NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the new draft, revised after your suggestions. Please continue making constructive advice. I kindly ask militaristic or otherwise ideologically hampered member states to reassess their position on this proposal.
Description: Category: Global Disarmament, Strength: Strong, Proposed by: Aivres

DEFINING cluster munition as a dispenser containing any number of explosive submunitions intended to affect a vast area of land,

ACKNOWLEDGING that cluster munition accounts for a great number of civilian casualties in conflicts,

NOTING that any survivors usually become invalids or otherwise severely disabled,

CONSIDERING especially the high numbers of children that sadly are affected by these weapons,

AGREEING that this is a totally inhumane and unacceptable means of war in this day and age, particularly after the introduction of precision guided weaponry,

We, the members of the WA hereby

1)PROHIBIT the use, production, stockpiling, or otherwise acquiring, sharing or transferring cluster munitions among WA signatories,

2)DEMAND an immediate start of cluster munition decommissioning and destruction in all WA member states without further delay

3)ESTABLISH a WA commission with the mandate to monitor compliance with this resolution

4)DECLARE the deadline for absolute compliance with this resolution to be one (1) year as of the date of ratification

5)FOREWARN that non compliance with the resolution will result in immediate travel bans solely for all government officials and freezing of their foreign bank accounts.

Clause 5 can go, I'd imagine. Also, an additional clause prohibiting WA members from participating in allied conflicts in which their ally uses cluster munitions might be apropos.

Really though, I think this resolution is perfect. It is short,concise,strong and to the point; exactly what it should be considering the topic. Good work.

Strength and category?

Probably Global Disarmament, Strong?

Not exactly my cup of tea, but I don't see alot of area for improvement (except scrapping it). ;)

Since, obviously, there will not be a sufficient number of endorsements for this proposal to be put to vote, The Queendom of Aivres would like to submit the proposal before our fellow WA members for debate, improvement and hopefully some lobbying. I thank you all in advance for all suggestions.

Description:
ACKNOWLEDGING that cluster munition accounts for a great number of civilian casualties in conflicts,

NOTING that any survivors usually become invalids or otherwise severely disabled,

CONSIDERING especially the high numbers of children that sadly are affected by these weapons,

First off, there are legitimate uses for cluster munitions but I won't get into that bag. I want to address how to make the problems go away- You should first identify what cluster munitions actually are, and then explain how they can be misused.

Simply stating an unsupported, blanket argument as fact won't make good legislation.

AGREEING that this is a totally inhumane and unacceptable means of war in this day and age,

We, the members of the WA hereby

1)PROHIBIT the use, production, stockpiling or otherwise acquiring or sharing cluster munitions among WA signatories,

2)DEMAND an immediate start of cluster munition decommissioning and destruction in all WA member states without further delay

3)ESTABLISH a WA commission with the mandate to monitor compliance with this resolution

4)DECLARE the deadline for absolute compliance with this resolution to be one (1) year as of the date of ratification

5)FOREWARN that non compliance with the resolution will result in immediate travel bans solely for all government officials and freezing of their foreign bank accounts.

Oh lord, not another commission... sorry, reflect from the UN days. For such a short compliance span, aren't the punishments rather severe? How about an immediate ban on the production and use of cluster munitions, with a 5 year decommissioning and stockpiling period, with an ultimate goal of total removal within 10 years? This is generally the sort of pattern that works the best.

That way, if a nasty war breaks out countries won't be caught with their pants down and assets frozen by a committee that jumped the gun.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador

Oh lord, not another commission... sorry, reflect from the UN days. For such a short compliance span, aren't the punishments rather severe? How about an immediate ban on the production and use of cluster munitions, with a 5 year decommissioning and stockpiling period, with an ultimate goal of total removal within 10 years? This is generally the sort of pattern that works the best.

That way, if a nasty war breaks out countries won't be caught with their pants down and assets frozen by a committee that jumped the gun.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador

I think this give lots of good ideas for making this proposal better. But 5 years decommissioning and 10 years for removal is a bit too long.
3 years maximum for both, we can be much effective better than the real life persons.

Lots of success with this!

If a consensus not to ban cluster munitions is reached, a mitigation measure to prevent civilian casualties, which was discussed in the old UN, would be to require cluster bomblets be labelled. There's no military disadvantage. It could be rolled into a larger proposal to require aid packages, which can be confused with bomblets, be labelled differently.

We might support this proposal, but would humbly suggest it be part of a broader proposal on conventional weapons: fragmentary weapons, weapons leaving parts undetectable by X-rays, blinding lasers, perhaps even anti-personnel landmines.

-- Samantha Benson

I'd like to thank you all for your suggestions so far, and I'm glad with the amount of support I received, especially since this is my first attempt of a resolution.
I will try and address the issues raised.

Firstly: Category: Global Disarmament, Strength: Strong (sorry for omitting that)

Secondly: I must strongly disagree with the alleged legitimacy of using such munition. As for a definition of it, I'm unsure if we are allowed to use generally accepted ones that already exist irl but if we are, I'll be more than happy to include one.

Thirdly: Articles 3 and especially 5 don't necessarily have to be there but I since this is virtual reality, I see no reason for them not be part of the resolution, I personally find the fifth to be rather humorous. I am however willing to prolong the disarmament deadline to a perhaps more reasonable three (3) year period although this being a virtual institution I see no practical need for it.

Lastly, I strongly agree that this should be a part of a larger package on conventional weaponry but since the support seems to be lacking, small steps might be a better way forward. If the proposal fails to get to be voted upon in some other attempt, I will gladly support the drafting of any resolution to prevent civilian deaths in conflicts be it by way of labelling of bomblets or any other means.

I urge all of you with reservations for this proposal to give it your support as it will spare many, many lives. I will draft a new proposal and post it here for further discussion as soon as this one officially drops out of the queue.

Thanks again,
Aivres.

Secondly: I must strongly disagree with the alleged legitimacy of using such munition.Never tried to destroy an airstrip, huh? Or clear out a large enemy formation? Or flatten a large area of forest/jungle?

To say nothing of their other uses... including distribution of leaflets.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
WA Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Being an active duty military member...most of the munitions that we use today are precision guided missiles. Yes, there are advantages to cluster bombs, but it's becoming outdated due to precision arms. In most cases one bomb can do more than a cluster. Other than that I'm for this issue.

the government of the emperor of urgench does not like the tone, implications or wording of this proposed resolution. the wording fails to define the object of the ban and refers to a day and an age, presumable clear to it's writers but otherwise of a completely obscure and frankly irrelavent nature to the rest of the world.

as has been pointed out by the esteemed ambassador for Zodaren the munitions being refered to are for modern technology nations becoming obsolete, for future technology nations are long since so and for past technology nations are as yet but the stuff of dreams. thus this resolution would seem to be anachronistic at best.

it is our government's view that to limit the defensive capabilities of world assembly nations is foolhardy indeed in the current climate of ever growing threat. nations beyond the reach of the world assembly's laws and none too few within it would happily seek what ever advantage they might to weaken and destroy it. we would be deeply uneasy at any move to offer such an advantage no matter how tiny to such nations. while we feel that the munitions in question are at any rate for some nations about to be mothballed it would seem punitive in the extreme to coerce this organisation into banning what might offer even the slimest of advatages over enemies who have no such qualms about using them.


yours e.t.c.

This accord should be written to support require timed disintegration of unexploded bomblets, clear labeling of said unexploded bomblets, and phased destruction of existing stockpiles in a period of at least 5 years, or my government won't support it.

And, given the voting records of this body, you won't get much support for anything else.

N.T

This accord should be written to support require timed disintegration of unexploded bomblets, clear labeling of said unexploded bomblets, and phased destruction of existing stockpiles in a period of at least 5 years, or my government won't support it.

And, given the voting records of this body, you won't get much support for anything else.

N.T

Then I must sadly inform you that we won't be making those changes in the draft and urge you to reconsider.

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to add that to refer to all possible dissenting nations to this resolution as "militaristic" or "idealogicaly hampered" is hardly the best way of seeking cordial consesus on the matter of this resolution. our nation is neither of those things, but it is realistic, a characteristic somewhat absent in this resolution.

yours e.t.c.

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to add that to refer to all possible dissenting nations to this resolution as "militaristic" or "idealogicaly hampered" is hardly the best way of seeking cordial consesus on the matter of this resolution. our nation is neither of those things, but it is realistic, a characteristic somewhat absent in this resolution.

yours e.t.c.

I must note that I wasn't addressing ALL nations, just militaristic and ideologically hampered ones.
Please be so kind as to point to what is so unrealistic in this resolution in the future.

I must note that I wasn't addressing ALL nations, just militaristic and ideologically hampered ones.
Please be so kind as to point to what is so unrealistic in this resolution in the future.

the government of the emperor of urgench did not suggest that the respected ambassador for Aivres called all nations militaristic.
we pointed out that the respected ambassador was calling those nations who might for many reasons disagree with their resolution militaristic and "hampered", the respected ambassador should read more closely what we said to better understand our meaning.

the un-realistic nature of this resolution is clear, it bans weapons which may be vital to the defence of our membership from non w.a. states, it's time scale for the fazing out of these weapons is far too short, and it makes no account of the economic chaos that may be caused to those w.a. nations who's primary industry is arms manufacture.

we do not use cluster bombs ourselves, so this will not directly effect us, but it is the lack of an collegiate approach to the formation or reformation of this statute which is so irksome. we feel the respected ambassador might receive more support for their resolution if they took a more diplomatic attitude towards the opinions of nations with whom their government disagrees.

yours e.t.c.

the government of the emperor of urgench did not suggest that the respected ambassador for Aivres called all nations militaristic.
we pointed out that the respected ambassador was calling those nations who might for many reasons disagree with their resolution militaristic and "hampered", the respected ambassador should read more closely what we said to better understand our meaning.

the un-realistic nature of this resolution is clear, it bans weapons which may be vital to the defence of our membership from non w.a. states, it's time scale for the fazing out of these weapons is far too short, and it makes no account of the economic chaos that may be caused to those w.a. nations who's primary industry is arms manufacture.

we do not use cluster bombs ourselves, so this will not directly effect us, but it is the lack of an collegiate approach to the formation or reformation of this statute which is so irksome. we feel the respected ambassador might receive more support for their resolution if they took a more diplomatic attitude towards the opinions of nations with whom their government disagrees.

yours e.t.c.

I must note once again I was addressing militaristic and ideologically hampered nations specifically to reconsider. I will not be dwelling on this tautology again.
Secondly, I'm unaware of any nation using cluster bombs in their own territory, for self- defense or an economy reliant on cluster bombs only.
I am also more than willing to address serious proposals but if your esteemed government keeps changing its position every fifteen minutes, I must sadly accept not to receive its support on this proposal.

Best regards.

I must note once again I was addressing militaristic and ideologically hampered nations specifically to reconsider. I will not be dwelling on this tautology again.
Secondly, I'm unaware of any nation using cluster bombs in their own territory, for self- defense or an economy reliant on cluster bombs only.
I am also more than willing to address serious proposals but if your esteemed government keeps changing its position every fifteen minutes, I must sadly accept not to receive its support on this proposal.

Best regards.


the government of the emperor of urgench has not changed it's position at all,
your use of terms raises two questions;

what do you define as militaristic and is it politic to refer to those you define as such in this manner? and

what do you define as "idealogicaly hampered" and is it politic to refer to those you define as such in this manner?

besides these questions it has been our contention that you might garner more support by being more diplomatic in your use of language something you seem not to be able to understand.

as to the use of cluster bombs in a defensive war, we made no mention of nations using them on their own territory, the use would presumably be constrained to a pre-emptive strike strategy, a strategy commonly used for self defense no?

our government also never suggested that any nation's economy was entirely based on the production of cluster bombs, we sugested that there were nations who's economies were based on arms manufacture.

it seems that the respected ambassador for Aivres is either incapable of fully comprehending written communications or is obtuse enough to misread them on purpose, perhaps both. should this be the case then it would go a long way toward explaining the fatuous logic and absurdly un-diplomatic language of this resolution and the words attached to it.

indeed you may well have to get by without our support for this shody statute and we suspect that of many other intelligent nations.

yours e.t.c.

the government of the emperor of urgench has not changed it's position at all,
your use of terms raises two questions;

what do you define as militaristic and is it politic to refer to those you define as such in this manner? and

what do you define as "idealogicaly hampered" and is it politic to refer to those you define as such in this manner?

besides these questions it has been our contention that you might garner more support by being more diplomatic in your use of language something you seem not to be able to understand.

as to the use of cluster bombs in a defensive war, we made no mention of nations using them on their own territory, the use would presumably be constrained to a pre-emptive strike strategy, a strategy commonly used for self defense no?

our government also never suggested that any nation's economy was entirely based on the production of cluster bombs, we sugested that there were nations who's economies were based on arms manufacture.

it seems that the respected ambassador for Aivres is either incapable of fully comprehending written communications or is obtuse enough to misread them on purpose, perhaps both. should this be the case then it would go a long way toward explaining the fatuous logic and absurdly un-diplomatic language of this resolution and the words attached to it.

indeed you may well have to get by without our support for this shody statute and we suspect that of many other intelligent nations.

yours e.t.c.


Firstly, I have no intention of playing this name calling game.
Secondly, I don't understand why you're being the devil's advocate, I'm quite sure militaristic and ideologically hampered nations can speak for themselves.
Thirdly, you keep making new demands for your support like this is a hostage crisis.
Lastly, please try and refrain from further spamming but if you can't I call upon you to stay civil in this discussion.

Firstly, I have no intention of playing this name calling game.
Secondly, I don't understand why you're being the devil's advocate, I'm quite sure militaristic and ideologically hampered nations can speak for themselves.
Thirdly, you keep making new demands for your support like this is a hostage crisis.
Lastly, please try and refrain from further spamming but if you can't I call upon you to stay civil in this discussion.

the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to point out that the respected ambassador for Aivres has now found new words for dissent and dissagreement with their resolution "spam" and "name calling",

we do not spam any one we have tried to be constructive but you seem to reject any claims that your resolution could be improved.

we do not call anyone names, and we would ask you to carefully reconsider that accusation.

we should point out also that "playing the devils advocate" as you put it became needfull when you decided to demand that certain nations not contribute to this debate.

since it seems fruitless to engage in any form of debate with you we will not expect any meaningfull response to this comunique and we will no longer contribute to what is in any case a futile endeavour.

yours e.t.c.