Kofi Annan recently announced the UN is attempting to define “terrorism” in a universal sense; he hopes that a ‘new’ definition would apply both to States and groups. In view of the flagrant disregard for international law and convention by the US, one wonders whether this is a flight of fancy or a feeble attempt to regain some relevance for the UN. This new definition largely hinges on ‘civilian’ attacks. Analysts would view this as a purely ideological manoeuvre. The definition of “civilian” is no longer clear.
Read entire text and other related material at:
http://cleaves.zapto.org/clv/newswire.php?story_id=68
http://cleaves.zapto.org/clv/newswire.php?story_id=68 
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following comment
Class Struggle
15.03.2005 12:37
However, it must be said that when they reproach us with terrorism, they are trying - although not always consciously - to give the word a narrower, less indirect meaning. The damaging of machines by workers, for example, is terrorism in this strict sense of the word. The killing of an employer, a threat to set fire to a factory or a death threat to its owner, an assassination attempt, with revolver in hand, against a government minister - all these are terrorist acts in the full and authentic sense. However, anyone who has an idea of the true nature of international Social Democracy ought to know that it has always opposed this kind of terrorism and does so in the most irreconcilable way.
Why?"
Leon Trotsky's 1909 - Why Marxists oppose Individual Terrorism
We do not need UN to define terrorism. We need UN to defeat terrorism.
Feet bigger than footprints