This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Resolution 2008/2 Concerning A Proposed International Intelligence Committee

This poll is closed

Do you support Resolution: 2008/2?

Yes11%

No56%

Abstain33%

Total votes: 9

Ten Green Bottles

2

Resolution
Committee: Security Council
Submitted by: France

The General Assembly of The United Nations,

Recognising that there are severe pitfalls in the current intelligence sharing process,
Deeply concerned that some member states are reluctant to share intelligence with other nations,
Alarmed by the actions of these states,
Noting with regret that this may be detrimental to neutralising terrorist threats,

1.

Urges all nations to work together in the face of terrorism;

2.

Calls for an International Intelligence Committee to be set up, allowing member states free access to intelligence concerning terrorist organisations;

3.

Takes note of the fact that many states will remain reluctant to share the above intelligence;

4.

Expresses its hope that these states overcome their reservations and fully partake in the international fight against terror;

5.

Congratulates the member states that share intelligence freely and unreservedly;

6.

Reaffirms the UN's ideal of a peaceful, democratic world;

Reply 1

ukebert

13

How will this commitee combat the obvious breach of security that sharing top secret intelligence with every nation on earth will cause? If a nation is suspected of aiding and abetting terrorists will they be struck of the list?

Reply 2

Ten Green Bottles

OP

2

Accusing a nation of abetting terrorists is a very serious accusation, should any nation have evidence that another is indeed abetting terrorists sanctions, including removal from this committee, whould of course have to follow.

Reply 3

Alasdair

14

The UK feels this would not be useful outside of the framework of an international anti-terrorist military organisation...

Reply 4

UniOfLife

12

Iran would like to express its concern that "terrorism" means different things to different people and feels that this committee could be abused by states to gather intelligence on other states under the false claim of terrorism.

Reply 5

Ethereal

19

alasdair_R

The UK feels this would not be useful outside of the framework of an international anti-terrorist military organisation...

The UK doesn't even contribute its armed forces to blue beret missions

Reply 6

u_dun_noe

2

Israel appreciates the attempt to create an international intelligence committee, but does feel this will be ineffective as before, as the definition of 'terrorism' has many meanings in various countries. Also Israel do feel that within certain countries, terrorists are the backbone behind the government. Hence, another reason why the proposed intel comittee would probably be a failure.

Reply 7

Ten Green Bottles

OP

2

u_dun_noe

Also Israel do feel that within certain countries, terrorists are the backbone behind the government. Hence, another reason why the proposed intel comittee would probably be a failure.

Does Israel have evidence to back up that claim? Creating an argument based on a suspicion is dangerous at the best of times. And I have little doubt that the countries you refer to would be rather angry were they to find out that Israel has accused them of being run by terrorists.

In France's opinon, a committee for the sole purpose of sharing information about global terrorist threats is far better than the cloudy procedure for intelligence sharing currently in place.

For clarification sake, I wish to make it clear that the intelligence shared would be about global terrorist organisations, with terrorist being defined as 'One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant'.

France wishes to make it crystral clear that such a committee would only focus on inter- or multi- national terrorist organisations. In short, those that provide the greatest threat to world peace.

Reply 8

UniOfLife

12

Misunderstood Beauty

Does Israel have evidence to back up that claim? Creating an argument based on a suspicion is dangerous at the best of times. And I have little doubt that the countries you refer to would be rather angry were they to find out that Israel has accused them of being run by terrorists.

In France's opinon, a committee for the sole purpose of sharing information about global terrorist threats is far better than the cloudy procedure for intelligence sharing currently in place.

For clarification sake, I wish to make it clear that the intelligence shared would be about global terrorist organisations, with terrorist being defined as 'One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant'.

France wishes to make it crystral clear that such a committee would only focus on inter- or multi- national terrorist organisations. In short, those that provide the greatest threat to world peace.

Iran wonders who will be drawing up this list of "multi-national or inter-national terrorist organisations."

Iran further notes that, using France's definition of a terrorist, certain "special-forces" groups could be classed as terrorists.

Reply 9

Ten Green Bottles

OP

2

France proposes that such a list should be drawn up by the committee as part of the initial process.

France agrees with Iran's second point, but does not feel that the similarities between terrorists and Special Forces Groups, though a mine of moral discussion that should be debated, is hardly relevant to this discussion and should Iran make a point about this elsewhere within the MUN, France would happily discuss it.

Perhaps this definition suits Iran better:
terrorist: (n) a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Reply 10

UniOfLife

12

Misunderstood Beauty

France proposes that such a list should be drawn up by the committee as part of the initial process.

France agrees with Iran's second point, but does not feel that the similarities between terrorists and Special Forces Groups, though a mine of moral discussion that should be debated, is hardly relevant to this discussion and should Iran make a point about this elsewhere within the MUN, France would happily discuss it.

Perhaps this definition suits Iran better:
terrorist: (n) a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Iran feels that this "moral discussion" is essential and will in the end undermine the efforts to establish any such body. The definition of "terrorist" is highly political and the committee will either be politicised by it or else will be ineffectual.

And Iran notes that this new definition is circular as it defines a terrorist as one who "employs terror", without defining what that means and is thus simply defining a terrorist as a terrorist.

Reply 11

kingb

Kenya welcomes this resolution, but with reservation.
There seems to be a loophole in certain areas.
Who will draw up this list?
What does this resolution intend to do once an organization is recognized as 'terrorist'?

Reply 12

geetar

16

As a member of the CASC and the OAS, and former chair of the OAS anti-terrorism coordinating body (CICTE), El Salvador welcomes such a resolution, knowing the benefits it could bring. However, before it pledges its support, it wishes to enquire about two issues:

1) Whether such a body could be practical, ie: whether the neccessary level of organisation that comes with all national bodies could be allied with the secrecy needed in the field of intelligence

and

2) What implications there will be in regard to human rights.

Reply 13

Grape190190

2

Canada suspects that this committee would be open to abuse.

Also, what is there to make sure that a nation is handing over all the intelligence that they have?

Reply 14

Ten Green Bottles

OP

2

geetar

As a member of the CASC and the OAS, and former chair of the OAS anti-terrorism coordinating body (CICTE), El Salvador welcomes such a resolution, knowing the benefits it could bring. However, before it pledges its support, it wishes to enquire about two issues:

1) Whether such a body could be practical, ie: whether the neccessary level of organisation that comes with all national bodies could be allied with the secrecy needed in the field of intelligence

and

2) What implications there will be in regard to human rights.

1. That is, of course, a risk. If El Salvador could come up with a better solution they are more than welcome. Right now, this is what we're working with.

2. The committee would not, I believe, contravine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If any breach were to be suspected, it would be investigated throughly and impartially.

Reply 15

Teehar

10

Syria sees it's intelligence of a high value and sensitivity and as such refuses to share it.

Reply 16

Ten Green Bottles

OP

2

Syria is not being asked to share all of its intelligence, only pieces which will aid our world in the fight against multi-national terrorist threats.

If Syria has any other, better, suggestions it is welcome to expand on them. For the time being, this is the best we've got.

Poll up

While Tongas extensive intelligence gathering network could contribute to the fight against terror such a committee would require knowledge of Tongan agents to be released to foriegn nationals, this is not acceptible. Tonga remains committed to fighting terrorism and to the sharing of intelligence but will not support this resolution.