[PASSED] Repeal: Biological Weapons Conference

[Knootoss]

~ AT VOTE~

Repeal: Biological Weapons Conference
Category: A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation | Proposed by: Knootoss

The World Assembly,

OBSERVING that the definition of biological weapons in the 'Biological Weapons Conference' as "[any] infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury" is very imprecise, and may include innocent substances, such as agents used for pest control and the protection of crops, as well as certain herbal remedies;

FURTHER OBSERVING that the resolution both "requires member states to disarm their biological arsenal" and "allows member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes", implying a more narrow distinction that the definition of biological weapons in the resolution does not actually make;

FINALLY OBSERVING that core concepts of the resolution such as "disarmament" (the objective of the resolution), "biological arsenal" (the intended target) and "other peaceful purposes" (an all purpose loophole) go entirely undefined as well;

CONCERNED that the Biological Weapons Conference does not explicitly ban Member States from using biological weapons, except if a nation were to use them in response to being attacked with biological weapons;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the same clause states that nations may respond "with any force necessary" to an attack with biological weapons, actively encouraging the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in war;

RESOLVES that the 'Biological Weapons Conference' is poorly worded, self-contradictory and does not help to promote international peace;

REPEALS the 'Biological Weapons Conference'.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper could support this repeal. The ban on member countries attacking non-members with biological weapons, whilst being allowed to use them on member countries (as the resolution does not ban its use), is illogical.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Though my time in the WA has been comparatively short, this has to be the best written repeal for resolution #65 I've ever read," said Representitive SaDiablo. "Despite our position against biological weapons, the CDSP tentatively supports this repeal."

[Knootoss]

Thank you for your expressions of support.

[Grays Harbor]

We cannot at this point state support or opposition to this. This is an issue we shall have to moniter the debate and form an opinion based upon points raised during the subsequent debate. We do intend to treat this with the utmost consideration though as it is our opinion that our Knootian colleague does not, and has no history of, basing his proposals and repeal efforts on spurious grounds.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OBSERVING that the definition of biological weapons in the 'Biological Weapons Conference' as "[any] infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury" is very imprecise, and may include innocent substances, such as agents used for pest control and the protection of crops, as well as certain herbal remedies;

While there may certainly be better, more comprehensive definitions of biological weapons, can it really be said that 'innocent substances' like pesticides are used with the 'inten[tion] of caus[ing] death, permanent illness, or injury?'

Objectively, on a side note, pesticides are usually chemicals.

FURTHER OBSERVING that the resolution both "requires member states to disarm their biological arsenal" and "allows member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes" , implying a more narrow distinction that the definition of biological weapons in the resolution does not actually make;

Again, to understand the scope of the resolution, you have to address that the definition stresses intent. I would argue that the definition of biological weapons is indeed narrower than what you are arguing it is.

FINALLY OBSERVING that core concepts of the resolution such as "disarmament" (the objective of the resolution), "biological arsenal" (the intended target) and "other peaceful purposes" (an all purpose loophole) go entirely undefined as well;

You aren't making a very good-faith argument, here. We all are aware of what these terms mean. It is not necessary that a resolution define commonly-understood terms. Disarming biological arsenals means exactly that, and peaceful purposes are exactly that. No state wishing to be taken seriously by the international community is going to rewrite dictionaries and history to circumvent a fairly clear mandate. Those nations that would do that would just as soon violate the resolution regardless of what the text says.

CONCERNED that the Biological Weapons Conference does not explicitly ban Member States from using biological weapons, except if a nation were to use them in response to being attacked with... biological weapons;

Well, I think it's kind of obvious that if member states have disarmed themselves of their biological arsenals, they won't be using biological weapons. I think it's wrong for the World Assembly to be advocating second-strike policies directly in any cases -- I would personally prefer using self-defense language. And, yes, the resolution probably should have explicitly banned the use of biological weapons by member states.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the same clause states that nations may respond "with any force necessary" to an attack with biological weapons, actively encouraging the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in war;

Glen-Rhodes finds itself equally as concerned.

The strongest argument for repeal is that the resolution is not explicit in its banning of biological weapons use. The dictionary war is not at all convincing and the repeal would be improved by removing it altogether. However, Glen-Rhodes will remain skeptical of this repeal until a replacement is written. While not all repeals require a replacement, biological weapons have no place within the standard of civilization. The World Assembly should absolutely take a stand against the development, proliferation, trade and most importantly use of biological weapons.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Darenjo]

First of all, Ambassador Koopman, let me express my deepest gratitude that you are not the ambassador for Luthiland.

Like Grays, I must refrain from expression support or opposition for the repeal you have given us: while the repeal certainly has substance, and very good points, I must admit to a little apphrehension that, so far, there is no mention of a replacement.

If there is a viable replacement that comes up, then I'll be happy to support. Until then, however, I cannot endorse this.

[Bergnovinaia]

Obviously, as the author, I have some bias as to whether or not it should be repealed. However, I feel that Dr. Castro summed up my thoughts on the subject perfectly.

OBSERVING that the definition of biological weapons in the 'Biological Weapons Conference' as "[any] infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury" is very imprecise, and may include innocent substances, such as agents used for pest control and the protection of crops, as well as certain herbal remedies;

While there may certainly be better, more comprehensive definitions of biological weapons, can it really be said that 'innocent substances' like pesticides are used with the 'inten[tion] of caus[ing] death, permanent illness, or injury?'

Objectively, on a side note, pesticides are usually chemicals.

FURTHER OBSERVING that the resolution both "requires member states to disarm their biological arsenal" and "allows member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes" , implying a more narrow distinction that the definition of biological weapons in the resolution does not actually make;

Again, to understand the scope of the resolution, you have to address that the definition stresses intent. I would argue that the definition of biological weapons is indeed narrower than what you are arguing it is.

FINALLY OBSERVING that core concepts of the resolution such as "disarmament" (the objective of the resolution), "biological arsenal" (the intended target) and "other peaceful purposes" (an all purpose loophole) go entirely undefined as well;

You aren't making a very good-faith argument, here. We all are aware of what these terms mean. It is not necessary that a resolution define commonly-understood terms. Disarming biological arsenals means exactly that, and peaceful purposes are exactly that. No state wishing to be taken seriously by the international community is going to rewrite dictionaries and history to circumvent a fairly clear mandate. Those nations that would do that would just as soon violate the resolution regardless of what the text says.

CONCERNED that the Biological Weapons Conference does not explicitly ban Member States from using biological weapons, except if a nation were to use them in response to being attacked with... biological weapons;

Well, I think it's kind of obvious that if member states have disarmed themselves of their biological arsenals, they won't be using biological weapons. I think it's wrong for the World Assembly to be advocating second-strike policies directly in any cases -- I would personally prefer using self-defense language. And, yes, the resolution probably should have explicitly banned the use of biological weapons by member states.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the same clause states that nations may respond "with any force necessary" to an attack with biological weapons, actively encouraging the use of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in war;

Glen-Rhodes finds itself equally as concerned.

The strongest argument for repeal is that the resolution is not explicit in its banning of biological weapons use. The dictionary war is not at all convincing and the repeal would be improved by removing it altogether. However, Glen-Rhodes will remain skeptical of this repeal until a replacement is written. While not all repeals require a replacement, biological weapons have no place within the standard of civilization. The World Assembly should absolutely take a stand against the development, proliferation, trade and most importantly use of biological weapons.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

In reply to the inquiries made, I do in fact believe that agents used for crop control intend to kill things. The poorly chosen definition of biological weapons does not say there must be intent (whose intent?) to kill soldiers, or persons. Considering that the original author has in the past expressed an opinion that this wording bans all chemical weapons as well, the scope of the resolution is moreover left entirely (and deliberately?) unclear.

I am not one to wave a dictionary around, nor do I have the expectation that a resolution defines every word in the English language before proceeding. However, here we have a resolution that only gives one definition (a really imprecise one) that the author intends to be far broader than most would commonly understand it to be. Worse, the resolution then doesn't actually say what it wants us to do. It doesn't ban the use of biological weapons, and makes only a vague reference to disarmament, while also stating that nations get to keep the arsenals they have now "for peaceful purposes".

How do you disarm a weaponised biological agent? Must the agents be destroyed? Must the agents simply be moved from military to civilian control? What about the delivery systems? I have no idea, and considering how there are indeed many types of "disarmament", this is not just an anal criticism but complete ignorance on the part of the reader what the resolution actually expects us to do.

I am glad that Glen-Rhodes and the original author share my concern about the bellicose language of the original resolution, which actually promotes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

As for demands that a replacement be written be my, personally: read this. You are welcome to it. I'm sure you could do better than what is on the books now.

[Morlago]

We would like to see a replacement proposal before we decide on our stance, but we are support the reasons of this repeal and will most likely vote for this once a suitable replacement has been written.

[Knootoss]

I would like to refer the delegate from Marlago here to learn more about the nature of repeals.

[Botteronistan]

The Nation of Botteronistan is willing to support this proposal. We believe that it is both well purposed and of legitimate cause.

The Biological Weapons Conference (BWC) does not make sense as it currently stands. Disarmament of the Willing Nations would only serve to weaken our standing over the Rogue ones who do not comply with our rules. Moreover, “appropriate and effective measures are taken with regard to safety and security” could be construed as making either a reactionary strike after an attack or as a preemptive strike against a threat or implied threat of such attack. In today’s global society, we as Member Nations cannot look past the military and/or individual attacks against other States, we simply can not keep an isolationist attitude towards war or threats of war. Disarming ourselves merely serves to encourage rebel forces to arm themselves with weapons we cannot defend ourselves against.

However, we agree with Dr. B. Castro of Glen-Rhodes in that this resolution would require a replacement before Botteronistan would be willing to throw its full support behind this repeal.

While not all repeals require a replacement, biological weapons have no place within the standard of civilization. The World Assembly should absolutely take a stand against the development, proliferation, trade and most importantly use of biological weapons.

From Prime Minister Jane Dennery
Serving under appointment of HRH Queen Botteron
Grove Ave 331
SaraGrovington, Botteronistan

[Knootoss]

Then why not write a bloody replacement yourself? Read the link that's been posted at least twice now. This poisonous Glen-Rhodes bullshit catch 22 reasoning about replacements has become dangerously widespread.

Why the hell would you be voting against something when you agree with it? Whatever happened to considering a resolution on it's own merits? Who the hell said that I, personally, must write a replacement that you shall personally give your stamp of approval for first?

Sod that. I know exactly how that works. In lieu of any valid objections against the repeal, the replacement will be filibustered and/or brought up as a reason to vote against the repeal anyway.

I'm not sure that I will bother with even putting this to vote, really. It seems SO MUCH EASIER to just ignore bad legislation rather than repeal it. Knootian bioweapons ahoy. If you've got a problem with it, you can do something about it on the field of battle. Since you all cannot even be bothered to write your own replacement though, I doubt even more that you're willing to face the prospect of a war.

If the folks crowing about a replacement are somehow /not/ the lazy naysayers that they sure give the impression of being, they'll collaborate nicely to write a replacement themselves. If they cannot be bothered to do so, I shall not care one wit.

[Monikian WA Mission]

"The Monikians Support obviously." Faliksa Albertron said.

We would like to see a replacement proposal before we decide on our stance, but we are support the reasons of this repeal and will most likely vote for this once a suitable replacement has been written.

"Ambassador, there is no need for a replacement of this drivel. Nations have the duty to protect their citizens from foreign aggression by any means necessary."

OBSERVING that the definition of biological weapons in the 'Biological Weapons Conference' as "[any] infectious or biological agent of any kind that is intended to cause death, permanent illness, or injury" is very imprecise, and may include innocent substances, such as agents used for pest control and the protection of crops, as well as certain herbal remedies;

While there may certainly be better, more comprehensive definitions of biological weapons, can it really be said that 'innocent substances' like pesticides are used with the 'inten[tion] of caus[ing] death, permanent illness, or injury?'

Objectively, on a side note, pesticides are usually chemicals.

"The resolution makes no distinction between pesticides, which are a chemical weapon--on intended for use against pests, which are likely also not sapient beings--and pepper spray, mustard gas, or any other chemical agent that might be used in war fare.

"For that matter, most nations would not consider to use large water balloons filled with salt water to be a chemical weapon, however, should they be dropped on Monikian soldiers, the effect would be the same as if someone had sprayed a human with sulfuric acid.

"The fact of the matter is given that not all nations are populated by humans, and obviously not all chemical agents act the same--Monikians for example being largely immune to pepper spray, mustard gas, and chlorine based agents (that is to say the effect of using them would not cause permanent injury or even require that soldier exposed put on protective clothing, they would at worse cause mild annoyance and inflammation of the sinus passages)--we feel that nations are best able to determine multi-laterally amongst themselves whether to ban or not ban chemical weapons by individual treaty.

FURTHER OBSERVING that the resolution both "requires member states to disarm their biological arsenal" and "allows member nations to use such agents for peaceful purposes" , implying a more narrow distinction that the definition of biological weapons in the resolution does not actually make;

Again, to understand the scope of the resolution, you have to address that the definition stresses intent. I would argue that the definition of biological weapons is indeed narrower than what you are arguing it is.

"Intent is very hard to define. Let us suppose nation X wants to colonize a planet inhabited by humans. They then begin to spray the planet with large amounts of hydrogen cyanide into the atmosphere. They could simply claim that they were removing the a pest population prior to their settlement of the planet's surface. After all have not human nations used the same chemical as a rodentcide?

FINALLY OBSERVING that core concepts of the resolution such as "disarmament" (the objective of the resolution), "biological arsenal" (the intended target) and "other peaceful purposes" (an all purpose loophole) go entirely undefined as well;

You aren't making a very good-faith argument, here. We all are aware of what these terms mean. It is not necessary that a resolution define commonly-understood terms. Disarming biological arsenals means exactly that, and peaceful purposes are exactly that. No state wishing to be taken seriously by the international community is going to rewrite dictionaries and history to circumvent a fairly clear mandate. Those nations that would do that would just as soon violate the resolution regardless of what the text says.

"Actually no Dr. Castro. "Disarmament" is not well defined. Disarmament could mean transfering the weapons from military to civilian hands, or simply not classifying the weapon as a weapon any longer. It could also mean destroying the weapons. To assume that every nation is going to follow the same definition of "disarmament" is ludicrous.

"Biological arsenal" is also not clearly defined. Not all member states are populated by humans. I would have assumed you knew this already Doctor having debated me in the past. Any species may or may not be immune to any disease pathogen or chemical regardless of its effect on the human species. For example a human nation might develop a fatal form of Influenza. If they used it on Monikians the result would probably that our soldiers would blink more, rather than die. It would be annoying I'm sure--but hardly fatal. If this same nation used it on a different species--it could be fatal or not depending on the biology of that species.

"Peaceful purposes is also not clearly defined and it should be. A nation could claim that by using a biological agent they are weakening the enemy so as to actually prevent further casualties on both sides. Indeed a nation can choose to define peaceful purposes as any action that may limit casualties in a war, whether these actions are indeed aggressive or not.

CONCERNED that the Biological Weapons Conference does not explicitly ban Member States from using biological weapons, except if a nation were to use them in response to being attacked with... biological weapons;

Well, I think it's kind of obvious that if member states have disarmed themselves of their biological arsenals, they won't be using biological weapons. I think it's wrong for the World Assembly to be advocating second-strike policies directly in any cases -- I would personally prefer using self-defense language. And, yes, the resolution probably should have explicitly banned the use of biological weapons by member states.

Glen-Rhodes finds itself equally as concerned.

The strongest argument for repeal is that the resolution is not explicit in its banning of biological weapons use. The dictionary war is not at all convincing and the repeal would be improved by removing it altogether. However, Glen-Rhodes will remain skeptical of this repeal until a replacement is written. While not all repeals require a replacement, biological weapons have no place within the standard of civilization. The World Assembly should absolutely take a stand against the development, proliferation, trade and most importantly use of biological weapons.

- Dr. B. Castro

"Again a replacement is not necessary for this tripe. Nations have the duty to protect their citizens by any means necessary, including means Dr. Castro that you personally don't like--like using weapons to start with. We remember that travesty you proposed not but weeks ago.

"As it stands the strongest argument for repeal to us is that the Biological Weapons Conference exists, and should not. The WA should make no stance on the military arsenals of member states, especially considering that non-member states can possess and use any weapon they so desire. We already know you have no concept of the deterrent method of maintenance of peace amongst nations, and I'm sure that Talik would say you have no concept of national security or military strategy. That being said a ban on biological weapons would actually be even worse--it would be an invitation during a war between a member state and a non-member state for the non-member state to use those very weapons to which the member state could not retaliate against.

"We can only assume this is because you are so secure in your alliance as to assume that every nation is equally secure in theirs. This is not the case. Many nations are also not in any alliances at all. Monkiah being one of them. We are naturally suspicious of foreigners--with good reason--most of our first contacts have resulted in warfare."

[Glen-Rhodes]

This poisonous Glen-Rhodes bullshit catch 22 reasoning about replacements has become dangerously widespread.

I did not create any kind of replacement-before-repeal norm. The conventional wisdom that a replacement should be written if you're repealing a resolution on grounds that it's defective has been around for some time, now. After all, you aren't arguing that biological weapons should be used and proliferated. You are arguing that the BWC isn't as a great as we once thought it was. It's perfectly reasonable to want assurance that a better version will be submitted.

Why the hell would you be voting against something when you agree with it? Whatever happened to considering a resolution on it's own merits? Who the hell said that I, personally, must write a replacement that you shall personally give your stamp of approval for first?

Nobody -- at least not I -- has said that you have to write a replacement yourself. A replacement, though, should be written and must be in the works before Glen-Rhodes and other delegations will seriously consider repealing the existing ban on biological weapons. The game here is that we need to have some kind of reason to believe that you aren't repealing this with the intent of either (a) submitting a blocker regarding biological weapons or (b) hoping a replacement is never passed.

Certainly, there's an argument to be made that the repeal author should be the one to write a replacement. Sometimes that's not advantageous -- especially when the repeal author intends to submit a blocker, a la CES and their WAEC repeal. I already have an existing project on arms control, although it's currently on hold pending some rethinking. If I have time, I will consider drafting a repeal that addresses your definition issues and states the World Assembly's position clearly and bluntly. The only reservation I have about doing so is that there are some delegations here that would oppose any replacement effort with my name on it, no matter how good it is.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Knootoss]

Good. So if this thing gets repealed, you can submit your own resolution to the assembly. Tada. A replacement.

[Krioval]

I did not create any kind of replacement-before-repeal norm. The conventional wisdom that a replacement should be written if you're repealing a resolution on grounds that it's defective has been around for some time, now. After all, you aren't arguing that biological weapons should be used and proliferated. You are arguing that the BWC isn't as a great as we once thought it was. It's perfectly reasonable to want assurance that a better version will be submitted.

Since when is this the "conventional wisdom"? Many replacements are authored by nations other than those undertaking the repeal, as it should be. A repeal author shouldn't have to shoulder the burden of writing and defending two completely different proposals just to strike out a defective resolution. I believe that instead of "I'm not going to vote for this until you write a replacement", some nations should consider "Let me help out in drafting an appropriate replacement".

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Tweegee]

Why must there be a replacement?

[Embolalia]

Why must there be a replacement?

A fair question, and I'll give you an honest answer: The "international federalists" (including Dr. Castro) don't trust the "national sovereigntists" (including Ambassador Koopman). That's about it.

Basically, Dr. Castro is worried that, if Aram succeeds with this repeal, it will be difficult or impossible to get a satisfactory replacement. Castro is worried that Koopman is trying to repeal this in order to keep any legislation on the topic from being on the books, rather than remove a flaw from the body of legislation. He thus wants a replacement to be drafted and supported in order to show that this isn't the case.
But, of course, in this case it doesn't actually matter why Koopman wants it repealed. It has some pretty major flaws, as he outlined in the repeal text. Once it's repealed, anyone will have the opportunity to write a replacement however they want, regardless of the true intent behind the repeal. And if a NatSover were to draft a blocker, the IntFeders would have an opportunity to stop it, and vice-versa. And as it isn't as though this is an unpopular thing to regulate, so a relatively IntFed piece would have good chances.

Personally, I think this is a case wherein there is no need for a pre-drafted replacement.

-E. Rory Hywel
WA Ambassador for Embolalia.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Since when is this the "conventional wisdom"?

Since as long as I can remember. Many delegations have always shown reservations in supporting a repeal without a replacement in the works. Like I said, Koopman doesn't have to be the author, but a replacement does need to be written. It's better to have the repeal and the replacement being worked on simultaneously, so that there isn't a giant gap in the timeline. The less time the World Assembly goes without a biological weapons ban, the better.

A fair question, and I'll give you an honest answer: The "international federalists" (including Dr. Castro) don't trust the "national sovereigntists" (including Ambassador Koopman). That's about it.

This isn't an IntFed versus NatSov fight. Reasonable states from both groups should be able to agree that biological weapons do not belong in civilized society. I would hope that NatSov hasn't devolved into a movement dedicated to ensuring that states can do absolutely whatever they want.

Weapons proliferation and international conflict in general are both clearly international issues beyond any state's claim of sovereignty. The very use of biological weapons poses a serious threat to national sovereignty. If some state attacks one of our neighbors with a biological weapon, it is incredibly likely that whatever infectious agent used will spread to Glen-Rhodes and result in the deaths of innocent people. We are a densely populated region. Compound that with international travel and globalized trade and it's literally a recipe for disaster. We would have no choice but to engage ourselves in a conflict that we have no stake in -- no stake except for self-preservation, that is.

- Dr. B. Castro

OOC: Unlike most universities in the US, mine doesn't start summer quarter until June 10. So writing a replacement requires spare time, which I might not have thanks to some last-minute final projects.

[Knootoss]

Then let us unite in repealing a piece of bad legislation, on non-ideological grounds, and resume the partisan bickering when the dust has settled?

[Knootoss]

Are there any illegalities or minor grammar issues, anyway?

[Rwuma]

Are there any illegalities or minor grammar issues, anyway?

Some minor nitpicking on my part:

In the first paragraph, I'm not really sure what "herbal remedies" you are referring to, because a remedy by it's very nature would be the opposite of something intended to cause harm. The statement here stands fine without that slightly puzzling aside.

CONCERNED that the Biological Weapons Conference does not explicitly ban Member States from using biological weapons, except if a nation were to use them in response to being attacked with... biological weapons;

The ellipses are unnecessary. I realize that they are for emphasis, but they just break up the statement. The arguments above for removing this particular paragraph are pretty convincing (to me), but if you decide to keep it in you should at least reword it so that the "pause of surprise" in here is indicated in the wording instead.

[Darenjo]

Then let us unite in repealing a piece of bad legislation, on non-ideological grounds, and resume the partisan bickering when the dust has settled?

I could agree to that. Anyways, once I'm finished with my current project (which, by the way, I hope you'll take a look at - link's in sig, different actual title and focus), if there's still no replacement be debated, I could possibly start one.

I have read Mouse's thread on repeals. I agree with Dr. Castro that bio weapons are not something that anyone, IntFed or NatSov, should be defending.

[Bergnovinaia]

In reply to the inquiries made, I do in fact believe that agents used for crop control intend to kill things. The poorly chosen definition of biological weapons does not say there must be intent (whose intent?) to kill soldiers, or persons. Considering that the original author has in the past expressed an opinion that this wording bans all chemical weapons as well, the scope of the resolution is moreover left entirely (and deliberately?) unclear.

I am not one to wave a dictionary around, nor do I have the expectation that a resolution defines every word in the English language before proceeding. However, here we have a resolution that only gives one definition (a really imprecise one) that the author intends to be far broader than most would commonly understand it to be. Worse, the resolution then doesn't actually say what it wants us to do. It doesn't ban the use of biological weapons, and makes only a vague reference to disarmament, while also stating that nations get to keep the arsenals they have now "for peaceful purposes".

How do you disarm a weaponised biological agent? Must the agents be destroyed? Must the agents simply be moved from military to civilian control? What about the delivery systems? I have no idea, and considering how there are indeed many types of "disarmament", this is not just an anal criticism but complete ignorance on the part of the reader what the resolution actually expects us to do.
I am glad that Glen-Rhodes and the original author share my concern about the bellicose language of the original resolution, which actually promotes the use of weapons of mass destruction.

As for demands that a replacement be written be my, personally: read this. You are welcome to it. I'm sure you could do better than what is on the books now.

Red: Although, does NAPA not do that as well...?
Blue: I think you missed the memo. WA resolutions are written to be intentionally vague. If they were so specific, not only would they get no support, but they could be illegal.
Underlined: Actually... it does. Read it carefully. Again, vague, but worded the only way that it could possibly be legal and not super micro-managey.
Greenish: Again... vague, as intended. I'd also go as far as to argue that the definition, upon reading the section where peaceful usage of biologial agens are allowed, would allow for their usage in insecticides, pesticides, etc. (unless, of course, some nation flips out, claiming that a nation is waging a war against an insect population). However, as already stated, these are moslty made out of chemicals anways.