NationStates Jolt Archive

Letter from Council of Calinda to United Nations members.

Council of Calinda has long considered if joining the United Nations would be in benefit of our nation, but sadly there is few resolutions that are absolutely intolerable, and thus we send this letter to the esteemed members of United Nations so we can open discussions concerning them. We don't seek to force our opinions but to understand the thought behind these articles since they have raised much questioning within our goverment.

______________________________________________________________
A:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #23
Replanting Trees

Description: If any individual, private or public enterprise cuts down over 5 acres of trees, they will be required to have the same number of trees replanted. The responsibility of replanting trees will be held directly by those who cut them down.


This resolution is the one that has raised most discussion about United Nations ability to govern and create acts that are balanced and effective. It completely PARALYZES legimate wood chopping industry and destroys any and all forest planting. It does not regocnice that forest is re-newable resource. Not to mention the potential loopholes which can be used to go around the resolution. This act shows lack of understanding for basic forest engineering and gives market edge to smaller and shadier companies who can easily exploit the 5 arches of forest with clear cuts.

While we understand the United Nations concerns for de-forestation but we still would urge this resolution to be repealed as soon as possible, forest industry is very important part of our countrys economy and we cannot even start considering joining before it is repealed. We would be more than happy to provide UN with our best experts on the field of the Eco-engineering so you could find a better resolution to protect the forests of the world in a sane manner.
______________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________
B.


UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #40
Banning the use of Landmines

Description: All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.


This resolution has been under heavy debate as well, while the under-developed countries that has problem with un-exploded land mines has our sympathies, we still cannot understand why any and all use of land mines should be banned. In the past wars the landmines have played vital part of our countrys defence and it is single most effective way to stop any and all ground invasions with the modern aerial, space and ballistic technology. Not to mention the modernatization of the basic land mines with extensive sensory array and partial FoF (friend or foe) regocnisation. Also with extensive mine charts it is easy to manage the post-war mine-clearing operations. The smaller and less developed countries naturally does not have resources on this but the rich industrial countries could easily provide the neccesery equipment, planning and manpower to handle mine-clearing operations. And this resource also could be send to deal the current problems in the countries that cannot mount this kind of operations.

The solution would be consider mines as a weapon system which the mine-removal plan should be integrated and then passing resolution that provides frames on which this weapon system is considered acceptable. This way the countries who wishes to use land-mines in defence would have access to them but the ones that cannot reach the standards would be denied it.

This would tip the balance of power a bit but in the end we think it would be single most effective way to allow use of land mines in a sane manner.
______________________________________________________________


We expect to hear from you soon, we are waiting anxiously for your thoughts and replys about the matters. And we want to thank you for taking the time listening to our small concerns.

-Council of Calinda

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/872/crad45hk.png

Firstly, I can't speak 'for' the UN. I'm a member, that's all. There will probably be differing responses.

This resolution is the one that has raised most discussion about United Nations ability to govern and create acts that are balanced and effective. It completely PARALYZES legimate wood chopping industry and destroys any and all forest planting. It does not regocnice that forest is re-newable resource. Not to mention the potential loopholes which can be used to go around the resolution. This act shows lack of understanding for basic forest engineering and gives market edge to smaller and shadier companies who can easily exploit the 5 arches of forest with clear cuts.

While we understand the United Nations concerns for de-forestation but we still would urge this resolution to be repealed as soon as possible, forest industry is very important part of our countrys economy and we cannot even start considering joining before it is repealed. We would be more than happy to provide UN with our best experts on the field of the Eco-engineering so you could find a better resolution to protect the forests of the world in a sane manner.

One problem, to start with, is that to effect a repeal you must be a member. We would suggest, then, that you either join, and aim to submit a repeal in the time that we would reasonably expect to be allowed to come into compliance, or that you use a 'puppet state', in the manner of some UN legislators.

Furthermore, you point to the loopholes. That's not a bad thing. Use them. This resolution is relatively easy to dodge, and I'd suggest there's bigger firs to fry. But I don't think it would be that hard for you to evade it fairly effectively. Honestly, we have a thriving timber industry, and we don't see this as a major concern. We're asked to replant trees, but it doesn't say where, what care needs be taken. It doesn't allot a timeframe, so if you cut down under five in a given operation, you're arguably exempt. And the issue of responsibility lying the logger could give mandate for not the company, but the individual logger, to be punished. We'll gladly work on a repeal, but we don't think this resolution should present an obstacle to joining.

This resolution has been under heavy debate as well, while the under-developed countries that has problem with un-exploded land mines has our sympathies, we still cannot understand why any and all use of land mines should be banned. In the past wars the landmines have played vital part of our countrys defence and it is single most effective way to stop any and all ground invasions with the modern aerial, space and ballistic technology. Not to mention the modernatization of the basic land mines with extensive sensory array and partial FoF (friend or foe) regocnisation. Also with extensive mine charts it is easy to manage the post-war mine-clearing operations. The smaller and less developed countries naturally does not have resources on this but the rich industrial countries could easily provide the neccesery equipment, planning and manpower to handle mine-clearing operations. And this resource also could be send to deal the current problems in the countries that cannot mount this kind of operations.

The solution would be consider mines as a weapon system which the mine-removal plan should be integrated and then passing resolution that provides frames on which this weapon system is considered acceptable. This way the countries who wishes to use land-mines in defence would have access to them but the ones that cannot reach the standards would be denied it.

This would tip the balance of power a bit but in the end we think it would be single most effective way to allow use of land mines in a sane manner.

We agree, again, and would support a repeal. Again, though, we'd ask you to consider the effects of this. Firstly, you can still make, sell, and own landmines. Also, no definition of landmine is given, so it's up to you to define it. Furthermore, no obligations are made to store them effectively, or to clear them. If your fields are mined, leave them as such. In fact, an admittedly tenuous interpretation would be that if you stored your mines in a field, then that would be legal, too.

But, we accept the landmine ban is something that could be repealed. Yet again though, to do so requires membership.

our best suggestion is to join the UN, as yourself or as a puppet, then try repealing them (probably unsuccessfully, because although there has been many repeals, they have been ripped to shreds and the resolutions are still here). the other suggestion is dont join at all. whilst these ones are bad, they are mild compared to some others.

I will help you with drafting a repeal of 23, though I'm not personally drafting anything solo for at least another month (due to a number of personal issues), I will not do so on 40. 40 is on my list of things to repeal, but I don't agree with your position and I want to merely fix 40.

Calinda, welcome to the United Nations.

Please take no offensive, by my government (and a number of other governments that are often strong supporters in disarmament issues) will likely oppose any attempt to repeal the ban on landmines unless we can be assured that there is some attempt to replace the resolution with yet another restriction. I say this with some certainty, based on conservations my government has had with a number of other liberal nations over the years regarding United Nations "Global Disarmament" resolutions in general.

That said, we are curious about the statement issued by the Forgottenlands about possibly attempting to fix resolution 40 and would like to actually encourage this. :) Perhaps drafting a replacement first, might be a way to appeal to liberal nations during any repeal attempt.

That said, we are curious about the statement issued by the Forgottenlands about possibly attempting to fix resolution 40 and would like to actually encourage this. :) Perhaps drafting a replacement first, might be a way to appeal to liberal nations during any repeal attempt.

As I said, I'm not even looking at working on a resolution myself until next month. I'll be working with LAE on the Divorce resolution - hopefully to go through mid-December, but after that, I'm probably going to focus closer to my region for the rest of the year due to many issues that need to be resolved there.

"To a people whom believe that the best things come to those that wait, that still sounds like an accelerated pace. In other words, for now, the current resolution seems to work and I'm not trying to place a rush or burden upon any nation."