NationStates Jolt Archive

Convention on Landmines

Category: Global Disarmament

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: The Dourian Embassy

Description: Accepting that unrestricted land mind use can lead to unnecessary civilian casualties,

Knowing that unnecessary civilian casualties can be avoided,

Believing that the World Assembly can pass responsible legislation on the subject,

The World Assembly hereby:

1) Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
A) "Civilians" as persons who are not on active duty with a military, naval, or police force and are a citizen of a World Assembly member state.
B) "Land mines" as ordnance placed under or on the ground that is designed to explode or otherwise cause physical harm when walked over, on, or near.
C) "Remote deactivation devices" as devices that are attached to or incorporated into a land mine that allow it's deactivation from a safe distance in a way that renders it harmless in the future. This may include remote detonation.
D) "Self deactivating land mines" as a land mine that by design is rendered harmless after a reasonable length of time, but before one would expect a civilian to be harmed by it.
E) "Anti-handling devices" as devices that cause the land mine to explode or otherwise cause physical harm upon handling.
F) "Military forces" as forces engaged in conflict of some kind, where the forces would have reasonable expectations to participate in combat.
G) "Mine fields" as areas in which one would reasonably expect to find mines, where mines have been placed, and which have been made dangerous by the presence of mines.

2) Bans the use of any land mines on civilian targets or in any case where civilians would come into regular contact with live mines.

3) Restricts the use of any land mines by any military force to those that are are either self deactivating, or contain a remote deactivation device.

4)Requires that anti-handling devices be deactivated along with the land mine in the case of self deactivating land mines or remote deactivation devices.

5) Allows protective mine fields to be used as long as they are clearly marked by a perimeter, as long as they are not placed in a civilian area, and as long as they are deactivated or detonated upon leaving the area in which they were placed.

6) Requires that those placing land mines take all reasonable precautions to protect civilians from incidental casualties that would result from the placement of a mine field.

7) Requires that all land mines be deactivated or detonated at the cessation of the conflict in which they were used.



This my friends is the first draft in what I hope will be a successful proposal. Comments are welcome.

In #3, I would suggest changing the phrase "Restricts the use of any land mines on any military force..." to read "Restricts the use of any land mines by any military force..."

That actually solves my clumsy wording there nicely come to think of it. It's another way of going about the same thing. Thanks.

First, why does everyone suddenly have, if you'll excuse my phrasing, such a massive stick up their ass about landmines? Yes, they are bad, but not more so than biological or chemical weaponry, virtually no proposals to prohibit which I've seen in the months the WA has been active for, nor than certain other types on unconventional weaponry, absolutely no proposals about which I've seen.

Second, this draft has in common with its innumerable cousins a failure to distinguish between victim-initiated and remote detonation. The former brand obviously pose considerable risk to civilians. The latter do not, or at least the risk is so substantially mitigated that it's reasonable to subsume it beneath the general risk of war under any circumstances.

Third, the UN established a demining agency. The resolution passed and no serious repeal efforts were ever launched; the main point of contention wasn't with people who didn't want the agency, but who feared (perhaps rightly) that the proposal would be used as leverage to repeal the landmine ban. Maybe the WA could do the same? (Or even better, explicitly refuse to do so until a funding mechanism is approved.)

Fourth, why, exactly, do you think mines are used? They're area denial munitions. This means this absolute delineation between civilian areas and military ones is unlikely to work. As much as anything, does anyone think such stark lines exist anymore? Most militaries seem to devote serious training to FIBUA; I'd wager the number of WA nations who fight wars on battlefields and make camp each night is comparatively small.

Quintessence of Dust does not support unrestricted use of landmines, nor would we consider prohibiting such to seriously damage WA members' national security policies compared to non-members. But this proposal is no more satisfactory than any of the others produced, and frankly, we wonder if the WA's time might be better spent considering ONE draft, rather than three.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Second, this draft has in common with its innumerable cousins a failure to distinguish between victim-initiated and remote detonation. The former brand obviously pose considerable risk to civilians. The latter do not, or at least the risk is so substantially mitigated that it's reasonable to subsume it beneath the general risk of war under any circumstances.

It defines -"Land mines" as ordnance placed under or on the ground that is designed to explode or otherwise cause physical harm when walked over, on, or near.-

That strikes me as pretty specific in defining that, for the purpose of this resolution, land mines are those which are victim-initiated.

Third, the UN established a demining agency. The resolution passed and no serious repeal efforts were ever launched; the main point of contention wasn't with people who didn't want the agency, but who feared (perhaps rightly) that the proposal would be used as leverage to repeal the land mine ban. Maybe the WA could do the same? (Or even better, explicitly refuse to do so until a funding mechanism is approved.)

I thank you for mentioning this, as there was a final clause I forgot to include. Given the requirements that all mines have some method of deactivation, the inclusion of a simple line requiring their deactivation or detonation at the cessation of conflict was always intended.

Fourth, why, exactly, do you think mines are used? They're area denial munitions. This means this absolute delineation between civilian areas and military ones is unlikely to work. As much as anything, does anyone think such stark lines exist anymore? Most militarizes seem to devote serious training to FIBUA; I'd wager the number of WA nations who fight wars on battlefields and make camp each night is comparatively small.

Perhaps not, but in reality I see the worst evil of land mines is their continued threat after hostilities have ceased, not the horrors of war that exist while people are fighting. I've offered them some limited protections, and all mines will be destroyed or deactivated after hostilities have ceased. I welcome your opinions on the subject, and further comments after you've reread the definitions and clauses. I feel you may be missing something.

It defines -"Land mines" as ordnance placed under or on the ground that is designed to explode or otherwise cause physical harm when walked over, on, or near.-

That strikes me as pretty specific in defining that, for the purpose of this resolution, land mines are those which are victim-initiated.
And the Claymore? That is designed to yadda yadda, but can also be used remotely.
I thank you for mentioning this, as there was a final clause I forgot to include. Given the requirements that all mines have some method of deactivation, the inclusion of a simple line requiring their deactivation or detonation at the cessation of conflict was always intended.
Heh, one clause. Wow, all our problems are solved! Hey, I've got an idea. We should pass a resolution saying 'Everyone should have healthcare'. I don't think it needs any more details adding to it; pretty clear, I feel.

The UN devoted an entire resolution to the duties of its mine clearance agency. One sentence is not going to suffice to solve the two biggest problems: who is responsible for removing mines (the country in which they are located, or the country that deployed them), and who pays for it (as it stands, it's an 'unfunded mandate'.
Perhaps not, but in reality I see the worst evil of land mines is their continued threat after hostilities have ceased, not the horrors of war that exist while people are fighting. I've offered them some limited protections, and all mines will be destroyed or deactivated after hostilities have ceased. I welcome your opinions on the subject, and further comments after you've reread the definitions and clauses. I feel you may be missing something.
I'll ask again: why do you think landmines are used in the first place?

I also feel 'evil' is a tricky word when it comes to inanimate objects. Landmines are not evil. Properties of landmines include: 'made of metal', 'full of explosives', 'reasonably heavy'. Human actions can be determined moral or otherwise according to their will; technology is simply the instrument through which such will is enacted.

That aside, the point I'm trying to make, and which you have utterly failed to address, is that landmines cannot only be restricted to 'military areas'. Consider (and I'd hedge the following scenario is not totally unknown) a small country that falls under the influence of communism. Concerns about regional security compel a much more powerful nation to fly around the world and invade. The small country has a jungle terrain, with dispersed villages from which people go out to hunt, farm and work. Indeed, one of the problems for the invading force is determining between enemy forces and civilians, leading to tragedies, for both sides.

Under that circumstance, how exactly would you define a 'civilian area'? The entire jungle? Or just the dispersed villages, and not the jungle the villagers use for foraging? This is further complicated by your defining 'mine fields', but not defining 'protective mine fields', yet only referencing the latter in the operative section. If we assume 'protective' means 'defensive', then this would prohibit all offensive use of landmines. If it doesn't, then what exactly does it mean?

Finally, if a force followed your rather vague proscriptions and did indeed put big 'Landmines here!' signs everywhere, marked off the area on maps, and so on, why shouldn't the mine field be allowed to remain after the conflict is over? If it stops an invasion, and hence a new conflict, it would seem to be helping preserve, not endanger, civilians.

-- Samantha Benson

The government of the emperor of Urgench wishes to clarify something with the ambassador for Douria, are the definitions included in this resolution intended to strengthen the legality of the statute itself or are they for the benefit of those reading it who may not understand the terms used ?

May we also say that we are pleased that another resolution seeking to limit the harm done to civilians by anti-personnel mines is being proposed here.
If the membership decide that they do not wish to completely ban these weapons as our resolution would do, and instead allow their regulated use then we feel that at least some small measure of protection for non-combatants will exist.

We commend the wise and noble ambassador for their very great work in this most important of issues,
May the horde of Douria ride swift across the plain for all time,

yours e.t.c. ,

A giant dirt dauber of the species Trypoxylon politum giganticus flies into the WA General Assembly. It measures 2 meters in length, with a wingspan of approximately 3 meters. It is wearing a rather ill-fitting business suit.

It lands at the podium, adjusts its tie, leans toward the microphone, and speaks.

I am Enos Slaughter, WA liaison of the Empire of Dirt Daubers. My government has yet to make a final determination regarding our membership in this fine organization, but I thought I would take a few moments to address the General Assembly on this topic.

First, let me say that I agree with Ms. Benson's statement that "Yes, they (land mines) are bad, but not more so than biological or chemical weaponry". My government would be very keen to see a WA-wide ban on the manufacture, possession and use of chemical weapons. Too many of our valiant soldiers and innocent civilians have fallen victim to crazed hominids spraying chemicals with names like "Raid Wasp and Hornet Killer", "Black Flag Wasp Hornet Yellow Jacket & Scorpion Killer" and "Hornet & Wasp Killer from Ortho". The mere mention of those hated names causes me to flex my mandibles, salivate and beat my wings wildly.

The dirt dauber beats his wings wildly for effect.

But on to the matter at hand: land mines.

I would advise the Dourian government to proceed with caution in the drafting of this proposal. Land mines, as previously mentioned, are an effective tool for area denial. They are neither "good" nor "bad", but are simply a tool designed to perform a specific function. Most would agree that they perform that function quite well. The problems arise after the conflict has ended when mines which are no longer needed are left in place. I would echo the statements of Ms. Benson that a resolution establishing a demining apparatus would be a more logical step, rather than a ban.

The dirt dauber begins reading from a prepared copy of the draft proposal.

This is the copy of the proposal which was provided to me. I'll apologize in advance if it is out of date and my comments have already been addressed.

Accepting that unrestricted land mind use can lead to unnecessary civilian casualties,

Knowing that unnecessary civilian casualties can be avoided,

Believing that the World Assembly can pass responsible legislation on the subject,
Unrestricted field artillery use can lead to unnecessary civilian casualties as well. So can unrestricted aerial bombardment. Your preamble is vague and needs to be reworked. Is there a good reason for the WA to pass legislation on the subject? Use the preamble to make your case. It needs to be something more forceful than "the WA can do this, so it shall".

The World Assembly hereby:

1) Defines for the purpose of this resolution:
You realize that the bulk of your proposal consists of definitions rather than directives?

A) "Civilians" as persons who are not on active duty with a military, naval, or police force and are a citizen of a World Assembly member state.
Why are naval forces listed separately from military? Are a nation's naval forces not part of its military?

Are civilians from non-member states somehow not civilians under this proposal?

What about reservists and militiamen who have not been called to active duty? That's a gray area, I know, but most would consider them military rather than civilian.

B) "Land mines" as ordnance placed under or on the ground that is designed to explode or otherwise cause physical harm when walked over, on, or near.
What about improvised explosive devices which are constructed from ordnance not originally intended for placement "under or on the ground"? Will you be classifying them as land mines?

C) "Remote deactivation devices" as devices that are attached to or incorporated into a land mine that allow it's deactivation from a safe distance in a way that renders it harmless in the future. This may include remote detonation.
"It's" is a contraction. I think the word you're looking for is "its".

D) "Self deactivating land mines" as a land mine that by design is rendered harmless after a reasonable length of time, but before one would expect a civilian to be harmed by it.
What is this "reasonable length of time"? Who can predict when a civilian might wander into a minefield?

E) "Anti-handling devices" as devices that cause the land mine to explode or otherwise cause physical harm upon handling.
I see no need to include this. If the mine can be deactivated at all then surely the anti-handling device would be included in the deactivation procedure. What would be the point in deactivating a mine if it would still detonate when you try to remove it?

F) "Military forces" as forces engaged in conflict of some kind, where the forces would have reasonable expectations to participate in combat.
So as defined by this proposal, military forces are only military if they are actually engaged in combat?

G) "Mine fields" as areas in which one would reasonably expect to find mines, where mines have been placed, and which have been made dangerous by the presence of mines.
What if the mines are placed somewhere where no one would reasonably expect mines to be placed? Wouldn't it still be a minefield? An area is a minefield if mines are present. Expectations are irrelevant. And would it be possible to place mines in an area and it not be made dangerous?

2) Bans the use of any land mines on civilian targets or in any case where civilians would come into regular contact with live mines.
You realize that mines are typically placed by defending forces, right? Why would a military target its own civilians? Also, define "regular contact". Daily? Weekly? As written, this provision could be safely ignored.

4)Requires that anti-handling devices be deactivated along with the land mine in the case of self deactivating land mines or remote deactivation devices.
Again, why would you deploy a mine that could be remotely deactivated but not include the anti-handling device in the deactivation process. That would also prevent your own personnel from ever removing it.

5) Allows protective mine fields to be used as long as they are clearly marked by a perimeter, as long as they are not placed in a civilian area, and as long as they are deactivated or detonated upon leaving the area in which they were placed.
Define "civilian area". Most modern combat takes place in built-up areas. Also, the last sentence is poorly worded. It sounds like you're saying the mines must be deactivated or detonated as soon as "they" (the mines) leave the area.

6) Requires that those placing land mines take all reasonable precautions to protect civilians from incidental casualties that would result from the placement of a mine field.
Fair enough, but remember that the purpose of mines is usually not to harm civilians in the first place. The personnel placing the mines are not likely to intentionally place them so that they would be likely to cause incidental civilian casualties.

7) Requires that all land mines be deactivated or detonated at the cessation of the conflict in which they were used.
Do you mean a peace treaty, or simply a ceasefire? What if there is a ceasefire but the parties are technically still at war? Ceasefires can go on for a long, long time without a formal "cessation of the conflict".

I would urge you to reconsider this course and instead focus on reasonable demining legislation. Or better yet, concentrate on banning/regulating some of the more horrendous forms of weaponry that exist such as chemical, biological and radiological weapons. There are far worse things out there than land mines.

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

Perhaps not, but in reality I see the worst evil of land mines is their continued threat after hostilities have ceased, not the horrors of war that exist while people are fighting.Will we be banning bombs as well (http://londonist.com/2008/06/unexploded_bomb_3.php)?


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

As someone who lives on the Piccadilly line, that incident made me seriously gear up for a proposal on UXO :p

I wonder if the WA can focus its efforts on issues of a more...serious...nature? Landmines are indeed a problem, but the limiting of weapons of cruelty or mass destruction should take precedence over war 'crimes' of a lesser degree.

Nevertheless, we would still express our support for this proposal. I don't believe that landmines should be used for the 'protection' of civilians - this should be achieved by a garrison and a garrison only. Machinery, especially operating remotely from human control, should not have the power of life or death over humans, or the ability to control borders.

Quite frankly, you can show us any proposal that limits the effectiveness of modern-day warfare, and we'll be supporting it.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

This state shall not and will not support any ban upon any type of conventional arm. A weapon itself is not what is accountable, but people themselves.

To say that a ban on any type of landmine, cluster munitions or any other weapon would somehow decrease violence or death is ludicris and in the long run a pipe dream for anyone that believes that eliminating this would decrease in any type of violence.

In the long run what you propuse could infact indanger the lives of numerous others. Once engaged in armed conflict, the goal is to take the shortest time possible to effectivly meet the objectives of any engagement. What this stance does is take away the ability to use the most effective conventional arms that can be used by tactical commanders. In essence this could prolong a long term engagement, which endangers more civilians.

The definitions also do not account for non military combatents, so in doing so you have tied the hands of uniformed combatents as defined in the Laws of Armed Conflict. This resolution, as with other careless resolutions attached to the subject of arms restrictions and reduction just hampers and puts the lives of thousands if not millions at risk.

This state shall not and will not support any ban upon any type of conventional arm. A weapon itself is not what is accountable, but people themselves.

To say that a ban on any type of landmine, cluster munitions or any other weapon would somehow decrease violence or death is ludicris and in the long run a pipe dream for anyone that believes that eliminating this would decrease in any type of violence.

In the long run what you propuse could infact indanger the lives of numerous others. Once engaged in armed conflict, the goal is to take the shortest time possible to effectivly meet the objectives of any engagement. What this stance does is take away the ability to use the most effective conventional arms that can be used by tactical commanders. In essence this could prolong a long term engagement, which endangers more civilians.

The definitions also do not account for non military combatents, so in doing so you have tied the hands of uniformed combatents as defined in the Laws of Armed Conflict. This resolution, as with other careless resolutions attached to the subject of arms restrictions and reduction just hampers and puts the lives of thousands if not millions at risk.

The government of the emperor of Urgench would like to point out to the respected ambassador for Western Civil Alliance that this proposal is in no way any kind of Ban on landmines, we have proposed such a ban but the respected Dourian Embassy is proposing introducing the regulation of mine use, which would in fact permanently enshrine the right to use mines (ethicaly) of w.a. members.

yours e.t.c.

I wonder if the WA can focus its efforts on issues of a more...serious...nature? Landmines are indeed a problem, but the limiting of weapons of cruelty or mass destruction should take precedence over war 'crimes' of a lesser degree.

Nevertheless, we would still express our support for this proposal. I don't believe that landmines should be used for the 'protection' of civilians - this should be achieved by a garrison and a garrison only. Machinery, especially operating remotely from human control, should not have the power of life or death over humans, or the ability to control borders.

Quite frankly, you can show us any proposal that limits the effectiveness of modern-day warfare, and we'll be supporting it.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


The government of the emperor of Urgench notices that the delegate for the Narnian Council is seeking to dictate what the focus of this organisation should be once again.
With typical Narnian arrogance the delegate would obviously like other nations to be silent except to endorse their own region's agressive and imperialistic policies.

yours e.t.c. ,

The government of the emperor of Urgench notices that the delegate for the Narnian Council is seeking to dictate what the focus of this organisation should be once again.
With typical Narnian arrogance the delegate would obviously like other nations to be silent except to endorse their own region's agressive and imperialistic policies.

yours e.t.c. ,

/quickly whips war fan from obi and spreads it across face to hide smile

I wonder if the WA can focus its efforts on issues of a more...serious...nature? Landmines are indeed a problem, but the limiting of weapons of cruelty or mass destruction should take precedence over war 'crimes' of a lesser degree.

Nevertheless, we would still express our support for this proposal. I don't believe that landmines should be used for the 'protection' of civilians - this should be achieved by a garrison and a garrison only. Machinery, especially operating remotely from human control, should not have the power of life or death over humans, or the ability to control borders.

Quite frankly, you can show us any proposal that limits the effectiveness of modern-day warfare, and we'll be supporting it.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong people wishes to ask the Narnians why they believe that they should dictate what the WA wishes to focus on. If you wish the WA to focus on one of your issues then submit a proposal, post in the WA section of the forum and then we will be on your topic, however at this moment the subject of many threads seem to be land mines and as such the issue must be a focus of the WA members and delegates.

High Priest Jakan

I wonder if the WA can focus its efforts on issues of a more...serious...nature?

<snip>

Quite frankly, you can show us any proposal that limits the effectiveness of modern-day warfare, and we'll be supporting it.


Enos Slaughter takes time out from constructing a giant dirt dauber nest high up in the northwest corner of the General Assembly hall.

This is certainly a rather confusing statement. First, in somewhat snarkish terms, you imply that this is not a serious issue. You then declare enthusiastic support for "any proposal that limits the effectiveness of modern-day warfare".

Would you support a ban on all high explosives? Petroleum products? Pre-packaged field rations?

Enos Slaughter
WA liaison, Empire of Dirt Daubers

I think it is always nice that people use their technology smart and with respect to the living. But in a war rules of engagement will not work out. When you want to win a war you will uses every evil forbidden method you can use. When your on the brink of loosing a war you will use every method at hand trying not to loose. Of course only if your superiors will back you.

This being said I do not care about how to restrict the use of a technology. I only think it is wise to ban technologies which gives severe casualties of civilians in or after the war, for the winner and the one who lost. The technologies I think of are land mines, cluster munition, nuclear, chemicals and biologicals.

So for a ban on things (how minimal it can be) like this, I will give support. For rules in combat, I do not care, these will always be broken. So I will not give my support, nor will I vote in favour or against.

I wish you success in trying to achieve a better society.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

(If something is being said strange, it will be because this language I hardly use and I am very tired because I just came back from an action in favour of so called "illegals". I cannot imagine that humans can be illegal.)

The Government of the Yuuzhan Vong people wishes to ask the Narnians why they believe that they should dictate what the WA wishes to focus on. If you wish the WA to focus on one of your issues then submit a proposal, post in the WA section of the forum and then we will be on your topic, however at this moment the subject of many threads seem to be land mines and as such the issue must be a focus of the WA members and delegates.

High Priest Jakan

/snaps fan closed and addresses the Yuuzhaun Vong WA member

we have, in our dealings with the narnian council delegation, come to realise the allegory of the lion is not representative, but rather, delusional embodiment. we would no more be surprised to find the delegation bearing stone tablets with commandments written upon them in the WA than we would a gypsy with tarot cards.


we note there are, it seems 3 such proposals regarding this technology. the dourian embassy's being the least offensive to us. should such a measure become necessary, we would consider lending our weight to it, with all due respect to Urgench.

/bows to Urgench

The government of the emperor of Urgench notices that the delegate for the Narnian Council is seeking to dictate what the focus of this organisation should be once again.

Oh, do you consider me the WA dictator, an emperor over this august body? In that case, I'd best make myself a crown then, yes? And I'd best prepare for a battle against the mods then too...shouldn't I?

Or...is simply the stating of an opinion the definition of your type of dictatorship?

With typical Narnian arrogance the delegate would obviously like other nations to be silent except to endorse their own region's agressive and imperialistic policies.

Did I say that? Please - speak up. You're free to express your opinions, I have no problem with it (unless you incorrectly believe I am the WA dictator). I didn't even plan on re-visiting this thread for a while. But its pretty obvious the representative of Urgench doesn't like listening to the opinions of some others (especially those who seem to be supporting a proposal that rivals theirs), so we'll just leave the irony as it is.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Oh, do you consider me the WA dictator, an emperor over this august body? In that case, I'd best make myself a crown then, yes? And I'd best prepare for a battle against the mods then too...shouldn't I?

Or...is simply the stating of an opinion the definition of your type of dictatorship?



Did I say that? Please - speak up. You're free to express your opinions. I didn't even plan on re-visiting this thread for a while. But its pretty obvious the representative of Urgench doesn't like listening to the opinions of some others, so we'll just leave the irony as it is.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


/returns from nation legislation
/coughs less than politely

the esteemed narnian council has made it clear on more than one occasion its voice is that of the WA.

/snaps war fan open and hides lower half of face with only a brief glimpse of narrowed eyes

indeed, we consider the council more of athreat than a fully functional member of the WA. the republic does not take such threats lightly, and, in the interest of its citizens, may very well take the actions necessary to negate that threat.

/places left hand on katana and smiles under war fan

Oh, do you consider me the WA dictator, an emperor over this august body? In that case, I'd best make myself a crown then, yes? And I'd best prepare for a battle against the mods then too...shouldn't I?

Or...is simply the stating of an opinion the definition of your type of dictatorship?



Did I say that? Please - speak up. You're free to express your opinions, I have no problem with it (unless you incorrectly believe I am the WA dictator). I didn't even plan on re-visiting this thread for a while. But its pretty obvious the representative of Urgench doesn't like listening to the opinions of some others (especially those who seem to be supporting a proposal that rivals theirs), so we'll just leave the irony as it is.

________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The government of the emperor of Urgench made no mention of the delegate for the Narnian council being a "W.A. Dictator", we only suggested that they were trying to dictate what this organisation's focus of debate should be.

It is telling that the Narnian council should imagine itself being hailed as dictator and it's petulant and facile responses to our comments are the mark of a megolomaniacal obsession.

The delegate for the Narnian council should know that we are and always have been complete supporters of the work of the respected and highly esteemed ambassador for Douria, we see ourselves as colleagues with them in a vital area of legislation for the protection of W.A citizens lives.
Should, as it seems likely it will, our own resolution fail to achieve the requisite number of approvals to be brought to vote we will happily lend any support that the Dourian Embassy may request of us to there proposal.We will be delighted to vote for it if it is brought before the w.a.

We can but hope that the Narnian Council will learn that legislation should be for the good of all and not for the furtherance of narrow national or regional ambitions.

yours e.t.c.

/returns from nation legislation
/coughs less than politely

the esteemed narnian council has made it clear on more than one occasion its voice is that of the WA.

/snaps war fan open and hides lower half of face with only a brief glimpse of narrowed eyes

indeed, we consider the council more of athreat than a fully functional member of the WA. the republic does not take such threats lightly, and, in the interest of its citizens, may very well take the actions necessary to negate that threat.

/places left hand on katana and smiles under war fan

*glances over at the Coffeholics delegate and grins*

If you uh...need help 'resolving the issue I would be happy to help.

*glances over at the Coffeholics delegate and grins*

If you uh...need help 'resolving the issue I would be happy to help.

/catches glance and nods in return

Oh, do you consider me the WA dictator, an emperor over this august body? In that case, I'd best make myself a crown then, yes?

/perks ears and closes war fan with a soft snap

we in the most serene republic had supposed this crown was already fashioned and the righteous delegate cavorting about in its home region wearing the thing. we are most embarrassed to learn our presumption premature.

::Slams shoe against the table::
Ladies and Gentlemen, please direct your attention to the matters at hand. This is a meeting to discuss further arms development, or in this fashion to take away the rights of sovereign states to develop such weapons in the rightful defense of their nation.

What is being brought up will send us down a slippery slope in mass disarmament. I might add for all Representatives that are present in this assembly, unless you have experienced combat first hand, looking at it from an outside view as if it was some sort of game or movie is highly irresponsible. The concept of armed conflict is to destroy the enemies ability to wage war. Law of Armed conflict may try to mitigate what is "humane". But what is being brought up here is that killing, and armed conflict in its own right is inhumane. Inhumane it might well be, but the fact is that armed conflict is not going anywhere. My highly regarded counterparts in this assembly, unless you are going to be the one spilling your blood in the defense of your country, what right gives you to justify what conventional weapon an armed military can use?

As the flowery hails to these ideas might be from the outside, no one here seems to truly understand the use of these weapons, or any ability of any tactical weapon on a strategic level. Mines or no mines, what will you judge as out of context in a situation of war? Missiles? Bombs? Guns? Rocks? Sticks?
Make no mistake, precision guided munition are there, but they are not all what is used in a war. Nor will they ever be 100%. This false notion of no collateral damage is lunacy! We have waged armed conflict since the beginning of man.

In the Greek Age, Triremes were to be limited because of their lethal ability. Now Nukes, Land mines, Cluster munitions, all want to be eliminated or made "illegal". Man will create something else, and truly I can just call a mine something else and add a trait that will no longer hold it to this clause.
As an offensive weapon you would be correct in saying that mines are not effective, what you negate is the fact the Anti-personnel and anti-armor Mines are a denial weapon.

Let me clarify before puns are put into my mouth, before this assembly.
The use of any of these weapons are to deny the ability for the enemy to move freely. This in fact redirects the movements of the enemy, and funnels them into a point where the opposing force then engages the enemy on their terms. This is an important factor of strategy in any tactical engagement.
Also as a denial weapon system, placed in such places like the borders of Demilitarized Zones, these are used very effectively.
These systems not just have their worth fundamentally, but In this Ambassadors own experience, I have seen the measures and security such said devices provide, and have called upon them to save the lives of comrades in arms, and my very self.

::Representative from the Western Civil Alliance sits, and shakes his head at the disgrace of an assembly, and what he believes is an irrational, ignorant approach to arms.::

If you Ignore Arms, and put a rubber stamp, that doesn't mean the don't exist.

And ask yourself this one question!
If your nation, your countrymen, Your WIVES, HUSBANDS, AND CHILDREN FACE ERADICATION! What would you use? What would be humane to protect yourselves?!
:headbang::upyours:

the honourable delegate of the peoples liberationa arm would kindly request that all efforts on the banning of landmines be combined as it seems we have multiple factions and those that stand divided are sure to fail

The good people of GreatTree are wondering how in the world we let a weird guy with a war fan and katana into negotiations.

No way. Landmines are needed to kill an enemy army.

What about Naval mines?

the honourable delegate of the peoples liberationa arm would kindly request that all efforts on the banning of landmines be combined as it seems we have multiple factions and those that stand divided are sure to fail

The government of the emperor of Urgench suggests that the (self styled it seems) Honourable delegate should get behind the efforts of the Embassy of Douria if they really do wish to see a check put on the use of mines.
Since the Honourable delegate used large portions of the ban we wrote in answer to your request for assistance (for which you never thanked us) and calls for a ban seem unpopular we suggest that the approach of the esteemed Dourian Embassy may well be the way forward on this issue.


yours e.t.c.

What about Naval mines?

Since they're not land mines they wouldn't be affected by this.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I am keeping up with the drafting thread, even given that most of it isn't exactly on drafting. I've a few ideas which will be included in a newer draft. This will likely convert into a demining convention instead, but I'm not entirely sure right now.