Resolution 2007/26: Arms Enquiry

China reiterates that we are not breaching any of the terms of 2005's resolution. China feels that the resolution proposed is rather empty and irrelevent if their are no guilty member states to which it can be applied. In the absence of conclusive evidence, we feel that this resolution is a pointless waste of time.

Reply 3

OP

Craghyrax

China reiterates that we are not breaching any of the terms of 2005's resolution. China feels that the resolution proposed is rather empty and irrelevent if their are no guilty member states to which it can be applied. In the absence of conclusive evidence, we feel that this resolution is a pointless waste of time.

If the Chinese delegate is so secure in her innocence, why does she not accept to co-operate fully with the investigation? Surely if China has not been involved, they have nothing to hide; and as a Security Council member, should be seen co-operating with the UN in ending scandal and possible war-profiteering.

The resolution is not 'empty' - it is filled quite basically with the crucial points needed to form a decision: work with the UN to investigate this scandal, or work against the UN in the name of obtuseness.

The resolution is not 'irrelevant' - because it has nothing to be irrelevant to. It is the primary source of a recent news event and report (thus cannot be technically off-topic or irrelevant). Regardless, it is wholly relevant to the future of Darfur and the UN's credibility in peace and support.

The reason for the investigation is to create this 'conclusive evidence'. (Why would the investigation be needed if there were already conclusive evidence?)

Reply 4

China can't not be co-operating with an investigation that is hypothetical. By the time it hypothetically was passed and underway, several months would no doubt have transpired..all of which time the UN could have been doing something useful. We know we're not breaching the embargo, so how can you seriously think that we would sanction what we know to be an excessive waste of precious time? Its ludicrous.

Reply 5

OP

Craghyrax

China can't not be co-operating with an investigation that is hypothetical. By the time it hypothetically was passed and underway, several months would no doubt have transpired..all of which time the UN could have been doing something useful. We know we're not breaching the embargo, so how can you seriously think that we would sanction what we know to be an excessive waste of precious time? Its ludicrous.

The investigation is not hypothetical.

The investigation will not try to prevent anything (only the guilty parties choose to do this) - but the investigation will act as a means of proof of future reprimands against the guilty nations of war-profiteering.

The United States is deeply concerned at the Chinese delegate's comment that justice and reprimanding war-profiteers is not 'important'.

The investigation would act as an extension of the United Nation's will to cease violence, corruption, lies, double-standards and war-profiteering. It would be essential to consequent sanctions against the guilty parties; which would act as a reminder to all curious nations of what will happen when a nation's greed and diplomatic indifference exceeds their desire to be apart of a functioning body to end war and displacement.

China may wish to cover its tracks, sweep the evidence under the carpet and pretend as if nothing has happened, but the US does not believe in such fundamental wrongs.

Without this investigation being passed, what is the United Nations' telling the world? It is fine to aggravate war for profit, to push around the boundaries and lie to the GA? Is this the UN you wish to be apart of?

Reply 6

prufrock

The investigation is not hypothetical.

It is until it is passed and implemented, which China assures you it won't be.

prufrock

Without this investigation being passed, what is the United Nations' telling the world? It is fine to aggravate war for profit, to push around the boundaries and lie to the GA? Is this the UN you wish to be apart of?

We know the US does not hold the UN in the greatest of regards, but nonetheless I think you may find that the UN's public image has a strong enough basis in history and legislation not to hinge on a single investigation. Furthermore.. such a message can't be communicated unless war is being aggratated for profit and all the rest. We assure you that we see no reasonable suggestions of this being the case, and therefore don't feel this is something to be concerned about.

Reply 7

OP

China assures you it won't be.

The United States' condemns the Chinese threat of veto, and finds it despicable that they are attempting to dilute the true origins of the allegations by talking about 'hypotheticals' and the diminutive stance of the investigation.

The UN's history is irrelevant, the UN's future is more important.

This resolution is a cross-road in the future of the UN: either a UN which allows two of its most powerful, respected and allegedly most responsible members to war-profiteer without even a single investigation being carried out (let alone punishment); or a UN which holds true to its original aims, its public responsibility as a global security body and as a body which can make even the most basic of moral decisions.

Reply 8

OP

Craghyrax

Furthermore.. such a message can't be communicated unless war is being aggratated for profit and all the rest. We assure you that we see no reasonable suggestions of this being the case, and therefore don't feel this is something to be concerned about.

Even if China and Russia do not profit, they have broken UN protocol, numerous UN resolutions, the Geneva conventions and are aggravating the conflict in Darfur for no apparant reason.

Whether for political or economic reasons, the action is still relative and as equally corrupt.

Reply 9

prufrock

Even if China and Russia do not profit, they have broken UN protocol, numerous UN resolutions, the Geneva conventions and are aggravating the conflict in Darfur for no apparant reason.

How incredibly hypocritical of the US to bring up the Geneva convention in the light of its own renowned disregard thereof. China does not recognise their criticisms as they are devoid of any evidence or fact.

Reply 10

prufrock

This resolution is a cross-road in the future of the UN: either a UN which allows two of its most powerful, respected and allegedly most responsible members to war-profiteer without even a single investigation being carried out (let alone punishment); or a UN which holds true to its original aims, its public responsibility as a global security body and as a body which can make even the most basic of moral decisions.

The investigation proposed would be absolutely futile in resolving the Sudanese conflict. We repeat our assurance that we have not and will not breach the terms of the embargo. Knowing this to be true, we cannot agree with the US's perspective on the matter. Far from being anything as significan't as a 'crossroad', we deem this a further waste of time and resources that will only prolong the implementation of any effective solution to the situation. This in itself is a neglect of global security, namely that of Darfur and one that we shan't condone.

Reply 11

OP

Craghyrax

The investigation proposed would be absolutely futile in resolving the Sudanese conflict. We repeat our assurance that we have not and will not breach the terms of the embargo. Knowing this to be true, we cannot agree with the US's perspective on the matter. Far from being anything as significan't as a 'crossroad', we deem this a further waste of time and resources that will only prolong the implementation of any effective solution to the situation. This in itself is a neglect of global security, namely that of Darfur and one that we shan't condone.

The investigation does not seek to end the Sudanese conflict, on investigate one of the possible reasons the conflict is being prolonged. If the investigation happens to remove this factor of continuance, so be it; but the primal aim is to weed out the liars and war-profiteers.

It is a crucial step justice, the UN will be seen to be doing something about the fact that two of its most powerful members are disobeying Geneva and the UN. What will this tell other nations? Will it justify a more gung-ho mentality globally, will it causes nations to defy UN resolutions because two SC members have?

Deciding on a course of justice, fairness and consistency for every member of the GA is not time-wasting or a waste of resources.

Not only is it the US' perpective, it is the perspective of Amnesty International and many other nations who wish for fairness and an end to corrupt profiteering in wartime situations.

Reply 12

China has tolerated these allegations and assumptions long enough. We are disgusted with the US' repetitive slandering, and flippancy; speaking of suspicions as proven fact. We shall veto this.

Reply 13

Ethereal

19

How precisely have they broken the Geneva convention wich governs conduct during war or armed conflict? China are not a party to this conflict and, therefore, can not be in breach of Geneva.

Reply 14

OP

Ethereal

How precisely have they broken the Geneva convention wich governs conduct during war or armed conflict? China are not a party to this conflict and, therefore, can not be in breach of Geneva.

To quote a recent media overview:

The (AI) report makes another serious allegation: the use of white aircraft in Darfur by the Sudanese government, apparently to carry out military missions.

According to eyewitness testimony, in early March 2007, an all-white Antonov-26 with a Sudanese Air Force registration number was spotted at El Fasher "parked near an assortment of bombs." Others reported seeing all white Air Force helicopters at Nyala Airport between January and March.

White aircraft and helicopters are used by the U.N., African Union and other humanitarian agencies to deliver aid. International humanitarian law generally prohibits the disguising of military vehicles as those of neutral agents in an armed conflict. The use of white aircraft for military operations could thus constitute a breach of international law.

... given the distance from which they would be seen, their white color could easily lead to their being confused for humanitarian aircraft.

A 2006 U.N. report, cited by AI, notes that the use of such white aircraft would place the international agents, including the U.N., under "grave threat", by annulling the protective association of the white. Having come under attack from white aircraft, rebel forces may subsequently open fire on all white targets, including "friendly" targets, such as U.N. aircraft.

---

And the BBC:

The Amnesty report backs up a UN study, leaked to the New York Times last month, which said Sudan was painting aircraft white to make them look like UN planes - a practice banned by the Geneva Convention.

Reply 15

OP

The investigation would attempt to address all of these hypothetical concerns and finally clear up what happened.

If the Chinese delegate is certain of Chinese innocence, why is she so against an independent investigation?

Reply 16

Ethereal

19

ergo SUDAN have breached, not China

Reply 17