On Friday, March 31, 2017 a heated debate regarding the rise of terrorism in Europe occurred on NATO . Many European countries, especially Poland and France made a strong push to persuade the committee to educate youth on how to turn away from radicalism and terrorism. In addition to education, Germany and Poland both agreed that a crucial action to take would be “financially impaling” terrorist organizations. Yet the repetition of this point, the countries in agreement failed to provide a solid solution on how to take this economic action. In response to the Eastern European countries, France strongly disagreed by stating, “Nobody blows up a public place with the potential of killing thousands of people for economic reasons.” France respectfully disagreed by explaining the reasons for youth becoming radicalized was often due to a lack of education.
The issue of youth susceptible to radicalization was constantly debated, and despite the communal efforts of the delegates agreeing on education and the value of cultural diversity, other delegates undermined this critical solutions. The United Kingdom and Spain both took to supporting strong online efforts to combat online terrorist communications, and cyber terrorism.
The debate took a heated turn when the United Kingdom proposed a NATO sharing system to share information and analyze data regarding radicalized countries. The delegates reacted extremely positively to this suggestion. The United Kingdom then proposed another creative solution regarding sanctioning the purchase and usage of oil and petroleum from the Middle East. France in response strongly agreed and explained the problem with Saudi Arabia - a major oil and petroleum exporter - is the funding of ISIS and their support of the terrorist organization.
Canada made a passionate speech on the use of Muslim minorities to prevent terrorism, stating, “Muslims are peaceful and would go out of their way to aid in the prevention of radical Islamic terrorist attacks.” Canada also added how the banning Muslims would add to the hatred and propaganda that refugees face on a daily basis, which is the first priority on Canada’s radar. Luxembourg immediately took to agreeing with Canada and both countries maintained a strong stance of the protection of refugees throughout the debate.
Although the delegates proposed multiple different solutions the overall themes remained the protection of refugees, education of vulnerable Muslim youth and economic sanctions. Despite a few frustrating disagreements the committee delegations held a strong grip on their dedication to proposing their solutions to rising terrorism. The urgency and passion regarding the topic was very evident in the heated manner in which the delegates proposed solutions and opinions during debate. Despite the motivation, the delegates had a somewhat difficult time agreeing on solutions and actively providing feasible solutions in decreasing terrorism in Europe.
The issue of youth susceptible to radicalization was constantly debated, and despite the communal efforts of the delegates agreeing on education and the value of cultural diversity, other delegates undermined this critical solutions. The United Kingdom and Spain both took to supporting strong online efforts to combat online terrorist communications, and cyber terrorism.
The debate took a heated turn when the United Kingdom proposed a NATO sharing system to share information and analyze data regarding radicalized countries. The delegates reacted extremely positively to this suggestion. The United Kingdom then proposed another creative solution regarding sanctioning the purchase and usage of oil and petroleum from the Middle East. France in response strongly agreed and explained the problem with Saudi Arabia - a major oil and petroleum exporter - is the funding of ISIS and their support of the terrorist organization.
Canada made a passionate speech on the use of Muslim minorities to prevent terrorism, stating, “Muslims are peaceful and would go out of their way to aid in the prevention of radical Islamic terrorist attacks.” Canada also added how the banning Muslims would add to the hatred and propaganda that refugees face on a daily basis, which is the first priority on Canada’s radar. Luxembourg immediately took to agreeing with Canada and both countries maintained a strong stance of the protection of refugees throughout the debate.
Although the delegates proposed multiple different solutions the overall themes remained the protection of refugees, education of vulnerable Muslim youth and economic sanctions. Despite a few frustrating disagreements the committee delegations held a strong grip on their dedication to proposing their solutions to rising terrorism. The urgency and passion regarding the topic was very evident in the heated manner in which the delegates proposed solutions and opinions during debate. Despite the motivation, the delegates had a somewhat difficult time agreeing on solutions and actively providing feasible solutions in decreasing terrorism in Europe.