NationStates Jolt Archive

International prevention and cooperation against Terrorism

This post is currently for a draft proposal intending to promote UN members to work together to combat the spectre of terrorism.

Regardless of it’s justifications, the government of Hirota is determined that no justifications are sufficient to enable terrorists to partake in illegal activities which threaten lives worldwide and threaten to de-stabilise international peace and security. We would hope that other governments would consider reviewing the below draft and contribute their suggestions in the spirit of good will and co-operation.

This first post is intended as a reference to the most updated version of the proposal, and also supply a change log of any alterations made to the original, with links to the relevant suggestions, and also thanks to those members.

Many thanks




CHANGE LOG
15/07/05 - original draft submitted.
15/07/05 - definition of terrorism added following contributions from Ecopoeia and enn
18/07/05 - definition of terrorism edited following contributions and observations from Miktivity, _Myopia_, Forgottenlands and Roathin
19/07/05 - definition of terrorism edited following contributions from Axis Nova
13/10/05 - definition of terrorism edited following contributions from Cobdenia, _Myopia_ and Pallatium
14/10/05 - proposal has been submitted.



The draft has been partially inspired by recent RL events, which did affect me, and my better half was in London during the bombings. However, a proposal of this kind has long been on my wishlist, and I have spent some time researching terrorism.

The general assembly;

Deeply concerned by the increase in acts of international terrorism which endangers the lives and well-being of individuals worldwide as well as the peace and security of all States,

Unequivocally condemning all acts of terrorism, irrespective of motive, wherever and by whoever committed,

Emphasising the necessity to strengthen, under the auspices of the United Nations, effective international cooperation in this field on the basis of the principles and norms of international law, including respect for international humanitarian law and human rights,

Supporting the efforts to promote universal participation in and implementation of the existing international anti-terrorist conventions, as well as to develop new international instruments to counter the terrorist threat,

Determined to contribute to efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms,

Reaffirming that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are involved, is an essential contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security,

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state paramilitary groups using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, religion or ideology and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

1. Unequivocally condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whoever committed, in particular those which threaten international peace and security;

2. Stresses the vital role of the United Nations in strengthening international cooperation in combating terrorism & emphasizes the importance of enhanced coordination among States, international and regional organizations;

3. Calls upon all States to take, inter alia, in the context of such cooperation and coordination, appropriate steps to:
- cooperate with each other, particularly through bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements, to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, protect their nationals and other persons against terrorist attacks and bring to justice the perpetrators of such acts;
- prevent and suppress in their territories through all lawful means the preparation and financing of any acts of terrorism;
- deny those who plan, finance or commit terrorist acts safe havens by ensuring their apprehension and prosecution or extradition;
- take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not participated in terrorist acts;
- exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law, and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters in order to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
- seek dialogue between governments and terrorist groups to seek peaceful resolutions through discussion of issues where possible;

4. Determined to remain seized of this matter.

*mutters*

Amazing how people forget about Freedom Fighters....

The Triumvirate of Enn cannot support this act without the inclusion of an acceptable definition of 'terrorism'. Wihtout this definition, we are concerned that this act would be used to suppress lawful groups, or groups looking to overthrow an unjust leadership.

With respect to Ambassador Kildarno, I am unable to support this resolution as it stands, for much the same reasons as articulated above.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

*mutters*

Amazing how people forget about Freedom Fighters....

Different name, same justifications. One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - which demonstrates how difficult it is to provide a genuine definition.

But an unoffical defintion of freedom fighter could be:
"Freedom fighter is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate. The terms "freedom" and "rebellion" are often controversial, as often both sides in armed conflict claim to represent the popular cause of "freedom". While external intervening parties, even oppressors, almost always claim to be "liberators", 'freedom fighters' also often become oppressors in the eyes of civilians.

Though the literal meaning of the words could include anyone who fights for the cause of freedom, common use is restricted to those who are actively involved in an armed rebellion, rather than those who "fight" for freedom by peaceful means (though they may use the title metaphorically)."

Now how someone decides if a government is oppressive and illegitimate is anyone's guess.

Re: Defining terrorism.
I do have a working definition which I should have included. I am not sure if it will satisfy requests for a suitable defintion:"Defines Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored."

If this defintion is unacceptable, I would urge member states to contribute a possible alternative.

terrorist or freedom fighter?
Ultimately the need to provide a difference for this resolution is irrelevant. Both have the capacity to commit terrorism, regardless of how their justifications are perceived. Indeed, inevitably there will be a group of people who will label freedom fighters terrorists, and vice versa.

Ultimately, what a group is defined as is irrelevant, it is their actions which need to be judged.

_Myopia_ cannot support this resolution. Your definition of terrorism is not much more specific than the use or threat of violence by anyone to achieve almost anything - it covers pretty much all military actions by nations as well as non-governmental individuals/groups. It would force us to condemn and work against revolutions and rebellions, and quite possibly even many domestic police actions.

I do not believe it to be possible to condemn all terrorists across the UN, because of the impossibility of creating an acceptable definition. The only consistent positions would be one of absolute pacifism or one specifically condemning terrorists in a certain cause or list of causes.

I know I probably shouldn't be hijacking this thread to post things with real-life references in it, but...

http://www.tshirts365.com/store/thumbNail.asp?size=200&image=/store/catalog/FrenchTerror_detail.gif

:D

My government is reviewing this proposal, and actually agrees with the statements in the preamble.

The following preambulatory clause actually should be an activating clause (based on the verb tense):

"Defines Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

"Defines" is active tense, while "Defining" is ... well different. :)

My government prefers (this is just our style) that each clause be a single sentence ... and would recommend that the above clause be numbered and slightly reworded.

Different name, same justifications. One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - which demonstrates how difficult it is to provide a genuine definition.

But an unoffical defintion of freedom fighter could be:
"Freedom fighter is a relativistic local term for those engaged in rebellion against an established government that is held to be oppressive and illegitimate. The terms "freedom" and "rebellion" are often controversial, as often both sides in armed conflict claim to represent the popular cause of "freedom". While external intervening parties, even oppressors, almost always claim to be "liberators", 'freedom fighters' also often become oppressors in the eyes of civilians.

Though the literal meaning of the words could include anyone who fights for the cause of freedom, common use is restricted to those who are actively involved in an armed rebellion, rather than those who "fight" for freedom by peaceful means (though they may use the title metaphorically)."

Now how someone decides if a government is oppressive and illegitimate is anyone's guess.

Re: Defining terrorism.
I do have a working definition which I should have included. I am not sure if it will satisfy requests for a suitable defintion:"Defines Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored."

If this defintion is unacceptable, I would urge member states to contribute a possible alternative.

terrorist or freedom fighter?
Ultimately the need to provide a difference for this resolution is irrelevant. Both have the capacity to commit terrorism, regardless of how their justifications are perceived. Indeed, inevitably there will be a group of people who will label freedom fighters terrorists, and vice versa.

Ultimately, what a group is defined as is irrelevant, it is their actions which need to be judged.

Hmm....apparently you are not one of those people. Thank you - it is so rare to see someone who properly distinguishes between a freedom fighter and a terrorist while at the same time trying to outlaw terrorism.

Personally, if I were to deal with terrorism, I'd go along the lines of "degrees of terrorism" - where certain degrees of terrorism (whether conducted by freedom fighters or terrorists) are illegal and should be fought against by the International community, while other degrees are something that are local issues and should not be recognized as something that needs to be addressed.

"Defines Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

You just described going to war or threatening military action as being terrorism...

“4. Determined to remain seized of this matter.”

...and we're not sure what this means. "Seized of this matter"?

Edit: At the very least, I'd suggest incorporating the deliberate targetting of non-combatants in the terrorism definition.

...and we're not sure what this means. "Seized of this matter"?


The people of Hirota are what many might call "old school". They are using formal language to basically say, the UN will continue to consider this subject area important.

OOC:
In real life the phrase is used with regularity by the United Nations Security Council. Perhaps one of the best explanations of what the phrase "seized of this matter" can be found on the following blog:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079413

So by remaining "seized of the matter"—or, in the vernacular, by formally keeping the issue on the front burner—the 15-member Security Council is officially telling the 191-member General Assembly to keep its mitts off for the time being. There have been occasions when the General Assembly has discussed a matter being handled by the Security Council, but the "decides to remain seized of the matter" expression pretty much precludes the body from taking any meaningful action.

For NationStates, I think it is a way of just saying, "Let's keep on top of this." Hirota (correct me if I'm misreading your use here) also would like to leave the subject open for other resolutions. :)

The people of Hirota are what many might call "old school". They are using formal language to basically say, the UN will continue to consider this subject area important.

We see...

Formal or not, that seems on unnecessarily awkward way of going about making that statement.

The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? A freedom fighter usually won't mow down 20 innocent civilians to get his point across.

The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? A freedom fighter usually won't mow down 20 innocent civilians to get his point across.

I'm sick of disproving this point. Does someone have the link to the other thread?

The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist? A freedom fighter usually won't mow down 20 innocent civilians to get his point across.

So your sole distinction is the extent of damage done? If a terrorist makes sure to kill few enough people in his attack, does he automatically become a freedom fighter?

The real distinction is completely subjective - it's whether you believe that their actions are justified by their aims, which depends on whether you agree with their aims and your views on the legitimacy of the use of violence to achieve those aims.

Even your definition is very subjective. Who decides whether the victims are innocent, or if what they're held responsible for by the attacker is actually wrong?

The Yeldan government believes that it would be best to address this subject with two seperate resolutions. First, a resolution is needed which defines just what terrorism is (or at least what the NSUN says it is). Then, a second resolution stating what we intend to do about it. We feel that in this way, a resolution could be drafted which provided an adequate definition. With a proper definition in place, the resolution mandating action against terrorism would be a much simpler matter.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note Yelda's comment on dual resolutions with a little disquiet. Surely the former resolution, defining terrorism, would be illegal as it would do nothing except make a definition? We have always thought that a resolution should have an implementation attached to it; we think that Yelda should consider this and keep the two parts united.

That said, we hurl our warhelm into the fray and attempt to define the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. (In doing so, we note that what they believe is irrelevant and what they call themselves is also irrelevant.)

A terrorist is a person who implements a programme which inflicts terror (through physical and psychological methods) on civilian populations as a primary means of attaining political ends.

A freedom fighter is a person who is willing to commit acts of war in order that his political grouping might achieve self-determination as a state. A freedom fighter becomes a terrorist when those acts of war are committed deliberately against civilian populations.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note Yelda's comment on dual resolutions with a little disquiet. Surely the former resolution, defining terrorism, would be illegal as it would do nothing except make a definition? We have always thought that a resolution should have an implementation attached to it; we think that Yelda should consider this and keep the two parts united. [snip]
Obviously, one cannot pass a resolution that doesn't do anything. The first resolution would have to include a clause mandating some sort of action, but the main thrust of the resolution would be to provide a definition. The second resolution could then deal with a more detailed plan of action against the now properly defined terrorists.

So your sole distinction is the extent of damage done? If a terrorist makes sure to kill few enough people in his attack, does he automatically become a freedom fighter?

The real distinction is completely subjective - it's whether you believe that their actions are justified by their aims, which depends on whether you agree with their aims and your views on the legitimacy of the use of violence to achieve those aims.

Even your definition is very subjective. Who decides whether the victims are innocent, or if what they're held responsible for by the attacker is actually wrong?


Actually, I've gotta disagree with that - because I think Al Queda's actions are justified by their aims - I just want to see them lose, disagree with their aims (considering that I would be amongst the dead if their aims were ever brought to fruition - amongst other reasons), etc so....I consider them terrorists.

The Yeldan government believes that it would be best to address this subject with two seperate resolutions. First, a resolution is needed which defines just what terrorism is (or at least what the NSUN says it is). Then, a second resolution stating what we intend to do about it. We feel that in this way, a resolution could be drafted which provided an adequate definition. With a proper definition in place, the resolution mandating action against terrorism would be a much simpler matter.

Actually - that would not be a bad idea IF you could properly define terrorist (though admittedly, if a resolution notes that it makes no distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist, and has a fairly decent definition - I probably would support it). It is also not ineffective as it would also apply to a previous Nuclear Weapons resolution.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note Yelda's comment on dual resolutions with a little disquiet. Surely the former resolution, defining terrorism, would be illegal as it would do nothing except make a definition? We have always thought that a resolution should have an implementation attached to it; we think that Yelda should consider this and keep the two parts united.

Already noted

That said, we hurl our warhelm into the fray and attempt to define the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. (In doing so, we note that what they believe is irrelevant and what they call themselves is also irrelevant.)

A terrorist is a person who implements a programme which inflicts terror (through physical and psychological methods) on civilian populations as a primary means of attaining political ends.

A freedom fighter is a person who is willing to commit acts of war in order that his political grouping might achieve self-determination as a state. A freedom fighter becomes a terrorist when those acts of war are committed deliberately against civilian populations.

It's not what they call themselves that sets precedent of consideration....it's what states call them. I disagree with trying to define them as one way or the other because that would trump many state's actual....applications of the words through history.

It's not what they call themselves that sets precedent of consideration....it's what states call them. I disagree with trying to define them as one way or the other because that would trump many state's actual....applications of the words through history.
Greetings.

The point of trumping states' definitions of terrorism and/or freedom fighting is that, given the political objectives inherent in such activities, any state's perspective is necessarily biased. Hence, for a workable definition, states' definitions MUST be trumped.

Consider the analogous but much simpler case of two competing geographers at different longitudes each deciding to call their own longitude the baseline. Then every place on earth except the poles would have a different longitude. This analogy applies simply because only at the furthest extremes might you find any agreement, and even then, there is difficulty in getting to those extremes in a concrete physical sense.

As to your point on precedent, an analogous case arises in the sciences, where the names of elements and compounds have to be standardised for universal reference. The Germanic may call it sauerstoff, but the symbol of that atom is still 'O' for oxygen worldwide, not 'S'. Ideally, we ignore precedent where it is only likely to perpetuate doubt and ambiguity.

That is not to say that precedent is unvaluable. It is invaluable in establishing context, but it is valueless if it is used as a battleground and nothing more. Once the fighting is done, the grass should be left to grow. Then only will battlefields bear fruit.

Actually - that would not be a bad idea IF you could properly define terrorist (though admittedly, if a resolution notes that it makes no distinction between freedom fighter and terrorist, and has a fairly decent definition - I probably would support it). It is also not ineffective as it would also apply to a previous Nuclear Weapons resolution.

I actually think it is impossible to differentiate between the two - for some people will label a group freedom fighters, whilst others will label the same group terrorists. RL Example: I'm sure Al-Queda supporters think of them in a more positive light, and would probably label them freedom fighters rather than terrorists. I doubt western governments would do the same.

I think it is a moot point what an organisation is labelled as. No, the only way I could see a working definition is to define what the act of terrorism is. Thus, regardless of if they are self-labelled freedom fighters or terrorists, someone who commits terrorism is considered within the context of the proposal.

Regarding your idea on varying levels - it's a good idea, and I'd agree with it if I had the space to expand on it further. I'd trust that governments and state agencies are intelligent enough to target the organisations that are the greatest threat.

It's not what they call themselves that sets precedent of consideration....it's what states call them. I disagree with trying to define them as one way or the other because that would trump many state's actual....applications of the words through history. Indeed, which is why I would not attempt to define them in this draft. This proposal is trying to target the people who employ terrorism, regardless of their label.
For NationStates, I think it is a way of just saying, "Let's keep on top of this." Hirota (correct me if I'm misreading your use here) also would like to leave the subject open for other resolutions.

No, your quite right. I do like trying to keep to a similar style to the RL UN - simply because of how I like to do things. I'd happily take it out if it's going to cause controversy.

I agree on your thoughts about changing the clause, and will do so.

I'm also going to try and add a couple of words to imply terrorism is done by organisations outside of direct state control, but also retain that they can often still be state-sponsored.

Greetings.

We of Roathin note Yelda's comment on dual resolutions with a little disquiet. Surely the former resolution, defining terrorism, would be illegal as it would do nothing except make a definition? We have always thought that a resolution should have an implementation attached to it; we think that Yelda should consider this and keep the two parts united.

That said, we hurl our warhelm into the fray and attempt to define the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. (In doing so, we note that what they believe is irrelevant and what they call themselves is also irrelevant.)

A terrorist is a person who implements a programme which inflicts terror (through physical and psychological methods) on civilian populations as a primary means of attaining political ends.

A freedom fighter is a person who is willing to commit acts of war in order that his political grouping might achieve self-determination as a state. A freedom fighter becomes a terrorist when those acts of war are committed deliberately against civilian populations. Those defintions are very good....I'll need to consider them and how I could incorporate those into the proposal. It would need significant revision as I've tried to concentrate on terrorism rather than terrorists, but might be worth the effort.

As a simpler definition, you may wish to define as terrorists any group that disproportionally (sp?) targets civilian targets during offensive operations. Note that I say "offensive" and not "military", allowing for the wording to include organizations other than purely military in nature (thus excluding a loophole)

I actually think it is impossible to differentiate between the two - for some people will label a group freedom fighters, whilst others will label the same group terrorists. RL Example: I'm sure Al-Queda supporters think of them in a more positive light, and would probably label them freedom fighters rather than terrorists. I doubt western governments would do the same.

I think it is a moot point what an organisation is labelled as. No, the only way I could see a working definition is to define what the act of terrorism is. Thus, regardless of if they are self-labelled freedom fighters or terrorists, someone who commits terrorism is considered within the context of the proposal.I really like this approach, Hirota. That we are attempting to avoid destruction of innocent lives, rather than pass political judgment on the viability of militant groups. I haven't read it thoroughly, but I support the proposal.

As a simpler definition, you may wish to define as terrorists any group that disproportionally (sp?) targets civilian targets during offensive operations. Note that I say "offensive" and not "military", allowing for the wording to include organizations other than purely military in nature (thus excluding a loophole)

<bows>

That's the distinction I wanted to make right there. Thank you axis. This will be added right now.

I'm reassured that most of the comments thus far are on defining terrorism rather than the actual proposal text - that suggests to me either I've struck the nail on the head, or nobody is interested in it :)

Hirota intends to submit this draft for the consideration of UN delegates on Monday Morning GMT, providing there continues to be no objections.

My government has now submitted this proposal - which can be found at:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=cooperation%20against%20terrorism

I am now beginning my telegram campaign - generic message follows:

Hello there and greetings to your government from the Supremely Democratic states of Hirota.

We wish to bring to your attention a recently submitted proposal from my government. It’s aim is to seek to encourage international cooperation against the act of terrorism and those would perform the act. Our government feels that regardless of it’s justifications, attacking or threatening to attack innocent civilians is an unacceptable crime which the international community has a responsibility to act against.

I do apologise for contacting you in this manner. I know many nations are upset when governments contact them in this manner – especially if they receive several telegrams for different proposals on a daily basis. In an ideal world we would rather that we did not have to disturb you. However, we feel this proposal is an important piece of legislation that will benefit the UN as a whole.

If you are interested in supporting this proposal, then you can do so by copying and pasting the following link into your browser:

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=cooperation%20against%20terrorism

This will automatically take you to the proposal. Moreover, I have included a copy of the proposal at the end of this telegram.

If you have any questions regarding this proposal, then please feel free to contact my government through established methods.

Regards

Hirota
***************
The general assembly;

Deeply concerned by the increase in acts of international terrorism which endangers the lives and well-being of individuals worldwide as well as the peace and security of all States,

Condemning all acts of terrorism, irrespective of motive, wherever and by whomever committed,

“Emphasizing the necessity to strengthen, under the auspices of the United Nations, effective international cooperation in this field on the basis of the principles and norms of international law, including respect for international humanitarian law and human rights,

“Supporting the efforts to promote universal participation in and implementation of the existing international anti-terrorist conventions, as well as to develop new international instruments to counter the terrorist threat,

“Determined to contribute to the efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms,

“Reaffirming that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are involved, is an essential contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security,

"Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of groups of induviduals by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian targets during offensive operations. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

“1. Unequivocally condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, in particular those which could threaten international peace and security;

“2. Stresses the vital role of the United Nations in strengthening international cooperation in combating terrorism and emphasizes the importance of enhanced coordination among States, international and regional organizations;

“3. Calls upon all States to take, inter alia, in the context of such cooperation and coordination, appropriate steps to:
- cooperate with each other, particularly through bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements, to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, protect their nationals and other persons against terrorist attacks and bring to justice the perpetrators of such acts;
- prevent and suppress in their territories through all lawful means the preparation and financing of any acts of terrorism;
- deny those who plan, finance or commit terrorist acts safe havens by ensuring their apprehension and prosecution or extradition;
- take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not participated in terrorist acts;
- exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law, and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters in order to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

“4. Determined to remain seized of this matter.”

Endorsed. I can't promise support should this reach a general vote, but I'll help get it there to start with.

Thank you Enn for your endorsement.

I have currently gone through about 20% of the regions, contacting delegates of larger regions who may be sympathetic to the proposal.

Just out of curiosty, why are there quotation marks around some of the clauses and not others? Their presence doesn't bother me, it just seems like they begin without almost randomly.

They are not on the preamble, but there are in the actual content.

No particular reason, and will be removed.

Looks like it has failed on it's first reading, so will be resubmitted shortly.

They are not on the preamble, but there are in the actual content.

No particular reason, and will be removed.

Looks like it has failed on it's first reading, so will be resubmitted shortly.
No point resubmitting until after the update tomorrow morning (11am). Unless I've woefully misunderstood submission tactics...

Terrorism: The act of one person or a number of persons acting for a cause with force deemed unnecessary by the members of the United Nations.



How does that sound as a defination?


Before I can support this, there must be a clear defination for Terrorism.

President Bull Klintun
United States of Ameerikas

Terrorism: The act of one person or a number of persons acting for a cause with force deemed unnecessary by the members of the United Nations.



How does that sound as a defination?


Before I can support this, there must be a clear defination for Terrorism.

President Bull Klintun
United States of Ameerikas
What's wrong with the definition used by Hirota?


Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of groups of induviduals by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian targets during offensive operations. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

Terrorism: The act of one person or a number of persons acting for a cause with force deemed unnecessary by the members of the United Nations.



How does that sound as a defination?


Before I can support this, there must be a clear defination for Terrorism.

President Bull Klintun
United States of Ameerikas

It' s not a bad definition, but it relies upon a consenus from the UN on what terrorism actually is - effectively sidestepping the issue of defining the act.

My effort is intended to define terrorism as a universal standard of what terrosim is - I think all member states can agree the targetting of innocents is completely illegal.

I appreciate and thank you for your effort at definiting the act, and if this was the real UN then there would inevitably be a specialised group to tackle such issues in line with your suggestion. Perhaps sadly the NS UN does not have time to do this, instead concerning itself with abortion and other regular topics.

I think it will be Sunday evening before I resubmit the proposal – I rarely have time during the week to do a TG campaign, and it will give me the chance to tweak it a little, including adding a condemnation of nations and groups who sponsor and support terrorism.

I also want to add something which still allows nations to fund covert groups who do not target civilians, but rather more legitimate targets, such as military or government. Or better still not legislate on that section at all.

Hmm. Your Sunday evening equals my Monday morning. Tests. I probably won't be around during much of that campaign, I'm afraid. Hopefully it won't depend on a single delegate's vote.

Hmm. Your Sunday evening equals my Monday morning. Tests. I probably won't be around during much of that campaign, I'm afraid. Hopefully it won't depend on a single delegate's vote.

Should be fine - I contacted less than a fifth of regions the first time (got to page 200 and only picked larger regions who I thought would be sympathetric), and got 57 endorsements.

It’s either do a TG campaign or play Halo 2 :)

I was watching your proposal with interest last night, and noticed it came within 20 endorsements of reaching the queue.

I honestly hope you resubmit it. :)

20? Gosh, it did much better than I thought.

I don't suppose you have a list of those who endorsed do you?

May we suggest a much simplified definition?

"Terrorism is the use or threatened use of violence against unarmed, non-combatant civilians in order to promote political, religious, or ideological causes outside the conduct of lawfully declared war."

what about economic terrorism?
stated sponsored terrorism?

After reading the debate on the matter and taking into account the considerations of my own nation, I note that I will likely vote in favor of this proposal should it reach quorum.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

20? Gosh, it did much better than I thought.

I don't suppose you have a list of those who endorsed do you?

It was 20 when I crashed last night around midnight ... so you probably were within 18 or so endorsments. You should be pretty pleased, as I imagine I'm not the only other proposal author who was envious of your proposal's strong Delegate support! :)

I almost copied it over, but didn't get around to it.

Weeknights are usually pretty good for me to do this sort of thing. If in the future you'd like me to simply copy the list of endorsements, since I'm West Coast based, you (and any other proposal author) only need ask. :)

I'd rather have resolutions stack up in the front of the queue and have proposals constantly almost make it. Fewer telegrams to the Delegate might be welcomed. (Just a guess ...)

However, I hit up a number of the nations that endorsed your proposal. Basically I looked at their UN classification, flag, and motto. If they didn't seem to be a military power, I figured they might like an environmental proposal. So I didn't ask for support from a few of the Delegates on your list ... :/

Just keep at it!

At first my country was opposed to this proposal, however a good debate and sastifactory defeintion of terrorism, you may count on our support. We are not yet a UN nation, but have applied and expect to be accepted shortly.

Our region, A Liberal Haven, is on the smaller side (27 countries), but I will attempt to get our delegate to support your proposal.

Best of luck to you.

Sincerly,

Allan Smith
Republic of BlueTiger's Deputy of Foreign Affairs

Thank you Mik - I think I will take you up on that offer in the future, although I'm hoping a more intensive TG campaign will be enough to reach quorum.

Agnostic Deeishpeople - I have made ammendments to the proposal to condemn state sponsorship.

Farn Khoring - some of that definition is useful, and I will seek to include in the next submitted proposal. However, it was oversimplified and failed to recognise Agnostic Deeishpeople's observations - but there is a section in your definition which I think would be an excellent inclusion.

[NS]BlueTiger - thank you for your support - I will be posting in here on Sunday the revised proposal, and giving thanks to nations who have contributed.

An odd thought. Perhaps a minor tweak to the name:

"International Prevention of and Cooperation against Terrorism"

An odd thought. Perhaps a minor tweak to the name:

"International Prevention of and Cooperation against Terrorism"

While you are right, proposals seem to sink or swim based on their name, there is a limit to the number of characters in the proposal's name. Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants became Mitigating Hydroelectricity or somethign like that.

"Anti-Terrorist Cooperation" might be short enough.

While you are right, proposals seem to sink or swim based on their name, there is a limit to the number of characters in the proposal's name. Mitigation of Hydroelectric Plants became Mitigating Hydroelectricity or somethign like that.

"Anti-Terrorist Cooperation" might be short enough.
It looks like the limit is 30 characters, including spaces.

It looks like the limit is 30 characters, including spaces.
That can't be right though, because then the current name would't fit either. Let me try again.

Humm... because of space constarints even i'm thinking of a new name that fits in the place. anyways good work done.

That can't be right though, because then the current name would't fit either. Let me try again.

I came against this problem earlier and had to use "co-operation against terrorism" - but I'll use that stronger title.

Quick update - I was unable to submit a new proposal on sunday due to my connection at home dying. By the time I'd installed my new cable modem, I'd been awake for 38 hours so really needed my sleep.

Will submit it tonight.

Quick update - I was unable to submit a new proposal on sunday due to my connection at home dying. By the time I'd installed my new cable modem, I'd been awake for 38 hours so really needed my sleep.

Will submit it tonight.
You have a "New Cable Modem"?

*starts stalking Hirota*

Spiffy!

Quick update - I was unable to submit a new proposal on sunday due to my connection at home dying. By the time I'd installed my new cable modem, I'd been awake for 38 hours so really needed my sleep.

Will submit it tonight.
OOC: 38? Ooh, you must have reached the 'pulsing peripheral view' stage!

OOC: 38? Ooh, you must have reached the 'pulsing peripheral view' stage!
Yup, not even coffee could change the slowly distorting perspective starting on the edges and working inwards....

Even so, I ended up only getting 3 hours sleep, so I probably would have felt better not bothering

Hirota,

See you are not the slightest bit Evil.
In BastardosLand public executions routinely cleane our society of the scum you refer to as Terrorists.Hanging, Drawing and Quatering is the method in use at the moment. If you would like our Execution Dept to pay your Nation a visit do let me know.

Harry the Bastard
ReichsFurher
BastardosLand

Hirota (after recovering from a lack of sleep) is now seeking to resubmit this proposal to the delegates and will be seeking assistance in pushing for it's endorsement.

Assuming I get to chose to whom this law applies (terrorism vs rebels etc) I have no issue with supporting it.

Of course - if terrorist groups are defined by the UN as a whole, then I have to reject it :}

Assuming I get to chose to whom this law applies (terrorism vs rebels etc) I have no issue with supporting it.

Of course - if terrorist groups are defined by the UN as a whole, then I have to reject it :}

Other way around for me. If I ever have to face terrorists in my nation, I want UN's help against the terrorists, and to do this, I have to convince the UN this group is a terrorist. If UN doesn't decide if this group is terrorist or not, then therefore, it cannot do anything against it. And we all need allies in the war against terror.

And if I'm am forced to fight terrorists (oh God Forbid), then I want to make sure the UN is on my side in helping me fight them.

What I wonder is how the UN will help squash terrorism. A international military is out of the question (would infrige on the nations' independence in joining the UN[OOC: really because it would break the rules]) but what about sharing intel and having allied nations helping out to squash terrorism. Maybe a general slush fund where nations donate to fight terrorism...and when a terrorist element threatens a nation, then the UN donates money to the nation so they can use it to fight the terrorists.

Just suggestions.

Other way around for me. If I ever have to face terrorists in my nation, I want UN's help against the terrorists, and to do this, I have to convince the UN this group is a terrorist. If UN doesn't decide if this group is terrorist or not, then therefore, it cannot do anything against it. And we all need allies in the war against terror.

And if I'm am forced to fight terrorists (oh God Forbid), then I want to make sure the UN is on my side in helping me fight them.

What I wonder is how the UN will help squash terrorism. A international military is out of the question (would infrige on the nations' independence in joining the UN[OOC: really because it would break the rules]) but what about sharing intel and having allied nations helping out to squash terrorism. Maybe a general slush fund where nations donate to fight terrorism...and when a terrorist element threatens a nation, then the UN donates money to the nation so they can use it to fight the terrorists.

Just suggestions.

If terrorists invade your country and start blowing things up, you can fight them. And anyone who agrees with you can fight them. But if the UN had the final say as to whether or not a group was terrorist, you would not be able to fight them if the UN said they were not terrorist.

On the other side of this - if I am deposed in a bloodless coup, and my sucessor decides to start executing everyone in site, I might want to fight back. And to do that I might have to resort to tactics some people might consider terrorism. Now - if the UN then gets to define my rebellion as a terrorist group, I would be monumentally screwed, because the UN would declare my group a terrorist organization and no one would be able to help me. This would be despite the fact the government of my country would be a far bigger threat to world peace than I am.

Using force to affect politica change as an act is pretty well defined, and so are the people who do it. But the motive behind it is what makes the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter. And I would rather keep the decision about that motive - whether it is good or bad - in my hands than in the hands of the UN when it comes to my country.

Using force to affect politica change as an act is pretty well defined, and so are the people who do it. But the motive behind it is what makes the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter. And I would rather keep the decision about that motive - whether it is good or bad - in my hands than in the hands of the UN when it comes to my country.

No.

Because if the government held power to deterimne if somebody is a terrorist or not, then if I was deposed, then the government would call me a terrorist. Then it would use the resolution against me. At least when the UN decides, then I have a chance to be deterimined a freedom fighter and not a terrorist.

And, if a terrorist group really does attack me, and the UN says that group is a freedom fighter, I will squirm a little bit, but think about it...if the government defines what terrorist or not, then we have arguments in the vein of "Hey, dude! You are calling them terrorist, but in reality, they are freedom fighters. You are the terrorist!"

I want a larger body that may give me legimiancy in fighting the terrorists. With this legimancy, I can better fight the terrorists by having other nations help me. After all, the UN is law. If I don't get that legimiancy, then I will be a little angry, but oh well. I take the chane. Plus, it adds accountablity to my hypothetial war against the terrorist group. I can't do anything illegal like suppress free speech to stop the terrorists, or I risk being branded a terrorist myself. So the rights of citizens won't be curtailed in a war against terrorism.

This is why the UN should decide who's the terrorist, not the government.

No.

Because if the government held power to deterimne if somebody is a terrorist or not, then if I was deposed, then the government would call me a terrorist. Then it would use the resolution against me. At least when the UN decides, then I have a chance to be deterimined a freedom fighter and not a terrorist.

And, if a terrorist group really does attack me, and the UN says that group is a freedom fighter, I will squirm a little bit, but think about it...if the government defines what terrorist or not, then we have arguments in the vein of "Hey, dude! You are calling them terrorist, but in reality, they are freedom fighters. You are the terrorist!"

I want a larger body that may give me legimiancy in fighting the terrorists. With this legimancy, I can better fight the terrorists by having other nations help me. After all, the UN is law. If I don't get that legimiancy, then I will be a little angry, but oh well. I take the chane. Plus, it adds accountablity to my hypothetial war against the terrorist group. I can't do anything illegal like suppress free speech to stop the terrorists, or I risk being branded a terrorist myself. So the rights of citizens won't be curtailed in a war against terrorism.

This is why the UN should decide who's the terrorist, not the government.


So what happens if an enemy of your nation convinces the UN that your GOVERNMENT is a terrorist group?

Further more if your country is taken over, wouldn't their be friendly nations who would also agree that you are not a terrorist, but a freedom fighter, and help you get back your nation, despite what the current (illegal) government would say?

A terrorist group is a group that performs the act of terrorism.

An armed force which does not employ acts of terrorism could be considered an armed insurrection, civil war, or an invading force depending on a variety of conditions.

A terrorist group is a group that performs the act of terrorism.

Way to define a word with another form of the same word... :rolleyes:

Way to define a word with another form of the same word... :rolleyes:

I am not in the business of repeating myself. I have defined terrorism in my draft proposal (post number 2 in this topic). A terrorist is someone who practices terrorism, in a similar vein to an idiot is someone who practices idiocy, a gyncacologist is someone who practices gynacology, or a footballer is someone who plays football.

If you have a problem with me defining a terrorist as someone who practices terrorism, then I suggest you also address these definitions as well. :)

Hirota is submitting this proposal today. Many thanks to the many nations who have contributed to the ongoing discussions on this matter, regardless of their position on this matter. The vast majority of nations have contributed to the discussion, and I’d like to think this proposal is stronger for it.

Submitted, and currently making an early start

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=cooperation%20against%20terrorism

My office has been working on a similar, though more extensive, proposal dealing with this same issue: Combatting International Terrorism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449040). We should have ours ready within the next couple of days.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Submitted, and currently making an early start

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=cooperation%20against%20terrorism

I still mostly disagree with it, but I think I have found a loophole, which will either totally screw up the proposal or allow me to ignore it completely.


3. Calls upon all States to take, inter alia, in the context of such cooperation and coordination, appropriate steps to:


What if we define as "appropriate" as "doing nothing at all in this instance" ?

I still mostly disagree with it, but I think I have found a loophole, which will either totally screw up the proposal or allow me to ignore it completely.



What if we define as "appropriate" as "doing nothing at all in this instance" ?

If a government asked you to take appropiate steps to combat terrorism, then under this proposal you would need to establish a dialogue with that government ("in the context of such cooperation and coordination"), seek to take the actions outlined in the remainder of article 3.

Of course, if your government had no terrorist issues at all (with neither terrorists threatening your government, or terrorists within your nation threatening another government) then the appropriate action would be to do nothing, as there is nothing there to combat. But if I said to your government there were terrorists within your country targetting my civilians to bring my government down, then you'd be obliged to co-operate as outlined.

As an extreme scenario, If you roleplayed a further refusal to co-operate, then my government would have to roleplay action, as we would feel the harbouring of internationally recognised terrorist groups as a legimate pretext for action, possibly invasion.

If a government asked you to take appropiate steps to combat terrorism, then under this proposal you would need to establish a dialogue with that government ("in the context of such cooperation and coordination"), seek to take the actions outlined in the remainder of article 3.


I understand that. But....


Of course, if your government had no terrorist issues at all (with neither terrorists threatening your government, or terrorists within your nation threatening another government) then the appropriate action would be to do nothing, as there is nothing there to combat. But if I said to your government there were terrorists within your country targetting my civilians to bring my government down, then you'd be obliged to co-operate as outlined.


What if I didn't agree they were terrorists? Or what if I thought they were terrorists, but approved of what they were doing? In that case my definition of "appropriate" might be to do nothing, or to actively protect them.


As an extreme scenario, If you roleplayed a further refusal to co-operate, then my government would have to roleplay action, as we would feel the harbouring of internationally recognised terrorist groups as a legimate pretext for action, possibly invasion.

Ah. Well - yeah - I can see that being a bad thing :}

So maybe the loophole is a tad smaller than I thought, but honestly I still have issues with having to not support groups I feel are "good guys" just because someone else thinks they are "bad guys"

terrorist or freedom fighter?
Ultimately the need to provide a difference for this resolution is irrelevant. Both have the capacity to commit terrorism, regardless of how their justifications are perceived. Indeed, inevitably there will be a group of people who will label freedom fighters terrorists, and vice versa.

Ultimately, what a group is defined as is irrelevant, it is their actions which need to be judged.

In this you are correct, the terms are meshed, and thrown about; and generally, historically; the label is applied only based upon which side is writing the official history [look at the differences IRL between UK and US interpretations of the "American Revolution"]...

I'd say, the primary difference is where the force is projected. Freedom Fighters, will not direct force upon their follow citizens [unless they are operating within or as the government]; while Terrorists tend to be indiscriminate.

EDIT:
Possible definition:
- The use of violence or threatened use of violence upon the general populace or civilians of a state, for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

This would effectively eliminate paramilitary state-sponsored "militias" from the terroristic claims of the orginal definition. And any other such group acting in the capacity of a Revolutionary Government attempting to seek independence through legitimate warfare. [Militia's combating invasional armies], and legitimate state revolutions. [I've always personally made it a policy to stay out of the internal affairs of state undergoing governmental upheaval and revolution; from the simple fact that there is no "right" intervention in those situations... And if a segment of the state's population is challenging the state, I cannot directly recognize either "government" as legitimate, untill the situation is resolved...]

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state paramilitary groups using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, religion or ideology and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

please, forgive me i didn't read all the thread

i was just wondering how you do the difference between Terrorism VS Resistance movement, it doesn't seems simple for me


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_movement

What if I didn't agree they were terrorists? Or what if I thought they were terrorists, but approved of what they were doing? In that case my definition of "appropriate" might be to do nothing, or to actively protect them.If they commit terrorism, then they are terrorists - hence the need for a strong definition. But if you felt that they were not doing something bad (you considered them freedom fighters, whilst the international recognition for their activities was terrorism) then you'd be overruled by the definition - regardless of their justification, blowing up non-combatant civilians is going to be frowned upon (article 1 of draft: "Unequivocally condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whoever committed, in particular those which threaten international peace and security"). Once we established there is a case to answer, you would be obligated under article 3 to protect innocents from terrorism, seek to prosecute the perpetrators of terrorism, deny them financing, deny them refuge, provide fellow governments information which will aid them in doing the same within their borders, and finally try and establish a dialogue to end the continuation of terrorist attacks.

I appreciate some nations will do better jobs than others, so if I was a nation too-poor or too reluctant to do anything about the terrorists within my borders which threatened another government, I suppose the minimum you could do to assist would be to allow the government and their agents carte blanche in dealing with the problem themselves, ignoring your national borders and systems of law. You would not be protecting the terrorists, but it would hardly do you any favours with another army trampling round your nation.

But if you participate, and prosecute the terrorists within your nations, you might be avoiding them having their heads chopped off/shot by the other nation.

So maybe the loophole is a tad smaller than I thought, but honestly I still have issues with having to not support groups I feel are "good guys" just because someone else thinks they are "bad guys"Again, it's why there is a strong need for a definition which makes it clear that if you committ attacks against non-combatant civilians, you are exposing yourself to the wrath of the international community. Otherwise, if we avoided a definition, anyone could be considered a terrorist by anyone else, and we have established nothing. At least with a decent definition we all know that if you blow up non-combatant civilians, you are a bad guy.

The people of Cluichstan also have prepared a similar draft resolution addressing this subject (clickhere (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449040)). I wonder if my esteemed colleague from Hirota would consider working with me to combine elements of both of our drafts to make a single, strong proposal that would stand a better chance of getting to the floor and passing a vote.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

If they commit terrorism, then they are terrorists


This would be where I disagree with you, and will always disagree with you. So the rest, I guess, is not really relevent.


Again, it's why there is a strong need for a definition which makes it clear that if you committ attacks against non-combatant civilians, you are exposing yourself to the wrath of the international community.

I still disagree with you, but have another question. Does this apply to national governments? Or are they permitted to hide behind an excuse of an act of war? (Because this would pretty much render any nuclear or chemical attack illegal, which some nations might object to)

This would be where I disagree with you, and will always disagree with you. So the rest, I guess, is not really relevent.It is a pretty fundamental disagreement, and if we can't see eye to eye on that then we are not going to agree on much else on this topic. It's a shame really because I do feel this proposal has bridged some of the issues raised by various groups, and has established some concensus (even if it's just because everyone disagrees on it because it is too much of a compromise - I suppose if everyone opposes the same issue on completely opposite perspectives it must lay somewhere with in the middle of those two perspectives) :)

Does this apply to national governments? Or are they permitted to hide behind an excuse of an act of war? (Because this would pretty much render any nuclear or chemical attack illegal, which some nations might object to)

Governments should be restricted by the rules of war - sadly there are no rules of war, so that's a moot point. But I'd agree that attacks from the state should be legislated upon in a rules of war proposal, but that's not in the mandate of this proposal.

I'm content to let this topic die off now - I think working with Cluichstan on a unified proposal is going to be much more successful. I regret we were unable to reach a concensus on this matter, but ultimately we only need to get support from 51% of the UN, so I'm sure you'd understand if your objections don't stop me pressing on with Cluichstan. However, I am grateful for some of the concerns you have raised, and feel they did contribute to the proposal.

I'm content to let this topic die off now - I think working with Cluichstan on a unified proposal is going to be much more successful. I regret we were unable to reach a concensus on this matter, but ultimately we only need to get support from 51% of the UN, so I'm sure you'd understand if your objections don't stop me pressing on with Cluichstan. However, I am grateful for some of the concerns you have raised, and feel they did contribute to the proposal.

The people of Cluichstan look forward to what they hope will be a fruitful partnership with their Hirotan friends.