NationStates Jolt Archive

The General Assembly,

Grieving with the citizens of the world who have suffered from terrorist attacks, understanding that international terrorism constitutes one of this century’s greatest threats to humanity,

Affirming that collective action is required in order to eradicate this plague upon humanity,

Noting with gratitude the efforts of international organizations to combat terrorism,

Reiterating that terrorism and the support of terrorism is contrary to the principals established “Rights and Duties of UN Member States” and a grave threat to international peace and security,

Noting with regret that there are terrorist organizations in existence that are suspected of being supported by governmental organizations,

Recognising that state supported terrorism is a problem of a global dimension not easily solved by bilateral agreements alone

Resolves to do the following:

1. Vehemently resolves that all acts, methods and practices of terrorism are in any circumstance, criminal and unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them;

2. Calls upon all member nations to collaborate to combat the scourge of international terrorism;

3. Adopts the following recommendations for addressing the threat of international terrorism;
a) Calls upon all members to offer safe haven and assistance to victims of international terrorism;
b) Requests that all member nations share information that may lead to the arrest and conviction of international terrorists or to the prevention of terrorist activity which could lead to loss of innocent lives;

4. Urges all Member States to expeditiously facilitate the administration of justice for all persons whose charges are upheld as valid by the United Nations either through internal judicial processes or extradition to the aggrieved nation;

5. Requests that member states seize all funds and assets which can be identified as belonging to international terrorists and international terrorist organizations;

6. Calls for the exclusion of expulsion as a possible punishment from a member state as a punishment for individuals indicted or convicted of terrorist activities within that state;

7. Demands that all member nations refrain from giving support and or safe passage to international terrorists and international terrorist organizations;

8. Requests Member states investigate allegations of state sponsored terrorism and make recommendations for disciplinary action when any member nation is found to be guilty of such sponsorship as it is a violation of the principals of the Charter;

9. Urges full cooperation from the law enforcement and intelligence services of all Member States

10. Urges all member nations to reject visa and travel applications by recognized individuals affiliated with terrorist groups;

11. Urges all member states to exercise extraordinary scrutiny when evaluating visa and travel applications from nations found to be supportive of terrorist activities.

12. Condones the use of military force against external international terrorists and their sponsors only in instances where proper charges have been made and recognized as valid by the United Nations and traditional diplomatic means cannot facilitate the administration of justice;

13. Urges all nations to place upon their military and police forces the primary consideration of safe guarding the health and welfare of innocent citizens when engaging the forces of international terrorism;

14. Resolves to remain seized on the matter;

Log of changes:
03/26 - DRAFT submitted for general review by member states.

03/27 - DRAFT edited in line with suggestions from member states, notably The Confederacy of Mikitivity

A very useful resolution. The Church of Psychotropics will endorse this whole heartedly and thanks Hirota for bringing this to the floor

It does not seem to us that terrorism presents a serious threat to Nation States.

We support this proposal in full. This is a valid proposal, and would get our vote should it reach quorum.

to create duress through either violence or the threat of violence amongst civilians in order to achieve a political objective;

We don't like the 'threat of violence' bit. Any armed resistance could easily be construed to pose a threat of violence to civilians, because the fears of civilians are easily manipulated by government. Thus, this proposal could easily have been construed as justification for actions against the ANC's Umkhonto we Sizwe; although a group committed to avoiding actions against civilians, it both operated internationally and was used by the apartheid government to exacerbate fears among the white populace of black violence. We are, in short, very concerned that this proposal could be used to rope in all UN nations to assisting oppressive governments against resistance movements within their own nations (which will almost always operate internationally to some extent, if only to arm and train themselves).

We would therefore support this proposal only if the definition of terrorism was considerably tightened up. We would also like it to be made explicit that governments or branches thereof as well as individuals or NGOs may be indicted for terrorism.

Nusku Capleton
Ministry of Defensive Incapacitation, Aikido and Productive Dialogue

to create duress through either violence or the threat of violence amongst civilians in order to achieve a political objective;

We don't like the 'threat of violence' bit. Any armed resistance could easily be construed to pose a threat of violence to civilians, because the fears of civilians are easily manipulated by government.

I've been telegramming my nation's suggestions, but we actually liked the threat of violence bit. What if it read as follows:

to create duress through either violence or the threat of violence targeted at civilians

The "in order to achieve a political objective" should be dropped, as religious or just pure sadistic terror is no less of a concern for the UN.

10kMichael

Still problematic. How can you tell if a group's trying to induce fear in civilians or if it's just an accident of their actions against non-civilian targets? Are freedom fighters allowed collateral damage?

In the bill's current form, I do not believe that supporting it would be in the interests of NationStates as a whole. What we have here is a proposal that uses vague, obscure words that in the end can amount to a greater amount of oppression than could be necessary.

What exactly could be considered a terrorist? Let us not forget that some in the past of fought for liberation and for different ideals. Are we to label one group a terrorist simply because it is fighting for something that it strongly believes in? Let's consider that some of histories greatest revolutionaries were none other than terrorists in comparison to our standards now.

We must instist upon a definition of what terrorism is before even considering such a bill. If you want to persecute something or somebody, you can't just do it against, "That guy over there." Giving anybody the power to label anybody who does something because they disagree with the state, for example, could lead to bad human rights ingringements. Perhaps a terrorist should be somebody who has killed somebody or is actively engaged with the planning and execution of killing somebody with political motivations.

You are also forgetting that some states are less well of than others. Some people simply cannot afford an amazing terrorist response organization. Forcing such nations to support a campaign, which to them may seem unecessary, could take away from their ability to develope strong education, economies and markets. There mut be allowances made in order to accomadate the lower classes of states.

Whose to say that attacking terrorists is necessarily the way to fight terrorism? Terrorists fight a war far different than the ones we have fought for many years. These people want something something and have complaints. Terrorists just aren't born overnight, it's a process that sometimes takes years of opression and being ignored. It would be best if the Advisory Council were to make contact with Terrorist cells and first attempt negotiation through closed session meetings. If peace cannot be resolved, then let free the missles fly. But attempts must first be made at negotiating without loss of life.

If this sham of a draft is proposed and passed, then trully we have fallen into a dark time when questions cannot be answed before the fist swings. The Advisory Coucnil (on terrorists) should be reorganized in order so that it shall have power to negotiate, and pass their negotiation matters on the UN Security Council for it to be voted on.

I don't believe that, to date, terrorism has much plagued NationStates. Before we plan anything rash, it may be best to talk quietly, folks, but carry a big stick.

Still problematic. How can you tell if a group's trying to induce fear in civilians or if it's just an accident of their actions against non-civilian targets? Are freedom fighters allowed collateral damage?

With 100%, never.

With the advise of the UN panel on terrorism, very accurately.

Keep in mind in the case of political terrorism somebody will make a demand, without the demand, even hard (military) targets are a waste of time and resources. But let's pretend that a terrorist organisation wants to target a country's train station RIGHT before they have an election. Even if they are only planning on blowing up a few police officers (which technically are law enforcement, not military personnel, and thus civilian targets) it is what most of us generally agree is terrorism. We really are trying to define things here with a degree of certainity. Well, at least enough for the panel mentioned in the DRAFT proposal.

Is there another way we can work together to make this more clear? Because I happen to really like the majority of the proposal. It is one of the few resolutions around here that has international standing.

10kMichael

Keep in mind in the case of political terrorism somebody will make a demand, without the demand, even hard (military) targets are a waste of time and resources.

Plenty of terrorist organisations don't claim responsibility for their attacks.

The line between terrorism and legitimate resistance is narrow, and there will always be borderline cases. As it stands this proposal gives the UN powers to intercede in such borderline cases - and such a decision, whichever way it goes, will always end up turning a human rights issue into a political one, justifying one side or the other. The UN's role is not to take sides in conflicts.

Any form of attack, whether criminal or not, induces fear in civilian populations. Conventional methods of war cause fear for the same reasons as terrorist acts do. Terrorist acts are distinguished only because they happen in areas considered 'safe'; equivalent acts in a war zone would raise no eyebrows.

We would therefore infinitely prefer legislation preventing any attacks on civilians whatsoever, and ignoring this unworkable concept of fear. A criminal attack on civilians in peacetime is in no way better or worse than a military attack on civilians in a war zone. The perception of violence will always produce fear, and fear's effect is as much presentation as substance.

I think we need to remeber that one mand's terrorist is another man's freedom fight. Legally and by definition former South African President Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

Actually, Mandela has been at pains to refute this: Umkhonto we Sizwe didn't engage in terrorism in that it didn't attack civilian targets, but they would certainly have been capable of it (so 'conspiracy' would have been easy to level at them), and they certainly didn't help the fears white South Africans had of black rebellion. An unscrupulous government would be able to swing this resolution against any number of ethically-motivated insurrectionists, while perpetrating excessive crimes of fear and violence against civilians itself with impunity.

To me terrorism is not about crime it is about motivation.

If you kill several people for a cause it is still murder, why treat it like anything else.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

To me terrorism is not about crime it is about motivation.

If you kill several people for a cause it is still murder, why treat it like anything else.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

That would cover war as well then (which suits our national philosophy just fine, so we would not argue with that interpretation)

To me terrorism is not about crime it is about motivation.

If you kill several people for a cause it is still murder, why treat it like anything else.

Except that there are different types of murder. There are crimes of passion, crimes of negligence, and then premediated crimes. Many of the crimes of passion and negligence are not about seeking long-term personal gain.

This doesn't justify them, but it does recongize that *ahem* humans have the freedom of choice and frequently abuse it. ;)

Naturally I am totally opposed to the idea of pre-crime or even further, the Orwellian idea of thought-crimes. But I was say that if law enforcement officials in one country find evidence that a massive shipment of nerve gas precursors was just shipped to another country, that things like this proposed DRAFT resolution would strenghten the international channels necessary for the first nation to help protect the second nation.

In the above example, the precursor chemicals would in many of our nations be enough to at least detain the people bringing in the chemicals ... unless they want to just use the UN resolution on Freedom of Choice to explain that they were really just carrying out a thought experiment provided by clause 3 and wanted to just test the international intelligence community. Since all they did was CHOOSE to ship something that could be used to kill people, it might be fuzzy to see where that situation would play out.

10kMichael

Any form of attack, whether criminal or not, induces fear in civilian populations. Conventional methods of war cause fear for the same reasons as terrorist acts do. Terrorist acts are distinguished only because they happen in areas considered 'safe'; equivalent acts in a war zone would raise no eyebrows.

We would therefore infinitely prefer legislation preventing any attacks on civilians whatsoever, and ignoring this unworkable concept of fear. A criminal attack on civilians in peacetime is in no way better or worse than a military attack on civilians in a war zone. The perception of violence will always produce fear, and fear's effect is as much presentation as substance.

I completely agree that people can and will fear the silliest and most serious of things, and there is little we can do about this. Fear is natural. In fact, it is a survival instinct that problem has prevented many of our nations from self-destructing.

But there is some room to work with on the concept of fear. If I say, "So help me! I'm gonna hit the next person in the nose with the elitist fry panning of nOObie smiting +2 if I hear them talk about how great the resolution that barely passed was!" That is a threat. The fear is not just imagined, but I would have given everybody in this room ample reason to suspect that I'm actually trying to control them.

Terrorism uses fear of a demostrated and publically issued threat to control others.

Above I talked about murder including crimes of passion and negligence. These aren't always about really trying to control somebody else, but really more of a human instinct (as crude and unthinkable as it may be) to gain control of their feelings. Again, I'm not justifying these actions, but a man beating to death another man at a bar is not only harder to prevent than a man blowing up 1,400 people in a train station in order to make a political statement, but somehow it is really sad to many of us to see the normal man who made a mistake be held accountable to the same yard stick of a man who planed long in advance to harm others, and who could have turned to other means to seek that influence.

10kMichael

I have edited the draft to recognise some of the suggestions made by member states (most notably The Confederacy of Mikitivity).

I would respond to concerns raised by Member States now, but the hour is late here.

Well, if the threat is 'demonstrated and publically issued' and, on analysis, demonstrates actual intent to commit crimes against civilian targets, we would agree that action is justified. However, we would demand a close analysis of the threat to see if its content actually suggested such attacks and that this was not merely the interpretation of the government and media in question. Fear does not merely serve terrorists, and fear's creator need not be its object. This proposal would need a much more carefully-worded definition to avoid this problem. If individuals threaten to overthrow the government, that may well cause fear in the population, regardless of anything else that's added. But if the planned overthrow targets no civilians, that is not terrorism but conventional warfare.

Again, fear as a controlling side-effect may be forseen - certainly, the impact of the Spear of the Nation was greatly more far-reaching than the actual damage it caused - but unless it comes about as the result of an actual threat to attack civilians then we refuse to move against it. Otherwise any armed resistance against any government would easily fall under this proposal, as the government in question found ways to present the resistance as sinister.

Again, we dislike the implicit distinction between governments and non-government forces.

Well, if the threat is 'demonstrated and publically issued' and, on analysis, demonstrates actual intent to commit crimes against civilian targets, we would agree that action is justified. However, we would demand a close analysis of the threat to see if its content actually suggested such attacks and that this was not merely the interpretation of the government and media in question.

Well, now is the time for input. Is there a way we could expand the section dealing with the panel to emphasize this point? I'll dig up my copy of the DRAFT proposal and see if another activating cluase might address your concern and perhaps we both could convince Hirota that this is a friendly amendment, because my nation contacted me informing me that it agrees with your basic concern.


Fear does not merely serve terrorists, and fear's creator need not be its object. This proposal would need a much more carefully-worded definition to avoid this problem. If individuals threaten to overthrow the government, that may well cause fear in the population, regardless of anything else that's added. But if the planned overthrow targets no civilians, that is not terrorism but conventional warfare.


This is a bit unclear to me. Perhaps an example might help my Marzen influence brain? ;)


Again, fear as a controlling side-effect may be forseen - certainly, the impact of the Spear of the Nation was greatly more far-reaching than the actual damage it caused - but unless it comes about as the result of an actual threat to attack civilians then we refuse to move against it. Otherwise any armed resistance against any government would easily fall under this proposal, as the government in question found ways to present the resistance as sinister.

Again, we dislike the implicit distinction between governments and non-government forces.

This is where our nation's differ. If an organization (state sponsored or not) makes a demand of another government conditional upon violence, my nation would call this terrorism and would consider the statement a declaration of war and respond in kind.

For example: a mutant named Magneto, who is not in the Confederation of Mikitivity, but orbiting the Earth on Asteroid M, contacts the Chair of the Council of Mikitivity and demands that all transhumans be treated as superiors to homo sapiens. Magneto threatens that if a law isn't passed, he will kill every homo sapien in the Confederation. That is a criminal ... no terrorist demand. He has no authority. Now enter a third party, Latveria. Let's say that Latveria's ruler Victor von Doom has information that could warn my government of Magneto's first target. Let's say that Magneto wants to start by destroying up the Confederation's First Air Recon Wing and von Doom knows this (let's not ask the Latverian how he knows this, it is enough to say that Doom knows all). Anyway, the concept behind this DRAFT proposal is such that Doom would be bound to give my nation this information.

Does it really make a difference if Magneto is targeting the First Air Recon Wing or instead if he decides to use his magnetic powers to lift all of The Pitt (a mixed civilian and military research facility) into deep space, thereby killing Mikitivity's leading minds?

Clearly if Magneto was in the Confederation, it really isn't the UN's business how we would deal with this threat ... um so long as he is only exploring his Freedom of Choice and just pretend killing people. *sigh*

But what if it turns out that Magneto is in fact being supported by another nation, Wakanada? When my nation would find out, would that not make for a greater conflict? And shouldn't Wakanada just outright declare war first? In either case, clearly the UN should be involved to reduce tensions (and save lives).

This is where our nation's differ. If an organization (state sponsored or not) makes a demand of another government conditional upon violence, my nation would call this terrorism and would consider the statement a declaration of war and respond in kind.

Well, we would consider it a declaration of war but not necessarily terrorism. The threat of monsieur Magneto is against all humans - that is, against civilians - and is hence would constitute intent to commit terrorist acts.

Fear does not merely serve terrorists, and fear's creator need not be its object. This proposal would need a much more carefully-worded definition to avoid this problem. If individuals threaten to overthrow the government, that may well cause fear in the population, regardless of anything else that's added. But if the planned overthrow targets no civilians, that is not terrorism but conventional warfare.
This is a bit unclear to me. Perhaps an example might help my Marzen influence brain?

Okay. Let us say that within Rehochipe's disputably moral neighbour West Hackney there operates a revolutionary group, the Beerswilling Bolshevik Brigade. The BBB trains, stores funds and purchases weaponry within Rehochipe. Let's say it releases a tape declaring its intent to sabotage military targets unless West Hackney holds democratic elections. West Hackney airs the tape widely alongside a great deal of anti-BBB propaganda, which rouses many of the population into a panic; had the tape alone been aired, it would (for the sake of argument) have caused little unrest amongst the population.

In the above example, we would refuse to classify the BBB as terrorists. They are using conventional tactics: that is, attacks against military targets. They do not want to spread fear through the population, although they probably could have forseen that the government would use their messages to do so.

Now let us say that West Hackney plans an invasion against Rehochipe. Unable to compete in face-to-face military action, it chooses instead to target artillery and bombing campaigns against major population centres, indiscriminately attempting to break the nation's morale through fear and suffering. We would regard this as terrorism, but this proposal would not.

We would be happy to work through a more acceptable definition, but give us some time; it's late and we've got gin on the stomach.

Just on a another note,

"So help me! I'm gonna hit the next person in the nose with the elitist fry panning of nOObie smiting +2 if I hear them talk about how great the resolution that barely passed was!" That is a threat.

And that is on the southern border of insult land. Provided it even hint at what I think it does.
As the originator of the frying-pan in its modern use, I do not connsider it or by logical extension I to be elitist. Also there is no frying-pan of "nOObie smiting". Its use is varying, making it a versatile device. If its used to "smite" some "nOObs" then so be it.
Further-more, I am getting the distinct feeling over this on-going day you do not like me. At least be open about it and try to get the comment right. "Elitist" indeed...

- The Rep of Komokom, yet to formalise their public opinion on this proposal... Maybe tomorrow, once I get over day-light savings going back to "normal", I swear its like twice a year jet-lag for those who don't fly... :wink:

Another point that makes us uneasy - we're firmly convinced that what is broadly classed as "terrorism" can sometimes constitute legitimate defensive action against an oppressive government.

To follow up on Rehochipe's example: currently operating within the compulsory consumerist state of West Hackney is a left-wing insurgent coalition named the West Hackney Insurgent Socialists, Kamenevite Youth, And Socialist Orators and Demagogues Association (also known as WHISKYandSODA).

WHISKYandSODA started out as a political organisation pushing for democracy and socialism through non-violent means. They moved into violent resistance after a number of members were tortured and killed by government-sponsored death squads.

After a campaign of low-level terror - death threats, assassination attempts and bombings directed mainly at military and political targets (although causing some unavoidable civilian deaths) - they seemed to have made headway when the West Hackney government announced free elections, prompting WHISKYandSODA to go overground.

A number of senior WHISKYandSODA members revealed their identities and stood for election. They were promptly arrested, tortured, put through show trials and executed. Since then, WHISKYandSODA has stepped up its armed resistance campaign in the full knowledge that laying down its arms would give the government carte blanche to round up and kill all dissidents in West Hackney.

Currently, WHISKYandSODA is all that stands in defence of democracy and free thought in West Hackney.

They are (obviously) branded terrorists by the West Hackney government. We, however, do not recognise the legitimacy of said government and are fully supporting WHISKYandSODA in their attempts to bring about democracy in West Hackney.

So... are they terrorists? Would this proposal ban them? If so, does this not hand repressive governments further ammunition?

Before the UN passes such a broad-ranging measure on "terrorism", we would want to be very certain that free speech, free thought and the rights of minorities are thoroughly protected within all UN member nations in order to avoid such an unfortunate situation. We're not convinced that this is currently the case.

Comrade Chomsky
Delegate for Foreign Affairs

Since one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. the redefining of terrorism is needed to either include "liberators" or to find the difference between the two.

After all, if the rebels of Nationstate "Sadisic Bastard"(and if there is actually a nationstate by this name... I apologize) are using violence to over throw a regime bent on crushing free will, how are the UN suppose to react. After all to the exsisting government, the 'freedom Fighters' are terrorist. Just something to think about.

This should not just include violence however. While violence against another sentient life is a big building block of Terrorism, are the other forms of terrorism included. Eco-terrorism, (the lighting of oil riggs and the dumping of toxic pollutants in the environment) and Cyber terrorism, (the assimulation of information in an illegal manner, creating and releasing viruses for the purpose of altering/destroying data or halting production.)

While I kinda agree about attacks against civilian targets defines a terrorist gourp. My only concern is that at what point does Military turn into Civilian. Many Military bases employ non-military personnel taken from the surrounding communities. For others, the military base is a lifeblood for the community that houses it. Any attacks on the base will have great adverse affects on the civilians around them. On the other hand, there are alot of cilivilan businesses that employ military/part-time military personnel. What is the dividing line. A military store?

Here's a thought. If we redefine terrorist as armies/organizations/groups not reconized by the nation housing it, for example, in the real world. Al-Quida (sp) is not reconized as a standing military unit for any country thus they are concidered Terrorist. But 101 Screaming Eagles are duly reconized as a military unit for the USA. thus not terrorists and any advisarial actions taken by them will then be laid on the nations shoulders.

To follow up on Rehochipe's example: currently operating within the compulsory consumerist state of West Hackney is a left-wing insurgent coalition named the West Hackney Insurgent Socialists, Kamenevite Youth, And Socialist Orators and Demagogues Association (also known as WHISKYandSODA).

Before the UN passes such a broad-ranging measure on "terrorism", we would want to be very certain that free speech, free thought and the rights of minorities are thoroughly protected within all UN member nations in order to avoid such an unfortunate situation. We're not convinced that this is currently the case.

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with your nation that WHISKYandSODA sound more like freedom fighters, than simple terrorists, but isn't this really a matter that isn't subject to international law?

Consider for a minute that you said that WHISKYandSODA operate within West Hackney. If WHISKYandSODA aren't being supported by another government, then I'd say that their activities fall outside of the scope of the UN, according to the Rights and Duties resolution (which the current proposal acknowledges as well).

Granted, other poorly worded proposals on the floor don't give squat about national sovereignty issues vs. international standing. But in this case, I'd say that WHISKYandSODA are only of concern if they are operating in other countries with the support and/or approval of these other governments.

[OOC: Love the name!] :)

10kMichael

OK. But what if, entirely hypothetically, hem hem, the government of East Hackney were to funnel arms and money to WHISKYandSODA in order to prevent the inevitable violent eradication of all dissidents in West Hackney?

Then, presumably, in this hypothetical situation which is not happening in real life *coughs violently* East Hackney would be supporting a terrorist group. Who is to judge whether they're freedom fighters or terrorists? Since their stated aim is to bring about socialism in West Hackney, most capitalist countries would surely dismiss WHISKYandSODA as terrorists.

And a further example - suppose the government of West Hackney were to invade Rehochipe and launch a genocidal purge against its people. Suppose the situation became so desperate that Rehochipe had no effective means of fighting back against political or military targets. Would Rehochipe be justified in using suicide bombers against civilians in West Hackney in an attempt to force the West Hackney government to withdraw? *strains desperately not to cloud the issue by mentioning Israel or Palestine*

OK. But what if, entirely hypothetically, hem hem, the government of East Hackney were to funnel arms and money to WHISKYandSODA in order to prevent the inevitable violent eradication of all dissidents in West Hackney?


Well, in that case, perhaps East Hackney should just declare a state of war with West Hackney? Hypothetically speaking of course. [*giving the representative from East Hackney a slow and cautious look*]

Hmmm, though even in the case of war, supporting WHISKYandSODA would still seem like a case of then international terrorism.

Does this mean that nations should have the right to support international terrorism?


And a further example - suppose the government of West Hackney were to invade Rehochipe and launch a genocidal purge against its people. Suppose the situation became so desperate that Rehochipe had no effective means of fighting back against political or military targets. Would Rehochipe be justified in using suicide bombers against civilians in West Hackney in an attempt to force the West Hackney government to withdraw? *strains desperately not to cloud the issue by mentioning Israel or Palestine*

If West Hackney were to invade Rehochipe, not only would that distrupt one of the world's finest sources of ale, but I dare say that this would be different than international terrorism, as to the rest of the international community it would be clear that one government is fighting another government.

Is West Hackney a UN member? If so, the Rights and Duties resolution would forbid it from attacking Rehochipe without Rehochipes approval (as crazy as this sounds), because Rehochipe could deploy I.G.N.O.R.E. canons similar to those that I'm now using on a certain other UN representative whom I think makes no sense in order to prevent West Hackney from invading (again, sounds craz, huh).

Both you are right, these examples are a bit difficult.

10kMichael

Hmmm, though even in the case of war, supporting WHISKYandSODA would still seem like a case of then international terrorism.

Does this mean that nations should have the right to support international terrorism?


Again, we seem to be fundamentally at odds in what we define as terrorism. Our entire point is that we don't think the definition you're operating with is the one we're operating with.

We don't think nations should have the right to support international terrorism, but we nonetheless believe the example above to be legitimate because we don't consider it to be terrorism. It seems that this difference is due to a difference in our underlying reasons for condemning those who are normally regarded as terrorists. We regard them as despicable because they target civilians and commit human rights abuses. As it stands, the proposal doesn't have a definition of terrorism in line with this, and we don't want terrorism to be defined by impromptu consensus.

"One man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary." - Uknown author

Again, we seem to be fundamentally at odds in what we define as terrorism. Our entire point is that we don't think the definition you're operating with is the one we're operating with.

We don't think nations should have the right to support international terrorism, but we nonetheless believe the example above to be legitimate because we don't consider it to be terrorism. It seems that this difference is due to a difference in our underlying reasons for condemning those who are normally regarded as terrorists. We regard them as despicable because they target civilians and commit human rights abuses. As it stands, the proposal doesn't have a definition of terrorism in line with this, and we don't want terrorism to be defined by impromptu consensus.

Agreed, we are both using difference definitions to define international terrorism, and I'd prefer that if anything we can come to an agreement upon what is a good definition.

The first problem in my mind is really an issue about drawing a line that separates international terrorism from domestic conflicts. Should we even be doing so? The only reason I can think of for not doing this would be the argument that today people move freely that borders are extremely flexible, so terrorists will often move between states.

10kMichael

It appears to me that some sort of definition on terrorism is neccessary before this draft proposal can be submitted.

I did have one on the first draft, but I removed it. I'm having a think about a suitable defintion, but input is welcome.

Firstly, we are very grateful that Hirota has recognised the inherent problems with a proposal seeking to deal with the perceived threat of international terrorism. We also acknowledge the efforts of Mikitivity, Rehochipe and East Hackney in trying to reach some form of consensus over what actually constitutes a terrorist act.

We take a keen interest in this debate for a number of reasons, chiefly historical and pertinent to our own nation's evolution. Or, rather, revolutions. For, if the truth be told, many serving Speakers and senior figures in Ecopoeian society would be vulnerable to the label of 'terrorist', based on their actions in Ecopoeia's First and Second Revolutions.

Acts of sabotage, some of which almost certainly resulted in loss of life, were carried out by members of the various resistance movements. Indeed, the death of Secretary for Economic Affairs Phyllis Boyle remains notorious.

Where our history becomes relevant to this proposal is here: we would have gratefully accepted military aid from neighbouring nations had it been offered. We make no apologies for this for we feel that we were right. We do not condone violent acts in the normal course of events; however, there are desperate times when personal ethical codes are rendered meaningless.

We acknowledge that this is a dangerous statement. The ideals we fought for would be applauded by some, but not all. However, sometimes one cannot remain passive, meekly submitting to oppression.

Our military is now disbanded. However, based on our diplomatic communications with the fair nation of East Hackney, I suspect that if we were capable of providing military aid to WHISKYandSODA, we would consider doing so. Note - consider.

I fear that we are still terrorists in word, if not deed. The United Nations was not there to support us when we were suffering. We would resent its condemnation now that we are free.

We were lucky. We broke the cycle of violence. But no day goes past without the memories of our actions plaguing us. Could we have done things differently?

The past hangs heavy on the Ecopoeian heart.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs
The Community of Ecopoeia

TO barge in on the matter:

In the preambs, there should *defenately* be a definition of terrorism or the entire resolution falls apart.

here is my first (well, second) definition...

Defines Terrorism as any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

I would also add a second entry into the "body" of the proposal

"Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstances unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them;"

Agreed - definition of terrorism is the major problem here. Not just what constitutes terrorism, but also who gets to make the final call on what is or is not a terrorist group.

Well, in that case, perhaps East Hackney should just declare a state of war with West Hackney? Hypothetically speaking of course. [*giving the representative from East Hackney a slow and cautious look*]

See, East Hackney has no standing army and its constitution forbids the fighting of offensive wars. If West Hackney were, hypothetically, to be provoked into attacking us, though... now that would be another matter altogether...*another cough*

If West Hackney were to invade Rehochipe, not only would that distrupt one of the world's finest sources of ale, but I dare say that this would be different than international terrorism, as to the rest of the international community it would be clear that one government is fighting another government.

Well, the whole issue of what is or is not a government is also a little cloudy. For instance, we don't recognise the legitimacy of the West Hackney government - our position is that, as the government of the now-defunct United Socialist States of Greater Hackney, we are also the government-in-exile of West Hackney.

Now, West Hackney's not a UN member [OOC: because if it was, I'd get booted from the game *whistles "Puppet On A String under his breath*]. So they could invade Rehochipe under some excuse or other - say, ooh, they trump up evidence that WHISKYandSODA and BBB are being protected anda aided by the Rehochipe government, declare Rehochipe to be a "failed state" without an effective or legitimate government, and charge in on the pretence of "fighting terrorism" and "restoring democracy".

The crux of the problem is what happens when you have a people or a nation who are simply unable, one way or the other, to fight a legitimate war and are forced to resort to non-military activities. Can the international community recognise oppressed peoples as having the same rights as nation states?

that defenation has a bit of a problem. It tells what terrorism is not limited to, bit it doesnt tell that its actualy limited to anything. According to that definition every act can be concidred terrorism. -> NOT good.

that defenation has a bit of a problem. It tells what terrorism is not limited to, bit it doesnt tell that its actualy limited to anything. According to that definition every act can be concidred terrorism. -> NOT good.

any act including, but not limited to, the use of force or violence and/or threat thereof of any person or group(s) of persons whether acting alone or on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation(s) or government(s) committed for political, religions, ideological or similar purposes, including the intention to influence any government and/or to put the public or any section of the public in fear.

Incredibly broad. It would include all acts of conventional warfare (an army is a group of persons acting in connection with a government and acting for political purposes, that certainly influences the governments of its enemies and puts their public in fear). Broader, indeed, than the previous definition, when what we were calling for was a narrower definition because the original caught too many things that we would consider legitimate.

Now, if we had an existing rules-of-war legislation we would say: any organisation can declare war on a government and is then bound by the rules of war (not directly attacking civilians, correct treatment of prisoners and so forth). If they don't do so, they are considered terrorists -that is, violent criminals on a grand scale - and this document can be brought against them. However, we have no complete legislation covering the rules of war, and we consider such a document something of a prerequisite for legislating against terrorism.

Nusku Capleton
Ministry of Defensive Incapacitation, Aikido and Productive Dialogue