07-06-2005, 11:21 AM
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]
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]