The
Security and Terrorism Council began their first caucus Friday creating a
definition of terrorism in order to institute a foundation for future
discussions. A coalition of China, Israel, Germany, and Ireland formed during
the first unmoderated caucus to establish the international classification of
terrorism to allow for a cohesive resolution. The resolution provided a
definition of terrorism to further address the topic. The importance of
this definition is as China said: “without this definition we do not know what
we are fighting against.”
The
significance of this definition lies in the need to differentiate between
genuine political opposition and illegitimate, violent actors. As Ireland
questioned, “Are these freedom fighters agents of espionage or soldiers of
arms?” Terrorists could use the shield of protection that freedom fighters have
to carry out their plans without government intervention.
China headed
the resolution that was passed, which recognized the definition of terrorism as
the use of violence, pressure, or threats by a political organization against
the property, human life, or order and stability of the civilian population to
achieve a political motive. Furthermore, the delegations felt that a “freedom
fighter” should be more specifically defined as a member an organization that
attacks the standing government, not the civilian population, to achieve a new
or revised state government.
With the
increase in religious violence in the Middle East and the uprising of freedom
fighters in Syria, the issue of distinguishing between terrorism and a group
seeking independence has become a pressing issue.
 |
| Security and Terrorism delegates try to come to a consensus. |
Members of
the Council soon established the necessity of haste in reaching a resolution.
The United Kingdom established its presence as a strong opposing force to the
overall agreement of the rest of the delegations. As the other delegates began
a paper to establish a better definition, the UK fought to maintain the current
UN definition and stated that “terrorism is any attack without authorization.”
However, most delegates countered the UK’s proposal to uphold the Geneva Laws,
calling them outdated and unrelated to modern acts of terror. Iran stated, “The
UK is forgetting that a terrorist’s main weapon is not their bombs and arms,
but the fear they inflict on the public.”
Both
delegates hoped that freedom fighters would not be categorized as terrorists.
The UK pointed out that “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist.”
It was finally agreed that “freedom fighters fight the government, not the
people,” as stated by the delegate of Ethiopia.
The
members lastly sought to establish international consequences facing terrorist
groups. The debate over imprisonment or due process arose, but few delegations
supported due process. Moreover, the delegates from Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and
Israel all strongly believed that those who commit acts of terrorism do not
retain the rights outlined in the Geneva Laws.
Instead, the government upon which the act was committed retains the
right to punish the criminals as it sees fit.
The delegate from Saudi Arabia commented, “Terrorists cause instability and
harm civilians; therefore, by giving terrorists human rights under the Geneva
Laws we would be legitimizing their cause.”
No comments:
Post a Comment