Counterterrorism is obviously an important issue for the United Nations, given the rise of rogue states/actors and the development of terrorism on a global scale rather than just being isolated to regions of conflict. One thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that terrorism is a broad term that can fit many different types of actions and actors. As such, it is hard to create a universal approach to counter-terrorism. For example, counter-terrorism in the United States- where terrorists' goals are to strike fear in the US government- might look very different from counter-terrorism in Turkey or the Phillipines- where the terrorists are mainly focused on separatism. That is not to say that there is no overlap between counter-terrorism in the many countries of the United Nations. One thing I found interesting about the document is the statement under Plan of Action, that the UN countries resolve "[t]o consistently, unequivocally and strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security" as well as "[t]o consider becoming parties without delay to the existing international conventions and protocols against terrorism, and implementing them, and to make every effort to reach an agreement on and conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism." While these are certainly noble goals, I think that given that vastly different ideological, religious and nationalistic identities within the United Nations, that this is not feasible. For example, nationalistic groups operating in the Balkans may be hailed as heroes in some Balkan countries while being scorned in others. Even regarding, politicians in the Balkans, some would view the Kosovar former President Hashim Thaci as a terrorist while others would consider him a patriot.