NationStates Jolt Archive

A proposal to repeal the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" proposal has now been made. Voting ends June 16th. This resolution needs to be removed and replaced with something significantly better if anyone actually wants a resolution that accomplishes anything with respect to Biological Weapons.

Repeal Proposal:

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

NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" is completely and utterly inadequate to the goal it sets for itself, consisting of a two sentence statement that can be summarized as "Bio Weapons are bad and it's important they be eliminated"

FURTHER NOTING: UN resolution 16 fails to set forth a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about or how their elimination should be accomplished.

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings this resolution does not actually have any real effect.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with an alternative resolution which actually accomplishes something on the matter.

Come on Delegates... we really need to get this resolution off the books. It's completely impotent, it doesn't DO anything, but having it there gives a lot of nations the false impression that the UN has some kind of biological weapons ban when it doesn't. The only thing the UN has right now is a statement saying it thinks biological weapons are scary and we should try to get rid of them... without any provision whatsoever for how we go about doing that.

Let's get rid of this worthless resolution so we can replace it with something that actually works.

UN members, if you don't think your Delegate is reading this and want this resolution repealed go tell them to take some action!

I'm afraid the chances of getting this repeal passed so early are minimal.

You need to give it time to let the dust settle and then submit.

I'm talking months, not days.

Elimination of Bio Weapons has been passed for months- since May 2003, in fact. :D I'm still in favor of keeping it, though. The last line- It is therefore imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons- does indeed DO something- it eliminates bio weapons. It's not necessarily the best written proposal, but it's effective.

Elimination of Bio Weapons has been passed for months- since May 2003, in fact. :D I'm still in favor of keeping it, though. The last line- It is therefore imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons- does indeed DO something- it eliminates bio weapons.

No, it doesn't. It allows one to interpret that the elimination of bioweapons is an immediate requirement... given ONE definition of the word "imperative". Or given another it just says it's urgently important that bioweapons be eliminated and nothing else. So fine, it's urgently important... "we'll get around to it right after the other urgently important things on our agenda. Like making sure nobody else with Bio weapons decides to take a shot at us if we get rid of ours."

Thus this only eliminates bio weapons in those UN member nations that feel like doing it anyway... and even then it only eliminates those weapons those nations feel like classifying as "biological weapons" themselves since the resolution doesn't offer any kind of definition whatsoever.

And of course there's all its other shortcomings. It makes no provision for the fact that non UN member nations will still have full access to this weaponry. It makes no provision for production and posession of enough bio weaponry to research and develop counter agents. It doesn't specify or restrict in what manner bio weapons are supposed to be eliminated so I could decide I'm going to eliminate my hypothetical supply by using it all up on nations I have a grudge against. And then I could even go above and beyond the call of duty by purchasing the supplies of non member nations and using them all up too! The resolution doesn't prohibit that either. Etc...

This resolution doesn't accomplish a single thing. It needs to go.

13 approvals isn't bad for a proposal that's still lingering way back on page 14 of the proposal list... but it would be nice if the approvals picked up the pace. Fellow UN members, let's clear this useless peice of legislation off of the UN books so we can replace it with something effective that actually offers some security.

Supporting Delegates: Please approve the repeal.

Supporting Members: Please go pester your Delegate to go approve the repeal.

For any delegates looking to endorse this repeal it's now moved up to page 10 of the proposals list.

And I just discovered that there's a second repeal proposal making it's way through the list as well, but it's voting is over in a day and it only has 17 endorsements thus far. I hope this doesn't mean we've been splitting the vote on this... but just in case you're a delegate who thinks he voted for this already - doublecheck! And if anyone knows of regional delegates who would be in favor of this but may not be aware of it yet, please fill them in.

Elimination of Bio Weapons has been passed for months- since May 2003, in fact. :D I'm still in favor of keeping it, though. The last line- It is therefore imperative that nations eliminate these heinous weapons- does indeed DO something- it eliminates bio weapons. It's not necessarily the best written proposal, but it's effective.

Bio weapons...chemical weapons. Meh. Easy to get confused at my age.

At any rate, I agree that this proposal should be retained. It does accomplish what it needs, and is not a useless piece of legislation.

The problems highlighted by Reformentia are incorrectly assumed.

1. Any semi intelligent nation knows what a bio/chemical weapon is.

2. I'm sure the nations present at the time can testify that it did have an effect.

Bio weapons...chemical weapons. Meh. Easy to get confused at my age.

At any rate, I agree that this proposal should be retained. It does accomplish what it needs, and is not a useless piece of legislation.

The problems highlighted by Reformentia are incorrectly assumed.

1. Any semi intelligent nation knows what a bio/chemical weapon is.

Irrelevent. Nation X does not classify a biological AGENT it possesses as a weapon. There is nothing IN UN LEGISLATION to say he's wrong. If it's not in the legislation then all that's left is your opinion vs. his opinion and there's nothing you can do.

2. I'm sure the nations present at the time can testify that it did have an effect.

And what effect would that be? It doesn't even ban anything! It just says it's "imperative they be eliminated".

Well great. Thanks for mentioning that. But it doesn't actually eliminate them.

THIS is what resembles an actual, effective resolution dealing with the threat posed by biological weaponry:

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

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 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.
======================================================

Which is what we can get put in place after we clear out the current completely useless resolution.

Lets repeal it, I totally support this

Lets repeal it, I totally support this

Excellent. In that case we suggest you petition your regional Delegate, The Republic of Goonaria, to approve the repeal proposal. Please ensure that they are aware that there are currently TWO repeal proposals going through the proposal approval process so that both can be approved and avoid vote splitting.

Your proposal is good. I will support the repeal. HOWEVER, your new proposal does not adress the following problem you yourself brought up:


It doesn't specify or restrict in what manner bio weapons are supposed to be eliminated so I could decide I'm going to eliminate my hypothetical supply by using it all up on nations I have a grudge against. And then I could even go above and beyond the call of duty by purchasing the supplies of non member nations and using them all up too! The resolution doesn't prohibit that either. Etc...

I would recomend another article providing for the dismantlement of weapons possessed by a country. Something like "All existing Biological Weapons must be steralized at a tempaurature letal to the harmful biological agent contained"



This is kind of a small thing, but with biological weapons, we can not afford to have any loopholes (which is why this was proposed in the first place, wasn't it?)

Your proposal is good. I will support the repeal. HOWEVER, your new proposal does not adress the following problem you yourself brought up:

I would recomend another article providing for the dismantlement of weapons possessed by a country. Something like "All existing Biological Weapons must be steralized at a tempaurature letal to the harmful biological agent contained"

Yes, I've been thinking along those lines too... check the edit in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425340

Anyone have any idea why this repeal proposal might have been deleted from the proposal list with 24 hours to go on its voting deadline? Which mod would I be going to to request an explanation?

Here's the text again in case someone can spot something that might have triggered this that's just not registering with me.

==================================================
NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" is completely and utterly inadequate to the goal it sets for itself, consisting of a two sentence statement that can be summarized as "Bio Weapons are bad and it's important they be eliminated"

FURTHER NOTING: UN resolution 16 fails to set forth a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about or how their elimination should be accomplished.

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings this resolution does not actually have any real effect.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with an alternative resolution which actually accomplishes something on the matter.
=============================================

Isate puts its force of 16 million behind a repeal of this act.

Isate puts its force of 16 million behind a repeal of this act.

The sentiment is appreciated but the proposal appears to have vanished from the pending list.

A proposal to repeal the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" proposal has now been made. Voting ends June 16th. This resolution needs to be removed and replaced with something significantly better if anyone actually wants a resolution that accomplishes anything with respect to Biological Weapons.

Repeal Proposal:

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

NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" is completely and utterly inadequate to the goal it sets for itself, consisting of a two sentence statement that can be summarized as "Bio Weapons are bad and it's important they be eliminated"

FURTHER NOTING: UN resolution 16 fails to set forth a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about or how their elimination should be accomplished.

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings this resolution does not actually have any real effect.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with an alternative resolution which actually accomplishes something on the matter.
We agree it is time this and others that lack substance are repealed. You have our Support.

Anyone have any idea why this repeal proposal might have been deleted from the proposal list with 24 hours to go on its voting deadline? Which mod would I be going to to request an explanation?

Here's the text again in case someone can spot something that might have triggered this that's just not registering with me.

==================================================
NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" is completely and utterly inadequate to the goal it sets for itself, consisting of a two sentence statement that can be summarized as "Bio Weapons are bad and it's important they be eliminated"

FURTHER NOTING: UN resolution 16 fails to set forth a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about or how their elimination should be accomplished.

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings this resolution does not actually have any real effect.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with an alternative resolution which actually accomplishes something on the matter.
=============================================
It appears your nation has only one endorsement! Any nation wishing to lodge either a repeal or a proposal must have two un nation endorsements or more. this may be why your repeal was deleted.

It appears your nation has only one endorsement! Any nation wishing to lodge either a repeal or a proposal must have two un nation endorsements or more. this may be why your repeal was deleted.

Dang, that must have just happened. Time for a bit of regional politicking I see....

Dang, that must have just happened. Time for a bit of regional politicking I see....
Let my nation Know when you have the endoresments required and have resubmitted the repeal. We shall give it our approval.
Prince Byron.

The sentiment is appreciated but the proposal appears to have vanished from the pending list.
Since it vanished due to timing and not Moderator action, feel free to resubmit once you have the necessary endorsement.

Since it vanished due to timing and not Moderator action, feel free to resubmit once you have the necessary endorsement.

Will do, thanks Hack.

Venerable libertarians: You're on my TG list once I sort things out on the home front...

THIS is what resembles an actual, effective resolution dealing with the threat posed by biological weaponry:

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

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.


-snip-


Which is what we can get put in place after we clear out the current completely useless resolution.

Then I think that's your trump card, that's the suit you should be leading. Right now, your repeal text seems to be condemning the original resolution more than proactively encouraging a new resolution. I personally feel that fighting for something is more attractive and easier to sell than fighting against something. With a repeal proposal that attacks the old resolution, you also run the risk of alienating a large number of UN members who like the resolution, support a bio weapons ban (which is actually the majority population you want to court), or who are just neutral to the resolution.

If your repeal proposal had more praising the sentiments of the old bio weapons ban--but recognizing the need for a new more definitive resolution--I think it would have a greater chance for success once it reached quorum. An amiable reason for action (we appreciate the sentiment, but we need more) is simply more successful than an indignant reason for action (this darn resolution does nothing! We must D34+ it! Oh, and by the way, I want to fix the problems in this resolution later). That is to say, a :) is better and more convincing than a :gundge:.

Here, I'll highlight the portions that would turn me off if I were a delegate or a voter. Red means that I identify it as an overly-aggressive clause. (Blue is about the actual language of the resolution)
NOTING: UN resolution 16 for the "Elimination of Bio Weapons" is completely and utterly inadequate to the goal it sets for itself, consisting of a two sentence statement that can be summarized as "Bio Weapons are bad and it's important they be eliminated"

FURTHER NOTING: UN resolution 16 fails to set forth a single criteria for what specific weapons it's talking about or how their elimination should be accomplished.

FURTHER NOTING: That given these shortcomings this resolution does not actually have any real effect.

IT IS PROPOSED: This resolution be repealed so that it may be replaced with an alternative resolution which actually accomplishes something on the matter.
Aside: this should actually be "a single criterion". 'Criteria' is a plural word. Perhaps you could change it to "any criteria", which is linguistically accurate and still effective in getting your point across



Yes, the original resolution falls short. Yes, it has little effect. Yes, it has many shortcomings. But ramming that down the reader's throat is only going to alienate a lot of readers, as a fairly sizable majority voted FOR the original resolution, and feel FOR a bio weapons ban. I just don't think this approach works. It turned a lot of UN members off to National Systems of Tax, and it turns a lot of members off to resolutions about moral issues, too.

You should use the old resolution, and its support, to your advantage. Then, instead of having to prove the old resolution worthless or somehow unlikable, you just have to encompass a situation as on in which there's pressing need for a more defined bio weapons ban. "I like the idea of this resolution, and because I like it so much, we need to replace it." This would result in something more along these lines NOTING UN resolution "Elimination of Bio Weapons" as containing an admirable sentiment, and as holding consistent with the majority of UN nations: that feel biological weapons have too much risk of creating a pandemic to be used by UN nations,

CELEBRATING "Elimination of Bio Weapons" for this conscientiousness concerning the risks of biological weapons, and identification of them as too great of a threat to life, in general,

NOTING WITH DISTRESS the shortcomings of "Elimination of Bio Weapons", in that it does not define "biological weapons", or strictly enough enforce the ban on such weapons,

NOTING FURTHER the nations which may take advantage of this lack of definition and enforcement and may use biological weapons regardless of "Elimination of Bio Weapons", thereby endangering the whole populace of the UN with injury and death,

COMMITTING itself to the security of life, especially from biological weapon created pandemics, and ASSURING member nations that a new, more explicit resolution regarding biological weapons, which affirms the values of "Elimination of Bio Weapons" will be forthcoming after this repeal,

REPEALS resolution 16 "Elimination of Bio Weapons", in order to pass more definitive legislation regarding biological weapons in the future.

Granted, this sounds a lot like me (because I wrote it). But the point is that this is a much more friendly-to-the-majority-of-UN-nations draft. I think this draft has a better chance of reaching quorum and passing once it reaches quorum.

Feel free to take this draft, use it, chop it up, add things, take things away, change words. Or, even, feel free not using my draft at all. I just thought I'd tell you how I feel about the current draft's chances, and offer an alternative.

Either way, Good Luck!

I have approved this, and I urge it's repeal. The Northwind region is now in flux with the passage of this resolution and the one for chemical weapons. My neighbors have noted a lack of power and might use it against me.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9077205#post9077205

If your repeal proposal had more praising the sentiments of the old bio weapons ban--but recognizing the need for a new more definitive resolution--I think it would have a greater chance for success once it reached quorum. An amiable reason for action (we appreciate the sentiment, but we need more) is simply more successful than an indignant reason for action (this darn resolution does nothing!

While the tactical soundness of this approach purely for having your legislation successfully passed is appreciated and acknowledged, it doesn't address the underlying issue which caused the problem in the first place.

The fact is that the resolution currently in existence is terribly substandard for what it attempts to acheive. It shouldn't have been passed, we both seem to recognize that. I'm nearly as much concerned however with the REASON it passed as with the fact it passed. Too many people just don't critically consider the body of the legislation they're voting on, and if I shy away from pointing out in full, gory, unpleasant detail what the consequences of that has been then I feel I'm only treating the symptoms and not the disease.

I know this means I'm going to have to work harder to manage to drum up enough support for the passage of the repeal, but as far as I'm concerned it's a trade off that's worth it if in the process at least some non insignificant percentage of the people who I get to re-examine this proposal also come to realize just how important it is to carefully analyze the specifics of the text of a peice of legislation who didn't realize it before.

And yes, I know I'm not going to change the long-term voting habits of anything near even half the people who get involved in this... I figure even 5% would be remarkable... but I've at least got to make the attempt if I'm going to be complaining about that state of affairs existing (which believe me, I will be so long as it appears to me to be continuing, which is probably eternity...)

I will consider a rewording of the original draft, and I may use some of your suggestions (probably place greater emphasis on the follow-up replacement proposal)... but I'm not willing to tone it down to the degree you've recommended. You're more than likely correct it would improve it's odds of passage, but that isn't my only concern.

Aside: this should actually be "a single criterion".

Damn, I'm always transposing those... thanks for the catch.

I have approved this, and I urge it's repeal

Unfortunately the resolution expired a day before I was expecting it to... but a resubmission will be occuring soon and I will be sure to TG you when that occurs. There's TWO more repeal submissions working their way though the proposal list right now with several days to go and I don't want to have to worry about making sure I'm not splitting votes with them through the entire lifetime of my next campaign, and I'll also be on vacation for the next two days and unable to devote proper time to that campaign, so I'll likely be resubmitting in a few days assuming the current repeals don't look like passing (although I'll be keeping a close eye on their approvers for future TGing). Additionally this time I'll be able to draw on the experience of the first campaign and I believe greatly improve it's odds of passage. For one thing that being my first attempt at a submission I failed to appreciate the importance of an extensive TG campaign until quite late in the process, this time the campaign will begin from the moment of submission. Additionally over the last several days I have compiled a significant list of nations known to be favorable to the repeal. Last time I started at a crawl, this time it's a sprint right out of the blocks...