Mikitivity
15-02-2004, 02:42
Before I post my government's draft proposal, I want to say a few words about it.
I'll address the reasoning behind each clause after posting the proposal. The basic structure of this proposal is divided into a justification filled with preambulatory clauses and a UN course of action filled with operative clauses. You'll notice that my satirical proposal titled an Immodest Proposal and the current proposal to Ban Child Soldiers use the same basic structure.
[OOC: If you look at real UN resolutions you'll see they use the same format.]
The reason I've done this is so you can quickly scan the resolution and (1) understand why this course of action is being taken in the first part, and (2) jump to the second half to see what is really being done. Look back at last year's resolutions. It is unclear why they were written.
You'll also notice that most of the language of this resolution appears rather weak. There is a reason for that: if we don't start sugar coating our resolutions, we are going to be creating more nations like Joccia. I ask you as a group, why is your nation in the United Nations? If Joccia and other nations start doing the exact opposite as we mandate, why do you bother to be a part of this organization? We can all make our own law at home, but the idea was to move together, even if on some issues that means moving slowly. Keep in mind that Joccia has not once tried to force its will on us. This is no justification of what that government has done, but at the same time, we must respond to wash any blood from our hands.
Resolutions thread a thin line between establishing an international statement or will and honestly meddling with other nations.
With this in mind, I wouldn't have even suggested language and actions nearly so harsh if: (1) Joccia hadn't agreed to follow the same laws (resolutions) that we all did, and (2) if the issue at stake was something incredibly mundane like hookers or trials or saving the environment or arguing over what kind of word is "is". In other words, my government takes the Joccian death toll very seriously. In fact, our intelligence suggest it is only weeks before Joccia begins to ban books and justifies this action based on more UN legislation. And believe me, a nation with telepaths has access to all sorts of information that more mundane intelligence agencies have to fight to get.
But now I'm beginning to digress. Some of you may actually agree with some of the ideas I'm about to suggest, and since our NationStates United Nations can not make use of parliamentary procedural rules like a motion to divide the question into separate parts, I will actually submit two linked proposals.
Right, I'm going to repeat the preambulatory clauses and put two separate statements to a vote. I'm hoping that this way, people can vote on the parts they agree with and against the parts they disagree with.
I'd prefer to actually vote on three separate issues, because as you'll see ... my draft proposal really was created with three parts in mind. However, IIRC due to the two proposal submission limit, I am forced to pass along this package in two instead of three parts.
If another nation supports this idea, I'd be happy to break the question into three parts, and yield authorship of the third part. I'm not interested in actually having my nation's name attached to a resolution, it is the people of Joccia and integrity of this organization that I'm worried about.
With that in mind, this is a draft proposal. That means I welcome feedback and debate, including debate from Joccia, who is directly involved in this situation. Remember, by just bringing our discussion into a public forum we may even force some stability and save lives.
10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederation of Mikitivity
I'll address the reasoning behind each clause after posting the proposal. The basic structure of this proposal is divided into a justification filled with preambulatory clauses and a UN course of action filled with operative clauses. You'll notice that my satirical proposal titled an Immodest Proposal and the current proposal to Ban Child Soldiers use the same basic structure.
[OOC: If you look at real UN resolutions you'll see they use the same format.]
The reason I've done this is so you can quickly scan the resolution and (1) understand why this course of action is being taken in the first part, and (2) jump to the second half to see what is really being done. Look back at last year's resolutions. It is unclear why they were written.
You'll also notice that most of the language of this resolution appears rather weak. There is a reason for that: if we don't start sugar coating our resolutions, we are going to be creating more nations like Joccia. I ask you as a group, why is your nation in the United Nations? If Joccia and other nations start doing the exact opposite as we mandate, why do you bother to be a part of this organization? We can all make our own law at home, but the idea was to move together, even if on some issues that means moving slowly. Keep in mind that Joccia has not once tried to force its will on us. This is no justification of what that government has done, but at the same time, we must respond to wash any blood from our hands.
Resolutions thread a thin line between establishing an international statement or will and honestly meddling with other nations.
With this in mind, I wouldn't have even suggested language and actions nearly so harsh if: (1) Joccia hadn't agreed to follow the same laws (resolutions) that we all did, and (2) if the issue at stake was something incredibly mundane like hookers or trials or saving the environment or arguing over what kind of word is "is". In other words, my government takes the Joccian death toll very seriously. In fact, our intelligence suggest it is only weeks before Joccia begins to ban books and justifies this action based on more UN legislation. And believe me, a nation with telepaths has access to all sorts of information that more mundane intelligence agencies have to fight to get.
But now I'm beginning to digress. Some of you may actually agree with some of the ideas I'm about to suggest, and since our NationStates United Nations can not make use of parliamentary procedural rules like a motion to divide the question into separate parts, I will actually submit two linked proposals.
Right, I'm going to repeat the preambulatory clauses and put two separate statements to a vote. I'm hoping that this way, people can vote on the parts they agree with and against the parts they disagree with.
I'd prefer to actually vote on three separate issues, because as you'll see ... my draft proposal really was created with three parts in mind. However, IIRC due to the two proposal submission limit, I am forced to pass along this package in two instead of three parts.
If another nation supports this idea, I'd be happy to break the question into three parts, and yield authorship of the third part. I'm not interested in actually having my nation's name attached to a resolution, it is the people of Joccia and integrity of this organization that I'm worried about.
With that in mind, this is a draft proposal. That means I welcome feedback and debate, including debate from Joccia, who is directly involved in this situation. Remember, by just bringing our discussion into a public forum we may even force some stability and save lives.
10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederation of Mikitivity