Committee on Terrorism Stalls

The 35-nation ad hoc committee on international terrorism which is supposed to submit recommendations to the General Assembly in Sept. appears to be in no hurry to get on with its task of devising concrete measures to deal with the problem of terrorism.

The group held its third meeting yesterday but adjourned after a half hour for “consultations” without setting a time for its next meeting. Only procedural matters were discussed. The committee decided to divide itself into regional groups. It held its first meeting Monday and its second on Tuesday, each of which lasted only 15 minutes. Aquilino E. Boyd of Panama was elected chairman but no other officers were chosen.

The body derives its mandate from a General Assembly resolution of Dec. 1972 which enjoins it to consider observations and “concrete proposals” for dealing with terrorism from member states. So far 38 states have submitted observations, Israel among them.

INTERNATIONAL CONCLAVE ON TERRORISM URGED

Israel reiterated its call for an international convention on terrorism the signatories of which would refrain from sheltering or assisting perpetrators of terrorist acts and would be obliged to extradite them or bring them to trial.

“In any fresh start, the point of departure must be the obligation of each responsible government, and no less, each responsible organization to afford the general public full protection against policies that are pursued by methods of terrorism.” the Israeli presentation said.

Israel said that it wanted to see the General Assembly denounce any state aiding or abetting terrorist acts by providing terrorists with financial support, protection encouragement or shelter and call for effective sanctions against such states.

The Soviet Union, in a brief observation, stated that it has “no objection to the elaboration and adoption of an international convention which would impose definite obligations on states to prevent such illegal acts.” It stipulated, however, that such an instrument should be based on a consensus among states. “In considering the problem of action to combat ‘international terrorism’ It is essential to define clearly which specific acts will be regarded as manifestations of ‘International terrorism.’ ” the USSR said.

Lebanon stated that with regard to the designation of an act as an international offense it “can only express the most serious reservations, to the extent that a given act is part of the struggle of a people fighting to reconquer usurped territories, to drive out an Invader or to obtain its Independence in pursuance of its right to self-determination.”