Esamopia
17-11-2003, 15:16
The past two resolutions, although "well-intentioned" by some (I personally think they are the worst kind of nonsense,) have all been entirely to vague as to mean anything or nothing at all, precisely why they received so many endorsements (because everyone endorses them because they "read" it a different way,) but precisely why they should all fail, since they are either totally outrageous or completely irreleveant!
The first one of these fun resolutions was the "World Heritage List" nonsense that got passed by fools who did not read the document... which stipulated that any country can declare as a World Heritage site anything from within or outside of that country, clearly placing all soverign countries at the whim of whatever fool decides to start declaring things "World Heritage sites." I for one claim the entire world is a heritage site, until and unless an ammendment or something passes that negates its effect... and even for those who said that this only applies to areas that are of pristine beauty now, well then I declare every single forest, pond, and lake as such, just so that modernization and the lumber industry fails in all those regions.
The second one is the resolution currently being debated, which protects all "life" without specifically mentioning anything. When the author (or a staunch defender, I haven't bothered to check,) was asked how humanity was supposed to get rid of bacteria (shower or take antibiotics against harmful bacteria,) or if harvesting, hunting, or consumption of domesticated animals were included, the author proudly stated that these would be alright, because they were in "self-defense." When pressed further with uranium mining in a forest and other such issues, the author said that they would also be valid because they were in "self-defense" of ones economy... so what does this resolution exactly protect against? Precisely! Nothing, since you could justify anything, like:
Genocide: "Defense" of one's culture.
Imperialist wars: "Defense" of economy, or "Defense against possible aggression in the future."
Atrocities: "Self-defense" (OOC: The bombing of the kurds by the late Saddam or the use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops by the same moron.)
etc.
This brings us to a very important point... getting a UN resolution endorsed is something very difficult. Most are very honest about it and spend a great deal of time and write long and comprehensive resolutions, only to see them fail miserably because someone does not like a specific point or its "too long" for that delegate to read. Shorter and incredibly vague resolutions are on the rise now, because of their ability to not only get readers but also because they could mean anything and everything that most give them the benefit of the doubt and they end up as a colossal headache for us to deal with when they hit the floor, and we try to determine what the author means.
Finally, this probably belongs in Technical, but hear me out anyway, is that there is a problem with our UN Delegates. Sure, getting endorsed by your region is a great way to have these people elected, but I usually get the feeling that not every delegate actually goes through the resolutions at least once before they fail, gives the a good reading, and makes up a decision... which is a real drag. Taking as a best case scenario the last resolution, which had an unusually high vote due to the great controversy, only about 17000 votes were cast, while there are about 28000 UN members (not to mention that the 17000 is an inflated figure because of all the "bonus" votes that UN Delegates who actually vote do receive.) Therefore there is a significant amount of delegates who simply do not bother to endorse anything or who endorse very little, which is upsetting since this causes a defacto increase of the 6% endorsement requirement (if only half participate, for example, then the endorsement percentage is actually 12% since those non-participating delegates are just adding extra weight.) So perhaps some system should be setup in which a UN Delegate should vote... at least for a few out of the huge list of resolutions, to remain a delegate. I will think more on this and make a proposal in the technical forum, but I bring it up here to see any comments or suggestions.
Well, thank you for reading (I hope you read this.) Peace!
The first one of these fun resolutions was the "World Heritage List" nonsense that got passed by fools who did not read the document... which stipulated that any country can declare as a World Heritage site anything from within or outside of that country, clearly placing all soverign countries at the whim of whatever fool decides to start declaring things "World Heritage sites." I for one claim the entire world is a heritage site, until and unless an ammendment or something passes that negates its effect... and even for those who said that this only applies to areas that are of pristine beauty now, well then I declare every single forest, pond, and lake as such, just so that modernization and the lumber industry fails in all those regions.
The second one is the resolution currently being debated, which protects all "life" without specifically mentioning anything. When the author (or a staunch defender, I haven't bothered to check,) was asked how humanity was supposed to get rid of bacteria (shower or take antibiotics against harmful bacteria,) or if harvesting, hunting, or consumption of domesticated animals were included, the author proudly stated that these would be alright, because they were in "self-defense." When pressed further with uranium mining in a forest and other such issues, the author said that they would also be valid because they were in "self-defense" of ones economy... so what does this resolution exactly protect against? Precisely! Nothing, since you could justify anything, like:
Genocide: "Defense" of one's culture.
Imperialist wars: "Defense" of economy, or "Defense against possible aggression in the future."
Atrocities: "Self-defense" (OOC: The bombing of the kurds by the late Saddam or the use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops by the same moron.)
etc.
This brings us to a very important point... getting a UN resolution endorsed is something very difficult. Most are very honest about it and spend a great deal of time and write long and comprehensive resolutions, only to see them fail miserably because someone does not like a specific point or its "too long" for that delegate to read. Shorter and incredibly vague resolutions are on the rise now, because of their ability to not only get readers but also because they could mean anything and everything that most give them the benefit of the doubt and they end up as a colossal headache for us to deal with when they hit the floor, and we try to determine what the author means.
Finally, this probably belongs in Technical, but hear me out anyway, is that there is a problem with our UN Delegates. Sure, getting endorsed by your region is a great way to have these people elected, but I usually get the feeling that not every delegate actually goes through the resolutions at least once before they fail, gives the a good reading, and makes up a decision... which is a real drag. Taking as a best case scenario the last resolution, which had an unusually high vote due to the great controversy, only about 17000 votes were cast, while there are about 28000 UN members (not to mention that the 17000 is an inflated figure because of all the "bonus" votes that UN Delegates who actually vote do receive.) Therefore there is a significant amount of delegates who simply do not bother to endorse anything or who endorse very little, which is upsetting since this causes a defacto increase of the 6% endorsement requirement (if only half participate, for example, then the endorsement percentage is actually 12% since those non-participating delegates are just adding extra weight.) So perhaps some system should be setup in which a UN Delegate should vote... at least for a few out of the huge list of resolutions, to remain a delegate. I will think more on this and make a proposal in the technical forum, but I bring it up here to see any comments or suggestions.
Well, thank you for reading (I hope you read this.) Peace!