Unconventional Arms Accord

The Unconventional Arms Accord resolution was the 8th Global Disarmament resolution to reach the UN floor and the 5th resolution sponsored by Omigodtheykilledkenny. The debate on the UN floor was interupted on Nov. 16, when the power went out in the UN building. It took the UN Building Management a day to repair the power to the building, in which time the debate on the resolution switched from the resolution itself to numerous discussions about proper conduct of diplomats.

Resolution history

Proposal

A draft of the proposal was first made public on Oct. 16, 2006 after having been previously developed via a series of exchanges between Omigodtheykilledkenny and a number of other nations. Ausserland and Norderia immediately objected to the proposal on the grounds that it would prohibit the UN from any future global disarmament proposals. Community Property challenged the legality of the proposal on the grounds that it contradicted previous resolutions, but the UN Secretariat found that the proposal was legal.[1],[2]

UN floor debate

Summary Info

Lead Proponents: Omigodtheykilledkenny (sponsor), Gruenberg, Kivisto, Texan Hotrodders

Lead Opponents: Ariddia, Ausserland, Community Property, Hirota, Mikitivity, Norderia, 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.[3] 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.[4]

Some proponents, such as Landaman Pendankr dan Samda of Allech-Atreus, spoke in favour of the resolution on the grounds that it would result in a decrease in global military spending.[5] However, the sponsor of the resolution, Omigodtheykilledkenny, summed up the resolution with the following quote: "Nations have the right to use whatever weapons they choose, when they choose and how they choose, provided they are not intentionally targeting civilians."[6]

In response to this, Minister Olembe then accused the nation of Omigodtheykilledkenny of attempting to mislead UN members into supporting a blocker resolution.[7] Though President Reilly of Ardchoilleans joined Ausserland and others in public opposition to the resolution, he 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.[8]

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.[9] 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.[10]

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.[11], [12] 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.

Additional materials

• Unconventional Arms Accord UN floor debate
• Unconventional Arms Accord Draft proposal thread
• UN Biological Weapons Ban previous UN resolution
• Ban Chemical Weapons repealed UN resolution
• UN Timeline
• United Nations