RYMUN 12 Counter Terrorism Committee Topic I: Influence of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan

UN Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) gives a definition: criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or seriousbodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the generalpublic or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel agovernment or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act. The UN General Assembly Resolution49/60 (adopted on December 9, 1994),titled "Measures to EliminateInternational Terrorism," contains aprovision describing terrorism:Criminal acts intended or calculated toprovoke a state of terror in the generalpublic, a group of persons or particularpersons for political purposes are in anycircumstance unjustifiable, whatever theconsiderations of a political,philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic,religious or any other nature that may beinvoked to justify them. Following the most basic guidelinesprovided by the UNSC and UNGA about terrorism by state actors and non-state actorsto understand how the geo-strategic environment as well as the rapid transition of the demographic setting of states that have been the victims of terrorism and related acts of aggression, the nature of the said problem becomes a rather complex phenomena. This implies that to better understand terrorism; the pre-requisite demand is dissection of the concept, which reveals the following organs that allow terrorism to have a more flexible and multidimensional approach: There are basically two major domains of terrorism: State Sponsored Terrorism: - Depending upon the environment in which the state under question is so discussed, state sponsored terrorism, may be defined as the covert approval, encouragement, financing or any other means of supporting or endorsing entities that conduct or aid and abet in conducting acts of aggression being in a foreign, domestic, or both, environments for maximization of political leverage or gaining any strategic advantage thereof.

Non- State Terrorism: - Non-State terrorism is where the aggressor does not obey, abide by,
adhere to or accept the writ and jurisdiction of any state. Such an aggressor or group or set of individuals may have nationality and statehood as the identifying factor; but, receive absolutely no endorsement from the state, so identified by. They may be ideologically, religiously, ethnically, culturally, or even geographically motivated; but, the main rationale of their objective is to gain maximum leverage within the ambit of their motivation, whatever it may be, through inciting psychological fear, chaos and disorder of a national level with direct strategic repercussions to the state so targeted by use of hard force of a limited scale.

Following abovementioned basic guidelines of understanding what terrorism in the contemporary world is understood as, the two grounds or scenarios within the international order Afghanistan and Pakistan. Since, both states have a frontline status in the War on Terror (WoT), following the 9/11 attacks, the understanding as to how terrorism has affected these nations in all aspects of life, from state governance and maintenance of peace and security to a more thought-provoking element of understanding the nature of the changing dynamics pre and post withdrawal strategy of the Allied Forces from Afghanistan and its spill-over effect on the neighboring state Pakistan, is imperative. Delegates are required to discuss matters strictly in accordance to their official state policies and declaration with respect to the said issue. Delegates are also required to analyze on ground facts as well as scenarios; but, only with respect to their own countrys position. Since, terrorism is a global phenomenon, delegates are required to present solutions in line with their official states stance; but, innovation that induces positive recommendation to the contemporary status quo would be endorsed and highly appreciated. Wish you all the best and looking forward to a productive and well-articulated session.

Topic II: Post Osama-bin-Ladin: Accountability and Future Prospects

The May 1, 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden (OBL) by U.S. forces in Pakistan has led to a range of views about near- and long-term security and foreign policy implications for the United States. Experts have a range of views about the killing of OBL. Some consider his death to be a largely symbolic event, while others believe it marks a significant achievement in U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Individuals suggesting that his death lacks great significance argue that U.S. and allied actions had eroded OBLs ability to provide direction and support to Al Qaeda (AQ).

For these analysts, OBLs influence declined following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to a point where prior to his death he was the figurehead of an ideological movement. This argument reasons that a shift of terrorist capability has occurred away from the core of AQ to affiliated organizations. Still others argue that OBL pursued a strategy of developing the AQ organization into an ideological movement thus making it more difficult to defeat. They contend that, even if OBL were no longer involved in the decision-making apparatus of AQ, his role as

the inspirational leader of the organization was far more important than any operational advice he might offer. As such, his death may not negatively affect the actions of the ideological adherents of AQ and as a martyr he may attract and inspire a greater number of followers.

The death of OBL appears to have little, if any, immediate consequence for the legal framework governing the conflict with Al Qaeda (AQ) and its affiliates. Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF, P.L. 107- 40), which authorized the President: to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. The search for OBL took almosta decade to develop and execute, spanned two very different Administrations with the operationconducted in a sovereign nation, apparently without their knowledge or consent, against a targetthat was considered by some analysts as well hidden and protected. Some contend that this sendsthe message that no matter how long it takes and how difficult the circumstances, the U.S. willultimately kill or capture senior terrorist leadership. While this could convey a potentialdeterrence message, it also suggests that in the future, more concerted measures will need to betaken by terrorist organizations to protect their leadership, which could make military operationsagainst them more difficult. Delegates are required to focus on the following core issues:

Ascertainment of state responsibility Confidence and mutual cooperation amongst nations with the premise of the War on Terror Post Osama-bin-Laden world and the changing dynamics of terrorism The uniform application of rules of International Law concerning interstate maintenance of order in the international diplomatic setting Future of terrorism and terrorist groups within Southeast Asia

Recommendations and apprehensions concerning the future of frontline states post OBL and the NATO-US Exit Strategy International law and the management of state sovereignty Undue intervention and secrecy in matters of universal and global nature by state actors Formulation of new rules of conduct for mutual cooperation for future events

Delegates are required to discuss matters strictly in accordance to their official state policies and declaration with respect to the said issue. Delegates are also required to analyze on ground facts as well as scenarios; but, only with respect to their own countrys position. Since, terrorism is a global phenomenon, delegates are required to present solutions in line with their official states stance; but, innovation that induces positive recommendation to the contemporary status quo would be endorsed and highly appreciated. Wish you all the best and looking forward to a productive and well-articulated session.