NationStates Jolt Archive

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
A proposal from UN DEFCON: We care more about your nation's security than you do

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=demining

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

CONDEMNING avoidable civilian casualties,

COMMENDING previous law protecting civilians during and after military conflicts,

CONCERNED that landmines constitute a significant threat to civilians,

LAMENTING that this problem has not been adequately addressed,

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution
- "landmine" as a self-contained explosive device, placed on or under the ground, triggered by a person, tank, other vehicle, timer mechanism, or otherwise, with the intent to deter or disable force movements,
- "minefield" as any area in which landmines are located, or believed to be located,
- "demining" as the process of safely disabling, detonating, or removing landmines, rendering them non-hazardous:

1. DECLARES the duty of member nations to reduce and, where possible, prevent civilian casualties in minefields;

2. INSTRUCTS member nations to conduct surveys determining the location and status of all minefields within their territory;

3. RECOMMENDS that member nations take all appropriate actions to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, including:
- clear marking of minefields on maps,
- posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages,
- international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields,
- advising and educating citizens on methods for avoiding casualties in minefields;

4. ADVISES member nations that responsible demining is the most effective way of reducing minefield casualties;

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Demining Survey (UNDS), mandated to:
- conduct and aid demining operations, where requested under Article 8,
- research demining technology, landmine types less likely to constitute a lasting danger to civilians, and alternatives to landmine use,
- collaborate with national and international demining agencies,
- instruct civilians on landmine safety and treatment of landmine-related injuries,
- further promote landmine safety awareness through educational and informational campaigns;

6. URGES member nations to contribute staff, expertise, information, and funding to the UNDS;

7. MANDATES that the UNDS be respectful of territorial sovereignty of member states, and that no UNDS agent enter the territory of member nations without their explicit consent;

8. ESTABLISHES that:
- member nations may request UNDS assistance in demining minefields located solely within their jurisdiction,
- for minefields located within the jurisdiction of two or more nations, UNDS demining may be requested solely for parts of the minefield under jurisdiction of requesting nations,
- requesting nations may bar specific individuals from entering their territory to undertake UNDS operations,
- requesting nations must provide UNDS agents all available information on the location of landmines, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if risks to its personnel are deemed excessive,
- storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks.

Blow Up Many People

- storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks

Thus besides just refusing outright all we got to do is look stupid and you won't help up with this problem. Then why is it a problem for the UN..? Let them just give the task of clearing these minefields to their criminals. All they will need is a long bladed knife and hammer.

Also blieve you need to change the word INSTRUCTS in the part
-
2. INSTRUCTS member nations to conduct surveys determining the location and status of all minefields within their territory;

As not sure this will get them to do any surveys just INSTRUCT somebody to do them. As many nations already know how to locate these and are doing an effective job of clearing them were possible. They don't need INSTRUCTIONS they need more.. Like maybe safer secure storage sites and people competent enough to clear them.

What this will boil down to is? He who can pay will get help, those that can't pay will have to bury those who wonder into these minefields.

As the test to see who is competent enough will be based on a nations ability to pay for it.

I am going to have to come to terms with clause 7 (no objections from the logical part of my brain), so my only issue is with the title.

It made me pass over the resolution the first few times I saw it surfing the forums. Maybe add establishment to the end.....

*looks up 'demining' in a directory - finds it isn't there* At the very least 'de-mining' should be hyphenated, so it's clear what it means - I suspect most people's first response to the title would be something like 'huh?'.

*looks up 'demining' in a directory - finds it isn't there* At the very least 'de-mining' should be hyphenated, so it's clear what it means - I suspect most people's first response to the title would be something like 'huh?'.
"Mine action" includes demining, as well as victim assistance, mine-risk education, destruction of stockpiled landmines and advocating for a world free of the threat of landmines.
http://www.mineaction.org

Relevant RL agency: U.S. Humanitarian Demining Research and Development Program.

This (http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/index.html) concerns Demining Research at the University of Western Australia.

Reuters article containing 3 references to demining and 0 references to de-mining (http://www.aegis.com/news/re/2004/RE040956.html)

APOPO wants to have a real impact on the demining process.
http://www.apopo.org/newsite/content/index.htm

Then there's the Geneva International Center for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD).

All, of course, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demining.

:)

*looks up 'demining' in a directory - finds it isn't there* At the very least 'de-mining' should be hyphenated, so it's clear what it means - I suspect most people's first response to the title would be something like 'huh?'.

I :fluffle: wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demining)

*looks up 'demining' in a directory - finds it isn't there* At the very least 'de-mining' should be hyphenated, so it's clear what it means - I suspect most people's first response to the title would be something like 'huh?'.

This was discussed during the drafting of the proposal. Our delegation checked a number of Web sites published by professional and special-interest groups interested in the subject. "Demining" was the form used exclusively on all of them.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Good job,mate.
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[snip lots of examples of the work 'demining']
Bah, it still ignores standard English phonology.

And I could also give loads of counterexamples:

De-Mining Systems: http://www.deminingsystems.co.uk/
Eritrea asks de-mining groups to leave: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2224161.stm
Sri Lanka de-mining project begins: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1942079.stm
De-mining in Cambodia: http://www.landmines.org.uk/358
DE-MINING AND SEARCH SUITS: http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/demining-suits/demining-and-search-suits.asp

Our delegation checked a number of Web sites published by professional and special-interest groups interested in the subject. "Demining" was the form used exclusively on all of them.
Exclusively? See my post above with sites such as http://www.deminingsystems.co.uk/

Which perhaps goes to show that you shouldn't be telling what the word 'is', but what it can be. And also noting that it can be demining.

If you have nothing more to add than non-pedantry (because pedantry requires actually being right), please get out of my thread.

Exclusively? See my post above with sites such as http://www.deminingsystems.co.uk/

First, we would point out to the representative from Safalra that we said "demining" was the term of art used exclusively on the sites we visited. We note with interest that the sites listed by the representative in his counterargument to the distinguished representative of Gruenberg are all based in the United Kingdom. The sites we visited included sites sponsored by organizations in several nations as well as by international organizations. We noted the URLs of several for further reference, and will list them here in case others would find them useful sources of demining information:

Canadian Center for Mine Action Technologies (http://www.ccmat.gc.ca/Home/index_e.html)
International Test and Evaluation Program for Humanitarian Demining (http://www.itep.ws/index.php)
European Commission Joint Research Centre (http://www.jrc.cec.eu.int/)
Nordic Demining Research Forum (http://www.ndrf.dk/index_frame.htm)
The European Commission Esprit Programme (http://www.cordis.lu/esprit/src/hphdhome.htm)
Humanitarian Demining Technology Development Programme (http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/dtu/mines/index.html) (Warwick University, UK)
University of Western Australia (http://www.mech.uwa.edu.au/jpt/demining/)
United Nations Mine Action Service (http://www.mineaction.org/index.asp)
Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (http://www.gichd.ch/)
US Department of State (http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/rpt/spec/2819.htm)

If the representative of Safalra prefers the British spelling of the term, well and good. We do not. And we fail to see how the spelling "demining" violates any principles of English phonology. Nor does it violate any principles of English orthography.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'd certainly like to say, prior to our analysis of the resolution, that we commend the efforts of the honourable member for Gruenberg to bring this matter to the fore and highlight the difficulties faced by agencies involved in the demining process. Compadria also would like to stress that any resolution that can restrict the use of mines in warfare, as an accompanyment to this demining resolution, would be welcomed by our nation.

The United Nations,

CONDEMNING avoidable civilian casualties,

COMMENDING previous law protecting civilians during and after military conflicts,

CONCERNED that landmines constitute a significant threat to civilians,

LAMENTING that this problem has not been adequately addressed,

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution
- "landmine" as a self-contained explosive device, placed on or under the ground, triggered by a person, tank, other vehicle, timer mechanism, or otherwise, with the intent to deter or disable force movements,
- "minefield" as any area in which landmines are located, or believed to be located,
- "demining" as the process of safely disabling, detonating, or removing landmines, rendering them non-hazardous:

1. DECLARES the duty of member nations to reduce and, where possible, prevent civilian casualties in minefields;

2. INSTRUCTS member nations to conduct surveys determining the location and status of all minefields within their territory;

As a part of any demining process, it should be noted that the access of international teams to minefield areas to ascertain the correct nature of the survey's would be helpful to enforcing this clause, in our opinion.

3. RECOMMENDS that member nations take all appropriate actions to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, including:
- clear marking of minefields on maps,
- posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages,
- international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields,
- advising and educating citizens on methods for avoiding casualties in minefields;

Agreed.

4. ADVISES member nations that responsible demining is the most effective way of reducing minefield casualties;

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Demining Survey (UNDS), mandated to:
- conduct and aid demining operations, where requested under Article 8,
- research demining technology, landmine types less likely to constitute a lasting danger to civilians, and alternatives to landmine use,
- collaborate with national and international demining agencies,
- instruct civilians on landmine safety and treatment of landmine-related injuries,
- further promote landmine safety awareness through educational and informational campaigns;

I request respectfully that my suggestion concerning clause 2 be considered for additionn to this clause, as a responsibility of the UNDS.

6. URGES member nations to contribute staff, expertise, information, and funding to the UNDS;

We pledge to contribute at least 2% of the annual operating budget of the UNDS per year, so as to show our committment to this cause.

7. MANDATES that the UNDS be respectful of territorial sovereignty of member states, and that no UNDS agent enter the territory of member nations without their explicit consent;

If the nation is believed to be in violation of this treaty, would this clause still apply?

8. ESTABLISHES that:
- member nations may request UNDS assistance in demining minefields located solely within their jurisdiction,
- for minefields located within the jurisdiction of two or more nations, UNDS demining may be requested solely for parts of the minefield under jurisdiction of requesting nations,
- requesting nations may bar specific individuals from entering their territory to undertake UNDS operations,
- requesting nations must provide UNDS agents all available information on the location of landmines, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if risks to its personnel are deemed excessive,
- storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks.

Agreed, though what about 'neutral' areas, that have no official governing body nor are held under any national jurisdiction?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I'd certainly like to say, prior to our analysis of the resolution, that we commend the efforts of the honourable member for Gruenberg to bring this matter to the fore and highlight the difficulties faced by agencies involved in the demining process. Compadria also would like to stress that any resolution that can restrict the use of mines in warfare, as an accompanyment to this demining resolution, would be welcomed by our nation.
Probably not wild about this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471827) then.

As a part of any demining process, it should be noted that the access of international teams to minefield areas to ascertain the correct nature of the survey's would be helpful to enforcing this clause, in our opinion.
Yes, well, as you may note, the UNDS can be invited into such areas, and in such instances are required to verify the surveys.

I request respectfully that my suggestion concerning clause 2 be considered for additionn to this clause, as a responsibility of the UNDS.
I'll consider it if the proposal doesn't reach quorum.

We pledge to contribute at least 2% of the annual operating budget of the UNDS per year, so as to show our committment to this cause.
A fine offer; should this proposal be accepted by the UN, we hope many nations will contribute to its efforts.

If the nation is believed to be in violation of this treaty, would this clause still apply?
Yes.

Agreed, though what about 'neutral' areas, that have no official governing body nor are held under any national jurisdiction?
Well...are there such? I mean the Moon, I guess (IRL Antarctica), but as was noted in the debate on Forced Banishment Ban, there really is no non-sovereign territory. But if there is, then I doubt there would be many minefields there, nor a pressing need for removal, nor any especial obstacles to a nation undertaking mining and requesting UNDS assistance.

Blow Up More People

Probably not wild about this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=471827) then.

I'm prepared to overlook it in light of this particular proposal.


Yes, well, as you may note, the UNDS can be invited into such areas, and in such instances are required to verify the surveys.

I see, thank you for your clarification.

A fine offer; should this proposal be accepted by the UN, we hope many nations will contribute to its efforts.

Excellent, we hope to be able to honour our committment.

Well...are there such? I mean the Moon, I guess (IRL Antarctica), but as was noted in the debate on Forced Banishment Ban, there really is no non-sovereign territory. But if there is, then I doubt there would be many minefields there, nor a pressing need for removal, nor any especial obstacles to a nation undertaking mining and requesting UNDS assistance.

Fair point. I had some RL examples like the Western Sahara in mind, but I can see that in NS this would probably not be that common. I was trying to keep the interests of the residents of those areas in the considerations.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Resubmitted; same link; please approve.

Just approved it, mate.

Just approved it, mate.
Thank you.

EDIT: This is Gruenberg.

As a a sea based power we fully support people getting rid of land mines. This is an ideal humanitarian situation for us. Land mines blow up people including possibly some of our troops. It is a terrible humanitarian situation. Luckily this convention does not cover sea mines which are sown near many of our harbors. This includes smart sea mines which can home in on ships.

We should have added sea mines to the resolution. And Air mines too.

We should have added sea mines to the resolution. And Air mines too.
No. Naval and orbital mines are different - they don't pose anywhere near the same risk to civilians - and I wanted to keep the proposal focussed on its main aim.

Blow Up More jolt Programmers

BUMjP? Anyway, 13 to go. Approval link. (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=demining)

In Safalra’s defence – one could argue that given that nationstates is hosted by a UK site, these forums are co.uk and us English invented the language, we know better than you Americans.

So there :p

(seriously though, was there any need to degrade into a full blown squabble about spelling? If that’s the worst feedback anyone can raise I wouldn’t worry about it.)

For the sake of putting it all behind us. Do two google searches.

De-Mining: http://www.google.co.uk/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=de-mining&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off has about 199,000 results

Demining: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+%22demining%22&meta= has about 632,000 results.

Now, moving on….I like the proposal. Apart from my irrational hatred of creating organisations to oversee things, which might make me abstain.

(Do you think anyone might notice this is a perfect excuse to bump this as we discuss this further?)

This now needs four more approvals. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease approve it.

Indeed, get out there and approve this one! Everyone delegate who approves it get a free visit from a Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. servicewoman.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/dance007.gif

2 left

2 left
Eh, you just approved it so you could take up Sheikh Emansdrawkcab's offer.

Thank you nonetheless.

Eh, you just approved it so you could take up Sheikh Emansdrawkcab's offer.

Thank you nonetheless.

Um.....

*looks around*

What offer?

Actually, the offer was from me. The Cluichstani government will gladly pay for CPESL for its services.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb min Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

IN QUEUE!

Excellent! We look forward to voting in favor.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thanks to all delegates who approved this proposal.

Victory will be ours!

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)

Actually, the offer was from me. The Cluichstani government will gladly pay for CPESL for its services.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb min Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Ah

Who needs CPESL when they've got Night Sisters?

OOC:

Basically, I have to apologise. I'm not going to be around this weekend, nor Monday, so I pretty much won't be defending this proposal at all. The three basic points, though:

1. Landmines are currently banned by Resolution #40.
2. You don't have to use UNDS; you don't have to demine at all, in fact.
3. This is not an "anti-mine" proposal, and if, by chance, the landmine ban were to be repealed, this would not grandfather in a new ban.

1. Landmines are currently banned by Resolution #40.
2. You don't have to use UNDS; you don't have to demine at all, in fact.
3. This is not an "anti-mine" proposal, and if, by chance, the landmine ban were to be repealed, this would not grandfather in a new ban.Hirota will abstain, because of pet hates about creating organisations.

(We will however ask our delegate to vote for).

OOC:

Basically, I have to apologise. I'm not going to be around this weekend, nor Monday, so I pretty much won't be defending this proposal at all. The three basic points, though:

1. Landmines are currently banned by Resolution #40.
2. You don't have to use UNDS; you don't have to demine at all, in fact.
3. This is not an "anti-mine" proposal, and if, by chance, the landmine ban were to be repealed, this would not grandfather in a new ban.

Be assured, sir, that there will be others of us around to defend the proposal. It is positive, constructive, and deserving of adoption.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Thanks. And thanks in advance to those who defend and/or vote for the proposal. Thpfffft to those who vote against.:p

Be assured, sir, that there will be others of us around to defend the proposal. It is positive, constructive, and deserving of adoption.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

A burly man wearing the uniform of the Cluichstani Army stands and clears his throat. Also with him at the table of the Cluichstani delegation are, to his left, Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich, Cluichstani ambassador to the UN, and to his right, an incredibly beautiful olive-skinned woman with long dark hair.

Indeed. Permit me to introduce myself formally to this austere assembly: Sheik Nottap bin Cluich, defense minister of the Misbehaving Sultanate of Cluichstan, at your service. His Excellency, the High Sultan of Cluichstan, has dispatched me here in support of this fine proposal put forth by our Gruenberger friends, to serve as the voice of the people of Cluichstan on this matter. I trust my consort and I will be extended the same graciousness and kindness that my friend Sheik Nadnerb has enjoyed during his time here.

Thank you.

------------------------

Cluichstan, proud founder of...

UN DEFCON
http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)
We care more about your nation's security than you do.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/42844125.jpg Never fear I don't mind minding the resolution while you're away.

The Socialist Republic fully supports the most reasonable and moderate provisions of the UN Demining Survey, which preserves the right to an important aspect of national defense while promoting safety and cooperation between states.

-Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

1. Landmines are currently banned by Resolution #40.
2. You don't have to use UNDS; you don't have to demine at all, in fact.
3. This is not an "anti-mine" proposal, and if, by chance, the landmine ban were to be repealed, this would not grandfather in a new ban.

All this makes me wonder about the point of this resolution. These lines are nearly an excuse like "you can vote for it because it doesn't do a lot, anyway". It's good to provide assistance to demining, but basically all this resolution does is create an agency.

We're not casting a vote until we've seen more arguments in this debate on what to vote.

Thanks to all delegates who approved this proposal.
No probs.

Maumeeia will vote against this proposal.
We fear this proposal is a cover to again try to repeal resolution #40.

We also oppose the construct of this sentence in the proposal, found under the 5th clause; "research demining technology, landmine types less likely to constitute a lasting danger to civilians,"

The proposal also force previosly invaded countries to pay for the mines placed by the agressors, once their nation has been liberated.
We feel that the ones that initially placed the mines should be the ones paying for cleanup.

Again, as the proposal is written, we will vote no, and we will request our UN delegate to do the same.


Andrew Carrigan

We concur with the esteemed delegate of Maumeeia.

Given the current legal situation regarding the use of landmines, it is questionable to say the least, that the proposal contains the following provision:

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Demining Survey (UNDS), mandated to:

- research demining technology, landmine types less likely to constitute a lasting danger to civilians, and alternatives to landmine use.

Since the use of landmines is prohibited (as per Resolution #40), why should the UN establish an agency aimed at, among other things, researching new types of landmines?

It is contradictory to current UN policy, hypocritical and makes absolutely no sense.

We are firmly against.

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets

Where in this act does it say anything about boosting military budgets? Edoniakistanbabweagua will not vote for this act until it is clear to us how this can increase police and militaristic budgets.

Since the use of landmines is prohibited (as per Resolution #40),Should probably re-read R#40... and by that, I mean "read the actual text of the resolution as opposed to just the title."

Should probably re-read R#40... and by that, I mean "read the actual text of the resolution as opposed to just the title."

Yes...???

Regardless if you want to play the semantics game and claim that the text of resolution #40 doesn't explicitly ban the use of landmines, but merely calls for a ban, the end result is the same - the UN has declared itself to oppose the use of landmines.

If the UN has established that it is opposed to the use of landmines, then it is opposed to the use of landmines. Period.

For another proposal to then come along and attempt to establish a UN agency to perform research on new types of landmines is absurd.

What message does the UN send to nations by doing this? "You know, we're opposed to the use of landmines. But hey, here's a new kind of landmine we've developed that you can use! That way, at least there's a slightly lower risk that someone will be blown up".

To use a simile, this is akin to witnessing the rape of a girl and telling the rapist that: "You know, I'm opposed to rape. But hey, here's a condom I've bought that you can use! That way, at least there's a lower risk your victim will become pregnant or get a V.D.".

It's pure hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

Sound pretty good. I'm all for it so far.

This is looking like a typical NSUN debate. :headbang: But I'm sure we can all rise above the name calling and discuss the issues involved in this resolution.

This resolution is not an attempt at repealing resolution #40. That resolution already has so many loopholes that it looks like swiss cheese. The fact is that even under resolution #40 mines happen. Since resolution #40 is so small I can quote it in its entirty.

All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

Note, this resolution talks about, and calls for the non use of land mines by un members in conflicts. The use of land mines to protect sensitive military installations, for example is not mentioned in this resolution.

Nor did the resolution address removal of existing minefields. Mines can kill people decades after they have been employed in war, and there is still a strong posibility for mine fields to exist in UN Nations that have adheared to even the most liberal interpertation of the UN Resolution. Moreover while nations may be bound to UN rules as members of the UN they don't have to when not members and new UN members may have problems from those years when they deployed mines when not a UN member nation.

In any event, whether or not you can assume that resolution #40 allows for the use of land mines for defensive purposes outside the normal bounds of conflict, there is an argument for the notion that UN member states can have minefields that need to be safely removed.

The proposal doesn't force no one to pay for anything. The nation has to request the mine removal. Everyone is encouraged to chip a little money into the pot. No one is required to do anything, but everyone has the right to request the resources to make their nation safe.

Edoniakistanbabweagua, it's the nature of UN resolutions. "Category: International Security Strength: Mild" will create "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." That's automatically generated by the system. Gruenberg didn't write that part.

Maumeeia will vote against this proposal.
We fear this proposal is a cover to again try to repeal resolution #40.

We also oppose the construct of this sentence in the proposal, found under the 5th clause; "research demining technology, landmine types less likely to constitute a lasting danger to civilians,"

Just to clarify.

While I understand the apparent contradiction created by this statement, bear with us for a moment. It has already been covered in a couple of posts that it entirely legitimate for UN nations to use landmines outside of a conflict scenario (eg-protection of sensitive military installations). As long as such is the case, we would feel remiss if we did not further research the possibilities for landmines that would expire, if you will, after a set time, say 60 days or so. That way, once the expiration date of such mines has been reached, the area would be safe to civilians once again unless it was remined. Which would create a considerable cost burden to the miner, as a result.

That is why that statement is in the proposal.

Oskar Feldstein
Representative for Kivisto
In the Glory Of The Master

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

Without wishing to be too blunt, oppostion to the 5th clause is merely pedantic. The clause does not explicitly call for new landmines. It can mean that a nation should direct research towards modifying landmines that may exist so that they cause less harm to civillians. It also calls for alternatives to landmine use.

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Demining Survey (UNDS), mandated to:

- research demining technology, landmine types less likely to constitute a lasting danger to civilians, and alternatives to landmine use.

As has been pointed out most excellently by the honourable delegate from Tsorzland, the original resolution:

All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

Is riddled with holes, particulary concerning the passive use of landmines(i.e., the protection of military installations). As such, the clause is a sensible one, because it would assist in the promotion and research into new, non-landmine based deterrents and also the creation of less lethal landmines, so the next poor devil who accidentally enters a restricted area is blown up after taking four paces.

For these reasons, among many others, the Republic of Compadria supports this resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Regardless if you want to play the semantics game and claim that the text of resolution #40 doesn't explicitly ban the use of landmines, but merely calls for a ban, the end result is the same - the UN has declared itself to oppose the use of landmines.Really, now? Stating a position is the same as actually doing something? Well, then, I guess we can just get rid of all those pesky laws and just strongly assert that we're against something. After all, saying you're against something is the same as outlawing it.

If the UN has established that it is opposed to the use of landmines, then it is opposed to the use of landmines. Period.So what? Your inability to grasp the difference between a statement and a law is staggering.

What message does the UN send to nations by doing this? "You know, we're opposed to the use of landmines. But hey, here's a new kind of landmine we've developed that you can use! That way, at least there's a slightly lower risk that someone will be blown up".I notice you completely ignored the primary purpose of this proposal, specifically the creation of the demining survey, something else that #40 fails utterly at.

You might also want to do a little reading before popping off. Do a little reading about the success rates of self-destructing and self-disabling landmines. I'll give you a little hint: if you find a rate other than 100%, you need to dig a little more.

To use a simile, this is akin to witnessing the rape of a girl and telling the rapist that: "You know, I'm opposed to rape. But hey, here's a condom I've bought that you can use! That way, at least there's a lower risk your victim will become pregnant or get a V.D.".Pathetic and disgusting. If you're the lead for the opposition to this proposal, it'll sail on through.

It's pure hypocrisy. Plain and simple.You don't know what words mean, do you?

We stand squarely with our Gruenberger, Ausserlander, Cluichstani, Tzorslander, No Cream and No Sugar, Compadrian and Kivistan friends; the article presently at vote does not violate Resolution #40 in the slightest. What's more, the "argument" that the United Nations should vote down this proposal because it violates Resolution #40, or is a precursor for repealing the same, is an insult to the General Assembly's collective intelligence, as Resolution #40 does nothing. Call us old-fashioned, but we feel that a law must actually do something before we can violate it, or keep it on the books. In fact, this proposal does something Reolsution #40 does not: creates a framework for getting rid of landmines, and urges nations to modernize their defenses and phase out unsafe and obselete military hardware. Therefore, as a proud member of UN DEFCON -- a necessary and vital organization formed upon the ruins of the Anti-Terrorist Act, with the purpose of kicking some sense into a woefully unserious international body bent on security negligence and terror apologism -- the Federal Republic votes in favor of this article.

Alemarenvelt is a military nation. I want to point out that revealing locations of minefields by placing locations on maps and placing markers around them kinda makes the purpose of minefields defunct. I suppose I will have to increase stockpiles of other more powerful weapons if my defensive minefield locations are to be revealed to the world. I believe better ways of preventing civilian losses can be made.:sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

We stand squarely with our Gruenberger, Ausserlander, Cluichstani, Tzorslander, No Cream and No Sugar, Compadrian and Kivistan friends; the article presently at vote does not violate Resolution #40 in the slightest. What's more, the "argument" that the United Nations should vote down this proposal because it violates Resolution #40, or is a precursor for repealing the same, is an insult to the General Assembly's collective intelligence, as Resolution #40 does nothing. Call us old-fashioned, but we feel that a law must actually do something before we can violate it, or keep it on the books. In fact, this proposal does something Reolsution #40 does not: creates a framework for getting rid of landmines, and urges nations to modernize their defenses and phase out unsafe and obselete military hardware. Therefore, as a proud member of UN DEFCON -- a necessary and vital organization formed upon the ruins of the Anti-Terrorist Act, with the purpose of kicking some sense into a woefully unserious international body bent on security negligence and terror apologism -- the Federal Republic votes in favor of this article.

I just want to add our official support to the list. We stand roundly with our Gruenberger, Ausserlander, Cluichstani, Tzorslander, No Cream and No Sugarite, Compadrian, Kivistan, and Omigodtheykilledkennyan friends in defense of this bill.

Proudly blah blah DEFCON blah for the love of God, think of the children! blah blah blah blah closing loopholes is good.

Because #40 keeps getting brought up, I think it might be important to consider what it actually does and have a few comments about it

Resolution #40: Banning use of Landmines
Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Strong

It wouldn't be strong under the current rule set.

All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world.

I think we can all agree they are unnecessary to civilian populations. Civilians aren't trying to mine their own backyards, they're just upset when the government does.

Jokes aside, yes they are cruel when left lying around blowing up people's limbs years after they were needed. Whether they are unnecessary or not....that really depends on your definition of unnecessary. Considering the US considers them pretty much necessary for deployment in Korea, and considering their ability to limit the logical border crossings or such and such....they may very well be necessary for a nation that just can't afford to keep guards patrolling all those borders.

We don't know.

These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise.

I note that these points all apply to landmines that are active permanently. This suggests the UN made its decision based upon the logic that permanently active landmines have too many problems to be permanently in use. When you consider clause 5 which looks at finding ways of deactivating landmines after a certain period of time....that's a completely different story altogether.

For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

Screw called for. Even if we argue that this is a mandatory statement, those two words are more important than anything else here. A large percentage of landmines used are not in conflicts. Two examples - Korea (Americans are still dropping mines, even though there hasn't been any open conflict in 50 years) and Eastern Europe (used by various countries to try and prevent emigrants to the west during the cold war). I was joking the other day how one member probably drops mines in the middle of residential areas just to watch the explosions. That's perfectly legal by this resolution. The production of landmines is legal. The research into landmines is legal. And if all else fails, they could be doing some of these things as joint work with non-UN countries - in which case, us selling landmines that turn off after a while to non-member countries is probably a bonus - the non-members that don't have this technology may very well see the advantages to this (well hey, they were listed in UNR 40) and we can probably help people around the world.

And quite frankly, #40 needs to be repealed and replaced because it is a bloody eyesore.

there are safer alternatives to minefields. one is the placing of area denial weapon system ADWS. metalstorm is known to produce ADWS that have a capablity to replace large scale minefields with weaponry to judge distances and area of fire without a human constantly manning the weapons. along with the area being fenced off with warnings for civilians this is a suitable but costly fix for a minefield. my country has invested in this idea and is waiting for the go ahead to produce the ADWS.

http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=news&prid=82&category=Announcements%202005 there is also footage for those interested

This resolution is not an attempt at repealing resolution #40.

Obviously, since it's not a repeal. But let us not make pretences here. You know just as well as I that Gruenberg's original intention with this was/is to have resolution #40 repealed and 'replaced' with this.

It is no secret that this proposal was crafted and submitted along with a repeal attempt, which didn't reach quorum. It is also no secret that a new repeal attempt is currently being crafted, invoking this proposal as justification, should it pass.

To be quite honest, I would in fact not mind if resolution #40 was replaced with a more comprehensive, efficient ban on landmines. But I would not want it replaced by this, since this isn't a replacement at all.

This proposal not only allows and condones the use of landmines for all purposes and under all circumstances, but even recommends the UN to take an active role in pursuing military science and military technology development.

Note, this resolution talks about, and calls for the non use of land mines by un members in conflicts. The use of land mines to protect sensitive military installations, for example is not mentioned in this resolution.

Much like the use of landmines for offensive and strategic purposes on enemy soil - as opposed to defensive purposes on home soil - is not mentioned neither in this proposal nor the repeal attempt of resolution #40.

Also, the term 'conflict' is really a matter of interpretation. It seems many equate the term with open war, and thus conclude that resolution #40 only calls for a ban on the use of landmines in war.

In its broadest sense however, the term 'conflict' means and incorporates all forms of hostility, active as well as passive, between two or more parts.

There are 'hot' wars and there are 'cold' wars. There is open conflict and there is silent conflict. Espionage and sabotage - acts that typically are invoked as justification for measures such as placing landmines - are not only performed in open wars. Nations formerly at war can even technically be considered to be in conflict with each other for decades or centuries after open hostilities have ceased, as long as no official peace treaty has been signed.

In fact, it can be argued that the only reason nations would feel the need for placing landmines to protect any facilities, is if they are involved in a silent or low intensity conflict with other nations.

Furthermore, if it is argued that the use of landmines is essential for protecting 'sensitive military installations', then this proposal really does not help that purpose, considering the various points under clause 3:

3. RECOMMENDS that member nations take all appropriate actions to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, including:
- clear marking of minefields on maps,
- posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages,
- international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields

How is "clear marking of minefields on maps", "posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages" and "international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields" beneficial for the use of minefields to protect 'sensitive military installations'.

It seems to me that such measures defeat the very purpose of placing minefields to stop possible spies or saboteurs, does it not? Since the proposal also only recommends these measures to be taken, this means that nations truly intent on using landmines as protection for military facilities or similar will have absolutely no interest in following them.

Nor did the resolution address removal of existing minefields.

And why should it? Why should the responsibility and costs for the removal of landmines in member nations' territories be deferred to the UN? Why should the UN put itself in a position where it can be requested by an industrialized, wealthy, militaristic nation that wishes to get rid of a few landmines it has placed, to remove the mines just because the nation that placed them wants to spare itself the cost and effort?

If such nations create the mess in the first place, then they clean it up themselves, at their own expense.

What resolution #40 does is calling for a ban on the use of landmines in all conflicts between UN member nations, and for the time being it does that sufficiently well.

Mines can kill people decades after they have been employed in war, and there is still a strong posibility for mine fields to exist in UN Nations that have adheared to even the most liberal interpertation of the UN Resolution. Moreover while nations may be bound to UN rules as members of the UN they don't have to when not members and new UN members may have problems from those years when they deployed mines when not a UN member nation.

Worthy argument, and the only possible beneficial consequence of this proposal I can think of.

But consider the 2 last provisions of clause 8, and the following scenario:

A small, rural, poor country has been oppressed by a military regime for a long time, but finally managed to liberate itself and - upon establishing a new, democratically elected government - decides to join the UN.

The former military regime has placed dozens or hundreds of minefields all over the nation, and naturally, the new government wishes to get rid of them, so they turn to the UNDS.

Now, the new government would likely have no information whatsoever, and no means of getting any, on the locations of these minefields.

Clause 8, item 4 then says: "requesting nations must provide UNDS agents all available information on the location of landmines, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if risks to its personnel are deemed excessive."

Consequently, the UNDS has no obligation to help the nation get rid of these mines, because the new government that requested them to do so, can not provide information on the locations of the minefields.

To make it worse, consider clause 8, item 5, which says: "storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks."

This poor, newly liberated nation would likely lack any means for undertaking and managing this, and consequently the UNDS has no obligation and may refuse to help this nation.

So what is the purpose? The scenario I just described is the only one I can think of where the existence of an agency such as the UNDS might be beneficial, and make a difference in the name of helping those in need. And then it effectively handcuffs itself and swears off the responsibility for doing so.

I've been long-winded enough already and will stop now, but no, I fail to see the use of this proposal and continue to claim that the UN should not act as a demining agency for nations rich enough, and with the technological know how and means to do it themselves. And the UN should most certainly not act as an institute for research into military technology.

Obviously, since it's not a repeal. But let us not make pretences here. You know just as well as I that Gruenberg's original intention with this was/is to have resolution #40 repealed and 'replaced' with this.

It is no secret that this proposal was crafted and submitted along with a repeal attempt, which didn't reach quorum. It is also no secret that a new repeal attempt is currently being crafted, invoking this proposal as justification, should it pass.

Yes, indeed a repeal attempt is probably being considered, but given, as has been pointed out by several honourable delegates that resolution #40 is riddled with more holes than a woodworm infested plank, this would not be necessarily a bad thing.

To be quite honest, I would in fact not mind if resolution #40 was replaced with a more comprehensive, efficient ban on landmines. But I would not want it replaced by this, since this isn't a replacement at all.

This proposal not only allows and condones the use of landmines for all purposes and under all circumstances, but even recommends the UN to take an active role in pursuing military science and military technology development.

I would agree on the comprehensive ban point, but lets debate this resolution on its merits at the current time, not on a hypothesised future reality which may or may not occur. Frankly too, if the U.N. can make dangerous weaponry less lethal for civillians then I'm all in favour of weapons research.

Much like the use of landmines for offensive and strategic purposes on enemy soil - as opposed to defensive purposes on home soil - is not mentioned neither in this proposal nor the repeal attempt of resolution #40.

I would stress that we are not talking about a repeal of resolution #40, but this resolution on its merits. Anyways, the use of strategic landmines can be covered elsewhere and is not really fitting with the general zeitgeist of this resolution.

Also, the term 'conflict' is really a matter of interpretation. It seems many equate the term with open war, and thus conclude that resolution #40 only calls for a ban on the use of landmines in war.

In its broadest sense however, the term 'conflict' means and incorporates all forms of hostility, active as well as passive, between two or more parts.

Could you define "passive hostility".

There are 'hot' wars and there are 'cold' wars. There is open conflict and there is silent conflict. Espionage and sabotage - acts that typically are invoked as justification for measures such as placing landmines - are not only performed in open wars. Nations formerly at war can even technically be considered to be in conflict with each other for decades or centuries after open hostilities have ceased, as long as no official peace treaty has been signed.

Yes, but that is a different matter, if they are not fighting one another openly then they would not need to use landmines for offensive, merely defensive purposes, a fact no covered by resolution #40.

In fact, it can be argued that the only reason nations would feel the need for placing landmines to protect any facilities, is if they are involved in a silent or low intensity conflict with other nations.

Furthermore, if it is argued that the use of landmines is essential for protecting 'sensitive military installations', then this proposal really does not help that purpose, considering the various points under clause 3:

3. RECOMMENDS that member nations take all appropriate actions to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, including:
- clear marking of minefields on maps,
- posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages,
- international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields

How is "clear marking of minefields on maps", "posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages" and "international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields" beneficial for the use of minefields to protect 'sensitive military installations'.

Yes, but most 'sensitive military installations' are known to exist anyway, the only esoteric part of their existence is their purpose, which would not really be revealed by a field of landmines.

And why should it? Why should the responsibility and costs for the removal of landmines in member nations' territories be deferred to the UN? Why should the UN put itself in a position where it can be requested by an industrialized, wealthy, militaristic nation that wishes to get rid of a few landmines it has placed, to remove the mines just because the nation that placed them wants to spare itself the cost and effort?

If such nations create the mess in the first place, then they clean it up themselves, at their own expense.

We should avoid moral judgments on ability of nations to dispose of landmines, we should concentrate on the fact that they would actually be removed, instead of being ignored on the aforementioned grounds of "cost and effort".

What resolution #40 does is calling for a ban on the use of landmines in all conflicts between UN member nations, and for the time being it does that sufficiently well.

No, it is deeply inadequate and misses out large numbers of alternate possiblities for use of landmines, but they have been gone over already by others.

As for the poor nation scenario, it would be unlikely that "excessive risk" would include lack of knowledge of the location of the minefields. "Excessive risk" more likely refers to situations of open conflict and active hostiities in the areas, which would make work almost impossible and even more hazardous than usual. When dealing with landmines, the normal parameters of definitions such as "excessive risk" go out the proverbial window.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Yes, indeed a repeal attempt is probably being considered, but given, as has been pointed out by several honourable delegates that resolution #40 is riddled with more holes than a woodworm infested plank, this would not be necessarily a bad thing.

Agreed. But any repeal of resolution #40 should be followed by a new resolution to outright ban the use of landmines.

I should clarify that I'm not opposed to a proposal establishing some form of UN anti-mine action or agency. But any such action would have to start with and build upon a total ban on the use of landmines, and be aimed at cleaning up landmines placed before the ban entered into effect.

This proposal is not built upon the premise that landmines should be banned. It is built upon the premise that landmines should be allowed.

I would agree on the comprehensive ban point, but lets debate this resolution on its merits at the current time, not on a hypothesised future reality which may or may not occur. Frankly too, if the U.N. can make dangerous weaponry less lethal for civillians then I'm all in favour of weapons research.

Not if landmines are banned. If the use of landmines is banned, it would make absolutely no sense for the UN to research new types of landmines. Researching new technologies for clearing mines yes, researching new types of mines, no. Since the latter would be an indirect signal that the use of landmines is approved by the UN.

I would stress that we are not talking about a repeal of resolution #40, but this resolution on its merits. Anyways, the use of strategic landmines can be covered elsewhere and is not really fitting with the general zeitgeist of this resolution.

To the contrary, I would argue that the unfortunate omission of any mention and consideration that landmines are often used for offensive strategic purposes is a great impediment for this proposal.

If landmines placed by an invading nation are left behind on the territory of another nation, they would then constitute a minefield within the jurisdiction of the invaded nation.

According to this proposal, it would then be the responsibility of the invaded nation and the UNDS to map and clear these mines, even though they were not responsible for placing them and as such can not be expected to provide any detailed information on the location and nature of said mines.

This proposal focuses entirely on the use of landmines for defensive purposes on home soil, and is therefore woefully inadequate and unjust.

Could you define "passive hostility".

I would think it is rather self explanatory, but ok... A state where animosity between parties exists, but does not escalate to open war.

Yes, but that is a different matter, if they are not fighting one another openly then they would not need to use landmines for offensive, merely defensive purposes, a fact no covered by resolution #40.

And again, I state that any UN action regarding the use of landmines should begin with, and build upon, the premise that landmines are banned.

And also again, I state that this proposal fails to recognize and address the fact that landmines can be used for offensive purposes.

Yes, but most 'sensitive military installations' are known to exist anyway, the only esoteric part of their existence is their purpose, which would not really be revealed by a field of landmines.

The point is that the provisions under clause 3 are meaningless whichever way you look upon the proposal.

*If you look upon the proposal with the opinion that landmines protecting military installations should be allowed, then the provisions of clause 3 makes that opinion baseless, since any clear markings of such minefields recommended by the proposal would render the minefields easily recognizable and circumvented by any would be spy or sabouteur. Thereby rendering such minefields pointless.

*If you look upon the proposal with the opinion that these provisions are helpful for 'international co-operation' and 'awareness' of the location of minefields, this is immediately contradicted by the point I've described above, and the fact that nations aren't in fact required to comply, but only recommended to do so. Which in turn means that it wouldn't be in any nation's interest to divulge any such information, since it would be against the purpose of the mines.

Either way, the provisions of clause 3 are essentially meaningless and just empty rhetoric.

We should avoid moral judgments on ability of nations to dispose of landmines, we should concentrate on the fact that they would actually be removed, instead of being ignored on the aforementioned grounds of "cost and effort".

Yes. But the fact is that this proposal makes it possible to deny help clearing minefields to those nations that need it the most.

The nations that need it the most are the poor nations that have either been invaded by other nations that have planted landmines on their territory (again, a reality this proposal doesn't even mention), or suffered through domestic wars and strife.

Any anti-mine action by the UN should have as its first and foremost priority the humanitarian aspect and devote itself to helping the nations most in need.

This means, in my opinion, that it is completely unacceptable to include provisions stating that: "requesting nations must provide UNDS agents all available information on the location of landmines, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if risks to its personnel are deemed excessive."

and: "storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks."

It is not reasonable, and not in line with humanitarian principles, to expect and demand that poorer nations that have been invaded by other nations or have gone through civil wars, should be able to provide such exhaustive information about the locations of minefields, or possess the facilities and means necessary for disposing or storing the mines, or else the UNDS may refuse to help them.

In effect, the provisions under clause 8 make it so that only developed nations with a fully working infrastructure, military intelligence and economy may be able to request and receive the services of the UNDS.

No, it is deeply inadequate and misses out large numbers of alternate possiblities for use of landmines, but they have been gone over already by others.

Agreed. But this proposal is not any solution, and is also missing large numbers of possibilites.

As for the poor nation scenario, it would be unlikely that "excessive risk" would include lack of knowledge of the location of the minefields. "Excessive risk" more likely refers to situations of open conflict and active hostiities in the areas, which would make work almost impossible and even more hazardous than usual. When dealing with landmines, the normal parameters of definitions such as "excessive risk" go out the proverbial window.

Speculative assertion.

As this proposal is constructed and worded, "excessive risk" may well mean lack of detailed maps of the minefields, which I've already explained that it would be highly unlikely - and even highly unrealistic - to expect to receive in a number of possible scenarios.

As I said before this is not a repeal of #40 so let's get to the meat of the debate.
Nor did the resolution address removal of existing minefields.
And why should it? Why should the responsibility and costs for the removal of landmines in member nations' territories be deferred to the UN? Why should the UN put itself in a position where it can be requested by an industrialized, wealthy, militaristic nation that wishes to get rid of a few landmines it has placed, to remove the mines just because the nation that placed them wants to spare itself the cost and effort?

Because Land Mines KILL PEOPLE.
Because Land Mines are easy to deploy but hard to remove.
Because Land Mines exist, (I have already given plenty of reasons) whether resolution #40 existed or not.

That's why land mines are everyone's pain in the neck. People in poor countries should not have to suffer and die because of the general condition of the people. It's as simple as that.

The representative of Frestonia has raised a number of points in opposition to this resolution. We woule like to respond to three of them.

Obviously, since it's not a repeal. But let us not make pretences here. You know just as well as I that Gruenberg's original intention with this was/is to have resolution #40 repealed and 'replaced' with this.

It is no secret that this proposal was crafted and submitted along with a repeal attempt, which didn't reach quorum. It is also no secret that a new repeal attempt is currently being crafted, invoking this proposal as justification, should it pass.

The representative is obviously quite correct in saying that the author of this proposal wishes and intends to repeal NSUN Resolution #40. But we see that as irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is this resolution that is being debated here, not Resolution #40. If this resolution passes, Resolution #40 remains in place and in force. If a repeal proposal is submitted, nations may judge it on its merits. The possibility that an attempt may be made to repeal it should not be allowed to muddy debate on the resolution at vote.


This proposal not only allows and condones the use of landmines for all purposes and under all circumstances, but even recommends the UN to take an active role in pursuing military science and military technology development.

Stating that "This proposal not only allows and condones the use of landmines for all purposes and under all circumstances" is simply false. It does no such thing and we invite the representative to point out the specific language which does so. He cannot. Doing so would be in contradiction of Resolution #40.


How is "clear marking of minefields on maps", "posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages" and "international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields" beneficial for the use of minefields to protect 'sensitive military installations'.

It seems to me that such measures defeat the very purpose of placing minefields to stop possible spies or saboteurs, does it not? Since the proposal also only recommends these measures to be taken, this means that nations truly intent on using landmines as protection for military facilities or similar will have absolutely no interest in following them.

This is not true. A basic principle of physical security is that security measures should serve to delay, deter and detect intrusion. A marked minefield used as a physical security barrier would certainly serve as a deterrent, would delay an intruder by forcing him to circumvent the mines, and would enhance the potential for detection by channeling access and increasing the time needed to access the asset. Posting warnings of hazardous physical security measures in place is a long-established practice and certainly does not defeat their purpose. We cite the common warnings posted when electrified fences and unsupervised guard dogs are in use as examples.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Agreed. But any repeal of resolution #40 should be followed by a new resolution to outright ban the use of landmines.

We would need to repeal UNR#40 before such an outright ban could be put in place. This resoultion cannot do that.

I should clarify that I'm not opposed to a proposal establishing some form of UN anti-mine action or agency.

Good. We have a freamework for understanding here as that is the primary purpose of this proposal.

But any such action would have to start with and build upon a total ban on the use of landmines,

We would need to repeal UNR#40 before such a total ban could be put into place. This resolution cannot do that.

and be aimed at cleaning up landmines placed before the ban entered into effect.

Good. We have a framework for understanding here as that is the primary purpose of this proposal.

This proposal is not built upon the premise that landmines should be banned.

We cannot create resolutions that build upon other resoultions. Especially resolutions that don't exist. A statement of intent in the intro would add nothing to the force or effectiveness of the UNDS as its very existence is to REMOVE minefields it is assumed that intent is clear.

It is built upon the premise that landmines should be allowed.
Fallacious and not worth arguing.

Not if landmines are banned.

We would need to repeal UNR#40 before such a total ban could be put into place. This resolution cannot do that.

If the use of landmines is banned,

We would need to repeal UNR#40 before such a total ban could be put into place. This resolution cannot do that.

it would make absolutely no sense for the UN to research new types of landmines.

Were a complete ban in effect, agreed. Such a ban is not in place.

Researching new technologies for clearing mines yes,

Not a bad idea at all, perhaps you should work on those and assist the UNDS by providing those.

researching new types of mines, no.

Fine. We'll keep using the mines that continue to cause a significant threat and hazard to everyone for decades.

Since the latter would be an indirect signal that the use of landmines is approved by the UN.

No. Simply that we are aware of the limitations of currently existing legislation and wish to improve upon those in the limited fashion allowed within the context of this resolution.

To the contrary,

I never would have expected that.

I would argue

Really

that the unfortunate omission of any mention and consideration that landmines are often used for offensive strategic purposes is a great impediment for this proposal.

Go on....

If landmines placed by an invading nation are left behind on the territory of another nation, they would then constitute a minefield within the jurisdiction of the invaded nation.

Yes, assuming the invaders were repelled, otherwise it's a minefield in their own newly acquired land.

According to this proposal, it would then be the responsibility of the invaded nation and the UNDS to map and clear these mines, even though they were not responsible for placing them and as such can not be expected to provide any detailed information on the location and nature of said mines.

The repelled invaders would hardly be cooperative with telling us where they placed the mines in the first place. The UNDS does not require detailed information, merely all available information. There is a definite difference there.

This proposal focuses entirely on the use of landmines for defensive purposes on home soil,

See above point.

and is therefore woefully inadequate

I'm sorry you feel that way.

and unjust.

. . . uuhhh . . . errrrr . . . unjust? . . . . . . what?

I would think it is rather self explanatory, but ok... A state where animosity between parties exists, but does not escalate to open war.

Fair enough, but that still does not counter the concept of placement of mines for protection of certain installations, which doesn't require any particular threat to be valid, simply the knowledge that others may desire what is inside and the the desire to keep them out.

And again, I state that any UN action regarding the use of landmines should begin with, and build upon, the premise that landmines are banned.[QUOTE]

And again-
We would need to repeal UNR#40 before such an outright ban could be put in place. This resoultion cannot do that.

[QUOTE]And also again,

You really are a fan of repeating yourself aren't you?

I state that this proposal fails to recognize and address the fact that landmines can be used for offensive purposes.

I've already covered this.

The point is that the provisions under clause 3 are meaningless whichever way you look upon the proposal.

Have you tried right side up and in english?

*If you look upon the proposal with the opinion that landmines protecting military installations should be allowed, then the provisions of clause 3 makes that opinion baseless, since any clear markings of such minefields recommended by the proposal would render the minefields easily recognizable and circumvented by any would be spy or sabouteur. Thereby rendering such minefields pointless.

We have not stated that such minefields should be allowed, simply that they ARE via a loophole in UNR#40. Other than that, the markings etc. have been covered in other arguments already.

*If you look upon the proposal with the opinion that these provisions are helpful for 'international co-operation' and 'awareness' of the location of minefields, this is immediately contradicted by the point I've described above,

It really isn't.

and the fact that nations aren't in fact required to comply, but only recommended to do so. Which in turn means that it wouldn't be in any nation's interest to divulge any such information, since it would be against the purpose of the mines.

Unless they wanted everyone to know how incredibly well protected their regions are and how ridiculously impossible it would be to try and invade their space. In which case it would serve as a remarkably effective deterrent to attack.

Either way, the provisions of clause 3 are essentially meaningless and just empty rhetoric.

If that helps you sleep at night, sure. But things aren't meaningless rhetoric simply because you have failed to grasp the point.

Yes. But the fact is that this proposal makes it possible to deny help clearing minefields to those nations that need it the most.

As well as those who might not need it nearly as much. Fact of the matter is that, as citizens of UN nations, the members of the UNDS would be allowed to refuse any work that is unnecessarily hazardous anyways. It has simply been included what a couple of those conditions might include.

The nations that need it the most are the poor nations that have either been invaded by other nations that have planted landmines on their territory (again, a reality this proposal doesn't even mention), or suffered through domestic wars and strife.

If they are poor, they probably couldn't mount a proper defence and have, as a result, been annexed. The new government (AKA the invading armies) will most likely know where they placed their own minefields. If they were capable of mounting a military defence and overthrowing the foreign devils, then they must have some nature of military budget and will manage to meet the few criteria we ask. As for domestic conflict, someone had a military budget to be throwing landmines around, someone will know where the mines are.

Any anti-mine action by the UN should have as its first and foremost priority the humanitarian aspect

Agreed. Good thing it does, I guess.

and devote itself to helping the nations most in need.

Covered above.

This means, in my opinion, that it is completely unacceptable to include provisions stating that: "requesting nations must provide UNDS agents all available information on the location of landmines, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if risks to its personnel are deemed excessive."

I'll assume that you opposed the Right to Form Labour Unions, then. Either that or you simply wish to see innocents that are attempting to help all of us get slaughtered because they didn't have all of the information available to them when the set out.

and: "storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks."

Once again, if you have fought off an invading army, odds are that there is some form of military budget behind you and you can easily afford the minimal cost of disposal of landmines (realistically we're talking about a reinforced structure in which it can be safely detonated without harming the outside populace).

It is not reasonable, and not in line with humanitarian principles, to expect and demand that poorer nations that have been invaded by other nations

See above.

or have gone through civil wars,

See above.

should be able to provide such exhaustive information

Not exhaustive. Simply all available.

about the locations of minefields, or possess the facilities and means necessary for disposing or storing the mines,

See above.

or else the UNDS may refuse to help them.

the UNDS doesn't want its own members dying any more than you want your citizens to.

In effect, the provisions under clause 8 make it so that only developed nations with a fully working infrastructure, military intelligence and economy may be able to request and receive the services of the UNDS.

All we have asked is that you have some clue as to where mines are and that we don't have to carry these things all over creation. If you're calling on the UNDS, you must know that you have mines and have some clue as to where they lie. The facilities required for safe disposal of landmines are nowhere near as financially costly to build as the cost to the civilian populace if the minefields are not removed. If you really beleive that your government wouldn't go just a little bit into debt to prevent the needless loss of thousands of your own citizens, then I feel very sorry for your people.

Agreed. But this proposal is not any solution, and is also missing large numbers of possibilites.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps if this doesn't pass, you can write a better one yourself.

Speculative assertion.

*beep-boop-beep-beep-boop-boop-beep*
*RIIIIIIING*
"Hello?"
"Yeah, Pot?"
"Yes."
"It's Kettle. You're black."
*CLICK*

As this proposal is constructed and worded, "excessive risk" may well mean lack of detailed maps of the minefields, which I've already explained that it would be highly unlikely - and even highly unrealistic - to expect to receive in a number of possible scenarios.

Aside from the labour union arguments, as well as the fact that nowhere does it require detailed anything, what, in your mind would constitute excessive risk to a person whose career entails handling unexploded ordinance of any kind?

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

To me this is a simple decsion. Firstly I thank those esteemed delegates who have pointed out, that a possible repeal of resolution #40, has no bearing in this debate. THis is about setting up a department to help deminig operations. usually I oppose such extra-governmental offices, but I am prepared to make an exception. Firstly, reducing civillian casualties concerns all of us. Secondly, whether we like it of not, landmines exist, and have been deployed, thus endangering civillians, and military presonel. This proposal will help remove these landmines, and help poorer nations do so. Furthermore it will encourage those nations with the nessasary expertise to lend their aid. I am instructed, by my Emperor, to offically offer the Palentine's aid in establishing this office, and in staffing this office. We would even be willing to allow a branch to be set up in the Domain of the Palentine UN office, to help coordinate efforts. we urge all delegates to vote yes, for this fine proposal. We would also like to thank Gruenberg, and the members of UN DEFCON for their aid in drafting this legislation.
Excelsior,
Sen. Hoiratio Sulla

We would even be willing to allow a branch to be set up in the Domain of the Palentine UN office, to help coordinate efforts.Damn you, Sen. Sulla!! No gnomes in our region!! You know better than that!! :mad:

:p

Posting warnings of hazardous physical security measures in place is a long-established practice and certainly does not defeat their purpose. We cite the common warnings posted when electrified fences and unsupervised guard dogs are in use as examples.Hmm... this raises an interesting possibility.

Much like placing "Beware of Dog" when one has no pets, or when one places a fake alarm sticker on their window, nations could also build fake minefields. Those would cost nothing more than a few spools of concertina wire and a handful of signs.

Damn you, Sen. Sulla!! No gnomes in our region!! You know better than that!! :mad:

:p

Yeah, but, Thadbroxton's Gnomes are a lot fiercer, and would love an excuse to..um...termin...err...fratinize with the UN gnomes. At least they'd be in one space where they can be watched. They know the dangers of running around unescorted.:D

Hmm... this raises an interesting possibility.

Much like placing "Beware of Dog" when one has no pets, or when one places a fake alarm sticker on their window, nations could also build fake minefields. Those would cost nothing more than a few spools of concertina wire and a handful of signs.

*passes information along to Tristan Angel*

We must do something about those trying to escape Angel Fire for the other nations in Forgotten Territories.....

"ADVISES member nations that responsible demining is the most effective way of reducing minefield casualties"

This proposed agreement is nothing more than a distraction from a legitimate law being passed that would require member nations military to record mine and minefield locations, and to be responsible for its removal. It's not like member nations during war can remove UN advisors from their nation anyway, and if we give them the authority to enforce a stricter law, that would be much more appropriate movement by the United Nations. To protect the lives of all people, across the globe.

It's not like member nations during war can remove UN advisors from their nation anyway, and if we give them the authority to enforce a stricter law, that would be much more appropriate movement by the United Nations. To protect the lives of all people, across the globe.


I don't know. If I tell some UN wonks, to get out, or you're liable to be up to your A$$ in godless hordes...I think they'll glady leave. As to the rest of your point, no I don't want the UN to have stricter laws than nessasary(gotta exploit the bejabbers out of loopholes ya know:p ).
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

It is the opinion of our nation that landmines are terrible weapons and should NEVER be used in warfare. Resolution #40 is far superior to the current proposal, as the current porposal adopts a less forceful stance against landmines. We would prefer to see the NSUN adopt a resolution that expands on the basic principle of Res. #40, that is to say, landmines are banned from use in any conflict with UN members as combatants. We vote against this proposal.

(slightly OOC)

What happens if a nation has joined the UN fairly recently and resoltuions have already been passed before they joined? Is a new member still subjected to decisions made in the past? :confused:

We would prefer to see the NSUN adopt a resolution that expands on the basic principle of Res. #40, that is to say, landmines are banned from use in any conflict with UN members as combatants. We vote against this proposal.
You do realize that is exactly what resolution #40 does, right? This resolution doesn't repeal that provision: it just adds on to it.

What happens if a nation has joined the UN fairly recently and resoltuions have already been passed before they joined? Is a new member still subjected to decisions made in the past?
You are subject to all decisions: so you have to come into compliance with them, regardless of when they were passed.

Resolution #40 is far superior to the current proposal, as the current porposal adopts a less forceful stance against landmines.Um... 40 doesn't actually mandate anything. Not sure how you could call it "forceful"...

Is a new member still subjected to decisions made in the past?Yes.

CONDEMNING avoidable civilian casualties,

COMMENDING previous law protecting civilians during and after military conflicts,

WTF? please read whole document. the anti mine-field is GOOD, but these 2 things are absolute SHIT!...no wonder we voted bush in america...LOOK CLOSELY!


why would a person condemn avoidable civilian causualties? that means there should be no avoidable civilian casualties...all of em should DIE...

one should protect the civilians, not condemn the law protecting em! why would you vote for this.


anti mning=good
anti civilian protection=BAD :sniper:


if only I were the first response this idea could have been stopped.

-Helmdacil, Leader of the Great Abyss.

if only I were the first response this idea could have been stopped.

Yes, you are right. If you had posted first, we would have all changed our minds. Because you are really smart.

why would a person condemn avoidable civilian causualties? that means there should be no avoidable civilian casualties...all of em should DIE...Or... ya know, that all those avoidable civilian casualties should be... avoided. Stunning concept, I know.

CONDEMNING avoidable civilian casualties,

COMMENDING previous law protecting civilians during and after military conflicts,

WTF? please read whole document. the anti mine-field is GOOD, but these 2 things are absolute SHIT!...no wonder we voted bush in america...LOOK CLOSELY!


why would a person condemn avoidable civilian causualties? that means there should be no avoidable civilian casualties...all of em should DIE...

one should protect the civilians, not condemn the law protecting em! why would you vote for this.


anti mning=good
anti civilian protection=BAD :sniper:


if only I were the first response this idea could have been stopped.

-Helmdacil, Leader of the Great Abyss.
I am going to go ahead an nominate this for the biggest WTF of 2006.

It's even better since I do believe Gruen isn't American

CONDEMNING avoidable civilian casualties,

COMMENDING previous law protecting civilians during and after military conflicts,

WTF? please read whole document. the anti mine-field is GOOD, but these 2 things are absolute SHIT!...no wonder we voted bush in america...LOOK CLOSELY!


why would a person condemn avoidable civilian causualties? that means there should be no avoidable civilian casualties...all of em should DIE...

:confused: I'm very confused with your argument. To condemn is to suggest that something is bad. Civilian casualties that are "avoidable" should be "avoided." It is bad not to avoid them. Having civilian casualties that could have been avoided (and thus making them avoidable) is bad and should be condemed. I don't know how you can leap to the insane argument that this means we should kill everyone.

The Gruenberger UN Office would not actually be opposed to killing everybody...but on this occasion, that certainly wasn't our intent. Those clauses simply mean "we need to reduce civilian casualties".

I don't know how you can leap to the insane argument that this means we should kill everyone.Simple. If everyone's dead, they can't be killed. It's brilliant!

"You can only die once; after that, nothing and noone can hurt you." -Scorn

so i dont completely understand can we still place landmines and they simply have to be demined during peace time?

so i dont completely understand can we still place landmines and they simply have to be demined during peace time?

You don't have to do squat, but it provides a framework on how to indicate where mines are and makes removal of mines easier to address for all nations when they do wish to demine. If you don't want to demine, this doesn't require you to.

What if our nation is pushed into a war with a threat of invasion by land. Do you really want to clearly post that there is a landmine field? Sure, there will probably be some civilian casualites but protecting the nation in a time of war with a risk of invasion is important.

Carnopolis

What if our nation is pushed into a war with a threat of invasion by land. Do you really want to clearly post that there is a landmine field? Sure, there will probably be some civilian casualites but protecting the nation in a time of war with a risk of invasion is important.

Carnopolis
Well, then don't post the signs. That provision is only a recommendation: it's optional.

What if our nation is pushed into a war with a threat of invasion by land. Do you really want to clearly post that there is a landmine field? Sure, there will probably be some civilian casualites but protecting the nation in a time of war with a risk of invasion is important.

Carnopolis

On the other hand, if you DID post that there were landmines, might it not turn the invaders back since they don't want to get blown up either?

Landmines are terrible tools of war, during a war they are an extremely inhumane method of fighting an enemy and after a war they can continue kill and injure civilians. I agree with some of this resolution, but I think it is far to soft. The UN should be much more forceful, not simply advise citizens where they are and provide assistance if a nation wishes to request help to remove them.

If the UN passes this resolution, nations at peace will have to conduct a surveys to establish where landmines are. If they are at peace, then why not remove the land mines as well - they have no need for them and that way we can ENSURE no one else is killed by landmines (not just "reduce and, where possible, prevent civilian casualties in minefields".

If the UN passes this resolution, nations at war will also be mandated to conduct surveys to establish where landmines are. Firstly, I can't see this happening at all, and there are no enforcement measures in this resolution to ensure compliance. Secondly, if they did put signs up regarding the location of landmines, this would render them useless, because an enemy would simply find another way past or remove them themselves. Thus, the mined nation would have no use for the mines, so why not ENSURE no more civilians are killed by landmines and mandate removal? Either that, or don't bother with this resolution.

This resolution is far to weak and lacks any vision for a better UN. Lets wait for a better landmine resolution!

Landmines are terrible tools of war, during a war they are an extremely inhumane method of fighting an enemy and after a war they can continue kill and injure civilians. I agree with some of this resolution, but I think it is far to soft. The UN should be much more forceful, not simply advise citizens where they are and provide assistance if a nation wishes to request help to remove them.
You do know the UN has already banned the use of landmines?

If the UN passes this resolution, nations at peace will have to conduct a surveys to establish where landmines are. If they are at peace, then why not remove the land mines as well - they have no need for them and that way we can ENSURE no one else is killed by landmines (not just "reduce and, where possible, prevent civilian casualties in minefields".
They can remove them. This creates an agency to help them do so.

If the UN passes this resolution, nations at war will also be mandated to conduct surveys to establish where landmines are. Firstly, I can't see this happening at all, and there are no enforcement measures in this resolution to ensure compliance. Secondly, if they did put signs up regarding the location of landmines, this would render them useless, because an enemy would simply find another way past or remove them themselves. Thus, the mined nation would have no use for the mines, so why not ENSURE no more civilians are killed by landmines and mandate removal? Either that, or don't bother with this resolution.
They don't have to put up signs; that provision is optional. They do have to undertake surveys, but given they don't even have to publish the results, it's hardly a danger to their national security. As for enforcement, compliance is assumed to be compulsory.

OOC: To an extent, one can't non-comply. I don't mind people RPing non-compliance, at all, but I'm not going to waste character count on something essentially assumed.

This resolution is far to weak and lacks any vision for a better UN. Lets wait for a better landmine resolution!
So write one.

Because Land Mines KILL PEOPLE.
Because Land Mines are easy to deploy but hard to remove.
Because Land Mines exist, (I have already given plenty of reasons) whether resolution #40 existed or not.

That's why land mines are everyone's pain in the neck. People in poor countries should not have to suffer and die because of the general condition of the people. It's as simple as that.

Absolutely. We are in complete agreement there.

But what I've been trying to explain is that this proposal, as it stands, is not geared towards helping people in poor countries.

This proposal, as it stands, is geared towards helping reasonably developed, well-off nations that have placed - by themselves, and on their own territories - landmines that have become obsolete or otherwise unwanted.

Let's work with an assumption: Let's say that resolution #40 wasn't in place (for example if the plans for repealing it on the grounds that this 'Demining Survey' makes it unnecessary, since it promotes 'responsible landmine use' were successful). Or say that some nations claim that resolution #40 doesn't in fact ban landmines, but only 'calls for' a ban on landmines and thereby claim that they can use landmines freely.

Now: By completely shirking the very real possibility that nations can place landmines on the territory of other nations, and by deferring the responsibility for clearing them to the 'victim' nations and a third part UN agency, this 'Demining Survey' proposal is skewed and deeply unfair.

If this proposal was to pass, and the UNDS be established according to the provisions outlined in the proposal, the following is how a very plausible scenario could unfold:

1: Country A, an industrialized, wealthy nation, declares war on country B, an agricultural, poor nation.

2: Country A moves forces into the territory of country B, and places a number of minefields on the territory of country B.

3: Eventually, country A and country B come to terms and make peace.

4: Country A withdraws its forces from the territory of country B, but leave behind all minefields they have planted.

5: Now, according to this proposal, the responsibility for clearing those minefields is not upon country A - the nation that placed them - but on country B.

6: Country B contacts the UNDS and requests help with surveying and clearing the minefields left by country A.

7: Country B is only able to give scanty, or no information regarding the locations of the minefields - since they were after all not responsible for placing them.

8: Country B, being poor to begin with and having had its limited resources even further depleted by the devastating war, declares to the UNDS that they lack the facilities and means for properly disposing of, or storing, the landmines (which they are required to do, according to this proposal).

9: The UNDS, being in its full right to do so under this proposal, decides that the limited information on the locations of the minefields constitutes an 'excessive risk'.

10: The UNDS, being in its full right to do so under this proposal, decides that country B is deemed incompetent to store and dispose of any landmines.

11: The UNDS, being in its full right to do so under this proposal, decides to 'refuse involvement'.

12: The landmines on the territory of country B, placed by country A, remain.

What happens next?

Your guess is as good as mine...

Now, consider the same scenario, but with a further twist. Let's assume that as part of the peace treaty between these two countries, country B was forced to cede parts of its territory to country A, and that country A during the hostilities planted a number of minefields on that very territory:

13: After having refused to help country B, the UNDS is contacted by country A, requesting help to clear their newly acquired territory from mines they have planted themselves.

14: Since country A placed the mines themselves, they can give detailed information to the UNDS concerning the locations of the minefields.

15: Since country A is a developed, wealthy nation, they possess all the necessary facilities and means for disposing of and storing the removed mines.

16: The UNDS undertakes to help country A remove the mines.

Humanitarian, just and beneficial for poor people in poor nations?

I have to say no.

I also must come out in opposition to the proposal. Mine warfare is the only way a smaller nation with a small population base (there military strength) can defend itself against attacks by larger enemy armies in the field, by tieing down their advance and inflicting massive casualties on the enemy. Should this proposal pass in the UN, then my country would regretfully be forced to invest greater defence funds in the development of both chemical and non-chemical air-burst munitions technology.

Should this proposal pass in the UN, then my country would regretfully be forced to invest greater defence funds in the development of both chemical and non-chemical air-burst munitions technology.Um... no you wouldn't.

*snip*

Let's work with an assumption: Let's say that resolution #40 wasn't in place...

*snip*

Let's not, because it is in place, thus making the entirety of your rant moot. If you can't stick to the realities of the situation, please do not waste the time of this austere body.

Cordially,
Defense Minister Nottap bin Cluich

-------

Cluichstan, proud founder of...

UN DEFCON
http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)
We care more about your nation's security than you do.

I also must come out in opposition to the proposal. Mine warfare is the only way a smaller nation with a small population base (there military strength) can defend itself against attacks by larger enemy armies in the field, by tieing down their advance and inflicting massive casualties on the enemy. Should this proposal pass in the UN, then my country would regretfully be forced to invest greater defence funds in the development of both chemical and non-chemical air-burst munitions technology.
We of Sillytopia suggest a better investment would be a pair of reading glasses.

It's like flogging your neighbor's dead horse

Frestonia, work through this logic and tell me where ANY of this defies UN principles:
1) Landmine use isn't banned due to ridiculous loopholes in UNR #40.
2) Because the UN body dislikes landmines so much, UNR #40 is a bitch to repeal.
3) But UNR #40 claims it bans landmines so we can't put in a new ban until UNR #40 is repealed
4) Gruenberg's attempt to repeal UNR #40 failed. While it isn't his last attempt, he decided to proceed with this one so at least one good thing could be done about landmines
5) Since we don't know when UNR #40 will be repealed, we might as well do everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties due to landmines
6) One way to do that is, since nations are going to use landmines until UNR #40 is replaced, to encourage nations to use self-deactivating landmines

Explain to me how that defies UN principles?

Explain to me how that defies UN principles?

Anything submitted by Gruen is evil. Don't try to argue around it using sneaky tactics, like logic.

Let's work with an assumption: Let's say that resolution #40 wasn't in place ...Missy, we've been working on that assumption all along. I mean, it doesn't do anything, so it may as well not exist. :rolleyes:

Absolutely. We are in complete agreement there.

I wasn't aware that you were capable of that.

But what I've been trying to explain is that this proposal, as it stands, is not geared towards helping people in poor countries.

Correct. It is geared towards helping any country.

This proposal, as it stands, is geared towards helping reasonably developed, well-off nations that have placed - by themselves, and on their own territories - landmines that have become obsolete or otherwise unwanted.

Along with anyone else who might have some desire to remove landmines from their land for any reason at all.

Let's work with an assumption:

Need I actually haul out the old adage?

Let's say that resolution #40 wasn't in place

But it is in place.

(for example if the plans for repealing it on the grounds that this 'Demining Survey' makes it unnecessary, since it promotes 'responsible landmine use' were successful).

This conjecture is completely irrelevant to the debate at hand. If you wish to discuss theoretical futures, we can probably manage to find you a nice semi-intelligent group of seers or fortune tellers who would be more than happy to wax astrologic with you.

Or say that some nations claim that resolution #40 doesn't in fact ban landmines,

It does ban them. It is an incomplete ban with atrocious loopholes that we wish to see rectified in the future. Until such time, we offer this bandage in its place.

but only 'calls for' a ban on landmines and thereby claim that they can use landmines freely.

You can't use landmines freely. You can't use them while your nation is in a conflict situation. During peacetime, you may use them however you wish.

Now: By completely shirking the very real possibility that nations can place landmines on the territory of other nations,

Such would be an act of war. This means that their nation is in a state of conflict and, as such, is banned from using mines.

and by deferring the responsibility for clearing them to the 'victim' nations

See above.

and a third part UN agency,

The UNDS, whose very purpose is to demine.

this 'Demining Survey' proposal is skewed and deeply unfair.

You have thusfar failed to prove this point.

If this proposal was to pass, and the UNDS be established according to the provisions outlined in the proposal, the following is how a very plausible scenario could unfold:

To borrow a phrase of yours : Speculative assumption

1: Country A, an industrialized, wealthy nation, declares war on country B, an agricultural, poor nation.

The state of conflict begins.

2: Country A moves forces into the territory of country B, and places a number of minefields on the territory of country B.

They are banned from doing so as use of landmines is banned during any conflict situation.

3: Eventually, country A and country B come to terms and make peace.

I'm happy for them.

4: Country A withdraws its forces from the territory of country B, but leave behind all minefields they have planted.

Minefields which don't exist by above reasoning.

5: Now, according to this proposal, the responsibility for clearing those minefields is not upon country A - the nation that placed them - but on country B.

Since said mines don't exist, this is a very small burden to bear.

6: Country B contacts the UNDS and requests help with surveying and clearing the minefields left by country A.

The UNDS could send imaginary agents to deal with the imaginary mines, I suppose.

7: Country B is only able to give scanty, or no information regarding the locations of the minefields - since they were after all not responsible for placing them.

It would be pretty difficult to know the location of many things that exist only in your mind.

8: Country B, being poor to begin with and having had its limited resources even further depleted by the devastating war, declares to the UNDS that they lack the facilities and means for properly disposing of, or storing, the landmines (which they are required to do, according to this proposal).

The only way they wouldn't have the facilities to store imaginary landmines would be if they had no land, and no populace remaining, in which case, they've got other problems much greater than phantasmal ordinance.

9: The UNDS, being in its full right to do so under this proposal, decides that the limited information on the locations of the minefields constitutes an 'excessive risk'.

Excessive risk from things that don't exist is a rather unlikely situation.

10: The UNDS, being in its full right to do so under this proposal, decides that country B is deemed incompetent to store and dispose of any landmines.

See above about containment of imaginary objects.

11: The UNDS, being in its full right to do so under this proposal, decides to 'refuse involvement'.

Of course they would. And with good reason as there are no mines to remove.

12: The landmines on the territory of country B, placed by country A, remain.

And every so often, a citizen trods upon one of these mythical landmines and suffers a momentary daydream of being blown up by these mines of fantasy. .

What happens next?

They laugh it off and move on with their day would be my guess.

Your guess is as good as mine...

Actually, I'd put money on mine as it doesn't rely on assumption and theoretical situations involving things that aren't.

Now, consider the same scenario, but with a further twist.

I prefer the Samba, but okay.

Let's assume that as part of the peace treaty between these two countries, country B was forced to cede parts of its territory to country A, and that country A during the hostilities planted a number of minefields on that very territory:

We continue on with landmines that cannot have been placed as a result of legislation currently in existence.

13: After having refused to help country B,

Which they wouldn't have done as the land now belongs to country A and country B had no jurisdiction to contact the UNDS about it.

the UNDS is contacted by country A, requesting help to clear their newly acquired territory from mines they have planted themselves.

Phantasmal mines no less.

14: Since country A placed the mines themselves, they can give detailed information to the UNDS concerning the locations of the minefields.

Detailed information about mines thaat were never placed. Fascinating.

15: Since country A is a developed, wealthy nation, they possess all the necessary facilities and means for disposing of and storing the removed mines.

All it would take is one guy imagining that the imaginary mines no longer exist.

16: The UNDS undertakes to help country A remove the mines.

By telling them that mines aren't there in the first place. Seems unnecessary, but alright.

Humanitarian,

Helping remove hazardous things so they don't kill people? Hell yes.

just

Can I get a witness?

and beneficial

TESTIFY!!

for poor people in poor nations?

FOR EVERYONE!

I have to say no.

Crap. You lost me there.

Oskar Feldstein
Representing Kivisto
By The Glory Of The Master
Singing Praises

OOC: Kivisto is my new hero. :D

Anything submitted by Gruen is evil.

True, but it doesn't mean it defies UN principles

Don't try to argue around it using sneaky tactics, like logic.

But....but....without logic, all there is left is Wena

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

OOC: Kivisto is my new hero. :D

OOC: Seconded heartily.

Hmm... this raises an interesting possibility.

Much like placing "Beware of Dog" when one has no pets, or when one places a fake alarm sticker on their window, nations could also build fake minefields. Those would cost nothing more than a few spools of concertina wire and a handful of signs.


OOC: It's certainly been done in RL... and wouldn't contravene resolution #40 even if that meant as much as some people here have been claiming...

Let's work with an assumption: Let's say that resolution #40 wasn't in place (for example if the plans for repealing it on the grounds that this 'Demining Survey' makes it unnecessary, since it promotes 'responsible landmine use' were successful). Or say that some nations claim that resolution #40 doesn't in fact ban landmines, but only 'calls for' a ban on landmines and thereby claim that they can use landmines freely.

Actually let's not. Personally I would argue against a repeal of resolution #40 unless a more reaonable resolution was drafted. I have never argued that it is toothless. I have argued that it is specific to the use of landmines in conflicts. It says "in conflicts" all over the place. Landmines are not banned under resolution #40 in non conflict conditions. Landmines are not banned for non UN nations who might join the UN at a later date.

I can't see your argument under resolution #40. Placing land mines in a foreign nation without the encouragement of that nation has got to be a "conflict" by anyone's definition.

Like I said eariler, there are those nations that use land mines in a defensive condition. Frankly I am not as concerned with these nations, it's in their best interst to make sure that their own civilians aren't blown up. (Dead civilians neither work nor pay taxes, although they don't have any health care costs either I suppose.) There is the other case of a non UN nation joining the UN and unable to clean up their own pre-UN act. Playing the blame game is nice, but it's no consolation when your civilian get blown up or make them cripples.

I am for a repeal of resolution #40, but only if a better one was inserted in its place. I think the loopholes already in #40 should be removed. But nothing in this resolution in any shape and form creates more loopholes than already exist in the resolution.

If you look at it carefully, no civilian is truely innocent. Everybody pays taxes to their goverenment, which fuels the war machine. Civilians also make up the infastructure of the country. They build the weapons, machines, make the food and other such things. Therefore the Emperor of the East and South Bay would like to say: Your proposal is a whole bunch of splooey:headbang: and is a waste of resources. But you've got lots of spirit. Thats good. :D

Can someone please turn off the n00b-machine for a while? Some people are trying to have a serious discussion here.

In the name of The Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

We rise in opposition to this proposal, on the grounds that it undermines a key element of Our nation's social defense, the border minefield.

Ours is a remote, isolated nation, separate from the other nations and tribes, and We wish to keep it that way. Accordingly, the border area between Our nation and its neighbors has been mined to prevent unwanted immigrants from crossing the border and infiltrating Our land. Our Shirt Ninja do not mark the border or the minefields for the obvious reason that uncertainty of where the lethal threat lies and the fear subsequently engendered is an effective force-multiplier. We do not consider them a threat to Our own civilian population, since only members of our Shirt Ninja have any reason to be in the border area and they are well-trained in the art of mine-detection.

This resolution, besides being a stepping-stone to a more rigorous landmine ban, calls on Us to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, which defeats the very purpose of Our border defense. Without the threat of imminent, unanticipated death along the way, Our nation could be overrun by heathen foreign immigrants, and We cannot allow that.

Yay, TEK returned!

Yay, TEK returned![OOC: Seconded.]

This resolution, besides being a stepping-stone to a more rigorous landmine ban, ...You mean this one (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029857&postcount=41)?

*snip*The UNDS program is purely voluntary; if you don't want to take part in it, don't sign up. This proposal merely creates a framework for nations who require assistance in disarming remaining minefields in their territory, post war.

But don't take my word for it: just ask our very talented and well-endowed Special Operations Forces! As far as we know, peace between our two great nations following the Kitten Revolution has never been formalized. We very well could break the standing ceasefire and resume military action against your nutty theocratic regime. Heck, our Stripper Commandos are still inside your borders, posing as "weapons inspectors" -- <grmph!>

Erm, ... Madame Chairwoman, I move that that last remark be stricken from the record. Forget I said anything! :eek:

This resolution does not prevent the Cute ones from putting warnings around areas that do not contain any mine field. As such, you are allowed to completely enclose your borders with mine warnings, barbed wire, electric fences, ravenous crocodiles, screaming Britney Spears fans, and whatever else you can think of. In fact, if you feel a sudden urge of honesty, your warning signs can perfectly well read "WARNING: This area may or may not contain a mine field." Or you can just ignore the recommended clause altogether.

This resolution, besides being a stepping-stone to a more rigorous landmine ban, calls on Us to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, which defeats the very purpose of Our border defense. Without the threat of imminent, unanticipated death along the way, Our nation could be overrun by heathen foreign immigrants, and We cannot allow that.

OMG! So now in addition to those who think this resolution repeals resolution #40 or makes it exceptionally weak, we have someone who thinks it makes it more rigorous. I expected a rational discussion here but I see I have only a fraction of honest debate. (Rational/fraction ... it's a math joke folks.)

Assuming for the moment, that you do not want to blow up legal immigrants, I must assume that the heathen foreign immigrants are illegal. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a group of illegal immigrants comming into a land that doesn't want them are not only not civilians, but they constitute an invasion force that can and should be repelled by any means.

Unfortunately, Resolution #40, already in force, and which should be respected by you, as a member of the UN, clearly states that land mines should not be used in conflicts. The question of invading illegal immigrants being a "conflict" is a complex subject and I will defer it to the UN solicitor specific.

The UNDS could send imaginary agents to deal with the imaginary mines, I suppose.At your service (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/nation=the_phantom_land).

Let's not, because it is in place, thus making the entirety of your rant moot. If you can't stick to the realities of the situation, please do not waste the time of this austere body.

It seems I have to point out that the scenario I outlined is not only applicable under the assumption that resolution #40 wasn't in place, or that it was deliberately interpreted in such a way that it doesn't actually ban anything.

The scenario is also applicable under the following conditions:

1: The scenario - up until the issue of demining - took place before resolution #40 was put in place.

2: One or both of the countries described were not members of the UN at the time of the war when the mines were placed, but became UN members afterwards.

1) Landmine use isn't banned due to ridiculous loopholes in UNR #40.

Which emphasizes that the scenario I described is very plausible.

It seems I have to clarify yet again that I am:

1: Not opposed to a possible repeal of resolution #40 and a more solid replacement of it.

2: Not opposed to the "UN Demining Survey" on principle. I am opposed to how it is constructed, because it is inadequate and unfair. And because it fails to take into consideration several possible uses of landmines (prior to, as well as under resolution#40). And because it broadly and unjustly transfers the responsibility burden of clearing certain minefields to parties undeserving of the burden.

Anything submitted by Gruen is evil. Don't try to argue around it using sneaky tactics, like logic.

Not necessarily evil, but sometimes underhand. Not saying this is, but it leads to consequences which imply that it might be...

Missy, we've been working on that assumption all along. I mean, it doesn't do anything, so it may as well not exist.

And you just proved my point and verified that the scenario I outlined and its unfair consequences is a very real, tangible possibility. Thank you.

>snip<

Fascinating that, considering you have previously implied that resolution #40 is meaningless and doesn't actually do anything, you suddenly base your entire counter-argument upon the premise that it does...

I can't see your argument under resolution #40. Placing land mines in a foreign nation without the encouragement of that nation has got to be a "conflict" by anyone's definition.

Yes. But, as I've already stated, they could have been placed before resolution #40 was in place. Or they could have been placed by a nation and/or in a nation that wasn't a UN member at the time, but later became one.

I am for a repeal of resolution #40, but only if a better one was inserted in its place. I think the loopholes already in #40 should be removed. But nothing in this resolution in any shape and form creates more loopholes than already exist in the resolution.

Agreed on resolution #40. But I still persist in my belief and conviction that this proposal creates other loopholes.

I guess it's a shame I included that clause saying that the only way nations were allowed to demine was through the UNDS agency, and that as such the particular situations you have described would be precluded from any possibility of demining.


















OH WAIT

I guess it's a shame I included that clause saying that the only way nations were allowed to demine was through the UNDS agency, and that as such the particular situations you have described would be precluded from any possibility of demining.

OH WAIT

So, essentially then, you are admitting that nations in the particular situations I have described are not allowed to receive the services of the UNDS, but are forced to do the demining themselves?

Thank you, in such case, for proving my objections to this proposal are well-founded.

So, essentially then, you are admitting that nations in the particular situations I have described are not allowed to receive the services of the UNDS, but are forced to do the demining themselves?

Thank you, in such case, for proving my objections to this proposal are well-founded.
I haven't bothered looking over your examples, especially, as I can't stomach wading through the associated hyperbolous bullshit. However, I do agree that if we vote down this proposal, then...

...wait...

...won't they - and other countries who will benefit from the UNDS - have to do it for themselves anyway?

Hmm...

It seems I have to point out that the scenario I outlined is not only applicable under the assumption that resolution #40 wasn't in place...

*snip*

No ,you don't. I got that. The assumption makes your points moot. Resolution #40 is in place.

Agreed on resolution #40. But I still persist in my belief and conviction that this proposal creates other loopholes.

And I will persist in my belief that it does not. So far I have not seen a single "loophole" in this resolution that is not in fact a loophole caused by resolution #40 that this resolution cannot address because one has to repeal #40 and pass a new resolution in order to fix those loopholes and such a process currently has no chance at all in passing.

Neither this resolution nor resolution #40 addresses or can address the biggest loophole of all, the sale of landmines by UN member states to non member states who in turn use them in wars and other conflicts. As you point out such nations could join the UN. Who should help them pay for clean up? The former despot of the non UN nation who was overthrown by another brutal despot? The member UN nation who sold the former despot all those mines in the first place? The writer of resolution #40 for writing a resolution with all those loopholes? Perhaps we should just blame Kenny instead? Meawhile a farmer looses his leg, a child get blown up and we know who would be blamed for their deaths!

The United Nations,

NOTING that National Soverignity goes before anything else;

NOTING that any meaningful resolution in the UN will be a tradeoff of National Soverignity;

NOTING that the purpouse of UN *IS* to interfere with National Soverignity;

REALISING that nations may be reluctant to accept National Soverignity infrignments;

ESTABLISHES that the UN as an organisation is a bad idea;

STRONGLY URGES the governments of UN member-nations to dismantle this bureocracy-choked morass;

STRONGLY URGES any governments of UN member-nations to APPROVE this proposal;

INSTRUCTS the UN to immediatley cease operations at this Resolutions passage;

OFFERS the assets of the UN to the highest bidders in the auctions held emidiatley after this Resolutions passage;

REQUIRES that any information about any nation/organisation found within the UN system be destroyed as this Resolution pass.

Somehow I see this as the dream of many a NatSov goverment in this forum.

Could you discuss that sort of thing in another thread please? Thanks.

Feel free to split it off to a new thread.

Since it's not a serious proposal, I didn't know where to post it, but it do belong in the UN, since it's about the UN.

I felt it was quite apropiate to post it here as this thread is one of the more active right now, and many NatSov's post in it, crying about National Soverignity, and in my opinion make the NSUN as toothless as the real UN.

I felt it was quite apropiate to post it here as this thread is one of the more active right now, and many NatSov's post in it, crying about National Soverignity, and in my opinion make the NSUN as toothless as the real UN.

Though a staunch supporter of national sovereignty, I have not once shed a tear over it. :p

Crying do not equate shedding tears ;)

Isn't this demining survey redundant if Resolution 40 (Banning the Use of Landmines) is still on the books? Just seems like more paperwork to me.

Isn't this demining survey redundant if Resolution 40 (Banning the Use of Landmines) is still on the books? Just seems like more paperwork to me.

No, because there were landmines placed before the ban.

Not to mention members may have laid mines before they joined (legally) or they captured territory that was mined or a thousand other possibilities.

Since it's not a serious proposal, I didn't know where to post it,

How about in the already-existing thread "Silly Proposals: THE RETURN", @
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397276 ?

I felt it was quite apropiate to post it here as this thread is one of the more active right now, and many NatSov's post in it, crying about National Soverignity, and in my opinion make the NSUN as toothless as the real UN.You're not making any sense. This proposal is not opposed by sovereigntists, and I haven't seen any of them "crying" in this thread. UNDS is actually sponsored by sovereigntists seeking to compel the UN to do some good -- i.e., assisting nations with clearing out minefields, something the original landmine ban fails to do. If I recall correctly, you even opposed this resolution. Your "proposal" is equally nonsensical: sovereigntists do not want to render the UN "toothless" or nonexistant; they only desire for it to remain an international organization, sticking to legitimate international issues, rather than a world government/supernational legislature. In a way, sovereigntism is the only real internationalist movement in these halls. NSO ≠ Gatesville.

And you just proved my point and verified that the scenario I outlined and its unfair consequences is a very real, tangible possibility. Thank you.Excuse me? First you say the landmine ban is a corporeal, unbreakable mandate that must not be violated by passing this awful proposal, and now you agree it does nothing? Indeed, and the fact that it does nothing "proves your point" about a scenario you offered earlier (that made far too many silly assumptions in order for it to be "real" or "tangible" in any sense)? Might we see a consistent, logical line of argument from the Frestonian delegation on this article, or are you guys content with zigzagging in any direction of obtuseness that suits you?

In a way, sovereigntism is the only real internationalist movement in these halls.

Care to explain? Certainly you might not be like some of those regions who think the UN should just go away, but I find the insinuation that an International Government is any less internationalist than your NatSov movement to be rather.....odd.

So, essentially then, you are admitting that nations in the particular situations I have described are not allowed to receive the services of the UNDS, but are forced to do the demining themselves?

Thank you, in such case, for proving my objections to this proposal are well-founded.

The representative of Frestonia seems unable to recognize sarcasm when he sees it. The validity of his objections is far from proven.

The objection that the resolution is intended to lay the groundwork for a repeal of Resolution #40 is irrelevant. This proposal should be debated on its own merits, not on the presumed or even the actual intentions of the author.

The objection that the proposal "allows and condones the use of landmines for all purposes and under all circumstances" is spurious and unsupported by even a casual reading of the resolution.

The objection that the requirements for identifying the location of minefields "defeat the very purpose" of using them for protection of sensitive facilities merely demonstrates ignorance of basic physical security principles and practice.

We confess ourselves unable to understand the objection that "it fails to take into consideration several possible uses of landmines (prior to, as well as under resolution#40)". The resolution would cover all minefields, regardless of when or by whom they were emplaced.

The claim that "it broadly and unjustly transfers the responsibility burden of clearing certain minefields to parties undeserving of the burden" is again spurious. The resolution transfers no responsibility. Responsibility for the handling of minefields rests where it always has. There is no prior NSUN legislation covering the subject. The resolution provides assistance when that assistance could be safely provided and would be productive.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Care to explain? Certainly you might not be like some of those regions who think the UN should just go away, but I find the insinuation that an International Government is any less internationalist than your NatSov movement to be rather.....odd.I don't know. Perhaps you'd care to explain how meddling in member nations' internal affairs is "internationalist"?

Perhaps you'd care to explain how meddling in member nations' internal affairs is "internationalist"?

Because the goal is meddling on an international scale. ;)

Fascinating that, considering you have previously implied that resolution #40 is meaningless and doesn't actually do anything, you suddenly base your entire counter-argument upon the premise that it does...

Sheer curiousity. When exactly did I say or even imply that UNR#40 is meaningless? It has meaning. I have simply referred to a few limitations and loopholes that it has and mentioned how THIS resolution is incapable of overriding them as long as it is on the books, but it is there and has meaning. As such, we must continue forward accepting the reality that it is there until such a time as we are able to replace the original document.

As for the rest of the argument that isn't quoted here, just look to my previous responses to cut and paste appropriate replies. It'll take less time that way.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/defcontag-A.jpg

I don't know. Perhaps you'd care to explain how meddling in member nations' internal affairs is "internationalist"?

in·ter·na·tion·al·ism Audio pronunciation of "Internationalist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ntr-nsh-n-lzm)
n.

1. The condition or quality of being international in character, principles, concern, or attitude.
2. A policy or practice of cooperation among nations, especially in politics and economic matters.

inter·nation·al·ist n

2 applies to the NSO quite well, but I feel 1 applies to the IntFed position. Governing from the International level. Looking for human rights to be pursued at the International level. Looking not just at the people within your own nation but the people around the world. Oh wow, I sound like an IndSov. We can go through each position and talk about looking at it at an international level - looking at the possibility it might be better to regulate it at the international level - and we can say that it matches this definition of Internationalist.

This brings up a completely different point. Your claim was the NSO was the only true Internationalist organization. However, you look at GTT, or FAIRTRADE, or UNDEFCON - all of them look at things at the International level. Whether it be how to address issues effecting all nations (perhaps, say, global warming - even though we haven't looked at that from a "let's address the issue" position in a long time) to setting up International bodies (UDS anyone?), your claim is uncharitable to the reality of the UN.

Edit: if you care to continue this, http://s10.invisionfree.com/UIC/index.php?showtopic=39 . Let's not hijack here.

Whoa... sorry guys i dunno what I was thinking yesterday.


this is good and I vote For it =)


i wasnt reading clearly I guess....sorry again...lol...

Whoa... sorry guys i dunno what I was thinking yesterday.


this is good and I vote For it =)


i wasnt reading clearly I guess....sorry again...lol...

It's always nice to see someone admit they made a mistake and correct it. Pretty refreshing around this place.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Edit: if you care to continue this, http://s10.invisionfree.com/UIC/index.php?showtopic=39 . Let's not hijack here.[OOC: You guys uploaded a bunch of spiffy new buttons on that forum, buttons my browser will not load, and as a result, I cannot post on the UIC forum anymore. Sorry 'bout that. I'll just have to sit this one out. Rest assured, however, I will bring up this topic later on the UN forum. ;)]

[OOC: You guys uploaded a bunch of spiffy new buttons on that forum, buttons my browser will not load, and as a result, I cannot post on the UIC forum anymore. Sorry 'bout that. I'll just have to sit this one out. Rest assured, however, I will bring up this topic later on the UN forum. ;)]

Shame.

Why wait?

Gotta get a good rant going first. :p

I skipped several of pages to this so I apologize if this has already been covered... Oh and I apologize that this is to late to make a major or minor differance.

The section that got to me of this whole proposale was the defination of what is a landmine.

"- "landmine" as a self-contained explosive device, placed on or under the ground, triggered by a person, tank, other vehicle, timer mechanism, or otherwise, with the intent to deter or disable force movements,"

This basicly states that now, war is to to be fought using sticks and rocks.... have fun. A bomb is such and explosive as is a bullet. A bullet being the same as a shell, slug, warhead, or other term if you perfer. In extenst this entire proposal simply states that we all have to sit down and start braining each other with our now rifles made useless.

An explosive HAS to be used to set off a bullet... fulminated merucry, and it is what I would refer to as self-contained. A bomb is the same thing as a land mine... just not shoved into the ground. Not to mention anyone who makes a timed landmine is just plain dumb or very desprate, seeing as the enemy is not on your schedule... he is on his. Also, any weapon of war is ment to deter or disable force movements.... Thats how war is fought!

An explosive HAS to be used to set off a bullet... fulminated merucry, and it is what I would refer to as self-contained. A bomb is the same thing as a land mine... just not shoved into the ground. Not to mention anyone who makes a timed landmine is just plain dumb or very desprate, seeing as the enemy is not on your schedule... he is on his. Also, any weapon of war is ment to deter or disable force movements.... Thats how war is fought!
Firstly, here is a present:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/hopes/basics/braintut/f_ab02brain.gif

Use it.

Secondly, where in this proposal is the use of anything under that definition banned?

Thirdly, timed landmines are actually very useful, in that they don't need clearing: after the war is over, they will be dud, and not need demining.

^ Nominated for the Best Post of the Year. :D

To those governments who are saying that Resolution #40 is effective _

Please take a closer look at just who it CALLS to act upon its recommendations: "UN counties"... not the UN's "countries", "member countries", "members", "member nations", "nations", or even "states" or "members states", but "counties"...
Now, unless any of you can show me a rule defining "counties" as yet another officially recognised synonym for those other terms, doesn't this clearly mean that the ban only applies to those nations that are actually called "counties" and not to nations of other types such as kingdoms [e.g. St Edmund], empires, republics, federations or theocracies, as well? ;)

Unfortunately (and - to me at least - inexplicably) it seems I am just not getting through here.

Perhaps I've made a mistake in not focusing clearly enough on my main points for opposition, but instead allowing myself to get sidetracked and comment on other details.

It is of course pointless to continue the discussion now, since this is soon about to become a passed resolution.

Nevertheless, I feel I have to make one last attempt at getting my point across.

For this, I will focus on my main objection to this proposal and use a RL example to illustrate the point.

First, I will highlight the two relevant clauses in the proposal:

8. ESTABLISHES that:
- member nations may request UNDS assistance in demining minefields located solely within their jurisdiction,
- for minefields located within the jurisdiction of two or more nations, UNDS demining may be requested solely for parts of the minefield under jurisdiction of requesting nations,
- requesting nations may bar specific individuals from entering their territory to undertake UNDS operations,
- requesting nations must provide UNDS agents all available information on the location of landmines, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if risks to its personnel are deemed excessive,
- storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks.

OK, so now that we are clear that these points to me are the core of the issue, and the crux of the problem, here is the RL example:

Between 1964-1973 (i.e. long before there was even any talk of a comprehensive ban on landmines), the United States of America used aircraft to drop millions of so called 'remotely delivered' or 'scatterable' landmines all over the small country of Laos.

These landmines, over 30 years after being deployed, still claim lives on a regular basis, and they prevent an already poor country from using vast amounts of arable land, thereby making it even poorer.

Now, should these landmines be removed? The answer is obviously; of course they should!

Another important question however, is: Who should shoulder the responsibility and the associated cost of removing them? The answer to this question should be fairly obvious to anyone.

Now, consider again the two clauses of the proposal that I highlighted above.

These two clauses in effect mean that If this resolution existed in RL, it would formally, officially and legally completely exempt the USA from any and all responsibilities and associated costs of removing the landmines they have dropped over Laos.

Instead, all the responsibiliy and the cost would be pushed upon Laos!

This, to me, is completely unacceptable. And this is the main reason I have opposed, and continue to oppose this proposal.

But, since it seems I am virtually alone to hold this opinion, then I can only give up and offer my congratulations to Gruenberg for getting this through.

We'd firstly like to thank the Frestonian delegate for all the efforts he contributed to the drafting of this proposal. His comments on the not one, but two, drafts that were posted on these forums well prior to submission were invaluable.

We're secondly aware that this proposal completely rules out the possibility of any further demining proposals, or any declarations of responsibility, and that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that other landmine scenarios could be handled.

Thirdly, we're sure the Frestonian delegation will take a leading role in drafting such legislation - or would do, were it not completely and utterly impossible because of this resolution - and will not simply sit and whine about proposals the construction of which they never attempted to contribute to - which is clearly not the case here, anyway.

Considering that clause 7 requires you have permission of the nation you are trying to clear AND that we can't clear mines out of non-member states, this is kinda a mandatory statement.

Want to hear how hard it is to store and dispose of the landmines? Build a pen with barbed wire around it. Heck, if you can afford it, you might even want to dump concrete in there. Drop the landmines into the pen, and when they're all there, use it for long-range artillery practice.

We'd firstly like to thank the Frestonian delegate for all the efforts he contributed to the drafting of this proposal. His comments on the not one, but two, drafts that were posted on these forums well prior to submission were invaluable.

We're secondly aware that this proposal completely rules out the possibility of any further demining proposals, or any declarations of responsibility, and that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that other landmine scenarios could be handled.

Thirdly, we're sure the Frestonian delegation will take a leading role in drafting such legislation - or would do, were it not completely and utterly impossible because of this resolution - and will not simply sit and whine about proposals the construction of which they never attempted to contribute to - which is clearly not the case here, anyway.

Well... If I was contemplating perhaps getting more involved in the drafting processes, then this kind of magnanimous, friendly and welcoming attitude isn't exactly encouraging...

Want to hear how hard it is to store and dispose of the landmines? Build a pen with barbed wire around it. Heck, if you can afford it, you might even want to dump concrete in there. Drop the landmines into the pen, and when they're all there, use it for long-range artillery practice.

No, sorry. It depends on the types of mines, but generally the facilities and techniques necessary for the proper and safe destruction of landmines are far more complicated and far more expensive than that.

For reference: http://www.mineaction.org/overview.asp?o=19

Well... If I was contemplating perhaps getting more involved in the drafting processes, then this kind of magnanimous, friendly and welcoming attitude isn't exactly encouraging...
Oh well. I guess whining is just easier than ever doing anything constuctive.

Once again, the representative of Frestonia displays a talent for misrepresenting the provisions of this resolution. He claims that it "would formally, officially and legally completely exempt [a nation which deployed mines] from any and all responsibilities and associated costs of removing the landmines...." Article 8 of the resolution, read properly, lays out conditions for involvement of the UNDS in demining operations. The final provision states that it is the requesting nation, not the UNDS, that must take responsibility for storage and disposal.

There is nothing that would prevent the requesting nation from requesting or requiring the nation which deployed the mines to fund or actually operate the storage and disposal operation. On the other hand, there is no NSUN legislation which would support such a requirement. Since the representative of Frestonia is obviously so concerned about the issue, we suggest he turn his attention and energies to writing a proposal placing the burden of costs of mine removal on the emplacing nation. We would certainly give such a proposal careful attention with a view towards supporting it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Anyway, it passed, so this is now the 150th resolution. Yay. Landmine-shaped caek for all.

I'll take a corner piece! [greedily approaching Gruen with a plastic plate and fork in hand]

Our congratulations to the distinguished representative of Gruenberg on the passage of this most worthwhile resolution.

And we're particularly pleased that he's chosen to celebrate by serving caek. We weren't aware that anyone outside dwarven cultures appreciated this fine bakery product, which, of course, is closely akin to our delicious dwarven stone bread. :D

The Ausserland Delegation

Well... If I was contemplating perhaps getting more involved in the drafting processes, then this kind of magnanimous, friendly and welcoming attitude isn't exactly encouraging...

*sighs*

After 10 pages of this crap, our patience is worn thin. For some reason, you seem to be the ONLY person here who can't get your head around the realities.

No, sorry. It depends on the types of mines, but generally the facilities and techniques necessary for the proper and safe destruction of landmines are far more complicated and far more expensive than that.

For reference: http://www.mineaction.org/overview.asp?o=19

Put away the god damn textbook and use your head. Yes I read the link, not once did it talk about actually trying to explode the ordinance. Know why? Because they often don't like suggesting the method that leaves a huge pile of shrapnel behind. The method they mentioned uses contained incernation (and I say contained because they aren't doing these things in open fields, they're doing them inside kilns or other similarly contained machines). Obviously, that is the preferred way to blow them up because it's easier to clean up, but not once did they disprove my method. I'd be amazed if you could prove to me that blowing up explosives doesn't get rid of the explosive. I would LOVE to see that proof. Sheesh

Use your head.

And there was much rejoicing. I will have a slice of that caek, if it is not the explosive kind.

*swiftly swiches sides and sharpens his nails for the repeal*