[Sheknu]

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

Quote: The United Nations,

DECLARING its commitment to the establishment and preservation of world peace, through effective international law and cooperation,

REAFFIRMING its fundamental objection to cruel and barbaric treatment of any person,

DEPLORING the horrific effects of chemical weaponry,

BELIEVING chemical disarmament to be in the interests of world peace,

ACCEPTING that in the presence of many hostile non-member states, certain states may be unwilling to disarm,

WARMLY APPLAUDING the intentions of all states willing to engage in chemical disarmament,

CONCERNED that irresponsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry has the potential for serious accidental damage,

WISHING to provide the means for states to engage in safe chemical disarmament,

BELIEVING that such an operation falls under the jurisdiction of the UN, as a neutral international body:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of international law:

a. "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

b. "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to people in a way that could render it an effective military weapon;

c. "precursor" as a chemical reactant that takes part at any stage in the production of a toxic chemical;

d. "chemical disarmament" as the safe destruction of chemical weaponry:
i. specifically including conversion to other purposes;
ii. specifically excluding dumping in seas or inland waters, burial, or transfer to other states or terrorist organizations;

2. RECOGNISES chemical weaponry as not necessary for national defence;

3. CONDEMNS the use of chemical weaponry under any circumstances;

4. STRONGLY URGES all states to engage in chemical disarmament;

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Chemical Disarmament Commission:

a. The UNCDC will engage in research into safer methods of chemical disarmament, and into safer approaches to storage and transport of chemical weaponry, with a view to minimising the potential for health and environmental risks;

b. The UNCDC may publish reports and advice on chemical disarmament, and on safe storage and transport of chemical weaponry;

c. All states are invited to contribute experts, technology and expertise in the field of chemical disarmament to the UNCDC;

d. All states are encouraged to declare chemical weaponry stockpiles, update such records on a regular basis, and quickly report all uses of chemical weaponry, to the UNCDC;

e. All states wishing to engage in chemical disarmament are requested to obtain advice and aid from the UNCDC in responsible practices, and may agree to authorise UNCDC teams to visit sites to oversee, aid with or engage in disarmament;

f. States may further request aid and assistance from the UNCDC with a view to improving the safety of any storage facilities, or of methods for transporting chemical weaponry;

g. The UNCDC may, where requested by at least one party directly involved in negotiations, mediate and provide assistance towards international chemical disarmament treaties;

h. States may, in the course of any interactions with the UNCDC, bar any particular person from entering their territory or interacting with their citizens as part of inspection, advisory, negotiation or other delegations;

i. All information supplied to the UNCDC, except where the state providing it specifically allows its dissemination or publication, will be held as strictly confidential.[/quote]

Forum thread ---> http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=464280
GTT forum thread ---> http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Ta...hp?showtopic=55

----

For those unaware of the history, towards the end of 2005 I got a chemical weaponry ban to quorum. However, I then realized some mistakes in it, and sadly had to have it deleted. The original proposal can be found archived on NSwiki.

Now, I still want to tackle this issue, but I'm not going to go for a ban anymore, for various reasons. I appreciate that might put some of you off: you recognise this would probably prevent, or make much harder, an outright ban, so might be seen as caving. However, for the moment, I'm just going to tackle the problem of helping states who want to disarm to do so safely.

Any comments are very welcome, here.

(I assume posting proposals here is ok? There haven't been any for 30 days, but this seems to be the right forum.)

[Mikitivity]

This is the right place. Also feel free to wander around elsewhere too!

I like the white space that has been rolled into clause 5. However, I'd break clause 5 into two parts:

Directives to the UNCDC and the a new clause with requests for nations to cooperate with the UNCDC. The UN *can* legally use very strong language to a UN created organ, while in practice the language is weaker when talking to sovereign states.

It will also give readers a bit of a pause between the two "actions".

When are you planning to telegram campaign for this? If it works around my RL schedule (meaning weeknights), I'll take up to 50 nation names and telegram them for you. You might want to wait til the draft gets closer and then run the draft without any campaign in order to begin collecting interest. Though make sure that the draft is mod-proof. As of late they've been looking for proposals to gun down. :unsure:

[Sheknu]

Ok, the draft still needs work: I've just spotted one typo, and I also notice it changes between 'states' and 'nations', so that needs resolving.

I have no idea about when I'll submit - when it's ready. Given how quickly it made to quorum last time, I think I will do a test, no-TG submission first, just to see how much support it gets. Thanks for the offer of help, though,

[Groot Gouda]

The fact that it's not an outright ban but only strongly urges would for me be a reason not to vote for this, although it will probably make it. However, on an issue like this it's essential to pick a side: either ban it or allow it, no middle ground or it won't be effective.

[Sheknu]

Hmm. If I were to return to a full ban, what would you think of this?

Quote: The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for world peace,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weaponry, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties and cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED chemical weaponry constitutes a major threat, due to the potential for vast damage if improperly stored or appropriated by terrorist organizations,

CONDEMNING chemical weaponry, and determined to effectively eliminate it,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weaponry, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in socioeconomic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weaponry for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

a. "chemical weaponry" as:
i. toxic chemicals, and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

b. "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to people in a way that could render it an effective military weapon;

2. DECLARES chemical weaponry not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:

a. production, development, possession, distribution or use of chemical weaponry;

b. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weaponry by any party, including but not limited to non-state terrorist organizations;

c. the use of herbicides as a military weapon;

4. REQUIRES:

a. the destruction, or complete conversion to purposes other than chemical warfare, of all chemical weaponry;

b. the destruction, or complete conversion to purposes other than chemical warfare, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weaponry;

c. that such measures are carried out promptly, but that due regard for health, environmental and security concerns is taken.[/quote]

[Mikitivity]

If you go with a complete ban, I'd just Frisbeeteria's arguments about "IGNORE CANNONS" with respect to the reason the moderators won't allow us to create UN Security personnel for UN buildings as a defense against the "It will make the UN weak."

Here is the logic:

- The moderators have prohibited the UN from having a standing army (metagame reasons)

- The moderators have also prohibited the UN from having *any* internal security guards (a slippery slope argument)

- The moderators have suggested that magic "IGNORE" cannons will always protect UN assets, thus there is no need for security guards

- If a magic "IGNORE" cannon can protect a UN resource (say a building), a series of them should magically protect nations from non-UN member chemical weapons ... therefore, using the game moderator logic, we don't need chemical weapons for defense

The moderators will hate this, but they really are the ones that started this.

In any event, you'll need to address the "But this will give non-UN members a tactical advantage" arguments that will pop up. Another way might be to suggest that money spent on chemical weapons would be still used to refine convention arms (bunker busters, aircraft, infantry). However, my question is can nations spend money to *defend* against chemical weapons? I'd actually argue that small stockpiles dedicated for testing purposes might be OK.

[Groot Gouda]

SheknuJan 19 2006, 04:56 PM Hmm. If I were to return to a full ban, what would you think of this?
[/quote]
I'd think "excellent proposal, where's the FOR button?".

[Mikitivity]

Groot GoudaJan 19 2006, 03:39 PM SheknuJan 19 2006, 04:56 PM Hmm. If I were to return to a full ban, what would you think of this?
[/quote]
I'd think "excellent proposal, where's the FOR button?". [/quote]
Building on that ... you'll have my vote with either draft. Perhaps it is worth a bit of bean counting, in that if you can get more votes with the stronger language then it is worth it.

[Antrium]

I would vote for the second one.

[Sheknu]

Ok, I am definitely going for a full ban now.

Mikitivity: I would support an International Security, Mild (and may write one, as I think it's a damn good idea) proposal encouraging states to protect themselves against chemical weaponry. As to keeping small amounts for testing...I'll have to do some research on that, because I would only do that if I could specify amounts, as I don't trust 'creative interpreters' to use 'small' in the sense I might like it.

Groot Gouda: Thank you.

[Mikitivity]

SheknuJan 19 2006, 07:41 PM Ok, I am definitely going for a full ban now.

Mikitivity: I would support an International Security, Mild (and may write one, as I think it's a damn good idea) proposal encouraging states to protect themselves against chemical weaponry. As to keeping small amounts for testing...I'll have to do some research on that, because I would only do that if I could specify amounts, as I don't trust 'creative interpreters' to use 'small' in the sense I might like it.

Groot Gouda: Thank you. [/quote]
That is a throughly logical line of thinking, and has my support on both counts (allowing only very specific amounts & a mild IS resolution advocating protection). The two billed together would be interesting.

[Sheknu]

Finalish draft:

Quote: The United Nations,

FULLY CONVINCED effective international cooperation and law is required for world peace,

APPALLED at the effects of chemical weapons, including death, injury, and damage, having the potential to affect non-involved parties and cause medical, biological and environmental problems long after the cessation of hostilities,

DEEPLY CONCERNED chemical weapons constitute a major threat, due to the potential for vast damage if improperly stored or appropriated by terrorist organizations,

CONDEMNING chemical weapons, and determined to effectively eliminate them,

STRESSING the importance of responsible decommissioning of chemical weapons, as improper disposal could be as hazardous as direct use thereof,

NOT WISHING to limit legitimate trade in chemicals, and noting such trade could increase international cooperation in socioeconomic development,

CALLING INTO MIND UN Resolution #120, 'Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"', and its distinction between chemical weapons for military purposes and mild chemical agents used for police action,

OBSERVING certain chemical agents can be used responsibly in the maintenance of law and order, whilst further observing that some chemicals with legitimate applications in industry, agriculture, medicine etc. could be weaponised by terrorist organizations:

1. DEFINES for the purposes of this resolution:

a. "chemical weapons" as:
i. toxic chemicals, and precursors primarily designed for production of toxic chemicals;
ii. munitions and devices primarily designed to kill or harm through the action of toxic chemicals;
iii. any equipment primarily designed for cooperative use with said munitions and devices;

b. "toxic chemical" as a chemical that, through its chemical action on life processes, causes death or permanent harm to people in a way that could render it an effective military weapon;

2. DECLARES chemical weapons not necessary for national defence,

3. PROHIBITS:

a. production, development, possession, distribution or use of chemical weapons;

b. aid or inducement towards the production, development or use of chemical weapons by any party, including but not limited to terrorist organizations;

c. the use of herbicides as a military weapon;

4. REQUIRES:

a. the destruction, or complete conversion to purposes other than chemical warfare, of all chemical weapons;

b. the destruction, or complete conversion to purposes other than chemical warfare, of all facilities previously directed to the production, development, storage or deployment of chemical weapons;

c. that such measures are carried out promptly with due regard for health, environmental and security concerns;

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Chemical Disarmament Commission to:

a. research and develop effective disarmament methods, and advise and aid any states requesting assistance with chemical disarmament, including mediation in international chemical disarmament treaties;

b. research and develop effective methods of protection from chemical attack, and advise any states requesting assistance with such measures;

c. stock securely toxic chemicals for the purposes of improving disarmament and protection methods, and, where deemed necessary by the UNCDC, permit to conduct scientific testing on small quantities of toxic chemicals for the sole purposes of improving disarmament and protection methods states demonstrating adequate capacity to handle such chemicals safely and responsibly.[/quote]

Thoughts?

[Groot Gouda]

Looks excellent to me. I like your definition of chemical weapons, as it is narrowed to deadly or permanent harm. This excludes pepperspray, and quite a few nations opposed the previous resolution because that one didn't. Hopefully this proposal can take away those concerns.

You have my vote!

[Grosseschnauzer]

I've gone ahead and entered an approval of this proposal in the proposal queue. I will continue to do so if it needs multiple submissions for the remainder of my term as Delegate.

[Sheknu]

Ok, thank you.

I won't bother you with a TG in that case.