[Groot Gouda]

Ban Chemical Weapons
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Mayakovskia

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.


Voting Ends: Wed Jun 15 2005

[Groot Gouda]

I'm definitely FOR this. They have no significant defensive value, while causing unnecessary suffering both for armed forces as for civilians.

[Mikitivity]

The Confederated City States completely agrees with this resolution. It is rare that a Global Disarmament resolution reaches the UN floor, and it is nice to see the level of support this one has had thus far. Furthermore, a number of moderate and thoughtful states that have been in the UN for some time were active in the debate of the proposal that this resolution came from. They've endorsed this resolution, and being that they have selective tastes, my government has already cast its vote in favour as well.

[Grosseschnauzer]

The government of Grosseschnauzer will support the resolution.

[Groot Gouda]

FYI, I received the following telegram from delegate Fatus Maximus:

Fatus Maximus Dear madam or sir,

We noticed you?ve voted in favor of the current UN proposal, ?Ban Chemical Weapons.? We believe this may perhaps not be in the best interest of the UN and your reason. Allow us to explain. This proposal is vague and poorly-written. It provides no definition of what chemical weapons are, and bans everything from tear gas to tranquilizer darts, and handguns- which are powered by gun powder, a chemical. It also bans any research on all chemical weapons, even medical antidotes for your citizens. More importantly, however, it ties one hand behind your back if you come up against a non-UN member who can use chemical weapons. Non-UN member nations do not have to comply to UN resolutions. Only UN members would be affected by this proposal (check the FAQs if you don?t believe me), so rogue nations who do not belong to the UN could still use these weapons of mass destruction. If you come into a conflict of one of them, it could quickly become one-sided, seeing as they?re allowed to gas your troops but you can not respond in kind. A considerable number of nations, Fatus Maximus included, do not desire to be handicapped in conflicts with these rogue states. I urge you to reconsider your position

We respect, however, your intentions in approving this proposal. Saving the lives of many innocent people is a noble cause, and in an endeavor to help the UN do so, we have written an alternative proposal, entitled ?Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons?. (Here?s the part where I trumpet it. ) It was an attempt to compromise between nations who are against the current at vote proposal and those who are dedicated to reducing the use of chemical weapons in the NSworld. The gist of it is this- all UN member nations are banned from using lethal chemical weapons against any other UN member, while still leaving you the option of using lethal chemical weapons against non-UN members, should you feel it is necessary to do so. Your nation is no less protected by this alternative proposal than it is by the current at vote proposal, and you can still deter rogue nations with chemical weapons if you so choose. It is currently on page 10 of the proposal list, but may have moved by the time you read this. We strongly urge you to vote AGAINST the current at vote proposal and approve this alternative proposal so it can reach quorum. We thank you for listening and for the time it took to read this immensely long telegram.

Sincerely,

Big Friendly Fat Guy,
General all-around nice guy representing Fatus Maximus [/quote]

My reply:
Groot Gouda Greetings, Delegate,

With some interest I read your telegram about the current UN resolution. Let me first tell you that my for-vote can still be changed, if my region wants to.

But most important is why I am for this resolution. My nation is pacifist, and will support any global disarming resolution. We can see that with nuclear weapons, they can pose a threat so big that a war won't actually happen. With chemical weapons, this is different. The inhuman effects on both soldiers and, more importantly, civilians are simply too big to support the use of these, while not big enough to work as an effective deterrent. The use of them often has negative long-term effects on the local environment and health of inhabitants. It it therefor that we encourage the banning of these weapons, so less bad alternatives will be used.

I hope this clarifies our position.

Sincerest regards,

President Michel
People's Republic of Groot Gouda[/quote]

[Keeslandia]

We concur and have already voted in favor of the proposal.

[Federation of Disjunction]

We are for.

[quentoni]

I think I may have actually found the proper forum for discussion on this issue! I haven't been a national leader for long, so I appreciate your patience.

I believe in a ban of chemical weapons. However, I believe that research should be able to continue (did I misread in not seeing this issue addressed in the resolution?). It is a vague resolution, and though it sounds good, if we cannot research technology, we put our safety at risk.

There will certainly still be chemical weapons in existence. And they may, if not will be used against us. We need to understand and know them to help assure our safety. "Know thy enemy" and "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" are phrases that indicate that we do not wish to keep ourselves in ignorance.

Allow me to have the research, and I will gladly support the ban.

[Groot Gouda]

As far as I understand this resolution, it will not put an end to research. The weapons are forbidden, but that doesn't mean you can't research the chemicals for defensive purposes.

[quentoni]

Then the Commonwealth adds its support of the Ban.

[Mikitivity]

Groot GoudaJun 12 2005, 11:58 AM Ban Chemical Weapons

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

[/quote]
My government has voted yes, but wanted to point out that the majority of the resolution is but a preamble. And not a very detailed one. The first two clauses merely list a number of resolutions ... while that is good, the list could have been shortened.

The next two clauses are well stated, and serve as a justification ... but my government would have liked more detail in the preamble.

OOC: How is that for a more detailed opinion?

[Mikitivity]

Would Groot Gouda like it if a few IDU members telegrammed FM to point out that their request was included in our debate and for us to explain our positions to them? My office would be happy to do so and appreciates seeing the letters.

[Groot Gouda]

I have been telegramming with FM about this resolution, I'll send a quick note saying I posted his message for consideration of the region.

[Sober Thought]

FOR.

I voted personally as soon as I saw it, and forgot to state my public position here for the benefit of the delegate, but it looks like a landslide so far.

[Mikitivity]

Groot GoudaJun 14 2005, 01:05 PM I have been telegramming with FM about this resolution, I'll send a quick note saying I posted his message for consideration of the region. [/quote]
I just didn't know if you wanted us to tell FM that you *asked* us and forwarded their info. FM was pushing on the UN forum against this proposal, but I want them to understand that while the IDU disagreed with them that we were listening.