Tróis Rivieres Conference (1900) (Final Text)

[OBD]

Chairman Fitzgerald and the New England delegation, including Secretary of State Lucas Garvin and Ambassador to Quebec Redfield Proctor, express their general satisfaction with the draft treaty. The New England delegation views it as a imperative step forward for the elimination of these vile forms of warfare.

The New England delegation concurs with the Scandinavian concern regarding Articles V. New England believes that the clause requiring that each nation compensate companies affected by this Treaty should be eliminated, or made optional, to allow each nation to decide independently how compensation to corporations involved in the relevant industries are compensated.

New England requests clarification that the penalties outlined in Article VI also apply to violations of the other articles, most notably Article II.

Regarding Article VII, New England concurs with Scandinavian concerns, requesting that the meaning of 'full access' be clarified.

Regarding the proposed Article VIII, New England is amenable - however, Chairman Fitzgerald notes that no bad faith actors have yet emerged and that the passage of Article VIII could delay general implementation of the treaty.

If called upon by the delegates of the Conference, Chairman Fitzgerald is willing and able to preside. However, he expresses that this should only occur as a last resort, expressing his full confidence in the Quebecois diplomatic delegation to lead this landmark Conference.

[OBD]

The replacement of "full" with "reasonable" in Article VII could serve to alleviate our delegation's concerns, leaving the level of access up to the discretion of individual nations. Of course, should a nation excessively stonewall the Commission's activities, that may be cause for additional scrutiny and a possible invocation of Article VI.

[OBD]

New England endorses the Scandinavian draft language. If it is not selected by the delegates, New England prefers the Colombian language to the status quo.

[OBD]

New England understands the French concerns, but believes that a war clause would be unrealistic and potentially burdensome on signatory states.

With this in mind, we vote "embargo", "yes", and "Scandinavian threshold".

[OBD]

New England formally changes its vote to "embargo", "yes", and "immediately".

With tensions in North America seemingly spiraling towards imminent war, it is crucial that we put this treaty into effect at the earliest possible moment. The virgin fields of North America must remain free of chemical weapons, lest we forget the horrors that occurred hardly three decades ago.

With respect to the Scandinavian delegation, who raised an extremely important concern regarding the presence of bad actors refusing to ratify the treaty, the embargo mechanism should be adequate dissuasion of chemical weapons usage given the involvement of most of the global economic community in the treaty. It is the stance of New England's delegation that the embargo mechanism will force compliance among non-signatories, and thus make immediate implementation a preferable outcome.

New England, of course, urges all nations to sign this landmark treaty at the earliest possible date, to render these concerns moot.