|
|
|||||
|
|||||
| Path: Main Street : Resources & Library : Research Articles : Feature Article |
Fundraising for terrorists gets G7 attentionSeptember 18, 1996; Canadian FundRaiser
G7 leaders issued a declaration on terrorism at the Lyon G7 Summit at the end of June. This declaration reaffirmed their condemnation of terrorist activities and internal practices that help to fund them. At home, it has also sparked renewed debate over what constitutes terrorist fundraising and what should be done about it.
In their declaration, G7 leaders stated that "we strongly urge all States to deny support to terrorists. We rededicate ourselves and invite others to associate our efforts in order to thwart the activities of terrorists and their supporters including fundraising, the planning of terrorist acts, procurement of weapons, calling for violence, and incitements to commit terrorist acts."
Following the Lyon summit, the G7 countries convened a Ministerial Conference on Terrorism at the end of July. At this conference, foreign ministers agreed on 25 measures to combat and prevent terrorism. Among the measures listed, several pertain directly to fundraising practices.
With respect to the deterrence, prosecution and punishment of terrorists, the ministers called on states to "investigate the use of organizations, groups or associations, including those with charitable, social, or cultural goals, by terrorists using them as a cover for their own activities."
Specifically related to terrorist fundraising, the ministers made the following three recommendations:
"Prevent and take steps to counteract, through appropriate domestic measures, the financing of terrorists and terrorist organizations, whether such financing is direct or indirect through organizations which also have, or claim to have charitable, social or cultural goals, or which are also engaged in unlawful activities... These domestic measures may include, where appropriate , monitoring and control of cash transfers and bank disclosure procedures.
"Intensify information exchange concerning international movements of funds sent from one country or received in another country and intended for persons, associations, or groups likely to carry out or support terrorist operations.
"Consider, where appropriate, adopting regulatory measures in order to prevent movements of funds suspected to be intended for terrorist organizations, without impeding in any way the freedom of legitimate capital movements."
These recommendations signal a renewed interest in a complex subject. While it is understandable that governments would like to combat terrorism, the lack of a clear subject definition prevents effective action. Terrorism is not defined in Canada either by the courts or in the original Immigration Act. It is mentioned in the 1992 amendments to the act, but left undefined because legislators could not agree on an appropriate definition. The same is true of the United Nations' attempts to define the term.
This lack of clarity has left many Canadian nonprofits in the precarious position of defending their actions in a vacuum of defined criteria. Many Canadian groups, such as those relating to the Tamils in Sri Lanka, are defined by one side as terrorists, and by the other as national liberation movements. This seemingly simple point of definition distinguishes between their evaluation under the Immigration Act, or the Geneva Convention, each of which has distinctly different ramifications.
Additionally, given changes in the world political scene, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pinpoint groups which might instigate terrorist activities. After the July military coup in Burundi by Major Pierre Buyoya, reports surfaced that both the Canadian and American governments had funded Buyoya's Foundation for Unity, Peace and Democracy in 1994 and 1995. The Canadian embassy in Nairobi gave money to support a peace conference, while American funds supported studies into peace, justice system enhancements, and Buyoya's trip to observe elections in South Africa.
Challenges of definition and continually changing political allegiances are only two of the difficulties in successfully resolving the problems of terrorism and international fundraising for terrorist groups. The recent declaration by G7 leaders and recommendations by foreign ministers may help to put terrorist fundraising back onto the agenda, but it does little to define the concept further.
|
|||
