Global IssuesDisarmamentEnvironmentHuman RightsInternational SecurityCounter TerrorismCounter RadicalisationCounter Proliferation InitiativesPeacekeeping OperationsInternational OrganisationsAfricaAntarcticaAsiaAustraliaEuropeLatin AmericaMiddle EastNorth AmericaPacific
Find MFAT's information paper on a country or territory. (We don't have information papers on all countries.)
Although we have tried to use plain English content on the site, you may come across specialist terms and acronyms. Find out what they mean in our glossary of terms.
If you come across a term that isn't included in the Glossary please send us an email.
I would like, first, to thank Commissioner Rob Robinson for the invitation to speak, and to acknowledge the efforts of New Zealand Police in organising this important Seminar.
I have been asked to speak today about New Zealand’s whole-of-government approach, and our contribution to combating international terrorism. In doing so, I would like to focus first on the recent evolution of international terrorism and of counter-terrorism cooperation efforts; and then to comment on New Zealand’s international and domestic response.
We did not need the recent events in London and Sharm el Sheikh to remind us of the dangers that terrorism poses for us all. The presentations this morning by Nick O’Brien and Assistant Commissioner McDevitt – with their graphic images of the series of recent attacks and bombings in many parts of the globe - reaffirm the simple fact that no people or region is immune to the threat of terrorist violence.
And, while we are fortunate that the threat of a direct attack against New Zealand remains low, we have not, as Commissioner Robinson recalled for us this morning, been untouched by terrorism. New Zealand citizens were victims of the 9/11 and Bali attacks, and most recently - with the tragic death of Shelley Mather - of the July bombings in London. The extensive New Zealand diaspora and New Zealanders’ love of international travel make it unavoidable that we will continue to be at risk of being caught up in terrorist attacks in other countries.
It is easy to forget that terrorism is by no means
a new phenomenon. In fact, the term “terrorism” entered
into European language at the end of the 18th
Century, in the wake of the French Revolution.
International efforts to prevent and suppress
terrorists date back, at least, to the early
years of the 20th Century.
Before I discuss what has happened in the period since the attacks on the United States in September 2001, I need to remind us all of the earlier efforts by the international community to deter terrorism.
As early as the 1930s, following a spate of high-level assassinations in Europe, the League of Nations launched efforts to settle on a definition of “terrorism” in an effort to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism. Unfortunately, its efforts proved fruitless.
For the remainder of the 20th Century, multilateral efforts, now under the United Nations, focused on targeting whichever mode of terrorist violence was in vogue at the time. This sectoral approach allowed consensus to be formed around outlawing specific types of terrorist acts while sidelining the thorny, and still unresolved, issue of agreement on a definition of “terrorism”.
So, in the 60s and 70s, the international community’s focus was on measures to deter hijacking and then hostage taking - particularly in relation to diplomats. Then the next phase was directed at suppressing bombings at airports or scenarios on board ships, such as occurred on the Achille Lauro in 1985.
Later, international treaties to safeguard nuclear material; control plastic explosives (this latter treaty was negotiated in the aftermath of the Lockerbie bombing); and in the 1990s to deter bombings in public places, were adopted. The twelfth and - until this year – last in the set of UN treaties - was adopted in 1999 and was directed against the financing of terrorism.
In sum, then, it is not new for the international community to adopt global standards against terrorism but in the decades before 9/11 these were always responsive in nature, and sectoral in focus.
The attacks against the US in September 2001 signal a change – both in the scale and nature of the terrorist operation and in the intensity and scope of the international response.
The 9/11 attacks, and those attacks which have occurred subsequently, demonstrate an evolution in terrorism itself. It is now clearly trans-national in nature and global in reach. Advances in communications, technology, and transportation mean that terrorist organisations now have a far higher degree of sophistication in recruiting, gathering intelligence, organising and funding their activities. The internet, for example, has made it possible for terrorist groups to recruit, to disseminate information and propaganda, and to coordinate attacks without the need for physical contact or geographical proximity.
The modus operandi of terrorists has changed. The 9/11 and subsequent attacks graphically illustrate the willingness of terrorists to employ mass casualty attacks that indiscriminately and, often, deliberately target civilians. The increasing willingness of some terrorists to die in pursuit of their goals, through tactics such as suicide bombings, is a further troubling development.
In saying that, I am not suggesting that 20th Century terrorist groups showed any compunction about targeting civilians. The difference, however, was that, in most cases, civilians were viewed as a means of achieving more limited ends – for example, as hostages to raise funds or ensure the release of comrades. Attacks were often preceded by warnings and generally targeted specific entities or interests.
The emergence of Al Qaeda as the primary international terrorist threat has heralded the emergence of a new type of terrorist entity, one that is notionally coherent and coordinated but is comprised, in reality, of a loose network of largely autonomous groups.
Indeed, there is increasing evidence – now that Operation Enduring Freedom and other counter-terrorism efforts have succeeded at least in disrupting its organisation and leadership - that Al Qaeda has become less an organisation and more of a “brand”.
Al Qaeda has actively sought to expand its influence by pursuing joint operations with, or linkages to, other terrorist groups with similar political or extremist religious objectives. Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and Abu Musab al Zarkawi’s group in Iraq are examples of pre-existing terrorist groups that have forged links with Al Qaeda.
The attraction of the Al Qaeda “brand” shows no sign of abating. As the recent events in London demonstrate, the opposite may in fact be true – with its appeal now extending to young, often second or third generation Muslims in Western countries who – through a mixture of alienation and anger at perceived or real Western insults against Islam - are increasingly amenable to messages of fundamentalist militant Jihad.
Such trends will make detection and deterrence of terrorists increasingly challenging.
In the face of this evolution in terrorism, how then has the international community’s approach to counter-terrorism changed?
The emergence of Al Qaeda’s trans-national terrorism has led to a growing realisation that terrorism can only be countered effectively through a comprehensive and coordinated international response.
While military, intelligence and law enforcement activity remain central, international counter-terrorism cooperation now encompasses a much broader approach that also targets terrorist funding, infrastructure and support. Simultaneously, international organisations and countries have focused on cooperative measures to harden critical infrastructure against possible attacks.
Fittingly, the international response to terrorism in the wake of 9/11 has been led by the United Nations. The UN acted quickly via a number of binding Security Council Resolutions to extend and reinforce the scope of the existing 12 international anti-terrorism conventions. Among other things, these Resolutions have:
I should also note that there has been re-vitalised activity within the UN on the comprehensive convention against terrorism. As I noted earlier, efforts to conclude such a convention – the “Nirvana” of an international counter-terrorism framework - were first launched in the 1930s by the League of Nations.
Since then, failure to reach agreement on an internationally acceptable definition of “terrorism” has prevented the conclusion of a text. The key disagreement at present is between western states and the Organisation of Islamic Conference over whether the activities of military forces outside armed conflict should be included within a definition of terrorism - and whether the actions of national liberation movements against foreign occupation should be excluded.
The events of 9/11 did not of themselves break this deadlock although there were certainly initial hopes that they might do so. Two very recent developments, however, have suggested that the ideological divide over the definition of “terrorism” might now finally be surmountable. The first came with the UN Secretary-General’s strong political endorsement for a definition in his “In Larger Freedom” report.
And, given that Professor Kumar proffered a proposal for a definition of terrorism this morning, I will just outline, by way of comparison, the one which has been endorsed by the Secretary-General. Kofi Annan has suggested that “any action constitutes terrorism if it is 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 international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act”.
So that proposition has given some momentum to the process of settling on a definition. Correspondingly, the draft Outcomes Document for the UN High Level Summit to be held in September this year calls on Leaders to “conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism, including a legal definition of terrorism” during this year’s UN General Assembly session.
A further positive sign came with the agreement by the General Assembly earlier this year to the text of the Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism – a treaty that had also been stalled for some years within the United Nations system.
We are hopeful, therefore, that a comprehensive convention can finally be concluded this year – thereby making a significant improvement to the international legal framework for countering terrorism.
In addition to the UN, a number of other international bodies have contributed to international counter-terrorism efforts in the wake of 9/11.
The OECD-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has introduced nine Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing which complement its earlier recommendations on money laundering. These Special Recommendations target a wide array of financial activities, including wire transfers and money couriers. (I’m going to be commenting a bit more about FATF later on.)
International trade and transportation organisations have introduced new standards to enhance international security in their sectors.
The International Maritime Organisation, for example, introduced a new International Ship and Port Facility Security Code that required countries to demonstrate by 1 July 2004 that they had taken steps to secure their ports and reduce the risk of attacks on merchant ships. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has introduced a new airline security strategy that includes new mandatory audits on airport security and implementation of a comprehensive Aviation Security Plan of Action. And in June this year, the World Customs Organisation (WCO) agreed to a set of international guidelines on supply chain security.
A number of countries have also introduced bilateral measures to strengthen border and transportation security. I would refer, in particular, to the far-ranging measures which the United States introduced in December 2002 and which require, for example, the screening of inward-bound containers before they reach the US in order to reduce the risk of terrorists using container-based cargo in possible attacks.
How then has New Zealand responded to these new international counter-terrorism standards?
We have been an active contributor to the international campaign against terrorism from its outset. Militarily, we were one of the first countries to commit to Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan – a significant commitment that remains in place to this day.
Current deployments under OEF include the 122-person Provincial Reconstruction Team; as well as our personnel deployed in the various OEF operational headquarters, or involved in training at the Bamyan Regional Police Training Centre and with the Afghan National Army. As well, around 50 Special Air Service personnel were recently deployed for a third mission in Afghanistan.
Previous OEF commitments have included the deployment of a Royal New Zealand Navy frigate and an Air Force P-3 Orion to the Gulf for participation in the OEF Maritime Interdiction Operation.
Just to complete the picture of New Zealand’s ongoing contribution to Afghanistan security, I should refer as well to our small attachment of personnel to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul.
In the UN context, we have ratified the twelve existing UN anti-terrorism conventions of which I spoke at the outset and Cabinet has very recently authorised New Zealand’s signature of the thirteenth one – the new Nuclear Terrorism Convention which I mentioned just before and which will be adopted formally at the UN later this year. We remain fully supportive of the efforts I described earlier to conclude a comprehensive terrorism convention before the end of this year’s General Assembly, and we will be doing what we can between now and then to play a constructive role in negotiations.
New Zealand also places great store by compliance with the binding Security Council counter-terrorism resolutions, and we are up to date in our reporting to the Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee, and in our reports to its 1267 Committee on sanctions against Al Qaeda. We are continuing, also, to work closely with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on combating money laundering and terrorism financing. As to that, many of you will have seen Justice Minister Phil Goff’s press release just last Friday regarding new legislation Government has in train to implement tighter controls over our financial sector in order to meet FATF standards.
At the same time, we have remained conscious of the importance of balancing the pressing need to deter terrorism with the values that are central pillars of our society – respect for the rule of law and for fundamental human rights. That is why, for instance, we co-sponsored a Resolution on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism in the UN Commission on Human Rights in April this year.
We have been active in implementing new international trade and transportation security standards, and to further strengthen our own critical infrastructure against possible terrorist attack. New Zealand is, for example, in full compliance with the IMO International Ship and Port Facility Security Code and we are moving to implement measures that will allow us to comply with the new ICAO standards before the 2006 deadline.
Passage of the Border Security Act 2004 has enhanced New Zealand’s border security regime. Also, the New Zealand and US customs authorities have agreed on a comprehensive security arrangement which allows us to work together to identify and intercept high-risk containers as early in the supply-chain as possible. This arrangement in essence meets the requirements of the US Container Security Initiative.
And we have recently signed onto the new WCO supply chain security standards.
Beyond our focus on compliance with international counter-terrorism obligations, we have put significant effort into enhanced regional cooperation in the Pacific and Asia.
In Asia, we participate in regional counter-terrorism dialogue in forums such as the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and APEC and just last month New Zealand concluded a Counter-Terrorism Declaration with ASEAN. Under this Declaration, New Zealand and ASEAN committed ourselves to enhancing counter-terrorism co-operation in a range of fields, including information exchange, law enforcement measures, extradition and mutual legal assistance, border control and anti-money laundering efforts.
New Zealand is also engaged in the Bali Regional Ministerial Counter-Terrorism process through participation in two working groups focused on improving cooperation between regional legal and law enforcement experts. NZ Police has enhanced its presence in the region through opening a liaison office in Jakarta and building upon its longstanding position in Bangkok. And we are exploring possible options whereby New Zealand might engage more closely with South East Asia’s regional counter-terrorism centres.
Still in the Asian context, we have been active in the recently established regional interfaith dialogue process whose objective is to isolate religious extremists and foster a greater understanding and co-operation between the various faith communities in our region. New Zealand’s support for this interfaith process is consistent with our interest in examining some of the broader systemic issues – the root causes - that may underlie terrorism. I noted with interest Professor Kumar’s explicit endorsement this morning of inter- and, indeed, intra-faith dialogue as a key tool in his Ideological Counter-Terrorism Master Plan. Certainly, the New Zealand Government is highly supportive of inter-faith dialogue. A 10-person New Zealand inter-faith delegation went to the first Yogyakarta Dialogue meeting last December. And New Zealand has now joined the Steering Group that will plot the course for the next meeting in what we hope will become an ongoing regional dialogue process.
In our immediate region of the Pacific, implementation of international counter-terrorism obligations has been hindered by a lack of resources and by the sheer breadth and complexity of the new requirements.
Acknowledging the resource constraints Pacific Island countries face, New Zealand’s efforts have focused broadly on two areas: working with Pacific Island partner governments to assist their compliance with international counter-terrorism standards; and providing technical assistance to strengthen critical infrastructure. These efforts have been aided significantly by New Zealand’s Pacific Security Fund which provides up to $3 million per year to fund collaborative security and counter-terrorism related capacity-building projects.
Initiatives funded by our Pacific Security Fund have ranged from our organisation of a high-level Pacific Roundtable on Counter-Terrorism held here in Wellington last year, to the publication of a counter-terrorism resource document for use by Pacific officials and to assisting Pacific Governments to comply with new international standards such as the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.
In short, New Zealand's response to the international and regional counter-terrorism agenda since 9/11 has been vigorous and thorough. At the same time, it is not only Pacific Island countries that have found the scope and complexity of the new counter-terrorism obligations daunting. For New Zealand, also, there have been challenges in implementing them.
For instance, I referred before to the significant new steps planned here in terms of re-regulation of our financial sector in order to tighten our anti-money-laundering and terrorist financing framework: this is partly in response to issues raised by FATF concerning our compliance with its Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing.
The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee is at present reviewing our Terrorism Suppression Act. We have had a number of problems with the operation of the Act. An amendment was passed to it in June this year; and further legislative change to aspects of its terrorist designation process may be necessary to ensure we can give effect to our Security Council obligations.
Clearly, the process of setting international counter-terrorism standards is an ongoing one - and so too should be the process of review we have in place to ensure we meet them. Overall, I would argue that New Zealand stands up very well to most countries in terms of our compliance with current international counter-terrorism requirements. I would also assert that our ability to contribute effectively to international and regional co-operation efforts has only been possible because of the whole-of-government approach we have taken to formulating our counter-terrorism policy and response mechanisms.
Given the scope and demands of the international agenda, it has been necessary for strategic planning and policy development across government to become a routine element of our counter-terrorism work.
We have a whole-of-government system for domestic and external security coordination in terms of both counter-terrorism policy and response. At the apex of this system, the Cabinet Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination (DES) forms the central decision-making body of executive government.
DES is chaired by the Prime Minister and its membership includes the Ministers responsible for departments that play a critical role in formulating counter-terrorism policy, responding to terrorist risks and responding to a terrorist incident.
The Officials Domestic and External Security Coordination Committee, or ODESC, supports the DES structure, at officials’ level. The main role of ODESC is to provide DES Ministers with strategic, coordinated security advice including on matters relating to terrorism. It is chaired by the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (who, of course, is down to give the closing address to this seminar tomorrow) and its membership includes the Chief Executives of agencies that have a role to play in counter-terrorism policy, management and response.
A number of ad-hoc working groups and standing sub-committees report to ODESC on specific areas of counter-terrorism policy and response including, for example, on issues such as New Zealand’s compliance with the Financial Action Task Force recommendations or compliance with our Security Council obligations.
Finally, given that the risk of terrorist attack in New Zealand is assessed to be low, some might question why we have taken such an active role and committed considerable resource to domestic, to regional and to international counter-terrorism efforts.
I’ve already touched on some of the answers to this question but I’d like to round that out in conclusion.
Firstly, we accept as a fundamental proposition that terrorist attacks – that is, attacks targeting civilian non-combatants – cannot be justified for any reason or by any motivation.
Secondly, as the attacks against London most recently demonstrated, New Zealanders and New Zealand interests will continue to be at risk from terrorism. The Bali attacks in 2002 showed that our own region is not immune to the threat of terrorist violence. Terrorist organisations and tactics continue to evolve.
Thirdly, we accept without reservation that the threat of international terrorism can be effectively addressed only through concerted and co-ordinated international efforts that not only target terrorists themselves, but terrorist funding, support and infrastructure. For New Zealand, this means actively implementing and contributing to the development of new international counter-terrorism standards; and working with partners to strengthen our region’s capacity to counter possible exploitation or attack by terrorist groups.
In a small country like ours, a coordinated ‘whole-of-government’ approach to meeting international counter-terrorism standards has been - and will continue to be - essential.
Thank you.