NZ Minister of Disarmament on the Use of Force to Combat Terrorism:

Security Council endorsement necessary -No threat or use of nuclear weapons.

Excerpts from a Speech by the Minister of Disarmament Mr Matt Robson, member of the Alliance Party, at the University of Otago, 5 Oct 2001.

I want to talk about the Alliance position on the fight against terrorism, and I want to talk about the role that New Zealand can play in that fight.

The universal shock suffered by the world on September 11 due to the insane and criminal terrorist attacks against the American people have created exceptional conditions for international cooperation for the eradication of terrorism.

The Alliance has a long history of insisting on observance of international law and the authorisation of the United Nations for military action.

As Jim Anderton explained to parliament on Wednesday:

"As a small country, New Zealand relies on the protection of international law and an international organisation like the United Nations.

"Ignoring the United Nations would risk bringing both that organisation and its processes of dispute settlement into disrepute.

"This country has a proud record of supporting the United Nations and being a good international citizen.

"The United Nations authorisation and international law make the world a safer place for small countries like ours.

"We should therefore ensure that any New Zealand military personnel should be involved in conflict only within those boundaries."

Those responsible for the horrific attacks on the United States must be brought to justice.

It is clear that the Taliban regime's days are numbered. Osama bin Laden has nowhere to go. An international cordon is being drawn around Afghanistan. It is only a matter of time - and time is on our side.

There is no need to take precipitate action that short-circuits international law.

The Alliance does not believe that a massive military attack on a disintegrating nation will deliver the result the world is seeking.

It is time for cool heads and patience.

I fully support Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, in his statement that "This organisation is the natural forum in which to build a universal coalition. It alone can give legitimacy to the long-term struggle against terrorism".

The United Nations should not – indeed it must not – abandon its prerogatives.

It has always been our policy, and it remains so today, to act in accordance with the decisions of the UN Security Council under the guidance of the General Assembly.

For Information on specific topic areas click here.

For more information on Congressional Resolutions click here.

The United Nations has the right to take action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.

I can remember from when I studied international law at the International Court of Justice, that we specifically examined the application of the UN Charter with regard to Chapter 7 interventions. I am referring quite specifically, in this context, to Articles 1.1, 24.2, 41, 42, and 51 of the UN Charter.

These articles spell out the purposes of the United Nations – to maintain international peace and security – to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples – to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems – to be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations toward common ends.

In particular, Article 1 (1) states that any "measure for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace" must be "in conformity with the principles of justice and international law."

The articles spell out the need for prompt and effective action – for Members to confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security – and the need for the Security Council to act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

They spell out the measures that may be taken to give effect to decisions – and the right of individual or collective self-defence if attacked.

That right allows repulsion of immediate attack before the handing over of the issue to the Security Council (Article 51).

This week, a heavily amended motion was passed in Parliament, offering support to the worldwide fight against terrorism within the framework of United Nations Resolutions 1368 and 1373.

The most crucial part of that declaration is the reference to the United Nations resolutions. Those resolutions must be read within the framework of the United Nations Charter and international law.

It is the Alliance's opinion that the use of military force in the present situation will require the explicit and previous authorisation of the Security Council.

Neither of the two resolutions adopted by the Security Council in the wake of the 11 September attacks authorised the unleashing of military force.

Security Council Resolution 1368 condemned the terrorist attacks. It also reaffirmed the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and declared that the Security Council remained "seized of the matter." This means, of course, that all action must be decided upon by the United Nations.

Security Council Resolution 1373 requires member states to cooperate in a wide range of areas – from suppressing the financing of terrorism to providing early warning, cooperating in criminal investigations, and exchanging information on possible terrorist acts.

The Resolution also called on all countries who have not done so, to sign and ratify the twelve remaining treaties and protocols established to destroy terrorism, cut off their funds, cut off their supply of weapons, and isolate them utterly, and includes under 2 (d) that all States shall "prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against States or their citizens."

Member states have 90 days to report back on what progress they have made towards signing/ratifying or implementing these treaties and protocols.

With regard to the offer of military support, the Government must ensure that any involvement is consistent with New Zealand law. Specifically, that means that we would not participate in any military action that utilised nuclear weapons.

Our law prohibits New Zealanders from active involvement in nuclear warfare, and that is a bottom line position.

With that proviso, New Zealand is prepared to offer our skills, our time, and our effort towards finding long-term solutions. These will be diplomatic, humanitarian aid, and, if necessary, military solutions to deal with terrorism and its consequences.

Today there is also even more reason for continued close cooperation on international measures directed towards the total elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons than there was before September 11.

When Kofi Annan spoke at the UN hosted debate in New York on terrorism a few days ago, he said this:

"While the world was unable to prevent the 11 September attacks, there is much we can do to help prevent future terrorist acts carried out with weapons of mass destruction. The greatest danger arises from a non-State group -- or even an individual -- acquiring and using a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. Such a weapon could be delivered without the need for any missile or any other sophisticated delivery system."

In other words – imagine a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists.

It is now clear, in the face of terrorism, that there are limits to how much military power can contribute to people's security.

The Alliance and the Government are convinced that international legal instruments are a key element in combating international terrorism.

At home, in response to the events of September 11, we have given priority to our domestic processes for becoming party to the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and for ratifying the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Internationally, there is increasing momentum towards the establishment of an International Criminal Court of Law.

In September last year, New Zealand ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. As of yesterday, 41 countries had ratified. Once 60 states have ratified that Statute, the International Court can be established and will have jurisdiction over individuals who commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Our ratification is a signal of New Zealand's determination to hold political and military leaders accountable for the atrocities committed by their supporters either with their direct encouragement or which they have condoned by their failure to act.

Those who commit acts of terror, violence and persecution will be brought to justice.

The battle against terrorism must be fought on many fronts because it is a complex phenomenon.

Measures to halt the illicit trade in narcotics and small arms, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are all part of the struggle. So are steps to improve aviation security, to prevent money laundering and to ensure the safety of hazardous - including chemical and biological - materials.