NationStates Jolt Archive

A law has been enacted by The Argumentative Republic of Stubby that makes null and void within the borders of The Argumentative Republic of Stubby any laws enacted by the Compliance Ministry of the United Nations.

Sorry, I don't think things work like that.

OOC: Technically? No, but RPwise. Yes

IC: Ambassador from Stubby, if you disapprove of the UN's actions, your not actually allowed to create legislation to make UN resolutions null and void. This could create a major international incident and the powerbase of the UN would be weakened. This would present the enemies of the UN a perfect opportunity to strike in the time of chaos and turmoil created by the dissent that occurs.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Unless you are the nation of israel the UN will have to send weapons inspectors to search for WMDs. If they find none, the USA will decide to invade your country and put you on the worlds most wanted list. Then they will proceed to leave your country in ruins (heh) and find an easy way out by declaring that they will leave by next summer.

Unless you want to face such consequences. You may declare yourself the nation of israel, or any religious state that has a huge lobby in the United States, in which case you are exempt from complying to any UN resolutions and even recieve aid up to 20 bilion a year.

Eat that.

Unless you are the nation of israel the UN will have to send weapons inspectors to search for WMDs. If they find none, the USA will decide to invade your country and put you on the worlds most wanted list. Then they will proceed to leave your country in ruins (heh) and find an easy way out by declaring that they will leave by next summer.

Unless you want to face such consequences. You may declare yourself the nation of israel, or any religious state that has a huge lobby in the United States, in which case you are exempt from complying to any UN resolutions and even recieve aid up to 20 bilion a year.

Eat that.
Ecodigitalias:

Without malice, this is an IC thread. That is an OOC post. Whether or not I agree with your sentiment, I ask that you take it to another thread that is discussing RL/OOC politics/world issues, or create one of your own. There are many such threads out there, and some actually have some well thought out arguments in them.

OOC: Technically? No, but RPwise. Yes
OOC: The Baron hit it on the nose. This is an IC protest by an independent nation. "Stubby" is my "puppet" nation - my "main" nation is The Frost-Free Borderlands of Snub Nose 38 (and I only have the two). Until recently, SN38 was a UN Member, and Stubby was not. However, the government of SN38 got sick and tired of the UN Compliance Ministry "passing laws" to bring SN38 into compliance with any UN Proposals that passed, but SN38 had voted against. Can't remember which one was the last straw, but about a week ago SN38 Resigned from the UN. That allowed me to apply for membership as Stubby, which I did. Stubby is now a member - and is "carrying the banner" protesting the UN forcing sovereign independent nations to comply with laws they completly disagree with. It's In Character ROLL PLAY - I'm fully aware that this will not remotely change how the game works. That isn't the point, because it is really only a game. The point is the IC RP of an independent sovereign nation protesting external control of internal policies and laws.

Ta Da!! :wink:

IC: Ambassador from Stubby, if you disapprove of the UN's actions, your not actually allowed to create legislation to make UN resolutions null and void. This could create a major international incident and the powerbase of the UN would be weakened. This would present the enemies of the UN a perfect opportunity to strike in the time of chaos and turmoil created by the dissent that occurs.

Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia
Ambassador Rad Kom
UN Ambassador for the Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia

Sir (or Madam, as the case may be):

I am in receipt of your letter decrying The Argumentative Republic of Stubbys' recent passage of laws making laws passed by the UN Compliance Ministry null and void within the borders of Stubby, and in which you further inform me that sovereign and independent nations are not permitted to pass such legislation simply because they elect to participate in the United Nations. In short, "Hogwash!"

The United Nations is the only organization in existance with a membership of most of the worlds nations, and in which these nations can participate in discussion, debate, and an interchange of ideas with one another - and thus often avoid military conflicts. The UN also has the ability to take a shared idea, form it in to a Proposal, have it debated, and voted on. Which is a fine way for nations to find out what the feeling of other nations is, and how the "wind blows" so to speak, on many important issues.

And, it results in many nations implementing many very good and worthwhile polices and laws.

But it does not in any way remove, void, or decrease the independence or sovereignty of the UNs' member nations.

The Argumentative Republic of Stubby does not intend to comply with UN resolutions that are not in compliance with the morals, ethics, or laws of The Argumentative Republic of Stubby as made evident by the results of free elections held in Stubby. Nor does The Argumentative Republic of Stubby intend to comply with UN resolutions that are at odds with the rights, civil or otherwise, of the people of the republic.

Thank you for your concern.

Sharon Sharalik
Ambassador of The Argumentative Republic of Stubby
United Nations Embassy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: to change "proposals" to "resolutions" in the 5th paragraph of Sharon Sharaliks' letter

A statement from the spokesperson for w00tville.

"The nation of w00tville will not stand for such intolerance to the UN, If you are a member you will pass and partake in all UN approved laws and activities.

Failure to do so will result in serious..."

The speech is broken by the sight of the president of w00tville dancing up a storm!

"OLE COMRADES!"

(OOC: I'm too lazy to switch to one of my puppets to post this...so just pretend that this is UP Capital Territory, my UN member nation. ;) )

From: federationcouncil@capterr.up:S4C001 (OOC: the last portion of this address is supposedly an identification code for Unified Planets' Starbase 001)
To: ssharalik@unembassy.st
Subject: UN Compliance

It has come to our attention that the Republic of Stubby has declared that all laws created by the UN Compliance Ministry shall be null and void within its borders. While we fully support this idea, it has come to our attention that you intend to invalidate proposals which are not in compliance with your morals, ethics, or laws, we would like to point out that only resolutions are intended to be legally binding in all member states, and that the invalidation of proposals will have absolutely no effect. We hope that you can continue your policy of non-compliance with the United Nations in the future.
-Chuck Kearin
Chairman of the Council of the Interstellar Federation of Unified Planets
Overseer of the Unified Planets Capital Territory
Federation Ambassador to the Free-Market Republic of Commerce Heights

Unless you are the nation of israel the UN will have to send weapons inspectors to search for WMDs. If they find none, the USA will decide to invade your country and put you on the worlds most wanted list. Then they will proceed to leave your country in ruins (heh) and find an easy way out by declaring that they will leave by next summer.

Unless you want to face such consequences. You may declare yourself the nation of israel, or any religious state that has a huge lobby in the United States, in which case you are exempt from complying to any UN resolutions and even recieve aid up to 20 bilion a year.

Eat that.
Or you caould stand around and do nothing while children die, women are raped, and men are tourtured for pleasure. Or you could force a country to stand by and not defend itself when their children are blown up by homocide bombers. Cute.

Eat this

comments about RL political stuff.
RL response to Ecodigitalias
Wooly-Bully:

Still without malice, this is an IC thread. That is an OOC post. Whether or not I agree with your sentiment, I ask that you take it to another thread that is discussing RL/OOC politics/world issues, or create one of your own. There are many such threads out there, and some actually have some well thought out arguments in them.

From: federationcouncil@capterr.up:S4C001
To: ssharalik@unembassy.st
Subject: UN Compliance

It has come to our attention that the Republic of Stubby has declared that all laws created by the UN Compliance Ministry shall be null and void within its borders. While we fully support this idea, it has come to our attention that you intend to invalidate proposals which are not in compliance with your morals, ethics, or laws, we would like to point out that only resolutions are intended to be legally binding in all member states, and that the invalidation of proposals will have absolutely no effect. We hope that you can continue your policy of non-compliance with the United Nations in the future.
-Chuck Kearin
Chairman of the Council of the Interstellar Federation of Unified Planets
Overseer of the Unified Planets Capital Territory
Federation Ambassador to the Free-Market Republic of Commerce Heights

Chuck Kearin
Chairman of the Council of the Interstellar Federation of Unified Planets, et al

Esteemed Sir:

Upon reading your letter, Ambassador Sharon Sharalik smacked her forhead, and ran off to publish a corrected version. Of course it is certain UN Resolutions we here in The Argumentative Republic of Stubby take issue with.

Many Thanks,

Bess Tleftaloon
Ambassadorial Emissary
Argumentative Republic of Stubby
United Nations Embassy

OOC: Thanks, CH (sn38)

We in Gurthark humbly request that Stubby either leave the United Nations or abide by its resolutions. We are opposed to entities that claim representation in lawmaking bodies (which, whatever you may read to the contrary, is what the NationStates U.N. essentially is) but consider themselves above the laws those bodies create. Representation without responsibility is morally equivalent to dictatorship.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

We in Gurthark humbly request that Stubby either leave the United Nations or abide by its resolutions. We are opposed to entities that claim representation in lawmaking bodies (which, whatever you may read to the contrary, is what the NationStates U.N. essentially is) but consider themselves above the laws those bodies create. Representation without responsibility is morally equivalent to dictatorship.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark
The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name has to concur. The only true way to exempt yourself from the laws of the UN is to withdraw. To join only to deny the edict is pointlessness, to quote the vernacular-you roll the dice, you pay the price. If you do not like the proposals, campaign against them. As we have just seen, this can work. The UN is no longer the rubber-stamp that it once was. Stubby's joining only to defy the UN is little more than grandstanding. The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name condemn this action as playground statesmanship.

"That guy with the hat"
Minister of The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name

I have to agree as well--joining the UN, like it or not, is an explicit agreement to following its tenets and resolutions. This should, in light of the character of the UN's past resolutions, be seen as a way of encouraging a liberal, humanitarian agenda--not that this is preferable to something else, but that's the nature of our UN in praxis.

However, if someone, in the context of RP, wants to be a nation, that, like the United States, only obeys UN mandates and rulings when it is convenient and in alignment with the nation's views and goals, then that person should feel free to do so.

I have to agree as well--joining the UN, like it or not, is an explicit agreement to following its tenets and resolutions. This should, in light of the character of the UN's past resolutions, be seen as a way of encouraging a liberal, humanitarian agenda--not that this is preferable to something else, but that's the nature of our UN in praxis.

However, if someone, in the context of RP, wants to be a nation, that, like the United States, only obeys UN mandates and rulings when it is convenient and in alignment with the nation's views and goals, then that person should feel free to do so.
Hey neighbor...

Gurthark, Cannot Think of a Name, and Vomer are all entitled to their opinion. All have missed the point though - although Vomer kind of "knicks" it.

In simple form, with all the political jibber jabber peeled of, The Argumentative Republic of Stubbys' protest is:

There is only one game in town (the UN)
Stubby does want to take part - not just "join to complain" (*see below)
The UN does have much to offer that is good
Stubby does follow almost ALL the UN resolutions
Compromise in most cases is a good thing
Compromise of principle is a bad thing
Stubby protests resolutions that are against Stubbian principles

(*"I" was already in the UN. "I" would have begun this protest with Snub Nose 38, but...Stubby was just kind of sitting there gathering dust. So "I" elected to take Snub Nose 38 out of the UN, and put Stubby in so Stubby would be doing something. It's not a question of joining so "I" could protest - that was going to happen anyway.)

It should be possible, in theory, to form informal alliances based on agreement to post similar responses to issues. There are a couple of problems that I see, but since, NS is all about acting in good faith, there shouldn't be a problem.

For instance, a group of people could post their decided opinion on one, any, or all issues and argue the reasons behind supporting one position or another--the debate that ensues could be a bit more fruitful than some of what goes on in the UN.

Enforcement is impossible, but many of us are adults who stand to gain nothing from pretending to do something, and consistently acting one way or another would eventually become evident in the nation's description.

The result of a comprehensive policy group would likely result in a federation of nearly identical nations, but perhaps intermediate positions would be interesting. . .

In a cave somewhere, the voluntarily exiled (and still very loved, some would argue even more now than before his withdrawal) Boss looked at his laptop: Boring boring boring. he thought to himself. Nothings really happening anymore, but hey, when you get to be as old as I, there aren't that many bodies of old enemies left to see, passing by in the river. Sigh.

*Click, click, click*

Hmm, what's this? Our old ally in the international protect-the-children-from-the-evil-UN-member-who-disobeyes-UN-resolution-against-child-labour incident is doing more or less the same? Have they switched sides? And what was that code name of that operation anyway? Better keep an eye on this and see where it's going. Hardcore liberals who are willing to invade entire regions in order to nail one badguy and save the children don't grow on trees.

*Bookmarks*

It should be possible, in theory, to form informal alliances based on agreement to post similar responses to issues. There are a couple of problems that I see, but since, NS is all about acting in good faith, there shouldn't be a problem.

For instance, a group of people could post their decided opinion on one, any, or all issues and argue the reasons behind supporting one position or another--the debate that ensues could be a bit more fruitful than some of what goes on in the UN.

Enforcement is impossible, but many of us are adults who stand to gain nothing from pretending to do something, and consistently acting one way or another would eventually become evident in the nation's description.

The result of a comprehensive policy group would likely result in a federation of nearly identical nations, but perhaps intermediate positions would be interesting. . .
(OOC: This sort of thing has been done, is being done, in about 3 different ways, already.
1. Nations of similar thought banding together in one region
2. Nations of similar thought creating their own alliance, and RPing along that line
3. Nations of similar thought RPing in one or more threads some "scenario" that makes their point - or tries to.

These are all good, and work to a degree. But still the UN is the only BIG game in town - where there are thousands of members, not tens of members, or a couple of members.)

We are extremely disappointed in the actions of the Stubbian government. One of the major principles of the United Nations is that it sets international standards that all nations may comply with. We understand that Stubby may be unhappy with certain resolutions passed. We ourselves were displeased with the passage of the "Common Sense Act II" resolution, for one. However, we did bring ourselves into technical compliance. We would suggest that instead of refusing to abide by UN regulations, Stubby instead formulate its implementation of such regulations so as to be in technical compliance but not in such a way as the maker of the resolution would perhaps have intended. Furthermore, we would note that sometimes national policies have to yield to the global interest.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

Gurthark, Cannot Think of a Name, and Vomer are all entitled to their opinion. All have missed the point though - although Vomer kind of "knicks" it.

In simple form, with all the political jibber jabber peeled of, The Argumentative Republic of Stubbys' protest is:

There is only one game in town (the UN)
Stubby does want to take part - not just "join to complain" (*see below)
The UN does have much to offer that is good
Stubby does follow almost ALL the UN resolutions
Compromise in most cases is a good thing
Compromise of principle is a bad thing
Stubby protests resolutions that are against Stubbian principles

(*"I" was already in the UN. "I" would have begun this protest with Snub Nose 38, but...Stubby was just kind of sitting there gathering dust. So "I" elected to take Snub Nose 38 out of the UN, and put Stubby in so Stubby would be doing something. It's not a question of joining so "I" could protest - that was going to happen anyway.)
As is often the case, when a body encounters critisism said body often dismisses such critisism as having missed the point. The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot thing of a name has not changed it's understanding of Stubby's decleration, this is what we understood it to be. However, we have joined in a body that has collectively agreed to abide by the decided on policies, when a nation openly defies those policies they are subject to the member states condemnation, which The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name renews. As the honorable member of my humble region of Flotsam(Vomer) had pointed out, you are indeed entitled to your protest. But you must accept the consiquence of it. It is still the opinion of The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name that this is playground statesmanship (in much the same way we would view the US's participation, so to be clear this is still in cotext of 'the game') and condemn it as such. You can throw a snit in a corner or work for real change. The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name places the ball in your court.

"That guy in the hat"
Minister of The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name

(again, this is in context of 'the game,' don't take it personally-I'm sure your a fine person...)

- Is it working?
- No, I'd have to say it isn't, sir.
- Hmmm...have we tried the conscientious objector argument?
- Not yet, sir.
- Perhaps if we present our case in those terms - what do you think?
- It certainly couldn't make matters worse.
- How would you present it?
- We will note that there is a precedent for declining to acquiesce to something one finds morally or ethically wrong, or in conflict with ones principles, even when that "thing" is a law.
- That seems like a good beginning. But try to edit it - simplicity is key. And don't use long words where simpler words will do - it'll look like we're trying to seem somehow smarter or better. That's not true, and it won't help our argument. Just use clear, simple english.
- Very well, boss.
- Okay. And, then?
- Then we'll tell them what the precedent is.
- Conscientious Objection, yes, but how will you tell 'em?
- Well, we were thinking of using the United States. You know, conscription...
- "Draft".
- Uh...yes, draft - The draft. That young men in that society...
- Country - simple words, Sam, simple language.
- ...must serve in the military if drafted. But, if their beliefs, their principles, prevent them from killing someone no matter what, they have the ability to...
- They can.
- Um...they can say so, and are given "conscientious objector" status.
- Meaning?
- They still have to serve in the military, they have that responsibility as a citizen. But they serve in a position that will not require them to shoot at someone else. Often the become medics.
- Is that it?
- Well, yes, sir, it is.
- You have to relate that to our stance. And you have to tell them the other option is for the young man to leave the country. Tell them that the young man leaving the country would be like us leaving the UN - both deciding there's nothing there worth hanging around for. And, that the young man staying and fulfilling his duties as a citizen, but modified due to an objection on principle to one aspect of that duty, is like us deciding to stay in the UN, but objecting on principle to a very few of the UN resolutions.
- We'll add that in, sir.
- Good. Then have someone present the argument to me. We can word smith it, so that we have the best chance of making a convincing argument.
- We're on it, boss.

The conscientious objector argument is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1. People with CO status are not violating the law. Countries that provide CO status have explicitly set the law to allow it. The NationStates United Nations does not provide any status like this.

2. More importantly, "leaving the country" of your birth, or a country you have worked hard to adopt as your own, is a very different proposition from leaving the U.N. It requires you to leave behind your job, your ties, and often your property. Asking people to leave a country because they disagree with its policies is placing a heavy burden upon them. Asking nations to leave the U.N. because they do not wish to be bound by its laws is placing a much milder burden on them. They do not get to determine future U.N. laws, and they do not get to be regional delegates (but they still get to be regional founders). These are relatively small penalties.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Honorable Madam of the Extremely Large Number:

I must disagree with both points you use to support your contention that the conscientious objector argument is flawed.

1. It is true that the conscientious objector, now, is within the existing laws. But the consription law was not originally written with a conscientious objector claus. That came into being when young men objected on principle and refused to serve. Outside the then existing laws. Which, in the end, lead to the creation of the conscientious objector status. That is what we intend. We aren't even exactly sure how it could be done. But what we are trying to do is get the "law" changed to allow for the equivalent a nation to conscientiously object - somehow.

2. We disagree that it is easy for a nation to leave the brotherhood of nations, particularly when it is over one (or a few) minor disagreements. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. We are entitled to hold a different opion, and we do.

Thank you for your concern, and for participation in this discussion.

Sharon Sharalik
Ambassador of The Argumentative Republic of Stubby
United Nations Embassy

-------------------------------------------------
Edit - OOC:We want to make it very clear - we do NOT expect an actual change to NationStates. We don't even expect such a change to be considered. We just want the IC discussion/RP of the situation.

The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name must continue to condemn the right honarable nation of Stubby upon the following grounds:

1. Unlike conscription, membership in the UN is voluntary. While the current military still has CO status, it is widly regarded as silly to join something you do not believe in.

2. While Stubby is a protectorate of the longer termed member state of Stub Nose 38, it is still a new member and as such is joining in a snit.

3. Stubby is still in violation of the agreed upon authority of the UN, and as such-places condemnation.

4. Stubby is still using grandstanding in place of trying to attempt real change.

There are a small number of proposals protecting the sovergnty of the member states that are awaiting quarum. The right honorable nation of Stubby can either continue it's huff in the corner (with The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name's re-renewed condemnation) or you can join nations for a change.

The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name would like to deny that they are obsessed with this............

we're not..........don't look at us like that.....

"That guy with the hat"
Minister of The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name

"That guy with the hat"
Minister of The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name

Esteemed Sir:

The Argumentative Republic of Stubby appreciates the comments and thoughts of The Oppressed Peopls of Cannot think of a name. We take this issue seriously, and have given each point due consideration. We would like to address them one at a time.
1. Unlike conscription, membership in the UN is voluntary. While the current military still has CO status, it is widly regarded as silly to join something you do not believe in.
This is a very good point. We cannot refute that, except for anyone choosing to become a naturalized citizen, conscription is not voluntary - and UN Membership is voluntary. The point we were trying to make is that there does exist a precedent for dissent on principles, morals, ethics to be met with some compromise measure. We do understand that there is no such compromise measure within the UN structure. That is what we are arguing for. (OOC: IC only)

2. While Stubby is a protectorate of the longer termed member state of Stub Nose 38, it is still a new member and as such is joining in a snit.The Argumentative Republic of Stubby is not a protectorate of any other nation. We will admit to being a new member. We deny any notion of "snit". (OOC: IC, we are a new member. IC, we are NOT connected to Snub Nose 38. I simply made that point (OOC) to explain why an apparently new UN member was going "snitty". My OOC reason for switching which of my 2 nations was a UN member was simply that Stubby wasn't doing anything.)

3. Stubby is still in violation of the agreed upon authority of the UN, and as such-places condemnation.We are happy to agree with this point. Civil disobedience always entails the acceptance of the appropriate penalties. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

4. Stubby is still using grandstanding in place of trying to attempt real change.The Argumenative Republic of Stubby does not see it that way. We see it as a valid, albeit "illegal", way to make our point. The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name are entitled to their opinion. However, just because they express that opinion does not make it true.

There are a small number of proposals protecting the sovergnty of the member states that are awaiting quarum. The right honorable nation of Stubby can either continue it's huff in the corner (with The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name's re-renewed condemnation) or you can join nations for a change.The People and Government of the Argumentative Republic of Stubby are pleased to hear that efforts to achieve much needed change are underway through other channels. We do not agree, however, that because those efforts are underway, our effort to draw attention to the need for change is nothing more than petulant behavior. If it must be, we will suffer your re-renewed condemnation. We would appreciate more information on the efforts you mention.

The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a names' behavior or involvement in this issue cannot, we believe, be fairly characterized as "obsessive". We will stop looking at you like that.....

Sharon Sharalik
Ambassador of The Argumentative Republic of Stubby
United Nations Embassy

OOC: So, I guess this kind of petered out. No more interest? Well, if not... :wink:

The Maipupuyan leadership concurs with Stubby's feelings, though I sincerely doubt that we would ever go so far as to declare UN mandates null and void within our boundaries.

-Malamas Kakawela