NationStates Jolt Archive

A proposal by the Republic of Dicomte of the New Earth Alliance on the Subject of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Is looking for support and suggestions for improvement. Thank you for your time.

State Sponsored Terrorism Proposal

ALARMED by members of the UN supporting groups that advocate the use of terror to influence others.

FULLY BELEIVING that all members of the UN must work together so as to prevent one nation from influencing others by helping terrorists organizations in interfering with the other nation’s affairs. Political or not.

NOTING with satisfaction the past efforts of relevance by UN members in fighting terrorism instead of supporting it.

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that terrorism often results in the killing of not only political figures, but innocent civilians as well.

1) Strongly condemns any UN members who are state sponsors of terrorism.
2) Calls upon all UN members to stop endorsing terrorists in any shape or form.
3) Encourages nations to “keep an eye out” for any UN member who may be sponsoring terrorism.
4) Requests that the UN sends personnel into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.
5) Trusts that all nations will abide by UN rules.
6) Further reminds that terrorism is the use of terror to achieve one’s aims, no matter what the cost.

This sounds like a really good resolution. It's just going to need some clarification, so don't get discouraged :D


3) Encourages nations to “keep an eye out” for any UN member who may be sponsoring terrorism.


How are nations going to keep an eye out? Are they to send in their military, or inform the UN? Clarify this and this will be a good clause. Something like

Encourages nations to inform the United Nations when they suspect a nation breaking this resolution.

This sounds like a really good resolution. It's just going to need some clarification, so don't get discouraged :D



How are nations going to keep an eye out? Are they to send in their military, or inform the UN? Clarify this and this will be a good clause. Something like

Encourages nations to inform the United Nations when they suspect a nation breaking this resolution.
I clarify how to keep an eye out in point 4.

4) Requests that the UN sends personnel into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.

I shall consider changing it. Any other suggestions fellow nations?

Yes. Drop this. One nation's terrorism is another's guerilla warfare or freedom fighting. Trying to define terrorism only is asking for trouble.

4) Requests that the UN sends personnel into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.
I think it is illegal. the UN can't send personnal because it will create UN force, which is illegal.

Not necessarilly - they could be sending secretaries, janitors, and UNSC members. You know, cannon fodder. :D

Not necessarilly - they could be sending secretaries, janitors, and UNSC members. You know, cannon fodder. :D
Yes, this is what I mean. Not soldiers and such. So far my updated version of the proposal. So what else should I add?

State Sponsored Terrorism Proposal

ALARMED by members of the UN supporting groups that advocate the use of terror to influence others.

FULLY BELEIVING that all members of the UN must work together so as to prevent one nation from influencing others by helping terrorists organizations in interfering with the other nation’s affairs. Political or not.

NOTING with satisfaction the past efforts of relevance by UN members in fighting terrorism instead of supporting it.

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that terrorism often results in the killing of not only political figures, but innocent civilians as well.

1) Strongly condemns any UN members who are state sponsors of terrorism.
2) Calls upon all UN members to stop endorsing terrorists in any shape or form.
3) Encourages nations to inform the United Nations when they suspect a nation is breaking this resolution.
4) Requests that the UN sends personnel, not military personel, into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.
5) Trusts that all nations will abide by UN rules.
6) Further reminds that terrorism is the use of terror to achieve one’s aims, no matter what the cost.

You know, I wish we could stop seeing 2 paragraph long proposals that are attempting to deal with extremely complex issues like terrorism or the use of biological and chemical weapons.

About the closest this comes to defining the behavior is it attempting to condemn is "the use of terror to influence others". Now that's one hell of a vague definition. There are an awful lot of ways in which any given person can be made to feel terrified. For example, is this attempting to outlaw vaguely threatening inuendoes made by powerful military nations to smaller, weaker nations? If I was a nation of 7 million people and my 3.5 billion heavily militarized neighbours started making hostile statements in my direction in response to me not giving them some trade concession they wanted I'd probably feel pretty terrified.

And looking at it from the other side, if I'm that militarized nation of 3.5 billion... why, "we were just understandaby perturbed by our neighbours instransigent refusal to see reason in our negotiations, and our military just happened to be coincidentally already scheduled to conduct perfectly innocent exercises on the border... and that cruise missile's guidance system just malfunctioned... and that raid by those comandos had nothing to do with us, they were clearly just a bunch of rogues...and what are you going to do about it? There's nothing against that in the resolution now is there?"

About the closest this comes to defining the behavior is it attempting to condemn is "the use of terror to influence others". Now that's one hell of a vague definition. There are an awful lot of ways in which any given person can be made to feel terrified. For example, is this attempting to outlaw vaguely threatening inuendoes made by powerful military nations to smaller, weaker nations? If I was a nation of 7 million people and my 3.5 billion heavily militarized neighbours started making hostile statements in my direction in response to me not giving them some trade concession they wanted I'd probably feel pretty terrified.

And looking at it from the other side, if I'm that militarized nation of 3.5 billion... why, "we were just understandaby perturbed by our neighbours instransigent refusal to see reason in our negotiations, and our military just happened to be coincidentally already scheduled to conduct perfectly innocent exercises on the border... and that cruise missile's guidance system just malfunctioned... and that raid by those comandos had nothing to do with us, they were clearly just a bunch of rogues...and what are you going to do about it? There's nothing against that in the resolution now is there?"This is not one big nation against one small nation going against each other. This proposal brings up the issue of the big nation supplying aid to organizations who use terrorist tactics to influence the political affairs of the smaller nation.

This proposal has nothing to do to the 3.5 billion nation using their military against a neighbors. That is just direct war and Dicomte cannot see how such actions can be defined as being a state sponsor of terror.

This proposal was designed to prevent nations from supplying aid to terrorist organizations, not one nation using their nation's military to influence anothers.

This is not one big nation against one small nation going against each other. This proposal brings up the issue of the big nation supplying aid to organizations who use terrorist tactics to influence the political affairs of the smaller nation.

This proposal has nothing to do to the 3.5 billion nation using their military against a neighbors. That is just direct war and Dicomte cannot see how such actions can be defined as being a state sponsor of terror.

This proposal was designed to prevent nations from supplying aid to terrorist organizations, not one nation using their nation's military to influence anothers.

But that's the whole point. How do you define a "terrorist organization". What constitutes "the use of terror"? What if I have a group of black ops commandos running around blowing the crap out of some other country's cities because they wouldn't grant me territorial concessions but I haven't declared war? Are those commandos a "terrorist organization"?

What if they're mercenaries? Are they a "terrorist organization" now?

What if they're a group of guerilla fighters who already existed in the country in question and I just happened to decide I sympathized with their cause? Are they a "terrorist organization" now?

This is not an issue you can legislate with a third of a page of generalized statements.

But that's the whole point. How do you define a "terrorist organization". What constitutes "the use of terror"? What if I have a group of black ops commandos running around blowing the crap out of some other country's cities because they wouldn't grant me territorial concessions but I haven't declared war? Are those commandos a "terrorist organization"?

What if they're mercenaries? Are they a "terrorist organization" now?

What if they're a group of guerilla fighters who already existed in the country in question and I just happened to decide I sympathized with their cause? Are they a "terrorist organization" now?

This is not an issue you can legislate with a third of a page of generalized statements.
The black commandos are not a terrorist organization, but a country's military.

Mercenaries due tend to be viewed as terrorists as the only difference is that they get paid by someone who is trying to influence a polital matter of a nation, person, and whatnot.

What are guerilla fighters viewed as in the nation they are fighting? Terrorists right? Therefore you are supporting a terrorist organization who is trying to make change in the one nation's affairs.

Dicompte, what if those terrorists are trying to overthrow a dictator and install a democratic government? Or, what if they are a people be persecuted and being driven to extinction that are fighting for survival (don't even bring up the TPP, as they don't have the experience to deal with this)? Or maybe they are the citizens of a nation that has been conquered and is trying to regain freedom.

Beginning to see how much grey exists?

Since there has been some debate over the definition of terror, an update has been added.

State Sponsored Terrorism Proposal

ALARMED by members of the UN supporting groups that advocate the use of terror to influence others.

FULLY BELEIVING that all members of the UN must work together so as to prevent one nation from influencing others by helping terrorists organizations in interfering with the other nation’s affairs. Political or not.

NOTING with satisfaction the past efforts of relevance by UN members in fighting terrorism instead of supporting it.

UNDERSTANDING THAT terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

CONCERNED with the fact that UN members may be giving aid to organizations who use terrorism for their own benefits.

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that terrorism often results in the killing of not only political figures, but innocent civilians as well.

1) Strongly condemns any UN members who are state sponsors of terrorism.
2) Calls upon all UN members to stop endorsing terrorists in any shape or form.
3) Encourages nations to inform the United Nations when they suspect a nation is breaking this resolution.
4) Requests that the UN sends personnel, not military personel, into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.
5) Trusts that all nations will abide by UN rules.
6) Further reminds that terrorism is the use of terror to achieve one’s aims, no matter what the cost.

Dicompte, what if those terrorists are trying to overthrow a dictator and install a democratic government? Or, what if they are a people be persecuted and being driven to extinction that are fighting for survival (don't even bring up the TPP, as they don't have the experience to deal with this)? Or maybe they are the citizens of a nation that has been conquered and is trying to regain freedom.

Beginning to see how much grey exists?
We must respect a nation's sovereignty. For example, if a socialist nation was to supply aid to an organization bent on destroying your capitalist nation on the grounds of capitalist inequality, would you still feel the same way as you do now about terrorism?

Actually, yes, I would. I'd also target that nation with a few choice weapons and ignore the TPP when they try to attempt a trial. Considering I can wipe out most of them before they even have a chance of getting inside my one city on Earth, I'm not scared.

Oh, and I must note I accidentally misspelled your name.

Actually, yes, I would. I'd also target that nation with a few choice weapons and ignore the TPP when they try to attempt a trial. Considering I can wipe out most of them before they even have a chance of getting inside my one city on Earth, I'm not scared.

Oh, and I must note I accidentally misspelled your name.
Sorry, I don't understand. Yes as in you wouldn't respect a nation's sovereignty?

"Yes" as in "Yes, I would still feel the same way about terrorism." That doesn't stop me from destroying the interloper.

"Yes" as in "Yes, I would still feel the same way about terrorism." That doesn't stop me from destroying the interloper.
But then if this proposal would be voted for, no such possible event of your country being taken over by a socialist nation supporting a terrorist group can ever occur. Why would you not want such a benefit?

Because of two items:

1) It still can occur. Nations outside the UN are unaffected, and nations inside routinely find ways around resolutions. In a few cases, such as the one currently at vote, the authors helpfully provide the ways.

2) Because I may need to do it myself later in order to protect my nation.

Because of two items:

1) It still can occur. Nations outside the UN are unaffected, and nations inside routinely find ways around resolutions. In a few cases, such as the one currently at vote, the authors helpfully provide the ways.

2) Because I may need to do it myself later in order to protect my nation.
It can still occur, but if this proposal were to be passed, the possibility of it occuring is reduced. It is true that nations outside the UN are unaffected, but with that mentality, practically all resolutions should be voted down anyway then, because the nations outside of the UN can do it. They can kill dolphins, use chemical weapons, and whatnot.

An interesting viewpoint. I may disagree with what you say, but I see that I cannot change it. Either way I hope others feel differently about my proposal.

The only reason I see it as a problem is the majority of grey areas and the fact that people may let their guards down after this passes, allowing for it to happen with greater ease when it does happen. I should note I do oppose a vast majority of the weapons legislation the UN has due to the issue of wanting to have all tools at my disposal.

However, I'll sit back and watch. If this gets passed, it may make things change a bit.

What changes should Dicomte add to avoid these gray areas?

A definition of terrorism.

For example, it could be "destructive acts committed by a group to cause chaos in a nation or result in the overthrow of the nation's government for reasons not relating to responding to humans rights violations, being a conquered people, or disagreement of political agenda." Then, include something about the group having to originate inside the nation or inside region they are attempting to free.

A definition of terrorism.

For example, it could be "destructive acts committed by a group to cause chaos in a nation or result in the overthrow of the nation's government for reasons not relating to responding to humans rights violations, being a conquered people, or disagreement of political agenda." Then, include something about the group having to originate inside the nation or inside region they are attempting to free.Why must the terroirst group originate in the country?


State Sponsored Terrorism Proposal

ALARMED by members of the UN supporting groups that advocate the use of terror to influence others.

FULLY BELEIVING that all members of the UN must work together so as to prevent one nation from influencing others by helping terrorists organizations in interfering with the other nation’s affairs. Political or not.

NOTING with satisfaction the past efforts of relevance by UN members in fighting terrorism instead of supporting it.

UNDERSTANDING THAT terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

CONCERNED with the fact that UN members may be giving aid to organizations who use terrorism for their own benefits.

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that terrorism often results in the killing of not only political figures, but innocent civilians as well.

1) Strongly condemns any UN members who are state sponsors of terrorism.
2) Calls upon all UN members to stop endorsing terrorists in any shape or form.
3) Encourages nations to inform the United Nations when they suspect a nation is breaking this resolution.
4) Requests that the UN sends personnel, not military personel, into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.
5) Trusts that all nations will abide by UN rules.
6) Further reminds that terrorism is the use of terror to achieve one’s aims, no matter what the cost.

Why must the terroirst group originate in the country?

It prevents a nation from sending in their own paramilitary groups to attempt a coup and install a government that immediately asks them for annexation. Basically, to ban a form of what the U.S. did to Hawaii, only the U.S. used settlers, natives, and companies instead of paramilitary.

State Sponsored Terrorism Proposal

ALARMED by members of the UN supporting groups that advocate the use of terror to influence others.

FULLY BELEIVING that all members of the UN must work together so as to prevent one nation from influencing others by helping terrorists organizations in interfering with the other nation’s affairs. Political or not.

NOTING with satisfaction the past efforts of relevance by UN members in fighting terrorism instead of supporting it.

UNDERSTANDING THAT terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

CONCERNED with the fact that UN members may be giving aid to organizations who use terrorism for their own benefits.

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that terrorism often results in the killing of not only political figures, but innocent civilians as well.

1) Strongly condemns any UN members who are state sponsors of terrorism.
2) Calls upon all UN members to stop endorsing terrorists in any shape or form.
3) Encourages nations to inform the United Nations when they suspect a nation is breaking this resolution.
4) Requests that the UN sends personnel, not military personel, into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.
5) Trusts that all nations will abide by UN rules.
6) Further reminds that terrorism is the use of terror to achieve one’s aims, no matter what the cost.

And there we get back to square one: It includes people fighting for freedom or to improve their nations. The U.S., for example, was founded in a method that this labels as terrorism. How to include a noble cause as well? Or do you want to go the realistic approach and just leave out noble causes?

Few who are aware of the events of the time would argue against the contention that Ecopoeia's liberation from the Unta regime in 1979 owed a great deal to the support it received from East Hackney and New Paristan. The Ecopoets who led the liberation movement were unquestionably 'terrorists', as defined in this proposal. East Hackney and New Paristan provided finances, armaments, training in sabotage and a great deal more.

They sponsored our 'terrorists' and our gratitude knows no bounds. We reserve the right to do others the same great service if we are able.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

We're just glad the rewrite removed the potential to collapse "Friday the 13th Movie Marathons" under the idea of "well, they're terrorizing our children, films like that are bad..."

Few who are aware of the events of the time would argue against the contention that Ecopoeia's liberation from the Unta regime in 1979 owed a great deal to the support it received from East Hackney and New Paristan. The Ecopoets who led the liberation movement were unquestionably 'terrorists', as defined in this proposal. East Hackney and New Paristan provided finances, armaments, training in sabotage and a great deal more.

They sponsored our 'terrorists' and our gratitude knows no bounds. We reserve the right to do others the same great service if we are able.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN
While the Republic of Dicomte is glad that your liberation came with aid from other nations, you must understand that, many countrys and regions have now been taken over because of stronger nations funding terrorist groups that show similarities in thinking and so just become a puppet state.

We question how is support defined? While we never directly support a know terrorist organization we do have arm manufacturing and sales as a major part of the economy. Its a sad but true fact that rarely through no fault of our own that Yrneh weapons end up in the hands of Terrorists. We are sure many other nations have the same problem. It would be unfair to judge nations such as us as supporting Terrorists though I am sure some other nations would attempt to do just that. We would ask that a definition of Support be added to this.


General Arthur Hendrik representing the Dominion of Yrneh

Good point. A definition of support has been added.

State Sponsored Terrorism Proposal

ALARMED by members of the UN supporting groups that advocate the use of terror to influence others.

FULLY BELEIVING that all members of the UN must work together so as to prevent one nation from influencing others by helping terrorists organizations in interfering with the other nation’s affairs. Political or not.

NOTING with satisfaction the past efforts of relevance by UN members in fighting terrorism instead of supporting it.

UNDERSTANDING THAT terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

CONCERNED with the fact that UN members may be giving aid to organizations who use terrorism for their own benefits.

SEEING THAT providing economic or military aid, political asylum for members of the terrorist organization or training is viewed as supporting groups that advocate the use of terror.

KEEPING IN MIND the fact that terrorism often results in the killing of not only political figures, but innocent civilians as well.

1) Strongly condemns any UN members who are state sponsors of terrorism.
2) Calls upon all UN members to stop endorsing terrorists in any shape or form.
3) Encourages nations to inform the United Nations when they suspect a nation is breaking this resolution.
4) Requests that the UN sends personnel, not military personnel, into nations that are suspected of sponsoring terrorism if there is valid information asserting such claims.
5) Trusts that all nations will abide by UN rules.
6) Further reminds that terrorism is the use of terror to achieve one’s aims, no matter what the cost.
7) Emphasizes that no nation should get involved in the hope of a possible overthrow of another nation’s government and should respect national sovereignty.

Dicomte would like to thank every nation for their suggestions in the making of this proposal. As of now it is currently being approved in the list of proposals. If you support this bill, please show your support!

The Democratic States of Hirota wishes to express their support for this proposal.

Whilst the content is not entirely to our liking (it is my governments feelings that this proposal could do with a little editing in certain words or phrases) we do agree wholly with the sentiment and will seek to pressure our regional delegate to endorse.

Hirota feels that regardless of the intentions or the title associated with it, state-sponsored terrorism is wrong, and that no distinction be made.

Meh. I don't have any major quibbles, and it'll take a major effort and about three pages to make a case for the minor ones. Good job.