Terrorism and organised crime: Risks of shared responses

The macabre sale of human organs, trafficking of people and wildlife, drug crime, the smuggling of precious minerals — all have become lucrative revenue streams for organised transnational criminal groups.

And there is growing anecdotal evidence that international terrorist groups such as Da’esh and al-Shabaab are exploiting the same channels.

But will grouping the two problems lead to a positive singular global response, or more problems regarding human rights abuses?

To increase the pressure on states to respond more urgently to the twin threats, United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution 2482 was adopted on July 19.

It calls on member states to “enhance coordination of efforts” to strengthen the global response to the links between international terrorism and organised crime. It also urges them to “continue to conduct research and collect information to . . . better understand the nature and scope” of such linkages.

Some observers say the resolution shows that the lines between transnational organised crime and terrorist groups are becoming murky. This was underscored by a counter-terrorism debate at a recent UN conference in Nairobi. International terror groups are exploiting the same revenue streams as organised crime networks

Many terrorist groups and criminal gangs share the same routes and often the same networks, although their motivations may be different. Terrorism is driven by political idealism, while organised crime focuses on financial gain.

The responses are also becoming more blurred, reflected in the power exercised by a supranational body such as the Security Council and sovereign states.

Some commentators fear that by conflating terrorism and transnational organised crime, exceptional law — as applied internationally post 9/11 — is beginning to trump domestic law. Also, for some states, transnational organised crime is considered a law enforcement issue and shouldn’t be packaged as part of efforts to stop global terrorism.

Resolution 2482 urges member states to respond to what appears to be an ill-defined“threat”. It stops short of invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which would conceive the dual threat of terrorism and organised crime as threats to international peace and security.

Yet it“signals that the council is taking the matter seriously,” says Martin Ewi — technical coordinator of the ENACT transnational organised crime project at the Institute for Security Studies.

“But it is shy of calling it a Chapter VII issue because of the additional sanctions that would come with it.”

Even so, a lively debate is being fuelled about whether the Security Council is exercising mission creep in the fight against global terrorists and their financiers.

Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, is particularly concerned. At the core of her argument are the issues of sovereignty, oversight and human rights. With still no universally agreed definition of international terrorism, she says existing counter-terrorism laws are already being used (or rather