APPROVED [GA] Resolution for Strategic Ordnance Prohibition

[Dutchy]

"I think we can all agree that the use of these weapons is unacceptable, immoral and inhumane, which is why their usage has already been restricted within the Geneva Convention. However, if there is anything that history can teach us it that desperate people will commit desperate acts and the Geneva Convention has been breached time and time again and cannot be relied upon to stop the next tragedy. Which is why it is important to you the Convention as a foundation to expand upon, to extend our mutual goal to further restrictions which can increase the safety and security of innocent civilians all over the world and even if it is only a minor increase then I still believe we should accept it."

"My fear, when it comes to the usage of these weapons, does not lie with governments seeking to maintain a measure of mutually assured destruction, but from rogue governments and extremist elements, nations without any fear of repercussions, governments led by the unhinged or terrorist organisations without anything to lose. They are the real threat when it comes to usage and they pose a threat to everyone of us."

"Chemical weapons produced by those with evil intent might distribute these weapons among extremist organisations, organisations which may seek to launch an attack on a civilian target in your nation. While of course we all have intelligence and security services working day and night to protect our citizens, it may only take a single mistake or a single bit of luck for these terrorists to be able to smuggle chemical weapons into the country, where the next step would simply be to deploy the weapon in a populous area."

"By limiting the production capabilities of these weapons, we also limit their ability to fall into the wrong hands. The Netherlands supports this resolution as it offers us the ability to increase the safety and security of our citizens."

 

[JakeDorent]

The Brazilian would speak once again.

"While your worries are justified, Mr Spijker, who is to say that such a restriction would actually stop Terrorist or Extremist Organizations from producing such weapons? Organizations like those aren't the same as Nation-States and they could care less about what the Global Assembly has to say. Even if they were to comply and stop the usage of Chemicals, they will just find another method to terrorize the population, whether that should be with explosives and or Firearms, then what will we do in response? Prohibit the Production of Explosives? What we have to do in that regard is prevent that such Organizations become a threat to our citizens."

 

[Dutchy]

Ambassador Spijker, a man seeking greater international cooperation would respond to the Brazilian representative. "Mr Ambassador, I have absolutely no belief that any extremist organisation would heed this resolution, neither do I believe that this resolution is aimed at getting terrorists to stop using chemical weapons. However, I believe that this resolution can limit the availability of chemical weapons to extremist terrorist organisations. By limiting the production capability on a global scale, there will be less chemical weapons available for those with evil intent to obtain, either through theft, bribery or a rogue-government simply attempting to cause havoc. If we limit the sale of equipment required to produce chemical weapons, then there will be less chemical weapons that can threaten the world."

"Mr Ambassador, simply because hostile elements might turn to another manner of terrorism does not mean that we shall stand idly by while they murder innocent civilians. We as nations are responsible for the safety and security of our citizens and should therefore work towards a world where we can guarantee their safety from these inhumane weapons of mass destruction, simply because it is difficult is no valid excuse," Ambassador Spijker would turn of his microphone after completing his passionate response.

 

[Connor]

Marc shakes his head with disappointment, once again echoing his voice around the chamber.

"No, Ambassador, I don't agree that the use of weapons of mass destruction is unacceptable, immoral and inhumane. They are effective, expensive and innovative pieces of military equipment for super powers to defend their nations containing millions upon millions of civilians, often caught up in the whirlwind of war. We do not need STOP legislation to achieve safety and security. Nations do not simply dispense chemical weapons indiscriminately and without provocation... and if this did hypothetically occur then these chambers are already equipped with the powers given by the appropriate charters to impose sanctions and enforcement action to bring it to a swift conclusion. We're on the straight and narrow to biting off our nose to spite our face.

Do not cut the leash to technological advancement."

 

[Odinson]

Ambassador Nordheim had carefully listened to other countries - some Norway's friends and allies - discuss the use ownership and use of these specific weapons of mass destruction. He collected his thoughts and stood to speak when an opening in the debate became obvious.

"We would like to live in a world where waging war would not be necessary... A world where weapons - weapons used to kill people - would be banned would be one where children don't have to worry about becoming child-soldiers, where someone can walk down any street in the world and feel exceptionally more safe. Despite whatever efforts we put towards making that reality, it would indeed never become reality. It is in the DNA of our species to form groups that we identify with - groups that we are willing to defend with violence. Sometimes these groups are highly organized and dedicated to bettering the world - as some of our countries - and sometimes these groups are nothing more than gangs or terrorist organizations that are dedicated to worsening the world.

"We cannot stop violence or the ownership of all weapons, but those of you here that believe in an ideology which preaches balance may perhaps agree with me in saying that while the majority of weapons sadly are necessary, there are a minority which are so vile and - in my opinion - evil, that no well-meaning country should even produce or store them, let alone use them even defensively. We likely have different opinions on what weapons we'd classify in this category, but I feel strong enough in my conviction to say that biological weapons are unequivocally evil. I feel that my friend, the gentlemen from The Netherlands, makes a compelling argument for all weapons of mass destruction to be put into this category.

"Nevertheless, the Kingdom of Norway unequivocally agrees that biological weapons should not be designed, constructed, owned, or used by any country in the world - and that if they do, the punishment should be crippling. The more indiscriminate a weapon is, the less ethical its use. Biological weapons, while not as effective as nuclear, are certainly more evil. The illness they give can spread beyond the initial place of use. Norway, having been victim to a plague in recent memory - one that was so bad that it killed even some of the highest members of our Royal Family, understands the incredible mercilessness of disease.

"Biological weapons are indiscriminate weapons of terror, they are weapons that we do not, and will never tolerate. I voice my support of this resolution. However, I think an amendment does need to be made," Nordheim said as he looked over to his Italian counterpart.

"It appears to me that in its current form, this resolution would still allow companies and non-government organizations to produce and sell these weapons. I request that the resolution be amended to account for non-government organizations within member nations, and that member-nations be punished if they allow organizations within their borders to produce these weapons."

@Logan

 

[Bruno]

The German would turn towards the Swedish, smiling.

"Of course my friend! WE are only debating ideals and opinions. Sweden will always have a friend in Germany." He would chuckle and give a playful wink to the Swedish.
"I do understand both the position of your nation and Brazil. I would much rather prefer that such weapons do not be allowed to be produced. Even if they can only be produced by the most develop nations, those who cannot, might see themselves bullied. Or drawn into siding with the nations which have it, creating a possible new polarized and divided world, where you have a faction on one side with CBRN capabilities, and another faction with the same capability, which do not see eye to eye. My worry is that, where we like it or not. An accident is all that it is needed to spell the doom of thousands or millions of people." He would pause.

"I also agree with the Ambassador from Norway, in extending this resolution to non-government organizations."

 

[Logan]

"Mr Speaker. I move to Amend by entering the following Article after Article 11"

Article 11 1. States Party to this resolution shall assist and cooperate with the Strategic Arms Disarmament Organization to prevent non-governmental organizations, such as corporations and terrorist groups, from developing, constructing, obtaining, maintaining, and using the weapons prohibited by this resolution.

 

[JakeDorent]

Fernando drank his water before leaning into his microphone once more to speak, speaking in a calm manner.

"Gentlemen, It's very easy for us to draft resolutions that, on paper, may work, but may become a failure once executed, I'm not saying this because I want this resolution to fail, but we must teach the people about the dangers that such a weapon may bring if they are to be used, not outright ban the production of it. not only are we putting all the research and money invested on those weapons to waste, we already have the appropriate punishments for any government who attempts to use such weapons in their civilian population. Repeating my previous point, such a resolution would infringe on a Nation's Sovereignty and could be seen as an Authoritarian resolution.
I respect the opinion and argument that you all have put forward, however, I can't help but think that we're discussing over something, or a disaster, that may never come across. A Disaster, that by teaching our population how dangerous it can be, can be avoided.
It has been around 52 years since the end of the Second World War, and we managed to teach the world about how a war of such propositions can destroy families, countries and even leave entire continents scarred, so why can we not do the same with CBRN Weapons ?"

The Brazilian would lean away from his mic, taking a look at his documents.

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

"We have an issue with Article 1. Section II and Article 2. itself as well as many parts of this entire document. The threat of long range missile strikes such as with ICBMs in the past have prevented the escalation of wars. Not allowing a nation to have a warding measure such as these weapons is a dangerous game. We ourselves have a never first strike policy. But that brings another issue with this document into the forefront. It is simply put, not enforceable."

 

[Logan]

"These weapons provide and have provided in the past, no added deterrent over the stockpiling of ballistic missiles, or maintenance of a strong military force. Chemical and Biological Weapons provide no added deterrent and instead provide abhorrent tools for those will ill-will towards others to wreak havoc upon civilian populations. Same with radiological weapons. These weapons should be banned. Especially when the only organizations that even could obtain these weapons are nations for which a deterrent is not necessary or organizations of ill intent.

I also reject the argument that it is unenforceable. It is enforceable through frequent, continual, and random inspections, through verification, by the acceding stations, the General Assembly, and by independent verification. What's more, I intend to propose a revival of President Dwight Eisenhower's Open Skies proposal at the Geneva Conference in 1955."

 

[Strix]

"Madness"

The Portuguese man would speak, as he listened to both of the parties be at each other's throats. One arguing that such weapons should be used as a deterrent, something that cannot be assured completely. Another proclaiming that said weapon's productions should be banned outright, possibly apprehending the satute of sovereignty nations truly uphold.

He looks around his notes, filled with points from either side, as he turns on the microphone.

"People of the Global Assembly, we are gathered here to discuss the legalities of such weapons. Weapons on which 'frightening' is an understatement. its power to instantly cripple one's life to the point of no return, makes it a force to be reckoned with. Might I remind you that such weapons were made during times of war. Times where governments sent out young men to die under their foolish squabble. Times where the word 'ethics' would be thrown out of the window in support for the development of such weapons of mass destruction."

"Chemical and Biological weapons are no use against a modern military force. If everyone knows that everyone is stockpiling such weapons, what stops the other from developing countermeasures for their own soldiers? What remains a problem here is the civilians. Civilians that have no place in war nor conflict. People who are forced to watch their homes crumble. Such civilians couldn't afford to think about buying gas masks at their day to day job couldn't they? Our primary job as a government is to protect our people, and to uphold their rights as a person."

"While of course artillery, air strikes, and the general firefight would inflict casualties whether military or civilians, a truth remains where said engagements happen on the front line, where the majority of men had volunteered to die for their beliefs. Chemical and Biological weapons can be efficiently deployed to a country en-masse, affecting the entire population. A single virus could kill thousands, thousands who did not deserve to die."

"While this is a cause for it's storage in of itself, from my understanding this resolution was drafted on avoiding such events in the first place. Why should we, the nations of a developed and civilized people, be utilizing such weapons whose only primary objective is to cause as much pain and suffering to it's victims?'

"Said weapons are indeed deterrents. Governments would be flogged and condemned by media and the people for it's use, and the possibility of mutual assured destruction keeps each other from escalating into a full blown holocaust. The main question is, what if it doesn't work? What if another nation doesn't care for it's own people, but only for the destruction of it's enemies? What if said weapons fall into the wrong hands, what then?"

"Said deterrence only works when both parties don't care for anything else other than their own survival. Said deterrence breaks when one has a clear advantage over another. Said deterrence breaks when one 'accidentally' pushes the button. We take this huge risk of ending the history of humanity as we know it, all so that we die killing everyone else as we go down."

"If this resolution is ratified and enforced, with proper and careful consideration, what ill would it give to the ordinary citizen? Such weapons, whose only purpose is to inflict maximum suffering to it's victims, should not have been developed in the first place."

"I pose another problem. How do we, an international body, ensure that each sovereign nation complies? How do we ensure that a resolution could be undoubtedly followed by it's members? Wouldn't forcing a nation to comply, an act of disregard for it's freedom to choose? Once I can hear on how we can create a solution to this massive logistical problem, shall I then rest my argument. While Portugal fully supports the ethics and principles that had laid the foundation of this resolution, we are concerned on how we can trust the GA in achieving these proposed goals."

He would sit down calmly as he waited for a response, taking a glass of water to quench his already dry mouth. He would eagerly open his mind for anyone who could open up a good point from either side. He opens his notebook and listens to his fellow ambassadors.

 

[Connor]

Astounded by the silence in the chamber, Marc utters into his microphone once again, eager to chime in with his differing opinion.

"This resolution sounds expensive. This resolution sounds exploitative. This resolution sounds restrictive. This resolution sounds like the end of fundamental rights held by the governments of nations worldwide. We are in no position to dictate what equipment can and cannot be used to defend a nation. We are in no position to simply presume that any nations possessing CBRN capable weaponry is a sideman of Satan, eager to murder innocent lives. Finally, we are in no position to vote on a resolution that has not taken science, expenses and the right to defend sovereign territory into account. This, certainly to me, appears to be a hunt for a gold medal rather than a hunt for change and the safety of each and every civilian on the globe.

In most cases I would support preventative measures in lieu of reactionary action. In this instance, you cannot prevent the unlawful use of weaponry otherwise used well within the confines of international law."

 

[Dutchy]

Global Assembly
Official Statement

With the debate coming to a close, the Assembly may now proceed to vote on the resolution as amended.
​

Clark Stone, Secretary General​

---

[TABLE=center][TR][TD][CENTER][img2=100]https://image.ibb.co/g1paue/Global_Assembly_Logo.png[/img2]
[B]THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY [/B][/CENTER][/TD][TD][CENTER][B][SIZE=4]OFFICIAL POLLING CARD[/SIZE][/B]
[COLOR=#026EB4][b]THE ASSEMBLY[/b][/color][/CENTER]
[/TD][/TR][/TABLE][TABLE=center][TR][TD][INDENT][/INDENT]
[INDENT][B][[COLOR=#026EB4]ASSEMBLY MEMBER[/COLOR]][/B]: REPRESENTATIVES NAME
[B][[COLOR=#026EB4]DATE[/COLOR]][/B]: MM/YYYY

[B][[COLOR=#026EB4]VOTE[/COLOR]][/B]: APPROVE/ABSTAIN/DECLINE
[B][[COLOR=#026EB4]REASON[/COLOR]][/B]: BRIEF EXPLANATION
[/INDENT][/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

 

[Connor]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

OFFICIAL POLLING CARD THE ASSEMBLY​

​ [ASSEMBLY MEMBER]: Marc Kvet [DATE]: 08/1995 [VOTE]: DECLINE [REASON]: Motion violates a nations right and duty to serve and protect sovereign territory by any means proportionate; also preventing scientific and technological advancement for defence. There is no substance to policing and governing the clauses mentioned which potentially carry heavy financial and resource-intensive requirements on Global Assembly member states. ​

 

[Bruno]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

OFFICIAL POLLING CARD THE ASSEMBLY​

​ [ASSEMBLY MEMBER]: Angela Merkel​ [DATE]: 08/1995​ ​ [VOTE]: APPROVE​ [REASON]: It is better to ban these awful weapons due to their destructive nature, having no strategic value, causing only unwanted pain and suffering to civilian life.​ ​

 

[Odinson]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

OFFICIAL POLLING CARD THE ASSEMBLY​

​ [ASSEMBLY MEMBER]: Jesper Nordheim​ [DATE]: 09/1995​ ​ [VOTE]: APPROVE​ [REASON]: The use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in any capacity is among the worst of war crimes.​ ​

 

[JakeDorent]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

OFFICIAL POLLING CARD THE ASSEMBLY​

​ [ASSEMBLY MEMBER]: Fernando Paulo de Noronha​ [DATE]: 08/1995​ ​ [VOTE]: DECLINE​ [REASON]: Such a resolution violates a Nation's Sovereignty and Puts the Money, Research and Time spent on the research and development of such weapons to waste. It is an authoritarian move by the Assembly.​ ​

 

[HeadlessSeeker]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

OFFICIAL POLLING CARD THE ASSEMBLY​

​ [ASSEMBLY MEMBER]: Sergey Lavrov​ [DATE]: 10/1995​ ​ [VOTE]: DECLINE​ [REASON]: This notion violates a Nation's Sovereignty and a right to defense and advancement. While said weapons are terrible, their main use is to never be used at all. They are a deterrent, a deterrent that can prevent war. Should a nation violate such a resolution, they would know that none have retaliatory strike capability against them, thus making war all the more likely. It is with this, that we feel that this resolution is dangerous. We believe a revised bill that approaches the apparent "issue" from a different angle could be of better help. Something that limits the total number of warheads and missiles a country can field would be a better solution. Something targeting specific variants and their numbers would also be of use here. We also believe that this resolution would be costly to the few nations that have access to these weapons.​

 

[Logan]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

OFFICIAL POLLING CARD THE ASSEMBLY​

​ [ASSEMBLY MEMBER]:Antonio Abano [DATE]: 10/1995 [VOTE]: APPROVE [REASON]: There can be no excuse for the use of biological, chemical, or radiological weapons. ​

 

[Dutchy]

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY ​

OFFICIAL POLLING CARD THE ASSEMBLY​

​ [ASSEMBLY MEMBER]: Bart Spijker [DATE]: 10/1995 [VOTE]: APPROVE [REASON]: These weapons of mass destruction serve no purpose other than to threaten the livelihood of millions if not billions of innocent civilians. While the use of these weapons already prohibited it is our profound belief that the production of these weapons should also be banned in order to minimise the risk of them falling into to wrong hands. ​