NationStates Jolt Archive

To fit the character limit, I wrote this one:

The United Nations calls for the repeal of resolution #86 “Global Libraries” passed on January 7, 2005 for the following reasons.

1. The implementation of the library is not noted to be voluntary.
2. The exact cost of this system is not mentioned.
3. “All” books in every library in 37,000 member nations is a hassle, both for production and translation.
4. As mentioned, 37,000 nations having “all books” and “new technology” will be expensive.
5. To raise an amount of money for this project through donations is ludicrous.
6. The UN has to deal with foreign and trade relations, and making them deal with a global library will be a hassle for the UN.
7. The use of holographic imaging is not fully described.
8. These holographic wristbands must be supplemented for a large amount of people.
9. The state of warring, poverty-stricken, and third-world nations is not mentioned. Raising money for the welfare of these nations would be much more beneficial.



The full version that explains the problem a bit better:

RECALLING that resolution #86 “Global Libraries” was passed on January 7th, 2005,

NOTING that this resolution states that:
1. The Global Library will be accessible to all, free of charge;
2. The library will include a multitude of information including:
-International news
-All books and magazines
-Medicine reports
-Laws of nations and their local governments;
3. These libraries will be implemented in every UN member nation;
4. New technologies, holographic imaging and holographic wristbands, will be implemented in every nation with a library;
5. The United Nations will pay for this resolution through donations,

NOTES that the resolution does NOT:
1. Say anywhere that implementation of this library will be voluntary. A given nation should have the ability to choose whether or not they want the construction of such a library. An involuntary construction not only restricts freedoms and starts a miniature, Orwellian globe, where information resources are regulated by one governing power, but will be met by fierce opposition in nations originally against the resolution, which may result in protests that can slow the construction of the Global Library in some nations;
2. Give the cost of such a system. “New technology” means that the idea of holographic imaging is a recently-introduced concept, which, in-turn, is bound to have a high cost. This resolution fails to describe, even vaguely, the cost of this technology;
3. Realize that putting “all” books in every library will be a problem, noting that most books are not published in every single language. Some national languages are more complicated than others, and sometimes, translators can not be found for difficult and rare dialects. If these dialects are the national language in some nations, there will be a large amount of restrictions placed on that nation’s library;
4. Note that, at the time of this being written, there are over 37,000 nations in the UN. Implementing a library with “all books” and “new technology” will cost a tremendous amount of money;
5. Understand how difficult it will be to raise an amount to fund all of this (construction and maintenance of the libraries) through the use of donations.
6. Realize that the UN has to deal with peace, not only outside, but within its halls. To make the UN regulate a single library system in nations that do not have friendly relations will be a burden on UN officials;
7. Clearly describe the use of the holographic imaging. The resolution is unclear in its usage of this new technology and further complicates the issue with its proposal of the holographic wristbands;
8. Realize how many people these holographic wristbands must be available to. In an extremely large nation, only a few people may live in an area accessible to their national library. The rest of the nation must live with wristbands, that of which the usage is unclear;
9. Address the state of nations ridden with poverty or violence. The construction of libraries in poverty-stricken nations will not benefit the people of that nation whatsoever. Libraries in violent nations may result in looting and even the destruction of the library building;

SUGGESTS that the UN repeal resolution #86 because of its limits on the freedom of its nations, the large cost of the project, and the lack of the necessity of the facilities.

SUGGESTS that nations or organizations that have already donated money to the library project be given a full refund or the option to donate the money given to improve the welfare of third-world nations, which should be a higher priority within the UN than a global library syatem.

IN CONCLUSION, resolution #86 should be fully repealed and any changes to member nations should be undone because of the lack of details that make resolution #86 very improbable and hassling for the United Nations.



Any feedback, positive or negative, is appreciated.

Whatever you wrote in the first - longer - one doesn't really matter, because the UN will only look at the text of the one submitted. It can be used for reference, but it can't be part of international law, as it won't be stored in the UN archives.

Second - I don't like being threatened when I am reading something. Right away it puts me off reading the rest of it.

Third - (kind of ooc) in the last 13 days one nation has raised over seventy million pounds in donations for charity. So I don't think that funding this by donations is ludicrous.

Fourth - why is it wrong for an international body such as the UN to deal with an international library? Who else should be in charge of it?

Fifth - arguing that we should be helping "third world" nations as part of a repeal that has nothing to do with that seems to be irrelevent. Seriously - what does it have to do with this?

I kind of like the idea of the global library. Maybe not the implementation as it is written currently (the authot himself noted that it was possibly not the best proposal ever) but the idea is pretty good. And nothing in your shorter repeal has done anything to change my mind about that.

Of course a global library is going to cost money, and there might be better things on which we could spend that money. Free pizza for everyone for a start. But this is a worthwhile endeavor, and anything worthwhile takes time and money and patience and energy and co-operation (and probably a few other things that I can't remember!).

(And seriously - threatening other member nations is not a good way to get your proposal treated kindly)

Whatever you wrote in the first - longer - one doesn't really matter, because the UN will only look at the text of the one submitted. It can be used for reference, but it can't be part of international law, as it won't be stored in the UN archives.

I know that. I was only using it as a reference.

Second - I don't like being threatened when I am reading something. Right away it puts me off reading the rest of it.
Okay, it's gone.

Third - (kind of ooc) in the last 13 days one nation has raised over seventy million pounds in donations for charity. So I don't think that funding this by donations is ludicrous.
If you are referencing the tsunami disaster, then you have to realize to what cause these nations are donating money to.

Fourth - why is it wrong for an international body such as the UN to deal with an international library? Who else should be in charge of it?
I am saying that such a system would become a hassle for the UN, but if there's enough of a problem with that, then I will delete it.

Fifth - arguing that we should be helping "third world" nations as part of a repeal that has nothing to do with that seems to be irrelevent. Seriously - what does it have to do with this?
What I am saying is that rather than spending a large amount of money on a global library, the money would more likely be better spent on welfare, etc.

I kind of like the idea of the global library. Maybe not the implementation as it is written currently (the authot himself noted that it was possibly not the best proposal ever) but the idea is pretty good. And nothing in your shorter repeal has done anything to change my mind about that.

Fine with me. Opposition 1, Support 0.

(And seriously - threatening other member nations is not a good way to get your proposal treated kindly)
If you are referencing #2 on your reply, that portion has been removed.

It's worth pointing out that the internet is a much more efficient and convenient way to spread information, and that by putting books, magazines, and newspapers in a free library takes away the earnings of the people who write and publish them.

I know that. I was only using it as a reference.


I just thought I would mention it, as I am in a helpful mood today. And I can see it being upsetting if you didn't know and only found out later :}


Okay, it's gone.


Again - just me being helpful :}


If you are referencing the tsunami disaster, then you have to realize to what cause these nations are donating money to.


A cause they think needs money donating to it. So if enough people think that a global library needs money donating to it, why would they not donate it to that?


I am saying that such a system would become a hassle for the UN, but if there's enough of a problem with that, then I will delete it.


From all the laws/resolutions passed the UN apparently has infinite patience and infinite resources, so one more thing can't be that bad :}


What I am saying is that rather than spending a large amount of money on a global library, the money would more likely be better spent on welfare, etc.


Why? My nation spends a lot on welfare, but we also spend a fair amount on education because while helping people to live is one thing, it is pointless unless there is something for them to live for - such as making a better life for themselves by getting educated.


Fine with me. Opposition 1, Support 0.


:}



If you are referencing #2 on your reply, that portion has been removed.

(smile) I realise that, but quite honestly I thought it was worth mentioning twice. It was that annoying :}

Please don't think I have anything against you, or the repeal. I just like the idea of the Library :}

I and the region I represent would be behind you, comrade...although, for different reasons. While we do support the idea of a global library, we find that it's not focused enough on actual material containing information, and far too focused on high tech bells and whistles.

I know that you can't submit that as a proposal...you actually have to go to "The Global Library" and click on the Repeal function and work from there. Other than that, I support a repeal of "The Global Library".

I know that you can't submit that as a proposal...you actually have to go to "The Global Library" and click on the Repeal function and work from there. Other than that, I support a repeal of "The Global Library".

This is why I posted this beforehand, so that I would be able to get feedback in the earlier stages of this proposal's development.

...it's not focused enough on actual material containing information, and far too focused on high tech bells and whistles.

I agree. Like I had said in the draft, I wasn't even sure on how this "new technology" would be used.

This is why I posted this beforehand, so that I would be able to get feedback in the earlier stages of this proposal's development.

First of all, not to rag on you, but you've associated me with the wrong quote in the previous post.

Anyhow, what I meant is that your proposal- as-is- is not legal under UN rules. It actually has to be "repeal" for it to be legal.