NationStates Jolt Archive

This was originally drafted inspired by the problems caused by the diamond trade in perpetuating conflict (in RL Sierra Leone is a good example). However, this idea can be taken to apply to other natural resources as well. Many conflicts are fought over natural resources. These natural resources can be warring groups to further their aims and finance their military, leading to a continuation or escalation of conflict.

This proposal seeks to end this practice, by outlawing this trade.

CONSIDERING the maintenance of international peace and security to reside well within the mandate of the United Nations,

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the high human cost and material losses caused by armed conflicts and recognizing that peace, security and development are mutually reinforcing, including in the prevention of armed conflict,

CONCERNED by the trade in arms or munitions and it’s contribution to the escalation or continuation of armed conflict

RECOGNISING the continuation of armed conflict when funded by the illegal exploitation of resources.

NOTES the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention, which addresses the root causes of armed conflict and political and social crises in a comprehensive manner, including by promoting sustainable development, poverty eradication, national reconciliation, good governance, democracy, gender equality, the rule of law and respect for and protection of human rights,

NOTES the illegal exploitation of resources is contrary to the promotion of sustainable development and the eradication of poverty

DEFINES Conflict resources as resources that have been traded in a way that drives violent armed conflict and threatens national and regional security.

DEFINES Conflict Resources as Natural resources whose systematic exploitation and trade in a context of violent conflict contribute to, benefit from, or result in the commission of serious violations of human rights, by an insurgent or invading army.

CONDEMNS the pillage and plunder of natural resources during conflict as destructive and damaging to the long term economic viability of a member state, with future impact on the inhabitants within.

CONDEMNS the practice of third parties in perpetuating the trade in conflict resources, most notably in exchange for arms and munitions.

OUTLAWS the trade of arms or munitions to nations or other groups in exchange for conflict resources by all member states or third parties within the UN.

CALLS FOR the cessation of trade in conflict resources by all member states or third parties within the UN.

It will be a long time before I can hit the campaign trial on this one and submit it – as I have the UN charter in the drafting process, and also the bushmeat issue to address. If fellow member states wish to add their contribution to this draft, or even volunteer to take the cause up themselves, I would be grateful.

DEFINES Conflict resources as resources that have been traded in a way that drives violent armed conflict and threatens national and regional security.

Like, er, US dollars? This definition is too vague.

If you have a constructive suggestion as opposed to an unhelpful one-line criticism, then I am all ears and welcome your positive input..

I do have an alternative definition, which is tighter….”DEFINES Conflict Resources as Natural resources whose systematic exploitation and trade in a context of violent conflict contribute to, benefit from, or result in the commission of serious violations of human rights, international humanitarian law or violations amounting to crimes under other international law.” …which I did consider as well, but went for the former as I felt it was clearer.

And FYI, a US dollar is not a resource, it is a currency. There is a difference.

If you have a constructive suggestion as opposed to an unhelpful one-line criticism, then I am all ears and welcome your positive input..

I do have an alternative definition, which is tighter….”DEFINES Conflict Resources as Natural resources whose systematic exploitation and trade in a context of violent conflict contribute to, benefit from, or result in the commission of serious violations of human rights, international humanitarian law or violations amounting to crimes under other international law.” …which I did consider as well, but went for the former as I felt it was clearer.

And FYI, a US dollar is not a resource, it is a currency. There is a difference.

Please, I was/am in a hurry. I intend to come back to this later.
Currency is an asset. Assets are resources.

http://www.kimberleyprocess.com:8080/site/www_docs/related_docs1/ga_55_56.pdf?PHPSESSID=1ff1c5a90e1a55f5b1bf3f023a788c41 - Opens a PDF file

I don't know if that is helpful. It's SC Resolution A/RES/55/56, on conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone.

I think you need to define what you mean very carefully. I understand just concentrating on diamonds is too narrow, but there's a danger your current definition includes money and even basic goods - people fight wars over food, after all.

Thanks for that :) It’s nice to see the RL UN doing something, but I’d like to see something permanent done as opposed to ad hoc resolutions. Of course, in NS we can’t do resolutions on specific nations, so all we can do is permanent solutions.

I hate doing definitions, someone will always point out errors. I hope the second one is stronger. If not, then perhaps something else can be hammered out using those two as a starting point.

Thanks for that :) It’s nice to see the RL UN doing something, but I’d like to see something permanent done as opposed to ad hoc resolutions. Of course, in NS we can’t do resolutions on specific nations, so all we can do is permanent solutions.

I hate doing definitions, someone will always point out errors. I hope the second one is stronger. If not, then perhaps something else can be hammered out using those two as a starting point.
Yes, I wasn't saying that one was any good in an NS context: just that it might give some ideas. For example, you could try to promote legitimate trade of the resources, so their would be less need for exploitative trade. I also think your second definition is much better, but I'm not really an expert on that sort of thing. I do know some about the Sierra Leone situation, though, so I will watch this topic with interest.

I think the term "natural resources" goes a long way in closing the loophole, even with the original short version. Will say more later, don't shoot me... ;)

EDIT: You could even add something like "including precious stones, oil, uranium, and strawberry syrup doughnuts." OK, maybe not oil.

A few quick points:

RECOGNISING the continuation of armed conflict when funded by the illegal exploitation of resources.

What constitutes "illegal exploitation"? Any definition aside, why should the UN be able to tell a nation it can't trade its natural resources for whatever it bloody pleases?

DEFINES Conflict resources as resources that have been traded in a way that drives violent armed conflict and threatens national and regional security.

That would pretty much cover any trade in which a nation at war is engaged.

CONDEMNS the pillage and plunder of natural resources during conflict as destructive and damaging to the long term economic viability of a member state, with future impact on the inhabitants within.

Preventing a nation from obtaining the necessary arms to defend itself is just a destructive to that nation's economic viability.

OUTLAWS the trade of arms or munitions to nations or other groups in exchange for conflict resources by all member states or third parties within the UN.

Well, there you have it. You've pretty much outlawed the arms trade for nations at war -- you know, the ones who really need arms.

I Promise no shooting :)

I was thinking of listing examples, such as precious stones, oil, gas, uranium, and timber

OoC: I have a slight problem with this: wars are pretty much inevitable, and whilst money is neccessary for war, people don't just give up when they run out of money. If you take away there only sources of revenue, then they will be forced into borrowing, and thus debt. Even the UK, the richest country in the world at the time, was in serious debt after WWI. I worry that it will cause major damage that will do to a third world nation rebuilding after a war, or even during war.

I Promise no shooting :)

I was thinking of listing examples, such as precious stones, oil, gas, uranium, and timber


OOC: another RL example _ Zaire, or The Congo, or whatever they're calling that big mess in central Africa nowadays, contains one of the world's main deposits of the ore from which a metal (Niobium? Tantalum?) that is apparently essential (or, at least, highly useful) in mobile phones can be extracted, and the mines there have been a target for conquest in the local wars...

OoC: I have a slight problem with this: wars are pretty much inevitable, and whilst money is neccessary for war, people don't just give up when they run out of money. If you take away there only sources of revenue, then they will be forced into borrowing, and thus debt. Even the UK, the richest country in the world at the time, was in serious debt after WWI. I worry that it will cause major damage that will do to a third world nation rebuilding after a war, or even during war.

I accept your concerns.

If a group cannot afford guns and ammo, then there will reach a point when they are just beating one another over the head for rifle butts and sticks. I’m yet to try it, but I understand it hurts a lot less than being shot.

As for borrowing money, I am curious who they would borrow money off. Another nation perhaps? This would have perhaps been restricted if Cluich’s terrorism resolution had passed. At any rate, I think that’s an international security issue and will consult UNDEFCON and regulars on here for feedback. There is scope for outlawing the payroll of forces in conflict for the purchase of arms and munitions.

As for rebuilding – if the resources are still available after a war, then I imagine it would be easier to rebuild, rather than having no natural resources available and trying to rebuild

At any rate, I think that’s an international security issue and will consult UNDEFCON and regulars on here for feedback.

Excellent. Speaking on behalf of the UN DEFCON, we would welcome the opportunity to assist in the drafting of this proposal. Indeed, we welcome the opportunity to assist anyone interested in drafting a proposal related to international security.

http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/5458/defcon3vv.jpg
We care more about your nation's security than you do.

OOC: No detailed commentary yet, just a general expression of approval.

A few quick points:

What constitutes "illegal exploitation"? Any definition aside, why should the UN be able to tell a nation it can't trade its natural resources for whatever it bloody pleases?

That would pretty much cover any trade in which a nation at war is engaged.

Preventing a nation from obtaining the necessary arms to defend itself is just a destructive to that nation's economic viability.

Well, there you have it. You've pretty much outlawed the arms trade for nations at war -- you know, the ones who really need arms.Like I’ve said, this is generally based on what has happened in Sierra Leone, and a few other states. Conflict diamonds are probably the best known example. I didn’t want this limited to conflict diamonds, and extend it further to other resources.

Generally, this is limited to internal conflicts, and in that case, if warring faction s are denied access to the illicit trade, a vital lifeline that supports and sustains armed conflict will be degraded, if not destroyed.

The prospect of nation vs nation is perhaps a little harder to stretch on this, and it needs to be considered. I’d consider illegal exploitation in this scenario to be resources harvested during a state of war within the invaded nation by the invaders, but that’s the product of 5 minutes thought, and certainly not an absolute answer.

Like I said, I was intending to consult yourself and associates in UNDEFCON on this matter, and I’m glad to see you have beat me to it. I think the second definition has more scope to be acceptable.

This was my starting point here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_diamonds

The first paragraph there says - A conflict diamond (also called a blood diamond or a war diamond) is a diamond mined in a war zone and sold, usually clandestinely, in order to finance an insurgent or invading army's war efforts. Non-governmental organizations have also alleged the use of these diamonds in financing the September 11, 2001 attacks.

This could act as a suitable definition for conflict resources.

the defintition has been updated, and I will submit on monday.

CONSIDERING the maintenance of international peace and security to reside well within the mandate of the United Nations,

DEEPLY CONCERNED by the high human cost and material losses caused by armed conflicts and recognizing that peace, security and development are mutually reinforcing, including in the prevention of armed conflict,

CONCERNED by the trade in arms or munitions and it’s contribution to the escalation or continuation of armed conflict

RECOGNISING the continuation of armed conflict when funded by the illegal exploitation of resources.

NOTES the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention, which addresses the root causes of armed conflict and political and social crises in a comprehensive manner, including by promoting sustainable development, poverty eradication, national reconciliation, good governance, democracy, gender equality, the rule of law and respect for and protection of human rights,

NOTES the illegal exploitation of resources is contrary to the promotion of sustainable development and the eradication of poverty

DEFINES Conflict resources as natural resources that are obtained illegally within a war zone by an insurgent or invading force, and used to finance aforementioned forces war efforts via clandestine transactions to third parties.

CONDEMNS the pillage and plunder of natural resources during conflict as destructive and damaging to the long term economic viability of a member state, with future impact on the inhabitants within.

CONDEMNS the practice of third parties in perpetuating the trade in conflict resources, most notably in exchange for arms and munitions.

OUTLAWS the trade of arms or munitions to nations or other groups in exchange for conflict resources by all member states or third parties within the UN.

CALLS FOR the cessation of trade in conflict resources by all member states or third parties within the UN.

Two initial points:
1. Category?
2. Sort out the punctuation. Personally, I like to end preambles with commas, and operative and semi-colons. Whatever you do, be consistent. And that should also apply to conflict resources: I would use both lower-case c and r, and putting them in "inverted commas" at the first mention.

Two initial points:
1. Category?
2. Sort out the punctuation. Personally, I like to end preambles with commas, and operative and semi-colons. Whatever you do, be consistent. And that should also apply to conflict resources: I would use both lower-case c and r, and putting them in "inverted commas" at the first mention.I dunno what is up with me at the moment - I'm normally better than this with punctuation. <sigh>

I am not understanding your implementation. So, the trade of diamonds for arms is banned, but if I sell the diamonds for money, and use the money to buy arms, then it's fine? Why not ban all trade of conflict resources?

it might be a better idea to ban everything and permit exceptions (such as medical aid) rather than banning weapons and permitting other things.

But I'm concerned banning all trade outright might harbour opposition to the proposal.

I'll ponder it further.

But I'm concerned banning all trade outright might harbour opposition to the proposal.

It most certainly will.

it might be a better idea to ban everything and permit exceptions (such as medical aid) rather than banning weapons and permitting other things.

But I'm concerned banning all trade outright might harbour opposition to the proposal.

I'll ponder it further.

The way you defined it, they are illegally acquired (aka stolen) and traded via clandestine operations (aka contraband). They should not be used as payment for anything, even for medical aid. Besides, isn't aid supposed to be free anyway?