PRESS BRIEFING BY CHAIRMAN OF COUNTER-TERRORISM COMMITTEE

PRESS BRIEFING BY CHAIRMAN OF Counter-terrorism cOMMITTEE

The Counter-Terrorism Committee had gotten an "extremely good" response to its requirement that national reports be submitted by a 27 December 2001 deadline, Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the United Kingdom, Chairman of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, told correspondents today at a Headquarters press conference.

As of this week, 117 reports on the situation of Member States, as outlined in Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), had been received, Mr. Greenstock said.  Out of 189 Members States, that was far better than the 50 per cent expected for similar reports on other issues. 

However, even "95 per cent of the world's territory properly protected against terrorism is not enough if the 5 per cent that's left is able to foster and protect, supply and finance terrorists", he said.  For that reason, the strong international consensus that had been achieved after 11 September must be nurtured and translated into global participation, for the effort to succeed.  In the next weeks, all cases of non-response would be pursued.

But the major task of the second 90-day phase, which began on 7 January, would be the processing of all national reports, Mr. Greenstock said.  For that purpose, the Committee had created three subcommittees chaired by Colombia, Mauritius and the Russian Federation, respectively.  Each subcommittee would be responsible for one third of the Member States, taken from an alphabetical listing. 

The reports, he said, would be first read by a team of experts who would produce a paper as the basis for deliberations in a subcommittee.  After such deliberations, the subcommittee would then pass up recommendations to the Committee along with a draft letter to the Member State commenting on the report, recommending actions as necessary.  A document would be issued at the end of the process, stating that it had been completed.

He said the central questions to be answered by the assessments were:  "Is there any need for follow-up for compliance with 1373?" and "Does the Member State require assistance from the Committee for such compliance?"

At the current stage, the Committee would attempt to continue a "helpfully transparent atmosphere", Mr. Greenstock said.  States would be invited to the sub-committee deliberations on their cases, and confidentiality would be respected in certain instances.  Detailed comments on the national reports would not be published.  He would like, he said, to leave the adversarial aspects for later stages.

The second 90-day work plan should be out by Monday, he said, and the Committee would report to an open meeting of the Security Council on 18 January.  He requested some indulgence in meeting deadlines, due to the vast amount of work involved; the goal was to process 15 reports per week.  He was driving the Committee hard because, on the issue, "there is no time to be lost", he said.

Responding to correspondents' requests for further details on the Committee's operations, Mr. Greenstock said that no subcommittee member would deal

with its own report, and that nothing would go out to Member States without going through the Committee. 

Even though the experts appointed thus far were concentrated in the fields of law, crime and counter-terrorism, he said a range of other experts were available for consultation in such fields as customs, human rights and arms.  An expert in Islamic law had been identified and the Committee was waiting for him to be released from other employment.

A correspondent asked if Mr. Greenstock had begun "chasing down" those who had missed the deadline.  He replied that he had had contacts with representatives who were anxious, but that the follow-up would be comprehensive in the next couple of weeks.  In the general effort, he expected that most countries would be cooperative, some would have difficulties, and a small percentage would be recalcitrant.

Asked whether, for the Committee's work, it was necessary to agree on definitions of terrorism and lists of terrorist groups, he said that those were not functions of his Committee, though he was conscious of the need for definition.  For that, the Security Council must allow time for the General Assembly's work on a general convention on terrorism.  The Committee had to operate in the area, where there was no dispute that "terrorism is terrorism", which covered many cases.

A correspondent asked about the possibility that some States would use the Committee to try to repress groups who were not liked.  Mr. Greenstock replied that other bodies would have to monitor the way States handled the process in a human rights context.

Finally, other correspondents asked about when and how the Committee would start to concentrate on difficult cases.  He replied that so far, in the Security Council, States had been remarkably unanimous on the terrorism issue, but it was true that the situation might change when it came down to individual cases. 

All countries, he said, would have to make changes.  For example, the United Kingdom has had to respond to complaints that certain policies had given cover to terrorist groups, and the United States had to look at the way it allowed groups to collect money for, as an example, the Irish Republican Army.

Some cases, however, would present greater problems, and at some point the Committee would have to change focus and concentrate on certain areas and certain countries, he said.  At that point, the internal counter-terrorism machinery of countries, along with actual performance, would have to be examined.  It was possible that some cases would be taken to the Security Council. But that would come at a later stage, which might come onto the horizon around April. 

* *** *