Incitement to BLANK Outlawed

They want us to believe that somehow it is our fault. That their extremism is somehow our responsibility.
Tony Blair, 14th Spetember, 2005

Our great leader has been at the UN talking tough on terrorism. The phrase above is a perfect example of wrong-headed thinking hidden behind apparently sensible words. It's been a strategy throughout the "war" on terror. Any attempt to challenge these phrases are met with a barrage of accusations that the challengers are motivated by terrorist apologism.

Well, stuff that. Consider this version:

I want us to believe that it can never be our fault in any way, shape or form. That their extremism can never be our responsibility in any way whatsoever, no matter how provocatively we might behave.

If that what he's actually saying? It's something to think about.

Anyway, the security council has backed his proposal to ban incitement to terrorism. Optimists might conclude that the UN must, therefore, have arrived at an agreed definition of terrorism. More realistic people will be forced to gently point out to the optimists that they are mistaken. No agreement on a definition has been reached.

As usual, most of the reports you'll hear about this will concentrate on the objections of Iran, Syria, and the like. Very few reports are likely to mention that the US government is another of those who hinder agreement on this. Here's what John Bolton wanted:

"We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing by terrorists of civilians and noncombatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance [my emphasis]. And we declare that any such action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to carry out or to abstain from any act, cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism."
John Bolton proposal

Yes, Mr Bolton wants to define terrorism as an act carried out by a terrorist.* Well, no shit Sherlock. I wonder how many boffins it took to come up with that one? I think I might see why the details of the US position aren't widely reported. That really isn't very useful.

But it actually is useful for the US government. In the world of international diplomacy where every word matters, it's useful for the US proposal to include the word "terrorists". You'd think it might just as easily say "persons" but this isn't the case. There are two related reasons for the inclusion of "terrorists".

The first is that the US government does not intend to give up it's ability to identify terrorists based on political judgements. Remember the Contras? The US government is certainly not alone in wanting to retain this power but as the most powerful country in the world it's judgements on these issues have far greater influence than those of other governments. Taking the word "terrorists" out of the proposal genuinely would take the subjectivity out of the definition, thus restricting the US government's ability to decide who is and who isn't a terrorist. This is unacceptable to the current administration, just as it was to the Reagan administration in the 1980's. But that's hardly surprising given how many people have worked for both.

The second reason for the inclusion of the word "terrorists" is an attempt to protect US soldiers, CIA operatives, and government officials. If you read the US proposal again using the word "persons" it's clear that the US government itself might face charges of terrorism.

We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing by persons of civilians and noncombatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.

Just to take a random example, anyone who had participated in the bombing of North Vietnamese cities during the Vietnam war would be guilty of deliberately killing civilians and noncombatants. And such an action was clearly, explicity even, " intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act... is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to carry out or to abstain from any act." Such action "cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism." Unless you have a get out clause. And inserting the word "terrorists" is that get out clause. Because we all know that the government of the United States of America is an entirely noble institution which could not possibly be involved in unjustifiable terrorist acts. Any attempts to suggest such a thing are clearly the work of barking leftie moonbats.

Right?

*To be fair, I should point out that the report this comes from doesn't actually make clear whether there are further addition to Bolton's proposals which would make them less ridiculous. I'm hoping to track down further details of the US position in due course. It could just be that I'm a hopeless researcher.