NationStates Jolt Archive

With the masses of nations leaving the UN in the last few weeks, I ask the question, "Why?"

Don't those who advocate change need to be part of the body they so desperately want to change? How can change occur but internally?

By running away, these nations show that they are not serious about changing the stature of the NationStates United Nations, they are more interested in letting it destroy itself with senseless proposals and an apathy from its general membership.

These nations showcase the very worse in world powers - they are weak and cowards - for running around from the problem without seeking a solution.

Change begins from within, members, exercises your power!

With some issues you just can't compromise, I suppose.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

With some issues you just can't compromise, I suppose.

Then, one must rally support against them.

Part of joining an international body is to agree to the rules it plays by, the UN is no exception, and all nations need to realize that upon application.

I imagine they're leaving because they see a regulation passing they don't like the look of, some of the nations in my region are being encouraged to leave if the current resolution passes!

One assumes she'd be happy with smaller nukes being thrown around like the ones they're building a 4 billion pound research facility to develop here ~sigh~

I imagine they're leaving because they see a regulation passing they don't like the look of, some of the nations in my region are being encouraged to leave if the current resolution passes!

That's the whole point of this thread!

If they don't like a current resolution, why not debate it, campaign against it, play politics.

Why run away? What does that accomplish?

Salve Tuesday Heights!

The point is, resolutions are pushed down the throat of every UN member state, whether they like it or not. The UN also interferes with internal state issues, much less with international issues. Because many members seem to vote for every resolution put up for vote without even thinking about their vote, all kinds of resolutions are passed which interfere with our internal state policies. Therefore, we resign. Resolutions that have passes cannnot be changed and cannot be ignored (as can with RL UN Resolutions), so it's better to resign than let those resolution be forcefully put in effect in our countries.

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

That's the whole point of this thread!
If they don't like a current resolution, why not debate it, campaign against it, play politics.
Why run away? What does that accomplish?

It accomplishes nothing, but I suppose it's no worse than the sort of blatant misuse of the Veto some governments have been guilty of in the past, meh, she also demanded to know how I'd voted, I refused to tell her, then got elected as UN delegate for my region so she looked it up there then ranted at me about it!

I've only been playing this game about two days, so excuse my ignorance, but what do I gain by being elected UN delegate? I was able to vote before...

The point is, resolutions are pushed down the throat of every UN member state, whether they like it or not.

Actually, they do have a choice. Vote against it, play politics, voice out against it. If every nation that left actually made an effort, change would be in effect, as it appears a large number of nations disagree with the current scheme of things within the UN.

The UN also interferes with internal state issues, much less with international issues.

Well, if that's the case, why do these nations who believe this join the UN in the first place if they know their national policies are going to be changed by UN law?

Therefore, we resign.

(i.e. You run away from solving the problem.)

Resolutions that have passes cannnot be changed and cannot be ignored (as can with RL UN Resolutions), so it's better to resign than let those resolution be forcefully put in effect in our countries.

Yes, this is true, it's part of game mechanics, but, if more effort was put into fighting AGAINST resolutions, this wouldn't be the case.

Ave!
Actually, they do have a choice. Vote against it, play politics, voice out against it. If every nation that left actually made an effort, change would be in effect, as it appears a large number of nations disagree with the current scheme of things within the UN.
We've fought against the past two resolutions, we voted against them, but that didn't change the fact that they did pass.

Well, if that's the case, why do these nations who believe this join the UN in the first place if they know their national policies are going to be changed by UN law?
We joined the UN because our Council of Ministers adviced us to. After we had researched the Resolutions passed in the past, we had our doubts about staying in. After the 40 working hours Resolution was passed, we had great doubts. After the last Resolution was passed, we decided it was time to resign from this commision of liberal nations.

(i.e. You run away from solving the problem.)
We came to the conclusion that it is better to resign than let people who think wholy different about ruling a country decide how our Empire is run. If that is running away, it is at least running away from things wrong.

Yes, this is true, it's part of game mechanics, but, if more effort was put into fighting AGAINST resolutions, this wouldn't be the case.
As we said before, many Resolutions are voted for by nation who do not think before they vote, or, if they do, think wholy different about the issue at hand. We will run our country as we know is right, we will not let it run by other people. If we were allowed to ignore certain Resolution with which we do not agree, we would stay in.

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii .

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

Romanum Imperium, thank-you for clarifying your position, I appreciate it, and I respect your country's decision for leaving the UN after attempting to make a change.

But I pose a question, d'you think if more countries who are weary of the UN did what you did, campaign for change, would it be effective?

There are more immoral and secular minded people in this world than people with good moral values, therefore issues such as abortions, contraception, homosexual marriages, etc. would be an easy pass by the U.N. because it is what the secular immoral world wants. I am not trying to offend no one of course, but this is my prospective.

There are more immoral and secular minded people in this world than people with good moral values, therefore issues such as abortions, contraception, homosexual marriages, etc. would be an easy pass by the U.N. because it is what the secular immoral world wants.

I think that you'll find more conservative-minded people, like yourselves in the world, than the secular/immoral ones. Look at the governments around the world, if they were secular-minded, none of the issues you stated would still be an issue, would they? :wink:

Tuesday....many nations leave the UN because they weigh the benefit of being in the UN...which is not much with the cost of having to conform to UN resolutions which they vehemently oppose and do alter the daily life of their nation.

What's worse is that no resolution can be repealed. If this were not the case then there would be less people likely to leave.

I'll put it another way. One of the major causes of the Civil War was the fact that the South believed that it had certain states' rights that it wasn't going to allow the North to just push down its throat. They had tried for years to negotiate but the fact was only one of those ideals could survive.

I don't think calling people cowards for leaving a body because they cannot agree with resolutions is the right thing to do. If people are trying to voice their opinions and still feel left out the process, then really they should not be bedfellows of a body that their politically opposed to....in my opinion

Tuesday....many nations leave the UN because they weigh the benefit of being in the UN...which is not much with the cost of having to conform to UN resolutions which they vehemently oppose and do alter the daily life of their nation.

I understand this, but then, why do they join to start when they already know they are subject to any resolution that does pass?

What's worse is that no resolution can be repealed. If this were not the case then there would be less people likely to leave.

This has been addressed before, it's "codingly" impossible to repeal/amend at this time. Therefore, it's irrelevant.

I'll put it another way. One of the major causes of the Civil War was the fact that the South believed that it had certain states' rights that it wasn't going to allow the North to just push down its throat. They had tried for years to negotiate but the fact was only one of those ideals could survive.

Yes, this is a viable example, I'm willing to admit to but that's much different than what is happening in the NS UN. Nations have a choice to join, and then, as soon as something passes they don't approve of, they whine and bitch about it. Then, they leave, content with not having done a damn thing about fighting against it.

I don't think calling people cowards for leaving a body because they cannot agree with resolutions is the right thing to do. If people are trying to voice their opinions and still feel left out the process, then really they should not be bedfellows of a body that their politically opposed to....in my opinion

I think calling them cowards is exactly the right thing to do. Let me direct you to a few threads:
Here's (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151395) one that complains that UN enacts rights upon a nation... didn't this nation realize that when they join? It's called compromise...
Another here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=151346) points out how the UN is "corrupting" the world by passing a pro-choice abortion resolution...
One more here (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150956) bitching about the UN enacting laws upon its country...
And, finally, this one (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150909) is yours... which claims if you all ban together, perhaps, the UN would be a better place... and what's the first thing people began to bitch about in that thread... the fact that majority wins... and you agreed to that when you signed up for the UN.

If you don't like it, change it, which you're trying to do that - I see by the thread - but start by campaigning, writing better UN proposals, and make sure some proposal on abortion doesn't reach quorum as poorly worded as it was.

People join this UN because they believe that it is like the RL UN...a feel-good organization that tries to help poverty-stricken nations and quell conflicts quickly.

This UN is not...it's definitely a Big Brother organization...once people realize that they usually leave at the first hint of a resolution they don't agree with....i call that 'you should read the fine print before signing on the dotted line'....


let me ask you this..if the UN began passing resoltions which you politically opposed would you remain a UN member

i call that 'you should read the fine print before signing on the dotted line'....
It's not exactly fine print and it's written in several places.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

details..details.... :lol:

Frigben joined the UN in the hope that we could co-operate with the global community in improving our planet. Although fairly liberal, we have felt uneasy about recent resolutions, notably the Abortion Rights resolution, leading to Frigben becoming more vocal in the UN. The 40 hour Workweek was a resolution which we resolutely opposed, but can live with. However, the abortion resolution is too vague and effectively gives women the right to infanticide (yes, killing your kid when he/she is viable outside the womb is infanticide) whenever they like till that whole living, sentient person comes out the vagina.

Frigben won't stand for this, but worse still, this resolution has nothing to do with global policies! Sure, metric system usage could come in handy for international conferences. Yes, I can see why we need double-hulled tankers and why it's a global issue. Ballast water could harm another nation's waters. All these resolutions have international effect - effect that affects more than one nation. Hell, maybe even the 40 hour workweek could be justified. But abortion? Abortion is a country's internal policy, and is not an international issue at all. Case closed. If Tekania does not submit an Addendum proposal soon, Frigben will. If it fails, we will quit.

We have no objection to the structure of the UN. We do have an objection to the level of debate. To quote our Head of State:

Regardless of any left-right, liberty-authority bias in the UN, these are dwarfed by a massive bias towards stupid. The chicanery and semantics required to maintain a vestige of sensible national law under such conditions runs deeply counter to our national ethos of openness and honesty in government.

Simply put, we do not believe the majority of the UN's members consider their choices carefully. In response to the accusations of Tuesday Heights: we have striven consistently for a better UN. We have organised TG campaigns, argued against bad legislation regardless of whether it was in our own best interest, and hit childish, whiny neocons with the same big sticks over and over again until our arms were sore - and so have many eminent members of the UN, who we respect deeply for their efforts. This has, however, had no influence whatsoever on the UN's tendency to pass cack-handed laws.

Desire for change is laudable, but bashing your head against a wall gives you brain damage.

Respectfully yours,

Elsepeth R. Nibbling
Ministry for Being Nice
Gabran, Rehochipe
http://diden.net/~maga/images/donecrests/nicesmall.jpg

let me ask you this..if the UN began passing resoltions which you politically opposed would you remain a UN member

As Spokesperson for Curantan may I say that our people firmly believe this is the very reason why our nation SHOULD remain a member of the UN. Where one nation disagrees with a resolution there will be others also and we must stand together to make our voices heard.

As a result of the intrusive nature of the UN and it's Big Brother politics, many anti-UN groups are springing up, the biggest alliance being Gatesville. They instead of resigning, plot ways to break the UN. There was an attempt to exploit a bug, but it failed.

I know some people leave, not because the resolutions interfere with interna; politics but rather because of nature of the resolutions. Ie: too liberal, conservative, etc...

Well most people have campaigned against the bill, including myself. But when a resolution is so far behind and more people voting for it whats the use. When I left the UN my economy went up.

Enodscopia
Former Delagate From Lanes Moon Republic3246

And when you left The UN one more vote in the 'against' column disappeared.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

Problem is that it seems all the idiot idealists who vote FOR these resolutions come along and make them pass. It doesn't matter if you stay in the UN. I voted against both the last two resolutions, but I'll wager that this moronic nuclear weapons one will get through, and then what? I'm not signing over a nuclear monopoly to nations who don't even have the sense of wanting to make a difference, a positive difference, to the world to join the UN!

"The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision" - FAQ

The UN is therefore a tool for imposing control on foreign nations. Such a purpose is anathemic to liberty-loving nations, but is quite attractive to collectivist, dictatorial, and/or fundamentalist nations. Those government philosophies are all about control, and the UN is a natural extension of that.

It is for this reason that libertarian/capitalist/anarchic governments are all eventually faced with the reality that they cannot do their duties to their people and remain members of the UN. Their highest duty is to their own country, so leaving the UN is an easy decision to make.

Cabinia practices moderate libertarianism, and as such simply cannot be a member of the UN. However, as part of our libertarian views we respect the right of other nations and their sovereign governments to screw themselves up in whatever manner they see fit. Those nations who enjoy legislating themselves to the brink of destruction are welcome to continue in that manner. Cabinia does not see anything worth fighting for or changing about the UN.

let me ask you this..if the UN began passing resoltions which you politically opposed would you remain a UN member

I have disagreed and voted against several UN resolutions since joining NationStates, and I continue to be a UN member, because I understand the sacrifices and compromises that must be made to maintain international democracy in this organization.

I think a reminder is needed that progress takes time. It doesn't occur overnight, especially with the level of current apahty amongst members of the UN.

This is a good debate, I've been speaking of for along time, and I'm glad I have enough of your riled up to open up truly about the UN.

I'm surprised at how intrusive this UN is on my country, meddling in what should be internal issues. If it continues down this path, the UN nations will simply be cookie-cutters of each other, with little to differentiate themselves.

Jontario appreciates having a say on UN issues, but the cost on our sovereignty appears too high.

We will be reconsidering our participation, but in all liklihood we will be abandoning the UN and seeking other less intrusive alliances with nations.

Best Regards,
Jontario

Ave!
Actually, they do have a choice. Vote against it, play politics, voice out against it. If every nation that left actually made an effort, change would be in effect, as it appears a large number of nations disagree with the current scheme of things within the UN.
We've fought against the past two resolutions, we voted against them, but that didn't change the fact that they did pass.

Well, if that's the case, why do these nations who believe this join the UN in the first place if they know their national policies are going to be changed by UN law?
We joined the UN because our Council of Ministers adviced us to. After we had researched the Resolutions passed in the past, we had our doubts about staying in. After the 40 working hours Resolution was passed, we had great doubts. After the last Resolution was passed, we decided it was time to resign from this commision of liberal nations.

(i.e. You run away from solving the problem.)
We came to the conclusion that it is better to resign than let people who think wholy different about ruling a country decide how our Empire is run. If that is running away, it is at least running away from things wrong.

Yes, this is true, it's part of game mechanics, but, if more effort was put into fighting AGAINST resolutions, this wouldn't be the case.
As we said before, many Resolutions are voted for by nation who do not think before they vote, or, if they do, think wholy different about the issue at hand. We will run our country as we know is right, we will not let it run by other people. If we were allowed to ignore certain Resolution with which we do not agree, we would stay in.

Vale,
Earendilyon, Caesar Elevatus et Dictator Imperatorque Romani Imperii .

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/romanum_imperium.jpg

And yet then I have to play Devil's Advocate...if anyone could ignore the rules, what would be the result? It would completely defy the purpose of the UN. People could ignore the civil rights laws and other important ones relating to daily personal life.

For now and again, I've stated that I'm ignoring rules such as pro-"gay marriage"/"civil union" and pro-abortion issues, as protest and because I don't believe they could really be enforced enough to make me recant or resign. I play civil disobedience as my method of protest, but believe I'd have a lot less impact if I simply "ran away" (as it's been put) and resigned from the U.N.

Interesting point there, Kitsune Island, what does happen when "citizens" object to the UN law but the government stays within its grasps?

Wouldn't you have fled 1935 Germany if you were a Jew and knew the holocaust was coming?

I personally feel that this United Nations provides a strong argument against direct democracy, due to the baffling nature of many decisions. The majority of people vote (and indeed create resolutions) with little or no accurate information and this leads to pointless legislation that does little for my nation except make it poorer and more tied up in bureaucracy. The endorsement system is baffling as well, as most people receive endorsements in return for giving their own, making the whole system a joke.

I will remain within the body of the UN because I want to try to make a difference but I remain extremely cynical about the fitness of most people to participate because week after week I see ill-informed debate (with the occasional properly informed comment somewhere in the middle) and poorly thought out resolutions.

I'll say this, if the current proposal is enacted, i'll quit the UN, and then I'll wait ten days and invade and estroy a bunch of defenseless UN countries

I personally feel that this United Nations provides a strong argument against direct democracy, due to the baffling nature of many decisions.

I think it doesn't so much do that as provide a strong argument against uninformed democracy, direct or otherwise. Direct democracy in particular requires a high level of education, involvement and discussion - and the majority of the voting populace don't read the forums (or even beyond the title of the proposal). Of those who do, a significant proportion read the post's title or the first post, dash off a reply, and then ignore everything else and vote as they would have anyway.

Wouldn't you have fled 1935 Germany if you were a Jew and knew the holocaust was coming?

OOC:
Many did leave Germany in the 1930s. They moved to the Netherlands and other European nations. It did them little good, case in point Anne Frank's family.

10kMichael

Wouldn't you have fled 1935 Germany if you were a Jew and knew the holocaust was coming?

But the Jews where not given the choice to 'join' Germany and they weren’t told before hand that this is the way things are.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

But I pose a question, d'you think if more countries who are weary of the UN did what you did, campaign for change, would it be effective?
I think there are too less nations who care.

And yet then I have to play Devil's Advocate...if anyone could ignore the rules, what would be the result? It would completely defy the purpose of the UN. People could ignore the civil rights laws and other important ones relating to daily personal life.
Although defying UN Resolutions is quite possible in RL, it's not here in NS, so the only possible way out is to resign. Staying in would mean ethical suicide.

The main reason Bennettia left the UN is because a resolution we were categorical opposed to (Abortion Rights) was passed. As we are a nation that believes this is murder, we wanted to maintain our laws against it. If we had remained a member of the UN, we could not have done this. As there are no mechanics to repeal, ammend, or change a resolution that has already passed, I suspect that we will forever remain nonmembers. Playing politics and debating issues is fine, but not at the cost of protecting all citizens of our nation.

It's great that you have such idealistic views about reforming the U.N., but quite frankly, that is a process that is entirely too large for any one nation to undertake. Trying to gather a group of like-minded countries into a coalition for reform would take much too long, and then the process of actually reforming the U.N. remains an enormous mountain at which the coalition merely stands at the foot.

In short, there's too much wrong with the U.N. for me or for several other countries to want to stay in. Besides, I believe that many of the resolutions that have been proposed and ultimately passed threaten our sovreignty as a nation. Unfortunately, declaring war against the U.N. is an exercise in n00b futility, so the only recourse I have is to withdraw our membership.

Does that answer any of your questions?

Wouldn't you have fled 1935 Germany if you were a Jew and knew the holocaust was coming?

But the Jews where not given the choice to 'join' Germany and they weren’t told before hand that this is the way things are.


And nobody told me when I joined that I would have to let my citizens murder their children if I stayed. I see this as a result of the Abortion Right resolution being passed, so I left the UN in order to protect the future of my country.

When there is no mechanism to change or repeal resolution that I oppose, why should I stay a member of a body that removes the sovreignty of my country and endangers my citizens.