NationStates Jolt Archive

We have submitted a proposal to the delegates of the United Nations to repeal Resolution #15 "Preserving Historic Sites" for the following reason:

This resolution extends beyond the bounds of the United Nations and unnecessarily restricts the freedoms of those affected.
This resolution imposes the values and beliefs of some nations on others without due cause. While it would be fair for the United Nations to encourage nation states to preserve their historical sites, making this a requirement is unacceptable.
This resolution also strongly endorses tourism, creating undue pressures for nations which do not feel tourism is an important part of their economy, or who do not wish to open their borders to other nations.

The original description of the Resolution reads as follows:

We cannot let historical sites go to waste, and new buildings built in their place. Tourism would lose all value and deprive all countries of a significant source of income.
We must preserve our cultures to keep this world a fascinating place to travel in.

While The Most Serene Repulic of Alianessia certainly understands that many nations feel strongly about the importance of history, these same nations must understand that not every nation feels the same way.

We must police the UN, not allow the UN to police us.

If you are a delegate, please support this proposal to repeal Resolution #15.
If you are not a delegate, please ask your regions delegate to support this proposal.

Thank you.

~Larissan Tu Loc, Public Relations Officer

Another person who didn't read the FAQ. If you bothered to, you would realize the job of the UN is to impose the beliefs of some on others.

I quite like the UN telling me how to think - it saves my Government a lot of work!

I also enjoy Historical Sites...sorry, can't support this repeal.

About this one, We are of two minds. On the one hand, We are greatly concerned about the preservation of Historic Sites (and not just those concerning Our History). So to see, We would oppose the repeal. On the other hand, you are perfectly right that this resolution was passed for all the wrong reasons. UN should indeed not regulate international tourism.

So what shall We do? We will do the following:
1) Give you all support We can for the repeal
2) Draft a new proposal about the preservation of Historic Sites. Here it is:

Preservation of Historic Sites
Category: Environmental (??) Please help me here, which one should it be???
Strength: Significant (?)

Description:
ACKNOWLEDGING the intrinsic value of lessons learned from history
ACKNOWLEDGING that foreign history's lessons may be as valuable as one's own
AWARE of the crucial role important historic sites may play in conveying history's lessons
CONCERNED about the careless attitude of many nations toward their historical heritage
EXPECTING tragic losses in the value of historic heritage if neglect toward historic sites will continue

the NationStates United Nations RESOLVE to:
1. Prohibit the building of industrial complexes endangering important historic sites with pollution
2. Demand for all industrial facilities already existing in the vicinity of an important historic site to modernize their exhaust systems so as to reduce the pollution to an acceptable minimum
3. Recommend financial compensation for industies who are required to rebuild their facilities in accordance with article 2
4. Prohibit the building of heavy-transport thoroughfares (e.g. railways, causeways and the like) closer than 200 meters to an impotant historic site except where the site itself is explicitely related to heavy transport (e.g. a historic railway station, historic airport etc.)
5. Prohibit the usage of an important historic site or the ground it rests upon for any military, political, commercial or industrial use except where the site itself is explicitely related to such use (e.g. historic military fortress, parliament building, storehouse, industrial facility etc.)
6. Encourage to raise admittance fees to important historic sites which are used exclusively for the purpose of the preservation of the site (otherwise they would be deemed commercial use and thereby violate article 5)
7. Prescribe to take all measures necessary to preserve or restore the original state of important historic sites
8. Make important historic sites accessible to the public

We are encouraged that the nation of Tarnak-talaan recognizes that there are indeed two issues involved in this repeal: first, the repeal of a resolution that is inappropriate for a large, multinational and multicultural peace seeking body such as the UN, and second, the need for a different resolution with imporved language or more specific actions that can or should be taken.

We would like to make two comments about the draft laid out above. First, we disagree that nations should be encouraged to raise, or even to charge admissions (as mentioned in article 6). The historic mansion of Nevets Enharet, built in 1843 and housing an impressive collection of period armor and weapons, is free to all visitors. We find that this encourages spending in the local community around the mansion as well as making it easier for all Alianessians to experience a part of their history. Secondly, we feel it is important that the nation retain the rights to decide what constitutes a historic site.

The only people who determine what is and what isn't appropriate for the UN are the mods and admins. They've determined it is appropriate, so it is.

The only people who determine what is and what isn't appropriate for the UN are the mods and admins. They've determined it is appropriate, so it is.
No no no ...

Max Barry built the frame of our happy little UN house, but left it up to the players to define where the walls go and how to decorate it. In this analogy, the mods and admins are the Housing Inspectors who wander around saying things like, "Hey- don't hammer nails into the electrical sockets."

The UN determines what is appropriate for the UN, within broad guidelines. Mods and admins just watch. If Alianessia doesn't like that wall and can convince enough of us s/he's right, out it comes. Let's just hope it's not load-bearing.

No no no ...

Max Barry built the frame of our happy little UN house, but left it up to the players to define where the walls go and how to decorate it. In this analogy, the mods and admins are the Housing Inspectors who wander around saying things like, "Hey- don't hammer nails into the electrical sockets."

The UN determines what is appropriate for the UN, within broad guidelines. Mods and admins just watch. If Alianessia doesn't like that wall and can convince enough of us s/he's right, out it comes. Let's just hope it's not load-bearing.

I was trying to give them an opening by which they could at least build an arguement. I had hoped others would catch that from the multitude of other times I have pointed out what you have (only not as directly).

Ah, well. Someone found the hole in my post.

Ah, well. Someone found the hole in my post.
It's just so much more fun to poke holes in one of your arguments than it is to someone who doesn't bother with logic or reason.

Sorry to bust your balloon. I'll getcha another one the next time a vendor of over-inflated atmospherics wanders along.


(should be any second now)

:p

We are encouraged that the nation of Tarnak-talaan recognizes that there are indeed two issues involved in this repeal: first, the repeal of a resolution that is inappropriate for a large, multinational and multicultural peace seeking body such as the UN, and second, the need for a different resolution with imporved language or more specific actions that can or should be taken.

We would like to make two comments about the draft laid out above. First, we disagree that nations should be encouraged to raise, or even to charge admissions (as mentioned in article 6). The historic mansion of Nevets Enharet, built in 1843 and housing an impressive collection of period armor and weapons, is free to all visitors. We find that this encourages spending in the local community around the mansion as well as making it easier for all Alianessians to experience a part of their history. Secondly, we feel it is important that the nation retain the rights to decide what constitutes a historic site.

Firstly: Nations shall be "encouraged" and not "commanded" to raise admission fees exactly because it shall NOT be mandatory. However, may be We should add a phrase like "where appropriate". We agree that like in your example there might be places which have some business only because they harbor a historic site which is freely accessible (We do hope, however, that part of the increased tax income of that local community due to the spending encouraged by the historic mansion of Nevets Enharet is expended for preservation of said mansion). In other places, like the Holy Stone Circle on top of the Bakurf-Ter in Our capital city, We are forced to raise admission fees, else half a million people from all over Tarnak-talaan would climb up the mountain every day.

Secondly, the proposal does nothing to dictate what constitutes a historic site, and We feel it should somehow include a kind of Definition or conditions to be met to be classified as "important historic site", such that a nation may NOT have the freedom to declare every building older than twenty years a historic site, or deny the importance of a historic site which may well be the sole surviving artefact from a civilization long forgotten. We are open for suggestions for any such conditions or definitions or other means to create a list of worldwide historic heritage.