The First Reading of the Draft Resolution on 8th Review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (GCTS)

ECOSOC Chamber; 9-10 March, 2023

Statement by Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj

Permanent Representative of India to the UN

-----

I would like to begin with thanking the co-facilitators, my colleagues Ambassadors Bob Rea and Tarek Ladeb, for presenting a technical draft of the review resolution of the Global Counter Terrorism Strategy (GCTS).

2. Let me also commend your approach of presenting a technically updated draft of the Strategy, and leaving it to the member states as to what they would like to do with the text. India’s preference is to have only a technical update of the 2021 strategy resolution. We strongly believe that the 2021 resolution, which offered a thorough revision of the strategy, is very much relevant in the present context. Indeed, our preference would be to consolidate the text, wherever possible to make the text more succinct. So, in case, we, the member states, do not agree on a technical update of the strategy under the present review and opt for a thorough review, we will not blame you.

Colleagues,

3. As we embark on a journey to review the strategy, let me make 5 specific points for consideration of all of you:

One, it is important that we preserve the consensus that this strategy has been enjoying since its inception in 2006. The threat of terrorism, as we all know, is persistent, and rising, in particular, in Africa and Asia. As if we had less on our plate, the online space has become another frontier for terrorist groups to achieve their nefarious goals. The easy accessibility, affordability, anonymity, untraceability, and universal reach offered by new and emerging communications, financial, and other technologies, have played out as an exogenous multiplier factor exacerbating the terrorist threat many fold.

The Special Meeting of the Counter Terrorism Committee, held in India from 28-29 October 2022, and its Delhi Declaration on countering the use of new and emerging technologies for terrorist purposes highlighted this threat and also the need for a holistic approach to address this threat. While I would like to thank the co-facilitators for acknowledging these efforts, and including them as part of the technical update, I would like to appeal to colleagues that we may preserve unity of unequivocal support to the strategy and not surrender the “consensus” to exclusivist and narrow approaches. A unified, multilateral action against terrorism has never been so inevitable as it is today.

Two, it is important to preserve the balance among all 4 pillars of the strategy achieved through the 2021 review process. Pillars II and III are as important as Pillars I and IV. Indeed, they remain the core of the strategy. Attempts to dilute the language of Pillar II and Pillar III will be a self-defeating goal. Ideally, the technical update should also have taken into account the activities and significant contributions of some international fora such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), due to which member states known for their laxity on terror financing were compelled to take preventive actions. Initiatives such as “No Money for Terror” continued to stress the need for member states to counter terror financing. It is important that we support and acknowledge these efforts in the strategy.

Three, we need to stand guard against new terminologies and false priorities that can dilute our focus. The tendency of categorization of terrorism based on the motivations behind terrorist acts, is dangerous and goes against the accepted principles that “terrorism in all its forms and manifestations should be condemned and there cannot be any justification for any act of terrorism, whatsoever”. There cannot be good or bad terrorists. Such an approach will only take us back to the pre 9/11 era of labeling terrorists as “Your Terrorists” and “My Terrorists” and erase the collective gains we have made over the last two decades. Moreover, some of the terminologies such as right or right wing extremism, or far right or far left extremism opens the gate for misuse of these terms by vested interests. We therefore need to be wary of providing a variety of classifications, which may militate against the concept of democracy itself.

Four, as I mentioned in my remarks last week, it is important to protect the secular nature of the strategy. India strongly condemns all kinds of terrorist attacks irrespective of religion, belief, culture, race or ethnicity. We strongly condemn terrorist attacks motivated by Islamophobia, Christianphobia, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Sikh, Anti-Buddhist, Anti-Hindu prejudices. The 7th Review took into account the first 3 kinds of attacks, while failing to address the rest. A more sagacious approach would be to keep this reference broad, abandoning thereby a list-based approach in the current Review.

Last, but not the least, there is an urgent need for several member states to catch up on the implementation of their counter terrorism obligations, including those arising out of the 2021 review resolution. States which lack capacities to tackle the threat of terrorism, should be assisted, while those which provide shelter to terrorists should be called out and held accountable for their deeds. We should continue to strengthen the capacity building function of the United Nations, in particular, strive to further enhance the autonomy of the work of the Office of the Counter Terrorism, by providing them more resources from the regular UN budget.

Colleagues,

I would like to conclude by stressing India’s steadfast commitment to counter terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, strengthening the multilateral normative framework of counter terrorism as well as assisting member states, bilaterally as well as multilaterally, in their quest for building capacities to counter terrorism.

Let me reassure you of the full cooperation and constructive engagement of my delegation throughout the review process.

Thank you!

------