NationStates Jolt Archive

We invite the attention of our esteemed colleagues to a proposal, "Chemical Weapons Ban", which we have just submitted for approval. Approvals by delegates would be, of course, very much appreciated. And many thanks to those who have contributed advice, suggestions, and support during the drafting of this proposal, both here and in other venues.

----------

Chemical Weapons Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Ausserland

Description: 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 grave 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 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 done, 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 during 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, CS, CR,

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

c. Herbicides and defoliants, and

d. Chemicals used for generation of smoke or flame.

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 expeditiously plan and 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.

----------

Voting Ends: Thu Sep 15 2005
Link for Approvals (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=chemical%20weapons%20ban)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

great just what i wanted to hear cause i didnt get i the UN in time to vote against the repeal of the chemical weapons ban.

Peace

-psbass

The Grand Duchy of Ouranberg is proud to announce, that it will support this proposal, as the safety of our citizens is our main concern.
Whether this is achieved through effective police forces or through self defense, Ouranberg will do whatever is needed, to create a safe enviroment for it`s citizens.

Well. I can say for a fact that this resolution is better planned than the last Chemical Ban Resolution. I can still see the nightmares. (shivers) Well. We shall soon find out how this will fare, eh.

I will undoubtfully vote against this if it comes up as a resolution. Chemical weapons are must for every nation!

:sniper:

I will undoubtfully vote against this if it comes up as a resolution. Chemical weapons are must for every nation!

:sniper:

We have only one question for the honorable delegate... Why?

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel have approved this proposal.
We want to congratulate the Nation of Ausserland for his seriousness and his work

I agree with Itzick, I think chemical weapons should be allowed. Because the all great rule... "All is fair in love and war" and thats what I'm basing my opinion on.

:)

We'd support it, but it doesn't outlaw the military use of laxatives.

BUMPity bump bump bump.... :)

The proposal currently has 49 approvals. If you're a delegate and think this proposal deserves being brought to a vote, please take a minute to add your approval. If you're not a delegate, a word to your regional delegate on the proposal's behalf would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Link for approvals (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=chemical%20weapons%20ban)

BUMPity bump bump bump.... :)

The proposal currently has 49 approvals. If you're a delegate and think this proposal deserves being brought to a vote, please take a minute to add your approval. If you're not a delegate, a word to your regional delegate on the proposal's behalf would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Link for approvals (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=chemical%20weapons%20ban)
Did you not support this with a telegram campaign?

Did you not support this with a telegram campaign?

OOC: No, I did not. I have neither time, patience, energy nor stamina to do anything much in the way of a TG campaign. I'm aware that it seems to be essential to do a TG campaign in order to roust delegates out of the doldrums, but that's just not practical for me.

ooc: This is one of the better written proposals I've ever seen (save the Wolfish Convention of course).

ic: This proposal is unwarranted and unwelcome. It will leave our troops exposed to the chemical weapons of our non-UN enemys - forcing us to retaliate with nuclear weapons instead of a milder chemical response. Our defense doctrine requires a WMD response to a WMD attack - now, should this pass, our response will necessitate the use of nuclear weapons.

We will not support this effort.

ooc: This is one of the better written proposals I've ever seen (save the Wolfish Convention of course).

ic: This proposal is unwarranted and unwelcome. It will leave our troops exposed to the chemical weapons of our non-UN enemys - forcing us to retaliate with nuclear weapons instead of a milder chemical response. Our defense doctrine requires a WMD response to a WMD attack - now, should this pass, our response will necessitate the use of nuclear weapons.

We will not support this effort.

OOC: See folks? Save Wolfish the trouble of nuking somebody and oppose this proposal. ;)

Nice to see ya back at the old haunt, W.

OOC: No, I did not. I have neither time, patience, energy nor stamina to do anything much in the way of a TG campaign. I'm aware that it seems to be essential to do a TG campaign in order to roust delegates out of the doldrums, but that's just not practical for me.
It has 57 now. You've gotten that many approvals without a TG campaign? I am impressed. If/when you re-submit, it will take only a moderate amount of TGing to get it to quorum.

It has 57 now. You've gotten that many approvals without a TG campaign? I am impressed. If/when you re-submit, it will take only a moderate amount of TGing to get it to quorum.

i agree, well done
my advice only, but a moderate TG campaign never hurt a good proposal

ooc: This is one of the better written proposals I've ever seen (save the Wolfish Convention of course).

ic: This proposal is unwarranted and unwelcome. It will leave our troops exposed to the chemical weapons of our non-UN enemys - forcing us to retaliate with nuclear weapons instead of a milder chemical response. Our defense doctrine requires a WMD response to a WMD attack - now, should this pass, our response will necessitate the use of nuclear weapons.

We will not support this effort.

OOC: Thank you very much for the nice compliment.

IC:

We must respectfully disagree with the comments of the honorable delegate from Wolfish. This would leave your troops no more exposed to chemical attack than they are now. The proposal says nothing about chemical defense or decontamination measures. If you have those in place, they would remain untouched by this proposal. If you have none now, you would remain perfectly free to equip your troops with them.

As for your policy of retaliation to a WMD attack with WMD, we would not presume to dictate your defense policy, but we view that particular aspect of it as unnecessary and counterproductive. In our case, Ausserland would certainly respond vigorously and effectively to any chemical weapons attack upon it. We will do so with conventional weapons. We believe that, while chemical weapons are potentially a credible deterrent to chemical attack, they are by no means a necessary deterrent. There is an important difference.

Finally, we thank the representative of Wolfish for joining in this debate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Ausserland,

may we sugest you the following:
- find an agreement with Listeneisse on the text of the proposition
- propose Listeneisse to be the co-author
- campaign together
- ask on this thread help from others UN members, for the campaign

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is happy to offer you to participate in the future campaign by sending 100 TG (to the delegates you will
tell us and with the TG text you will tell us)

We are pretty sure some others nations will join us to propose you their help in the campaign

I am glad to see this resolution allows pepper sprays and tear gas. Much more specific than the resolution we were working on. Canditas will drop ours, and support yours 100%.

Agree with L&E. Would be good to see this (or a compromise that looks very like this) on the board.

You shouldn't need a vast TG campaign. My advice would be to wait until you have a queue of a couple of proposals stacked up at quorum which you think would have some crossover (i.e. the people who supported them would be likely to support a disarmament resolution) and TG the supporters then, but if you have any pre-existing lists then that's all to the good.

how can we be so stupid... chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are our end... i remain on a sentence spoken by a famous man : I dont know what weapons they use in world war 3., but in the 4. they will use stones and clubs again... - Albert Einstein
And why, for christ´s sake, does EVERY ??? nation need these horrorfying weapons? :headbang:

We invite the attention of our esteemed colleagues to a proposal, "Chemical Weapons Ban", which we have just submitted for approval. Approvals by delegates would be, of course, very much appreciated. And many thanks to those who have contributed advice, suggestions, and support during the drafting of this proposal, both here and in other venues.

----------

Chemical Weapons Ban
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Ausserland

Description: 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 grave 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 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 done, 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 during 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, CS, CR,

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

c. Herbicides and defoliants, and

d. Chemicals used for generation of smoke or flame.

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 expeditiously plan and 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.

----------

Voting Ends: Thu Sep 15 2005
Link for Approvals (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=chemical%20weapons%20ban)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We agree with this resolution (despite fighting against the repeal which inspired it), though we disagree with:

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

c. Herbicides and defoliants

Being classified as non-chemical agents. I would remind Ausserland of Agent Orange and its use during the Vietnam war and also the dangers posed to human health by pesticides and herbicides. In addition, I dislike the idea of somehow giving a thumbs up to MACE and other 'personal defence' chemical agents. The way to beat crime is through better policing, not arming your civillians and we disagree with the permitting of this.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live chemical agent free Compadria!

Ausserland,

may we sugest you the following:
- find an agreement with Listeneisse on the text of the proposition
- propose Listeneisse to be the co-author
- campaign together
- ask on this thread help from others UN members, for the campaign

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is happy to offer you to participate in the future campaign by sending 100 TG (to the delegates you will
tell us and with the TG text you will tell us)

We are pretty sure some others nations will join us to propose you their help in the campaign

We thank our distinguished colleague and friend from Love and esterel for his continued interest in this proposal, suggestions, and offer of help. We are keeping our options open on this issue. We do believe, though, that this would not be a good time to re-submit it. We will seriously consider doing so after the fuss and furor over solar panels has died down.

Also, thanks to the honorable representatives from Damlos, Canditas and Bagdadi Georgia for their comments.

Patrick T. Olembe

The People's Republic of Shabania supports peace , and the banning of chemical weapons certainly is a good start.

Given that sometimes the only way to ensure a device isn't used on you is to have one or two of your own to threaten to throw back at the aggressor, and given the fact that this silly little ban would not affect those not associated with the UN.......We will oppose such a measure should it come to vote.


When the time comes that you peaceniks can find a surefire way to stop non-UN nations from possesing and using such weaponry we'll gladly throw ours away too.....either that or we'll adopt the position that any use of a WMD against our nation, or our allies will be met with a nuclear response.

We agree with this resolution (despite fighting against the repeal which inspired it), though we disagree with:

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

c. Herbicides and defoliants

Being classified as non-chemical agents.

We thank the honorable Ambassador from the Republic of Compadria for his thoughtful comments. On the specifics...

I would remind Ausserland of Agent Orange and its use during the Vietnam war and also the dangers posed to human health by pesticides and herbicides.

We share the Ambassador's concern about the dangers posed by herbicides and pesticides, not only to human health, but to the environment. We excluded them from the scope of this resolution simply because the whole issue of their use is much too complicated to be properly handled in the space available. We would gladly support a good proposal on the subject.

[OOC: I'm very much aware of Agent Orange. I'm a Vietnam vet. :) ]

In addition, I dislike the idea of somehow giving a thumbs up to MACE and other 'personal defence' chemical agents. The way to beat crime is through better policing, not arming your civillians and we disagree with the permitting of this.

The resolution doesn't require that capsaicin-based products be made available to anyone in any nation. Your nation remains completely free to ban them within your borders, limit their possession and use to law enforcement authorities, or put whatever other restrictions on them that you find appropriate.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

We share the Ambassador's concern about the dangers posed by herbicides and pesticides, not only to human health, but to the environment. We excluded them from the scope of this resolution simply because the whole issue of their use is much too complicated to be properly handled in the space available. We would gladly support a good proposal on the subject.

I made a similar point to this, which was dealt with well. Herbicides and environmental warfare do need a specific resolution to ban then, really. (Anyone? Would be a v. good thing :) ). Since the repeal of the original proposal specifically bans it so that things like tear gas can be legal, they aren't going to get banned again. Unfortunate, IMO, but there you go.

Chemical weapons are known to cause mass trauma and kill hundreds, even thousands of innocent people. The Empire of Cravan supports this proposal 100%.

Greetings from Birkovia,
In principle, we support the proposed bill in banning chemical weaponry and the agents needed to create them. However, in a world in which there are a worrying ammount of non-UN nations, such a proposal is, I feel, impossible at this time.
For instance, if we UN members banned chemical weapons the only deterant we'd have at our disposal is nuclear weaponry. The effects of a nuclear strike is significantly more destructive to the enviroment and a greater cause of human suffering than chemical weaponry. Chemical weaponry, while of course having disgusting effects on mankind, does at least fade over a relatively short time period, unlike the radiation present in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.
Therefore although I, like those of you who support this proposal, feel chemical weapons are an appaling piece of armament, we must be realistic and realise their abolition is unwise at this time.
Birkovia

Given that sometimes the only way to ensure a device isn't used on you is to have one or two of your own to threaten to throw back at the aggressor, and given the fact that this silly little ban would not affect those not associated with the UN.......We will oppose such a measure should it come to vote.


When the time comes that you peaceniks can find a surefire way to stop non-UN nations from possesing and using such weaponry we'll gladly throw ours away too.....either that or we'll adopt the position that any use of a WMD against our nation, or our allies will be met with a nuclear response.

Take some time off, read a few books on military history, take a course in logic, then come back and try again. Where does it say that the only way to keep somebody from using chemical weapons on you is to have chemical weapons to use on them?

You threaten to hit me with a baseball bat. In my hand I have a loaded .44 magnum. Using your kind of logic, I can't stop you because I don't have a baseball bat. And as for the nuke bit, I guess you don't have any decent conventional weapons, huh?

A point very well made and such a point that it has swayed me completely. Chemical weapons are appaling and should be banned.
In fact, the very nature of chemical warfare would encourage a response from conventional weapons. Untill nuclear weaponry, there is very little physical damage to the attack site. There is of course harmful agents in the air, but these can be relatively quickly removed. Therefore the land is effectively once again inhabitable and if thinking carefully would produce an area where troops can once again be mobilized. (This is all unlike nuclear weaponry which would create a devastated 'no mans land' in which neither citizens nor military could pass through)
I therefore remove my objection on the basis of it removing a deterant. We must also note that in terms of terrorist attack a reponse using a chemical response would of course be impossible due to the nature of terrorism in that it has no attackable site.
Birkovia