NationStates Jolt Archive

This draft proposal has been prepared for submission if the current resolution, "Ban Chemical Weapons" is repealed. Suggestions for improvement would be most welcome. Our thanks to those who have already contributed their suggestions in other forums.

Edited 5 Sep. Words added are in bold type.

----------

BELIEVING THAT "chemical weapons" have potential for immense destruction of human life and health and are unnecessary for national defense,

CONCERNED THAT chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists pose a deadly threat to civilian populations,

NOTING THAT elimination of chemical weapons must include both the chemical agents used and the dedicated means of delivery,

RECOGNIZING THAT some chemicals used in chemical warfare have legitimate uses in industry, agriculture, medicine and other peaceful pursuits,

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT some non-lethal chemicals with potential for use in war also have legitimate uses in law enforcement and the self-defense of citizens,

RECOGNIZING THAT destruction/demilitarization of bulk chemical agents and filled munitions and devices, if not carefully designed and implemented, can pose grave dangers to health and the environment,

The United Nations

1. DEFINES "Chemical Agent" as a substance which, through its chemical action on life processes, can cause death, severe illness or permanent harm to humans and which has reasonable potential to be used as a military weapon.

2. DEFINES "Chemical Munitions and Devices" as munitions and devices specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of chemical agents released as a result of their employment.

3. DEFINES "Precursor Chemicals" as chemicals which, when combined in the detonation of binary munitions or otherwise, produce chemical agents.

4. DECLARES that the definition of "chemical agent" applies specifically but not exclusively to:

a. Nerve agents: GA (Tabun), GB (Sarin), GD (Soman), GF, VX,

b. Blister agents: HD (sulphur mustard), HN (nitrogen mustard), L (Lewisite), HL (Mustard-Lewisite), CX,

c. Choking agents: CG (phosgene), DP (diphosgene), chlorine, PS (chloropicrin),

d. Blood agents: AC (hydrogen cyanide), CK (cyanogen chloride),

e. Biological toxins: botulinum toxins, clostridium perfringens toxins, ricin, saxitoxin, staphylococcal enterotoxin B, trichothecene mycotoxins, and

f. Incapacitating agents (BZ, phencyclidine, Kolokol-1).
5. DECLARES THAT the definition of "chemical agent" specifically does not apply to:

a. Lachrymatory agents ("tear gas"): CN, CX, CR,

b. Capsaicin-based products: pepper spray, OC spray, MACE,

c. Herbicides and defoliants, and

d. Chemicals used for the generation of smoke.
6. PROHIBITS the use of chemical agents as weapons of war by any member nation.

7. REQUIRES THAT all member nations immediately destroy or demilitarize all unfilled chemical munitions and devices.

8. REQUIRES THAT all member nations immediately cease production and acquisition of chemical munitions and devices.

9. REQUIRES THAT all member nations immediately cease production and acquisition of chemical agents and precursor chemicals except as required for legitimate peaceful purposes.

10. REQUIRES THAT all member nations take steps to expeditiously implement a program for destruction/demilitarization of all existing military stockpiles of bulk chemical agents, precursor chemicals and filled chemical munitions and devices. Programs must be planned and executed with due regard for environmental and health concerns.

----------

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

should note that by repealing Resolution #107 "Ban Chemical Weapons," (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=106) any replacement resolution might face a far harder time unless it clearly addressed the recent UN Resolution #110, United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109).

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110
United Nations Security Act

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that rig




Ausserland, what do you think about the very good remark by Listeneisse?

This draft resolution is generally sound and meets the needs of law enforcement as well as non-proliferation.

However, it is lacking some of the provisions that may be necessary for it to succeed in the long term:

1. A section to ensure an ongoing revision of its schedule of controlled chemical weapon agents and precursor agents, and a means to classify materials as banned or monitored/controlled (such as dual-use or convertible materials).

2. Ongoing enforcement provisions and a regime to ensure compliance.

3. References to UNR #107 and #110 clarifying the intent of the former, and clearly expressing non-obstruction of the latter.

Listeneisse has provided our esteemed peer, the respected delegate of the City Ankh Morpork, with some samples of language necessary for such provisions in conversations held within its region, yet defers on how specifically language reads in any final proposed resolution.

Originally Posted by Listeneisse
should note that by repealing Resolution #107 "Ban Chemical Weapons," any replacement resolution might face a far harder time unless it clearly addressed the recent UN Resolution #110, United Nations Security Act.


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110
United Nations Security Act

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that rig




Ausserland, what do you think about the very good remark by Listeneisse?

The honorable delegate from Listeneisse has a very good point. We believe it is covered by the first paragraph: "BELIEVING THAT 'chemical weapons' have potential for immense destruction of human life and health and are unnecessary for national defense". This is the same method that Resolution #113, "Biological Weapons Ban" used to exclude the weapons it covered from the provisions of Resolution #110.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

My thanks for the clarification, Mr. Ambassador, and duly noted.

What of the other two points?

we would like to invite the esteemed nation of Ausserland to ask mods, if his very good proposition "Chemical Weapons Ban" (up) will be legal under:

NITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110
United Nations Security Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109

thank you

Why should it be illegal? Clarification can't be regarded as contradiction, can it?

We thank the esteemed representative of Listeneisse for his comments here and for his excellent, detailed comments in another venue.

This draft resolution is generally sound and meets the needs of law enforcement as well as non-proliferation.

However, it is lacking some of the provisions that may be necessary for it to succeed in the long term:

1. A section to ensure an ongoing revision of its schedule of controlled chemical weapon agents and precursor agents, and a means to classify materials as banned or monitored/controlled (such as dual-use or convertible materials).

A good point. We hope the issue of newly developed chemical weapons is covered by the non-exclusive nature of the definition. Maybe a specific clause to that effect is necessary. As in many areas of our drafting, we were hamstrung by the NSUN character-count limit on proposals.

2. Ongoing enforcement provisions and a regime to ensure compliance..

Again, a good point. Bearing in mind the character-count limit, we felt that it was not possible to adequately cover this area. Verification and compliance is a complex subject. So we decided to fall back on the automatic compliance feature instead. Perhaps a subsequent resolution covering the subject would be in order.

3. References to UNR #107 and #110 clarifying the intent of the former, and clearly expressing non-obstruction of the latter..

This proposal will not be submitted for approval unless and until Resolution #107 is repealed. We have previously addressed the issue of Resolution #110.

Listeneisse has provided our esteemed peer, the respected delegate of the City Ankh Morpork, with some samples of language necessary for such provisions in conversations held within its region, yet defers on how specifically language reads in any final proposed resolution.

Just a final clarification. Ausserland is not the delegate for City Ankh Morpork. The distinguished delegate from Kleinekatzen is now serving a second term in that position. (Must be doing a good job, huh?)

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

To the distinguished representative of Kleinekatzen,

Having visited your wondrous city, and indeed, even now seeing the face and hearing the "Meow" of a small white beast peeking out from behind a window where I sit, I do apologize about my mind slipping over seeing the word 'Delegate' clearly beside your name.

I can only beg that I have been campaigning long and hard this day.

To the distinguished representative of Ausserland,

My thanks for your considerations. For now, I remain convinced that we can submit the proposal as a clarification to an unrepealed UNR#107.

Yet regardless of whether UNR#107 is repealed or not, I support your new resolution as a well-written document.

Further, once I have a chance to recuperate from my current itinerary of international campaigning for arms control, I will be glad to help author or co-author a more comprehensive proposal for a Chemical Weapons Control Commission (CWCC), and perhaps, place also similar regimes for control and elimination of biological and nuclear weapons.

To the representative from Love and Esterel:

Multiple Moderator rulings have decreed that in order to get around resolution 110, a resolution needs to merely claim that the weapon in question is unnecessary for defense. This moderator ruling has been under question continually and continues to be so today (a current final repeal is circulating through the moderation forums, but the mods have not yet come up with their answer thus far)

sorry i didn't see your post before:
thanks
=> so, i'm happy to understand that the proposition of Ausserland is legal
and will approve it and the repeal

To the distinguished representative of Kleinekatzen,

Having visited your wondrous city, and indeed, even now seeing the face and hearing the "Meow" of a small white beast peeking out from behind a window where I sit, I do apologize about my mind slipping over seeing the word 'Delegate' clearly beside your name.

I can only beg that I have been campaigning long and hard this day.

No worrys Mate, I figured that you got confused about whos was the delegate. Its handy that people don't see a cat as a person of power, it lets me roam and hear what my people concerns are :p

I would like to point out that I will be endorsing this proposal should it go up for endorsement, thats if the Repeal passes that is.

We just read over the repeal and wish to make the following statements to keep the current resolution and not have it repealed..

A key issue has been made that it bans all chemical 'weapons' This is a key word in the proposal as many of the other devices such as mace are not concidered 'weapons' here since they are for defensive purposes and not defensive purposes thus not weapons but protective devices for self defense.. As the resolution doesn't ban these nor does it detail contents of any so called chemical weapons.. Thus women and police can still use mace as a protective self defense device.. If their attacker uses it then it's a weapon, the difference being defensive device or offensive weapon. As a defensive device it offers protection against attack and not a weapon for attack. Thus we have come to vote not to repeal the current resolution because it bans weapons and not devices. To some it may sound wrong not by the current resolution. We relate this to guns issue as to banning them as a weapon or keeping as a protective device or for hunting... it's all the intent of it's use.. and the results of it's use... If you hurt or kill a person with a gun then you go to court and prove why you did it.. if you kill in self defense then you are free if you kill for greed then you will hang here. Same with abuse of anything that might come up as a weapon or tool or device that one might use to do harm or kill..

The current resolution as I see it says ban WEAPONS.. a weapon is used as an offensive object to do harm or kill... a device is used to stop those who use a weapon.

As far as terrorist getting these and using them as weapons they already do that and trying to ban certain ones from production or even use only in certain cases is not going to stop terrorist when they have a 3-1 change of finding what they want in a nation outside UN to one inside the UN. Often worse than you might ban or try to control in the UN nations.

I would be more for a UN proposal to study the production of so called chemical weapons and find ways to stop them as effective weapons rather than ban them.. As by this all UN nations would have available the best resources to deal with them as a collective union.. Thus giving them little need to use them against each other since all have protection in place against them... Thus a common effort to find effective defenses from them.

1. Talk about the repeal in the repeal thread.
2. You are using definitions that are NOT found in the original resolution. It is not your place to graft new meaning onto existing legislation.

This clarification is necessary; when the repeal passes, Gruenberg will fully support this resolution.

We just read over the repeal and wish to make the following statements to keep the current resolution and not have it repealed...

Although we would suggest to the honorable delegate that this might have been more germane to the debate on the repeal proposal, it does raise some points we'd like to comment on.

A key issue has been made that it bans all chemical 'weapons' This is a key word in the proposal as many of the other devices such as mace are not concidered 'weapons' here since they are for defensive purposes and not defensive purposes thus not weapons but protective devices for self defense.. As the resolution doesn't ban these nor does it detail contents of any so called chemical weapons.. Thus women and police can still use mace as a protective self defense device.. If their attacker uses it then it's a weapon, the difference being defensive device or offensive weapon. As a defensive device it offers protection against attack and not a weapon for attack. Thus we have come to vote not to repeal the current resolution because it bans weapons and not devices. To some it may sound wrong not by the current resolution. We relate this to guns issue as to banning them as a weapon or keeping as a protective device or for hunting... it's all the intent of it's use.. and the results of it's use... If you hurt or kill a person with a gun then you go to court and prove why you did it.. if you kill in self defense then you are free if you kill for greed then you will hang here. Same with abuse of anything that might come up as a weapon or tool or device that one might use to do harm or kill...

The current resolution as I see it says ban WEAPONS.. a weapon is used as an offensive object to do harm or kill... a device is used to stop those who use a weapon..

If the original resolution had made the distinction that the honorable delegate attempts to make here, there would be no repeal proposal and no replacement proposal. The "Ban Chemical Weapons" resolution fails to define what it does and does not cover, and that is the sole reason why the repeal was submitted. If you think this isn't a valid issue, please go and review the debate thread on the repeal and see how many widely varied interpretations of the scope of coverage have been posted there.

As far as terrorist getting these and using them as weapons they already do that and trying to ban certain ones from production or even use only in certain cases is not going to stop terrorist when they have a 3-1 change of finding what they want in a nation outside UN to one inside the UN. Often worse than you might ban or try to control in the UN nations.

So.... Terrorists can get these weapons anyway, so we shouldn't bother banning them? Yet you reject the repeal of the ban? With all respect, we fail to see the logic here.

I would be more for a UN proposal to study the production of so called chemical weapons and find ways to stop them as effective weapons rather than ban them.. As by this all UN nations would have available the best resources to deal with them as a collective union.. Thus giving them little need to use them against each other since all have protection in place against them... Thus a common effort to find effective defenses from them.

A worthy idea. However, we don't see it as practical.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ban Chemical Weapons A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Significant Proposed by: Mayakovskia
Description: The United Nations,
NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;
NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;
REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;
BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;
RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.



Honorable Members.........
I don't see where it defines any chemical weapons all it does is ban making something that can be considered a chemical weapon... If you want to consider sulfuric acid a chemical weapon then ban it is now no more, be sure to remove it from the batteries in your car or you might get pulled over and hauled off to prison for a concealed weapon. Since sulfuric acid and most acids if abused can do harm or even kill a person.. and it is a chemical much like mace.. if abused it does great harm even kills.

The solution is not to ban it but punish those who choose to abuse it. A simple butter knife is not a weapon until it is used to do harm or kill a persons so why not ban them. This resolution simply says if a nation feels something is a chemical weapon they should do as this resolves.. It does not say any nation has to ban sulfuric acid or a butter knife or mace simply because crazy people use it as a weapon or terrorist do.. Again a terrorist is going to get a weapon anywhere they can find it...

Sulfuric Acid from a simple car battery, even fertilizer used to help crops grow can be used as a chemical weapon if abused. As I have not seen any listing of what constitutes a chemical weapon then I must go on those in my nation who would know them. Thus when they decide what are chemical weapons we comply with R107... Mace is not a chemical weapon here... it like anything of danger must be used in a prefered manner also controled, just as a gun might be, so abusers of it's use are dealt with by law.. Also we forget that the fuels that cars and most motorized machines run on is a chemical that can be a weapon so does this ban those also..

It was not a simple two planes that took down the Towers of New York 4 years this 9/11 coming it was a chemical fuel in those planes that did that. The planes were just the carriers of the real weapons so stop driving, groupd all planes, dock all ships and then drain the fuel out and get rid of those chemical weapons..

OOC: I hope not out of line using real world here but it is fact the amont of fuel on those planes added to the destruction... They were taken early so they had as much on board as might be possible when they hit targets.... And GAS is a CHEMICAL... when abused becomses a weapon... Sorry about that.. I hate computers...

No offence, but could you edit your post a bit? I can't tell where the proposal finishes and your commentary begins.

DEFINES "Chemical Munitions and Devices" as munitions and devices specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of chemical agents released as a result of their employment.



A point here to follow... Sulfuric Acid when Iron Fillings are placed in it produce a toxic gas that could harm or kill people. As could a number of acids when allowed to contact certain materials. A few ounces of sulfuric acid and just a couple cups of iron fillings, in a popolated closed arena could cause a lot of harm; to people in the facility if mixed and placed properly in the air conditioning system of the arena.. Since the gas produced is very toxic. Also it produces a cloudy smoke that prevents one from seeing things clearly... Thus Panic, Kaos, and Death... Thus, you ban Sulfuric Acid here.. Thus, dead batteries in vehicles...

Also Chlorine Bleach used to clean clothing and simple drain cleaner mixed can produce toxic gases.. Thus do we ban these?

Here it is best to maintain tight control on both the Sulfuric Acid and Iron Fillings, and the others rather than ban every single item that might be abused. Those who obtain and abuse them should be processed under hard laws and put in prison for their actions.. Individual nations have a duty just like the industries that might produce Chemicals to insure safty in the use of hazadous chemicals and need to make the public aware of all dangers involved in the improper use of these chemical products..


Neither of the items I noted, if used properly; harm or kill. It is the concious human that abuses them.

Ban Chemical Weapons A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.
Category: Global Disarmament Strength: Significant Proposed by: Mayakovskia
Description: The United Nations,
NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;
NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;
REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;
BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;
RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.



Honorable Members.........
I don't see where it defines any chemical weapons all it does is ban making something that can be considered a chemical weapon... If you want to consider sulfuric acid a chemical weapon then ban it is now no more, be sure to remove it from the batteries in your car or you might get pulled over and hauled off to prison for a concealed weapon. Since sulfuric acid and most acids if abused can do harm or even kill a person.. and it is a chemical much like mace.. if abused it does great harm even kills.

The solution is not to ban it but punish those who choose to abuse it. A simple butter knife is not a weapon until it is used to do harm or kill a persons so why not ban them. This resolution simply says if a nation feels something is a chemical weapon they should do as this resolves.. It does not say any nation has to ban sulfuric acid or a butter knife or mace simply because crazy people use it as a weapon or terrorist do.. Again a terrorist is going to get a weapon anywhere they can find it...

Sulfuric Acid from a simple car battery, even fertilizer used to help crops grow can be used as a chemical weapon if abused. As I have not seen any listing of what constitutes a chemical weapon then I must go on those in my nation who would know them. Thus when they decide what are chemical weapons we comply with R107... Mace is not a chemical weapon here... it like anything of danger must be used in a prefered manner also controled, just as a gun might be, so abusers of it's use are dealt with by law.. Also we forget that the fuels that cars and most motorized machines run on is a chemical that can be a weapon so does this ban those also..

It was not a simple two planes that took down the Towers of New York 4 years this 9/11 coming it was a chemical fuel in those planes that did that. The planes were just the carriers of the real weapons so stop driving, groupd all planes, dock all ships and then drain the fuel out and get rid of those chemical weapons..

OOC: I hope not out of line using real world here but it is fact the amont of fuel on those planes added to the destruction... They were taken early so they had as much on board as might be possible when they hit targets.... And GAS is a CHEMICAL... when abused becomses a weapon... Sorry about that.. I hate computers...

Once again, we respectfully suggest that this should have been posted in the thread discussing the repeal. On the substance.... This draft clearly recognizes and states that some chemicals with potential for military application also have valid civilian uses, and, in that case, prohibits only production in excess of needs for legitimate, peaceful use.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

This is my second attempt to post this...

Also we forget that the fuels that cars and most motorized machines run on is a chemical that can be a weapon so does this ban those also..
All matter has chemical properties, however when we say the word 'chemical' what usually comes to mind is a manufactured substance not found in nature. Since practically every substance can be used as a weapon, it would be foolish to ban every one of these substances. This proposal clarifies what is and is not considered a chemical weapon, and still restricts the most dangerous chemicals. If Resolution #107 is repealed, this is a viable replacement.

We have just edited the draft to plug a gaping hole which we just recognized. The original draft prohibited production, but not acquisition by other means. The amended draft remains at the start of this thread.

We apologize for our late recognition of the problem.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We have just edited the draft to plug a gaping hole which we just recognized. The original draft prohibited production, but not acquisition by other means. The amended draft remains at the start of this thread.

We apologize for our late recognition of the problem.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations


We commend you on your efferts to ammend the draft and add a clause of this nature. We have had more time to review both the repeal and the new proposal. Now that Lady Katrina has been laid to rest in our nation.. However we still have matters around her Family Estate to attend to thus we will not be able to review this proposal more than we have. However after reading it over in a more relaxed mood we see your points made thus will when it gets to vote most likely support it..

Zarta Warden
UN Ambassador Zeldon

OOC: I will be out a while picking up family in TX from the Katrina area... So good luck here.. Looking forward to seeing how it does goes forward..

This is looking like turning into a good proposal. We'll just have to see first whether the previous version acyually gets repealed, currently slightly more for the 'no' vote.

Even if the repeal does not pass, certain elements of this can be ripped and made into a new resolution. While I am opposed to the idea of chemical weapons being banned, I see it as something that should be voted on by the UN.

Now the original resolution has been torpedoed, let's get this, significantly better (I admit) one up as quickly as possible.

sounds good

For those who might be wondering... We plan on submitting a slightly edited version of this proposal for approval on Monday.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations