NationStates Jolt Archive

I urge your support for this repeal of a binding and anti-national sovereignty resolution. Petition your delegates to approve this repeal for a full vote for the entire UN.

Description: UN Resolution #130: Global Food Distribution Act (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING: That nations have the sole right to govern their economy as they best see fit;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING: That governments receiving food are not held accountable for the distribution of said food within its' own nation;

NOTING: That the UN shall not hinder the economic stability or growth of any nation due to the enactment of laws;

FURTHER NOTING: Nations forced to relinquish food for redistribution may not, as a result, have an adequet supply of food for their own citizens;

EMPHASIZING: That any measure proposed in a UN resolution that "encourages" or "emphasizes" an issue, does not infringe upon a nation in any way and therefore shall be permissable.

HEREBY REPEALS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES OF UN RESOLUTION #130 (Global Food Distribution Act)

ARTICLE 3: On The Basis That: No nation should be required to surrender their right to make revenue by eliminating any of the following: Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. "Protectionist Mechanisms" are a fundamental right of a nation to ensure the economic stability of its' people;

ARTICLE 4: On The Basis That: Any mandatory measure to eliminate "Protectionist Measures" infringes upon a nations right to conduct business in any manner it chooses;

ARTICLE 6: On The Basis That: The UNFTC is an unnecessary establishment which infringes upon the economic rights of a nation;

ARTICLE 8: On The Basis That: No nation shall have to take upon itself the burden of or make a priority the research of improved food production or distribution;

THIS REPEAL NOTES THAT: Any nation may, at their own consent, take part in any of the measures outlined, however it is not required.

Partial repeals are completely illegal. Oh, and I am rather fond of 130.

Yes, it is quite illegal, but as the author of #130 I have a couple of questions.

What does this

FURTHER RECOGNIZING: That governments receiving food are not held accountable for the distribution of said food within its' own nation;
and this
FURTHER NOTING: Nations forced to relinquish food for redistribution may not, as a result, have an adequet supply of food for their own citizens;

Mean?

A full repeal would be supported by the Optischerians, and if you want as partial repeal repeal it all then propose the parts you like.

A full repeal would be supported by the Optischerians, and if you want as partial repeal repeal it all then propose the parts you like.

Thank you Optischer for your support, and I just re-worked my repeal to encompass all the anti-business aspects of UN Res 130

I urge your support for this repeal of a binding and anti-national sovereignty resolution. Petition your delegates to approve this repeal for a full vote for the entire UN.

Description: UN Resolution #130: Global Food Distribution Act (Category: Free Trade; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING: That nations have the sole right to govern their economy as they best see fit;

On matters of international trade, it is only fair, in my opinion, that others be given the chance to have a say on trade and export policies that may affect them, even if done by another nation.

FURTHER RECOGNIZING: That governments receiving food are not held accountable for the distribution of said food within its' own nation;

On what grounds?

NOTING: That the UN shall not hinder the economic stability or growth of any nation due to the enactment of laws;

That would entail dismantling the U.N. Which isn't going to happen.

FURTHER NOTING: Nations forced to relinquish food for redistribution may not, as a result, have an adequet supply of food for their own citizens;

Not at all, with the open market the nation should be able to buy food elsewhere. This facilitates food trade and reduces famine and hunger, if implemented properly.

EMPHASIZING: That any measure proposed in a UN resolution that "encourages" or "emphasizes" an issue, does not infringe upon a nation in any way and therefore shall be permissable.

Illegal, game mechanics. Anyways, aren't you dictating how other nations should write resolutions, which rather violates your policy of non-interference (or so I infered from your justifications for this proposed repeal).

HEREBY REPEALS THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES OF UN RESOLUTION #130 (Global Food Distribution Act)

ARTICLE 3: On The Basis That: No nation should be required to surrender their right to make revenue by eliminating any of the following: Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. "Protectionist Mechanisms" are a fundamental right of a nation to ensure the economic stability of its' people;

Protectionist measures are temporary and do not work, usually on increasing the economic difficulties and sufferings of a nation and its population. As such, it is invalid to cite them as being able to "ensure the economic stability of its' (sic) people"

ARTICLE 4: On The Basis That: Any mandatory measure to eliminate "Protectionist Measures" infringes upon a nations right to conduct business in any manner it chooses;

Viz first preamble.

ARTICLE 6: On The Basis That: The UNFTC is an unnecessary establishment which infringes upon the economic rights of a nation;

viz second preamble (substituting UNFTC for UN).

ARTICLE 8: On The Basis That: No nation shall have to take upon itself the burden of or make a priority the research of improved food production or distribution;

None was implied, or so I was aware.

THIS REPEAL NOTES THAT: Any nation may, at their own consent, take part in any of the measures outlined, however it is not required.

Illegal, game mechanics, voluntary resolutions are not permitted.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

We only supported a full repeal. We would oppose any partial proposals of this category.

Thank you Optischer for your support, and I just re-worked my repeal to encompass all the anti-business aspects of UN Res 130
There are no "anti-business aspects" to res 130, and you still have not answered my question.

What does this

FURTHER RECOGNIZING: That governments receiving food are not held accountable for the distribution of said food within its' own nation;
and this

FURTHER NOTING: Nations forced to relinquish food for redistribution may not, as a result, have an adequet supply of food for their own citizens;
Mean?

Do you honestly think food is being forcibly redistributed by this resolution? And you think governments are the recipients of the redistributed food?

There are no "anti-business aspects" to res 130, and you still have not answered my question.

What does this

and this

Mean?

Do you honestly think food is being forcibly redistributed by this resolution? And you think governments are the recipients of the redistributed food?

When you establish the UNFTC to arbitrate the redistribution then you clearly anticipate some nations that would be unwilling to adhere to the requirements of aleviating import tariffs, a large source of revenue, and encounter nations such as, corrupt dictatorships, who will undoubtedly disrupt the flow of food to the under-previleged in their own nation. If I must remove tarrifs I lose revenue and cannot support my own citizens. A full repeal which I have submitted would allow nations to govern their economic environment as they best see fit would allow nations to participate in free trade, limited trade agreements, or non-trades with other nations. The repeal is completely legal and deserves a full UN vote

The repeal is completely legal and deserves a full UN vote

No and no.

When you establish the UNFTC to arbitrate the redistribution <snip>
Where, in #130, do you find this forced redistribution? You are not forced to export anything.
corrupt dictatorships, who will undoubtedly disrupt the flow of food to the under-previleged in their own nation.
What governments do in regards to allowing or not allowing access to food within their own borders is not addressed by GFDA. That is a purely internal matter.
If I must remove tarrifs I lose revenue and cannot support my own citizens. A full repeal which I have submitted would allow nations to govern their economic environment as they best see fit would allow nations to participate in free trade, limited trade agreements, or non-trades with other nations.
Fine. If you are opposed to free trade, then attack GFDA on those grounds, but stop making stuff up.
The repeal is completely legal and deserves a full UN vote
The newest version does appear legal.

The newest version does appear legal.

Uh? There is a new version? Not in this thread, I guess.

Uh? There is a new version? Not in this thread, I guess.
It's in the proposal list.