缅北禁地

2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the adoption of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and the establishment of the Counter-Terrorism Committee. As part of the year of commemoration, CTED experts reflect on their work.

Mr. Ahmed Essmat Seif El-Dawla is Chief of Section in the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), covering Europe, Middle East and Central Asia, together with his team. Mr El-Dawla started out at the United Nations as an advisor to the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee in 2003, contributing to the efforts which led to the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 1535 (2004), which established CTED. This interview has been edited for brevity.

What motivated you to come to the United Nations and to CTED?

Mr. El-Dawla: I grew up in a multinational and diverse environment as an Egyptian in a German school in Cairo. And that later impacted my career and my education. I pursued postgraduate studies on international criminal law in Holland, and that was followed by another Master's in International Business Law. Later, I worked as a prosecutor in the International Cooperation Department at the Prosecutor-General's Office in Egypt, overseeing cases relating to extradition and mutual legal assistance. So, the international dimension was always a part of my education and career. Joining the 缅北禁地was a great opportunity to expand upon that practice and use what I'd learned to find solutions, or help find solutions, to addressing terrorism. Because of that, I joined the CTC as an expert advisor in 2003. I was also among the first experts to work with the Committee to help establish what later became the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate. At CTED, I was initially appointed as Chief of Section first for Africa, and then, several years later, for Europe, Central Asia, and the Middle East.

What is the comparative advantage of having the Security Council address counter-terrorism?

Mr. El-Dawla: There are of course many but I might just highlight two of them. The first is the legally binding nature of Security Council resolutions. All Member States have to implement them. And this helps in three ways. The first is to align the legal, institutional, and practical measures taken by Member States to counter terrorism. The second is to reduce the gaps and differences between jurisdictions and how they address terrorism. And the third is to enhance international, multilateral, and bilateral cooperation among Member States. In particular, Member States that traditionally did not cooperate were required to create joint legal, institutional, and practical cooperative frameworks in order to address and tackle a phenomenon that transcends national and regional borders. One of the strongest examples I often recall in that regard is the status of ratification of the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism Financing. At the beginning of, I believe 2003, or 2004, there were just a handful of States Parties to that Convention. Today, there are 189. And that's thanks to the Council’s repeated encouragement, as set forth in its resolutions, as well as to the efforts of other international partners and 缅北禁地agencies that help Member States to become party to those instruments. So that’s one impact of the Security Council’s resolutions’ legally binding nature. 

The second comparative advantage, I would say, is the convening and promoting impact of the Security Council counter-terrorism bodies. This monitoring mechanism helps promote the international standards of international organizations, as well as those of United Nations bodies, including Council resolutions. So, during our dialogue on counter-terrorism, we reiterate the need for Member States to comply with their obligations under international law, including international human rights law, humanitarian law, and refugee law. We also promote the international standards of other partners such as FATF, INTERPOL, and ICAO. So, we’ve become a sort of promoter of those international standards through the Council subsidiary bodies (in our case, of course, the Counter-Terrorism Committee). The second part of that mechanism is to conduct integrated assessments at the national level. From day one, there has been a multidisciplinary approach to the visits conducted to Member States. We’ve ensured that measures relating to legal matters, countering the financing of terrorism, law enforcement, border control, and early warnings are all addressed. Now it's broader than that, of course, but that integrated and multidisciplinary approach was important and could not have been achieved unless there was a central authority bringing all those measures together. So, it’s about promoting international standards and norms and bringing together different sectors. These are among the competitive advantage of the Council in addressing counter-terrorism.

What is the difference between before and after Security Council resolution 1373, from the point of view of practitioners?

Mr. El-Dawla: Of course, terrorism existed long before resolution 1373 was adopted, in 2001. And there had been many international, regional, and bilateral efforts to address it. However, addressing terrorism in the context of a Chapter VII Council resolution has had a significant impact on work at the national level, especially for practitioners. As a former prosecutor I appreciate that because, prior to resolution 1373, many Member States faced challenges in international cooperation in criminal matters and its modalities (whether extradition, mutual legal assistance, transfer of sentenced persons, transfer of criminal proceedings, and so forth). There were always challenges due to the differences in language, institutions, and legal practices among different jurisdictions, which is understandable. The Council’s adoption of these resolutions narrowed the gap and aligned the language more closely together, thereby facilitating the dialogue between those practitioners and advancing their cooperation and collective efforts to bring the perpetrators of terrorist attacks to justice. Another area I also appreciate, as a former practitioner, is the multidisciplinary approach introduced by the Council in its resolutions on counter-terrorism. They started with five areas: legal, finance, law enforcement, border control, and international cooperation, and now that has expanded to 11 areas (including ICT, integrating human rights in all aspects, and addressing gender measures  as a cross-cutting theme in all issues). There’s a long list of other areas that we must look into today. And all these areas now cascade down at the national level. So, the impact is that practitioners or prosecutors like me must now work with many others in the Government. Not that they didn’t work before with other stakeholders before, but now there's a wider scope of agencies involved in, for example, investigations, rehabilitation and reintegration. And that’s also an added value of the Council, which is positive for many practitioners today. You can also see that, since the adoption of resolution 1373, many States have created National Counter-Terrorism Committees to enhance inter-agency coordination. And that itself did not exist before. So, counter-terrorism practitioners today do not have to work alone. They can work with other practitioners, each supporting the other's mandate.

I always say we have to be ahead of the curve. And I always say “Why is organized crime so successful? Because they are organized”. So we have to be much more organized when we deal with the phenomena of terrorism because the terrorists have a privilege we all do not have. We have to be successful every day; they need to be successful only once. And that's why a comprehensive, integrated and holistic approach in countering terrorism is a critical way to achieve that for all of us.

How did the CTC begin its relationship in cooperation with international regional partners, as well as United Nations entities?

Mr. El-Dawla: On 12 November 2001, two weeks after the adoption of resolution 1373, the Council adopted another critical resolution, resolution 1377, which requested the Counter-Terrorism Committee to work with international and regional partners to identify capacity-building projects that could assist Member States and enhance their capacities in counter-terrorism. Of course, the Committee was not the provider of technical assistance, but rather the facilitator. So, because of that facilitation role, it had to rely on the work and mandates of other bodies to see how they could support Member States in implementing the relevant Council resolutions. That integrated (or started the integration of) all those agencies’ work into our assessment methodology. So, today, when we work with Member States on assessments, we also work with all these international agencies and their methodologies. When available, their representatives and experts also join our assessment visits. Our assessment therefore becomes a holistic and integrated process in which 缅北禁地agencies and other international partners work together to address counter-terrorism and help Member States enhance their measures.
 
In its resolution 1456 (2003), adopted at the ministerial level, the Council requested the Committee, when monitoring Member States’ implementation of resolution 1373 (2001), to bear in mind all international best codes and standards. That resolution thus further boosted the integration of those various measures into our mandate and into that of the Committee, and all the international agencies that develop international practices became an integral part of our dialogue with Member States. The resolution also launched the Committee’s series of special meetings, which are now held on almost an annual basis (and even within a year we may have two or three). But the first one was held in March 2003. Relevant international, regional, and subregional organizations and 缅北禁地bodies were invited to attend to share their experiences and programmes on counter-terrorism. So, the main interlocutors with the Committee in that case were not only Member States but also the international, regional, and subregional organizations and 缅北禁地bodies. And that's how this relationship has been launched and enhanced and advanced. Later on, with the establishment of CTED, of course, that work was further expanded. Today, we're part of the larger global family on counter-terrorism, not only within the UN, but also beyond.

Is there a standout moment for you over the last 20 years?

Mr. El-Dawla: One specific area that I’ve seen growing in a unique way in United Nations counter-terrorism work has been the development of national integrated and comprehensive counter-terrorism strategies. Throughout the last 20 years, or even before, counter-terrorism was always addressed by the security sector. Not so many had counter-terrorism strategies. Mostly countries had security strategies. And when counter-terrorism resolutions came into adoption and the need to implement them, then the measures were integrating these strategies and the security strategies. The difference today, I see with these strategies is that they are more comprehensive and more integrated. They have many governmental agencies on board, that I know 20 years ago, there would have never ever thought that they are actually working on counter-terrorism because counter-terrorism at that time seemed to be more exclusive for prosecutors, law enforcement, intelligence services. But today, you have also ministries of education and other agencies. They all play a vital role. So we advanced very much from multiple governmental agencies that work on counter-terrorism, towards a whole-of-Government approach (and now, further, towards a whole-of-society approach), as part of national comprehensive and integrated counter-terrorism strategies. Today, we have governmental agencies, we have civil society, and we also have academia.

That’s a unique achievement, and a far more solid basis for addressing all that remains to be achieved. And it’s important because it shows that everybody must play their part. Counter-terrorism can no longer be the exclusive preserve of particular agencies. States must be able to address the many complexities posed by terrorist threats, which no longer necessarily involve the crossing of physical borders and are no longer necessarily prepared by conventional means. For example, ICT are increasingly exploited by terrorists and their recruiters. We've seen this with many attacks committed over the past decade. So, everyone in society must now play a role in Member States’ responses (including, among others, government agencies, NGOs, the private sector, women’s rights groups, and human rights groups) in order to strengthen the resilience of the population and minimize the opportunities for terrorists to exploit the system. I always say we have to be ahead of the curve. And I always say “Why is organized crime so successful? Because they are organized”. So we have to be much more organized when we deal with the phenomena of terrorism because the terrorists have a privilege we all do not have. We have to be successful every day; they need to be successful only once. And that's why a comprehensive, integrated and holistic approach in countering terrorism is a critical way to achieve that for all of us.