NationStates Jolt Archive

Honored Ambassador,

The United Nations Association -- Mikitivity would like to conduct a survey to feel out the NS UN forum’s interest in various UN resolution categories. Previous surveys were conducted and have been analyzed in the UNA White Paper 2005-01 (http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/una-200501.pdf). This survey is designed to test to see if the opinion of nations has changed since the past survey and to extend the work of the previous surveys. These results will be archived and shared with UN members and non-members in order to facilitate better proposal writing.

Since national opinions are subject to change, this survey is limited for 30-days and will be conducted again at a future date.

As your schedule permits, please respond to the poll included with this survey. These responses are general, but comments (in the form of a post) are most welcomed and will be reviewed and shared along side the poll results. I think you’ll be pleased with the graphics we plan to share based on these survey results!

Background
(taken from the official UN description of Global Disarmament resolutions):


International Security
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Global Disarmament
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Do not use these categories to establish a UN military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The UN does not maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

There are four different categories of environmental proposals. These categories are based on the industries that are impacted by the environmental proposal: automobile manufacturing, uranium mining, wood chipping, and all industries.

A printer friendly copy of all 5 UN Global Disarmament resolutions (passed, repealed, and failed) is available at the UNA Global Disarmament archive (http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/GD.pdf).

Here is a chronological list of the 5 Global Disarmament resolutions that have been brought to the UN floor to date:

Elimination of Bio Weapons (#16)
Banning Use of Landmines (#40)
End Nuclear Proliferation Act (failed)
Ban Nuclear Weapons (failed)
UN Peace Prize (failed)

The question:
How likely are you to support a UN Global Disarmament Resolution?

Always (We supported all of them)
Very Likely (We supported 75% to 100% of them)
Likely (We supported 50% to 75% of them)
Unlikely (We supported 25% to 50% of them)
Very Unlikely (We supported 0% to 25% of them)
Never (We supported none of them)
other – please explain

After answering this survey, please consider also answering the Social Justice, Free Trade, Moral Decency, Human Rights, and Environmental surveys which is designed to work along side this survey.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409257
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409457
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409886
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409981
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410666


Thank you,
Janet Van Dyne
Chairwoman, United Nations Association -- Mikitivity

Never. Miniferg will never disarm. No matter what. We will only continue to build up our arms and stockpiles of WMD.

Krioval is unlikely, but that is a complicated statement due to our technological level (banning nuclear weapons wouldn't affect us greatly, and banning orbital platforms would affect us almost exclusively). So we're typically against targeted bans, but we'd probably support a well-written Global Disarmament resolution, especially if it were mild.

I never shall accept any disarmament. It is a soverign nation's right to protect themselves as they see fit

The only type of disarmament i will support is those banning the use of weapons of mass destruction and possibly space based weapons. I do not support across the board cuts in weapons because some smaller nations cannot afford to further cut their military, member nations must be able to protect themselves from nonmember nations, and i believe it violates a nations sovereignty to take away their ability to defend themselves. I would however support a resolution outlining necessary peacekeeping measures that must be pursued before war can be declared.

Nope. Never.

U.N. Resolutions only affect U.N. Members. I'm not going to support a resolution that scales down my military when I know full well that non-UN enemies can use my weakened state of defense to their advantage.

I must concur with the repersentative from Nargopia.

I agree. Komokom would not disarm in the current geo-political climate of Nation States for much the same reason.

Makatoto has no armed forces, and has not been at war since the War of Liberation 30 years ago. In any case, it would be hard for any army to attack us or subjugate us due to the naature of our nation. (Oceanic nomadic wanderers).

Therefore we support all such resolutions.

Uhh, Yeah, the second one passes is the second I resign from my Delagacy and from the UN. I would then commence a hostile takeover of every UN nation, made easy by their complete disarmament, install puppet governments, force the passing of a repeal, and then rejoin.

Uhh, Yeah, the second one passes is the second I resign from my Delagacy and from the UN. I would then commence a hostile takeover of every UN nation, made easy by their complete disarmament, install puppet governments, force the passing of a repeal, and then rejoin.

Since when is a "mild" disarmament resolution equivalent to totally disbanding one's military? I mean, I'm not a huge supporter of disarmament resolutions in general, but isn't the above just a bit hyperbolic?

Bah humbug...I was talking about complete disarmament, but I wouldn't support even a mild one. It goes against my nations goals.

As others have already stated, Bitewaldi considers it suicide to disarm when nations not bound by UN regulations (some of them on our borders!) are not required to.

Makatoto has no armed forces, and has not been at war since the War of Liberation 30 years ago. In any case, it would be hard for any army to attack us or subjugate us due to the naature of our nation. (Oceanic nomadic wanderers).

Therefore we support all such resolutions.


"Begin nuclear testing in any area with Makatoto in it."

That would seem to clear up the problem... are you sure you don't want any sort of defensive weaponry?

Imperial Great Britain is fervently against this proposed legislation as it will place all our Nations in jeopardy. UN legislation applies only to the 35,000 Nation State members who have signed up to the UN, in total there are over 70,000 states whom are not members. If UN members are forced to reduce their armaments etc, then that will inevitbly make our nations vulnerable to attack. I therefore urge other UN members not to support any UN weaponry restriction proposal.

The arms manufacturing trade is one of Gwenstefani's largest industries. As a result we would be very reluctant to pass proposals aiming to restrict such activities. However, we did vote in favour of the banning of biological weapons, and landmines, etc.

I'm going for 'Other'.

OOC: I believe in the ideal of disarming, but find a lot of the proposals in this category to be blissfully unaware of the greater political situation. While it is nice to think that we can survive without various types of weapons, the sad fact is that many of us won't. That said, some weapons I can never agree with, but they are already banned by the UN.

IC: Yssandra Faren, the private owner and funder of Enn's entire military forces, will never agree with any proposal calling on a reduced military force. After all, the military is her only reason for having a seat with the triumvirate.

*bump*

Nope. Never.

U.N. Resolutions only affect U.N. Members. I'm not going to support a resolution that scales down my military when I know full well that non-UN enemies can use my weakened state of defense to their advantage.

I concur, with the exclusion of underhand weapons (such as landmines) that are targetted at civilians, or cause long-term economical damage to a country after the cessation of hostilities. I exclude nuclear weapons, as they are used as a doomsday deterrant to other similarly-equipped nations.

Disarming would be detrimental to the UN and all nations involved. Never.

Agree with Enn. We are disarmed, but other UN nations protect us.