SalMUN 2009
Welcome to SalMUN 2009 Forum!
First time on the forum? please read the instructions!
In order to post, please login =)
If you already saw this message, you may cancel it.
SalMUN 2009

This forum is a lobbying place for MUN delegates to get prepared for the actual SalMUN 2009 Conference in Bahia!


You are not connected. Please login or register

USA's Resolution

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1 USA's Resolution on October 29th 2009, 15:34

Tio Lu,

I have yet to see you open a topic about you resolution, being that USA has always seen itself as the center of the world, maybe you should show this on the forum, and talk about yourself a little. Since you have not yet opened a topic of your own, I have taken the time to do so. Here is what Russia thinks about you question of.

-The only reason USA are focusing on Africa, is because it is the only place you do not sell arms, so it will not affect them.

-USA is again trying to control other nations, with indirect threats, like the former president bush said to Russia, that it is not wise to deal arms, especialy to those whom are not allies to USA. This just shows the arrogance of USA, thinking only of themselves again... (we are used to it)

-Before you start blaming Russia of anything, remember that there is no existant proof that shows that Russia sells arms to anyone except for governments. meaning that, as Russia sees it, all arms it sells are being used for only deffense, and none for strike.

PLEASE USA, RESPONDE,
Im waiting for this debate.

View user profile

2 Second on November 2nd 2009, 17:20

The delegation of North Korea seconds the opinion of the Russian delegation considering its words wise and accurate. The nations of USA seems to never rest from its overpowering hegemony...

View user profile

3 Re: USA's Resolution on November 3rd 2009, 13:50

OK... Russia:
Countries in Africa have not threatened to attack the USA, nor does the United States think they're capable of doing so. Thus, the United States is not trying to protect itself or assure its influence in Africa. My resolution involves the following points:
A) The United States does not gain from the prohibition of small arms;

B)The USA's concern is with nations and governments that provide arms, directly or indirectly, to paramilitary or non-governmental militias, which result in the eclosion of civil wars and public massacres;

C)Russia has been selling weapons to the Sudanese government. However, Sudan possesses an unstable government, whose president is being prosecuted for genocide, and thus cannot be trusted to keep small arms to themselves. Thus, shouldn't Russia stop selling to Sudan??

D) We are not concerned with governments gaining power in Africa - in fact, that is a desired effect of the small arms prohibition. What we are concerned with are the militias, which now pose an enormous threat to the integrity and safety of nations.

E)Keep in mind, delegate, that in Liberia the use of an arms embargo has been successful, since it has reduced the amount of small arms possessed by the militia. Civilians did not possess small arms, so were incapable of protecting themselves - now, the only thing that was reduced was the power of the militias.

View user profile

4 Re: USA's Resolution on November 3rd 2009, 14:03

Unfortunately, the delegate of the United States of America shows misunedrstandings and lack of knowledge when referring to Sudan and the current Darfur region, which experiences small attacks in isolated points. Firstly, Mr. Bashir is not being prosecuted by the ICC and will never be, specially for genocide.
Secondly, if the American delegate wishes to suspend arms embargos to my nation, for example, how may the government fight back rebel attacks delegate? Simply, you are stripping my nation from defenses, leaving bandits and well armed rebels roam freely around Darfur and Sudan, in a land where the govertnment won't be able to enforce its own laws due to lack of power. The rebels will find ways to get small arms as they did and are currently doing, through illicit, prohibited black markets. It is unfair and rather discriminatory to blame the government of Sudan, who fights to solve the conflict, for all the probnlems that happen inside Darfur.

View user profile

5 Re: USA's Resolution on November 3rd 2009, 14:28

Sudan_LeoBiglia wrote:Firstly, Mr. Bashir is not being prosecuted by the ICC and will never be, specially for genocide.

Being prosecuted does not mean that he is guilty. It just means that he is being held by the ICC.

We do not wish to suspend arms embargoes (the delegate seems to confuse the terms - arms embargo is a sanctioning of arms).

Lastly, my resolution ensures the monitoring of government's activities so as to reduce the flow of illicit small arms. If the government is providing small arms to the militias, then monitoring those small arms will ensure that they are of government use, thus providing them more solid defenses against the militias.
My resolution does not wish to remove your nation's defenses. Rather, it wishes to reduce the power of the armed groups in your nation and all other African nations so as to make the existing conflicts in Africa resolvable.

View user profile

6 Re: USA's Resolution on November 4th 2009, 20:06

Russia is pleased in hearing that USA thinks it is not involved in small arms trade,
try researching a little about your country and small arms...

their are 13 listed countries to whom USA has sold Small arms...
The 13 listed in the report were Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Colombia, Jordan, Bahrain, Oman, Morocco, Yemen and Tunisia.

Unlike some members, I have been doing my research!!!

View user profile

7 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 07:55

ILLICIT arms trade. And in my first post, I stated clearly that USA does not gain from prohibiting small arms. The problem is small arms sales indirectly to rebel militias through corrupt/weak governments or directly to those militias through illicit trade.

We never said we were not involved in small arms.

View user profile

8 Twilight Zone on November 5th 2009, 08:24

Does the delegate of the USA know that it contributes with over fifty percent of the small arms trade in Africa?! Acknowledging this information there is no way that your nation can consider itself as a fair dealer fo the same "corrupt/weak" goverments supported by exporters such as China and Russia are those contributed by your goverment! Delegate, please be careful to not become once again the hegemonic nation you always were...

View user profile

9 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 08:44

USA_Lucas wrote:
We never said we were not involved in small arms.

We never said we were not involved in small arms - my resolution does not deal with sanctioning countries that sell to governments, for the United States does sell small arms. What my resolution does is improve the inspection and the government trust with small arms, so that governments do not sell to armed militias. Our method is not to stop the small arms trade in Africa, but to increase the power of governments and, furthermore, to increase the safety of civilians and refugee conditions.

View user profile

10 ? on November 5th 2009, 08:48

Delegate, the proposal of the USA delegate will not in any way diminish the small arms trade in Africa as it is exacly the goverments that contribute to the trade. The North Korean delegation will want a better proposal before being in favor of this resolution...

View user profile

11 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 08:56

Russia agrees with N. Korea, this resolution is not helping anybody, for it is not our Nations that sell arms to these groups who casue trouble, we sell arms to governments, and in Russia's case these arms are deffensively usable only. If USA is trying to stop the selling to governemnts, then it can be sure that its resolution will not pass, try to find a better way to solve the problem, or at least a different way to stop the small arms from getting into the wrong hands. Russia finds it strange that USA is even proposing this resolution, it is harming its own economy.

View user profile

12 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 09:06

Delegates, would you PLEASE pay attention to what the US delegate says about his resolution before simply talking against it? The United States's resolution proposes to fiscalize governments so as to not permit them from selling or giving small arms to armed militias, and furthermore, to investigate small arms-selling countries to prove that they are not selling small arms ILLICITLY to armed militias! We do not intend to stop selling small arms, especially because governments need them for national defense and to protect the integrity of their nations. What the United states is concerned with is the safety and quality of life of refugees, the weakness and corruption of governments, the improper investigation of small arms and light weapons, and the proper enforcement of existing sanctions and arms embargoes in nations that already have them.

We are NOT trying to diminish the power of sovereign governments OR hinder economies; our resolution is in every way peaceful and supportive.

View user profile

13 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 09:18

The delegate of Russia has a question for USA,
Will this resolution in any way affect the selling of arms from Russia, and N. Korea?
if your answere is yes, which I believe it is, then their will be a big problem, for then i would Highly doubt
that Russia or N. Korea will give any slack for USA to propose its Resolution.

View user profile

14 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 09:26

Delegate, the United States trusts your honorable nations and your respective leaders, Dmitriy Medvedev and Kim Jong Il, to not sell small arms illicitly to armed militias. Being that the case, we do NOT wish to affect your selling of arms.
However, if you are found to be selling small arms illegally, which I do not believe you are, sanctions WILL come.

View user profile

15 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 10:45

What sanctions,
who imposes them,
Who decides on them,
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CAUSE???

USA has a 'fame' of trying to control people, who are you trying to fool? and why? as you might understand that now-a-days it ir hard for Russia to agree on something with USA for it always has second intentions.

View user profile

16 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 17:01

RussiaSC_Jaap wrote:What sanctions,
who imposes them,
Who decides on them,
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CAUSE???

The UN has a special department whose sole purpose is imposing sanctions, the Security Council Sanctions Committee (SCSC). Technically, they also decide on if such an idea is approved by the SC. Sanctioning either Russia or China is not an option, on the other hand we can stop their selling of weapons to a given state if by chance, that state is acting outside the legal limits imposed on them. In any case scenario, what must happen is that these deals, which we all have, do not stand in the way of our attempts to improve the situation in any country, for example, Sudan. Russia, China, the UK, the USA and France must learn to put international peace and security above their own particular itnerests

View user profile

17 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 19:59

The delegate of the United Kingdom could not have said it better. The effects of this resolution will not hinder in any way the legal small arms trade between nations, since that is pro-developmental, contrary from the illicit trade, which is counter-developmental. The United States itself has been experiencing an economic crisis and cannot bear to risk losing more money than it has already lost.

Besides that, the integrity of African nations is now a point of utmost importance in the Security Council agenda, and because of the alarming nature of the ongoing conflicts in Africa, we must take immediate measures and place peace and safety in Africa (not only of governments, but of civilians) above our nations' personal interests. However, this resolution considers sanctions in the case of illicit arms trades, and in no way is the United States imposing its influence on other countries.

View user profile

18 Re: USA's Resolution on November 5th 2009, 22:15

Spanks guys,

Learning a lot about the sanctions, but USA still needs to specify what they are then proposing, since the beginning of this topic, USA has not yet specified what it wants to do with this resolution, we have guessed and failed numerous times, why not try to simplify it for all of us, and tell us what USA wants with this resolution...

cheers

View user profile

19 Re: USA's Resolution on November 6th 2009, 11:46

What must be evaluated here, as the delegate of the USA said, is not the arms trade between nations. This trade is properly regulated and as such is by all means legal. What we need to focus on, is the final destination of these weapons. The contracts all exclusively state that the weapons and vehicles being bought and sold are to be used by the military and the military only. The moment these weapons are passed down to other organizations and/or people, then we have a problem worthy of debate here.

We take Sudan for one, as an example where weapons are clearly entering the country through legal deals with China and Russia and then passed down to the janjaweed militia. Technically, Russia and China have nothing to do with the militias and it is understood that the purpose of these countries in selling arms to Sudan is in no way to aid the genocidal practices taking place there. However, it is undeniable that these weapons are being used for this purpose, in which case the responsability falls solely upon the Sudanese government, which seems keen to show the world how unreliable they are. As the UN, we should seek desperately to end the crisis and Sudan and unfortunately for China and Russia, one of the many actions that need be taken is the momentary ceasing of the arms trade between them and Sudan, with the obvious intent of cutting off the janjaweed's supply. For as long as Bashir is in command, and the Sudanese government continues to repeatedly show its inability to account for its population, all arms deals with the country should be halted immediatly and inconditionally. Not only arms deals, but all deals of any kind. Either Sudan allows the UN to move into the country and do what it needs to do, or the consequences will be severe. As of the moment, there is no way we can guarantee that what goes into the country will not be used by the janjaweed to continue its systematic masssacre.

View user profile

20 Re: USA's Resolution on November 6th 2009, 15:58

The delegate of the United Kingdom has it almost completely correct: However, my resolution does not terminate the deals between Russia, China, and the government of Sudan (such a proposal, however, would be worth looking into. Perhaps an ammendment?) - it does, however, provide for institutions for the proper inspections of the uses of small arms after they have left the hands of the providers and have reached the hands of the governments. Besides that, it asks for financial aid from the Security Council and its members to provide an efficient refugee program and the creation of a new organ, UNESA (United Nations Effort Against Small Arms), which will report monthly to the United Nations, enforce sanctions and embargoes only where they already exist and recommend sanctions against nations who are found and proven to be exporting OR importing small arms and light weapons illicitly.

That is the core of my resolution; minor changes will be made for the final version to be submitted and evaluated at the conference.

View user profile

21 Re: USA's Resolution on November 7th 2009, 19:26

The delegate is afraid that unless we stop everything from going in the country, we will not be able to stop the armaments from reaching the janjaweed. Everytime the UN has sent advisers to Sudan, their scope of action has been greatly limited by the Sudanese government. The efficiency of such unit, as the delegate of the US proposes, would be severely limited by the imposition made by the Sudanese governments. These are the moments when we have to urge China and Russia to understand that sometimes we have to place the collective good above our intentions. No one is accusing them of selling weapons to the janjaweed, but it is undeniable that the weapons are getting there. This is a sacrifice that needs to be made. In the eyes of the UK, there are only two possible options for resolutions, either Sudan allows the UN to move into the country and have unrestricted access to everything our troops and inspectors desire, or we need to cut off deals with the Sudanese government, especially the arms deals. The UK knows that if Russia and China stop selling their weapons, the Sudanese government will turn to other sellers, in which case the trade restrictions mentioned in a future possible resolution must be applicable to all nations.

View user profile

22 Re: USA's Resolution on November 10th 2009, 08:16

It will be impossible for a resolution prohibiting arms trade to pass...

The problem is not Countries selling arms, but yes corrupt governments, who then resell these arms to other groups of people. These people are causing the problems, such as small wars, and massacres, that are uncontrolable. To stop these problems these governments should be taught a lesson, and not the Countries who are selling arms, for they are making legal trades. Russia hopes that the USA delegate has taken this into consideration, and hopes that the delegate of UK understands this, for these two forms of a resolution would be completely different, and the UK's present idea of the topic, will not pass.

View user profile

23 Re: USA's Resolution on November 10th 2009, 09:57

RussiaSC_Jaap wrote:It will be impossible for a resolution prohibiting arms trade to pass...

The problem is not Countries selling arms, but yes corrupt governments, who then resell these arms to other groups of people. [...] Russia hopes that the USA delegate has taken this into consideration, and hopes that the delegate of UK understands this, for these two forms of a resolution would be completely different, and the UK's present idea of the topic, will not pass.

This is the essence of my resolution... until now - minor changes may be made to make it more "agressive."
However, because of the alarming nature of this issue and the instant need of such a resolution to pass, the USA will not prohibit legal small arms trade.

Delegate of the United Kingdom - if you need the small arms trade to be "paused," then create an ammendment during the conference for such a process to be effectuated. Know, however, that the United States will not vote in favor of such ammendment, especially since it is in the middle of an economic crisis and cannot afford to stop such a trade. Neither will China, nor Russia, nor many other countries, who believe that the small arms sold to governments are necessary for their protection.

GBaiardi_U.K wrote:either Sudan allows the UN to move into the country and have unrestricted access to everything our troops and inspectors desire

That is what my resolution proposes. For African nations, not only Sudan, to allow full inspections of their governments and for UN troops to be present in nations in order to not only try to try to maintain peace and aid refugees, but to investigate and monitor governments such as those of Sudan.

View user profile

24 We are the UN... on November 10th 2009, 13:15

It seems to the delegate of North Korea that the delegates of USA and UK seem to ignore the fact that, we, as members of the United Nations can not "force" anything. The most we can do is "urge" or "recommend" which will only be usefull if every party agrees upon the resolution which does not seem to be the case...

View user profile

25 Re: USA's Resolution on November 10th 2009, 14:29

That is why the United States is implementing peace keepers and new organizations in Sudan and other African nations. To ENSURE that they follow the designated procedures. If not, the UN will receive reports and be sure, delegate, we WILL do something about it, whether it is prosecuting presidents or imposing sanctions, we WILL.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum