[DRAFT] Conflict Diamonds Prohibition Act

[Ile Royale]

This is a resolution aimed at prohibiting organisations which abuse human rights and cause unlawful deaths. Please bear in mind this is a very rough draft, so any suggestions for improvement would be greatly appreciated.

The General Assembly,

Appalled that throughout many nations rough diamonds are used to finance military activities, including attempts to overthrow legitimate governments,

Remembering that the proceeds generated through the sale and processing of conflict diamonds often facilitates the procurement of arms and ultimately leads to deaths and maiming,

Realising that the vast majority of rough diamonds are produced legitimately, and the trade thereof contributes substantially to many economies,

Emphasising that measures taken to prohibit the sale, transfer, and processing of conflict diamonds should not unduly hinder the diamond industry,

Defines "conflict diamond" as a rough or processed diamond which has originated or been processed by a party to which the proceeds from the diamond are intended to be used in order to further conflict or human rights abuses,

Establishes the World Assembly Diamond Certification Scheme (WACDS) which shall have the authority to determine whether diamonds are conflict diamonds,

Mandates that all diamonds placed for sale after the passage of this Act shall be certified by the WACDS, and diamonds that do not meet the standards set forth by the WACDS shall be forbidden from further transfer,

Prohibits nations of the World Assembly from allowing; trading in, receiving, processing, or in any other way interacting with conflict diamonds,

Expresses hope that by cutting off a vital source of income for parties which perpetuate conflict and human rights abuses, that the population at large will enjoy a greater security of life and liberty.

[Quadrimmina]

The WADCS doesnt seem to have much support. They have the ability to certify diamonds, but theres no mandatory diamond certification or anything such as that. Also, how does one find a conflict diamond?

[Charlotte Ryberg]

A great idea honoured ambassador. Qumkent has been planning a similar resolution in regards to fraudulent gemstones, but the draft should also cover the ban on fake and poor quality stones, while trying no to hurt the trade in lookalike jewellery that gets sold in Primark (yeah, I know, I said the name, I'm going to jail, heh-heh). But don't just copy and paste from that draft. See if you could come up with something even better with the minimal use of a committee.

Yours etc,

[Ile Royale]

I thank my Honourable friends for their advice, and shall be sure to look at the proposed resolution on fraudulent gemstones, although the resolutions cover slightly different areas.

In response to the Ambassador from Quadrimmina, I have edited the resolution accordingly, so that all diamonds placed for sale have to be certified by the WADCS. And yes, I am mindful of the fact that this means that not all diamonds will be certified, but the problem is moot because money is not being transferred if it's not up for sale or processing.

[Quadrimmina]

I thank my Honourable friends for their advice, and shall be sure to look at the proposed resolution on fraudulent gemstones, although the resolutions cover slightly different areas.

In response to the Ambassador from Quadrimmina, I have edited the resolution accordingly, so that all diamonds placed for sale have to be certified by the WADCS. And yes, I am mindful of the fact that this means that not all diamonds will be certified, but the problem is moot because money is not being transferred if it's not up for sale or processing.

Ahh, unless it is a black market exchange. Which is probably one of the more dangerous ones. Our recommendation is to just make it illegal to sell conflict diamonds. There is, in our humble projections, no need for any committee to certify diamond transactions.

However, we thank you for such a novel idea and look forward to working with you on it.

[Ile Royale]

Ah, I see, the WADCS is not set up to monitor the trades per se but the diamonds involved in the trades. It's just that when diamonds are placed for sale is the easiest time in my view to asses their legality or otherwise. Once a diamond is certified once, the certificate is "attached" to that diamond and need not be certified again.

We are also looking forward to working with you on this matter in the future, and hope this exchange of ideas can continue.

[Nullarni]

I am concerned with your definition of conflict diamond: Defines "conflict diamond" as a rough or processed diamond which has originated or been processed by a party to which the proceeds from the diamond are intended to be used in order to further conflict or human rights abuses

Under this definition nations with nationalized diamond industries who are in a war cannot use the money made on their military. This does not make much sense to me. It is a government mine, producing government diamonds, making government money. Why can't the money be put into the general fund, where the military draws from? To track every unit of currency made from the mine would ne an accounting nightmare.

Also, I think we have enough committees. I am sure you can reword this so that there is no need for a committee. Besides, I am not comfortable with the WA having a committee that has the power to flat out bar he sale of things.

[Ile Royale]

The Ambassador is indeed correct in that it would be an administrative nightmare, however, thankfully the "or" is a typo on behalf of myself. It should read "to further conflict and human rights abuses", i.e. conflicts that specifically include purposeful human rights abuses.

However, I feel that in this case the committee is an integral part of the prevention of the sale of these diamonds, in addition to the ability to ban the sale of these things which so adversely affect many people.

[Quadrimmina]

Ah, I see, the WADCS is not set up to monitor the trades per se but the diamonds involved in the trades. It's just that when diamonds are placed for sale is the easiest time in my view to asses their legality or otherwise. Once a diamond is certified once, the certificate is "attached" to that diamond and need not be certified again.

We are also looking forward to working with you on this matter in the future, and hope this exchange of ideas can continue.

I am not sure how the diamonds can only be certified once. If Quadrimmina sells a certified diamond to an organization that then sells it to violate human rights, then the committee is powerless to stop it. It just seems that the way this resolution goes about a solution is far too ineffectual.

We humbly yield.

[Nullarni]

The Ambassador is indeed correct in that it would be an administrative nightmare, however, thankfully the "or" is a typo on behalf of myself. It should read "to further conflict and human rights abuses", i.e. conflicts that specifically include purposeful human rights abuses.

However, I feel that in this case the committee is an integral part of the prevention of the sale of these diamonds, in addition to the ability to ban the sale of these things which so adversely affect many people.

Fair enough. I suggest you change that then. I think that actually the change goes to undermine the need for the committee you set up. You see, all WA nations are already not supposed to be committing human rights abuses. So the certification only would be needed for non-WA diamnonds, and I am not sure if inspecting only non-WA diamonds would even be legal. I continue to suggest you drop the certification committee.

[Urgench]

Appalled that throughout many nations rough diamonds are used to finance military activities, including attempts to overthrow legitimate governments,

Well firstly it should be pointed out that all states use whatever resources are at their disposal to finance themselves, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using one's natural resources to finance one's military spending. Perhaps some indication of what is intrinsically wrong about the use of diamonds in this respect would be useful. Perhaps mention of the fact that in some cases it is not nations which support themselves through this trade but criminal anti-government organisations. Perhaps also mention of the fact that civil conflicts can be fueled and prolonged by the finances available from trade in diamonds.

Remembering that the proceeds generated through the sale and processing of conflict diamonds often facilitates the procurement of arms and ultimately leads to deaths and maiming,

None of this is necessary, it is self evident that money can be spent on whatever one wishes.

Realising that the vast majority of rough diamonds are produced legitimately, and the trade thereof contributes substantially to many economies,

In this context the term "legitimate" has a specific meaning, i.e. "Legal". Until the type of trade in diamonds you are addressing in this resolution has been outlawed, post the possible passage of this resolution, the trade remains technically legal in the eyes of the WA. Some rewrite of this phrase is in order to prevent confusion.

Emphasising that measures taken to prohibit the sale, transfer, and processing of conflict diamonds should not unduly hinder the diamond industry,

It should presumably not hinder legal diamond trade at all no?

Defines "conflict diamond" as a rough or processed diamond which has originated or been processed by a party to which the proceeds from the diamond are intended to be used in order to further conflict or human rights abuses,

Again, our concern with the introductory phrases are renewed. It should not be the aim of this statute to remove vital funds from member states which would otherwise be spent on perfectly ethical defense expenditure. It should be the aim of this statute to prevent trade in gems from being the cause, and/or fuel or cause of continuation of conflict.

Otherwise the WA will need to justify why it does not ban the trade in all resources emanating from conflict zones and will deprive states of the necessary funds to end conflicts more quickly and less bloodily.

Establishes the World Assembly Diamond Certification Scheme (WACDS) which shall have the authority to determine whether diamonds are conflict diamonds,

We would suggest that instead of a committee which will certify diamonds, that this resolution create a commission of inquiry capable of investigating whether particular instances of trade in diamonds can be verifiable said to be the direct cause and direct cause of continuation of any given conflict. Naturally the commission should be given the power to introduce embargoes in trade in diamonds in specific cases should it need to.

Mandates that all diamonds placed for sale after the passage of this Act shall be certified by the WACDS, and diamonds that do not meet the standards set forth by the WACDS shall be forbidden from further transfer,

This phrase is confusing, thus far no standards have actually been mentioned, and in any case unlike the quality of a diamond or things relating to its physical properties it is in fact impossible to be absolutely verify of the origin of a diamond, this would make the certification little more than a guess, and for the purposes of a trade such as that in diamonds this would be highly injurious. The trade in legitimately sold diamonds with this certification could not in fact be relied upon and the overall price of diamonds would be depressed as a result. Certainly no premium could be placed on certified diamonds meaning that there would be no economic impetus to trade in them if cheaper non-certified diamonds could be obtained and sold on the black market instead.

Prohibits nations of the World Assembly from allowing; trading in, receiving, processing, or in any other way interacting with conflict diamonds,

Without the definition of "conflict diamond" being revisited this ban is ultimately rather dangerous. We should point out that the phrase "interacting with conflict diamonds" makes little or no sense in this context.

Expresses hope that by cutting off a vital source of income for parties which perpetuate conflict and human rights abuses, that the population at large will enjoy a greater security of life and liberty.

Well indeed, but it should also remain legal for governments to use whatever natural resources they can to fund their efforts to bring conflicts to as quick and bloodless a conclusion as possible no?


Yours,

[Freeoplis]

If this legislation was passed then surely a system of middle men would be created by these nations whereby the diamonds are sold to such middle men for cash and then the cash would be used for the purchase of weapons, we see this as a plausible loophole to avoid any illegality under international law and therefore render any such legislation unenforceable.

[Grays Harbor]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such "conflict diamonds" even exist in anything other than urban myth?

[Urgench]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such "conflict diamonds" even exist in anything other than urban myth?

One could say that about anything your Excellency, it is hardly a useful quibble.


Yours,

[Embolalia]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such "conflict diamonds" even exist in anything other than urban myth?

One could say that about anything your Excellency, it is hardly a useful quibble.

Personally, I've never seen a slave. I don't think they really ever existed. I think they're an urban myth...[/exaggeration]

[Grays Harbor]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such "conflict diamonds" even exist in anything other than urban myth?

One could say that about anything your Excellency, it is hardly a useful quibble.


Yours,

Respectfully, we do not believe it is a "quibble", but a serious question. If it is going to be asserted that such exists, we want to know where, and in what quantity? Why should we submit blindly to what appears little better than an emotional plea using dubious claims, if evidence is not provided?

[Embolalia]

Respectfully, we do not believe it is a "quibble", but a serious question. If it is going to be asserted that such exists, we want to know where, and in what quantity? Why should we submit blindly to what appears little better than an emotional plea using dubious claims, if evidence is not provided?

Here you go.

[Grays Harbor]

Respectfully, we do not believe it is a "quibble", but a serious question. If it is going to be asserted that such exists, we want to know where, and in what quantity? Why should we submit blindly to what appears little better than an emotional plea using dubious claims, if evidence is not provided?

Here you go.

OOC: ok, uncalled for. I know what the hell they are IRL. This is not the RW. Using RW references as an argument for an NS resolution is considered a no-no. If you cannot come up with an IC answer, then don't start pulling out RW stuff to support an ingame thing.

[Flibbleites]

Since no one else has asked this, I guess I'll have to. Category & Strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Grays Harbor]

Since no one else has asked this, I guess I'll have to. Category & Strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We thought that was your job, and are therefore hesitant to usurp your perogatives.

[Flibbleites]

Since no one else has asked this, I guess I'll have to. Category & Strength?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We thought that was your job, and are therefore hesitant to usurp your perogatives.

Well excuse me for having other things to do today.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Urgench]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such "conflict diamonds" even exist in anything other than urban myth?

One could say that about anything your Excellency, it is hardly a useful quibble.


Yours,

Respectfully, we do not believe it is a "quibble", but a serious question. If it is going to be asserted that such exists, we want to know where, and in what quantity? Why should we submit blindly to what appears little better than an emotional plea using dubious claims, if evidence is not provided?

Do Nuclear weapons exist? In what quantity? Can you verify this?

As with, piracy, torture, slavery, unfair trials, destruction of historic monuments, the littering of outer space, biological weapons, nuclear disasters, epidemics, landmines, terrorism etc. The list is endless.


Yours,

[Grays Harbor]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such "conflict diamonds" even exist in anything other than urban myth?

One could say that about anything your Excellency, it is hardly a useful quibble.


Yours,

Respectfully, we do not believe it is a "quibble", but a serious question. If it is going to be asserted that such exists, we want to know where, and in what quantity? Why should we submit blindly to what appears little better than an emotional plea using dubious claims, if evidence is not provided?

Do Nuclear weapons exist? In what quantity? Can you verify this?

As with, piracy, torture, slavery, unfair trials, destruction of historic monuments, the littering of outer space, biological weapons, nuclear disasters, epidemics, landmines, terrorism etc. The list is endless.


Yours,

There are examples of nearly all you have mentioned fairly well every day (OOC: over in II), so we fail to see how requesting something to back up an assertation that "conflict diamonds" are a problem is unreasonable. If we are to support or not support a resolution, we would like to do so with information other than "because I said so" as a reason.

[Flibbleites]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that such "conflict diamonds" even exist in anything other than urban myth?

One could say that about anything your Excellency, it is hardly a useful quibble.


Yours,

Respectfully, we do not believe it is a "quibble", but a serious question. If it is going to be asserted that such exists, we want to know where, and in what quantity? Why should we submit blindly to what appears little better than an emotional plea using dubious claims, if evidence is not provided?

Do Nuclear weapons exist?

They should, otherwise what's the point of the NAPA?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Urgench]

There are examples of nearly all you have mentioned fairly well every day (OOC: over in II), so we fail to see how requesting something to back up an assertation that "conflict diamonds" are a problem is unreasonable. If we are to support or not support a resolution, we would like to do so with information other than "because I said so" as a reason.

And your Excellency's argument is based on "because I do not say so" which has little more logic in it than "because I say so".


Yours,