Discussion of and voting on pressing world matters.
- Posts: 1560
- Joined: 19:43:14 Friday, 03 August, 2012
The formation of UNATCO (United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition) would be rested upon five fundamental purposes:
It is a proposed UN-Backed Anti-Terrorism Organization that operates both as peacekeeping and policing forces with expanded operational scope that operate in tandem with local police units and military forces in the countering and dismantling of terrorism within member countries. Membership of UNATCO is voluntary by member nations and is made official upon passing and ratifying laws allowing UNATCO to operate in their country.
The Director of UNATCO is appointed by the UN Secretary General to serve a term of five years. The staff is appointed by and the internal affairs of UNATCO is managed by the Director.
Member countries of UNATCO may either be granted personnel and operatives by respective governments or directly recruit personnel and operatives to cover staffing needs and will be provided a yearly budget from the United Nations to operate on top of any donations granted by members of the coalition.
UNATCO will maintain a direct core of Operatives and Peacekeeping soldiers to not only fight terrorism alongside local authorities but to also train member countries in the latest anti-terrorism doctrines.
UNATCO is responsible to ensure the standardization of weapons, equipment, and tactics within the organization's direct peacekeeping forces to ensure efficient logistics and supply and that their operatives and peacekeeping forces are sufficiently trained, organized, and properly led.
This is a proposal to found UNATCO with the growing threat terrorism poses to countries around the world. UNATCO will be a reasource of which member states may draw upon in their time of need.
I motion this for a vote within the UNSC.
Gen.Secretary Ban Ki Moon.
Metal Gear BoP-GM
1936 BoP-Nazi Germany
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 23:45:21 Monday, 05 September, 2016
To whom is this organisation accountable? In the current form it seems like an organisation waiting to overstep its bounds and go rogue. We are unconvinced that the threat of terrorism is so grave that an organisation with seemingly zero accountability and endless authority is necessary. Besides, France will never allow any organisation to exist that could possibly infringe on its sovereignty. In its current form, we would need to veto this proposal. At the very least any such organisation needs to be extremely limited in scope, be completely accountable to the security council and only act on the directions of the security council.
- Posts: 323
- Joined: 22:24:36 Sunday, 31 March, 2013
Russia wishes to know since when did this turn of face happen? Last we heard the UN told Russia Terrorism is our own problom and they would be not helping.
United States of America - BOP 1830
United States of America - BOP 1935
Russian Federation - BOP Metal Gear
- You will be judged by what you succeed at, gentlemen, not by what you attempt.
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: 23:49:08 Wednesday, 17 April, 2013
- Location: United Kingdom
Japan cannot support this proposal, and as such must make our Security Council vote no
both for practical concerns and philosophical.
In addition to the concerns raised by the French representative, we point out the following:
- No part of the United Nations Charter authorises the formation of standing military forces by the United Nations, and the Charter would have to be amended in order to grant this power to the United Nations. Similarly, as related to our third point, it is not lawful for the United Nations under the present Charter to declare which groups are or are not terrorist.
- Despite the 'voluntary' nature of this organisation, a permanent standing force 'contributed' from certain nations would inevitably become politically dominated by those nations that contributed, and would work to advance their agendas rather than the interests of the world as a whole.
- There is no currently internationally accepted definition for who is a terrorist and who is not, and many members of the United Nations, including members of the Security Council, have expressed their support for groups which other members of the United Nations have declared terrorists. On whose side would such a force be on? Presumably, it would support those member states' views who provided 'donations'.
- The creation and maintenance of such a force even at the lowest level would require either a significant increase in United Nations member contributions or significant cutbacks in other aspects of the United Nations' operations and activities. Should contributions prove insufficient, the vast cost of maintaining such a force and having reliable income sources risks moving the United Nations from a position of requesting contributions to demanding taxes from its members, particularly if it has an armed force to threaten members.
- Once such a standing force exists, it will create a dangerous precedent, providing the United Nations an easy, but not always appropriate, response to any situation. If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
- The existence of a force that can be rapidly deployed to any situation may end up ending all possibility of peaceful solutions, not least because such a force would inevitably be forced to take sides in conflicts, despite an official position of neutrality. It may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements.
- As standing armies are the legal preserve of states, this organisation would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where various states have veto power over decision-making. The creation of such a force that would interfere within member states is an infringement of sovereignty.
- Recruitment even in a fully independent force will be difficult, and biased towards recruits from certain regions and military cultures. In a truly multinational force, there will always be a great many individual soldiers who could be suspected of taking sides in a particular conflict (e.g. Muslims or Orthodox Christians in the Balkan conflicts); are such soldiers to be pulled out from particular mission due to their own personal allegiances?
"Imagine lies, and then write them down in order. That is literally all authors do!"
Metal Gear BoP: Japan
1985 BoP: ☭☭☭☭
Overlord BoP: United Kingdom
1715 BoP: France
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests