[DEFEATED] Responsible Arms Transfers

[Elke and Elba]

Support will be given, Ambassador.

We hope that this proposal will pass with a better margin compared to the repealed one.

-Voicemail left by Ambassador Norrland, who unfortunately is having the runs and is unable to be present.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Tislam looks back up, having finished drawing a rough diagram on a piece of printer paper.

"There. That's all the different permutations I could think of without making things too over-complicated. I've drawn 'no' symbols at the points that things would break down. That one I used dashed lines for would only really apply if the parts were made in one nation and put together in another, and then only if the end-user certificates for the parts are still in force after assembly, but that's still a possibility."

[Tinfect]

Ambassador Markhov, seeing a slight pause in debate, stands:

"Ambassador Santos, while the Imperium has supported this Proposal in the past, and had voted against its repeal, we would like to know what exactly you hope to gain by re-submitting it, in nearly the same form? The repeal argument, while largely unwarranted, seems to have convinced a great deal of Member States to oppose this, and while we would like to see the Proposal once again written into law, the General Assembly will certainly not be kind to a proposal that has been largely unchanged from when it was repealed."

[The Takistan Federation]

Ricardo, talking in place of Natalia who just ran off to the Scionite office to retrieve a bowl of kale soup, nodded firmly in agreement. "Sciongrad does not recognize any of the arguments presented in the repeal to be accurate, thoughtful, or intellectually honest, so we don't plan on making any substantive changes to the resolution."

*An aging Muslim man wearing a turban and a suit who possesses a long stereotypical Arabian beard enters the room*
*Picks up copy of resolution draft*
*Reads slowly*
*Puts down copy*
*Walks towards Sciongrad*

"I've read this before...it hasn't changed...
If it does not change...the result doesn't change...
We won't change our minds unless there is a revision."

*Gesture towards a Takistani officer that entered with him*
*Officer un-holsters a sword and hands it to the President*
*President takes sword and displays it to Sciongrad, calmy presenting it in a non-threatening manner.*

"This sword was made in Takistan, with Takistani materials, gathered and smelted by Takistani people, and sold to the army by Takistani entrepreneurs.
Your draft would disallow these weapons to continue being traded to our soldiers and our allies' soldiers alike.
These are our weapons, and we shall not surrender them to create a peace which does not benefit us, but rather hinder us."

*The President retains his composure as he returns the sword to the officer who holsters it again*

"Have you heard the definition of insanity, friend? It goes like this:
When the same thing is applied repeatedly but different results are expected..."

*Silence proceeds to fill the hole in the President's argument*

"But, anyways...I hope to see brighter days in the future my friend.
As for me...I must be off to the mosque."

*The President calmly turns on his heels and walks out of the room with his escort*

[Herby]

Wow... that's without a doubt the finest plastic sword I've ever seen.

Or....

Do you suppose the Takistanis didn't notice the ACME Weapons Transmogrifier?

[Ainocra]

"They only kick on if you try to use them. "

To demonstrate the Marshal unholsters his sidearm and points it at a random passerby.

As he pulls the trigger a loud CRACK fills the air and the smell of cordite pervades the room.




"As you can see they work quite well, of course i'll need a new sidearm but I have spares."

[Blaccakre]

Boo! Already repealed. BOO!

[The Land of Beer]

* Downs doubleshot of tequila ..... looks over proposal .... *
Opposed ..... * drains bottle of tequila .... fires up cigar * and now back to happy hour .....

[Sciongrad]

How about just wars of conquest?

Wars of aggression are wars of aggression. The WA should not endorse them in any circumstance, even tacitly.

Change the name then. Right now, it has nothing to do with arms or trading.

This proposal deals with both arms and trading. The use of the word "trading" reflects what action is likely to be affected. Yes, this proposal would prevent all transfers of arms under the provisions enumerated in clause seven, but it primarily deals with trade. I'm not going to change the title simply for the sake of pedantry.

Secondarily, assuming that the name of this resolution is now Responsible Armaments Transferring (or Transfers) — I would say that a better definition of armaments is required perhaps, Ambassador, something like 'Defines the term "armament" as military equipment which possess a practical application in armed conflict'.

No. Nonnegotiable. I'm not sure what your weird fixation is on allowing the parts of armaments to be traded, but I will not, under any circumstance, change the definition to exclude parts.

[Sciongrad]

The Marshal smiles slightly. "No thank you, I just ate." Consulting his datapad for a second he continues. "By our calculations your so called minor impact would put about 1.4 million Ainocrans out of work"
Laying the pad aside he presses on. "Weapons of war are designed to be used for just that purpose, War." "Asking every nation to investigate the motivations of their fellows is an exercise in futility."
"What you might consider an unjust war of aggression might be a necessary preemptive strike to another nation." Shaking his head he says. "We expect that weapons made for war will eventually find themselves used for war." "Rather than treating the symptoms perhaps you should focus on the cause thereby making those weapons unneeded."

"We remain opposed."

OOC: I sincerely hope you don't expect me to acknowledge this as anything close to a reasonable argument against this proposal.

Tislam looks back up, having finished drawing a rough diagram on a piece of printer paper.

"There. That's all the different permutations I could think of without making things too over-complicated. I've drawn 'no' symbols at the points that things would break down. That one I used dashed lines for would only really apply if the parts were made in one nation and put together in another, and then only if the end-user certificates for the parts are still in force after assembly, but that's still a possibility."

"Fair enough. Would the following rephrase assuage your Excellency's concerns?"

6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Wow... that's without a doubt the finest plastic sword I've ever seen.

Or....

Do you suppose the Takistanis didn't notice the ACME Weapons Transmogrifier?

Would have been better if they had changed it into a glow stick, but what do you do?

[The Candy Of Bottles]

The Marshal smiles slightly. "No thank you, I just ate." Consulting his datapad for a second he continues. "By our calculations your so called minor impact would put about 1.4 million Ainocrans out of work"
Laying the pad aside he presses on. "Weapons of war are designed to be used for just that purpose, War." "Asking every nation to investigate the motivations of their fellows is an exercise in futility."
"What you might consider an unjust war of aggression might be a necessary preemptive strike to another nation." Shaking his head he says. "We expect that weapons made for war will eventually find themselves used for war." "Rather than treating the symptoms perhaps you should focus on the cause thereby making those weapons unneeded."

"We remain opposed."

OOC: I sincerely hope you don't expect me to acknowledge this as anything close to a reasonable argument against this proposal.

Tislam looks back up, having finished drawing a rough diagram on a piece of printer paper.

"There. That's all the different permutations I could think of without making things too over-complicated. I've drawn 'no' symbols at the points that things would break down. That one I used dashed lines for would only really apply if the parts were made in one nation and put together in another, and then only if the end-user certificates for the parts are still in force after assembly, but that's still a possibility."

"Fair enough. Would the following rephrase assuage your Excellency's concerns?"

6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;

Tislam considers the inserted phrase for a few moments before turning back to the Scionite Ambassador. "Yes, that is an improvement. Honestly, nothing else is really jumping out at me right now, but I'll be sure to speak up if something does."

[Sciongrad]

Tislam considers the inserted phrase for a few moments before turning back to the Scionite Ambassador. "Yes, that is an improvement. Honestly, nothing else is really jumping out at me right now, but I'll be sure to speak up if something does."

"Very good! Your suggestion is very much appreciated."

[Communist EU]

Tislam considers the inserted phrase for a few moments before turning back to the Scionite Ambassador. "Yes, that is an improvement. Honestly, nothing else is really jumping out at me right now, but I'll be sure to speak up if something does."

"Very good! Your suggestion is very much appreciated."

You have our support Ambassador.

[Sciongrad]

"After a long and unexpected sabbatical, the Scionite delegation is resuming active drafting of this proposal. All comments would be welcomed."

[The United Remnants of America]

"And section 7c is still not something our delegation feels should be included in this proposal."

[Sciongrad]

"And section 7c is still not something our delegation feels should be included in this proposal."

"If it wasn't clear before, clause 7c is not something Sciongrad is willing to negotiate for the foreseeable future."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"And section 7c is still not something our delegation feels should be included in this proposal."

Concurred.

I would also add to 7.(b) that doing so is illegal only if it has the intention of breaking the resolution's provisions.

[Sciongrad]

"And section 7c is still not something our delegation feels should be included in this proposal."

Concurred.

"No compelling argument has been presented so far that convinces me that Sciongrad should shift its position. And I'll preemptively say that being permitted to invade another country in order to forcibly obtain reparations is not a convincing reason."

I would also add to 7.(b) that doing so is illegal only if it has the intention of breaking the resolution's provisions.

"The distinction between intentionally breaking the resolution's provisions and doing so unintentionally is negligible. Whether it was through willful and intentional diversion that allowed weapons to reach terrorists or through negligence is irrelevant, because either way, the intent of this resolution - that is, to prevent certain groups from getting armaments - is violated. It's a nation's responsibility to prevent armaments from being diverted if there is reasonable suspicion to suggest that will happen. I don't really understand why intent matters here."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"The distinction between intentionally breaking the resolution's provisions and doing so unintentionally is negligible. Whether it was through willful and intentional diversion that allowed weapons to reach terrorists or through negligence is irrelevant, because either way, the intent of this resolution - that is, to prevent certain groups from getting armaments - is violated. It's a nation's responsibility to prevent armaments from being diverted if there is reasonable suspicion to suggest that will happen. I don't really understand why intent matters here."

"Your resolution doesn't have anything on whether the sale is intentional, unintentional, or anything, at least with relation to the resolution's provisions related to the diversion of arms into the hands of terrorists. It simply states a prohibition if 'there is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient'."

Concurred.

"No compelling argument has been presented so far that convinces me that Sciongrad should shift its position. And I'll preemptively say that being permitted to invade another country in order to forcibly obtain reparations is not a convincing reason."

"I, nor my resolution which repealed the original, ever stated anything which makes permissible a war based on the casus belli of demanding reparations. This delegation has always considered that if a war starts and later, there are added war goals with the goal of reparations for damages, this should not mean that arms are to be restricted."

[Sciongrad]

"Your resolution doesn't have anything on whether the sale is intentional, unintentional, or anything, at least with relation to the resolution's provisions related to the diversion of arms into the hands of terrorists. It simply states a prohibition if 'there is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient'."

"If armaments are diverted during transfer, there is no way of reliably verifying their end user. It's reasonably likely that armaments may be diverted to a party that violates clauses 6a and 6c such that specifically limiting the proscription to instances where there is reason to suspect that the armaments will specifically be diverted to groups that violate clauses 6a and 6c may result in a large amount of armaments continuing to find themselves in the hands of terrorists, ethnic cleansers, etc."

"I, nor my resolution which repealed the original, ever stated anything which makes permissible a war based on the casus belli of demanding reparations. This delegation has always considered that if a war starts and later, there are added war goals with the goal of reparations for damages, this should not mean that arms are to be restricted."

"I fail to see any substantive difference between demanding reparations as a casus belli and demanding reparations as a reason to continue an ongoing conflict."

[Runlyn]

I sincerely hope that if this passes, people won't be lining up to submit illegal repeals.

What, exactly, is an "illegal repeal"? Do members of this body not have the right to submit a repeal for legislation they disapprove of or find insubstantial? If this passes the Assembly vote (again), I personally hope to see an immediate attempt to repeal it (again).

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Your resolution doesn't have anything on whether the sale is intentional, unintentional, or anything, at least with relation to the resolution's provisions related to the diversion of arms into the hands of terrorists. It simply states a prohibition if 'there is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient'."

"If armaments are diverted during transfer, there is no way of reliably verifying their end user. It's reasonably likely that armaments may be diverted to a party that violates clauses 6a and 6c such that specifically limiting the proscription to instances where there is reason to suspect that the armaments will specifically be diverted to groups that violate clauses 6a and 6c may result in a large amount of armaments continuing to find themselves in the hands of terrorists, ethnic cleansers, etc."

Parsons: (sarcastically) Ugg... The ethnic cleansers are back. Start regulating detergent. Destroy all laundry machines! Ban Cambigtans from owning laundry establishments! (normally) How about only making them prohibited if they ... Actually assist violating the other provisions of the provision? Is that so unreasonable?

"I, nor my resolution which repealed the original, ever stated anything which makes permissible a war based on the casus belli of demanding reparations. This delegation has always considered that if a war starts and later, there are added war goals with the goal of reparations for damages, this should not mean that arms are to be restricted."

"I fail to see any substantive difference between demanding reparations as a casus belli and demanding reparations as a reason to continue an ongoing conflict."

Parsons: The former is basically asking for money to attack someone else. On the other hand, if someone is at war and demands reparations later or demands an unconditional surrender after a gruelling conflict in which millions of persons were lost for victory, the argument in favour of reparations is quite understandable, especially if that war was a defensive one (cough, cough, Germany in the World Wars, cough, cough).

[Sciongrad]

Parsons: (sarcastically) Ugg... The ethnic cleansers are back. Start regulating detergent. Destroy all laundry machines! Ban Cambigtans from owning laundry establishments! (normally) How about only making them prohibited if they ... Actually assist violating the other provisions of the provision? Is that so unreasonable?

"Was my previous explanation unclear? The likelihood that armaments diverted in any given situation may accidentally fall into the hands of a party that is in contravention of clauses 6a and 6c is reasonably probable enough to warrant broad proscription against diversion. I'm not particularly sure what the delegation of Imperium Anglorum hopes to accomplish by arguing that unabashed negligence and irresponsibility in trading weapons is something the World Assembly should condone, but Sciongrad is not convinced."

Parsons: The former is basically asking for money to attack someone else. On the other hand, if someone is at war and demands reparations later or demands an unconditional surrender after a gruelling conflict in which millions of persons were lost for victory, the argument in favour of reparations is quite understandable, especially if that war was a defensive one (cough, cough, Germany in the World Wars, cough, cough).

"The argument in favor of expecting reparations may be understandable. The argument that continuing military aggression is justifiable so long as there's a pecuniary interest is not. There are other more appropriate avenues that can be used to exact war reparations besides continued military aggression, and the World Assembly especially should not be condoning, even tacitly, that war is ever an acceptable method of exacting such reparations."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: (sarcastically) Ugg... The ethnic cleansers are back. Start regulating detergent. Destroy all laundry machines! Ban Cambigtans from owning laundry establishments! (normally) How about only making them prohibited if they ... Actually assist violating the other provisions of the provision? Is that so unreasonable?

"Was my previous explanation unclear? The likelihood that armaments diverted in any given situation may accidentally fall into the hands of a party that is in contravention of clauses 6a and 6c is reasonably probable enough to warrant broad proscription against diversion. I'm not particularly sure what the delegation of Imperium Anglorum hopes to accomplish by arguing that unabashed negligence and irresponsibility in trading weapons is something the World Assembly should condone, but Sciongrad is not convinced."

Parsons: This delegation is unsure about the reasons for the delegation from Sciongrad's argument that diversion from intended recipients should lead to the automatic assumption that the arms entailed in that diversion are immediately delivered singularly and entirely to ethnic cleansers and not things like the-bottom-of-the-sea. Furthermore, the Empire is unsure of the Lusophonic Disappointment's aims in supporting unreliable assumptions and total lack of trust in member nations to the point of crippling the ability of nations to defend themselves in when their arms may be diverted in enemy actions like blockades.

Parsons: The former is basically asking for money to attack someone else. On the other hand, if someone is at war and demands reparations later or demands an unconditional surrender after a gruelling conflict in which millions of persons were lost for victory, the argument in favour of reparations is quite understandable, especially if that war was a defensive one (cough, cough, Germany in the World Wars, cough, cough).

"The argument in favor of expecting reparations may be understandable. The argument that continuing military aggression is justifiable so long as there's a pecuniary interest is not. There are other more appropriate avenues that can be used to exact war reparations besides continued military aggression, and the World Assembly especially should not be condoning, even tacitly, that war is ever an acceptable method of exacting such reparations."

Parsons: An argument in favour of reparations but not in favour of pursuing a manner of actually attaining said reparations is incoherent. The World Assembly has long condemned the practice of offensive war as well as the right of nations to defend themselves, which reparations would assist them to do in the case of invasion and eventual defeat of the invaders. The World Assembly should openly support the view that offensive actions have consequences proportional to damages incurred.