures is not misused by some states to violate human rights of any individuals, foreigners or ethnic minorities. For this reason, the implementation of counter-terrorism resolutions must be monitored carefully and the human rights norms must be respected in the fight against terrorism.

The fifth challenge is whether the CTC will be able to move beyond capacity-building to taking appropriate action against any States which are failing to meet their obligations (Rosand, 2006). There have so far been no formal standards or guidelines against which States’ implementation of the counter-terrorism measures can be checked, although various standards or principles have been adopted by a number of intergovernmental bodies, such as the Financial Action Task Force, the International Civil Aviation Organization, and the World Customs Organization (Rosand, 2006). Hence, a set of formal principles must be adopted in order to monitor and check the implementation of the resolutions by the Member States. However, another challenge still remains because, as pointed out by Marschik (2006), “[g]eopolitical or historical alliances” have often been in the way of decisive acting of the Security Council or the Counter-Terrorism Committee (p. 76).

The last challenge is the lack of resources at the United Nations (Marschik, 2006). This has a negative effect on the implementation of the decisions or resolutions adopted because, without an effective and adequate monitoring system, States may not implement these various measures as fully and effectively as they could. Thus, the only option left is self-monitoring by the States themselves. For this reason, it is not a surprise that for some States the implementation of the resolutions has become “more or less optional” (Marschik, 2006, p. 74). It is therefore necessary that an effective monitoring and enforcement system be in place, so that a full and honest cooperation by the States can still be maintained.

Conclusion

The fact that terrorism is not a new phenomenon is one thing, but the fact that terrorism has become trans-boundary in nature is another thing, which is a tremendous problem the world in the 21st century is confronting. Therefore, to fight against this global multi-faceted problem requires global multi-dimensional and multi-layered cooperation. The United Nations, its organs and the Member States have been working collaboratively in their collective efforts in the fight against international terrorism. In spite of certain successes in adopting a significant number of counter-terrorism frameworks and close cooperation from the Member States, many a challenge is still lying ahead awaiting better mechanisms and closer and more coordinated cooperation. Now that the advanced nuclear technologies are available, human security and the very survival of mankind are at high stake. A major concern is the fall of these nuclear weapons into the hand of these international terrorist organizations. If this happens, the existence of mankind reaches the point of hanging in the balance. For this cause, a more concerted global effort is required to solve the problem of international terrorism before it is too late. Equally significant, the international community must make sure that they are not just dealing with the symptoms of the problem but are also addressing the root causes of the problem. Without looking into the underlying causes of the problem, we will never win the so-called war on international terrorism, and we will not be able to even make the first steps toward a world with decreasing terrorist activities. In order to win this war on terror and to move toward the direction of making the world a more peaceful and secure place to live, a sound, unbiased and professional cooperation is needed from among all organizations, both regional and international, all Member States and all individuals. As summarized by Villani (2006), “[t]he most efficacious means of combating international terrorism remains…that of international cooperation through judicial means, through intelligence and police operations, through blocking the financing of terrorism, without forgetting the need for political measures aimed at removing situations of oppression, of wide-scale violations of human rights, of poverty and underdevelopment, which is where terrorism often takes root” (pp. 268-269).

References

Alexander, Y. (2001). Terrorism: A definitional focus. In Y. Alexander & E. H. Brenner (Eds.), Terrorism and the law (pp. 3-7). New York: Transnational Publishers.

Arnold, R. (2006). Terrorism as a crime against humanity under the ICC Statute. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 9, pp. 121-137). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Deutch, J. (1997). Terrorism: Think again. Foreign Policy, (108), 10-22.
Gioia, A. (2006). The UN conventions on the prevention and suppression of international terrorism. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 1, pp. 3-23). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Hafner, G. (2006). The definition of the crime of terrorism. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 3, pp. 33-43). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Homer-Dixon, T. (2002). The rise of complex terrorism. Foreign Policy, (128), 52-62.

Hutchings, R. L. (2004). X + 9/11. Foreign Policy, (143), 70-72.

Jeong, H. W. (2008). Understanding conflict and conflict analysis. LA, California: Sage.

Koufa, K. (2006). The UN, human rights and counter-terrorism. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 4, pp. 45-68). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Marschik, A. (2006). The Security Council’s role: Problems and prospects in the fight against terrorism. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 5, pp. 69-80). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Paust, J. J. (2006). Terrorism as an international crime. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 2, pp. 25-31). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Rosand, E. (2006). Resolution 1373 and the CTC: The Security Council’s capacity-building. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 6, pp. 81-88). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Villani, U. (2006). Panel discussion. In G. Nesi (Ed.), International cooperation in counter-terrorism: The United Nations and regional organizations in the fight against terrorism (chap. 19, pp. 259-269). Hampshire, England: Ashgate.

Ziegler, D. W. (2000). War, peace, and international politics (8th edition). New York: Longman.

Letter to Editor: Preah Vihear should be left out of politics

Monday October 27, 2008

Re: ''Betrayal at the border'' (Bangkok Post, Oct 25). I defy both Thais and Cambodians to stop cattily pointing the finger and instead get to the root of the ongoing military quagmire and boundary dispute between the two countries.

The question should be: ''How could Cambodia ever plant new mines 'deep inside' Thai territory?'' And, most importantly, ''How could the three Thai ultra-nationalists trespass right under the nose of the Thai authorities on July 15 and why did Bangkok take the needless, unprecedented step of deploying troops in response to the lawful detention of the three intruders in lieu of a diplomatic request for their release?''

There are three plausible scenarios. First, either the trio jumped the barbed wire fence of their own free will or in deference to the PAD _ a long-time thorn in Thaksin Sinawatra and his successors' side. In this case, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen has no role in the three-month-long conflict.

Second, Hun Sen may have countenanced his former counterpart Samak Sundaravej and incumbent premier Somchai Wongsawat using armed confrontation for mutual benefit, with Hun Sen gaining the edge ahead of the July parliamentary election and the two Thai embattled PMs diverting the PAD's attention in the midst of alarming political turbulence _ as assumed by some analysts. The assumption, however, has proved illogical. For one thing, the stand-off escalated into a tragic skirmish just two weeks ago _ almost three months after Hun Sen won by a landslide. For another, the self-proclaimed People's Alliance for Democracy has plunged Thailand into chaos through its undemocratic anti-government rallies since 2005 _ long before the Preah Vihear temple officially became a world landmark.

Third, sparks were really flying following the unilateral inscription of the 11th century ruin. Samak, under impeachment pressure and so forth, wasted no time turning the public focus to an all-new issue: a so-called ''border row'' with Cambodia. He could have intentionally sent the three Thai extremists, knowing full well that they would be lawfully detained. And when they were arrested, he short-sightedly responded with soldier deployment, knowing precisely that Cambodia would rather bring the case to the ICJ in The Hague or the UNSC than risking a gun battle in the vicinity of its invaluable temple. Phnom Penh did just that. Realising the situation had got out of hand, Samak moved to trick Hun Sen into withdrawing the complaint and resuming further bilateral negotiations. What did Samak and Thailand have to lose?

In summary, Thailand has not only dragged Cambodia into its political mess but has also held the Preah Vihear temple hostage.

VUTH CHANSEREI PHUON

Phnom Penh

Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/271008_News/27Oct2008_news17.php

Eight New Natural Wonders of the World

8. The three core zones of the Monarch butterfly biosphere reserve protect eight overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly in the oyamel fir forests of central Mexico. Perhaps a billion monarch butterflies overwinter here in close-packed clusters every year after a 3,500-4,500km journey. Witnessing this unique phenomenon is considered to be an exceptional experience of nature

Frans Lanting/Corbis

7. Surtsey, in Iceland, is a new island formed by volcanic eruptions in 1963-67. Its legal protection since creation means that the island is a pristine natural laboratory, free from human interference, that has provided a unique scientific record of the process of colonisation of land by plants and animals

Chris Wood/IUCN

6. The tropical lagoons and coral reefs of New Caledonia form one of the three most extensive reef systems in the world. They are home to an exceptional variety of coral and fish species and have intact ecosystems with healthy populations of big fish and top predators

Dan Laffoley/IUCN

5. Saryarka is a largely undisturbed area of Central Asian steppe and lakes in the Korgalzhyn and Naurzum state nature reserves in northern Kazakhstan. It is a crucial stopover point for for globally threatened species and provides feeding grounds for up to 15-16 million birds. Saryarka is also home to the critically endangered saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica)

Chris Magin/IUCN

4. Canada’s Joggins Fossil Cliffs contain the best and most complete known fossil record of terrestrial life in the Coal Age, over 300m years ago. The remains of amniotes, the first reptiles in the Earth’s history, are visible, as well as fossil trees, animals and plants

Wesley Hill/IUCN

3. Mount Sanqingshan national park in eastern China's Jiangxi province has been added to the list due to its outstanding natural beauty. The park contains a unique array of forested, fantastically shaped granite pillars and peaks concentrated in a relatively small area

Peter Shadie/IUCN

2. The Swiss Tectonic Arena Sardona, which includes the Glarus Overthrust, has been studied since the 18th century as an exceptional and dramatic display of mountain building through continental collision

Pedro Rosabal/IUCN

1. The Socotra archipelago in Yemen has been dubbed the Galápagos of the Indian Ocean. It is especially rich in flora and fauna; about 37% of Socotra’s plant species, 90% of its reptile species and 95% of its land snail species cannot be found anywhere else in the world

David Sheppard/IUCN

Khmer Rouge genocide suspects allowed to mingle

AP - Friday, October 24

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia - Cambodia's U.N.-assisted genocide tribunal has granted its five Khmer Rouge defendants the previously denied right to communicate among themselves in detention.

Court officials said Thursday that the judges lifted the segregation order last month after appeals from the defendants' lawyers, who argued that the measure violated human rights and dignity.

When the suspects were originally detained, the investigating judges imposed restrictions on direct contact between them to prevent collusion and protect the integrity of investigations.

The tribunal is seeking accountability for atrocities committed when the Khmer Rouge held power in 1975-79. The ultra-communist group's policies are generally blamed for the deaths of about 1.7 million people from starvation, disease, overwork and execution.

The court had rejected appeals from the five that they be released from detention ahead of their trials, which are expected to begin early next year. All of the defendants are aging and in ill health.

After long delays, formal indictments against them were issued earlier this year.

The expected September start of the first trial, of Khmer Rouge prison chief Kaing Guek Eav, was delayed after prosecutors appealed to add criminal conspiracy to the charges the defendants face. They had already been charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Son Arun, a lawyer for Nuon Chea, the former Khmer Rouge ideologist, said his client had a cordial chat Wednesday with Khieu Samphan and Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch. Khieu Samphan is the group's former head of state.

"They asked about each other's well being and were pleased that they can now speak to each other," Son Arun said.

Source: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20081023/tap-as-cambodia-khmer-rouge-d3b07b8.html

Cambodia and Thailand to discuss land dispute

The Associated Press

Published: July 24, 2008

PHNOM PENH: Cambodia and Thailand have agreed to meet Monday to discuss a stretch of disputed land near a historic temple, rather than take the matter to the United Nations immediately, officials from both countries said Thursday.

Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej of Thailand said he had talked to Prime Minister Hun Sen of Cambodia and the two leaders had decided to schedule a foreign ministers' meeting in the Cambodian city of Siem Reap on Monday.

They plan to discuss how best to end the crisis over land near Preah Vihear, an 11th-century temple, that has prompted both countries to deploy soldiers near the site.

Information Minister Khieu Kanharith of Cambodia confirmed that the meeting would take place and the postponement of the complaint to the Security Council.

The agreement on the meeting follows failed efforts this week to resolve the crisis, which prompted Cambodia to take the issue to the Security Council. Military tensions between the two countries over 4.6 square kilometers, or 1.8 square miles, of land re-emerged this month after Unesco approved a Cambodian application to have the temple designated a World Heritage Site.

Thailand sent troops to the border July 15 after demonstrators attacked Sundaravej's government for supporting the Cambodian application. The Thai government said that the soldiers had been deployed only after 1,000 Cambodian troops were spotted in the area.

The announcement of the meeting would seem to be a small diplomatic victory for Thailand, which had rejected Cambodian requests to involve the UN and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the matter.

The Thai ambassador to the United Nations, Don Pramudwinai, accused Cambodia on Wednesday of bringing the quarrel before the Security Council because "the Cambodian target is not only Preah Vihear but the entire common border."

Cambodian says that 4,000 troops from both countries are massed in the area around Preah Vihear. Thailand says it has 400 troops in the area and that Cambodia has 1,700.

Don said that Cambodia was trying to force Thailand to accept a French colonial map's demarcation of the border. Thailand relies on a different map drawn up later with American technical assistance, but it accepts a ruling by the International Court of Justice that awarded the disputed temple to Cambodia in 1962.

On Thursday, Foreign Minister George Yeo of Singapore said that the border dispute should never have become a problem and that it was unnecessary to take it to the Security Council.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/24/asia/cambo.php