Today, The Washington Post reports (sign up required) on the U.N. General Assembly’s approval of a global treaty aimed at nipping nuclear terrorism in the bud. While the action is commendable, I doubt much will be done to enforce the treaty. Even if the required number of participating countries signs the treaty, the U.N must still decide upon a definition of terrorism, something they have been reluctant to do for years.
Political philosophers have weighed in on the fine line between political autonomy (freedom fighters) and rebellion (terrorists) for years. Some, like Kant, believe that rebellion is a good way to instigate change. In fact, it is necessary for the evolution of government from tyranny to democracy. Others have been wary of insurrection (Machiavelli). And, thanks to the Reign of Terror, rebellion, even for a worthy purpose, comes with a caveat.
I’m interested to see what definition this wholly inefficient and corrupt body can come up with, not to mention actually pass into global law. With countries like Iran and North Korean practically giddy about their supposed nuclear power, the U.N.’s final definition of terrorism (once adopted) might actually force the conglomerate to act against the countries that most of the civilized world has already labeled as terrorist threats.
