NationStates Jolt Archive

I have listed a UN resolution proposal that addresses the issue of terrorism. Athough I think there are additional areas regarding terrorism that should be entertained, I think this proposal lays the groundwork for additional proposals. The primary objective of the proposal is to sanction nations that promote and/or harbour terrorist organizations. I feel this is a strong initial step in dismantling terrorist organizations.

If you agree that terrorist states should be sanctioned by the UN, then I encourage you to approve this proposal.

The title of the proposal: Harboring Terrorism Initiative

Thank you in advance, and please debate the issue with me, I would like feedback.

If you want people to support your proposal, POST ITS FULL TEXT IN THE FORUM.

Harboring Terrorism Initiative

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Schweitzerland

Description: One of the goals of the United Nations is to protect the safety of the world's people. Terrorism, defined as indiscriminate infliction of suffering and death, violates these human rights. Nations which knowingly harbour and train terrorists ignore the laws of the United Nations. In response to this threat, we propose:

1. A UN Task Force be instituted to identify terrorist organizations and their objectives.

2. Signing of an anti-harbouring treaty by UN members to announce their disapproval of terrorist organizations.

3. Immediate expulsion and penalties to UN nations found harbouring terrorist cells including the currently known nations of the following regions:
Flanagania, 0mniscient axis of evil, 3 Footed Hooligans, 4 and 20 Blackbirds, A Deep Dark Hole, Zanarkand, Zamboni, and Yoshi

4. Establishment of the UN Anti-terrorist Military Coalition responsible for enforcing the Terrorism Initiative.

These provisions will take affect upon ratification of this resolution.


Well, at least you try to define terrorism:
Terrorism, defined as indiscriminate infliction of suffering and death...
'Indiscriminate' is a tricky word; this could easily be applied to condemn just about any conventional army engaged in conflict. (Not that we'd object to that, but we feel many other nations would).

Although my wording of terrorism is a little vague, I didn't want to do just that, ban legitimate national armies.

About time. Lord knows there were some potholes in that road to Hell they keep talking about.

[/good intentions joke]

Definitions are tricky things. No matter what one person would like a word to mean, there's always one person out there who screws it up for everybody. Knowing that, I don't think I want to put this kind of power into the hands of the person who wants to screw it up for everybody. Work with us. Tighten the definitions, and then we'll talk.

Well, the trick of defining terrorism is making sure that you don't end up banning either national armies or ethically motivated freedom fighters. Your current version avoids the latter but falls foul of the former.

The wording should have been as such... DIRECT!

Any state which willingly, whether subtly or not, that endorses any forms of terrorism, which is the act of a group of illegal militants attacking foreigners or even local citizens, will receive appropriate punishment

The 'foreigners or even local citizens' thing is vague. The military, surely, are legitimate targets, so this'd have to be contracted to 'civilian foreigners'. And, frankly, this removes the need for there to be a distinction at all between foreign and non-foreign victims.

The republic of Kybernetia thinks that it is (unfortunately) impossible to definitate terrorism in a way that is acceptable to all (especially due to the fact that many countries support terror). If there is an agreement it is going to be vague. We are following closely your ideas and we want to add something


"Any state which willingly, whether subtly or not, that endorses any forms of terrorism is going to receive appropriate punishment."

"Terrorism shall be defined as an act of a group of illegal militants"

- here we would need to defind what illegal means - illegal according to the laws of the country supporting the terrorist? I don´t think so - rather " according to international law - or the word illegal should be left out - just say

"a group of militants"

"...who are deliberatly attacking civilians and/or civilian targets"

The word deliberatly is of the utmost importance to distinguish between terrorism and legitimate actions of military or other government forces which may accidently do harm to civiliens (so called collateral damage)



"Any state which willingly, whether subtly or not, that endorses any forms of terrorism is going to receive appropriate punishment.
Terrorism shall be defined as an act of a group of militants who are deliberatly attacking civilians and/or civilian targets"


Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia, founder and regional delegate of the free-trade region Futura


P.S. We would like to welcome new members: free market economies are welcomed to join.

I agree that the defining of terrorism, or more specifically, a terrorist group, is impossible.
I would support the spirit of this resolution, but I think some fine tuning woulb be needed.
I would also like to know more about the proposed task force. Composition, powers, elected/appointed, etc.

Terrorism has not been proven to be a problem in Nation States.

@Collaboration,

it isn´t a problem in my region but it is a problem in other region, for example in the Middle East. I´m having contacts to countries of this region, for example (but not only) against the jewish nations of the region. There is also a lot of spamming terrorism going on.
Therefore I conclude: there is a terrorism problem in the world of nation states which should be adressed by the UN. However there need to be careful discussions before any serious proposal can be made.

Sincerely yours

Marc Smith, president of Kybernetia