Unconventional Arms Accord

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
FAILED: Unconventional Arms Accord

Category: Global Disarmament
Proposed By: Omigodtheykilledkenny
Strength: Significant
Status: Failed
Voting ended: Sun Nov 19 2006
Votes For: 4,536
Votes Against: 8,798

Unconventional Arms Accord was the eighth Global Disarmament resolution to reach the General Assembly floor and the 4½th resolution sponsored by Omigodtheykilledkenny (being that it didn't actually contribute to the drafting for Abortion Legality Convention. The floor debate on the proposal was rudely interrupted on Nov. 16, when the lights went out in the UN Building, taking UN Building Management an entire day to restore power to the building -- in which time the debate on the resolution deteriorated from a discussion on the resolution itself to a sniping match about the proper conduct of diplomats.

Resolution history

The proposal was originally a half-baked idea floated by erstwhile UN rep Jack Riley in UN DEFCON's secret underground bunker in mid-2006. Its intention was to reaffirm the declaration of national rights in Texan Hotrodders' 2005 United Nations Security Act, with tougher language to avoid another Secretariat ruling that Riley contended made the standing resolution "useless." It also included language to prevent the abuse of national rights on weapons development. Following Riley's dismissal, notes on the think tank's discussion were dropped into the lap of the new Kennyite delegate, Sammy Faisano, who saw in his predecessor's efforts the potential for a good disarmament treaty.


In September 2006 Faisano produced a revamped version of Riley's original document, presenting it both to DEFCON and President Manuelo Fernanda's cabinet, and was called into Defense Sec. Charlie Valentine's office not to long after for a "chat." Valentine praised the young diplomat for his efforts to construct a viable proposal, but told him it needed a little of "its former oomph."

"Oomph?" asked Faisano nervously.

"Yeah, oomph, pinazze, panache, gusto? Whatever you wanna call it, this proposal could afford to be just a little disingeuous."

"What do you mean?" asked the ambassador.

"Well, you've cut out all the sovereigntist elements, Sammy."


"We're OMGTKK. We cannot be held responsible for such base fluffiness."

"So what do you propose we do?" Faisano finally inquired.

"I'd like to introduce you to the concept of ... Clause 7."

"Clause 7?"

"Yes, Cluase 7. Language so beautifully blockifying yet at the same time so frighteningly sneaky it'll allow us shove some good old-fashioned sovereigntism down our colleagues' throats, and while they're still trying to figure out what "enjoining" means, we strip their precious UN of any authority on weapons disarmament! Hahahaha!! And if anyone tries to accuse us of intentionally misleading them, there's no citable source anywhere that could verify this conversation ever took place! We'll be completely unimpeachable! Haha!!"

After taking a few bribes, Faisano slipped the language into the bottom part of the proposal and returned to DEFCON to polish the legislation before making the biggest mistake of his life: assuming UN regulars would be the least bit helpful in crafting a good disarmament proposal.

UN 'Drafting' Session

A draft of the proposal was first made public on Oct. 16, immediately spurring strong objections from Ausserland [1] and Yelda [2], and also some hysterical shrieking from Norderia [3], all pointing out that Clause 7 would prohibit the UN from issuing any future weapons bans. The Kenny UN Mission would later gripe that amidst all the snipings and spirited debate, not one constructive remark for improving the legislation was offered. The shrillness of the "draft" discussion was such that Faisano had to retire to the Strangers' Bar to blow his head off.

No fewer than three legality challenges were posited against the proposal [4] [5] [6], the Secretariat overruling all of them. [7] [8] [9]

UN floor debate

Summary Info
Lead Proponents: Omigodtheykilledkenny (sponsor), Gruenberg, Allech-Atreus, Kivisto, Texan Hotrodders
Lead Opponents: Ariddia, Ausserland, Community Property, Mikitivity, Yelda
Number of debate posts: 258

The resolution reached the UN floor on Nov. 15 following the Repeal "Public Domain". Immediately after the resolution's introduction to the United Nations, Patrick Olembe of Ausserland opposed the resolution based on clause 7. Minister Olembe pointed out that the clause turned the resolution into a blocker.[10] Ambassador Tommo of Norderia pointed out that the resolution would not only block future proposals dealing with chemical and biological weapons, but that the resolution effectively would prevent the United Nations from dealing with any weapons disarmament resolutions.[11]

Some proponents, such as Landaman Pendankr of Allech-Atreus, spoke in favour of the resolution on the grounds that it would result in a decrease in global military spending.[12] However, the sponsor of the resolution, Omigodtheykilledkenny, claimed (then partially retracted) that comments by Ellelt summed up the resolution: "Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targeting civilians."[13]

In response to this, Minister Olembe then accused the nation of Omigodtheykilledkenny of attempting to mislead UN members into supporting a blocker.[14] Though Co-President Reilly of Ardchoilleans joined Ausserland and others in public opposition to the resolution, she stressed that the meaning of clause 7 was clearly to prevent the UN from restricting nation's ability to build weapons. Reilly also pointed out that clause 6 actively encouraged nations to build more weapons.[15]

It was the nation of Cameroi that pointed out that by focusing on restricting the use of unconventional weapons on civilian populations, that the United Nations was suggesting that it was OK to use conventional weapons on civilian populations. In response to Cameroi's argument, Rono Pyandran of Gruenberg avoided Cameroi and many other opponent's arguments and claimed that the resolution cured cancer.[16] Following his statement that the resolution cures cancer, Pyandran then picked up a book on dealing with the dukes of buckinham and proceeded to read nonsense on the UN floor. Following his speach, Pyandran then predicted that Gatesville would vote for the resolution. Unfortunately his comments ended up upsetting many ambassadors, and the tone of the debate turned hostile for the next few days.[17]

After a few days of debate, Cassandra Thonberger of Mikitivity suggested that should the resolution fail, that another version of the resolution without clause 7 would likely receive support from a number of the opponents. Ausserland and Yelda quickly supported this notion, stressing once again that their primary objection was the blocker clause.[18], [19] When Pyandran responded suggesting that the likelihood of a well written future global disarmament proposal being submitted, Thonberger pointed to Mikitivity's draft proposal on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space from 2004 and desire for a UN ban on the deployment of mass drivers as a justification against the blocker.

On Nov. 16 the UN building lost power, forcing a temporary hiatus on the formal debate. Though a number of ambassadors took their discussions to the hallways of the UN, the break in the debate caused by the power outage slowed the interest in discussing the resolution amongst both sides.

Resolution text

The nations and their deputies here assembled, having convened, conferred, and agreed to the whole of this article, have made the following determinations:

i. The intentional slaughter of innocent civilians through unconventional warfare is a heinous and contemptible act.
ii. Such acts are war crimes, and those who propagate them are war criminals.
iii. Although it is imperative for nations to defend themselves, their people and their allies against attacks by hostile forces, the killing of civilians by such means is wholly unnecessary for this purpose.
iv. Unconventional arms are munitions or devices designed to disperse chemical or biological agents with the effect of irreparably harming, incapacitating or killing troops or civilians; these include various nerve, blister, choking, blood or incapacitating chemical agents, and infectious or contagious viruses, bacteria or microbes, but do not include neutralized biological agents used for vaccines, or mild chemical agents commonly used for law enforcement or personal self-defense, such as tear gas, MACE or pepper spray.
v. Civilians are persons who do not serve an important national political function, who are not members of any national military, paramilitary or police force, or who are serving such forces but in a non-military capacity.
vi. This body must take reasonable measures to prevent the death of civilians in war.

They have therefore committed the United Nations to the following provisions:

1. Condemning the intentional use of unconventional arms against civilian populations;
2. Enjoining member states against deliberately targeting civilians with unconventional arms;
3. Requiring member states to take good faith measures to prevent unnecessary civilian casualties in combat operations;
4. Obligating member states to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, on pain of the strongest penalties available under the law, all those under their jurisdiction who have been credibly accused of violating Clause 2;
5. Urging nations to forge agreements allowing for the swift extradition of suspected war criminals under this article, to assure that suspects are transferred to the proper jurisdiction;
6. Encouraging the development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel, mitigate civilian damage, and serve as alternatives to more deadly and destructive forms of chemical and biological warfare;
7. Affirming the right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense, barring instances where standing legislation issued by this body has modified that right.

In witness whereof the undersigned, having deposited their respective full powers, have signed the present convention.

Votes For: 4,536
Votes Against: 8,798
Vote Ended: Sun Nov 19 2006

Voting analysis

A Kenny Poll was attached to the UN floor debate, but like most Kenny Polls it is impossible to conduct any quantitative comparison between the Kenny Poll and the overall UN vote, since many of the options didn't indicate assent or dissent.

Though the poll did not allow a comparison of the UN floor debates to the overall UN vote, a significant portion of the resolution debate focused on its clause 7. The majority of the nations that visited the UN forum debates stated that they approved of the resolution but had major objections to the blocker clause. In the past, Global Disarmament resolutions have tended to have close votes, but the final outcome on this resolution showed a strong trend towards opposition throughout the UN. The final vote on this resolution supports the theory that many UN members are actually reading the text of resolutions and not voting based on the resolution category.

Gameplay Impacts

Had it passed, UCAA likely would have prevented ensuing proposals like Radiological Terrorism and UN Bio Agent Convention from coming to the fore. The Kennyites liked both proposals and later said they almost made them glad their blocker failed. [20]

Additional materials

Omigodtheykilledkenny and the United Nations
Administration and Policies: Department of State | Mission to the United Nations | Voting Record | Creative Solutions Agency | Kennypoll
Mission Staff: Susa Batko-Yovino | Jenny Chiang | Sammy Faisano | Alex Tehrani | Jessie McArthur | George Brown | Jack Riley | Surly the Repealinator
Sponsored Legislation: Repeal "Protection of Dolphins Act" | Repeal "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act" | Repeal "Gay Rights" | Abortion Legality Convention | Unconventional Arms Accord | Prohibition of UN Military | Repeal "Mutual Recognition of Borders" | Accessible Family Planning | Repeal "SPCC Regulation Act" | Repeal "Max Barry Day"