NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING that many land borders are not clearly defined on the ground,

AWARE of the problems this can cause, most notably incidents in 2004 on the Iran/Iraq, where unclearly defined borders led to the capture of 8 UK Navy personnel and a diplomatic incident,

ALSO AWARE of "border violations" being used as justification for war, notably the 1934 Wal Wal incident in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) used as a justification for Italy's invasion,

CALLS on all nations:
1. To clearly and visibly mark their frontiers at land or sea by appropriate means, such as a fence or bollards.
2. While doing this, to make sure that free access is maintained for travellers and wildlife, as appropriate to national immigration laws.
3. If borders are not agreed, to hold conferences with border nations to do so.

Using real world events in proposals is not allowed.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

How is defining the borders going to help? It will just bring up more never ending arguments, like who has rights to which land and why they do. That will just end in war! Sure, war can be good for the economy, but not for lives or quality of life. And it ends (if it does end) in economic depression. Do you want the children of your nation to be learning to read and write, or the right quantity of dynamite/TNT to use in a bomb?

This whole matter seems a bit asinine. Sure, disputes over borders happen, but rarely does it escalate into armed conflict. In the cases where wars have occured over these disagreements, the parties involved have had far more reasons to go to war than just being confused on who lives where.

Furthermore, asking a nation to put up thousands of miles of earthworks or fences is a bit ridiculous. In Sophista, that would amount to tens of thousands of miles of fenceline, costing millions upon millions of dollars in labor and materials. Nevermind that we're an island chain and our boundaries are pretty well defined by default; your resolution would mean fences for everybody.

A noble effort, but simply unnecessary.

Quite. And not all of us are as lucky as Sophista: Rehochipe has extensive borders in desert where any marker would quickly be lost in sand-dunes, and mountains and forests where the same would be true with snow. For those with national waters, marking would be impossible in depths too great for buoys. Sophista is also correct in noting that in many places, putting up fences is utterly unnecessary: where a river defines the border, for instance.

Whether or not to physically mark your borders is a matter of practicality, not principle. Little red posts with you are now entering Rehochipe. beware of weasels are pointless if they're under twenty feet of sand.

* The Rep of Komokom joins us via web-cam, during a brief holiday and having stopped on his travel on a spot within the borders of Rehochipe,

" So thats what it is "

* The Rep of Komokom bends down and removes a weasel making in-roads on his left shoe.

Ahem, right, I've given the proposal a once over, and using the old quote, un-quote method, listed each bit with its matching concern. As I do.

NOTING that many land borders are not clearly defined on the ground,
This point is of course very, very, very, debate-able.
AWARE of the problems this can cause, most notably incidents in 2004 on the Iran/Iraq, where unclearly defined borders led to the capture of 8 UK Navy personnel and a diplomatic incident,
As already pointed out, plain no real world incidents allowed in proposals.
ALSO AWARE of "border violations" being used as justification for war, notably the 1934 Wal Wal incident in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) used as a justification for Italy's invasion,
As above.
1. To clearly and visibly mark their frontiers at land or sea by appropriate means, such as a fence or bollards.
*Can't talk, building fence across sea ...

" Mu hu ha ha ha, just try your shipping routes now why don't you ! "

Ahem. Naturally, this bit could be worded better, and as already pointed out I think, though I may be wrong, its a matter of practicality over necessity.
2. While doing this, to make sure that free access is maintained for travellers and wildlife, as appropriate to national immigration laws.
Which conflicts with the idea of building walls. Unless we build ladders too ... but then we might argue as to what side should build and maintain the ladders ... or do travellers have to bring their own ladders ...
3. If borders are not agreed, to hold conferences with border nations to do so.
" My land ! "

" No. Mine ! "

" Give it ! "

" Make me ! "

" Yeah ? Well your mother ... ( tape stops ) "

...

In conclusion, noble effort, but not really required, or requiring a fair bit of re-writing. Though at least you've used the correct format reasonably well.

Apart from the massive cost, the impracticality etc, there's one other problem. The (probably minor, but stil mentionable) effect on the national psyche - you're asking us to put up more barriers between nations, when what we should be doing is breaking them down.

Glad I'm an Island, and if any n00b invades me...

:mp5: <--- I love that smiley

It wouldn't be fences, it could just be bollards or buoys.

As for not clear definition, some borders i.e. Saudi-Yemen, are just lines on a map and dotted ones at that. Iran-Iraq was a river and those of us who remember the Kosovo conflict will remember three US soldiers getting captured by the Serbs, with a dispute over where they actually were.

I quote this page:
http://www.boundaries.com/

Less than one-third of 420 possible maritime boundaries are agreed. Off the west coast of Africa, a mere seven of 33 offshore boundaries have been settled. Only one of the four Canada-US maritime boundaries is fixed--and that only in part.

The site was last updated in March, but I don't think that every nation has defined its borders overnight.

And as for referring to real world events, I'm sure that's allowed. It's just condemning the actions of real people i.e. the President of the United States.
The SPCC Regulation Act otherwise would have been removed:

This would prevent environmental disasters like the one caused by the train wreck in North Korea in 2004, that killed 3000 civilians, or the underground pipeline leak outside San Francisco, where 15 Million gallons of crude oil leaked into the Pacific Ocean affecting between 300 and 600 acres of marshland near Suisun Bay .

Ultimately, all UN resolutions talk about RL problems and try to solve them in the NS world- needle sharing prevention (the resolution of which refers to real UN reports), fossil fuels, acid rain (referring to problems in the North-East US).

Note- the resolution is on page 6 and needs 129 endorsements.

You can use issues from the real world but not names, places, and incidents. They didn't happen here.

I refer you to

4. Real-Life Proposals
George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them.

Although it could be said that you are using real world examples to explain the concept but, I think, you are using the real world to justify your proposal. If you can only justify it in real world terms these questions remain;

Why do we need this proposal? How will it benefit us?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I again refer you to the SPCC Act, which must have been approved by the mods since it was allowed.

Whether or not you can make the references to real-world activity or not, the proposal still doesn't come up to snuff. Marking borders doesn't necessarily mean governments agree on them, it just means one government will have to spend a lot of time moving the border-marking signs when the other government isn't looking.

Building fences, walls, trenches, or long-dotted-line-representing sign posts won't help anything. Just ask the Palestinians.

"And we should build a fence around 12 islands because...?"

I again refer you to the SPCC Act, which must have been approved by the mods since it was allowed.

Although it could be said that you are using real world examples to explain the concept but, I think, you are using the real world to justify your proposal. If you can only justify it in real world terms these questions remain;

Why do we need this proposal? How will it benefit us?

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World