The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s mandate is to protect its member nations and stand together as a whole. When current issues, such as the rise of terrorism in Europe, become extremely present, the committee discusses and attempts to resolve them. In some cases, the resolutions fail, as every single member must agree on the final resolution for it to pass. In other cases, in excellent examples of international cooperation, the organization creates a resolution that solves the issue in the eyes of every country present. Today, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization discussed Draft Resolution 1.0, a paper sponsored by Canada, France, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
The paper contained many clauses, ranging from a condemnation of all acts of terrorism, a protective segment regarding the freedom of speech, and several ways to actively and pre-emptively counter terrorism. Some of these methods include more vigorous investigation into the sources of terrorism, the creation of an information campaign, financial monitoring of potentially radicalized individuals, an improved screening process for refugees, the endorsement of countries taking military action against ISIS, the creation of a fund for the care of refugees, and to increase the sharing of intelligence. As well, the paper included two clauses related to education. Clause 1 “Calls for an increase in standard of basic education for children, especially those of migrant families” and Clause 10 “Further calls for an increase in standard of basic education for children, especially those of migrant families”. Although somehow the repetition escapes the notice of the committee, the delegations spent a lot of time discussing the original wording that the committee is “Deeply concerned by the threat radical Islam poses”. Many member nations, led by Estonia, were concerned that the singling out of Islam was discriminatory.
The delegation of Norway pointed out that the majority of the committee was in accordance about nearly every aspect of the position paper, short of the contentious Islam phrase and Estonia’s disagreement with the clause stating that the committee is “Deeply saddened by the appalling terror attacks that have occurred in France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Belgium and many other NATO nations”. Estonia felt that this emphasis on the sponsor countries “seems like they think they’re the only countries that matter”. Although France continued to defend the phrase regarding Islamic extremism, the delegation said that they would be willing to alter it to ‘radical religious extremism’. After much deliberation and several propositions of friendly amendments, the committee eventually settled on the broader term ‘radical extremism’. Luxemburg compellingly stated, “Religion should not be used as an excuse for violence, ever.” The draft resolution passed a vote by acclamation, becoming Resolution Paper 1.1.
Although the wording of the paper was changed, the delegation of France remained pleased with the contents of the resolution, and due to their role as “one of the original sponsors of the resolution paper, France contributed greatly towards the resolution, and it has everything France wanted”. In addition, France felt that the alteration to the controversial clause “was a fairly small compromise”. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was able to come to a single agreement today, with all the delegations contributing many ideas and wordings that came to a climax in one resolution paper considering the threat of terrorism in Europe.
The paper contained many clauses, ranging from a condemnation of all acts of terrorism, a protective segment regarding the freedom of speech, and several ways to actively and pre-emptively counter terrorism. Some of these methods include more vigorous investigation into the sources of terrorism, the creation of an information campaign, financial monitoring of potentially radicalized individuals, an improved screening process for refugees, the endorsement of countries taking military action against ISIS, the creation of a fund for the care of refugees, and to increase the sharing of intelligence. As well, the paper included two clauses related to education. Clause 1 “Calls for an increase in standard of basic education for children, especially those of migrant families” and Clause 10 “Further calls for an increase in standard of basic education for children, especially those of migrant families”. Although somehow the repetition escapes the notice of the committee, the delegations spent a lot of time discussing the original wording that the committee is “Deeply concerned by the threat radical Islam poses”. Many member nations, led by Estonia, were concerned that the singling out of Islam was discriminatory.
The delegation of Norway pointed out that the majority of the committee was in accordance about nearly every aspect of the position paper, short of the contentious Islam phrase and Estonia’s disagreement with the clause stating that the committee is “Deeply saddened by the appalling terror attacks that have occurred in France, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Belgium and many other NATO nations”. Estonia felt that this emphasis on the sponsor countries “seems like they think they’re the only countries that matter”. Although France continued to defend the phrase regarding Islamic extremism, the delegation said that they would be willing to alter it to ‘radical religious extremism’. After much deliberation and several propositions of friendly amendments, the committee eventually settled on the broader term ‘radical extremism’. Luxemburg compellingly stated, “Religion should not be used as an excuse for violence, ever.” The draft resolution passed a vote by acclamation, becoming Resolution Paper 1.1.
Although the wording of the paper was changed, the delegation of France remained pleased with the contents of the resolution, and due to their role as “one of the original sponsors of the resolution paper, France contributed greatly towards the resolution, and it has everything France wanted”. In addition, France felt that the alteration to the controversial clause “was a fairly small compromise”. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was able to come to a single agreement today, with all the delegations contributing many ideas and wordings that came to a climax in one resolution paper considering the threat of terrorism in Europe.