NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bountiful Bunnidom of Markodonia humbly submits the following resolution draft for perusal by fellow UN members


FAIR TRADE PROVISIONS

NOTING WITH CONCERN continuing poverty and destitution in many Less Economically Developed Countries (LEDCs),

RECOGNISING the increasing importance of globalisation in a world in which the scope of information technology and trade between nations is growing at a considerable rate,

FULLY AWARE that trade barriers in More Economically Developed Countries (MEDCs) are responsible for many LEDCs being unable to export sufficient goods for hard working citizens to see any increase in personal wealth,

ACKNOWLEDGING that free trade alone will not close serious gaps in social justice in LEDCs,

FURTHER CONCERNED at the growth of terrorist groups in nationstates where citizens are disillusioned by a global system in which MEDCs profit unfairly from their labour,

1. PROPOSES an international system of product labelling that recognises products which are produced in circumstances that conform to United Nations resolutions, particularly resolution 26, “The Universal Bill of Rights” and resolution 38, “The Rights of Labour Unions”, and in which the price paid for the product will cover the cost of production and facilitate both a living wage for the labourers concerned and facilitate further social development;

2. ENDORSES the encouragement of institutional, economic and environmental sustainability in the production of all goods,

3. STRONGLY URGES an end to protectionism in MEDC nationstates that do not allow LEDC trading partners to similarly protect their own markets.

4. ENCOURAGES the abolition of agricultural subsidies in MEDCs.

Very interesting. What category do you propose submitting this under? I'd say the strength ought to be Significant, but I'm not sure if Free Trade or Social Justice is more appropriate.

Hmm, the fact that I'm not sure which of the categories is appropriate would suggest that the strength be Mild, but that doesn't seem right either.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

That is a problem...I was considering it could fall under either, which is why I haven't chosen yet! I was wondering what others might think...whilst it does provide for "free trade" in a more traditional, lassez-faire manner, it is also very much concerned with social justice...I'm leaning towards mild social justice because it's all quite mild mannered other than clause 3, which is very powerful.

RoA cannot and will not support such a biased resolution which will obviously favor the richer, economically healthier nations. Currently, 3rd world nations can balance out cheap labor against their technological behemoth neighbors. This resolution would shift such balance in a way which would not benefit a nation such as RoA, or any of the third world nations whose major source of income is the export of cheap products of physical labor.

-Respectfully Yours,

Psychotic Dictator Rosencrantz.

Regarding article 3, I think you may need to make it explicit that only MEDCs will be banned from adopting protectionist measures. That said, I'd prefer to see a weaker directive here, as even an MEDC's industries can be vulnerable.

VY

Strike directive clauses 2,3, and 4 from the draft resolution and it might be a little less biased towards economically struggling nations. Otherwise, this resolution will cause a drastic increase in poverty, starvation, and violence in those nations whose chief economic exports will be wantonly destroyed by this proposal.

-Sincerely Yours,
Head Delegate Rosencrantz,
Foreign Relations Dept.
RoA

A good point...how about

3. STRONGLY URGES an end to protectionism in MEDC nationstates that do not allow LEDC trading partners to similarly protect their own markets.

Strike directive clauses 2,3, and 4 from the draft resolution and it might be a little less biased towards economically struggling nations. Otherwise, this resolution will cause a drastic increase in poverty, starvation, and violence in those nations whose chief economic exports will be wantonly destroyed by this proposal.

The resolution is in favour of economically underpowered nations...

A good point...how about

This would not solve the problem. You're forgetting one very important thing: there's another level of economic status below what you consider to be "LEDC's". These are the nations whose economy is still not yet mature enough to provide the stability the LEDC's enjoy. RoA is one of these nations. Our chief exports are grain and other products of our land and soil. If you allow the LEDC's to similarly protect themselves then the economic balance will be shifted away from nations like us and our people will starve.

-Sincerely yours,
Rosencrantz.

That looks good to me.

Rosencrantz, in the cases of articles 2 and 3 in particular, I think your assessment is well wide of the mark.

EDIT: The proposal author has set the definitions.

VY

The resolution is in favour of economically underpowered nations...

This resolution's definition of LEDC's is actually a very small percentage of economically underpowered nations. Those of us without the ability to negotiate mutual protectionism clauses will be worse off than ever due to this clause. This clause will provide coalitions between nations who can boast at least a stable economy, which will siphon the market away from those less fortunate nations or nations with a nascent economic system.

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA.

That looks good to me.

Rosencrantz, in the cases of articles 2 and 3 in particular, I think your assessment is well wide of the mark.

How so? The proposal leaves out a major catagory of nations: those with nascent and emerging economic markets. Such nations do not have the power or influence to negotiate protectionist treaties, and once other nations of slightly higher economic calibre begins to form such coalitions, where will that leave us?

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA.

This resolution's definition of LEDC's is actually a very small percentage of economically underpowered nations. Those of us without the ability to negotiate mutual protectionism clauses will be worse off than ever due to this clause. This clause will provide coalitions between nations who can boast at least a stable economy, which will siphon the market away from those less fortunate nations or nations with a nascent economic system.

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA.
Hmm. OK, can this be factored into the proposal in any way?

Hmm. OK, can this be factored into the proposal in any way?

That depends entirely on the purpose of your proposal. Are you looking to shift the economic balance in a certain direction, or create a fair market where nations of all economic calibre may enjoy equal relative opportunities?

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA

How so? The proposal leaves out a major catagory of nations: those with nascent and emerging economic markets. Such nations do not have the power or influence to negotiate protectionist treaties, and once other nations of slightly higher economic calibre begins to form such coalitions, where will that leave us?

I was referring to such nations as well as those with established by weak markets through use of the term "LEDC"

Wikipedia says

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are lesser developed countries or less [economically] developed countries (LDCs/LEDCs), underdeveloped nations or undeveloped nations, Third World nations, the South, or non-industrialized nations. Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, more economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations, or industrialized nations.

If you wish, I could define "LEDC" better in the preambulatory clauses.

The intention of the resolution is to allow LEDCs to trade on better (fairer) terms with MEDCs.

I was referring to such nations as well as those with established by weak markets through use of the term "LEDC"


Your definition is adequate. However, you've not taken the two things into account:

1. NOT EVERY LEDC has the ability to form protective junctions with other LEDC nations. I would actually place those that can in the minority.

2. Not every nation in this world has an active market that can considered an LEDC.

3. The amount of LEDC's that will benefit from your proposal is far outweighed by those that would be hurt by it.

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA.

Your definition is adequate. However, you've not taken the two things into account:

1. NOT EVERY LEDC has the ability to form protective junctions with other LEDC nations. I would actually place those that can in the minority.


In which case, clause three will discourage MEDCs taking advantage of this situation by disallowing them to protect their own markets at the expense of LEDCs.

2. Not every nation in this world has an active market that can considered an LEDC.

If a nationstate doesn't have an active market, it's nigh-on impossible to make trade laws in their favour! A country that doesn't trade with other nations doesn't have to worry about problems with trade...!

3. The amount of LEDC's that will benefit from your proposal is far outweighed by those that would be hurt by it.

How will LEDCs be hurt be a resolution that is acting to prevent MEDCs from exploiting their markets?

In which case, clause three will discourage MEDCs taking advantage of this situation by disallowing them to protect their own markets at the expense of LEDCs.


No, all clause 3 would do is encourage a separation of LEDC's which has the ability to form economic coalitions and those that can't.


If a nationstate doesn't have an active market, it's nigh-on impossible to make trade laws in their favour! A country that doesn't trade with other nations doesn't have to worry about problems with trade...!


*Less* active markets. It's all relative. It was my intention to point out to you that there are a great variety of nationstates under the "LEDC" catagory, many of which would not benefit from the proposal.



How will LEDCs be hurt be a resolution that is acting to prevent MEDCs from exploiting their markets?

Those LEDC's that can form economic coalitions, will, since the proposal will lift the pressure. Those that can't will have to face an extra front of competition.

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA.

No, all clause 3 would do is encourage a separation of LEDC's which has the ability to form economic coalitions and those that can't.

Once again, I'm afraid I think you misunderstand. The term "protectionism" does not refer to economic alliances, but to the use of regulations such as high tariffs to discourage imports from other nationstates.

An example of the problem at hand...

An MEDC is trading with an LEDC. The LEDC has a limited developing economy, so the main product it trades is cucumbers. The MEDC also has cumcumber farms, but it is not reliant upon them in any way because it has a more developed economy which is based on a whole number of different industries. However its cucumber farmers are wealthy and influential, and press for high cucumber tariffs and cucumber subsidies since there is less money in cucumber farming these days. These essentially mean that the LEDC cannot sell cucumbers to the MEDC because it is so expensive to do so that they cannot make a profit.

Meanwhile, the MEDC has a problem because of the limited cucumber market. It decides to sell cucumbers to the LEDC. The LEDC wants to raise tariffs to protect its own cucumber market, but the MEDC threatens to stop trading with it altogether if it raises its own protective measures. The LEDC is therefore flooded with cucumbers from the MEDC, and its cucumber farmers starve.

Once again, I'm afraid I think you misunderstand. The term "protectionism" does not refer to economic alliances

That's what it sounded like in your proposal, at least that's the meaning I got out of it.

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA.

That's what it sounded like in your proposal, at least that's the meaning I got out of it.

-Sincerely, Rosencrantz, RoA.

In which case, I could add the following as a preambulatory clause:


DEFINING "protectionism" as the use of regulations such as high tariffs to discourage the import of particular products

I intend to submit the resolution fairly shortly...does anyone else have any comments that might be made before I do so?

(I'd have a longer drafting process, but I'd like an attempt at passing it before I go on holiday!)