[PASSED] Chemical Weapons Accord

[Imperializt Russia]

*note the IC note in "tiny" font text when I mentioned Russia - and that I am them, I should update this account's sig*

Well, this is part of what the Act stipulates. States that feel they can deal with and actively contain and clean up use of persistent chemical agents (for example, ourselves in the People's Republic) would be encouraged to train, supply or simply just aid states that cannot.

[The Dark Star Republic]

*note the IC note in "tiny" font text when I mentioned Russia - and that I am them, I should update this account's sig*

OOC: I did note it...sorry, I'd assumed it was ok to use 'Russian'. If you'd rather my character said 'Samozniy Russian', I obviously misunderstood your note.

IC:

Well, this is part of what the Act stipulates. States that feel they can deal with and actively contain and clean up use of persistent chemical agents (for example, ourselves in the People's Republic) would be encouraged to train, supply or simply just aid states that cannot.

"I think it's a bit weak to permit persistent agents and then only 'encourage' that kind of training and cooperation, but I suppose if the committee's powers were strengthened to provide such assistance, some kind of workable angle would be possible. If I might go back to my original point, though - why, if non-persistent agents are permitted, is there still a need to retain a persistent agent such as VX? (Let's put Novichok agents in a different box, as I can't see any reason at all why they should be permitted.)"

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Imperializt Russia]

OOC: No, it's perfectly fine to just refer to my nation as "Russia" or "Russian" - I just misread your post to think you meant RL Russia.

IC: VX offers significantly greater lethality to other agents.
Whilst this seems contrary to many of my other posts on the topic, of the value of low-casualty chemical operations, it does have valid points.
Compared to Sarin, the use of VX could result in a lower quantity of toxin being deployed, whilst offering an equal or greater lethality, plus facilitating area-denial operations as the Act's text does actually permit. I'm not sure if this has been left in accidentally, since it does contrast with the fact that persistent agents are supposed to be prohibited in use and stockpiling.

The use of less quantity of toxin could make decontamination and chemical clean up a simpler process, just by having less agent to remove.
VX is also described as having the consistency of motor oil. This would seem to imply that it does not react with anything in the environment, giving it its longevity, unlike agents such as Sarin which decay, reducing their lethality, but possibly hindering cleanup operations and leaving potentially toxic decay products behind. It being inert in the environment may make it easier to locate, remove and clear.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"The area denial part is my fault, and could stand to be removed if it's going to cause confusion...

"VX is not chemically inert, though it certainly is less volatile than sarin. But, I don't think this is the place for an extended debate on chemistry. Perhaps we need to better clarify the scope of the problem: what you seem to be arguing is that VX should be permitted if it can sometimes be cleaned up afterwards to prevent long term contamination, and what I'm arguing is that VX should not be permitted because it can sometimes not be cleaned up afterwards to prevent long term contamination - so we're not actually in disagreement, we're just approaching the problem from opposite ends.

"But here's my issue. The quantity of chemical agent deployed is less significant than the quantity left in the environment afterwards. Even if you have to use more sarin to achieve your objective, it will still degrade - compared to VX - relatively rapidly. Furthermore, precisely because, as you state, VX has a much higher lethality, even a small amount left over poses a serious hazmat issue. That's why I would be reluctant to sanction it. Though there is no ban whatsoever at the moment, and it does appear we've been repeatedly beaten down to an extremely marginal compromise, so it might be you get your way anyhow."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm not really arguing for anything, I'm very happy with what this resolution has come down to as compromise.

On this topic, I'm holding out hope on what the clarifications become. Nothing more.

[Chester Pearson]

"I realize people were unsatisfied with my approach to the problem. But is there any way you would be willing to include precursors to binary weapons in this, for the moment setting aside concerns about 'banning water'."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I really would prefer to leave binary agents out of this one for the time being, and leave that door open to future legislation if that is possible? Plus we are coming extremely close to the character limit at this time.

[Ainocra]

clauses 3 and 5 are non starters

3 would enact an effective total ban on said weapons by not allowing stockpiles and for 5 frankly war happens between member nations on a regular basis.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I realize people were unsatisfied with my approach to the problem. But is there any way you would be willing to include precursors to binary weapons in this, for the moment setting aside concerns about 'banning water'."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I really would prefer to leave binary agents out of this one for the time being, and leave that door open to future legislation if that is possible? Plus we are coming extremely close to the character limit at this time.

"I'm not sure I see the point. Chemical weapons are chemical weapons, no matter how they are produced, and selling recognised precursors in violation of the intent of this proposal should be prohibited."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Imperializt Russia]

*more of an OOC note, I guess*

Though I don't actually know, some precursors allegedly have limited legal use.
Though on one specific article regarding Syrian weapons I showed a Chemistry PhD student friend of mine, he described many of the claims as "bullshit"

[Chester Pearson]

I really would prefer to leave binary agents out of this one for the time being, and leave that door open to future legislation if that is possible? Plus we are coming extremely close to the character limit at this time.

"I'm not sure I see the point. Chemical weapons are chemical weapons, no matter how they are produced, and selling recognised precursors in violation of the intent of this proposal should be prohibited."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I am not quite sure how to work it into the draft. Suggestion?

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I do...but it would take a hefty chunk of characters, and you're right that you don't have room for that at the moment. Maybe we can revisit it.

"I have a question about the incapacitating agents. Why is it necessary to define them and carve out an exception for them? They really don't have anything to do with chemical weapons as you define them."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Chester Pearson]

"I do...but it would take a hefty chunk of characters, and you're right that you don't have room for that at the moment. Maybe we can revisit it.

"I have a question about the incapacitating agents. Why is it necessary to define them and carve out an exception for them? They really don't have anything to do with chemical weapons as you define them."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

Pretty much the same reason you did I am guessing. The first couple of times I didn't, and there were crocodile tears that tear gass, and pepper spray were being banned. It is a fairly minor clause in itself, but does much to appease those fears.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Then I'm not sure there's much cause to waste two separate clauses on the matter. I'm not even sure you need an operative clause: a simple preambulatory statement that points out that the definition used will exclude such weapons should be enough."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Ainocra]

The General Assembly hereby declares:

The use of non persistent chemical weapons in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive, delaying, and area denial operations,

This would handicap a smaller nation, many such nations rely on a first strike doctrine or a reliable counterstrike ability for their survival. an exception for first strike based on credible intelligence is a must. Else the smaller nations that this draft claims to protect might as well surrender to their belligerent neighbors now. Something like this

"Chemical weapons shall not be utilized in a first strike capacity without credible intelligence of imminent attack by a hostile nation.
The use of chemical weapons in all other instances shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces,"

The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,

The use of such weapons will always have a reasonable chance of harming civilians. I suggest instead a clause instead prohibiting the deliberate targeting of non military targets. something along these lines.

"The deliberate use of chemical weapons against civilian populations shall be prohibited."

The stockpiling, use or transfer of harmfully persistent chemical weapons shall be prohibited; furthermore requires their destruction or conversion to other purposes, promptly and with due regard for environmental and security concerns;

This clause should be stricken, it enacts a total ban on usage and stockpiling. If that is your intent then the resolution definitely is stronger than "mild"
Nice attempt to stealth in a total ban though.

Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, in accordance with international law and subject to the general principle of minimizing unnecessary casualties,

Howabout instead

"Affirms the right of member nations to utilize riot control agents for purposes both military and domestic."

Cleaner and save you some space on the count.

Member nations shall refrain from using chemical weapons against fellow member nations,

This should be stricken completely. War can and does happen between member nations on a fairly regular basis. Again smaller nations that this draft claims to protect would be at such a disadvantage as to be defenseless. This would actually encourage belligerent states not deter them.

The transfer of chemical weapons to non-state parties, to known supporters of internationally recognized terrorist operatives, and to any non-party to this Resolution shall be prohibited,

Member nations shall take all necessary and available precautions to secure their chemical weapon stockpiles, to prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, and to prevent those stockpiles from falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this act,

Seems problematic, combine them and save some space


"Member nations shall use all available means to ensure chemical weapons remain fully under state control; furthermore private individuals, and corporate entities shall be prohibited from possessing chemical weapons unless they have been specifically licensed by the nation(s) for the purposes of manufacturing said weapons."

This would cover corporations that manufacture them as well as making it illegal to transfer them to terrorists or no state actors.


These changes would give you a good framework, and not be to onerous on the individual nations. What you have now leans too far toward total ban to garner much support.

[Chester Pearson]

The General Assembly hereby declares:

The use of non persistent chemical weapons in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive, delaying, and area denial operations,

This would handicap a smaller nation, many such nations rely on a first strike doctrine or a reliable counterstrike ability for their survival. an exception for first strike based on credible intelligence is a must. Else the smaller nations that this draft claims to protect might as well surrender to their belligerent neighbors now. Something like this

"Chemical weapons shall not be utilized in a first strike capacity without credible intelligence of imminent attack by a hostile nation.
The use of chemical weapons in all other instances shall be limited to defensive or delaying operations of aggressive offensive military forces," OK... Sold!!!

The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,

The use of such weapons will always have a reasonable chance of harming civilians. I suggest instead a clause instead prohibiting the deliberate targeting of non military targets. something along these lines.

"The deliberate use of chemical weapons against civilian populations shall be prohibited." That would then duplicate International Criminal Court, in particular clause B(5).

The stockpiling, use or transfer of harmfully persistent chemical weapons shall be prohibited; furthermore requires their destruction or conversion to other purposes, promptly and with due regard for environmental and security concerns;

This clause should be stricken, it enacts a total ban on usage and stockpiling. If that is your intent then the resolution definitely is stronger than "mild"
Nice attempt to stealth in a total ban though. It is only banning harmfully PERSISTENT chemical weapons. Non-persistent ones are still permitted, which still falls under mild.

Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, in accordance with international law and subject to the general principle of minimizing unnecessary casualties,

Howabout instead

"Affirms the right of member nations to utilize riot control agents for purposes both military and domestic."

Cleaner and save you some space on the count. Nice idea, but I like DSR's definition better...

Member nations shall refrain from using chemical weapons against fellow member nations,

This should be stricken completely. War can and does happen between member nations on a fairly regular basis. Again smaller nations that this draft claims to protect would be at such a disadvantage as to be defenseless. This would actually encourage belligerent states not deter them. No thanks...

The transfer of chemical weapons to non-state parties, to known supporters of internationally recognized terrorist operatives, and to any non-party to this Resolution shall be prohibited,

Member nations shall take all necessary and available precautions to secure their chemical weapon stockpiles, to prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, and to prevent those stockpiles from falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this act,

Seems problematic, combine them and save some space


"Member nations shall use all available means to ensure chemical weapons remain fully under state control; furthermore private individuals, and corporate entities shall be prohibited from possessing chemical weapons unless they have been specifically licensed by the nation(s) for the purposes of manufacturing said weapons."

This would cover corporations that manufacture them as well as making it illegal to transfer them to terrorists or no state actors. Unless the corporation is licensed.... Nice attempt at a back door, but no thanks...


These changes would give you a good framework, and not be to onerous on the individual nations. What you have now leans too far toward total ban to garner much support.

I don't think so. I highly expect The Star Empire to vote against either way, so we will go with what we have.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I don't see the point of creating a Chemical Weapons Commission if it's not going to be able to provide technical assistance in decommissioning."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: I've also never actually given you express permission to use my text in your proposal.

[Chester Pearson]

"I don't see the point of creating a Chemical Weapons Commission if it's not going to be able to provide technical assistance in decommissioning."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: I've also never actually given you express permission to use my text in your proposal.

Telegram
The UFoC Ambassador of Chester Pearson → The Dark Star Republic
7 days ago
Alright, here is what I have. If it looks good to you, I will post it into the Op of the Chemical Weapons Act thread, for review?

[img]images/flags/uploads/united_federation_of_canada__970103.png[/img]
"Chemical Weapons Act"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: The UFoC Ambassador of Chester Pearson

The World Assembly,
Acknowledging that nations may possess chemical weapons,
Realizing that some nations use chemical weapons both domestically and during military conflict,
Whilst understanding the massive casualties and long term environmental damage that these weapons may cause; also believing that small scale tactical defensive usage of these weapons is sometimes vital to the survival of smaller nations,
For the purposes of this protocol "Chemical agents" shall be defined as:
"Chemical weapon": any substance that is used with the intention of causing death or severe harm to sapient beings, a habitable area or to the environment, solely through the toxic chemical properties of such agent,
"Riot control agent": any chemical substance that is used with the intention of non-lethally incapacitating and subduing sapient beings, solely through the chemical effects of such agent,
The General Assembly hereby declares:
The use of non persistent chemical weapons in any capacity that may injure or destroy military personnel, or the environment shall be limited to defensive, delaying, and area denial operations,
The use of chemical weapons that have a reasonable probability of affecting civilian populations shall be prohibited,
The stockpiling, use or transfer of harmfully persistent chemical weapons shall be prohibited; furthermore requires their destruction or conversion to other purposes, promptly and with due regard for environmental and security concerns;
Member nations shall be permitted to utilize riot control agents, in accordance with international law and subject to the general principle of minimising unnecessary casualties,
Member nations shall refrain from using chemical weapons against fellow member nations,
The transfer of chemical weapons to non-state parties, to known supporters of internationally recognised terrorist operatives, and to any non-party to this Resolution shall be prohibited,
Member nations shall take all necessary and available precautions to secure their chemical weapon stockpiles, to prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, and to prevent those stockpiles from falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this act,
The World Assembly Chemical Weapons Commission (WACWC) shall be re-tasked with the following mandate:
To develop and maintain a library of known chemical weapons, and to share this information with any nation that requests access to it,
To assist member nations in establishing effective programs meant to defend against chemical weapons,
To provide medical and humanitarian assistance to member nations subject to unprovoked offensive chemical weapon attacks, in cooperation with the International Humanitarian Aid Coordination Committee.
To permit nations to seek, in consultation with WACWC, specific clarifications, exceptions, and modifications to the above definitions so as to ensure full coverage of new and developing chemical weapons while excluding those with little military application, and specifically to seek reservations to their obligations herein for:
stockpiling, use or transfer for reasons other than offensive military application, such as in industry or research,
transfer for the purposes of peaceful research, development of countermeasures and protective strategies, and decommissioning,
retention of small, secured amounts of harmfully persistent chemical weapons for peaceful research and development of countermeasures and protective strategies.
Co-Authored by: The United Socialist States of The Dark Star Republic

The United Socialist States of The Dark Star Republic
7 days ago
I don't mind you posting that to the thread, though I would have comments on it.
In reply to...

Remember those telegrams?

[Ainocra]

Well if it's already in the ICC then I suggest striking it to save space.



This clause should be stricken, it enacts a total ban on usage and stockpiling. If that is your intent then the resolution definitely is stronger than "mild"
Nice attempt to stealth in a total ban though. It is only banning harmfully PERSISTENT chemical weapons. Non-persistent ones are still permitted, which still falls under mild.

I disagree, it still seems too broad for a mild. I suggest we inquire to a mod on it. This as written could even stall research and development in some cases. As an example lets say I have two very harmful agents, but were I to mix them the end product becomes rather mild. While I'm sure I could dig and find you an actual example of such in chemistry I trust you see the point.

Member nations shall refrain from using chemical weapons against fellow member nations,

This should be stricken completely. War can and does happen between member nations on a fairly regular basis. Again smaller nations that this draft claims to protect would be at such a disadvantage as to be defenseless. This would actually encourage belligerent states not deter them. No thanks...

Given the restrictions that would already be in place I fail to see why member states should be exempt, there are instance of large belligerent member nations. This goes back to the first clause I would think.

The transfer of chemical weapons to non-state parties, to known supporters of internationally recognized terrorist operatives, and to any non-party to this Resolution shall be prohibited,

Member nations shall take all necessary and available precautions to secure their chemical weapon stockpiles, to prevent their chemical weapon stockpiles from accidental release, and to prevent those stockpiles from falling into the hands of individuals whom have the intent to violate the intentions and provisions of this act,

Seems problematic, combine them and save some space


"Member nations shall use all available means to ensure chemical weapons remain fully under state control; furthermore private individuals, and corporate entities shall be prohibited from possessing chemical weapons unless they have been specifically licensed by the nation(s) for the purposes of manufacturing said weapons."

This would cover corporations that manufacture them as well as making it illegal to transfer them to terrorists or no state actors. Unless the corporation is licensed.... Nice attempt at a back door, but no thanks...


These changes would give you a good framework, and not be to onerous on the individual nations. What you have now leans too far toward total ban to garner much support.

It is nothing more than it what I said it is, the regulation of companies that wish to engage in such business. I purposely left the license framework vague. I figured you would have some good Ideas to assuage your concerns on that count.

I don't think so. I highly expect The Star Empire to vote against either way, so we will go with what we have.

On the contrary I would be willing to vote for something that assuaged my own concerns. While I cannot speak for all of Monkey Island on that subject I can offer my personal support should these changes be made.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Remember those telegrams?

OOC: Yep. I gave you permission to "post that to the thread". Not to submit it.

Edit: in case that seems like an arbitrary distinction, it was never my intention to give you permission to actually submit my own material as part of a proposal unless it was one I could completely endorse. I regret if you misunderstood my intent.

[Chester Pearson]

Remember those telegrams?

OOC: Yep. I gave you permission to "post that to the thread". Not to submit it.

Edit: in case that seems like an arbitrary distinction, it was never my intention to give you permission to actually submit my own material as part of a proposal unless it was one I could completely endorse. I regret if you misunderstood my intent.

Precisely why I sent you that telegram last night, asking you if you if we are ready to go on this. It would have been far simpler for you to telegram me back, rather than start your public filibustering all over again, which is now getting very old....

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Yep. I gave you permission to "post that to the thread". Not to submit it.

Edit: in case that seems like an arbitrary distinction, it was never my intention to give you permission to actually submit my own material as part of a proposal unless it was one I could completely endorse. I regret if you misunderstood my intent.

Precisely why I sent you that telegram last night, asking you if you if we are ready to go on this. It would have been far simpler for you to telegram me back, rather than start your public filibustering all over again, which is now getting very old....

OOC: Ok.

[Chester Pearson]

Submitted, and campaign underway.....

[The Dark Star Republic]

"So much for your supposed willingness to redraft this. Disappointing."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Chester Pearson]

"So much for your supposed willingness to redraft this. Disappointing."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

I was making a legitimate try to work with you. You were the one who was being obstinate, and unnecessarily attempting to filibuster for no reason. I am seriously beginning to doubt your sincerity on this matter.

[Moronist Decisions]

Could the OP be changed back to reflect the actual, submitted version please?