Ukraine: national policy

Combating terrorism is one of the priorities of the foreign and domestic policy of Ukraine, the implementation of which is impossible without constant development of the state legal system in the context of new threats and challenges.

The law of Ukraine "On basis of national security of Ukraine", adopted in June 2003, determines that the main directions of state security policy are the following:

• Ukraine’s participation in measures to combat international organised criminal groups and international terrorism and counteraction of the expansion of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and their transportation;

• Ukraine’s participation in international co-operation on combating international criminality, terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal migration.

Measures at international level

In accordance with the international treaties concluded by Ukraine, it co-operates in the fight against terrorism with foreign states, law enforcement bodies and special services, as well as with international organisations combating terrorism.

Ukraine is a party to all 12 of the universal anti-terrorist conventions, including those on countering the financing of terrorism, and the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (1977). Steps are currently being taken toward the ratification of the Protocol amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977, signed 2003.

At the Third Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe, Ukraine signed the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.

At present, Ukraine is examining the possibility of signing the UN International Treaty for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, the draft of which was adopted on 13 April 2005 during the plenary session of the UN General Assembly.

Ukraine recognises the importance of the development of international co-operation on combating terrorism and collaborates actively with international organisations. In order to execute the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and transpose the conventions on countering terrorism into its national legislation, Ukraine co-operates with the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee and annually submits reports on the action it has taken.

International co-operation in the field of combating terrorism aims at the implementation of anti-terrorist measures, which are foreseen by the EU Action Plan on Combating Terrorism in the sphere of justice and home affairs, as well by the special Ukraine-NATO plan.

At present work is being undertaken on the conclusion of security agreements and an agreement on Ukrainian participation in EU crisis management operations in the context of the EU Security and Defence Policy. The implementation of these agreements will increase co-operation between Ukraine and the EU in the security sphere.

The ceremony for the signing, by the Foreign Minister of Ukraine and the Secretary General of NATO, of an agreement (in the form of an exchange of letters) between Ukraine and NATO on the terms and conditions for Ukraine’s participation in NATO’s "Active Efforts" operation took place on 21 April 2005. The agreement covers questions connected with appropriate Ukrainian support in the carrying out of naval operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Ukraine takes part in the work of the CIS Anti-Terrorist Centre, which is the standing specialised branch body responsible for coordinating the interaction between the competent bodies of CIS member states in the field of countering terrorism.

On 7 April 2004, the Verhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the "Protocol about the approval of Statute regulating the order of organisation and conduction of common antiterrorist measures on the territory of CIS member-states" with the aim of developing Ukraine’s co-operation within the CIS framework.

Ukraine signed the Agreement on the creation of the GUUAM Virtual Centre in the field of the fight against terrorism, organised crime, drug proliferation and other dangerous crimes and the GUUAM Interstate Information Management System (HAS). At present, the states have finished conducting organisational measures and begun the practical work of the Virtual Centre and the HAS. The State Financial Monitoring Committee of Ukraine has adopted 24 Memoranda of mutual understanding with foreign financial intelligence services with regard to exchanges of financial information in the sphere of money laundering and the financing of terrorism.

In accordance with international agreements, Ukraine may take part in common anti-terrorist measures by means of assistance to foreign states or interstate associations in the re-deployment of troops, special anti-terrorist formations, transportation of weapons or by the provision of its own forces and means in accordance with domestic legislation.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state.). A less politically and emotionally charged, and more easily definable, term is violent non-state actor (though the semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists," while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists").

Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. One form is the use of violence against non-combatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.

"Terror" comes from a Latin terrere meaning "to frighten". The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse. Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by a government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a private group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.

In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".

In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes, and "terrorism" is defined by statute; see definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country. Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that indiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy, and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators.

Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.

Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.

Perpetrated for a political goal – Something that many acts of terrorism have in common is a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic" struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.

Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – The distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term. For these reasons, this criterion is not universally accepted; most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population. Those labelled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties to a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.

On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing civilians, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism". Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".

The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British. More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union, yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan tribesmen are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush. Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.

Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela. Sometimes states which are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain organization are terrorists. For instance, for many years, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (Britain) which Britain branded as terrorism. For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality try to be careful in their use of the term.

In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff. The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories.

• Civil disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community.

• Political terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.

• Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”

• Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.

• Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state.

• Official or state terrorism –"referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

The War on Terrorism (also known as the Global War on Terrorism or the War on Terror) is the common term for what the George W. Bush administration perceived or presented as the military, political, legal and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism, Islamic militants and the regimes and organizations tied to them or that supported them, and was specifically used in reference to operations by the United States, the United Kingdom and its allies since the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has since been expanded beyond the Bush administration, both in its scope and participating nation-states, as well as in the interpretation of the term. The Obama administration has discontinued use of the term "War on Terror" and instead uses the term "Overseas Contingency Operation", though President Obama has stated that the U.S. is at war with al-Qaeda.

The stated objectives of the war in the US are to protect the citizens of the US and allies, to protect the business interests of the US and allies at home and abroad, break up terrorist cells in the US, and disrupt the activities of the international network of terrorist organizations made up of a number of groups under the umbrella of al-Qaeda. Both the term and the policies it denotes have been a source of ongoing controversy, as critics argue it has been used to justify unilateral pre-emptive war, alleged human rights abuses and other violations of international law.

Al-Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden (a radical Islamist trained by the US during the 1980s to conduct guerrilla attacks against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan), formed a large base of operations in Afghanistan, which had been ruled by the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban since 1996.

Following the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the U.S. asserted were associated with al-Qaeda. Although others have questioned the Sudan plant's use as a chemical warfare plant The strikes failed to kill al-Qaeda’s leaders or their Taliban supporters (targets included a civilian pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced much of the region's malaria drugs and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs).

Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. In October 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred, followed in 2001 by the September 11 attacks.

By 2003, 12 major conventions and protocols were designed to combat terrorism. These were as well, adopted and ratified by a number of states to become international law. These conventions require states to co-operate on principal issues regarding unlawful seizure of aircraft for example, the physical protection of nuclear materials and freezing assets of militant networks.

In 2005 the Security Council also adopted resolution 1624 concerning incitement to commit acts of terrorism and the obligations of countries to comply with international human rights laws. Although both resolutions require mandatory annual reports on counterterrorism activities by adopting nations, the United States and Israel have both declined to submit reports.

Others have criticized the U.S. for double standards in its dealings with key allies that are also known to support terrorist groups, such as Pakistan. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly stated that in the "war against terrorism," “the central front is Pakistan"; Pakistan has also been alleged to provide Taliban operatives with covert support via the ISI. These accusations of double dealing regard civil liberties and human rights as well as terrorism. According to the Federation of American Scientists, "[i]n its haste to strengthen the "frontline" states' ability to confront transnational terrorist threats on their soil, and to gain the cooperation of regimes of geostrategic significance to the next phases of the "War on Terrorism", the administration is disregarding normative restrictions on U.S. aid to human rights abusers." Amnesty International has argued that the Patriot Act gives the U.S. government free rein to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. The Bush administration's use of torture and alleged use of extraordinary rendition and secret prisons have all fuelled opposition to the War on Terrorism.

15