UNITED NATIONS TO GET A U.S. ANTITERROR GUIDE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 - The United States will present a detailed
report to the United Nations on Wednesday of steps it has taken to
combat international terrorism, hoping that it will give teeth to a
Security Council resolution requiring all nations to join the
struggle, administration officials here said today.

That resolution, passed on Sept. 28 in the aftermath of the Sept. 11
terror attacks, obligated all 189 member states to block the
financing of terrorism and to deny terrorists safe haven. It also
obligated all countries to report on what they have done in this
regard by the end of the year.

The 23-page report to be submitted by the United States lists a broad
range of actions since Sept. 11, ranging from the freezing of funds
used by identified terror groups to the passage in October of the
U.S.A. Patriot Act, which gives the government vast new powers of
surveillance and investigation and provides stiff new requirements to
fight money laundering.

The report also provides a detailed listing of other laws under which
the government can act against terror suspects.

Beyond meeting the requirements of the Security Council resolution,
administration officials said, the report is intended as a template
for other countries in adapting their own laws to fight international
terrorism.

In many cases, the report lists Internet addresses for specific measures.

"What's important is that we're talking about a global standard, a
global benchmark that hadn't really existed before," said Ted
McNamara, the State Department official coordinating action on the
resolution. "We have this kind of mechanism for narcotics, arms
sales, nonproliferation, but on terrorism we only had bilateral and
some multilateral agreements. So this provides a legal basis for
saying that the community has now agreed that international terrorism
represents a threat to peace and security, and to do so in a
sustained and coherent way."

The Security Council resolution basically asks each country a series
of questions:

What has been done to suppress the financing of terrorists? What
legislation or other measures does the country have to combat
recruitment of terrorists and block their weapons supply? What steps
have been taken to exchange operational information?

Many of the responses in the American report have the tone of a
catalog, underscoring the administration's intention to get other
governments to seek American help in formulating their own
antiterrorism programs.

In response to a question about procedures and mechanisms to assist
other states, for example, part of the reply reads: "We assist in
training other countries' counter terrorism task forces. Training
includes major case management, terrorist crime scene management,
advanced kidnapping investigations and financial underpinnings of
terrorism."

The reports are to be processed by a committee led by Britain. That
in itself was a departure from United Nations precedent, since in the
past the Security Council has not selected any of its permanent
members to head such committees.

Officials said that about 10 countries had already submitted their
reports to the United Nations. They said that most seemed adequate,
though one, from Venezuela, consisted of a cursory four pages.

The American report also seemed intended to signal to the United
Nations that the United States remained committed to pursuing the
antiterror agenda, even as the battle in Afghanistan appears to be
ending.

"I think the signals are all positive," said the American ambassador
to the United Nations, John D. Negroponte. "We put $1.5 billion into
the coffers of the United Nations this year, basically paying off our
arrears and current dues, we're working on counterterrorism issues,
we've ratified 10 of 12 U.N. conventions on terrorism, we've moving
to ratify two remaining ones.

"My own view is that our attitude toward the United Nations is one of
pragmatic commitment. We believe it has a very useful role to play,
and we ought to be full-fledged dues-paying members. Does that mean
we don't reserve the right to act on a unilateral, bilateral or
regional basis when this best advances our interests? That I can't
tell you."