The Group of Seven richest industrial states, meeting, with Russia, in Paris yesterday, have confronted one of the most pressing international problems the use of terrorist techniques to pursue political objectives - in the wake of several spectacularly destructive and callous acts of violence. The difficulty and complexity of their task is evident from the limited nature of the agreements reached but that this was a useful meeting is clear from the political will and determination to pursue co operation displayed in the 25 point programme adopted.
The G7 lacks the institutional means to put many of these commitments into effect and is clearly constrained by political disagreements among its members about the very definition of the problem, the use of sanctions against rogue states and the need to abide by international legal and United Nations norms. But it would be a mistake to underestimate their capacity to become more effective once such powerful states put their minds to it. Reinforced police co operation, the sharing of intelligence and forensic information, better border controls, co ordination of airport surveillance techniques, standardisation of cargo manifests, development of strict controls on funds, firearms and explosives that can be used by terrorist groups - these diverse methods are all covered and have real potential.
As the record in the European Union shows only too clearly, however, it can be extremely difficult in practice to ensure effective co operation between states in these respects. The relevant ministries and security forces jealously preserve their sovereign powers and resources and are often extremely reluctant to pool them internationally. But the issue of terrorist violence is moving fast up the international agenda, so that such attitudes are changing as the political will to confront the issue is assembled.
The US delegation did not raise its proposals that what it regards as rogue states sponsoring terrorism should be boycotted and sanctioned. Its delegation realised that it would be counter productive to pursue them into highly contentious disagreement with its European partners and sensibly decided to concentrate on lower level, more mundane, but probably more effective methods of co operation on which there would be a full consensus.
French ministers co hosting the meeting distinguished between state terrorism and that which arises from social, religious or regional conflicts within rather than between states. There is also the highly contested matter of how the term should be used, since it is often so patently a matter of political bias. There is a great need for more co ordinated research and political discussion about such matters, as well as for practical co operation between security forces. A good example of the confusion and complexity involved is the role of the Afghan mujaheddin groups which were sponsored by the US during the Soviet occupation and have since returned to Middle Eastern states with an awesome technical capacity for terrorist subversion.
There are conflicts of perception and interest at play that are not susceptible to simplistic solutions. Questions of justice and legal rights must also constrain the temptation to respond to terrorist techniques with solely a security agenda. That said, yesterday's meeting was all the better for being modest, well defined and for putting in place mechanisms to continue and deepen inter state co operation.