The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and its Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) have a number of outstanding issues that have been pending for a while and require specific decisions by the CTC.
First, small under-resourced states have encountered problems with the reporting burden required by resolutions 1373 (2001), 1624 (2005), 1540 (2004), and 1267 (1999) and related resolutions. In particular, regional/sub-regional organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have raised the issue of reporting fatigue directly with the CTC and CTED and have suggested that there should be new reporting requirements to allow combined reports to all three committees satisfying the requirements of all four resolutions.
Members of these regional/sub-regional organisations have complained also that the short period given to them (ninety days) for responding to the CTC creates a significant burden and requires reallocation of scarce human and financial resources in an effort to meet these reporting deadlines. They have also suggested, that in order to partially fulfil the reporting requirements, they should be allowed to provide reports through the regional/sub-regional organisations on antiterrorism measures that are implemented on a region-wide basis.
Second, there is a need for technical assistance in preparing reports and a lack of specifically directed assistance to help small and other disadvantaged states implement the measures mandated by resolution 1373. While the CTC, through the CTED’s country-visit programme, aims to facilitate assistance based on the conclusions reached from such visits, it is not practical for countries that lack capacity and resources to wait until they have been visited to be targeted for assistance. These countries are under obligations, as well as significant political pressure, to implement the measures required by resolutions 1373 and 1624 and to report to the CTC on the actions they have taken. The schedule set by the CTC/CTED often bears little relationship to the countries’ capacities and their need for assistance.
Third, there is the lack of capacity in certain regional/sub-regional organisations to assist their members in meeting their obligations to implement resolution 1373 and to report on the actions taken to the CTC. This issue was first raised in the CTC in 2002 and has been revisited from time to time, and although acknowledged as important to the successful implementation of resolution 1373 by many states, there has been no definitive programme developed for this purpose. In the meantime, the CTC simply continues to encourage these organisations to become more proactive in helping their members implement the requirements of the resolutions.
Finally, there is the pending issue of policy guidelines for the input of the human rights expert in the work of the CTC/CTED. These guidelines, intended to establish clear parameters for the integration of the human rights expert in the work of the committee, were introduced in the CTC in the summer of 2005 and first discussed in detail in the CTC in October 2005. A decision on these guidelines is yet to be taken and published for guidance to member states.
In light of the challenges facing small island states and other disadvantaged states, it is timely that the chair of the CTC, Ambassador Ellen Margrethe Løj of Denmark, will attend the PIF Counter-Terrorism Working Group meeting scheduled 27-28 April 2006 in Auckland, New Zealand. Ambassador Løj will use the opportunity to advance closer cooperation between the CTC and the PIF on a range of issues, including the reporting burden, late reports and outstanding technical assistance needs.
States that have already been visited by the CTED are hoping to see the Council play a more active role in encouraging delivery of assistance commensurate with the identified needs. While the assistance needed and received is generally regarded as “confidential” between the donor and recipient, states are looking for Council follow-up. This has a bearing on other states, not yet visited by the CTC/CTED, who are looking to the CTC for some indication that the CTED visits have resulted in delivery of assistance needs identified for the states visited, or a reasonable expectation that they will receive the assistance needed to help them fulfil the requirements of resolution 1373.
|Security Council Resolutions|
Terrorism & WMDs Committee (April 2006 Forecast)
Sanctions Committees (March 2006 Forecast)
Council Working Group on Sanctions (January 2006 Forecast)
Counter-Terrorism Committee Issues (December 2005 Forecast)
Update on Council Subsidiary Bodies (November 2005 Forecast)