UNITED NATIONS – American officials here yesterday sought to use the London bombings to advance a globally accepted U.N. definition of terrorism. Such a definition of terrorism as a deliberate attack against civilians could form a basis for enacting an international convention to be used as a tool in the global war against it.

But traditional opponents of the definition were as resistant as ever yesterday – including Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Fayssal Mekdad, who called yesterday’s attacks a “heinous crime against the U.K., against the international community.” Algerian and Pakistani diplomats also downplayed the importance of a definition, expressing doubts that it would advance the war against terrorism.

“It’s a question of fighting terrorism, not defining it,” the Pakistani ambassador, Munir Akram, told The New York Sun when asked whether the events in London, which were quickly condemned in a Security Council resolution yesterday, might speed the development of a definition and an anti-terror convention.

Acting American ambassador Anne Peterson said she hoped that her colleagues would take this “opportunity to re-energize the United Nations’ discussion on terrorism.”

No treaty or convention yet exists to outlaw terrorism, but Secretary-General Annan included one in his U.N. reform package.

A group of Muslim and Arab states, with the assistance of allies in the developing world, however, fears the definition could encompass such acts as suicide bombings by Arabs in Israel. The group, representing a large bloc that could gather a majority in any U.N. General Assembly vote, sought to exempt the phrase “legitimate resistance to foreign occupation” from the definition of terrorism.

Yesterday’s U.N. Security Council resolution, cobbled together hastily by British diplomats, condemned the London attacks, urged members to “find and bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of these barbaric acts,” and expressed an “utmost determination to combat terrorism.”

“This language has the great merit of being simple,” the British ambassador to the United Nations, Emyr Jones Parry, told reporters. “The last thing I wanted in the council is a debate.”

The sole Arab representative currently on the Security Council, Algerian Ambassador Abdallah Baali, told the Sun he doubted the London attacks would change the dynamics of the U.N. debate and expressed skepticism that a definition of terrorism is urgently needed. “If we are lucky enough to have a common, agreed definition – that would certainly help,” he said. “But the lack of definition does not prevent us from confronting terrorism.”

Britain’s Mr. Jones Parry, however, was adamant that a definition and a convention would advance the international war against terrorism. “Signing up to a global convention,” he said, “means that you are ready to take action.”