There is plenty of literature available the role played by the United Nations in multiple conflicts across the globe. However, we have to be honest based on data also that multiple conflicts are still unfinisihed agenda. I believe United Nations just remained only a name that it can can establish peace and harmoney in the world but it is too bitter to hear that It has failed in majour conflicts where it needed to engage in peacebuilding process for example Syrian conflict, Palestine and Israel conflict, Kashmir conflict, Mayanmar conflict and many other places where its role has not created any win-win situations rather conflicts are still going on. I would like to argue that we need to assess the role of United Nations as a global citizen then only we can find out whether or not UN has been effective or it is to a large extent a story of failure like the League of Nation got failed previously.

Terrorism has not ended its still there UN has to take its responsibility properly. And it could be done once all the partners of the international community must be taken into consideration. If still only the interest of hefty powers will be there behind UN then it is a big big failure.....Terrorism could only be tackled by the UN when all the stakeholders will work shoulder to shoulder with UN.

The healthy approach of the United Nations to international terrorism is only certain with the clarification of the definition of terrorism. Because today some formations are defined as terrorism by some countries, while it is not terrorism compared to another country.

According to whom there is a question of terrorism.

I think that there is still a major problem in assessing the United Nations organization's handling of international terrorism issues, where until today we are still unable to present a unified perception of terrorism and not to distinguish between this concept and the concept of resistance, for example, the concept may still be subject to subjectivity and objectivity in my valuable work, which is This was subsequently reflected in the policies adopted to deal with the phenomenon.

Sure, all kinds of cooperations are much more valuable than unilateral initiatives to solve common problems, but the terrorism is very speculative issue for joint initiatives especially as long as it is used for certain foreign policy purposes

Conflicts across the world - specially East and Central Africa, West Asia are persistent with serious ethnic violence and genocide. The inability of the UN to resolve any of the conflicts is disturbing. Why this is so needs scientific enuqiery with problem solving objective. Yet now the UN is attributing India with atrocities against Indian Muslims - representatives of the UN should do adequate spade work before such serious allegations.

The Indian Muslims have been getting things served on a platter, and preferential treatment with so many concessions - including freedom to open madrasas and masjids and allocation of hefty amounts for their festivities and marriages and minority educational institutions as well as diversion of donations by Hindus to Hindu temples for Haj pillgrimages, among numerous other aspects. In fact the UN said nothing of the rail carnage of Gujarat nor the Kashmiri Pandits' plight since 1960. Now the well planned Pakistan supported anti - CAA protests which themselves are anti-nation are alleged as ethnic suppression and genocide???? an embarassing allegation undermining the UN reputation.

Just to put my thoughts in context. I teach courses on the UN at the UN. My institution has a classroom across the street from the UN HQ in NYC. I have also published two papers - they are a bit dated now - on the UN Security Council's works on terrorism.

So I think you need to narrow down the question a little bit more. The UN is a big and complex institution. The UN Secretariat has a "newish" Office of Counter-Terrorism. So one paper could try to assess why this new office was created, its mandate and whether it has the resources, expertise, etc... to carry out the mandates.

The other big player in the UN system is the Security Council and the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate which supports the work of Counter-Terrorism Committee - a subsidiary body of the UN Security Council established with the passing of Resolution 1373 in September 2001. As I have labeled it in my work this is the mother resolution.

The CTED was created in 2004 and if you go to the website you can find a ton of information. And while some of the exchanges between governments and the CTED are secret, a close reading of the reports show how the CTED has been able to push its agenda and make a difference in the global struggle against terrorism. The question is the magnitude of this difference.

Another body that is often not mentioned but it has played an important role in capacity-building, working closely with the CTED and the new Office is UNODC or the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. It is worth noting at this stage that Resolution 1373 required all member states to criminalize terrorism in their own jurisdictions and UNODC has been playing an important role in helping countries update their existing legal infrastructure or create a new one.

The Office works in partnership with other members of the UN system to carry out its duties. The same applies to the work of the Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee.

Some of the scholars who have responded to your questions have raised interesting issues. But here a few things to think about:

1. There is not a convention banning terrorism = true and we will not have one. BUT, note a few things: a. the 1999 International Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Financing has a very specific definition in Art 2. This convention has universal support, though I would also add that many states have made it clear in ratifying the document that they have reservations on Art. 2. So to say that there is no internationally agreed definition is not the case.

2. The UN has not been to define terrorism but it has defined terrorism-related activities. And the UN General Assembly has negotiated 19 conventions that have banned these activities, such as hijacking, the bombing of civilian targets, financing terrorism, protection of nuclear materials and technologies, etc... The point is that since the 1960s when terrorism played a bigger regional/international role the UN has acted. These actions have been slow and very technical - no doubt but it has been working towards the management of terrorism.

3. The UN is an intergovernmental body and its work is defined by its members' interests - especially the strongest members. Intergovernmentalism does not try to water down members' sovereign rights and UN members - both rich and poor and strong and weak - have put breaks on attempts to give the UN or other bodies of the UN system too many supranational powers.

Terrorism threatens states' monopoly of the legitimate use of violence which is a key part of states' reason for being. The UN's approach is to partner with states - not to replace them - in the struggle against terrorism. In other words, it works to strengthen states' counter-terrorism capacities, monitor their compliance with existing international instruments and so forth. And we have seen since 9/11 a global commitment to criminalize terrorism at the national level and the UN, as well as other regional bodies, have been working closely with governments to make these changes stick.

As I noted in my research - after interviewing a few CTED personnel in the mid to late 2000s - to fight terrorism globally we need to undermine its ability to exist at the national level. This was the goal of Resolution 1373. It was not about al Qaeda or Bin Laden - the document does not even mention him or the organization even though it was adopted following September 11.

For the UN, the biggest problem has been addressing the fact that some terrorist organizations have been able to set up proto-states or territorial control that resembles states. This is why opposing the Taliban, ISIS or al Shahab has been so difficult. Destroying these groups requires a more military approach that the UN Security Council will support.

Where the UN does well is at capacity-building to create legal tools and law enforcement capacities to manage terrorism threats at home.

Anyhow, these are my ideas... My two pieces on the UN and counter-terrorism are up. Check them out and good luck.

I would like to read both your write Ups...if made available.

My observation of the trends in east and central african states and the U.N. failure to restore peace there has been troubling me - in the sense that if the UN (its various departments and designated officials)cannot transform through apropriate interventions - then what is the purpose? Look at the (mis)interpretation of the Indian Scenario of CAA etc....so convenient to say minorities are being marginalised and even extreme alligation - genocide of minorities - a laughable opinion...the Hindus have been patient quiet even tolerant - listening to abuses - exploitation - parting with funds donated to temples for minority welfare - permission to establish and run Muslim institutions while forbidding Hindu culture propagation or teaching in schools...etc. etc. the list is endless as also the aggressive conversions of Hindu girls ..and then their illtreatment...the abuse of HIndu Gods and Hindu practices, ...in fact one has to live in India to understand the extent of marginalisation Hindus have been subjected to.

Mr.Yordon, If i visit New York , sometime this year - my daughter has her graduation ceremony on June 4th in Towson - Maryland - can I interact with you after taking prior appointment?

Geeta Reddy Anant

Retd. Prof. of Geography,

Centre for Indian Ocean Studies

Osmania University

Hyderabad

+9866557661 (m)

Geetha reddy Anant - I am not going to be around in NYC at that time. The plans are shifting given the COVID 19 realities.

In terms of your observations, I think you are missing the point. Terrorism is a crime recognized in almost every jurisdiction in the world. India has very sophisticated terrorism laws - which has been used capriciously in the past. Counter-terrorism legislation is a double-edged sword. It has to be used responsibly within accepted human rights laws.

You make reference to the UN's dispute resolution and peace enforcement capacities and even mention conflicts in Africa. The Security Council has many tools to address these conflicts - from mediation to economic sanctions, to peacekeeping, and the use of force,. The counter-terrorism toolbox is different. Although it can place economic sanctions and restrict the movement of people, the UN Security Council expects nation-states to take-on terrorists in their borders. AND states want that. They do not believe that the UN has the right or the authority to intervene.

Yes, if human rights abuses are taking place - especially severe ones - the Council can act. But it rarely does because states - especially Russian and China - tend to block these proposed interventions. The Council was designed to be a cautious institution. It is not a legal one but a political one. This was the intention of the UN's founders.

I am not an expert on India and what is going on right now. BUT, I will say that I think the Modi government has overstepped its authority and I believe that there are gross human rights problems being exhibited. India as a member of the UN is asked to uphold all of its citizens' human rights. And I am sure the Human Rights Council in Geneva will take the appropriate investigative action and condemn the CAA. I know that the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights has already criticized the CAA and asked the Indian Supreme Court to claim the CAA as unconstitutional. Whether the Indian government will accept the criticism and change course is another question altogether.

I strongly believe that the CAA is a violation of international human rights principles and that India should take its commitments to these instruments seriously.

Mostly pursued by Western nations, the United Nations seeks to condemn any kind of violent mobilization against political systems and powers in different territories in today's world, regardless of its causes, motives, beliefs, and roots. And consider everyone to be a terrorist activity. Whereas the second tendency seeks to differentiate the struggles of the independence movements, the struggle against occupation and racial discrimination from terrorist movements. This tendency is mainly pursued by the southern states, and in particular by members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The United Nations as a global actor plays an important role in shaping the foreign policy of member states and the diplomacy of regional international organizations, so recognizing the positions, practices and methods of combating this global entity with the phenomenon of terrorism in order to recognize the prevailing climate in the international community Useful.

United Nations has the capability to play a neutral role in order to suppress and encounter terrorism. UN should hold the position to distribute the Educational, Health and economic facilities equally to the needy states. they should concentrate on the capability of the states and improve their ability to become self-sufficient. The education of young generations and investment on the human labor especially in Agriculture for the developing states or needy states are very important. At the same time, United Nations should hold more authoritative position in order to be able to control the situation in the states which impacts the world security. For instance, severe attacks in India on Muslims and other minority religious groups has created big catastrophe in the region. It is a big concern for the regional and global security. If United Nations wont take a proper action for this situation, the emergence of stateless or refuges crisis will be an avoidable issues for the coming future.

Assessing the UN’s Efforts to Counter Terrorism

In a new UNU-CPR Occasional Paper, originally published in the Institute for Economics & Peace’s Global Terrorism Index 2016, Sebastian von Einsiedel reviews the UN’s efforts to counter terrorism and concludes that the UN’s most significant operational contribution may lie in its conflict resolution work.

It is now more than fifty years the UN General Assembly negotiated its first anti-terrorism convention (on offences committed on board aircraft). Some 25 years ago, the Security Council imposed sanctions against Libya for sponsoring acts of terrorism. Some fifteen years ago, the attacks of 9/11 led to a flurry of UN measures to confront the terrorist threat. And ten years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Looking back at five decades of counter-terrorist action, this article attempts to provide an assessment of the impact of the UN’s overall counter-terrorism efforts.

The UN’s counter-terrorism work in recent years can be organized under three headings: first, a norm-setting role that includes a) the development and promotion of a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and efforts to counter violent extremism, b) a set of international conventions, and c) far-reaching Security Council resolutions imposing counterterrorism obligations on member states; second, capacity building activities to help countries meet these obligations; and third, Security Council-mandated sanctions, in the 1990s, against state sponsors of terrorism, and since 9/11 against hundreds of individuals and entities affiliated with Al Qaida.

https://cpr.unu.edu/assessing-the-uns-efforts-to-counter-terrorism.html

https://i.unu.edu/media/cpr.unu.edu/attachment/2295/OC_08-Assessing-the-UNs-Efforts-to-Counter-terrorism-003.pdf

Be safe friends!

I also think looking at the UN efforts to counter terrorism all around the world, we should consider the regions and different jurisdictions before we draw a conclusion because there are often a lot of different contributing factors in different conflicts.