NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi all,

I just wanted to inform you that I've made this proposal and I hope this'll help when wars wreak havoc among nations. I think they're nice guidelines for trading. Please leave your opinions on this or just check it out,
thanks!

Please take the time to post your proposals, new submitters.
Wartime Trade Agreement
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Hiroshiko

Description: Nations engaging in civil or international wars/conflicts may be aided by other nations that are neutral. This act can benefit both nations, thus helping their economies. This act proposes the following:

1) A neutral nation that wishes to trade/aid a warring nation may do so.

2) The neutral nation may send basic aid and weapon supplies. The neutral nation may NOT send soldiers/troops. If the nation sends troops, they are immediately in violation of this act and therefore is considered an ally of the nation they are currently trading with.

3) Nations that are highly advanced in technology may NOT send advanced weaponry to an underdeveloped nation. Instead, they will send conventional weaponry that match those of the underdeveloped nation.

Underdeveloped - Meaning this civilization is less advanced in technology

4) Nations that are highly advanced MAY send advanced medical aid supplies.

5) A neutral nation may send specific civilian workers over to the warring nation. This includes the following:

a. Doctors, Nurses, Medical Staff
b. Construction workers
c. Relief workers (those that help suffering native civilians)

These people must have insured safety by the hosting nation.

Please disregard what the first proposal says. The revised edition is on the bottom of page 3. It should have a new name.

Its called: New Wartime Trade Agreement a.k.a. NWTA

Because I've submitted it to the UN, read it over and please vote of it, thanks!

If its going to help the economies, the USWA is for it.

Yes, this proposal was designed to benefit both the neutral and the warring nation. Yes, your commerce should go up if this was voted for.

I do believe this will help fraile economies, so please vote for this proposal.

1) A neutral nation that wishes to trade/aid a warring nation may do so.

2) The neutral nation may send basic aid and weapon supplies. The neutral nation may NOT send soldiers/troops. If the nation sends troops, they are immediately in violation of this act and therefore is considered an ally of the nation they are currently trading with.

3) Nations that are highly advanced in technology may NOT send advanced weaponry to an underdeveloped nation. Instead, they will send conventional weaponry that match those of the underdeveloped nation.

Underdeveloped - Meaning this civilization is less advanced in technology

4) Nations that are highly advanced MAY send advanced medical aid supplies.

5) A neutral nation may send specific civilian workers over to the warring nation. This includes the following:

a. Doctors, Nurses, Medical Staff
b. Construction workers
c. Relief workers (those that help suffering native civilians)

These people must have insured safety by the hosting nation.


This all seems fine in theory, but it does open up some questions.

(Supposing Nation A is at war with Nation B, and Nation C is neutral)

Article 1 - does this proposal insure that the neutral nation will not suffer reprisals from Nation A if it choses to trade with Nation B? Or must it trade with both to keep from being punished?

Article 2 - While aid is acceptable, weapons supplies are not. These imply military aid, and so the country could not claim to remain neutral under these circumstances.

Article 3 - Supply of weaponry, as mentioned before, is military aid and something that would disrupt neutrality.

Article 4 - I have no issue with sending medical supplies, providing they can not be turned in to weapons of a biological or chemical nature.

Article 5 - Medical staff are acceptable, but if the construction workers are put to work building weapons of war, that is military aid and as such unacceptable.

Mostly I just have objections to a country pretending to be neutral in a war, but making money out of it, and aiding one side or another. If you are not going to take part in a war then you should keep out of it completely and stay that way until it is over.

The Free Lands of Elveshia opposes this resolution as it eliminates the use of economic blockades to resolve international disputes without combat. The concept of the economic blockade has been an acceptable military tactic for centuries, and is useful for both inciting internal revolution in nations with opressive regimes and for weakening nations before military operations begin. Removing this useful tool will simply cause international disputes to escalate into open warfare more quickly, and will lead to more death and destruction worldwide. And for what? The profits of a few traders!

The High Council of the Free Lands of Elveshia also has issues with the following lines of the proposal:
1) A neutral nation that wishes to trade/aid a warring nation may do so.
By aiding a nation at war, a neutral nation is assisting its trade partner in the destruction of a third nation by freeing resources or providing technologies or tools that will inflict death and destruction on the third nation. By the very definition of the term, nations directly aiding other nations in a time of war are NOT neutral, and are legitimate targets for military action. While Elveshia has policies confining our responses to trade of this type to the destruction of the trade ships or caravans themselves, attacks upon the neutral country itself could easily be argued as legitimate if the services provided by that neutral country are directly leading to the destruction of the attackers country.
2) The neutral nation may send basic aid and weapon supplies.
Without a definition of "basic aid", this measure is useless. While the deliberate inclusion of weapons supplies on its own makes this resolution a farce, the lack of definition for the words "basic aid" could lead to wartime trade in everything from food to weapons grade plutonium.
3) Nations that are highly advanced in technology may NOT send advanced weaponry to an underdeveloped nation. Instead, they will send conventional weaponry that match those of the underdeveloped nation.
Once again we see ill-defined terms. What is an "advanced" country? What is an "underdeveloped" country? If my nation wanted to fight a proxy war with a third nation, couldn't I simply provide them with the non-weapons related technologies to make them "advanced", and then hand them a few nuclear weapons? The loopholes within this clause are appalling!
5) A neutral nation may send specific civilian workers over to the warring nation. This includes the following:

b. Construction workers
Construction workers cannot be provided immunity from attack without limitation. While the basic premises of clauses 4 and 5 are sound, the construction workers clause leaves the door open to bring in third nation Halliburton type resources to build defensive structures, rebuild bombed military installations, and harden likely military targets. All civilians employed in facilities directly supporting the war effort between two nations are legitimate military targets, as their efforts are directly assisting one nation in gaining victory over another.

Fellow UN representatives, I urge you to allow this poorly drafted resolution to die the ignominious end it deserves.

It is the opinion of the Landeran Confederation that this proposal should be reworded to exclude the trade of military hardware. Until such time as this is done, we shall respectfully reject this proposal.

The Prime Minister of Hiroshiko, Wolfwood, welcomes these comments and opinions. We do take these comments seriously. We shall see to it that it should serve the best interest of a majority of nations. While this does have loopholes, it does provide a plan. The meaning of underdeveloped is this:

Underdeveloped nations are categorized as primitive, meaning to say the technology level does not match those of the neutral nation. Giving high-tech weapons to an underdeveloped nation is considered wrong as it would give utter advantage to that nation. As we observe wars and conflicts going on in the NS world, we see many neutral nations giving high-tech weapons/soldiers to primitive/modern nations. If a nation is at an 18th century technological level, the neutral nation should give weapons that match those of 18th century warfare, not anything higher than 18th century warfare.

To the nations that oppose this:
We will clarify this proposal. If we must erase or omit to anything in this document, we will take that course of action.

Again, we thank everyone that has commented.

- Nicholas D. Wolfwood, Prime Minister of Hiroshiko.

OOC: As I reword this and stuff, please go ahead and comment. I'll see to it that it actually makes more sense.

To the nations that oppose this:
We will clarify this proposal. If we must erase or omit to anything in this document, we will take that course of action.
Per the suggestions in the UN stickies, we highly recommend that you make those improvements and post them here before submitting again. You can have a much better proposal after a few days of collaborative criticism and review.

Wait, let me get this straight, we have Country A, Country B, and Country C. Countries A and B are at war and Country C is nuetral. Without being declared an ally Country C can send weaponry to Countries A AND B helping to fuel the conflict and thereby war profiteering? Would that be allowed under this resolution?

Wait, let me get this straight, we have Country A, Country B, and Country C. Countries A and B are at war and Country C is nuetral. Without being declared an ally Country C can send weaponry to Countries A AND B helping to fuel the conflict and thereby war profiteering? Would that be allowed under this resolution?

I can't claim to know for sure, but I think the original idea was that a neutral country should not be prevented from supplying humanitarian aid to a country that is being bombed back to the stone age by it's opponents.

Which if you take out the military part of the proposal - the supply of weapons and so forth - it would be sucessful in making this possible.

I can't claim to know for sure, but I think the original idea was that a neutral country should not be prevented from supplying humanitarian aid to a country that is being bombed back to the stone age by it's opponents.

Which if you take out the military part of the proposal - the supply of weapons and so forth - it would be sucessful in making this possible.

Oh yeah, i totally agree that's a good idea, but war profiteering and providing humanitarian aid without being calledan ally are two different things. I'm just trying to clarify and loopholes that could be found in this resolution.

You see once I was playing Civilization 3, I was England and me and America had allied against Germany, I joined the war to gain a land, I took one city and my resources on the frontline had been all but depleted, I knew it would take a long time to produce new soldiers in the area or bring more down from the northeren area of the country. Had I had some foreign power giving me the resources needed to drudge on to the next city maybe I wouldn't have pulled out of the war.

Underdeveloped nations are categorized as primitive, meaning to say the technology level does not match those of the neutral nation. Giving high-tech weapons to an underdeveloped nation is considered wrong as it would give utter advantage to that nation. As we observe wars and conflicts going on in the NS world, we see many neutral nations giving high-tech weapons/soldiers to primitive/modern nations. If a nation is at an 18th century technological level, the neutral nation should give weapons that match those of 18th century warfare, not anything higher than 18th century warfare.


Which is where the problem lies. If a country is going to be neutral then it can not possibly provide military aid, of whatever level, to a nation involved in a war. It would violate any concept of neutrality and - quite honestly - if a neutral nation supplied weapons to a country I was at war with, I would consider that country (the neutral one) to be an enemy, and most likely launch a pre-emptive attack to stop it supplying my enemies.

Country C can send weaponry to Countries A AND B helping to fuel the conflict and thereby war profiteering? Would that be allowed under this resolution?
It's allowed now. Frisbeeteria's MilSpecDefInd, Inc doesn't ask a lot of questions about how and where our fine products are used, nor is it relevant (as long as they don't use it against us).

Who are we to define who's right and who's wrong, as long as they both have the option of buying the highest quality equipment available in NationStates? You may call it war profiteering, we call it doing business.

Oh yeah, i totally agree that's a good idea, but war profiteering and providing humanitarian aid without being calledan ally are two different things. I'm just trying to clarify and loopholes that could be found in this resolution.

You see once I was playing Civilization 3, I was England and me and America had allied against Germany, I joined the war to gain a land, I took one city and my resources on the frontline had been all but depleted, I knew it would take a long time to produce new soldiers in the area or bring more down from the northeren area of the country. Had I had some foreign power giving me the resources needed to drudge on to the next city maybe I wouldn't have pulled out of the war.

But then, it could be argued, you are no longer neutral. You are at war with Germany. So this proposal would not apply to you any longer, and you would be a legitimate target for German bombers and tanks etc.

It's allowed now. Frisbeeteria's MilSpecDefInd, Inc doesn't ask a lot of questions about how and where our fine products are used, nor is it relevant (as long as they don't use it against us).

Who are we to define who's right and who's wrong, as long as they both have the option of buying the highest quality equipment available in NationStates? You may call it war profiteering, we call it doing business.

It's not defining who's right and wrong, it's the fact taht you're deliberately inciting human suffering in order to turn a profit. Imagine if every country the gun companies went to the government and said "Go to war with this country, we'll get you a good weapons contract".

But then, it could be argued, you are no longer neutral. You are at war with Germany. So this proposal would not apply to you any longer, and you would be a legitimate target for German bombers and tanks etc.

Sorry, you missunderstand, in this case I play the role of Country A (or B), not the profiteer Country C.

Still if in that situation I had some bigger country giving me weapons to put up at the German lines, I might be more inclined to drudge on into the next city.

It's not defining who's right and wrong, it's the fact taht you're deliberately inciting human suffering in order to turn a profit. Imagine if every country the gun companies went to the government and said "Go to war with this country, we'll get you a good weapons contract".Who says I encourage them to fight each other?

I sell tanks to Country A. I sell anti-tank missles to Country B. Country A and B are not at war with each other at the time of the initial sale, but both become good and steady customers. At some point the Premier of Country A flips the bird at the President of Country B and they go to war. Both of my good customers are now running out of ammunition. Who do I supply? Who do I cut off? Why?

This is not a rhetorical question - I want an answer, in terms of the proposal at hand.

Who says I encourage them to fight each other?

I sell tanks to Country A. I sell anti-tank missles to Country B. Country A and B are not at war with each other at the time of the initial sale, but both become good and steady customers. At some point the Premier of Country A flips the bird at the President of Country B and they go to war. Both of my good customers are now running out of ammunition. Who do I supply? Who do I cut off? Why?

This is not a rhetorical question - I want an answer, in terms of the proposal at hand.

I have two questions for you -

1) Do you either support or oppose either side? Or do you not actually care who wins?
2) Would you be happy to be attacked by either side because you are arming the other one? Would you be willing to go to war just because the two countries have?

Who says I encourage them to fight each other?

I sell tanks to Country A. I sell anti-tank missles to Country B. Country A and B are not at war with each other at the time of the initial sale, but both become good and steady customers. At some point the Premier of Country A flips the bird at the President of Country B and they go to war. Both of my good customers are now running out of ammunition. Who do I supply? Who do I cut off? Why?

This is not a rhetorical question - I want an answer, in terms of the proposal at hand.


Easy - you supply them both.

Who says I encourage them to fight each other?

I sell tanks to Country A. I sell anti-tank missles to Country B. Country A and B are not at war with each other at the time of the initial sale, but both become good and steady customers. At some point the Premier of Country A flips the bird at the President of Country B and they go to war. Both of my good customers are now running out of ammunition. Who do I supply? Who do I cut off? Why?

This is not a rhetorical question - I want an answer, in terms of the proposal at hand.

By continuing to supply both of them you fuel the conflict, by supplying one of them you become an ally, how complicated is this?

Sorry, you missunderstand, in this case I play the role of Country A (or B), not the profiteer Country C.

Still if in that situation I had some bigger country giving me weapons to put up at the German lines, I might be more inclined to drudge on into the next city.

I apologise - I did misunderstand.

By continuing to supply both of them you fuel the conflict, by supplying one of them you become an ally, how complicated is this?

This is a Free Trade proposal, not a Moral Decency one. That's why being a party to death, mayhem, murder and destruction by both sides, while you sit calmly in the middle with no reprisals, is not an issue.

(Sorry - that might have become a tad more personal than I meant it to)

Wait, let me get this straight, we have Country A, Country B, and Country C. Countries A and B are at war and Country C is nuetral. Without being declared an ally Country C can send weaponry to Countries A AND B helping to fuel the conflict and thereby war profiteering? Would that be allowed under this resolution?

Ok, this is one thing I will make amends...obviously, supplying weapons, either advanced or not, will make the neutral country an ally to the nation their selling it to. So, In accordance, I will drop this.

I can't claim to know for sure, but I think the original idea was that a neutral country should not be prevented from supplying humanitarian aid to a country that is being bombed back to the stone age by it's opponents.

Which if you take out the military part of the proposal - the supply of weapons and so forth - it would be sucessful in making this possible.

Yes, this is what I'm aiming at. I'll probably remove the military crap out of this proposal.

Yes, this is what I'm aiming at. I'll probably remove the military crap out of this proposal.

Then I would hav no problem with it (pending, of course, the text of your redraft)

By continuing to supply both of them you fuel the conflict, by supplying one of them you become an ally, how complicated is this?
This is probably a moot point with Hiroshiko's upcoming modifications, but I'll address it anyway.

Frisbeeteria is a Corporate Oligarchy. We don't take sides, we don't insert our morals into our sales, and we sell to those that can afford our product. We're not fueling the conflict per se, the two nations at war are fueling it. It's nothing to us if they bankrupt themselves, except that we might lose one or both as customers.

C-E NJ seems to be of the opinion that everyone sees war as a horrible moral quandry. The Frisbeeterian attitude is that war is the inevitable outcome of human conflict, and the combatants will seek their armaments from somebody. We're better qualified than most to provide those needs, and we would be foolish indeed to pass up the opportunity to make sales. This is in all our brochures, and it would come as no surprise to any purchaser. If someone is willing to pay the higher prices for an exclusive license to some of our better products, we'll evaluate the cost-benefit ratio and make a decision based on that.

The only operative moral clauses we see are those that have the potential to have a negative impact on our Corporate States. Certain of the UN environmental provisions work in our long-term interest, as do a number of Human Rights laws passed by the UN. Political Stability provisions work for us, Global Disarmament provisions work against our needs. It's all a careful balance, based on long-term analysis.
1) Do you either support or oppose either side? Or do you not actually care who wins?
2) Would you be happy to be attacked by either side because you are arming the other one? Would you be willing to go to war just because the two countries have?
Frisbeeteria doesn't take sides, unless (as stated above) it is in our own interest. We don't go to war because we are not a Nation as such. We are a collection of Corporate States. Our head of government is an easily replaceable Directorate, our capitol city is a post office box, and our citizen-employees support us because of their personal intererst in keeping employed. Nationalism and Patriotism are effectively unknown in Frisbeeteria, as is the desire to go to war. There are battles, and there are other ways of making one's way in the world. We choose the latter.

Frisbeeteria doesn't take sides, unless (as stated above) it is in our own interest. We don't go to war because we are not a Nation as such. We are a collection of Corporate States. Our head of government is an easily replaceable Directorate, our capitol city is a post office box, and our citizen-employees support us because of their personal intererst in keeping employed. Nationalism and Patriotism are effectively unknown in Frisbeeteria, as is the desire to go to war. There are battles, and there are other ways of making one's way in the world. We choose the latter.

Say that I am at war with a country called Duberoovia (this is a hypothetical country, and I apologise if it is real). This country is a supplier of yours.

Would you accept that, since you are infact providing a mechanism to allow another country to continue bombing and killing my citizens, that I would be fully justified in treating you as an enemy, and fully justified in attacking you as well as Duberoovia?

Would you accept that, since you are infact providing a mechanism to allow another country to continue bombing and killing my citizens, that I would be fully justified in treating you as an enemy, and fully justified in attacking you as well as Duberoovia?
Attacking me where? First, you might not even have a clue we are supplying your enemies, what with careful planning, effective use of cutouts, and other corporate strategies. Unlike many of our competitors, we don't publish our customer lists in storefronts in the International Mall (http://s6.invisionfree.com/International_Mall)

Second, would you sail your fleets to the shores of Frisbeeteria and begin bombardment? We are not a traditional nation with defenses and population centers. Yes, you could probably blow up Murdock Media Megaplex and put TNNN (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=359039) off the air temporarily. They have a published address. MMM also has a VERY strong and loyal customer base. They also have not one damn thing to do with MilSpecDefInd, our Aerospace and Defense corporation.

Blow up a plant? Probably. Aircraft plants aren't that hard to spot. We've got other plants, and our customers would probably come to protect their investments in our plant and equipment.

You're thinking like a nation, and we're thinking like a corporation. Different rules apply. One of these days you'll see that. Until then, we're a hard target, and you're mighty exposed. Not that we'd threaten you. Bad for business, that.

This Agreement states:

Any nation engaged in a domestic or international conflict may engage in a free-market policy with other nations that have declared themselves neutral. By aiding our economic partners, we ensure global economic security. This act proposes the following:

1. A neutral nation that wishes to trade or aid with a warring nation may do so without forfeiting their status of neutrality.

2. A neutral nation may send medical aid. Medical aid sent cannot be converted into biological or chemical weapons. The ban of certain materials that can potentially be used to create such things will be in effect.

3. A neutral nation may NOT send soldiers, troops, or any kind of weaponry. If the nation sends any of those listed, they are immediately in violation of this act and therefore are considered an ally of the nation they are currently trading with. The status of neutrality will be voided.

4. A neutral nation may only trade with one side only. Trading with the other side is in violation of this agreement. The neutral nation will lose their status of neutrality.

5. A neutral nation may send specific personnel over to a warring nation. This includes the following:
a. Medical Personnel
b. Construction Workers
c. Humanitarian Personnel
These people must have assured safety by the hosting nation. They cannot be used to construct any kind of weaponry whatsoever. They are strictly for humanitarian purposes only.

For those of you who are skimming to find the proposal, the actual proposal on the bottom of page 3. That is the submitted version. The name has changed to NWTA or a.k.a.

New Wartime Trade Agreement

Blow up a plant? Probably. Aircraft plants aren't that hard to spot. We've got other plants, and our customers would probably come to protect their investments in our plant and equipment.

You're thinking like a nation, and we're thinking like a corporation. Different rules apply. One of these days you'll see that. Until then, we're a hard target, and you're mighty exposed. Not that we'd threaten you. Bad for business, that.

Ok - before we actually get to a state where we declare war on each other, there is something I should tell you. I don't go in for war. Not once in my whole history have we been to war with another country.

Maybe your country is not the best example. But please say you at least understood my meaning? A country can not possibly claim neutrality in a war if it is supplying any of the parties in that war with weapons or arms of any type. And so this whole proposal is invalid and pointless.

Which is where the problem lies. If a country is going to be neutral then it can not possibly provide military aid, of whatever level, to a nation involved in a war. It would violate any concept of neutrality and - quite honestly - if a neutral nation supplied weapons to a country I was at war with, I would consider that country (the neutral one) to be an enemy, and most likely launch a pre-emptive attack to stop it supplying my enemies.

WARNING: 1 REAL LIFE EXAMPLE(S) HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH

True, sending aid and weapons would not be truly neutral. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. An early such incident was in World War II. Even before the US "entered" the war it was in cahoots economically with Great Britain with the Lend-Lease partnership as well as other more subtle initiatives to display the support the US had for The UK. While officially the US could be considered in one sense "neutral" (having not declared war on either side), it was still providing military supplies for one side.

But then, it could be argued, you are no longer neutral. You are at war with Germany. So this proposal would not apply to you any longer, and you would be a legitimate target for German bombers and tanks etc.

WARNING: 0 REAL LIFE EXAMPLE(S) HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH

This is definitely true, it could fully be argued as such. I think it really depends on what your nation's economic model is. If the government practices anything close to Lassez-Faire then it'd let businesses trade fairly freely, "no questions asked" (as it is with Frisbeeteris's MilSpecDefInd, Inc.). However if your nation's government takes a more active role in the economy and attempts who regulate trade to prevent corruption and "immoral" practices (alright, that's a blanket term, but I'm cold and need a blanket right now) then it might be pretty ticked with companies doing business with enemies or allies at war as this would have a more direct affect on that nation's foreign policy. Whether or not it’d legal for Germany to attack a “neutral” supplier I’m not very certain about. Something for the UN to debate about.

WARNING: 0 REAL LIFE EXAMPLE(S) HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH

But all that doesn't really seem to matter right now as the military clauses are being dropped (or am I mistaken?). I believe that humanitarian aid is a wholly worthy reason to ease wartime trade tensions. I'll have to educate myself more on this topic, though, because I have little experience in this topic. Or, for that matter, any topic that doesn't involve cheesy world fact book entries.

WARNING: 0 REAL LIFE EXAMPLE(S) HAVE BEEN DETECTED IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH

I think this proposal is on the right track and is unusually active in the forums...probably due to the genial nature of the proposer in the drafting. I believe I will support this proposal.

This Agreement states:

Any nation engaged in a domestic or international conflict may engage in a free-market policy with other nations that have declared themselves neutral. By aiding our economic partners, we ensure global economic security. This act proposes the following:

1. A neutral nation that wishes to trade or aid with a warring nation may do so without forfeiting their status of neutrality.

2. A neutral nation may send medical aid. Medical aid sent cannot be converted into biological or chemical weapons. The ban of certain materials that can potentially be used to create such things will be in effect.

3. A neutral nation may NOT send soldiers, troops, or any kind of weaponry. If the nation sends any of those listed, they are immediately in violation of this act and therefore are considered an ally of the nation they are currently trading with. The status of neutrality will be voided.

4. A neutral nation may only trade with one side only. Trading with the other side is in violation of this agreement. The neutral nation will lose their status of neutrality.

5. A neutral nation may send specific personnel over to a warring nation. This includes the following:
a. Medical Personnel
b. Construction Workers
c. Humanitarian Personnel
These people must have assured safety by the hosting nation. They cannot be used to construct any kind of weaponry whatsoever. They are strictly for humanitarian purposes only.

This is a very well written proposal, and I can find only two real objections and they are both pretty minor.

Article 4 - if they are only supplying medical and humanitarian aid then picking one side over the other could be construed as support.

Article 5 (b) - Not building wpeaons is not necessarily the same as not supporting the war effort.

Ok - before we actually get to a state where we declare war on each other ...
Frisbeeteria has exactly one declared war, and it's against Sophista. Weapons: Dodgeballs at thirty feet. Status: in effect until Laws of the Sea is modified or repealed.

There is a difference between neutral and mercenary. We could be considered mercenary, because we'll supply anyone who meets our price. You may see it differently, but that's usually your problem, not ours.

--------------

As to this proposal, Frisbeeteria would HAVE to resign from the UN if it appeared to be passing. No choice in the matter - it would utterly destroy our economy. We ABSOLUTELY oppose this proposal, even though we understand why Hiroshiko proposed it. If we thought it had a chance in hell of passage, we'd probably be making more of a stink ... but there are more nations that think like us than that approve this.



[OOC] By the way, this CANNOT be posted as a Free Trade issue. It is a restriction of trade, not an enhancement. I'd probably put it as Political Stability, as its purpose appears to be to "restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order." If it is posted as Free Trade, I will recommend to the mods that it be deleted and the author warned.

This Agreement states:
3. A neutral nation may NOT send soldiers, troops, or any kind of weaponry. If the nation sends any of those listed, they are immediately in violation of this act and therefore are considered an ally of the nation they are currently trading with. The status of neutrality will be voided.

There are some nation's whose whole economy is based on the weapon industry. I understand not allowing soldiers and troops, but some will decry the exclusion of a neutral military supplier. It might help if I knew what the context for all this was, you know, what it means if a nation loses Neutral status. Will the UN hold attacks on that nation as justified? I'm just not sure what this means.


4. A neutral nation may only trade with one side only. Trading with the other side is in violation of this agreement. The neutral nation will lose their status of neutrality.


Ditto with this clause. If I could know what it means to lose neutral status I could take a more accurate stance on it. Well, okay, to be honest, I'll support it, pretty much regardless of what it means, but I might be able to predict the stances of others on it.

Don't misinterpret me, I am not suggesting that you bog down your proposal with layers upon layers of definitions and hypothetical situations. If it has a clear purpose, execution and follow-through, it'll have the same effect of definition without the long-windedness which would make it never get off the ground.

Anyway, Good Luck.

Frisbeeteria has exactly one declared war, and it's against Sophista. Weapons: Dodgeballs at thirty feet. Status: in effect until Laws of the Sea is modified or repealed.

There is a difference between neutral and mercenary. We could be considered mercenary, because we'll supply anyone who meets our price. You may see it differently, but that's usually your problem, not ours.



Fair enough. And you can really throw a dodgeball 30 feet? That's pretty impressive!


As to this proposal, Frisbeeteria would HAVE to resign from the UN if it appeared to be passing. No choice in the matter - it would utterly destroy our economy. We ABSOLUTELY oppose this proposal, even though we understand why Hiroshiko proposed it. If we thought it had a chance in hell of passage, we'd probably be making more of a stink ... but there are more nations that think like us than that approve this.


Why? It doesn't say that it is illegal to do this, it just means that you would no longer be neutral. And as you so graphically demonstrated no one could seriously declare war on you without it being a bugger to do.


I realise that I did not draft this proposal, but in the interests of friendship and hopefully standard agreement of the way the world should be run, could I suggest a compromise to anyone who at this debate?

Redraft the proposal so that it protects the right for countries to supply humanitarian aid without losing their neutral status during war time, but doesn't actually mention the supply of military supplies. This way it will defend the right of countries to supply humanitarian aid as they see fit, but also defend the right of those nations, like yours, that wish to pursue another line of business.

Why? It doesn't say that it is illegal to do this, it just means that you would no longer be neutral.
At current spending levels, Defence accounts for 27% (http://www.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=frisbeeteria) of Government spending. This is an accurate reflection of our export business as well. As many of our defence industries clients are (not surprisingly) in a war state, we could potentially be forced to chose between customers and lose up to half of that business. I don't know how it works in TilEnca, but suddenly losing up to 13.5% of our overall economy would have severe repercussions.

Having to select allies by UN fiat rather than by national choice would indeed drive us from the UN. Your noble intentions have been noted, but we will fight this bill if neutrality or allegiances are mandated.

This is a Free Trade proposal, not a Moral Decency one. That's why being a party to death, mayhem, murder and destruction by both sides, while you sit calmly in the middle with no reprisals, is not an issue.

(Sorry - that might have become a tad more personal than I meant it to)

I think that's a big issue, being a party to death, murder et cetra shouldn't be allowed in the interests of free trade and humanitarian aide.

The Free Lands of Elveshia would like to voice our continued disapproval of this proposal. While the second revision is far superior to the first, it still contains two glaring flaws:
2. A neutral nation may send medical aid. Medical aid sent cannot be converted into biological or chemical weapons. The ban of certain materials that can potentially be used to create such things will be in effect.

3. A neutral nation may NOT send soldiers, troops, or any kind of weaponry. If the nation sends any of those listed, they are immediately in violation of this act and therefore are considered an ally of the nation they are currently trading with. The status of neutrality will be voided.
While the exclusion of weaponry is a much welcome sight, this revision does nothing to prevent the trade of materielle capable of being converted into non-biological weaponry. While this revision would prevent Elveshia from passing atomic weapons to its neighbors, it does nothing to limit our ability to pass them weapons grade plutonium, rocket fuel, gunpowder, lead, and steel that can be used to build weapons. Trade that supports the war effort, rather than just the well being of the citizens itself, should not be exempted, and Elveshian warships would fire on ships delivering gunpowder to our enemies just as quickly as we would fire on ships delivering bullets. To argue against this stance is foolish, except to the ultra capitalists who have no qualms with bathing the world in blood in their pursuit of profit.

5. A neutral nation may send specific personnel over to a warring nation. This includes the following:
a. Medical Personnel
b. Construction Workers
c. Humanitarian Personnel
These people must have assured safety by the hosting nation. They cannot be used to construct any kind of weaponry whatsoever. They are strictly for humanitarian purposes only.
This modified version still does not prohibit the use of third-nation constructions workers for non-weapons work that supports the war effort like rebuilding defensive structures, repairing bombed runways, upgrading radar installations and military communications networks, etc. Civilian workers engaged in work that improves a nations military position and capabilities in the time of war ARE valid targets, and will remain so.

The Free Lands of Elveshia has no problems with nations wanting to trade food and medical supplies...or even cars and televisions for that matter...during a time of war, but we adamantly oppose any UN resolution that protects any trade in goods or skills which could be used to protect or enhance the offensive capabilities of one nation over another during a time of war.

This Agreement states:

Any nation engaged in a domestic or international conflict may engage in a free-market policy with other nations that have declared themselves neutral. By aiding our economic partners, we ensure global economic security. This act proposes the following:

1. Neutrality, by definition, is the act of impartiality. Except with one exception (See Article 5), a neutral nation cannot aid in the war effort as this will break the definition of neutrality.

2. A neutral nation that wishes to aid or trade with a warring nation may do so without forfeiting their status of neutrality. Civilian commercial trade and humanitarian services between the neutral and warring nation may be established. A neutral nation has the right to sell or trade weaponry and military vehicles to any warring nation through official government transactions.

3. A neutral nation may send medical aid to a warring nation. The purpose of medical aid is to help the injured. Medical aid sent cannot be converted into biological or chemical weapons. The ban of certain materials that can potentially be used to create such things will be in effect. Also, if the medical aid is tampered with, the neutral nation cannot give out anymore medical aid to the warring nation. This action only affects medical aid; this does not affect trade relations.

4. A neutral nation may NOT send soldiers and troops. If the nation sends any of those listed, they are immediately in violation of this act and therefore are considered an ally of the nation they are currently trading with. The status of neutrality will be voided.

5. A neutral nation may send specific personnel over any warring nation. This includes the following:

a. Medical Personnel
b. Construction Workers
c. Humanitarian Personnel

These people must have assured safety by the hosting nation. While they are in the warring nation’s territory, they cannot support the war effort whatsoever. This includes the creation of weaponry and the construction of military vehicles and facilities. Weaponry and military vehicles, as stated in Article 2, may ONLY be purchased through government transactions.

(1) With a moral ruling, medical personnel are allowed to help anyone injured, regardless of status. With the exception of medical personnel, the specified personnel are strictly for humanitarian purposes only.

This took a hellava lot of thinking. I thank my friend for helping me in this propsal as well. ^_^

I agree with whoever said that this proposal should be categorized as political stability. How should this affect UN nations?

Mild, Significant, or Strong?

*Note - The third revision will most likely be the final proposal unless someone finds a major loophole.

I'm saying significant or strong, though I'd lean towards Significant.

Ok, I see that this proposal is all good, so I'm going to submit this. Thanks for everyone who helped me find loopholes and etc.

To vote for this proposal, please type this when finding proposals:

New Wartime Trade Agreement

In short, this will be named NWTA.

[I had a lovely reply planned when the remnants of the hurricane decided to take out my power, so this is a bit late]

I think your took my problems with this proposal too much to heart and gutted your basic premise. While compromise is a reasonable goal, you'll never please everybody, so sometimes it's best not to try.

You're better off with a strong proposal that garners strong opposition than one that is so compromised that it does nothing. Quite frankly, I think that's what you've got here. I can't figure out exactly what your intent is anymore, or why this proposal is needed. It's been watered down to the point that it's just defining 'neutrality' and 'ally', definitions that aren't really needed by virtue of being obvious.

If (when) this fails to get enough approvals, bring it back to the forums and get some more feedback. This time, let it percolate for three or four days before reposting it. I know that the urge to resubmit can be powerful, but you need to give a few more people a chance to log on and give their views. You got opinons from about three nations, with my argument with TilEnca predominating. Not exactly a wide sampling.

If people are both cheering and bitching, you're doing something right. Stick with it.