11-25-2006, 04:48 AM
Whilst I appreciate that this is very much a work in progress, I have taken the liberty of referring it to analysts from the Quintessence of Dust State Department. Discussions at the top-level Select Committee on International Relations have yielded a number of comments, and I now relay the comments of the Committee Chair. We hope these may be of use to those involved in the drafting of this document, which in my opinion is of significant promise.
-- Secretary of State James Dwight
Quote: Mr. Secretary,
Regarding the proposed resolution Unconventional Arms Mk. 2, the Committee first wishes to note that the notion of limiting civilian casualties - too often brushed away beneath the abhorrent veil of 'collateral damage' - is one we squarely identify with. At the same time, we recognise the importance of rigour in the preparation of any legislation in this field given its obvious repercussions for state security and the importance of eliminating opportunities for abusive regimes to dodge their humanitarian obligations.
The major question we arrived at concerned the focus on 'unconventional arms' and the repeated delineation of conventional and unconventional arms. The reasons for this is unclear, given states' obligations regarding the specific weapons types are not delineated. We wondered at the point of making such a distinction, if both weapons types are - rightly, I would hasten to add - to be restricted from use against civilians. On a more technical note, the definitions themselves are problematic in that nuclear weaponry is excluded from both: if this is part of a deliberate attempt to permit the use of nuclear weaponry against civilian populations, we find it unjustified by the text of the resolution, and unjustifiable in any event.
We express further confusion as to the verbosity of its second mandate. The criminalisation of war crimes is a matter of reasonably straightforward legislative actions: quite what other 'means' would be we are unsure.
Finally, we are concerned by the final clause, which appears oddly composed and entirely tangential to the rest of the resolution. Specifically, there appears no justification for singling out chemical arms, as opposed to conventional weaponry performing a similar task. In any case, the effectiveness of such materials is extremely questionable, at which juncture we return to puzzlement of the inclusion of this within the otherwise straightforward - its unnecessary legalism notwithstanding - document.
It is thereby with regret that I must advise you not to offer our nation's support for this resolution at its present time. Fragmented in nature, confusing in composition, and actively dangerous in several omissions and errors, we cannot believe it would stand as the requisite bulwark against the murder of civilians. I do however note the Committee's hope that a simplified and effective modification can be arrived at, to address the important issue.
-- Chairperson Susanne Chambers[/quote]
-- Secretary of State James Dwight
Quote: Mr. Secretary,
Regarding the proposed resolution Unconventional Arms Mk. 2, the Committee first wishes to note that the notion of limiting civilian casualties - too often brushed away beneath the abhorrent veil of 'collateral damage' - is one we squarely identify with. At the same time, we recognise the importance of rigour in the preparation of any legislation in this field given its obvious repercussions for state security and the importance of eliminating opportunities for abusive regimes to dodge their humanitarian obligations.
The major question we arrived at concerned the focus on 'unconventional arms' and the repeated delineation of conventional and unconventional arms. The reasons for this is unclear, given states' obligations regarding the specific weapons types are not delineated. We wondered at the point of making such a distinction, if both weapons types are - rightly, I would hasten to add - to be restricted from use against civilians. On a more technical note, the definitions themselves are problematic in that nuclear weaponry is excluded from both: if this is part of a deliberate attempt to permit the use of nuclear weaponry against civilian populations, we find it unjustified by the text of the resolution, and unjustifiable in any event.
We express further confusion as to the verbosity of its second mandate. The criminalisation of war crimes is a matter of reasonably straightforward legislative actions: quite what other 'means' would be we are unsure.
Finally, we are concerned by the final clause, which appears oddly composed and entirely tangential to the rest of the resolution. Specifically, there appears no justification for singling out chemical arms, as opposed to conventional weaponry performing a similar task. In any case, the effectiveness of such materials is extremely questionable, at which juncture we return to puzzlement of the inclusion of this within the otherwise straightforward - its unnecessary legalism notwithstanding - document.
It is thereby with regret that I must advise you not to offer our nation's support for this resolution at its present time. Fragmented in nature, confusing in composition, and actively dangerous in several omissions and errors, we cannot believe it would stand as the requisite bulwark against the murder of civilians. I do however note the Committee's hope that a simplified and effective modification can be arrived at, to address the important issue.
-- Chairperson Susanne Chambers[/quote]