DAY 1
Delegates kindly note that the following are the proceedings of the committee which were brought up the most. Please note that if i particular country has not been mentioned below; it does not in any way reflect the performance of the delegate. Only those points have been mentioned which the EB wishes to be discussed in greater detail. The blog does not represent the preference(s) of the EB.


The first moderated caucus of the day was raised by the delegate of USA who sought to define terrorism. The caucus saw the participation of a number of delegates all whom emphasized on certain similar points and had their corresponding diverging views as well. While the delegate of USA defined terrorism as an act of aggression, hijack and a politically charged movement against the government charged by a socio political movement, it also mentioned that member nations should “…not focus on the tag of terrorism but instead on all related activities”.
Delegate of UK, while defining terrorism as a disruption peace also emphasized on the fact that terrorist activities may be politically as well as ideologically motivated and that religion may not always be the reason for terrorism.
Delegates of Senegal, Qatar, Mauritius, Libya, Nigeria, Guatemala , Gabon, Djibouti, Uganda all emphasized that terrorism is majorly characterized by the large scale and intentional destruction of life, property and the attack on the fundamental rights of the people.
Republic of Korea defined terrorism as the attack on the core values of HR as enshrined in the UN principles. Norway made a strong point about the need of differentiating criminals from terrorists and emphasized on the political motives of a terrorist group.
However, Brazil disagreed and felt that instead of a country specific approach, member nations should follow a common definition as decided by the United Nations. This too was supported by a number of delegates.
Angola spoke about the clandestine nature of terrorist organizations and Angola, along with Pakistan and Senegal also emphasized terrorism as an act that induces fear in people. Mexico and Brazil also pointed out the ubiquitous use of arms and other weapons in terrorist activities and considered it to be a characteristic feature of terrorism.

The second moderated caucus was on the topic “Threats to violation of Human Rights by govt while countering terrorism”, proposed by Ukraine.
Delegates of Ukraine, USA, Ghana, UK, Slovakia, and Cameroon discussed the violation of privacy in the anti-terrorist strategies adopted by various nations .Burkina Faso felt that technological methods that violate the privacy of individuals should be used only as a last resort and that the information so collected should be kept confidential. While delegates of Argentina and Pakistan emphasized on the rise of Islamophobia, related intolerances and the ethnic and minority groups being particularly affected in the after math of a terrorist activity, delegate of Kyrgyzstan talked about the violation of the freedom of expression and the same is not granted to citizens by their respective governments.
The moderated caucus also saw various allegations being leveled against various countries. Thailand felt that UK and France were unjust In their decision of banning the “hijab” and the “burkah” as felt that such restrictions should not be present.
Arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances, with emphasis on the applicability of refugee laws on terrorist was under discussion as well. Saudi Arabia accused china of malpractices of torture and arbitrary detention by groups such as the MSS. China on the other hand felt that in cases where sufficient proof is available, detention of persons may be imperative. Delegates of Bangladesh and Bahrain supported this point, but also emphasized on the need of transparency and standard norms which are required for the same. Cuba, Guatemala, and Russia strongly disagreed with this point and Russia in particular vehemently disapproved of the Guntamno Bay detention centers. Brazil focused on the fact that reports are made misleading when detainees are shifted from one detention centre to another. Libya focused on the lack of adequate and appropriate facilities provided to detainees in jail and prisons. Poland also mentioned on the barriers on the entry and movement placed on people. Republic of Moldova talked about the deporting of diplomatic assurances.


The third moderated caucus was on the topic: “impact of ethnic profiling on different communities” proposed by delegate of Norway. Norway considers racial profiling as a harmful, frightening and humiliating experience for the races and minority groups concerned. Delegate of Pakistan added by saying that racial profiling towards the dress code of Muslims should be condemned. Delegates of Cameroon and France emphasized on the wrong interpretation of Islam and focused on the need of spreading correct awareness. Delegates of Ukraine and Angola felt that profiling and “random checks” should be conducted when there is conclusive proof of the need of the same. Delegates felt that profiling should be a transparent process and should not violate international law. Delegate of Burkina Faso felt that behavioral characteristic and traits should also be the basis of profiling rather than just race and religion. Delegate of Russian Federation on the other hand felt that unless alternative solutions can be thought of, profiling cannot be done away with and felt that behavioral profiling as suggested by Burkina Faso would require extensive training of human personnel which shall not be practical in the short run. USA felt that the 9/11 attacks were not based on religious considerations and defended its stand as a state against Islamic fundamentalism. This statement was commented upon as being “vague, hurtful and ambiguous” by Brazil and Djibouti.


DAY 2 shall be updated soon. Stay Tuned....