NationStates Jolt Archive

Unfortunately the current UN resolution prohibiting biological weapons technology is completely inadequate, suffering from numerous major failings.

1. It does not define what constitutes a biological weapon. This means that taken to one extreme any military technology with an organic component to it can be considered banned, on the other extreme nations can argue that not a single one of their biological agents are “weapons” per se.
2. It does not provide for the production of research quantity biological agents for the production of vital counter agents in the event that Non-UN member nations that are perfectly free to possess biological weapons launch an attack on a Member nation.
3. It in fact leaves UN member nations more vulnerable to assault in such a manner by non Member nations since they will know that their own most destructive weapons technology is not possessed by their intended target.
4. It has no teeth. When attempting to rid the world of something as powerfully destructive as biological warfare agents a little more is required than “it’s important we get rid of these things, ok?”

Due to these shortcomings I will propose repealing UN resolution 16, “Ban Biological Weapons”, with the intent of subsequently replacing it with an actual effective resolution. First draft shown below, comments and suggested revision welcome. Once I’m satisfied with the final state of the replacement proposal I’ll submit the repeal proposal.

--The replacement proposal, to be submitted after the current "Eliminate Bio Weapons" resolution is successfully repealed:

=====================================================

RECOGNIZING that biological weapons technology is due to its unstable, virulent, and mutational properties an inherently unstable and dangerous weapon to ALL parties in a conflict, combatant and non-combatant alike.

DECLARING that “biological weapons” are considered for the purpose of this resolution to be infectious viral, bacteriological or microbial organisms whose primary effect on the host is to harm, incapacitate, or kill the host organism upon infection.

FURTHER DECLARING that the possession or use of such biological weaponry by any UN or NON UN member nation presents an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of all nations, and must be curtailed or eliminated by any means available.

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the need for nations to develop effective defenses against the possibility of the deployment of such weaponry against them.

FURTHER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the inability of the UN to directly forbid biological weaponry to non UN member nations.

NOTING that the UN, as an organization, possesses means beyond direct legislation of influencing policy outside its membership.

HEREBY RESOLVES:

ARTICLES:

1. That the possession, production, trafficking or deployment (either directly or through proxy) of biological weaponry as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

2. That exception is made to Article 1 in the case of trace amounts of biological weapons agents required for the purpose of counter-agent research. Such trace amounts it is the responsibility of any nation researching them to keep secured in multi-tier (minimum of 3 tier) quarantined facilities, and under the highest of that nation’s conventional military security.

3. That in any circumstances not covered by Article 2: Any biological weapons agent proscribed as defined in this resolution which at any time is in the possession of a member nation must be immediately destroyed through incineration or other available method which incorporates all possible safeguards against any release of the agent, and the totality of that destruction/neutralization is to be thoroughly verified by the nation responsible.

4. That UN member nations are proscribed from establishing or maintaining trade with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of biological weaponry which is proscribed as defined by this resolution.

5. That UN member nations are proscribed from establishing or maintaining any military partnership with any non UN member nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of biological weaponry which is proscribed as defined by this resolution.

6. That all UN member nations are strongly urged to issue a formal statement of intent that in the event that a non UN member nation/nations employs biological weaponry as defined in this proposal against a UN member nation, military forces will be committed to the defense of that member nation, and/or reprisals upon the offending nation/nations. The terms and conditions of such a statement to be left to the discretion of each individual member nation.

=================

Edit: BTW, if you have no comment but would support the repeal of the current resolution and it's replacement with something more like this resolution a show of hands so I can get a feel for the support level would be appreciated.

An hour of review and not a single comment. I knew I should have given this some inflammatory title...

"The Ban Biological Weapons resolution SUCKS! Repeal it now!!!!"

Yeah, that might have worked... oh well...

tick, tock, tick, tock... ah screw it. I'm just going to go ahead and try to get the current resolution repealed.

I think this repeal is attempting to do too much. The recommendations made belong in a separate submission conditional on a successful repeal.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

No, quick!

The proposal is good on the whole, and at the moment I can see only one problem; and that's to do with grammar:

1. That the possession, production, trafficking or deployment… either directly or through proxy… of biological weaponry as defined by this resolution is forbidden to all UN member nations.

Use brackets/parentheses (whichever you call them wherever you're from!), not elipses (these things: ...)

No, quick!

No hurry... I'm not submitting this one yet. I'm just trying to get the old one repealed so that I can THEN submit this one.

The proposal is good on the whole, and at the moment I can see only one problem; and that's to do with grammar:

Use brackets/parentheses (whichever you call them wherever you're from!), not elipses (these things: ...)

Editted.

I think this repeal is attempting to do too much. The recommendations made belong in a separate submission conditional on a successful repeal.

That was the intention.

We feel that this proposal is a far better option to the current resolution and the one that is pending. You have our support.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

Isn't the resolution before the U.N. about chemical weapons?

There's an earlier one banning biological weapons. Ironically, we get around it by simply not classifying things as biological. Now we have to strictly define what we view as being a chemical weapon as well.

Interested in a fast-acting strain of ebola?

We feel that this proposal is a far better option to the current resolution and the one that is pending. You have our support.

Minister to the UN
Henry Peabody

By "the one that is pending" do you mean the repeal of the current "eliminate Bio Weapons" resolution? This resolution would be submitted only after that repeal is successful. I'd like to clear that bit of deadwood off the UN books before moving forward with a new resolution on the subject.

Quick question for those who have been around longer than I... what happens if a nation is caught clearly defying a passed resolution during roleplay? For example, if this resolution passed and then a member nation just blatantly unleashed a genetically engineered plague an another nation during a conflict? Would they be subject to ejection from the UN?

I'm just wondering if I need a sixth article to make sure that no nation can launch such an assault while still a UN member and then subsequently get ejected... but get out of being covered by articles 3, 4 and 5 by virtue of them only referring to non member nations committing the offense and them not being a non member yet at the time they did it.

I'm just wondering if I need a sixth article to make sure that no nation can launch such an assault while still a UN member and then subsequently get ejected...
No, nations are only ejected from the UN for rule violations.

Ironically, we get around it by simply not classifying things as biological.
If this is acceptable behaviour then we might as well define an hour as a pomegranate.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Howard Hughes, UN Respentative of The Republic of Neo River. Neo River will be voting Nay on this bill, because we believe that this will set a precendent of banning of weapons. I mean if we ban chemical weapons, what will we ban next, convientional weapons, guns, knives? All it will do is open doors to other worthless bannings. We also believe that the bill is too vauge, it doesn't show how we are going to prevent outlawed nations with crazed dictator will get ahold of weapons. There is a black market of weapons, and they know how to get dirty bombs, and these dictatorship will do anything to get their hands on the chemcial weapons. For these reason The Republic of Neo River vote "Nay" on the chemical weapons ban.

If this is acceptable behaviour then we might as well define an hour as a pomegranate.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

It's perfectly acceptable. After all, the resolution is vague enough that interpretation is the only real rule.

The Free Land of S C M L thiks that this is a great idea.
one consideration,
perhaps adding microbial weapons either biologically engineered or naturally occuring.
perhaps the use of UN force could be authorized for the use of these weapons.
and political measures otherwise

No, nations are only ejected from the UN for rule violations.

Good, less work for me then...

Howard Hughes, UN Respentative of The Republic of Neo River. Neo River will be voting Nay on this bill, because we believe that this will set a precendent of banning of weapons.

You can't set a precedent for banning weapons 2 years after the precedent was already set with UN resolution 16.

I mean if we ban chemical weapons, what will we ban next, convientional weapons, guns, knives? All it will do is open doors to other worthless bannings. We also believe that the bill is too vauge, it doesn't show how we are going to prevent outlawed nations with crazed dictator will get ahold of weapons.

It says quite explicitly that that is beyond the capacity of the UN and thus is not within the scope of any resolution. It DOES however lay out how such crazed dictators shall be dealt with by UN member nations in both the event that they stockpile proscribed weapons and the event that they attempt to employ them against any member nation. It also makes provision for the development of defenses against such an eventuality.

There is a black market of weapons, and they know how to get dirty bombs, and these dictatorship will do anything to get their hands on the chemcial weapons. For these reason The Republic of Neo River vote "Nay" on the chemical weapons ban.

Great....

...except that this isn't a chemical weapons ban. It has to do with weaponry that is immeasurably more dangerous to any and all parties AND innocent bystanders any time it is employed.

Might want to read the text of the resolution before deciding how you're voting next time.

The Free Land of S C M L thiks that this is a great idea. one consideration, perhaps adding microbial weapons either biologically engineered or naturally occuring.

Let me do a little research on that and get back to you.

Edit: Ok, looks like it can just be added without requiring any additional qualifiers. Done.

perhaps the use of UN force could be authorized for the use of these weapons. and political measures otherwise

I don't think there's any such thing as "UN force" in NS. Only force employed by UN member nations either individually or collectively of their own choice.

I guess I'm not sure what you're going for there.

Draft proposal updated with additional article more explicitly detailing disposal criteria.

We'll support the repeal.

While I can agree to 80% of this proposal, and I would say that it is a MUCH better ideal than the current junk we are trying to pass. Darkumbria must ask that the points 4 and 5 be stricken from the actual proposal.
Why? Simple economics. I don't use chemical or biological weapons, but I won't cut off trade with anyone who does. Also, I will help any ally, regardless of their use, or not, of these types of weapons.

While I can agree to 80% of this proposal, and I would say that it is a MUCH better ideal than the current junk we are trying to pass. Darkumbria must ask that the points 4 and 5 be stricken from the actual proposal.
Why? Simple economics. I don't use chemical or biological weapons, but I won't cut off trade with anyone who does. Also, I will help any ally, regardless of their use, or not, of these types of weapons.

Unfortunately economic and military sanctions are the most effective leverage I can think of that the UN has at it's disposal for pressuring non member nations to abandon their own biological weaponry.

Additionally article 5 is especially necessary, as otherwise it opens a monster loophole. UN member nations would simply have non member allies who do the dirty work with their own proscribed weapons and the point of this resolution is that it's just too damn dangerous having ANYONE employing these things.

If you are a non member nation and suddenly find yourself economically and militarily cut off from the entire body of the United Nations membership for possessing bio weapons AND faced with the threat of massive combined military reprisals should you ever actually attempt to employ your biological stockpiles against any of those nations anyway, that presents a fairly powerful incentive for abandoning your bio-weapons capability unless you somehow think it's going to get you a greater return on investment than you could have with access to a trading zone about a third of the total NS in size.

I just don't think we can push for all member nations to relinquish their biological weapon capabilities without making our best effort to eliminate the same threat to as great a degree as possible from non members as well... and the less dangerous biological agents we have loose out there the lower the chance of an incident, even an inadvertent one.

Sorry, but unless I can be presented with alternative equally effective sanctions to employ against non member nations posessing proscribed biological weaponry those articles can't be removed without seriously compromising the effectiveness of the resolution as a whole.

I, certainly, understand. Unfortunately, most of the nations in my region, that I represent, are not voting members of the UN. And they do have/believe in their rights to have and use these types of weapons. However, I must do business as well. If I cut off my regional neighbors, I effectively make myself a target for their agression. My nuclear capability, and my detant with them is all I have to hold them at bay. This resolution would seriously jepordize my standing in my region. Therefore, until these 2 items are removed, I can not support this. I am apologize, but my nation requires a certain amount of ability to retaliate against agression.