Yesterday was a particularly productive one since the delegates had voted the final resolution regarding the nuclear disarmament issue and had passed on to the next point on the agenda: the disarmament of the terrorist organizations.
Like a well-oiled machine, the session started with the nation’s position on the topic and we can say that some kept our attention. Besides the general consensus about the need to disarm terrorist organizations, France’s point of view -to create and enhance an international database available for all so they can change information about the position, activity and links of the suspected targets –South Africa’s– the formation of a Pan African League with the purpose of gathering intelligence and eliminating the terrorist treats with its own army –and Red Cross’s perspective –to find a path that includes the curtailment of the black markets –distinguished form the overall. But Pakistan went few steps further by suggesting that a dialogue must start between nations and terrorist organizations stipulating that this model will allow nations to simply and quickly solve the issues and prevent additional losses. Unsettlement soon followed from the delegation of Australia who raised the question of representation on behalf of the terrorist’ side; suggesting that disenfranchisement is the best solution, he proceeded by saying that we need to apply of policy of “diplomatic action”.
China took a strong position by saying that more sanctions should be imposed for countries that finance and encourage terrorist actions and Syria went further by telling that the ban of weapons will not change the situation enough and non-weapon trade zones should be imposed, together with increased border controls.
The issue appears, at the first glance, easier than the previous one, but who can tell for sure? Relations of amity and enmity had been established already and that will have a tremendous impact in the future negotiations.
By Tiplea Paul Dragomir