UNITED NATIONS (IPS)�The United Nations remains deadlocked on a major international treaty against terrorism because of sharp political divisions among member states.

"The simple fact is that terrorism means different things to different people," said one diplomat from a developing country, on condition of anonymity. "We couldn�t find common political ground on several issues�despite the fact that the entire world is preoccupied with international terrorism."

"A Comprehensive Convention Against Terrorism," the treaty has been touted as the last word on anti-terrorism�primarily because it incorporates most of the key provisions from the existing 12 UN conventions against terrorism.

The new omnibus treaty covers subjects ranging from hijacking and hostage taking to terrorist bombings and funding for terrorism.

Rohan Perera, chairman of the Adhoc Committee on Terrorism, said his committee will make another attempt early next year to help bridge the differences.

"We are confident we can make headway," he said. The committee is scheduled to meet here Jan. 28-Feb. 2002.

The key sticking points in the draft treaty revolve around several politically sensitive issues: How to define terrorism, distinguish terrorist organizations from liberation movements, and handle activities of national armed forces perceived as acts of terrorism.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the League of Arab States insisted that the treaty should exempt from consideration as terrorists all those engaged in conflicts against "foreign occupation."

This would include national liberation movements, including the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Lebanese-based militia, the Hezbollah, both of which have been battling Israeli-occupation.

Syrian diplomat Ghassan Obeid said his country condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations but argued a distinction must be made between terrorism and the "legitimate struggle of occupied people."

He maintained Palestinians� resistance against Israeli occupation is legal while their daily repression by Israelis is "state terrorism."

In Lebanon, Hezbollah is perceived as a "resistance movement" which, until last year, fought a 22-year Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, he added. However, Israel not only considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization but is also pressing the United States to target it in its global war against terrorism.

In early November, Washington identified Hezbollah as one of 28 "terrorist" organizations whose foreign assets were frozen. But the Lebanese government has refused to cooperate in blacklisting the group.

Australian diplomat Richard Rowe, who has been coordinating the complex negotiations, singled out article 18 of the treaty as especially divisive. This clause specifically deals with the scope of the convention, in particular the activities of armed forces.

For example, the United States has said its bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 was accidental�an explanation which China has rejected.

If the bombing was not accidental, the U.S. pilots responsible for the bombing could be brought to trial on the grounds that the bombing was an act of terrorism. Washington�s emissaries have sought to exclude the activities of armed forces from the provisions of the treaty.

In October, Israeli armed forces attacked and briefly occupied the offices of the Palestinian Authority in the occupied territories. Arabs argued that this was clearly an act of "state terrorism" which should come within the scope of the treaty. Israel has rejected this argument.

On a more global scale, said former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, even the U.S.-led international coalition against terrorism does not share a common definition of the terrorist threat.

"To the Indians, it is the Muslims in Kashmir; to the Russians, it is the Chechens; to the Israelis, it is the Palestinians; to the Arabs, it is the Israelis," he said. ��And to the Americans, it is not Islam, rightly so, but who is it beyond the satanic image on the TV screen of Osama bin Laden?"

Seen from another perspective, said Richard Dicker of the New York- based group Human Rights Watch, the treaty, in its current form, is worrying because it undermines refugee protections, freedom of expression, and the laws of war.

The draft treaty also greatly restricts freedom of expression by treating a journalist who supports a political objective as a potential terrorist, said one human rights advocate.