NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is a proposal co-authored by myself and the International Democratic Union's current UN Delegate Cheney-Land. We've submitted it and will begin a "low intensity" campaign for our proposal (meaning we aren't planning on telegramming UN Delegates unless they've shown an interest in either IDU or disarmament resolutions).


Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the common interest of all mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes,

REAFFIRMING the will of all States that the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development,

RECALLING its previous resolutions on this issue, UN Space Consortium, adopted Feb. 29, 2004, and Tracking Near Earth Objects, adopted Jul. 5, 2004,

RECOGNIZING that prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security,

EMPHASIZING the paramount importance of strict compliance with existing arms limitation and disarmament agreements relevant to outer space, including bilateral agreements, and with the existing legal regime concerning the use of outer space,

CONSIDERING that wide participation in the legal regime applicable to outer space could contribute to enhancing its effectiveness,

EMPHASIZING the mutually complementary nature of bilateral and multilateral efforts in the field of preventing an arms race in outer space, and hoping that concrete results will emerge from those efforts as soon as possible,

1. REAFFIRMS the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of all States to contribute to that common objective;

2. CALLS UPON all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective and to the relevant existing treaties in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international cooperation; and

3. RECOGNIZES the growing convergence of views on the elaboration of measures designed to strengthen transparency, confidence and security in the peaceful uses of outer space.


Please note, since we are convinced that few proposals make it to the floor on their first pass through the proposal process, we plan to change the author later.

The back ground here is that our region has noticed that prior UN resolutions dealing with space, in particular my Tracking Near Earth Objects resolution, were objected to on the grounds that the UN was promoting military spending in space. We've come up with what we feel is a good counter balance to that! Please pass this draft along to your UN Delegate.

However, we also invite and welcome comments.

Thanks! :)

The nation of Sophista agrees with the ideas expressed by this resolution. As has been stated before, we are enourmously proud of our space industry, and happily share the majority of our technologies with friendly nations. We are pleased to say that while some of these satellites are military in nature, none of them are what would be considered "orbital weapons platforms."

We believe that no nation has a right to claim anything beyond Earth's atmosphere as their territory. Since it is generally percieved as an act of agression if another nation deploys military equipment to territory that is not their own, it can be logically assumed that any deployment of weapons into space would be an act of aggression against the entire world. This hold especially true given the global range of these weapons.

Beyond that, we also believe that no nation has a right to inhibit another nation's access to space. Space exploration can yield windfall advances in technologies with real applications on Earth, and to hold a nation back from that progress is dehumanizing and wrong. Again, placing weapons in space interferes with this ideal, by allowing nations to intimidate or outright attack nations attempting to reach orbit.

Thus, Sophista supports this proposal, although we do have a slight reservation. Does the resolution suggested seek to deter all satellites of a military nature, or only those bearing weapons? Our nation relies highly upon satellites for advanced warning systems and intelligence gathering, as well as communications and navigation. All of these orbital devices serve a military purpose, but fail to violate the criterion specified above. We would appreciate clarification on the issue.

Does the resolution suggested seek to deter all satellites of a military nature, or only those bearing weapons? Our nation relies highly upon satellites for advanced warning systems and intelligence gathering, as well as communications and navigation. All of these orbital devices serve a military purpose, but fail to violate the criterion specified above. We would appreciate clarification on the issue.

That is a fair question. The resolution was designed to really promote peaceful uses of outer space, but not restrict peaceful economic development.

Remote sensing, communication, and global positioning are all activities that are peaceful in their basic application and design, and encouraged. In fact, these are necessary technologies to developing better ways to address many global problems like renewable energy.

My government also has an extensive satellite network dedicated to these peaceful uses. Furthermore, as with all things environmental in nature, the data collected by the CCSM's Space Council Earth Observing System (EOS) is available to all governments.

I like this proposal. I will endorse it.

The only problem is it says alot without doing much. It states a position that the UN states supports, without backing it up. It does not have any actual regulations that would effect any nations, and I think a resolution needs that to be worthwhile.

It states a position that the UN states supports, without backing it up. It does not have any actual regulations that would effect any nations, and I think a resolution needs that to be worthwhile.
There is a camp that asks, "Why doesn't this DO anything?" and another that screams, "Why does everything have to MESS with my country?" It's hard to find a balance.

Mine was Rights and Duties of UN States, and it didn't DO a damn thing. What it did do was establish legal precedent for the meanings and definitions of what the UN stood for. I'd have really liked that to be the second UN resolution ever passed, with a proper UN Charter being the first. But that's not how this game works.

Ultimately, the UN has no power to enforce or DO anything except for the one-time visit from the Compliance Ministry. The rest is 100% roleplay of precedent. There is no way I would support a Global Disarmament proposal that actually DID anything about Global Disarmament, but I might support one that suggested rational uses for the weapons I'm not going to give up.

The UN is coded to hit everyone with the same punch when a resolution passes. Some nations will roll with that punch and be happy to take it. Others will consider it the start of a war. You've got to please both sides, and resolutions like this are the best way to start.


btw, Mikitivity, it's too late to prevent space based weapons. They're already in orbit. 'Fraid I can't support this one.

I like this proposal. I will endorse it.

The only problem is it says alot without doing much. It states a position that the UN states supports, without backing it up. It does not have any actual regulations that would effect any nations, and I think a resolution needs that to be worthwhile.

First, thank you.

About the strength / language, I made the resolution mild to match the tone of the resolution. Resolutions don't have to force changes on nations to be worthwhile. Look at all the resistance going on with the whaling resolution. While a few nations will hate this idea, I think we'll stand the chance of gaining the support of moderate nations.

In fact, I'd say that a mild suggestion is far more likely to have a positive impact than a cold hard fast rule. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. ;)

My fear is that the nations most likely to launch orbital platforms will actually leave the UN if they think aren't going to listen to them. By having the international community make a statement on principles, they may actually feel less threatened and spend their military budgets on social or science programs.

btw, Mikitivity, it's too late to prevent space based weapons. They're already in orbit. 'Fraid I can't support this one.

Heck, I'm just hoping I'll get the same support from your government that I had for the Preventing Needle Sharing or Tracking Near Earth Objects resolutions. :p

As far as the UN's ability to prevent non-UN members from doing anything, if we don't try, we might as well wave our hands and just leave the UN. But as demonstrated by a few of the aboriginal / tribal nations, there are believe it or not, non-UN states which respect mild UN statements.

Think of it this way ... sometimes you have to be willing to be the first one to lead by example.

We can destroy ourselves from earth just as easily as from space. Some nations have orbital platforms, others have cloaking technology installed on their helicarrier attack platforms. The "security" an orbital platform will give a nation is only as good as the I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons they have protecting their borders.

Like any of my other resolutions, I'm not claiming that one man, one nation, or one resolution can save the world. But it can reduce "hazard" (i.e. the product of risk and cost)!

But the reduced __hazard__ of an accident that we can achieve if a large number of us (say the 30,000 UN members) agree to keep weapons out of space, may not only save lives, but allow more of our nations to focus on other interesting projects. Maybe even the lofty goal of saving racoons and third graders by planting trees. ;)

Frisbeeteria and Mikitivity:

The only thing resolutions that state principals do is set a precedent for greater pressure to be placed diplomaticly for nations to comply. This may help some, but it does not stop any nation from "violating" the proposal. It only stops nations that will succumb to international pressure, and what they are doing is not always the problem. Nations that would leave the UN over an issue like this aren't likely to be ones to succumb to diplomatic pressure.

Resolutions like this should not effect game statistics, because they do not actually require a nation to do or not do anything.

Frisbeeteria and Mikitivity:

The only thing resolutions that state principals do is set a precedent for greater pressure to be placed diplomaticly for nations to comply. This may help some, but it does not stop any nation from "violating" the proposal. It only stops nations that will succumb to international pressure, and what they are doing is not always the problem. Nations that would leave the UN over an issue like this aren't likely to be ones to succumb to diplomatic pressure.

Resolutions like this should not effect game statistics, because they do not actually require a nation to do or not do anything.

Even in a dictatorship (and I'm not suggesting anybody in this thread hails from one), leaders have to give some respect to national public opinion. If the rest of the world says, "We all should jump this morning," citizens may tend to agree. So even if the UN resolution itself isn't in the habit of forcing a new set of laws on other societies, it is amazing how the UN Compliancy Ministry tends to telegram every nation claiming that their national policies will be changed to stay within the spirit of the recently passed UN resolution.

And I disagree. Game stats are changed by the meer opinions of citizens each day ... unless of course the daily issues you are getting are always changed based on quotes coming from other law makers. I think the power of international resolutions is much more significant than you think.

If my proposal were forcing a policy on nations, I would have made its strength significant or strong. But you are right, it is watered down ... hence I'm proposing it only have a "mild" or "slow" impact on our nations.

There is a very good reason that Max and company coded in variable strengths for resolutions. It was for the express reason that players like you and me could knock up (strong) or knock down (mild) the game impacts of resolutions. Environmental, Gun Control, and Gambling resolutions are the three exceptions.

A summary of all of the subcategories of UN resolutions can be found here:

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/nationstates/the_united_nations/ResCategories.pdf

I've finished my summary of UN Environmental resolutions:

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/nationstates/the_united_nations/Environmental.pdf

Please focus on page 2, the subcategories. There is a reason we have subcategories, and that is because we choose to do different things with our resolutions.

Of course, if you focus too much on game mechanics and stats changes, you miss the chance to roleplay. ;) I'm hoping that this resolution will give the International Incidents players some legal justifications for embargos and differences of opinion. The whaling resolution did an excellent job in promoting interest in the game itself. This one will too ... we'll see roleplayers complain about how they will refuse to dismantle their "Death Stars", how others will wave their fists about spy satellites.

[OOC: Please bear in mind that the text of the proposal is a modified version of something that for the time being will hopefully remain my secret. But I'm hoping to add a bit more color to a game that all too often focuses on environmental and sex based issues. I say this and I'm also asking everybody to consider endorsing my region's Convention on Biodiversity, so I completely feel there is room for both. I'll also point out that I'm starting to work on a Free Trade and Gun Control measures -- though these two ideas are some time away making an appearance here, and if somebody beats me to the idea, as usual they'll have my complete support! Some of you will hate my next two ideas, others will like them. But I hope they are as "out there" as Needle Sharing and the NEOs were, because I think I have a fun way to work some different solutions to real-world inspired problems into the game.]

For what it's worth, the Republic of Agnost supports this resolution. Of course, our largest space asset is a GEO television broadcast satellite.

At worst, we'll have to scrap plans for the "Ishatar Pirate Hack" deterrence project.

We use ground based masers and grasers for SDI defence, as these have no offensive capacity (they are range limited to use inside the athmosphere) and so we support this proposal. However, at some point it will be necessary for some sort of law enforcement organisation to exist, as space becomes more crowded. I am thinking specifically of asteroid mining, and the possibility for piracy. This is however in the future.

The bases where these weapons are based are surveyed by webcams to which the public have free, unrestricted access. This is something we would like to see in the worlds nuclear arsenals. Wishful thinking though

However, at some point it will be necessary for some sort of law enforcement organisation to exist, as space becomes more crowded. I am thinking specifically of asteroid mining, and the possibility for piracy. This is however in the future.


My government agrees that this will likely be necessary. Do you think that if we establish that space is a place of peace that maybe we could make use of an existing organization (by expanding its powers)?

The Kingdom of JacksPants supports this proposal. We agree that space should be treated as such as any international area would, and that no one enity may lay claim to it.

You have our support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Infinite Hoarding would be more than happy to support this proposal, but only if there was some way to 1)enforce it, because even though IGNORE cannons might suffice as to defences in some countries, other countries might actually have reasonable stake in ability to produce orbital weaponry. This leads to my point that 2) you should adopt trade barriers onto any nation (as an operative clause) that does proliferate orbital weapons. This is importaint because orbital weaponry can be banned among the UN nations, but whatabout non-UN nations?

Also, Infinite Hoarding is extatic that Mikitivity would support such a proposal that is non-detrimental to smaller, developing countries, and hopes that Mikitivity would continue in his philanthropic practices toward the smaller, weaker nations that depend on whaling for source of income because there was no operative clause in the Whaling resolution to do anything about it, but when the tides have turned to you being on our side, we gotta help you cement this sidewalk before people get their shoes dirty in the mud.

How about no one owns space, and the peaceful use of it is to just look at it and the stars?

2. CALLS UPON all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space

This implies that nations which do not have space programs (such as my own) should be doing something towards this goal. Can this be changed? My tax rate is alreay way too high; being forced to re-enter the space race isn't something I can afford.

Other than that, nice proposal...

My government agrees that this will likely be necessary. Do you think that if we establish that space is a place of peace that maybe we could make use of an existing organization (by expanding its powers)?
Yes, this would be logical. However, I can't think of any organisation off the top of my head which would be suitable. It would have to be completely independent of any national ties, in the way the UN isn't. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Confederation Navy from Peter F Hamiltons science fiction books, where soldiers officialy have no nationality.

This implies that nations which do not have space programs (such as my own) should be doing something towards this goal. Can this be changed? My tax rate is alreay way too high; being forced to re-enter the space race isn't something I can afford.

Other than that, nice proposal...

You are safe, as I would have said "those with the potential for major space capabilities" if I wanted to include nations that presently have no space programs. They aren't cheap and you shouldn't be expected to carry the same burden as a nation that has a space program. At best, I'd say that your nation should (hopefully) still use its international clout to advocate for peaceful uses of outer space (assuming this proposal becomes a resolution and might pass).

But how about in the next draft I change that to read "those with existing major space capabilities"? :) Hopefully that is an even better way to say it. There certainly is room for change here!

An arms race in space (in any case, reallY) can rationally be averted by three means. Nations must either: develop their own weapons and agree not to spy on one another from the beginning, openly share technology, or simply openly and sincerely agree to not develop the arms inquestion. Since it's probably too late for both, this resolution is probably going to his a wall in that arena.
However, reallocating funding from existing massive weapons programs to space exploration and research programs would be a more rational solution, and one that I'm sure would be a better foundation for compromise than prohibiting nations from developing space-relevant weapons.
I also propose that nations aid one another in exploration and research, as the cultural diffusion would spread ideas and breakthroughs, bettering the international scientific community for all.
Our destinies truly lie in the stars, weither we believe that or not. We are all more than just another race on a planet.

At best, I'd say that your nation should (hopefully) still use its international clout to advocate for peaceful uses of outer space (assuming this proposal becomes a resolution and might pass).

But how about in the next draft I change that to read "those with existing major space capabilities"? :) Hopefully that is an even better way to say it. There certainly is room for change here!
That would be perfect, and I'd be very happy to vote for this. (And, if you want to include something saying non-space exploring nations should use our political clout/trade sanctions/etc to discourage the militarisation of space, that'd be fine as well).