[Groot Gouda]

United Nations Security Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

NOTING that warfare and violence are not acts which this body wishes to encourage.

NOTING WITH REGRET that there are certain unavoidable situations in which warfare and violence are necessary for the defense of sovereign persons and nations.

CONCERNED that many member nations are ill-equipped to conduct an effective defense of the sovereign persons and nations.

FURTHER CONCERNED that there are many nations that are not members of this body and are hostile to it and may attack the member states of this body.

ENCOURAGES all member states to ensure that they have the ability to effectively defend their sovereign nation from attack in the interest of protecting their citizens.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

[Sober Thought]

FOR.

This is a rather tame statement of the right to national self-defence, limited by the existing resolutions banning WMDs.

[Keeslandia]

I voted to abstain because this resolution is really just a big nothing. If anything I'd lean against as it's just meaningless.

[quentoni]

I agree. Very weak and states the obvious.

[Mikitivity]

My government is a bit unsure of its vote at this time. In particular we have reservations with the last operating clause, which seems like a blank check.

[Yuunli]

MikitivityJul 5 2005, 11:38 PMIn particular we have reservations with the last operating clause, which seems like a blank check.[/quote]
So do we. That's why Yuunli votes against.

[Groot Gouda]

After some consideration, and receiving the telegram quoted below, I urge my fellow regional UN members to vote AGAINST this resolution.

forgottenlands To: Any member of the Nation States United Nations
Re: Vote against the United Nations Security Act


To all members of the United Nations. I bring to your attention the concerning the currently at vote proposed resolution "United Nations Security Act" (UNSA) which posses a significant and concerning threat to the powers of these United Nations. While we agree with the concept that nations within the UN should be able to defend themselves, we do not feel that means that UN members should have access to any and all forms of weaponry - no matter how brutal or inhumane it may be.

The UNSA was designed with one purpose in mind: to prevent any future attempts to ban any form of weaponry within the UN. Unlike the just passed Nuclear Armaments resolution (which extends the trend shown by two previously failed attempts by the UN to ban Nuclear Weapons outright), the UNSA doesn't target a SINGLE weapon type, but rather targets all weapon types. It is easy to argue that no weapon can be classified as "unnecessary for defense" because each individual nation builds their defense in a different manner - and no matter what weapon is under the scrutiny of the UN, several nations will find that the banning of such a weapon would leave a gaping hole in their defense.

Arguably, one could make a sufficient case to declare a weapon unnecessary for defense, but considering a 3000 character limit on all resolutions, this will make it difficult at best to prove its lack of necessity, the reasoning of its removal, and state the various components to make it illegal and as loophole free as is humanly possible

Additionally, the timing of the UNSA is suspicious at best. The recent repeal of Resolution 16: Elimination of Bio-weapons was passed with a comment that the resolution should be replaced with a new and more effective resolution banning bio-weapons. While we admit that some individuals voted for the repeal with the belief that bio-weapons should not be banned, many voted with the wish that a truly effective bio-weapons ban should be enacted in its place. If the UNSA gets passed, any possible improved bio-weapons ban resolutions would be difficult at best to pass (and would only be legal if they contained wording explaining and proving that bio-weapons are unnecessary for defense). The current leading bio-weapons ban replacement resolution (which has already reached Quarom and will hit the floor of the UN if the UNSA fails - but will be deleted otherwise), is within 150 characters of the 3000 character limit - and would be unable to add this proof.

In the interests of preserving the ability of the UN to legislate restrictions on hazardous weaponry as it sees fit, rather than handcuffing the UN on such an important matter, we ask that you vote against the United Nations Security Act resolution and pass this message on so that others do not make a mistake the UN will surely regret.[/quote]

[Mikitivity]

Upon reading the material presented here (both IDU comments and the letter from the Forgottenlands), the Confederated City States has voted against this resolution.

(OOC: That is a long and well written letter for a campaign against a resolution. How do other anti-letters compare? Is that regular for a nation to send letters out?)

[Groot Gouda]

I occasionaly get a TG campaigning against or for a resolution while it's up for vote, often in response to my vote. Usually well-written, though not as long as this one.

[quentoni]

Although I'm all for being able to defend ourselves by (most) any necessary means possible, this resolution is just too vague and open to interpretation. Without the ability to quantify its repercussions to any reasonable degree, it is our belief it should be defeated.

[Federation of Disjunction]

We are against this resolution and on a larger note, what is going on with back to back weapons resolutions?!

D

Changing gears to RL, I grieve with all of my friends in the UK who are today doing an excellent job of dealing with a tragic and horrifying situation. May you find comfort and peace in the coming days. We in the states are with you in resolve and spirit.

NG

[Nosedondekistan]

The latest trends are all in favor of a future war in NS (reminds me of Palpatine's machinations in Star Wars). These weak resolutions must be countered with more effective resolutions and a big campaign in their favor.