I am a supporter of the U.N. I want it to have real power and influence.

This makes me a minority among my countrymen. So be it.

But I found myself troubled in reading this definition of terrorism today from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

"any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act".

In effect this prohibits any violent action against any tyrannical government, and puts the U.N. on record supporting that tyranny.

This means Robert Mugabe of Rhodesia has nothing to fear from his people, that the Butchers of Tienanmien Square need never fear the people's justice, and that the "revolutionary right" of Americans to abolish governments, which Lincoln spoke of in the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, becomes null and void.

I don't think I like that precedent. There can be no peace without justice. Tyrants must be fought. To deny that reality in the name of international order is to go too far.

I do understand where Annan is coming from. African leaders have been especially reluctant to confront the tyrants in their midst. Thabo Mbeki has done nothing about Mugabe, for instance. Thieves, murderers, rapists, and armies of rampaging children have rolled across the continent, unchecked, because they represented "legitimate" governments and non-interference was preferred to justice.

But that was wrong. It's still going on, and it's still wrong.

Before we foreclose the right of the people to alter or abolish governments, we must first assure that those governments adhere to minimal laws of behavior. That they not brutalize their people, for a start.

Coming up with those norms is far more difficult than it sounds. Passing them is the work of many years, and very difficult.

But it's necessary if the U.N. is to take the side of liberty, and not tyranny.