������ҹ������

Differing Views Emerge over Details as Delegations Acknowledge Imperative of International Cooperation in Tackling Rising Phenomenon

The General Assembly decided today that it would devote more time to examining the Secretary-General’s proposed plan of action to prevent violent extremism, as diverging views emerged on some key details.

Adopting a procedural draft resolution, the 193-nation Assembly welcomed Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s initiative but decided to “give further consideration” to the plan, including in other relevant forums, such as the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy review in June 2016.

Tabled in December 2015, the proposed action plan recommended that each Member State develop its own national action plan to prevent violent extremism, with a focus on seven priority areas: dialogue and conflict prevention; strengthening good governance; human rights and the rule of law; engaging communities; empowering youth; gender equality and empowering women; education, skill development and employment facilitation; and strategic communications, including through the Internet and social media.

The proposed action plan received mix reviews during today’s debate. While some delegates agreed on the need to prevent violent extremism, others felt the proposal lacked a deeper and broader look into the root causes of radicalization.

In his opening remarks, General Assembly President Mogens Lykketoft (Denmark) said violent extremism was on the rise across the world, and the pain, fear and destruction it caused presented real and difficult challenges for all Member States. In that regard, confronting and preventing the phenomenon was fundamental to protecting all societies and people, he emphasized.

Norway’s representative said poverty was not the sole cause of extremism, pointing out that marginalization was also a contributing factor. The international community must address both “push” and “pull” factors, he added, emphasizing the need for a strong, well-resourced United Nations that was “fit for purpose”.

The United Kingdom’s representative welcomed today’s Assembly decision, stressing that all Member States had spoken in one voice, united against violent extremism and in solidarity with its victims. The plan was pragmatic and comprehensive and contained a recommendation to develop robust national action plans.

Austria’s representative also said the proposed plan was balanced and comprehensive. Implementing it would be the responsibility of each Member State, and Austria had already put such a plan in place, he said, urging other Governments to follow suit.

Saudi Arabia’s representative, speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), emphasized the need to address the root causes of violent extremism, including the historical injustices of colonialism, foreign occupation and denial of self-determination, stressing that it could not be defeated by military actions alone.

For India, the proposed plan was full of prescriptions for Member States, but short on what the United Nations would do to help Governments, that country’s representative noted, adding that it offered no single contact point for assisting them. Addressing the phenomenon was the primary responsibility of Member States, but it was a global contagion, requiring international cooperation to address it.

The representative of Bangladesh noted that the proposed plan of action touched on issues of foreign occupation, protracted conflict and systematic human rights abuses, but shied away from naming particular examples. It focused instead on local drivers of extremism while demonstrating little understanding of major international trends, including illicit financial flows.

Turing to the human rights front, Pakistan’s representative expressed regret that negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination and intolerance had been ignored or given little consideration. Additionally, xenophobia, in particular Islamophobia, was rising in the West and had gone unchecked so far.

In other business today, the Assembly adopted a draft resolution by which it took note of the Economic and Social Council’s endorsement of the recommendation by the Committee for Development Policy that Angola be graduated from the least developed country category. It also decided to give Angola an additional two years, on an exceptional basis, before the start of the three-year preparatory period leading to graduation.

Angola’s representative expressed his Government’s commitment to the graduation process, but stressed that it should not disrupt the growth of the country’s commodity-dependent economy, which was currently undergoing a difficult period.

The Assembly also reappointed Jorge Flores Callejas (Honduras) as a member of the Joint Inspection Unit for another five-year term, ending on 31 December 2021.

Also speaking today were representatives of Latvia, Australia, United States, France, China, Switzerland, Russian Federation, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Finland, Turkey, Netherlands, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Greece, Brazil, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Nicaragua, Kenya, Japan, Armenia, Iraq, Indonesia, Syria, Sri Lanka, Qatar, Canada, Maldives, Ethiopia, Panama, Croatia, New Zealand, Tajikistan, Botswana, Ukraine, Venezuela, Myanmar, Philippines, Mexico, Argentina, Tunisia and Senegal, as well as the European Union.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 16 February, to continue its general debate on the proposed plan of action to prevent violent extremism.

Introduction of Draft Resolution

PILANYA NIYOMTHAI (Thailand) introduced draft resolution A/70/L.31, by which the General Assembly would take note of the Economic and Social Council’s endorsement of the recommendation by the Committee for Development Policy that Angola be graduated from the least developed country category. It would also decide to provide Angola, on an exceptional basis, with an additional two years before the start of the three-year preparatory period leading to graduation.

Further by that text, the Assembly would invite Angola to prepare, during the five-year period between the adoption of the present resolution and its graduation from the least developed country category, its national smooth-transition strategy, with the support of the United Nations system and in cooperation with its bilateral, regional and multilateral development and trading partners.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution.

ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) expressed his Government’s commitment to the graduation process, but stressed that it should not disrupt the growth of the country’s commodity-dependent economy, which was currently undergoing a difficult period.

Reappointment to Joint Inspection Unit

The Assembly then reappointed Jorge Flores Callejas (Honduras) as a member of the Joint Inspection Unit for another five-year term, ending on 31 December 2021.

Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy

The Assembly then adopted draft resolution A/70/L.41, by which it welcomed the Secretary-General’s proposed plan of action to prevent violent extremism, but decided to give it further consideration, beginning with the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy review in June 2016 as well as other relevant forums.

Opening Remarks

MOGENS LYKKETOFT (Denmark), President of the General Assembly, said violent extremism was on the rise across the world, and the pain, fear and destruction it caused presented real and difficult challenges for all Member States. In that regard, confronting and preventing the phenomenon was fundamental to protecting all societies and people. To be truly effective, the international community’s approach must remain faithful to common values of humanity, and it must secure peace and security in a manner that was respectful of human rights and the rule of law, he emphasized.

Statements

JOÃO PEDRO VALE DE ALMEIDA, European Union delegation, said that in order to prevent violent extremism, it was key to promote good governance, including through security sector reform, to tackle political, social and economic exclusion, and to promote human rights and provide opportunities for all. For its part, the Union had actively participated in the Global Counterterrorism Forum and Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund as well as strongly supported the resolution before the Assembly.

AGNESE VILDE (Latvia), expressing concern about the threat posed by violent extremism, stressed the need to address such phenomenon through collective action. Expressing her delegation’s support to the plan of action, she noted that the resolution presented an opportunity to address violent extremism in all its forms and wherever it occurred. In addition, she underscored the importance of identifying actions that could be taken at the global, national and regional levels.

ABDALLAH Y. AL-MOUALLIMI (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said that violent extremism and terrorism undermined peace and no country was immune. While there was no agreed definition of violent extremism, it was important to pay close attention to the issue and address it in a balanced manner, considering local and global contexts and with full respect for the United Nations Charter. Violent extremism could not be defeated by military actions alone, he said, stressing the need to address its root causes, including the historical injustices of colonialism and denial of self-determination.

CAITLIN WILSON (Australia) said her country’s Government was tackling the problem through early interventions. It had held a regional summit on the issue last year, and supported the development of both national and international plans that would help to build capacity. Violent extremism was a threat to peace and security, human rights, and sustainable development, she said, adding that Australia looked forward to engaging further in discussions on the matter.

MICHELE J. SISON (United States) said the resolution’s adoption sent a strong message that the United Nations was united against threats of violent extremism, which undermined security around the world. However, defeating terrorism on the battlefield was not enough unless the international community addressed the fundamental drives of such extremist actions.

ALEXIS LAMEK (France), underlining the need to coordinate efforts at the national, regional and international levels, said his country had focused on developing and undertaking measures to prevent violent extremism as a national priority. France had established a hotline for families and counter propaganda websites to raise awareness of violent extremism, and blocked websites promoting terrorism, he said.

PHILIPP CHARWATH (Austria), associating himself with the European Union, said he was heartened that the Assembly had taken up the topic, adding that the plan of action was balanced and comprehensive. Implementing it would be the responsibility of each Member State and stakeholder. The Government of Austria had put in place a number of measures, focusing on social inclusion, gender equality and broad consultations with civil society, he said, urging other States to develop national plans for the prevention of violent extremism.

LIU JIEYI (China) said that terrorist groups, such as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), were tightly knit organizations that were developing international networks. ISIL and Boko Haram were remotely coordinating actions and scaling their technologies to finance activities and recruit youth. Noting that terrorism and regional hotspots were interlinked, he stressed the need to give full play to the United Nations. Member States must adhere to unified standards and avoid double standards. They must pay close attention to terrorist groups using social media and the Internet, he said, adding that regulation of such media was necessary.

JÜRG LAUBER (Switzerland) said the plan of action demonstrated that only a multidisciplinary and preventative approach was suitable for efficient, legitimate and sustainable action against violent extremism. Switzerland recognized in that regard the importance of working to prevent the phenomenon at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels, in particular with Governments, international organizations, civil society, armed groups and the private sector.

EVGENY T. ZAGAYNOV (Russian Federation) said the primary responsibility for fighting terrorism lay with individual nation-States and should be based on international law and the United Nations Charter. Emphasizing that a “one-size-fits-all” approach was not effective in preventing violent extremism, he stressed the crucial importance of investing in educating young people and cooperating with civil society organizations and religious communities.

OSAMA ABDELKHALEK MAHMOUD (Egypt) said his Government had taken concrete actions to combat violent extremism, including a measure to abolish a domestic sectarian polarization. Emphasizing that violent extremism should not be associated with any specific culture, religion, or region, he said the Secretary-General’s plan of action to Prevent Violent Extremism focused more on national and regional rather than global aspects. Furthermore, it did not clearly examine the major root causes of violent extremism, such as foreign occupation and Islamophobia, he said, emphasizing that Israel’s occupation of Palestine was a cause for the spread of violent extremism. The plan of Action should take the differing views of States into account, he added.

AMJAD MOHAMMAD SALEH AL-MOUMANI (Jordan) said the plan of action was practical and prudent, and would serve as an important guideline for States to develop their own national plans. National interactions were crucial and must cover social, economic and political contexts, he said, noting that the King of Jordan had initiated numerous efforts to bolster tolerance, including the promotion of World Harmony Week and convening an open Security Council meeting on the role of youth in the struggle against terrorism in April 2015. The Israel-Palestinian conflict and the crisis in Syria must be resolved promptly because they helped to spread violent extremism, he said.

FADUL MOHAMED (Sudan) said that violent extremism was not exclusive to any region, nationality or system of belief. It was important to address the root causes of violent extremism through a comprehensive and balanced approach, taking into account all social, cultural and religious concerns. Stressing that his delegation had participated in informal consultations prior to the preparation of the draft resolution, he expressed concern about the plan, which lacked balance, focusing too much on national aspects and human rights violations without addressing other dimensions.

MARJA LEHTO (Finland) stressed the need to send a clear, unified signal that violent extremism was unacceptable and taken seriously by the international community. Greater cooperation with more emphasis on prevention was needed. The Secretary-General’s action plan was important and should be endorsed and implemented promptly. Finland was updating its own comprehensive, inclusive plan to prevent violent extremism launched in 2012 and involving broad cooperation among different authorities, organizations and communities. The plan’s “Net Tip” system enabled the public to submit non-emergency information to law enforcement about suspicious material found on the Internet. A national helpline service would be set up to aid families whose relatives were planning to leave for conflict areas or had done so already. Teams of police officers, social workers, youth workers and mental health professionals worked with vulnerable people at risk of committing crimes. In October, the Government and the Youth Muslims’ Association organized a round table on Finnish foreign policy regarding conflict areas, human rights and democracy. Religious communities in the country were creating a “shoulder to shoulder” approach to support each other against hate crimes. Women’s empowerment and full participation in decision-making were essential in preventing violent extremism.

MATTHEW RYCROFT (United Kingdom) said that Member States had spoken in one voice, united against violent extremism and united in solidarity with their victims. The plan was pragmatic and comprehensive and contained a recommendation to develop robust national action plans based on respect for human rights and rule of law. For its part, his Government focused on forging partnerships because violent extremism was too complex for any single body to solve. Every Member State had unique circumstances and approaches and must share best practices. Today was a beginning. Differing views were expressed, but debate was healthy, and a Geneva conference in April would represent an opportunity for further dialogue. It was imperative to not just counter violent extremism but prevent it.

MALEEHA LODHI (Pakistan), associating herself with the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, said the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of “terrorism” and “violent extremism” warranted greater analysis. Injustices done to peoples under foreign occupation, denial of the right to self-determination, long-festering and unresolved international disputes, interference in the internal affairs of States and the continued violation of Charter principles created conditions that were exploited by violent extremists. It was key the United Nations address those issues. On the human rights-based approach to preventing violent extremism, she regretted that a number of significant elements — including negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination and intolerance — had been ignored or given little consideration. In addition, xenophobia, in particular Islamophobia, was on the rise in the West, and had so far gone unchecked while unprincipled politicians built their political fortunes by spreading fear and the deliberate mischaracterization of people of other faiths or cultures.

LEVENT ELER (Turkey) said the international community must adopt a comprehensive approach encompassing security-based counter-terrorism measures and systemic steps against violent extremism. Describing the Secretary-General’s plan of action as an important reference document, he said that, as a Co-Chair of the Global Counter-terrorism Forum, Turkey worked to combat violent extremism, as did the Hedayah Centre within the country. Together with the United States and within the Forum, Turkey was co-leading an initiative to address radicalization, he