NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi. I just joined the UN today and figured I'd give this a try. As of this posting I realize that I don't have the necessary endorsements to make a proposal, but I'll try to take care of that later. Right now I'm just looking for some feedback, so any input is appreciated. I'm not quite sure if this should be human rights or social justice, so any help selecting a category would be great, too.

And if I'm doing something that's already been done, feel free to let me know. I didn't find anything like this in the previously passed resolutions, but I didn't have the time to dig through all of the proposals. A proposal search for "refugee" turned up nothing though.

Anyway, here goes.

The United Nations,

Noting the unfortunate frequency of armed conflict in our world,

Noting also that the cost of such conflict is not limited to lives lost, but includes also the destruction of homes and property, resulting in frequent displacement of native populations,

Deploring the rapidly increasing number of humans living their lives in inadequate refugee camps,

Recognizing the need of these displaced non-combatants to continue living their lives as they see fit,

Recognizing also the need for increased humanitarian aid in the above outlined situation,

Acting in accordance with the United Nations Charter,

1. Reminds all member nations of our leadership role in the world and our according responsibilities;

2. Fully accepts responsibility for the well-being of non-combatant refugees displaced from their homes during time of war;

3. Calls upon all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees safe passage through the individual nation if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of any potential involvement in that conflict by the member nation in question;

4. Further calls upon all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees citizenship rights, so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation, if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of any potential involvement in that conflict by the member nation in question.

This looks like an excellent resolution. While I can't endorse it (or your nation, unless you are in "the North Pacific"), I can say that I'd be happy to help you telegram some delegates to seek endorsements once you submit this proposal.

If you join a larger region, it is pretty easy to get two endorsements.

In any event, welcome to the United Nations.

10kMichael

Thanks a lot. I'm in West Pac right now and I just asked them if I could get a couple endorsements, so hopefully that'll work out for me.

I'll keep your offer in mind and let you know if I manage to get this submitted as a proposal. Thanks again!

I commend to the honourable member in writing a good proposal, I have a comment on Article three however. I believe there is already a daily issue covering this, which makes this a local decision in my opinion. Perhaps it may be better to change the words “Calls upon” to “Encourages” this way we only urge and a government still has the right to make a local decision.

I realise that allowing safe passage is a very important aspect, but I really do feel we should not duplicate local and UN issues. If we do we will find that the UN will ultimately have jurisdiction on everything and local issues that shape our nations will mean nothing.

Respectfully,
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

I agree with Telidia's suggestion on article 3, but otherwise applaud Xtraordinary Gentlemen for their impressive debut in the UN.

This is a proposal that will go far.

________________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/2702/hirotabanner.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/30626/page=display_nation/nation=hirota)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6355/england2.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/04605/page=display_region/region=england)

We are delighted to see this proposal. Although we agree with the suggested amendments proposed by the good nation of Telidia, we would be quite content to see this proposal pass in its current form.

Janet Blyleven
Temporary Speaker to the United Nations

Good point regarding article three. I had forgotten all about that issue and agree completely that the UN shouldn't exist to negate the rest of the game for member nations nor to overrule national government decisions on local matters.

Before proposing I'll amend articles three and four as follows, if this is an agreeable compromise:

"3. Strongly encourages all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees safe passage through the individual nation if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of any potential involvement in that conflict by the member nation in question;

4. Calls upon all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees citizenship rights, so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation, if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of any potential involvement in that conflict by the member nation in question."

Also, I still am not sure exactly which category this should be proposed under. Any suggestions?

I agree with some of the resolution, but not all of it.

I don't want just anyone to enter my country and then magically become a citizen.

Also, what would keep one army from claiming to be refugees, and entering my country and using the boarder to their advantage?

I agree with some of the resolution, but not all of it.

I don't want just anyone to enter my country and then magically become a citizen.

Also, what would keep one army from claiming to be refugees, and entering my country and using the boarder to their advantage?

I feel the proposal addresses that issue in two ways.

Firstly, it specificies non-combatant refugees. So if someone did somehow manage to sneak an army into your nation under the guise of them being refugees, they wouldn't be able to carry arms, bring military vehicles, maintain a supply line, etc., and any attack they managed would therefore likely be highly ineffective. You'd also surely notice a huge rise in refugee influx, disproportionate with what your military has destroyed.

As soon as they attempt to mount any sort of attack they are of course no longer non-combatant, forfeit any protections granted by this resolution, and can be dealt with as you see fit in accordance with your laws and the laws of war.

Secondly, it places a qualification on their citizenship, namely that they must meet any immigration requirements your nation already has. If your nation currently has no way of preventing an enemy military from immigrating, this proposal will not be what facilitates their movement across your borders.

Granted this still leaves the possibility for individual enemy spies to make it across on a refugee visa, but I'm having difficulty thinking of a way we can alter the text to prevent this while maintaining the spirit of the resolution.

Maybe we can dump the "regardless of any potential involvement in that conflict by the member nation in question" parts, I'll have to think about it and get some more input.

Removal of those lines would effectively remove the responsibility imposed by this proposal from the nations within that particular conflict. Would that be agreeable if I choose to do that at some point?

My main hangup in doing so is that refugees are more likely to seek safety in a geographically close nation, and aren't likely to be able to travel the world to find someone who can harbor them.

The peoples republic condones the sheltering of refugees

Refugees are scum, they take up valuable land and waste resources

Well, thanks for your input. Hopefully if your nation is bombed one day you'll kinda forget about that being your stance on displaced non-combatants.

And so this isn't spam, I've given it some thought and I think I'll alter the clauses I offered to strike for Sub-Dom.

I included the phrases because I felt a specific need to prevent potential race-based, ethnicity-based, or nation of origin-based discrimination against any refugees requesting asylum within a UN member nation. It seemed to me (and still does) that the most likely source of such discrimination would be through the exercising of this resolution in a nation engaged in conflict with the ex-nation of the refugee in question. I now feel however that this could and should be more specifically worded to insure that such a thing does not happen, and in changing it, I feel I will also be more fully addressing Sub's concern.

The following is the full text of the current version of the proposal.

The United Nations,

Noting the unfortunate frequency of armed conflict in our world,

Noting also that the cost of such conflict is not limited to lives lost, but includes also the destruction of homes and property, resulting in frequent displacement of native populations,

Deploring the rapidly increasing number of humans living their lives in inadequate refugee camps,

Recognizing the need of these displaced non-combatants to continue living their lives as they see fit,

Recognizing also the need for increased humanitarian aid in the above outlined situation,

Acting in accordance with the United Nations Charter,

1. Reminds all member nations of our leadership role in the world and our according responsibilities;

2. Fully accepts responsibility for the well-being of non-combatant refugees displaced from their homes during time of war;

3. Strongly encourages all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees safe passage through the individual nation if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of the refugee's race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion;

4. Calls upon all member nations to allow these non-combatant refugees citizenship rights, so long as the non-combatant refugee(s) are able to meet the immigration requirements otherwise called for by the individual member nation, if requested by the non-combatant refugee(s), regardless of the refugee's race, ethnicity, nation of origin, or religion.

The peoples republic condones the sheltering of refugees

Refugees are scum, they take up valuable land and waste resources

Are you sure you meant 'condone'? Do you have anything non-contradictory to contribute?

I thank you for taking in to account our previous comments and I am pleased to extend my governments full support for the re-drafted proposal.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

My government feels that the proposal is good, but my government raises an objection to number 4. Currently our region is a safe and stable place, but my government and several other regional governments do not feel that we need to put up with refugees. These displaced people will be given right of passage, but my government will not allow the right of settlement or citizenship to such refugees. if they wish to apply for citizenship we are more than willing to entertain their application, but if they do not, why should we host them and look after them? Our taxpayers do not need any additional burden placed on them. Furthemore, refugee settlements bring further social unrest and economic problems. My government must regretfully inform you that if the proposal is submitted as such, we will oppose it, and we will also have to advocate the other nations of Southeast Asia to oppose it. My most humble apologies for such a non-supportive statement.


Sincerely,
J.F. Anderson
Nivagian Permanent Representative to the UN

I have nothing to offer but my support. An excellent proposal.

However, you may want to add specifics as to the obligations each nation has and the choices they would be able to make within the proposal.

Your Proposal is a fine one, and one i will vote for. I will also tell my delegate to cote for your proposal.












Izrathian Rep. to U.N

My government feels that the proposal is good, but my government raises an objection to number 4. Currently our region is a safe and stable place, but my government and several other regional governments do not feel that we need to put up with refugees. These displaced people will be given right of passage, but my government will not allow the right of settlement or citizenship to such refugees. if they wish to apply for citizenship we are more than willing to entertain their application, but if they do not, why should we host them and look after them? Our taxpayers do not need any additional burden placed on them. Furthemore, refugee settlements bring further social unrest and economic problems. My government must regretfully inform you that if the proposal is submitted as such, we will oppose it, and we will also have to advocate the other nations of Southeast Asia to oppose it. My most humble apologies for such a non-supportive statement.

I feel this argument has already been dealt with in previous discussions in this debate, but to re-iterate the point.

Article three now that it is amended will not force a government to open its borders, but does encourage nations to do so, on the grounds that it is humane to do so. Secondly article four does not force nations to grant citizenship to non-combatant refugees since they will still have to comply to whatever immigration law exists within individual member states.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
HM Government of Telidia

Right, exactly what Telidia's Ambassador stated. Article four forces nothing in the way of immigration policy, but instead acts as insurance that no refugee will be discriminated against in his or her bid for citizenship.

And just so everyone knows, this isn't dead or stalled out. I've posted it on our region's off-site message board for additional feedback. I also now have the needed endorsements to make a proposal, so it should be up soon.

Hopefully this doesn't post ten times, having some problems here.