[DRAFT] WA Peacekeeping Operations Act

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Anyone seeking to justify the ICC wins no sympathy from me, and I would be among the first the criticize that ruling...not because its reasoning is without merit, but because it is the kind of "rogue" ruling that "bends" existing conventions rather than uphold them, and in so doing encourages further breaches of the rules by players (such as the one above). Lucky me, mod rulings are not legal precedent.

You would also have to acknowledge that, even taking the previous ruling into account, that there is some difference between authorizing police actions, which the rules do not directly address, and authorizing a police force, which the rules expressly forbid. I do not expect Moderation to endorse this proposal -- on that I agree with you -- but it would be profoundly irresponsible for them to encourage further tweaking of this draft so that it could squeak through on a technicality.

The game instrument itself does not allow for WA police forces, because they fly in the face of the way the WA is programmed. Resolutions do not and cannot affect non-member nations. If the WA were to start sending forces into non-member states, it would undermine not only its own credibility as an impartial arbiter, it would undermine the game code itself. And even if the resolution took pains to assure that only WA members could be subject to police actions, then all a nation need do to avoid being policed by the WA is resign. WA police forces are both a self-defeating and a game-defeating exercise.

I assure you, the rules are not "arbitrary." Many of them have very good reason for being.

[Unibot]

I assure you, the rules are not "arbitrary." Many of them have very good reason for being.

Sure, but I have yet to have been offered a really solid answer for the vague, 'no army' rule after like two years of constant pestering. Bears offered the best reason and that was because mods wouldn't have to arbitrate in RPs for police-forces, but the obvious counter-argument is that all RP is non-canon.

But I'm not even challenging the no army rule, I think this is legal anyway. We're not choosing sides, we're not ratifying any cause, we're supporting peaceful conciliation after armed conflict has ceased.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Sure, but I have yet to have been offered a really solid answer for the vague, 'no army' rule after like two years of constant pestering.

Funny, I thought I just gave you one.

[Cardoness]

But I'm not even challenging the no army rule, I think this is legal anyway. We're not choosing sides, we're not ratifying any cause, we're supporting peaceful conciliation after armed conflict has ceased.

If you need peacekeepers then conflict has not ceased, the parties concerned just want conflict to cease. It is saying that we can't be trusted in the same room together without someone there to slap us down if we get out of hand. No peacekeeping mission on record, at least on any record that the Kingdom of Cardoness is aware of, has ever been peaceful. If things are peaceful you don't need a peacekeeping force walking around. We do like the idea of allowing the WA to foot, at least in part, the cost for peacekeeping operations carried out by other nations, within the parameters stated in this proposal. So long as the peacekeeping force does not answer to the WA.

[Fascist Fae Elves]

Perhaps a work around for this particular issue could be allowing or encouraging individual WA members to utilize their military forces for causes that we deem just. If we could allow, or even encourage member nations to patrol shipping lanes, or secure canals important for trade, than we can have some form of peace keeping while not actually having a WA mandated military force.

We could define the word "pirate" for the high seas and where ever else they may be. The WA could specify that member nations may deal with pirates however they please, as piracy is a crime against humanity. Additionally perhaps a WA resolution could grant permission for WA members to enter other WA countries for anti-piracy actions (RL example; this+non UN members, is what the real UN actually does).

Ground operations are a little trickier, as then you cannot even pretend to be impartial.

[The Altani Confederacy]

Wow. During the "Ethics in International Trade" debate, you said that you were against a world government, even going so far as to say that "living in a world government would be hell". Yet you've given the WA a backdoor taxation mechanism, and now want to violate the longstanding rule and tradition that the WA does not engage in military actions or support them. So, we go from backdoor taxation to a backdoor army. Are you really going to continue to maintain the fiction that world government isn't what your delegation wants? Or will your next resolution be one mandating that the WA go into the fertilizer business, since your claim to hate world government has now been demonstrated to be pure crap?

The WA doesn't get involved in military affairs, period, for good reason. It is supposed to be an impartial organization. Peacekeeping isn't impartial. It's war under another name, using military effort to force a desired result. We Altani have done "peacekeeping", "peacemaking" and all-out war enough times to know that to be true.

This would shatter the last vestiges of the idea that the WA should be an impartial place where nations find common ground, and for what? Nations can come together now and form peacekeeping forces on their own, with no need for a WA mandate. This isn't necessary, and would destroy a central principle of the WA to boot. As a result, we will oppose this with every effort we can muster.

Sophie Fournier
Delegate of Lavinium
Confederate Ambassador to the World Assembly
Chief Diplomatic Representative of Poivre Atoll

[Unibot]

Sure, but I have yet to have been offered a really solid answer for the vague, 'no army' rule after like two years of constant pestering.

Funny, I thought I just gave you one.

I was elected to lead, not read!

If the WA were to start sending forces into non-member states, it would undermine not only its own credibility as an impartial arbiter, it would undermine the game code itself.

I don't understand (1) what does the game code have to do about it? Almost everything we do here in the WA is RP, why is it that when we start talking about militaries everyone starts assuming this is gameplayed? (2) the WA isn't 'sending forces' into non-member states willy-nilly, these non-WA's have asked for their help in facilitating peace. The WA isn't taking sides.. they remain impartial. The WA wouldn't care who started the war, who ended it, who deserved to win.. all of that is dust in the wind, the WA would only care about maintaining the peace.

[Unibot]

The WA doesn't get involved in military affairs, period, for good reason. It is supposed to be an impartial organization. Peacekeeping isn't impartial. It's war under another name, using military effort to force a desired result. We Altani have done "peacekeeping", "peacemaking" and all-out war enough times to know that to be true.

Oh hogwash. Get a dictionary.

[The Altani Confederacy]

The WA doesn't get involved in military affairs, period, for good reason. It is supposed to be an impartial organization. Peacekeeping isn't impartial. It's war under another name, using military effort to force a desired result. We Altani have done "peacekeeping", "peacemaking" and all-out war enough times to know that to be true.

Oh hogwash. Get a dictionary.

Cute. Nice way to avoid almost all of my points, but I'll give you credit for flippancy if nothing else. Just out of curiosity, has your nation ever done any peacekeeping? My nation has. When one side disagrees with a decision you hand down, or decides they don't like the outcome they may get, peacekeeping can become a real fight awfully fast. But continue to sit in your ivory tower and quote dictionaries to me. This just proves to me that my remark about fertilizer concerns wasn't off the mark.

Sophie Fournier etc.

[Unibot]

Oh hogwash. Get a dictionary.

Cute. Nice way to avoid almost all of my points, but I'll give you credit for flippancy if nothing else. Just out of curiosity, has your nation ever done any peacekeeping? My nation has. When one side disagrees with a decision you hand down, or decides they don't like the outcome they may get, peacekeeping can become a real fight awfully fast. But continue to sit in your ivory tower and quote dictionaries to me. This just proves to me that my remark about fertilizer concerns wasn't off the mark.

Sophie Fournier etc.

You're talking about international arbitration, please read the following document. There is nothing to disagree about.. intelligence reports and border patrol.. that's it.

[Erythrina]

We're not building a fucking imperial empire, here.

Not an imperial empire... what kind of empire, then?

There is nothing to disagree about.. intelligence reports and border patrol.. that's it.

Jawöhl, Obersturmfürher Eduard Heir! Ve agrrree zat everrry person should haf an perzonal dossier, guarded bei ze Vorld Assembli! Ve nefer know ven subzersive elements could... be a thrrreat to peace!

Witch Gertrüde Totenweiss
Resident Madwoman

[The Altani Confederacy]

You're talking about international arbitration, please read the following document. There is nothing to disagree about.. intelligence reports and border patrol.. that's it.

The problem here is that your ability to do intelligence reports and border patrolling, or more likely, border separation between two hostile parties, is entirely dependent upon the goodwill of both sides. It's the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. While I am still concerned about the bad precedent that ending the WA's nonmilitarized rule would set, I'll leave that aside for now and focus on this point instead.

Here's a scenario. You have two sides who agree to the arbitration. They allow a WA force, or a WA-sponsored one, to set up a DMZ between them while the talks go on. One side doesn't like the results of the arbitration, or gets antsy at your "intelligence" missions, or something as simple as a rogue general on one side decides he's not going to play along. They decide to attack their rivals on the other side of the DMZ. They're perfectly willing to go through you to do it.

You are now faced with two choices, and you must pick one, because you're in the middle of the fight, and you are about to get steamrollered if you don't act. You either pick one side and back them, or you use force to suppress both sides. You have just gone from being a peacekeeper to being a peacemaker, an entirely different proposition and one that is inherently not impartial.

Or, you can back off, get out of the way, and cruelly betray the hopes of those who were counting on you to maintain the peace, and waste lives and resources in the process.

Can you see now why this is a no-win scenario no matter how you go with this?

-Sophie Fournier etc.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

The HRC is in agreement with the opposition to WA military intervention.In the eyes of the body politic this is an emotionally charged issue.In the event of surveillance overflights being shot down that simply leads to armed escort for these overflights. Border patrol can an will turn into minor skirmishes. Being that this is not a military force do you leave these men unarmed? If so you will lose troops. Then the door has been opened to arm them to face the threat. Next they are requesting authorization for preemptive strike of potential threats. It's a slippery slope that no one wants to see.

[Knootoss]

WA-kileaks just released this video of Unibotian government proceedings:

"It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the World Assembly. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated. And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a Grand Army of the World Assembly to counter the increasing threat from the NatSovs."

We even do actually have a Trade Federation now!

So, this is how Democracy dies. With thunderous applause.

Kisses from the witch!

OOC: That is utterly brilliant. XD

[Bears Armed]

We could define the word "pirate" for the high seas and where ever else they may be. The WA could specify that member nations may deal with pirates however they please, as piracy is a crime against humanity. Additionally perhaps a WA resolution could grant permission for WA members to enter other WA countries for anti-piracy actions (RL example; this+non UN members, is what the real UN actually does).

GA Resolution #20 ‘Suppress International Piracy’.


(OOC: The author credited at its foot, St Edmund, was another of my NS identities… although the resolution’s actual sponsor, ‘Mavenu’, belongs to another player who wanted to try pushing a proposal to quorum and consequently volunteered to do this during a period when I didn’t actually have a WA membership myself…)

[Unibot]

Here's a scenario. You have two sides who agree to the arbitration. They allow a WA force, or a WA-sponsored one, to set up a DMZ between them while the talks go on. One side doesn't like the results of the arbitration, or gets antsy at your "intelligence" missions, or something as simple as a rogue general on one side decides he's not going to play along. They decide to attack their rivals on the other side of the DMZ. They're perfectly willing to go through you to do it.

You are now faced with two choices, and you must pick one, because you're in the middle of the fight, and you are about to get steamrollered if you don't act. You either pick one side and back them, or you use force to suppress both sides. You have just gone from being a peacekeeper to being a peacemaker, an entirely different proposition and one that is inherently not impartial.

Or, you can back off, get out of the way, and cruelly betray the hopes of those who were counting on you to maintain the peace, and waste lives and resources in the process.

Well, there are two ways to answer this I think, and I have to choose one. The first is that fact that there is a contract to be honored, the one party agreed it would not fight, and if it did, it elicited an armed response from the World Assembly. They attacked their rivals, and the contract is breached. Neutrality never enters into the dilemma, as it all about who broke the contract, and the armed response that the aggressive party agreed to have used again them if they broke the contract.

The other way to answer it is, the situation is beyond peacekeeping, move out.

I'm partially to the latter option.

[Fascist Fae Elves]

GA Resolution #20 ‘Suppress International Piracy’.

Ahh, thank you. However I do not necessarily see any sort of authorization for anti piracy operations within another nation's territorial waters whether consensual or not. Obviously should that nation be a WA member habouring pirates would be in violation of that resolution, however to my knowledge we do not have a resolution authorizing us to conduct anti-piracy operations in non-WA nations. Of course we could just declare war, but having a WA resolution at our backs would give a bit more righteousness to that cause.

I am just trying to come up with alternatives for this WA army idea; and as I mentioned, WA authorization of ground forces would be much harder to pull off... as would any WA authorized air operations. However if the existing anti-piracy resolution is deemed to be enough, than I believe that is as far as any WA authorized military action should go.

Well, there are two ways to answer this I think, and I have to choose one. The first is that fact that there is a contract to be honored, the one party agreed it would not fight, and if it did, it elicited an armed response from the World Assembly. They attacked their rivals, and the contract is breached. Neutrality never enters into the dilemma, as it all about who broke the contract, and the armed response that the aggressive party agreed to have used again them if they broke the contract.

The other way to answer it is, the situation is beyond peacekeeping, move out.

I'm partially to the latter option.

The situation may not be as obvious at the time however. What are some reasons why one side would suddenly break their contract, when being threatened with a large military response? Perhaps they are just "bad guys", doing evil for evil's sake. Perhaps they had no intention of honouring their peace contract. Perhaps they have been the victim of violence that the WA failed to notice, and thus they are not actually the aggressors. Perhaps they are responding with violence to a non-violent, but equally unjust attack.

War is not a simple matter; mistakes do and will happen. Should the WA make a mistake, it will be blamed for that mistake and no longer be considered a neutral party... which could have incredibly negative results for all members of the WA.

[Quelesh]

Here's a scenario. You have two sides who agree to the arbitration. They allow a WA force, or a WA-sponsored one, to set up a DMZ between them while the talks go on. One side doesn't like the results of the arbitration, or gets antsy at your "intelligence" missions, or something as simple as a rogue general on one side decides he's not going to play along. They decide to attack their rivals on the other side of the DMZ. They're perfectly willing to go through you to do it.

You are now faced with two choices, and you must pick one, because you're in the middle of the fight, and you are about to get steamrollered if you don't act. You either pick one side and back them, or you use force to suppress both sides. You have just gone from being a peacekeeper to being a peacemaker, an entirely different proposition and one that is inherently not impartial.

Or, you can back off, get out of the way, and cruelly betray the hopes of those who were counting on you to maintain the peace, and waste lives and resources in the process.

Well, there are two ways to answer this I think, and I have to choose one. The first is that fact that there is a contract to be honored, the one party agreed it would not fight, and if it did, it elicited an armed response from the World Assembly. They attacked their rivals, and the contract is breached. Neutrality never enters into the dilemma, as it all about who broke the contract, and the armed response that the aggressive party agreed to have used again them if they broke the contract.

The other way to answer it is, the situation is beyond peacekeeping, move out.

I'm partially to the latter option.

If peacekeeping troops are going to remain in a country only so long as everything remains peaceful, but abandon the country as soon as one side or the other initiates hostilities, then what is the purpose of their presence in the first place? Surely more than to just intimidate both sides into inaction.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Has anyone stopped to consider that the WA utilizing military power on the global stage could very well invite hostile actions upon member nations by none WA governments. A great many none WA nations are outwardly hostile to the WA now, so why add fuel to the fire?

[Bears Armed]

GA Resolution #20 ‘Suppress International Piracy’.

Ahh, thank you. However I do not necessarily see any sort of authorization for anti piracy operations within another nation's territorial waters whether consensual or not. Obviously should that nation be a WA member habouring pirates would be in violation of that resolution, however to my knowledge we do not have a resolution authorizing us to conduct anti-piracy operations in non-WA nations. Of course we could just declare war, but having a WA resolution at our backs would give a bit more righteousness to that cause.

"Hwell, its Clause #5 would let us go after those pirates' bases in non-member nations..."


EDIT / OOC: It would seem that we now have a Modly ruling on this idea's legality.

[Unibot]

EDIT / OOC: It would seem that we now have a Modly ruling on this idea's legality.

If that actually was an attempt at a ruling (Ard usually does her rulings with her modly account), it was a rather weak one.. it relied on the same manipulative connotations of "peacekeeping" (some of which I didn't even knew existed) that my opponents have been fearmongering about.. instead attacking the actual peacekeeping operations that this act will secure.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper would personally appreciate a peacekeeping force but any type of it is still some kind of police or army, which in turn is illegal as it stands.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

(oops, accidental double post)

[Holy Roman Confederate]

Bogging the WA down in every brushfire war or border dispute is a massive misuse of this bodies time and resources.Peacekeeping forces often turn into combatants. That point cannot be ignored. Troops are not sent in as peacekeepers equipped with sling shots and good intentions. You send them in with military equipment such as tanks, attack helicopters, and fighter aircraft. The first time peacekeepers find themselves in combat will you push for expanded military powers and more aggressive rules of engagement for WA troops? I for one fear that is exactly what could happen.

[Mikedor]

Here's a scenario. You have two sides who agree to the arbitration. They allow a WA force, or a WA-sponsored one, to set up a DMZ between them while the talks go on. One side doesn't like the results of the arbitration, or gets antsy at your "intelligence" missions, or something as simple as a rogue general on one side decides he's not going to play along. They decide to attack their rivals on the other side of the DMZ. They're perfectly willing to go through you to do it.

You are now faced with two choices, and you must pick one, because you're in the middle of the fight, and you are about to get steamrollered if you don't act. You either pick one side and back them, or you use force to suppress both sides. You have just gone from being a peacekeeper to being a peacemaker, an entirely different proposition and one that is inherently not impartial.

Or, you can back off, get out of the way, and cruelly betray the hopes of those who were counting on you to maintain the peace, and waste lives and resources in the process.

Well, there are two ways to answer this I think, and I have to choose one. The first is that fact that there is a contract to be honored, the one party agreed it would not fight, and if it did, it elicited an armed response from the World Assembly. They attacked their rivals, and the contract is breached. Neutrality never enters into the dilemma, as it all about who broke the contract, and the armed response that the aggressive party agreed to have used again them if they broke the contract.

The other way to answer it is, the situation is beyond peacekeeping, move out.

I'm partially to the latter option.

And what is to stop black flag operations to bring the WA down on an innocent party?
OOC: Dutch peacekeepers at Srebenica. What's the point of having peacekeepers that don't keep the peace?