NationStates Jolt Archive

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


Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Olwell

Description: Members of the United Nations, my proposal is simple - the threat of terrorism and rogue nations must be countered, but due to UN regulations, an armed military or police force is against protocol. Therefore, I propose that member nations must improve international cooperation by utilizing more joint military commands against the terrorist threat.

Main points:

1) A strategic self-defense force, sponsored by the UN, that is able to act as a counter-terrorism force and an immediate relief stopgap force, like the Peacekeepers. The UNSSDF will NOT be allowed to unitarily attack other nations, maintaining the vision of balance and peace to the world.

2) Increased spending in member nations on military budgets, focusing on counter-terrorism and new weapons systems. By being better armed and prepared, member nations will be able to mobilize more effectively against terrorist attacks.

3) Educational networks to promote democracy and stability in devastated nations, to help prevent rise of terrorist groups.

4) Increased unity in member nations to stand up to rogue nations that provide safe haven for terrorism; a tougher, less reconciliatory tactics for more aggressive diplomacy. The problem of terrorism can not be solved militarily alone - there must be diplomatic and political processes enacted to disarm terrorist groups and host nations with minimal loss of life.

This proposal, should it be passed, would lead to a safer, democratic world, with the same beliefs that the UN was founded on.

For a start, there is an existing UN Counterterrorism Initiative (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=167) that seems to address the general problem quite adequately.
1) A strategic self-defense force, sponsored by the UN, that is able to act as a counter-terrorism force and an immediate relief stopgap force, like the Peacekeepers. The UNSSDF will NOT be allowed to unitarily attack other nations, maintaining the vision of balance and peace to the world.
I'm not really sure this fully evades the prohibition on UN military forces. It seems to be performing military functions and is sponsored by the UN...changing the name probably isn't enough, sorry. Besides, the aforementioned UNCTI already makes provision for nations working together through 'new international instruments' (can't remember the exact language) to combat terrorism.
2) Increased spending in member nations on military budgets, focusing on counter-terrorism and new weapons systems. By being better armed and prepared, member nations will be able to mobilize more effectively against terrorist attacks.
Possibly. But this isn't necessarily true of every nation, particularly with regard to new weapons systems. In, for example, a crumbling, corrupt, post-Communist kleptocracy, there might be lots of legal loopholes, failing safeguards, and incentives to turn a blind eye, that would mean increased defence spending would lead to increased risk of terrorists gaining better armaments. Increased military spending might also heighten feelings of risk, paranoia and aggression. Which is not to say that people shouldn't spend money on the military; just that forcing everyone to is not a good (or popular) idea.
3) Educational networks to promote democracy and stability in devastated nations, to help prevent rise of terrorist groups.
Ha, Mr. Madison would approve. Unfortunately, I don't quite share his optimism. For all the good democracy does, promoting stability isn't usually one thing. Indeed, some of the most stable nations are the most politically repressive, and the most turbulent can be open democracies. And democracy doesn't necessarily prevent terrorism: some nations have voted for terrorist organizations and their political wings.
4) Increased unity in member nations to stand up to rogue nations that provide safe haven for terrorism; a tougher, less reconciliatory tactics for more aggressive diplomacy. The problem of terrorism can not be solved militarily alone - there must be diplomatic and political processes enacted to disarm terrorist groups and host nations with minimal loss of life.
I'm not fully sure what this does, but much of it seems to be covered by the UNCTI, or of a worrying overaggressive tone.
This proposal, should it be passed, would lead to a safer, democratic world, with the same beliefs that the UN was founded on.
I'm sorry, I don't agree, and as it stands, we can't support it.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

For a start, there is an existing UN Counterterrorism Initiative (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=167) that seems to address the general problem quite adequately.

Thanks, Sam. UNR #168 addresses the issue more than adequately, and certainly better than the rubbish put forth by the Olwellian representative.

And I'm not just saying that because I wrote UNR #168. ;)

I'm not really sure this fully evades the prohibition on UN military forces.

Probably because it doesn't. Not even close.

It seems to be performing military functions and is sponsored by the UN...changing the name probably isn't enough, sorry. Besides, the aforementioned UNCTI already makes provision for nations working together through 'new international instruments' (can't remember the exact language) to combat terrorism.

The exact language:

URGES all member states to cooperate in suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against it though administrative and judicial means and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding the actions and movements of international terrorists, the use of forged or falsified travel documents, the use of communications technologies by international terrorists, and traffic in arms, explosives, or other sensitive materials – particularly weapons of mass destruction – by international terrorists.

So yeah. Already covered.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well, this was my first proposal, and I had that sinking feeling after I checked out the rules with the no military force thing. Ah well, I just wanted to see how it would turn out. I support Quintessence's resolution though, so that will give me a small moral victory. Thanks for giving me constructive criticism about this though - it's a good learning lesson.

The important thing for new authors is to post those drafts before submitting, which it appears you did. That way, you don't get dinged with warnings for illegal proposals ... and you end up with a much better shot of passing the revised versions.



Edit: Oops, no, you submitted first. I'll let you slide on the warning by considering your post above a request for removal.