(IPS) Less than 24 hours before the United States came under a wave of terrorist attacks, the United Nations was rejoicing over the fact that 83 of its 189 member states had ratified some 12 existing UN conventions against international terrorism.

The United States, however, has refused to ratify the treaties.

One UN official, speaking on condition of anonymity, characterised the US position as "sign yes, ratify no." If a country refuses to ratify a treaty, the treaty has no legal validity in that country, he explained.

During the last four years, the United Nations has established two new conventions: the 1999 International Convention For the Suppression of Terrorist Financing and the 1997 UN Convention on the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings.

Successive U.S. administrations have been thwarted by right-wing politicians in Congress who argue that the Washington should not be party to international conventions because they either override domestic law or are perceived as being not in the national interest.

As a result, the United States has refused to ratify not only conventions against terrorism but also several other treaties, including a convention against landmines and those relating to climate change, law of the sea, and the creation of an international criminal court.

Shock and grief

Nevertheless, UN leaders yesterday expressed shock and grief following the day's presumed terror attacks against New York's World Trade Centre and the US defence department's Pentagon headquarters.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed his ''profound condolences to (the attacks' victims and their families) and to the people and government of the United States.''

''There can be no doubt that these attacks are deliberate acts of terrorism, carefully planned and coordinated - and as such I condemn them utterly. Terrorism must be fought resolutely wherever it appears,'' Annan said.

In a recent report to the General Assembly, Annan said he was looking forward to two new conventions currently under discussion: an International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and an omnibus Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.

Both conventions are scheduled for discussion during the current session of the General Assembly, which runs through mid-December.

Meanwhile, the United States also has continued to express strong reservations over a Third World proposal for a major international conference to combat terrorism.

Addressing the UN's Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism last February, US delegate Robert Rosenstock said such a conference would have no practical benefits.

"The issues suggested as possible subjects at such a conference had historically confounded a practical solution," he said.

Effective vehicle

Rosenstock told the committee that a conference on terrorism would distract from pragmatic measures that could and should be taken - such as steps to facilitate and encourage universal adherence to the existing 12 terrorism conventions adopted by the United Nations.

The US delegate also pointed out that an effective vehicle to discuss these issues would be the 189-member General Assembly, which annually adopts more than half a dozen UN resolutions relating to terorrism.

Rosenstock questioned whether an international conference on terrorism would be "a useful stimulus or a costly distraction."

The proposed conference, backed by the 119-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of Third World nations, is expected to tackle several sensitive subjects, including one of the most politically-divisive issues at the United Nations: how to distinguish a terrorist from a freedom fighter.

The proposal for an international conference on terrorism has been kicked around at the United Nations for nearly a decade. But it has failed to get off the ground because it has raised questions such as: Should military attacks by armed forces of any state be deemed acts of terrorism when civilians are killed? To what extent were Nato bombings of the former Yugoslavia acts of terrorism and violations of the national sovereignty of a UN member state? Is not the assassination of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza acts of state terrorism?

Ambassador Gao Feng of China said his government believes that such a high-level meeting would facilitate a consensus on combating terrorism.

"It would, furthermore, deter terrorists," he said, adding: "terrorism was a serious scourge faced by the international community that undermined and indiscriminately violated the life and property of innocent people."