NationStates Jolt Archive

Clothing Supply Pact
The United Nations,

Believing access to good, suitable and durable clothing constitutes a basic need,

Shocked at the plight of those lacking access to adequate clothing,

Wishing to improve the availability of adequate clothing to all,

Also wishing to promote international trade and industry:

1. Requests that nations secure for their people access to adequate clothing;

2. Defines "textile products" as:
- any items of clothing, textile or fabric;
- raw materials used towards the production of such goods (for example, crops or wool from sheep or goats);
- any machinery or equipment used in the manufacture and processing of such goods;

3. Requires the removal of all protectionist barriers on the international trade of textile products, including tariffs, import quotas, customs and excise duties, import/export taxes, and subsidies and subventions, subject to the exemptions of clause 4;

4. Declares that nations may apply for exemptions to clause 3 in the following cases:
- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or specialist clothing);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable clothing supply;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;
- to prevent price dumping of goods from non-UN nations;
- to suspend trading with nations against whom they are at declared war;

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, ethical or other regulations on textile products and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. Authorises the UN Free Trade Commission to arbitrate any trade disputes arising from the interpretation of this regulation, specifically in the implementation of clauses 3, 4, and 5;

7. Encourages UN member nations to pursue similar agreements with non-UN nations;

8. Sets a timeline for implementation of ten years from the passage of this resolution.

I want to work on this proposal a bit, but I think the mechanics of the middle section needs fleshing out a bit. What further exemptions might need to be granted, and should any of the currently listed scenarious be removed? One I can think of is dumping, another is war.

And are there any other problems. If you hate free trade, go away; the central force of this proposal isn't changing.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

I think it's an excellent proposal, but I have got one question about clause 5:

If subsidies are going to be permitted for those very reasons, shouldn't tariffs (of a limited nature if necessary) be permitted, given that some nations may not be able to provide the necessary subsidies for producers out of their own finances and may have to use tariffs to collect the necessary revenue. Of course, free and fair trade of goods should be a priority, but I'm just wondering about this particular aspect.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Aye, I agree, the anti-protectionist clause is really disagreeable to me.

If subsidies are going to be permitted for those very reasons, shouldn't tariffs (of a limited nature if necessary) be permitted, given that some nations may not be able to provide the necessary subsidies for producers out of their own finances and may have to use tariffs to collect the necessary revenue. Of course, free and fair trade of goods should be a priority, but I'm just wondering about this particular aspect.
This is probably right, and it may be broadened to "certain protectionist measures" or similar.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Edited the middle section.

I have qualms about proposals that seek to completely eradicate protectionist mechanisms. However, the exemptions provided allay my concerns: I am willing to support this proposal.

Benedictions,

Are there any other comments? Otherwise, it'll be put on the To Do pile.

Ah now this is a resolution from the Gruenberg I know and like. (He mentioned goats!) Never thought there was a problem in the raw material department. But I'm more than happy to support this resolution. I'm always for free trade.

(He mentioned goats!)
Glad someone noticed that. You win a free...uh, goat.

Ceorana strongly supports this. Free trade is good, forcing it on those filthy protectionists is, if possible, better.

We have a small suggestion: clause 5 ought to be passive, not active (as in "allows" instead of "declares it the right of"), or just contain something saying the UN can legislate on that in the future. (Ambassador Lopez tells me that there might be room for a "freedom of clothing" resolution.)

The script for this statement has been cleared by the Ceorana UN Office.

Bill Senada
Secretary of Trade and Economic Affairs
The Congressional Republic of Ceorana

As a wool exporting nation, Mikitivity $upport$ thi$. ;)

One fine point:
- raw materials used towards the production of textiles (such as crops or wool from sheep or goats);

Might be better written to include skins. In addition to providing milk and meat (and in the case of goats wool), many herd animals are also used to provide leather, which especially with the Mikitivity Companions Guild, is highly sought after. (OOC: Don't ask how I know this, but sheep skin leather is much nicer than cow leather. It also is a nice babe magnet.)

The question really is, did you mean to exclude leather as a type of clothing?

Glad someone noticed that. You win a free...uh, goat.

Thanks, we just held a lottery in Tzorsland and the winner of the goat is Bill Grogan (http://www.kididdles.com/mouseum/b007.html).

I think that the resolution includes skins, leather, and anything else that is used to produce clothing, because the specific terms are only listed as "such as".

Which actually opens up some interesting possibilities that Secretary Senada may be interested in pursuing...he mentioned suggesting that businesspeople in Ceorana and elsewhere start ventures making clothing out of silicon and other metals in order to get rid of tariffs on our exports of microprocessors...

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceorana UN Office

I think that the resolution includes skins, leather, and anything else that is used to produce clothing, because the specific terms are only listed as "such as".

Which actually opens up some interesting possibilities that Secretary Senada may be interested in pursuing...he mentioned suggesting that businesspeople in Ceorana and elsewhere start ventures making clothing out of silicon and other metals in order to get rid of tariffs on our exports of microprocessors...

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceorana UN Office

I'll leave that entire quote there for the record. ;)

The thing though is before the examples, which I'm fine with, the present draft specifically uses the term "textiles", which leather may not be. Likewise for furs. Textiles usually refers to woven materials that have a thread like structure. A Kevlar (tm) vest would be a textile, as it too is constructed of strands which are woven together. A leather boot is not a textile. It is still sewn, but never woven.

BOO, free trading scum.


Hooray, BEER!

One fine point:
- raw materials used towards the production of textiles (such as crops or wool from sheep or goats);
That's a reasonable suggestion. I've changed it to "such goods".

As it stands, I think it includes skins. I won't mention them specifically for fear of irking the "skinning animals is wrong" crowd.

That's a reasonable suggestion. I've changed it to "such goods".

As it stands, I think it includes skins. I won't mention them specifically for fear of irking the "skinning animals is wrong" crowd.

I actually *also* liked the reference to goats, and would rather that stay in place. The word I'd suggest instead of textiles is "apparel". It will fly under the radar and allow Nickenstein leather goods to assault unsuspecting UN markets! :)

OOC: As an undergrad I worked for Levi Strauss -- granted I was just a receptionist, but it is the word they used. I'm pretty confident on this one. ;) If you want helmets (for bikes people -- I'd never export military arms to any nation that did not have the strongest ties to my people) and footware included, then I think it is really what you have in mind. Granted, Mikitivity doesn't really have a large cotton industry, so wool and leather make up the traditional garb and is no Brazil or Argentina when it comes to producing wool / leather goods.

BOO, free trading scum.


Hooray, BEER!
Seeing this makes me think of one thing, Mik you need to ressurrect your old beer accords proposal. See if we can't confuse Norderia as to whether or not he'll support it.:D

Seeing this makes me think of one thing, Mik you need to ressurrect your old beer accords proposal. See if we can't confuse Norderia as to whether or not he'll support it.:D

*snicker* I was hoping somebody remembered that!

This proposal has been submitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=clothing).

73 approvals. More would be nice.

73 approvals. More would be nice.
I can only give you one.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

94. Given the relatively slow approval rate compared to other proposals, I'm not so confident on this one - either of it reaching quorum, nor passing plenary vote. Nonetheless, we'll see.

Approved.

94. Given the relatively slow approval rate compared to other proposals, I'm not so confident on this one - either of it reaching quorum, nor passing plenary vote. Nonetheless, we'll see.
It only needs 26 approvals in 1-2 days...I'd say it has a good chance.

In light of this proposal's reaching quorum (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=clothing), it gives me great pride to introduce my former employer, and a great friend, the vice president of the Federal Republic, Antigone Morgan. ~Sammy Faisano, Ambassador to the United Nations


Thanks, Sammy. I'm very glad to be here, as it always warms my heart to see the United Nations -- after wasting its time on such trivial matters as education, privacy rights and the disabled -- finally start talking about something important: namely, clothes. While this proposal may not be perfect -- the thought of all the cheap, generic clothes flooding our markets as a result of this legislation really makes me sick, not to mention Amb. Bausch's aversion to the word "pact" (too "wussy") -- my corporate sponsors have informed me they like it very much, especially the exceptions granted under Clause 4 for all the corporate-welfare monies they've been hoarding over the years. One suggestion, though: I know not everyone can pull off something like this: [she giggles as she shows off the stunning Donna Karan number she's wearing] ... but as long as we're giving all these poor people butt-ugly clothes, can't we at least accessorize them so they don't look quite so awful? ... Aw, screw it. The Fashion Accessories Supply Pact can come later. For now, congratulations to Gruenberg! A toast to Mr. Pyandran! [Holds up champagne glass.]

Clothes! Free trade! Champagne! Yay!

Antigone Morgan (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Antigone_Morgan)
Vice President of the Federal Republic

The Commonwealth congratulates Gruenberg for their successful humanitarian proposal. Well done. [salutes Gruenberg]

Congrats.

Yes, congratulations. Ceorana will, of course, support, and warns any opposers that they may be subject to Anti-Tariff Gun fire from our office.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Are supporters of this legislation aware of the fact that it will prevent sweeping trade reform due to redundancy?

Once this passes - as we expect it will - then separate resolutions will be required for each industry (autos, computers, books, furniture, etc); and omnibus free trade bill will become impossible.

Yes, but that's already happened. Global Food Distribution Act does it for food, NERA for nuclear power, UNRC for recycling technologies, etc. It's generally accepted that a universal free trade proposal wouldn't pass, so nations do it one sector at a time, along with other pertinent free trade language for that sector.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

It is NOT the goverment's job to provide clothing for everyone. If you want to start a nonprofit organization to help "poor" people then that is great. Leave me and my tax dollars alone!

It is NOT the goverment's job to provide clothing for everyone. If you want to start a nonprofit organization to help "poor" people then that is great. Leave me and my tax dollars alone!Why do people insist on misreading these proposals?!?

This proposal will not increase your taxes - it will decrease them.

It does not require you to buy clothing for anyone.

It does require you to open your markets to cheap saris, shawls, mumus, kaftans, straw hats, and sandals or clogs manufactured by tropical nations like ours where income is measured in dollars a day (when I last checked, our GDP per capita was under $1,000 per year). So your poor can pay for their own clothes, just like we do. In fact, then can buy the same clothes we wear for next to nothing, because that's what we charge for them.

No rest for the wicked, eh, Rono?

Are supporters of this legislation aware of the fact that it will prevent sweeping trade reform due to redundancy?

Once this passes - as we expect it will - then separate resolutions will be required for each industry (autos, computers, books, furniture, etc); and omnibus free trade bill will become impossible.

First, are you aware that there are at least two existing NSUN resolutions with "free trade" provisions (#s 130 and 154)? Your objection, if it were valid, would be several months too late.

Further, your conclusion is flat wrong. A broad-scope free trade proposal could easily be written which avoided the duplication rule simply by carving out commodities covered by previous resolutions.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

3. Requires the removal of all protectionist barriers on the international trade of textile products, including tariffs, import quotas, customs and excise duties, import/export taxes, and subsidies and subventions, subject to the exemptions of clause 4;

VERY impressing.. again Yuhljung supports Gruenberg's petition for another resolution. This would be very beneficial for the economy of Yuhljung and the welfare of her people. Also promotes a healthy cycle in our free market economy.

Again I would like to use this opportunity to invite regions and nations to make alliances with a very friendly nation such as Yuhljung. We offer 1-year supply of instant kimchi and llama clothe for those who make friends with us as a sign of our fraternity with each other. Thank you.

First, are you aware that there are at least two existing NSUN resolutions with "free trade" provisions (#s 130 and 154)? Your objection, if it were valid, would be several months too late.

Further, your conclusion is flat wrong. A broad-scope free trade proposal could easily be written which avoided the duplication rule simply by carving out commodities covered by previous resolutions.It's an observation, not an objection.

Beyond that, while it is true that one could carve out exceptions, this would make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to unify trade legislation at a later date. Essentially, the exceptions would always be exceptions, even if all were handled in the same way.

Are supporters of this legislation aware of the fact that it will prevent sweeping trade reform due to redundancy?

Once this passes - as we expect it will - then separate resolutions will be required for each industry (autos, computers, books, furniture, etc); and omnibus free trade bill will become impossible.
My feeling is this:

1. It would still be possible to write a more universal free trade proposal should this pass.
2. I'm not convinced such a measure would pass. It would need to be carefully written. For now, I'd like to guarantee free trade in important areas: food, clothing, energy, that sort of thing.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Love and esterel supports this proposal and appreciates the clause 8 which let industries some time to adapt progressively to the new economic environment.

What about STYLE?? That the great fashion concious peoples of My nation is very into style, cut and silouette! I expect the shabbily dressed Proposee of this foolishness, is wearing a bad 80's suit of indeterminable textile content looks like a 20% goat wool 80% polyester from here, will never understand our objections.

We need some Style Police to stalk the realms of the UN to stop this bad dress if this is passsed. Starting with Gruenberg....:eek:

We will fight this ridiculous proposal. We abore badly cut, ill fitting clothing, itchy materials, or unethically produced goods from the child labour sweat shops of the world. Where will the designers and tailors of Ugly be with an influx of these cheap shoddy mass produced apparal.

...and what about the thriving industries of the Thrift/Charity shops finding business from the hoards of rebellious youth buying their wares for the next anti-fashion craze? Will you have us all dressed in Red Jumpsuits of Lycra?? Unless of course this becomes the next youth craze??

...and also the use of ....Yuck... Animal Skins is aborant to our vegetarian principles.

We say NO, NO, NO.... Now pass me the mirror.........:cool:

There is nothing to say against the wearing of animal skins, as long as it's a matter of survival. We shouldn't exploit Mother Nature for the unworthy cause of fashion and peacock-alike profiling, but it's a natural way that each part of the nature takes from her the things he, she or it will need for their lives.

We are undecided about this case. We do support a proposal that assures any human being on this world of their own clothes so they neither need to freeze nor suffer things like bareness or filthiness.
We, though, do NOT support any case that once again will enable certain industry branches and molochs to form monopols. How does the petitioner want to ensure that a matter, which concerns all the world's population equally and has to be shared equally, will be shared equally and doesn't potentiate several affiliated groups too much?

We won't decide in this case until that question is answered. We will vote against this matter, if the question will either remain unclarified or be solved unsatisfyingly.

With kind regards,

The High Council of Flaitheas Druadh

Agentugly

Your concerns can largely be answered through Clause 5:
Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, ethical or other regulations on textile products and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;
Hence, you can ban unstylish clothes, and you can ban animal skins, and you can ban unethically produced clothes, and so on.

Flaitheas Druadh

Again, the point about animal skins is covered under Clause 5. You can prohibit such clothing. As to your second question, which I'm not fully sure I understand, free trade tends away from monopolies. By breaking down barriers to trade, the proposal aims to ensure that monopolies can't prosper. Instead, all companies are able to compete on a level global playing field. Therefore, we believe this proposal will act as anti-monopoly legislation in its own right.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

As a nation who struggles to uphold and defend the revolutionary ideals of individualism-by-naturalism, we feel that this pact is nothing but a ploy by Fashionfacists to spread their evil ideology. Also, we have nothing to sell anyway. The Republic of KoZed strongly oppose.

As a nation who struggles to uphold and defend the revolutionary ideals of individualism-by-naturalism, we feel that this pact is nothing but a ploy by Fashionfacists to spread their evil ideology. Also, we have nothing to sell anyway. The Republic of KoZed strongly oppose.

If you don't have anything to sell, why don't you abstain instead of making a fool of yourself? If you don't have any clothes and you don't want any clothes, YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY.

L. Pendankr
Ambassador

Persoanlly I think there sohuld be some elaboration as to what is meant by "adequate" clothing considering cultural differences. This may mean that this decision couldbe left to each contry, which could mean some things won't change at all, unless the UN proposes a uniformity code, in which case will eliminate cultural heritage, which isnt bad if the goal is nationalism, but otherwise detrimental to cultural identity, and is one step closer to mass dictator ships, and seeing as each country is independent, this could well ruin the very foundations of the states.

I wholeheartedly agree with this resolution. Although I am not a major exporter of wool, I believe durable clothing should be available for every citizen.

That is my brief and honorable reply.

Sincerely,
The Commonwealth of Skeptz

... and omnibus free trade bill will become impossible.

An omnibus free trade bill is impossible. I think that was the general consensus of Fair Trade (http://s12.invisionfree.com/FAIRTRADE/index.php?) although I could be wrong.

In fact I'm going to be quite surprised if there isn't a major campaign against this. We are talking textiles here and someone is going to be invoking slave labor sweatshops selling low and taking out local clothing manufacturers. It's very hard to get any free trade resolution in at all, so the free trade battle has to be won one minor resolution at a time.

(Besides a real omnibus free trade bill is technically impossible. If the mods can consider a Free Trade bill on one part of Free Trade - albeit a big one - a major free trade resolution then an omnibus free trade should be frigging big, and that's not coded in the system.)

In fact I'm going to be quite surprised if there isn't a major campaign against this. We are talking textiles here and someone is going to be invoking slave labor sweatshops selling low and taking out local clothing manufacturers.Ironic, isn't it: we may be the lowest cost clothing producer in the world (per capita GDP of $80.22 [US]). That's 22¢ a day, and because we're a fair trade/socialist commune (just a bunch of hippies living in the jungle), you can bet we're not marking stuff up by 1000%.

I can't see how any sweatshop could hope to compete with us.

If there's anything my nation frowns upon more than clothing, it's obsessing over it. Even in polar areas, there are plenty of animal skins to wear..

I think the Delegate from Community Property underestimates the power of a government to enslave thier people, nevertheless both the Council and Executor of the Shadow-Kai support this legislation, for it has been proven time and time again that a moderately regulated free market is in eveyone's interest, and this bill supports a noble cause.

Perhaps a similar one could be put forward for medicine?

Gruenberg we have been swayed. We have voted FOR ... fashions change.

The rebellious youth now want hats! from other world regions. Some fad that will undoubtably be over with next week but we pander to the wishes of the young trendsetters.

This may be the thin end of the wedge - all cultured, well dressed, fashion wise, nations could fall into t-shirt, flannelette trousers with elasticated waist band wearing nations of stylless sheep. Standards will slip.

Our clothing manufacturers are striking right now but we will try and persuade them that we can improve our exports of their well tailored, fetching styles. The cat walks of the fashion houses of the world will be filled with wares from the Ugly Region. Free trade?? All at a reasonable price.

Perhaps a similar one could be put forward for medicine?
There already is a UN ban on embargoes on medicine, which I think is sufficient for now.

I like this idea. I voted for it. Even though I may change my mind later.

~^This Message Has Been Funded in Part By The Commonwealth of Malsitar^~

Persoanlly I think there sohuld be some elaboration as to what is meant by "adequate" clothing considering cultural differences. This may mean that this decision couldbe left to each contry,And since the UN did not define adequate clothing, that means that the individual nations can set their definitions themselves, which is exactly what you're wanting.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What is the chance that point 4 might be modified to limit the exemption to only those nations whose economies hinge on their textile or fasion industries? I mean, the effectiveness of this legislation will be severely limited if the exception is as wide-open as it seems now.

What is the chance that point 4 might be modified to limit the exemption to only those nations whose economies hinge on their textile or fasion industries? I mean, the effectiveness of this legislation will be severely limited if the exception is as wide-open as it seems now.

Considering that this has already been submitted and is AT VOTE, the chances of anything getting modified are next to none.

This resolution is totally outrageous! The U.N has no right to challenge or change a nations tariffs on any type of material. This is directly violating the national sovereignty held by all countries of the U.N., and the Soviet Red Empire is completly outrages that such a resolution is even being considered!

Concerned about the danger implied in allowing big corporation to export their low cost products, without paying any tax and without being subjected to any control of workers' condition, the People of Sconchiglioso Zeta has decided to vote AGAINST this resolution.

Peace.

Stands opposed.

If a nation can not support its people enough for basic clothing, then what part of "TRADE" is actually involved. It looks like a bunch of do-gooders wanting me to send clothes to people who will not support themselves.

Next they will want me to export my manufactured housing industry so we can all be "fair".

The people of my nation work for their wages. We don't spend a lot on social welfare. If you want something, get a job.

Fiscal Heights does not stand behind the subsidizing of the garment industry, nor will is support this issue. We do not wish to send bikini's to the polar regions, even though they may be required by some namby-pamby, bleeding heart. And you people who have impoverished nations on equitorial lines, mark my words, you will recieved 20 truckloads of furs coats from those countries who are more fortunate than you. What will you do with them? Probably let them rot in a warehouse, because some piece of legislature will say you can't sell them.

If you want to do business with Fiscal Heights, have something to trade. If you want clothes, we can trade clothes for... whatever you have laying around. Every where has natural resources.

You don't get something for nothing.

FH.

Krankor MUST object to the blatant anti-nudist language of this resolution.

- Krankor, dangling since 2004

Distinguished delegates of the united nations, We, The Democratic Republic of New Agil, disagree with the statutes in which this this resolution is founded. While we agree with the free trade that is encourages by this resolution, we are disappointed by the assumption that this proposal seems to state that clothing is necessary, It should be voluntary whether or not a citizen should desire to wear clothing or not. In addition we believe that the standards of clothing creation in other countries may be far below ours, rumors of child labor and the like in countries that could be selling such clothing could compromise our moral standard. So unless a clause is added requiring countries selling clothing to the international community to meet certain standards, and a clause is added that would emphasize the voluntary nature of cloth wearing, we will vote against your proposal.

I have one big concern here..... i find this resolution really scary. Wouldnt this mean that only the child labour industry in "Taiwan" etc will sell clothes in the world. They can sell for 1euro while whats produced in my nation must cost 50-100 euro. My thought is that this resolutin will indirectly end up in supporting child labouring (this is not possible to avoid or controll) and it will be responsible for 50 million unemployed in my nation and most others because it will bring havoc to the clothes industry just about everywhere!! Please tell me if im completely wrong..... but please be realistic and not give me arguments that look good on paper but NOWAY actually will work if your honest with yourself and think alittle.

The rep. from Norway are strongly against this resloution even though I like the thought but it will bring dissaster to many and joy to few in reality.
But im open for changing my mind if I can have good aruments why i should.

I would also be greatfull to hear if someone sees my point here :)

*snip*The Federal Republic has no aversion whatsoever to nudism. Our own president was elected on a platform to protect, and with substantial backing from the industry that produces, "artistic" films. Our vice president was elected largely because she posed for Playboy. In my own profession as a defender of the Federal Republic, clothing, and the shedding of such, is merely a ritual: We apparel ourselves only in garments that accentuate the form and beauty of the human body, give our hormonal enemies the illusion of nudity, and spark their primitive masculine urges -- and then slowly, tantalizingly, bring their silly fantasies to life.

Nonetheless, we find no mandate in this proposal that people wear clothes (or any suggestion that their wear is anything but "voluntary"), just an assertion that it is a basic need. And in most societies, it is. We see no reason to scuttle this resolution and deny people of a basic need simply because a few irrelevant nations in this body find textiles confining.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

*snip*1. Speak English.
2. Stay relevant (this is not real life).
3. The UN has already banned child labor, hasn't it?

I have one big concern here..... i find this resolution really scary. Wouldnt this mean that only the child labour industry in "Taiwan" etc will sell clothes in the world. They can sell for 1euro while whats produced in my nation must cost 50-100 euro. My thought is that this resolutin will indirectly end up in supporting child labouring (this is not possible to avoid or controll) and it will be responsible for 50 million unemployed in my nation and most others because it will bring havoc to the clothes industry just about everywhere!! Please tell me if im completely wrong.....

*Ahem*

5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, ethical or other regulations on textile products and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

You could still ban sweatshop-produced products, as long as you did so for all of them rather than just foreign ones...

It is with some hesitancy that I come to you now to confirm that Dashanzi has voted against this resolution, for I pledged our support earlier in the debate. The reasoning behind this volte face will be familiar to many of you: differences of opinion within the government. Essentially, the opposing faction, concerned at the potential for our burgeoning textiles industry to be undermined, won the argument.

Benedictions and regrets,

*Ahem*



You could still ban sweatshop-produced products, as long as you did so for all of them rather than just foreign ones...

To my esteemed colleague St. Edmundian Antarctic:

You bolded the word "ethical" in the post you quoted with the above post. I've not researched it extensively, but unless there's a standard UN definition of "ethical", the word means different things to different people, let alone nations. "Taiwan" may imagine it perfectly ethical to engage in sweatshop employment.

*Ahem*



You could still ban sweatshop-produced products, as long as you did so for all of them rather than just foreign ones...

To my esteemed colleague St. Edmundian Antarctic:

You bolded the word "ethical" in the post you quoted with the above post. I've not researched it extensively, but unless there's a standard UN definition of "ethical", the word means different things to different people, let alone nations. "Taiwan" may imagine it perfectly ethical to engage in sweatshop employment.

My feeling is this:

1. It would still be possible to write a more universal free trade proposal should this pass.
2. I'm not convinced such a measure would pass. It would need to be carefully written. For now, I'd like to guarantee free trade in important areas: food, clothing, energy, that sort of thing.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Nods politely to Pyandran

The government of Telidia agrees with the honourable member of Gruenberg in this regard and we prefer looking at free trade issues by industry, rather than a one size fits all resolution.

For a second Lydia’s mind wondered if the ‘one size fits all’ comment was actually used by the Gruenberg in one of their debates, but it was soon replaced by the ‘intelligence’ provided by the delegation. Food and energy was their next point of call, how interesting.

With regard to our position, my government has not yet formalised our position, though our impact review on the text should be complete shortly.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

If a nation can not support its people enough for basic clothing, then what part of "TRADE" is actually involved. It looks like a bunch of do-gooders wanting me to send clothes to people who will not support themselves.

Next they will want me to export my manufactured housing industry so we can all be "fair".

The people of my nation work for their wages. We don't spend a lot on social welfare. If you want something, get a job...

You don't get something for nothing.Nothing in the resolution calls for anyone to give anybody anything.1. Requests that nations secure for their people access to adequate clothing;First, a “request” is not a commandment. Second, you're not being asked to give anybody clothing, but just to provide them access to clothing.

Can your people buy clothing? Yes? Then they have access. End of story.

This is not a welfare measure. It's a free trade measure. It says that right at the top:Clothing Supply Pact
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free TradeFree trade measures lower taxes and boost your economy, although you may see unemployment rise slightly for a short while, after which your economy will adjust.

If you're the conservative you sound like, this is a Good Thing™.I have one big concern here..... i find this resolution really scary. Wouldnt this mean that only the child labour industry in "Taiwan" etc will sell clothes in the world. They can sell for 1euro while whats produced in my nation must cost 50-100 euro. My thought is that this resolutin will indirectly end up in supporting child labouring (this is not possible to avoid or controll) and it will be responsible for 50 million unemployed in my nation and most others because it will bring havoc to the clothes industry just about everywhere!! Please tell me if im completely wrong..... but please be realistic and not give me arguments that look good on paper but NOWAY actually will work if your honest with yourself and think alittle.As St. Edmundian Antarctic has pointed out, you have the right to refuse to trade with someone for ethical reasons.To my esteemed colleague St. Edmundian Antarctic:
You bolded the word "ethical" in the post you quoted with the above post. I've not researched it extensively, but unless there's a standard UN definition of "ethical", the word means different things to different people, let alone nations. "Taiwan" may imagine it perfectly ethical to engage in sweatshop employment.They may, but you don't have to accept their definition when it's time to adjust your import regulations. You can use your own: you can ban products made with sweatshop labor because you think it's unethical – regardless of what “Taiwan” thinks.

That leaves the issue of non-sweatshop cheap labor – villagers spinning and dying cloth by hand and selling it themselves on a “fair trade” basis. These people may undercut your textile workers, but ask yourselves this: don't villagers living in rural villages in the tropics deserve to make a living?

First, a pronouncement:

Some of the opponents of this clearly have not read it. Others seem not to have understood it. Some have done both, and I look forward to debate with them most keenly. But for the others, making unsourced statements with no textual reference, about things the proposal does not actually do, is silly. The only way to respond to silliness is with silliness. Hence, for every person who claims this proposal magically removes labour regulations, or accidentally gives people free clothes, or somehow compresses the universe into a matchbox and kicks it off a cliff, we shall declare...

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

Now, nothing in this proposal actually addresses cancer, or cures it in any way, or even mention the possibility of such. But clearly, that is irrelevant, because it is fair game to make such wild abstractions, with no evidence or regard for the proposal's text, in order to simply say something behind one's position.

Concerned about the danger implied in allowing big corporation to export their low cost products, without paying any tax and without being subjected to any control of workers' condition, the People of Sconchiglioso Zeta has decided to vote AGAINST this resolution.
Yes, this proposal requires the removal of export taxes. Given how abominably stupid they are, I can't see their being greatly missed. But corporation tax? Doesn't touch it. No control over workers' conditions? Nuh-uh.

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

If a nation can not support its people enough for basic clothing, then what part of "TRADE" is actually involved. It looks like a bunch of do-gooders wanting me to send clothes to people who will not support themselves.
It doesn't look a thing like it. Correction, it may look like that to someone who is blind, retarded, or who's justed repainted their walls using their brains and a shotgun. To anyone else, it's fairly clear that there is no element requiring any nation to "send clothes to people who will not support themselves".

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

Next they will want me to export my manufactured housing industry so we can all be "fair".
No, we won't.

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

The people of my nation work for their wages. We don't spend a lot on social welfare. If you want something, get a job.
Nothing in this proposal forces you to spend money on social welfare, or to give people things for free.

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

Fiscal Heights does not stand behind the subsidizing of the garment industry
Yet you oppose a proposal that eliminates the subsidizing of the garment industry?

And that CURES CANCER?

We do not wish to send bikini's to the polar regions, even though they may be required by some namby-pamby, bleeding heart. And you people who have impoverished nations on equitorial lines, mark my words, you will recieved 20 truckloads of furs coats from those countries who are more fortunate than you. What will you do with them? Probably let them rot in a warehouse, because some piece of legislature will say you can't sell them.
I can't even begin to think how any of this is the slightest bit relevant.

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

If you want to do business with Fiscal Heights, have something to trade. If you want clothes, we can trade clothes for... whatever you have laying around. Every where has natural resources.
Agreed. This proposal does actually promote trade...

...oh and it also CURES CANCER.

You don't get something for nothing.
Which is pretty much the key to this proposal: that you shouldn't get something (government hand-outs, market boosts through taxation of opponents) for nothing (not being strong enough to compete in the global market).

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

Krankor MUST object to the blatant anti-nudist language of this resolution.
Yeah, and I object to your dire sense of humour. So hey.

we are disappointed by the assumption that this proposal seems to state that clothing is necessary, It should be voluntary whether or not a citizen should desire to wear clothing or not.
Nothing in this proposal requires people to wear clothes.

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

In addition we believe that the standards of clothing creation in other countries may be far below ours, rumors of child labor and the like in countries that could be selling such clothing could compromise our moral standard. So unless a clause is added requiring countries selling clothing to the international community to meet certain standards, and a clause is added that would emphasize the voluntary nature of cloth wearing, we will vote against your proposal.
1. Child labor is already banned by the UN. It's also legislated on right to unionise, workplace safety, safety from one's employer, ending slavery, and so on.
2. You did notice that the proposal allows you to place ethical and other requirements on imports? So this proposal gives you the right to enforce such measures anyway.

I have one big concern here..... i find this resolution really scary. Wouldnt this mean that only the child labour industry in "Taiwan" etc will sell clothes in the world. They can sell for 1euro while whats produced in my nation must cost 50-100 euro. My thought is that this resolutin will indirectly end up in supporting child labouring (this is not possible to avoid or controll) and it will be responsible for 50 million unemployed in my nation and most others because it will bring havoc to the clothes industry just about everywhere!! Please tell me if im completely wrong..... but please be realistic and not give me arguments that look good on paper but NOWAY actually will work if your honest with yourself and think alittle.
Child labor has been outlawed by the UN: see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029609&postcount=15).

So you're completely wrong.

It is with some hesitancy that I come to you now to confirm that Dashanzi has voted against this resolution, for I pledged our support earlier in the debate. The reasoning behind this volte face will be familiar to many of you: differences of opinion within the government. Essentially, the opposing faction, concerned at the potential for our burgeoning textiles industry to be undermined, won the argument.
Don't worry - I never trusted the promise of a communist to start with. ;)

I've not researched it extensively, but unless there's a standard UN definition of "ethical", the word means different things to different people, let alone nations. "Taiwan" may imagine it perfectly ethical to engage in sweatshop employment.
They'd find it pretty hard to engage in sweatshop employment, given the Workplace Safety Act...but I suppose your point stands. That's, thouh, the justification for the whole clause: if such standards were common, it wouldn't be needed.

This would be a case for the UNFTC to arbitrate, I suppose. If you imposed an ethical restriction on imports, because they were being produced in sweatshops, I trust the UNFTC to rule that legal. If it were found that they weren't, though, and that you were only doing it to avoid having your own producers lose business, it would be protectionist, and hence illegal.

Food and energy was their next point of call, how interesting.
Well with respect, the fine folks of Yelda have pretty much been there (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9945882&postcount=131), done that (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10960302&postcount=155).

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer

First, a pronouncement:

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancerWow! Great! Community Property votes “yes”. :p

1. Speak English.
2. Stay relevant (this is not real life).
3. The UN has already banned child labor, hasn't it?

I believe that the ambassador from Whopses may not be a native English speaker, but my government was able to clearly understand the ambassador's statement. Since Mikitivity has no knowledge of Taiwan, I assumed that the ambassador was talking of a fictional nation similar to New Caprica or Francos Spain or Frisbeeteria. ;)

Howie T. Katzman

Yeah, and I object to your dire sense of humour. So hey.Aww... I always look forward to KRANKOR's posts.

And that name really should be all caps.

First, a pronouncement:But for the others, making unsourced statements with no textual reference, about things the proposal does not actually do, is silly. We find we can't support this one because of what it will do. Give protection to an industry that we feel is not better than any other industry. Thus to single out one for protection leads to later somebody coming along and saying you protect this so why not protect this one. Individual nations should always have control over industry in their nations not the UN and that small bunch that thinks it should. This is just to us a step toward giving reason to control all industry inside individual nations. Something we would never allow nor want. Thus we have voted against this and hope others will also.

As for it curing cancer... we wouldn't vote for it even if it did that too.

It is with some hesitancy that I come to you now to confirm that Dashanzi has voted against this resolution, for I pledged our support earlier in the debate. The reasoning behind this volte face will be familiar to many of you: differences of opinion within the government. Essentially, the opposing faction, concerned at the potential for our burgeoning textiles industry to be undermined, won the argument.
Don't worry - I never trusted the promise of a communist to start with. ;)
I must confess I will take some small amount of pleasure in passing on your response to my fellow ministers. You see, 'communist' is something of a dirty word since the New Cultural Revolution.

Benedictions,

I realise I tend to bring this up every time a serious free trade resolution appears, but can we still embargo people if we aren't at war with them, say, to comply with treaty obligations, such as closed trading blocs?

The Serene Socialist Republic asserts its right, under the principle of national sovereignty and respect for democratic governance, to trade with and only with those nations with whom it has established mutual trade agreements. We further condemn any UN mandate enforcing or seeking to enforce any particular social, economic, or political model, outwith provision for the maintaining of healthful and humane conditions for the citizens of UN member nations. We call upon other member nations to recognise insidious advocacies of policies which, under the guise of treehugging hippieism, were they given proper consideration, would be revealed to be hateful, and to reject them as they should be rejected.

Ah... this is just too delicious... IFTA members being forced to violate their own provisions by their membership in the UN. Man... I feel like I should have paid an entry fee. This is just too fucking awesome.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Yet again Gruenberg manipulates the lesser UN members into bending to his will. In the usually fashion, Gruenburg pushes a hidden agenda through the mostly ignorant populace that is the UN, instigating an entertaining debate in the forum, yet still guaranteeing victory using fancy prose and a flashy title.

Good Job ;)

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

Tzorsland strongly approves the curing of Cancer.

:eek: But wait, what about Capricorn? What about Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Aquarius and Pisces? Why only 1/12 of the zodiac being cured? THINK OF THE VIRGO, and LET'S NOT HAVE THE UN GO TO PISECES! :D

Tzorsland strongly approves the curing of Cancer.

:eek: But wait, what about Capricorn? What about Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Aquarius and Pisces? Why only 1/12 of the zodiac being cured? THINK OF THE VIRGO, and LET'S NOT HAVE THE UN GO TO PISECES! :D

That was terrible, Tzors. Have we had a bowl of silly today?

I liked the proposal that cures cancer.. I would vote for that..

We will be voting AGAINST this resolution. The reason is not that we dislike clothing or people's right to clothing. Our reasons are based upon enviormental concerns and our beliefs in bio-regionalism. A reducing of barriers will increase trade, and with an increase of trade transports will also be more frequent(transports by airplane, truck etc.). This will in long terms will be devastating for the enviorment in general, and the ozon layer in particular. We believe that there should be put more focus on bio-regionalism where people living closely to one another produce the most necessary products (such as food and clothing) for their own use.

This reply was dedicated to fighting cancer

I realise I tend to bring this up every time a serious free trade resolution appears, but can we still embargo people if we aren't at war with them, say, to comply with treaty obligations, such as closed trading blocs?
No. If you did so, it'd almost certainly be challenged and referred to the UNFTC. I would think they might allow them under certain circumstances, but I have a hard time believing they would in cases where they are being used solely to maintain closed trade blocs.

The Serene Socialist Republic asserts its right, under the principle of national sovereignty and respect for democratic governance, to trade with and only with those nations with whom it has established mutual trade agreements. We further condemn any UN mandate enforcing or seeking to enforce any particular social, economic, or political model, outwith provision for the maintaining of healthful and humane conditions for the citizens of UN member nations. We call upon other member nations to recognise insidious advocacies of policies which, under the guise of treehugging hippieism, were they given proper consideration, would be revealed to be hateful, and to reject them as they should be rejected.
See, the funny thing, IFTA signatories and the like are a whole lot less vocal about this national sovereignty lark just about every time an issue of civil rights, or social justice, or global disarmament, or environmental regulation, comes up. It's almost as if...you're entirely willing to foist stuff like union rights, 40 hour workweeks and so on upon every other nation, regardless of their sovereignty or economic model, yet the moment the UN legislative pendulum swings the other way, it's omfg you stepped on my sovereignty.

Amusing, then, that I was the one being accused of "doublethink" by members of the Anticapitalist Alliance. However, the phrase "under the guise of treehugging hippieism" gives me so much pleasure, I'll overlook this little indiscretion for now.

Yet again Gruenberg manipulates the lesser UN members into bending to his will. In the usually fashion, Gruenburg pushes a hidden agenda through the mostly ignorant populace that is the UN, instigating an entertaining debate in the forum, yet still guaranteeing victory using fancy prose and a flashy title.
I'm not sure everyone voting for this is necessarily "lesser", or being "manipulated" - maybe they actually like its provisions? After all, you have not a single dot of evidence for your claim that the UN populace is "mostly ignorant" - except that they're disagreeing with you, and everyone who does so must be stupid.

We will be voting AGAINST this resolution. The reason is not that we dislike clothing or people's right to clothing. Our reasons are based upon enviormental concerns and our beliefs in bio-regionalism. A reducing of barriers will increase trade, and with an increase of trade transports will also be more frequent(transports by airplane, truck etc.). This will in long terms will be devastating for the enviorment in general, and the ozon layer in particular. We believe that there should be put more focus on bio-regionalism where people living closely to one another produce the most necessary products (such as food and clothing) for their own use.
How in the name of all that's holey (geddit!?) will this proposal deplete the ozone layer? That's caused by CFCs...which are chemicals not particularly used or produced in most standard garment manufacture, or in transport fuels. Definitely a case for:

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer
Hated by the ACA (except Eco)

*snip*You heard it here first ... increasing trade is a bad thing!

Incidentally, if you have concerns about environmental impact, there is a provision in this agreement that allows your government to mitigate environmental damage. No, really. Read it again. Assuming, of course, you bothered to read a first time.

And the "ozon" layer?! Perchance is your nation in great demand of aerosol products? They now make "ozon"-friendly cans, you know.

How in the name of all that's holey (geddit!?) will this proposal deplete the ozone layer? That's caused by CFCs...which are chemicals not particularly used or produced in most standard garment manufacture, or in transport fuels. Definitely a case for:

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer
Hated by the ACA (except Eco)

Oh, come on Rono. Don't you remember someone writing a proposal some time back that claimed that car exhaust caused ozone depletion?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I liked the proposal that cures cancer.. I would vote for that..

We will be voting AGAINST this resolution. The reason is not that we dislike clothing or people's right to clothing. Our reasons are based upon enviormental concerns and our beliefs in bio-regionalism. A reducing of barriers will increase trade, and with an increase of trade transports will also be more frequent(transports by airplane, truck etc.). This will in long terms will be devastating for the enviorment in general, and the ozon layer in particular. We believe that there should be put more focus on bio-regionalism where people living closely to one another produce the most necessary products (such as food and clothing) for their own use.

This reply was dedicated to fighting cancer

What is this "ozon layer" of which you speak?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

:headbang: "Child labor has been outlawed by the UN"

Well arent it so in the real world to? That it is banned by the UN but still are used in a big scale?
And no matter what no country will be able to compete with asian prices, no matter if its children or grown ups, and therefor every country will have the clothes industry in theire country going bankrupt in a big scale, there cant be any doubt about this??? And when this happens, the millions of unemployed will be problems no country can say they welcome.

What i see here are alot of people meaning well but not thinking very far. Personally i will much more helping thoose needing my help in a way that doesnt ruin my own country. Im all for helping but why not do it right instead?:headbang:

OOC:

Sort your damn grammar already. I know you may not be a native English speaker, but surely you've heard of the word "is"?
Well arent it so in the real world to? That it is banned by the UN but still are used in a big scale?
Not every nation has ratified Convention 182, no. And the NSUN operates on different principles to the RLUN anyway. NS as a whole, of course, is different to RL in certain respects.

Further, what do you want me to about child labour? We've already banned it once...want to ban it again? A second time - hey, maybe if we ban it five times in succession, that'll work!

This still ignoring that clause 5 gives you opportunity to ban clothes imports made using child labour.

Colleagues of The Assembly:

I must counsel a vote against the current UN Resolution, the Clothing Supply Pact. While the proposal is generally laudable, it does prohibit collecting any customs and excise duties on clothing or a broad range of vaguely-related goods. The nations of Greater Seattle levy a uniform but minuscule excise duty on imports to cover port and shipping security, goods inspections and related matters. This resolution would prohibit collection of that duty on its subject goods.

Proponents might argue that clause 5 would allow for collection of such duties but it speaks only of "regulations". That would permit agricultural controls on incoming shipments, for instance, but not collection of duties.

As ever, I am welcome to refutation and rebuttal.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Benjamin Royce
UN Minister
Intangelon

The Serene Socialist Republic asserts its right, under the principle of national sovereignty and respect for democratic governance, to trade with and only with those nations with whom it has established mutual trade agreements. We further condemn any UN mandate enforcing or seeking to enforce any particular social, economic, or political model, outwith provision for the maintaining of healthful and humane conditions for the citizens of UN member nations. We call upon other member nations to recognise insidious advocacies of policies which, under the guise of treehugging hippieism, were they given proper consideration, would be revealed to be hateful, and to reject them as they should be rejected.

It's almost as if I warned y'all about this in the Precedent and Resentment section of this essay (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11565395&postcount=3). Funny how these things happen.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

The Serene Socialist Republic asserts its right, under the principle of national sovereignty and respect for democratic governance, to trade with and only with those nations with whom it has established mutual trade agreements. We further condemn any UN mandate enforcing or seeking to enforce any particular social, economic, or political model, outwith provision for the maintaining of healthful and humane conditions for the citizens of UN member nations. We call upon other member nations to recognise insidious advocacies of policies which, under the guise of treehugging hippieism (italics ours - CP), were they given proper consideration, would be revealed to be hateful, and to reject them as they should be rejected.That's not directed at us, is it?

We resemble that remark ... watch out, or we'll sue you for definition of character!

<Stops kidding, gets serious>

To everyone out there who's afraid of seeing your clothing industry destroyed by child or slave or prison or whatever kind of unfair competiton, remember this clause:5. Declares it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, ethical or other regulations on textile products and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;IOW, if you have a good reason to bar trade with somebody (their products are unsafe, made in a way that you find unpalatable , or whatever) [i]you can reject their goods.

What you can't do is say, “We won't trade with you because we'll lose jobs,” or “We won't trade with you because you're not part of our little club.” In the former case, we have no sympathy for you; in the latter case we have little sympathy either, unless your club is based around support for some ethical principle.

Fair trade would be such a principle.

Fair trade organizations should not be distressed by this resolution. Just change your rules to say, “If you meet the following criteria, we'll trade with you, even if you're not a member of our organization...”

It really is that simple.

(Of course, if you read the word “right” as “sugar-covered finger pastries” and the word “regulations” and “swarms of small, lactating marmots”, and then attempt to detect the gravitational influence of this resolution using a Michelson interferometer, then...)

Yet again Gruenberg manipulates the lesser UN members into bending to his will. In the usually fashion, Gruenburg pushes a hidden agenda through the mostly ignorant populace that is the UN, instigating an entertaining debate in the forum, yet still guaranteeing victory using fancy prose and a flashy title.

Good Job ;)

While the esteemed delegate from Gruenberg may be a goat worshipping fanatic, I fail to see any sinister motive behind this proposal. It is a fine piece of free trade legislation. One that he should be congratulated on, not have aspersions cast upon his head.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office

Catalinafleur does not see how clothing is a basic need. In the coldest climates it may be, but many nations in the UN who would be forced to comply are in tropical regions, some where clothes are rarely worn. In the eyes of Catalinafleur, this is the equivelent of saying that because in some regions there are very toxic snakes, all nations, even ones where snakes do not and cannot live, should provide their citizens with access to snake bite care centers.

OK, then fine, if you don't like clothes or don't need clothes, don't buy them. No one is forcing you to participate in the textiles trade; if your nation has very little demand for clothing, there's very little the NSUN can do to force you to accept textile products. Your contention that clothing is a basic need only in the "coldest climates" is utterly preposterous. I'm sure there are many in RL Ethiopia who would gladly accept the clothes off your back, despite the fact that where they live they never see ice or snow.

[ I know this isn't a roleplaying forum, per say, but whatever. ]

+++Miss Sarah Conner, delegate of the People's Republic of Szőrösistan--one of the very few "furry" nations of the world--having until now sat watching the whole debate, now stands to deliver her country's views.
+++"Like so many United Nations resolutions, the current resolution at hand may resemble a good idea--and, I concede, it was made with only the best of intentions, I imagine--but it is far too weak to be effective, and is dives too deep into national politics."
+++She lifts a gray-furred finger, pressing down upon it with the opposite hand. "First, it does not define what 'good, suitable and durable clothing' is--is it made of silk? Cotton? Polyester? What mix? Second, it does not establish any real effective enforcement, aside from the bereau to resolve interpretations. Third, it bars tariffs and embargoes on 'textile products'--" She gives a nod to Xikuang's delegate. "And I am inclined to agree with Xikuang's assessment of a country's right to embargo. In conclusion, I urge the nations of the world not to support this resolution."
+++The wolf remains standing, casting an eye about for counterstatements.

Well let's see, if the resolution fails to define a term that means that the nations get to define it. Which would especially come in handy with reguards to the term suitable as obviously tropical nations would find fur-lined parkas to be unsuitable while artic regions would find shorts and t-shirts to be unsuitable (at least for going outside). Secondly, lack of enforcemetn is a moot point simply becasue if this passes and you're a member of the UN, you're bound by the resolution plain and simple.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

After watching the wolf ambassador of Szorosistan speak in opposition to the current resolution, Ambassador Katzman pauses for a minute before weighing in. Seconds pass, then Bob Flibble of Flibbleites rises to address the fury ambassador's statements. While Flibble's response seemed to please Katzman, the middle aged ambassador from the mountain nation still rises to address the assembly.

"I'd like to reiterate Delegate Flibble's point, which I believe is in response to the first of three objections raised by ambassador Conner. Mikitivity's neighbors to the east are the ursines of Bears Armed. Much better adpated for life in the mountains of the International Democratic Union, it should be clear that a UN resolution calling for international standards of durable and suitable clothing is going to vary from nation to nation. The human population of Mikitivity would freeze to death in anything short of heavy and think clothing, while the bears would not. It is logical for a UN resolution to have some flexibility included in its terms to account for these national differences.

That said, it then follows that if nations are setting their own standards of what acceptable clothing is, that one might conclude that this is a loop hole that nations could use to circumvent the intent of this resolution to open markets in order to stimulate the sale of clothing and garments. One might suggest that if Bears Armed wanted to prevent the import of Mikitivity wool pea coats, that our neighbors might say, "We don't need wool, so it is not covered by UN trade regulations." However, the type of products that nations are going to do this to are going to tend to be luxury items, which by definition are not really necessary for survial. I honestly don't see items that aren't necessary as products that will even be forced into a market, so I think part of the first objection of the esteemed ambassador is a concern here.

Howie T. Katzman

OK, then fine, if you don't like clothes or don't need clothes, don't buy them. No one is forcing you to participate in the textiles trade; if your nation has very little demand for clothing, there's very little the NSUN can do to force you to accept textile products. Your contention that clothing is a basic need only in the "coldest climates" is utterly preposterous. I'm sure there are many in RL Ethiopia who would gladly accept the clothes off your back, despite the fact that where they live they never see ice or snow.

Yes, there may be religious and legal reasons for it in certain countries as well, but if neither apply...really, the problem isn't that we'd have to sell clothes, we already do, just not terribly much. My problem is simply with the fact that they are claiming that clothing is a basic need for all humans, and stating this as a reason to force free trade upon us, when it is only a need for certain humans in certain areas and cultures of the world.

Dr. Leary stands after Katzman finishes, "In interest of quibbling with a minor point that was just raised, I've asked my associate to add a few words." He sits back down, yielding the floor to an impressively tall Dire Wolfen.

Typical for a Hacker Dire, he stands over eight feet tall, and looks muscled enough to throw a small car. He's wearing a hand tailored suit; something of a necessity given his size and build. He nods to Dr. Leary and addresses the assembly, his deep voice having the slightest hint of a German accent, "Thank you, Dr. Leary.

"My name is Erik Mildr. I've never been on the floor before, but that's only reasonable, as I don't actually work here." He flicks the 'Guest' badge hanging around his neck. "At any rate, I'm here to address the claim that Szorosistan represents one of the 'very few furry nations'. Aside from taking exception to the linking of my ancestory to disturbed humans who like to 'yiff', I more strong object to the assertation that non-human sentients are somehow rare.

"The Federation itself consists of an impressive variety of beings and races, from the diminuative Fairies to Wolfen such as myself -- as an aside, there are several distinct breeds of Wolfen as well. So called "furries", such as myself are also represented in the physical avatars of some of our AI systems. To say nothing of the LiMEs (Liquid Metal Entity) of our Caloris outpost.

"A minor point, I realise, but something to keep in mind. We're not nearly as rare as some might have you believe.

"As for your worries about the standing resolution, I believe they are unfounded, partially for reasons mentioned above. Again, the vaguaries in the resolution mean such considerations are left up to your national government. Clearly, one would fall back on common sense here. Rags would certainly not be 'suitable'. I don't wish to be rude, but why is it that every time a resolution grants some degree of autonomy to member nations, they rise up in protest?"

He nods curtly, "I thank the assembly for granting me these few minutes." With that, he returned to his seat next to the doctor, returning to his laptop.

Each country should have to produce a minimum amount of hemp annually, so that longer lasting clothes could be produced, maximizing our efforts on this project. "For thousands of years hemp was traditionally used as an industrial fiber. Sailors relied upon hemp cordage for strength to hold their ships and sails, and the coarseness of the fiber made hemp useful for canvas, sailcloth, sacks, rope, and paper." -Hemptraders.com

Environmental Advantages:
Hemp is an extremely fast growing crop, producing more fiber yield per acre than any other source. Hemp can produce 250% more fiber than cotton and 600% more fiber than flax using the same amount of land. The amount of land needed for obtaining equal yields of fiber place hemp at an advantage over other fibers.

The humanoid wolf in a black suit, who'd clearly not been paying great deals of attention to this debate until quite recently, rose from his gratuitously violent video game and spoke.

"Hey now, what's this about us being rare? I must back the point that that there is one hell of a diverse universe out there, and no-one needs to feel that they're the only one of anything, really. I also admit that, in the Commonwealth, citizens wear as little as possible and practical. This fairly often includes nothing at all. I wear a full suit, because it's what I feel is respectible here. The climate of my country is excellent for us, so we've no need of excessive clothing, obviously. Demanding that we produce winter coats, something you'd be hard-pressed even to find in our country, doesn't make a great deal of sense, does it? This is one of the rare times where the Commonwealth is all over national sovereignty. We believe this is an excellent proposal for countries where clothing actually is a necessity, and it won't mess with us, so there's absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for it not to pass. Which it will, though not by as great a margin as it should. Our congratulations."

A tiny holographic wolf appears on his handheld computer sitting on the desk, says something inaudible to the rest of the chamber, then vanishes.

"My computer informs me that both the Alpha Elect and a quickpoll of, basically, all Guardians agrees. This 'equals-equals' good."

He sits down and resumes virtually killing things in incredibly graphic ways.

See, the funny thing, IFTA signatories and the like are a whole lot less vocal about this national sovereignty lark just about every time an issue of civil rights, or social justice, or global disarmament, or environmental regulation, comes up. It's almost as if...you're entirely willing to foist stuff like union rights, 40 hour workweeks and so on upon every other nation, regardless of their sovereignty or economic model, yet the moment the UN legislative pendulum swings the other way, it's omfg you stepped on my sovereignty.

So? Sovereignty can be used for good or bad. If people restrict it to prevent sovereignty being used in an abusive way, it means they must also support the restriction of positive uses of sovereignty? If you want to restrict a nation's sovereign right to gas its population to death, you must also restrict it from protecting its population's rights?

EDIT:
Nevertheless, our crack Loophole Search Team, aided by a cocaine-sniffing dog (who will be put down shortly as its addiction is taking up 90% of the team's budget) has found that article 5 allows us to use ethical concerns to ban the import of any good which is not produced in a nation which has signalled its dedication to labour rights by sending the IFTA. It just annoys me that you would accuse the left wing of inconsistency.

First of all... the cure cancer thing back at me.. that really hurt. I've been crying all morning..

so... the pollution coming from trucks and airplanes are in fact.... good for the enviorment? I was hoping you would give me a serious and rerspectfull reply seeing as we are debating your resolution.


Ohmygodtheykilledkenny - You heard it here first ... increasing trade is a bad thing!

Is everything black or white in ohmygodblabla-land? what would be your answer? increasing trade is by definition good? Trade, like most other things, have positive and negative effects upon the world around us. But for pure enviormental issues, don't you think an increase of transport pollutiong would be... bad.

Hello everybody,
It is my opinion that, if passed, the resolution will in fact be detrimental to the real cause. The primary objective of the resolution is to provide adequate clothing to all. However, the resolution recommends opening up the market to the world textile industry. This will result in big multinationals swarming smaller amd economically backward states and subsequently taking over their industries. With the advent of huge corporates,multinationals, brands etc the prices of clothing will tend to appreciate. The poorer section of the society will end up only window shopping as the clothes will be out of their financial reach. It is my earnest request, therefore, that we, as responsible nations, do not allow this resolution to be passed. Please vote against the resolution.
Thank you,
Head of State,
Democratic Republic of Kingshuk

P.S: I am all for a free market economy but not the cost of the poor. And also i do not believe that U.N is the most appropriate forum to discuss trade related issues.

Firstly. I am writing from work, and havent had time to read all of the past posts. Sorry about that, hopefully I will get to them!

Ok, So let's look at this. We have an initial assertian that people should have clothes. Good point, nothing wrong with that. This is then tied to the free trade issue. Right, now we are getting a bit more interesting. There is a danger here that if people vote NO, then perception will be that they are saying people don't deserve clothes. That is not nessisary the case! Just because your goal is good, doesn't mean that this method will fix it!

Ok, a quick analisis.

There are two basic cases in the free trade arangement, the rich country, and the poor country.

So firstly the rich contry.
Now, in rich contries, generally everone has some sort of basic clothing. There are homeless people who have clothes that are very un-fashionable, but generally (with a few exceptions) clothes arn't a problem. So our free trade isn't going to fix a clothing crisess in the rich country.

But what will happen? Well, there are two sub-cases here, there were tarrifs, to make imported goods artificially expensive, and there are goverment grants, which help keep the prices of goods down.

Tarrifs:
So, the tarrifs make imported goods, which would be cheaper than anything that could be produced locally, more expensive, so that the local product can compete. A nice little spin off is that the government gets a bunch more cash to do stuff with (and governments ALWAYS need more cash, cause people want stuff from the government). So, no tarrifs, the government has less money to spend on schools and hospitals and such. The importers now drop their prices (though I sugest that they will make them slightly cheaper, just enough to out compete the locals, NOT the full amount of the tariff. Why would they? They are in it for a profit like every other buisness, and companies price items as high as they can get away with).

However now the local industry can't compete, because the local workers have a higher standard of living, and expect more for their labour, where as the poor country are happy to get enough food, the rich country want nice cars and morgages and things. So the local industry closes down, and there is higher unemplyment, which leads to negative presure on wages in general, and the people have less money to spend (but clothes are cheaper, so that is kindof ok)


Government Grants
This is very simular to the tariff situation, except that the government ends up with more money, rather than less. Still, the government will have to put more into wellfair (due to the higher unemplyment) so things arn't much better.

Conclusions:
So what did this do to the clothing situation? Well, there are slightly cheaper clothes on the market, but there are more people out of jobs, who can no longer afford them.
Also, the local industry died, so there are no local fashions, and the rich contry is now completely reliant on the poor country for clothes. So if there is a crises, and the poor countries clothing industry (which the rich country has no control over) collapses, then they are all out of clothes.

Ok, so much for the rich contry, but what about the poor contry?

Well, effectivly there is suddenly a much bigger market for clothes. Now, in general poor = high unemplyment. So there are lots of spare labourers around. the companies higher more workers to produce the more clothes. However wages do not go up as far as you might imagine, because the companies pay their people as little as posible, and maximise their profits. (that is what compnies are for after all) .

Now things et interesting. The most profitable industry in town is making clothes. So everyone gets into it. Which means they have to stop whatever else it was they were doing before. Which means prices of local things, like food, go up. (I know, I said there was high unemployment, so this effect is lessened) Anyone who didn't get a job in clothes is now dissadvantaged. Also, anyone selling clothes now can choose between selling to the local poor, or the rich overseas. So all of the clothes go overseas. Local prices of clothes go UP, and the poor with no clothes now have LESS access to clothes than before! (somthing like this happened in the irish potatoe fammine. What potatoes that were being grown could get better prices in england (because the locals were poor and getting poorer), so most of the potatoes went overseas, leaving the locals to starve. Check my facts on that, it is just from my memory)

Conclusion:
In the rich contry, clothes got a little cheaper, unemployment went up, wages went down, and government serives dropped. There was no clothing crises, so it wasn't fixed.

In the poor contry, wages went up slightly, the internation companines profits went through the roof, local clothes got MORE expensive, and the clothing crisis got WORSE!


So this bill does NOT solve the clothing crisis! Free trade means that on average EVERYONE goes down a bit. The only way to provide more clothes, so that on average everyone is better off is to :

a) Put laws in place that make it easier for poor people to compete with rich people for the clothes (a regulated market)
b) Increase the efficiency of clothing production (preferably in a sustainable way) No-one that I know of has worked out a way to do this effectivly yet.



So there is my 2c worth....back to work!

She lifts a gray-furred finger, pressing down upon it with the opposite hand. "First, it does not define what 'good, suitable and durable clothing' is--is it made of silk? Cotton? Polyester? What mix? Second, it does not establish any real effective enforcement, aside from the bereau to resolve interpretations.
Why would I have defined what adequate clothing was? In Gruenberg, good clothing is essentially going to be anything that covers you from the sun, but isn't too hot. In Antarctic Oasis, it's going to be heavy furs. Handing down one definition would be micromanaging, and impossible. I'm forced to agree with Mr Mildr from The Most Glorious Hack: why is that whenever we give nations a bit of latitude in interpreting legislation, they start complaining? If this intrudes into national matters, why are you arguing that it should be even more intrusive?

As to enforcement, no, it doesn't establish any enforcement measures. Nor do most resolutions. That's because compliance is assumed, because the UNFTC is there to arbitrate, and because where there are unresolved disputes, I'm happy to leave it to the individual nations to settle.

--hemp hemp hemp hemp--
That's great, honey, but leave it for two debates' time (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=hemp).

So? Sovereignty can be used for good or bad. If people restrict it to prevent sovereignty being used in an abusive way, it means they must also support the restriction of positive uses of sovereignty? If you want to restrict a nation's sovereign right to gas its population to death, you must also restrict it from protecting its population's rights?
No: I mean that is the principle of sovereignty is to be upheld, then it must apply both ways. If one protests the UN meddling with national economic matters when free trade proposals come up, but is happy to allow the UN to meddle with national economic matters when social justice proposals do, it doesn't lend much credence to any perceived support of sovereignty. Rather, you're simply saying, "I don't like it." Well sure - but that's not based on any principle of governance.

Nevertheless, our crack Loophole Search Team, aided by a cocaine-sniffing dog (who will be put down shortly as its addiction is taking up 90% of the team's budget) has found that article 5 allows us to use ethical concerns to ban the import of any good which is not produced in a nation which has signalled its dedication to labour rights by sending the IFTA.
To an extent. If you did enact such policies, we'd probably challenge them with the UNFTC to get a ruling, but here's what I think would happen: it would be ruled legal, so long as you didn't embargo nations that met the standards of the IFTA, but hadn't actually signed it. So if a nation were in inadvertent compliance with IFTA, you would not be able to block their imports. That would be my interpretation, anyway.

It just annoys me that you would accuse the left wing of inconsistency.
I know it does, because none of us like it when our faults are pointed out.

so... the pollution coming from trucks and airplanes are in fact.... good for the enviorment? I was hoping you would give me a serious and rerspectfull reply seeing as we are debating your resolution.
You stated that pollution from trucks and planes would deplete the ozone layer. Yet such emissions have nothing to do with ozone depletion, but rather things like global warming, acidification of the seas, erosion, etc.

Those, of course, aren't good for the environment. So, what's your point? You can still use clause 5 to put environmental regulations on imports: you could tax them based on how much energy went into transporting them, for example.

It is my opinion that, if passed, the resolution will in fact be detrimental to the real cause. The primary objective of the resolution is to provide adequate clothing to all. However, the resolution recommends opening up the market to the world textile industry. This will result in big multinationals swarming smaller amd economically backward states and subsequently taking over their industries. With the advent of huge corporates,multinationals, brands etc the prices of clothing will tend to appreciate. The poorer section of the society will end up only window shopping as the clothes will be out of their financial reach. It is my earnest request, therefore, that we, as responsible nations, do not allow this resolution to be passed. Please vote against the resolution.
You're saying free trade will increase prices? Why - how? Remember, we're abolishing restricitions on imports, so anyone (not just Evil MultiCorp) can import goods. That means lower prices.

--snip--
Ok, my turn:

Firstly, this agreement is broader than clothing. It also covers machinery used in the production of clothing.

So, developing nations can produce clothes more cheaply than the developed nation. Jobs go there, prices go down. But, in the developed nation, they retain a superior ability to produce the specialised machinery. Whilst people lose jobs in the textile industry, they become available in the manufacturing plants. Specialisation sets in, with the poorer country becoming specialised at producing clothing, and the richer country at producing machinery, certain sorts of equipment, and so on. Because of this specialisation, the poorer country can easily produce enough clothes to covers its own needs, whilst the rich country suffers no unemployment backlash. Governments lose out on tariff revenue, but are able to collect through equitably apportioned sales taxes. So there is no income shortfall. All of this creates such prosperity that we have enough spare cash to cure cancer.

Ridiculously, laughably oversimplified? Sure. But then, you have to fight fire with fire.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer

No: I mean that is the principle of sovereignty is to be upheld, then it must apply both ways. If one protests the UN meddling with national economic matters when free trade proposals come up, but is happy to allow the UN to meddle with national economic matters when social justice proposals do, it doesn't lend much credence to any perceived support of sovereignty. Rather, you're simply saying, "I don't like it." Well sure - but that's not based on any principle of governance.

But sovereignty is really a means to an end - not an end in itself. I am not for or against sovereignty, it depends if the result of the advancement or restriction of sovereignty is in tune with larger goals - like advancing human/sapient rights or dignity, social justice, etc. I see the achievement of those goals as the main guiding principle of governance, not sovereignty. Which is also why I tend to steer away from pure NatSov, because it assumes sovereignty itself should be an issue. It is indeed an issue, but only in combination with other things, not by itself.

And in this context things like 40HWW, Education For All, Required Basic Healthcare, etc. tend to be seen as human rights matters, particularly by the left - with social justice being seen as a subset of human rights. So for me, at least, there isn't really a contradiction because those aren't primarily economic issues, but human rights issues.

I know it does, because none of us like it when our faults are pointed out.

That's right, you big MEANIE!!

Gruenberg: I appricieted your response. I admit my argument about the ozone layer was somewhat irrelevant in this question. I will have to blame... ehhh... well, myself i suppose.

Ok, my turn:

Firstly, this agreement is broader than clothing. It also covers machinery used in the production of clothing.

So, developing nations can produce clothes more cheaply than the developed nation. Jobs go there, prices go down. But, in the developed nation, they retain a superior ability to produce the specialised machinery. Whilst people lose jobs in the textile industry, they become available in the manufacturing plants. Specialisation sets in, with the poorer country becoming specialised at producing clothing, and the richer country at producing machinery, certain sorts of equipment, and so on. Because of this specialisation, the poorer country can easily produce enough clothes to covers its own needs, whilst the rich country suffers no unemployment backlash. Governments lose out on tariff revenue, but are able to collect through equitably apportioned sales taxes. So there is no income shortfall. All of this creates such prosperity that we have enough spare cash to cure cancer.

Ridiculously, laughably oversimplified? Sure. But then, you have to fight fire with fire.




Firstly: Yes, my arguments are simplified, so a simplified response is in order. I'm an amature after all! You seem to think 'properly' about these things, rather than just throwing retoric or stupid comments around, which is nice. :D

Ok, so there were basically two thrusts to my argument, both of which you responded too:

Higher Unemployment in Rich Contry
Yes, jobs will migrate to other industries, some of which will be covered by the free trade (lets keep it simple and ignore everything else for now) So ther question is, will this balance out?

Initially we have 100 people making clothes. these lose their jobs. Now, low skilled workers don't get jobs desiging and makeing machines, but that MAY balance out, since we have a whole market, not just individuals. Need to think about that.

Now, for those 100 to get new jobs making machines, there needs to be a lot of machines. Logically, automation only works if the cost of buying (and so making) the machines is LESS than the price of doing without the machines. So the making machines industry must be smaller that the making clothes industry. (Doesn't it?) This means there will be less jobs.


Higher REAL Prices in Poor Country
The poor contry now has a larger clothing industry. There are bigger markets, ecconomies of scale mean that more clothes are produced cheaper. However there is still a price issue, in that the rich country can pay more, so the clothes sellers are more likely to sell to the better market. The locals now have more money, but still not as much as the rich country (if they did then the jobs would not have moved). So where do the cheaper clothes for the poor contry come from? Also, the clothes being produced are those appropriate for another country/climate, which might be an issue as well.


Have you read anything on the introduction of tariffs in the first place? i would like to know why they were initially introduced, and what effects they had at that point, before concluding they are bad (but am too lazy to go look up the sources!)

If I may weigh in, I'd like to point out that free trade and comparative advantage theory assumes homogenous products, that supply will create its own demand, and perfect mobility of labour, among other assumptions. These are not realistic assumptions, of course, and while in some cases they are not that big a problem, there are a lot of cases where these assumptions are big enough a problem to create results much different from those expected.

There's also the problem that it might very well be against a country's interest to specialise in areas it has comparative advantage. If a country's comparative advantage is in agriculture, then free trade would dictate it should specialise in the very low-value industry of agriculture and not harbour ambitions of developing to secondary (manufacturing) or tertiary (services) industries, which would effectively consign its economy and its people to a permanent state of underdevelopment and low incomes.

This resolution, bascially, is unlikely to achieve its stated aim of clothes for everyone because the mechanisms it depends upon to achieve it. Also it's the evil, subversive work of capitalist pig-dogs seeking the exploitation and degradation of the proletariat, but I digress.

Also it's the evil, subversive work of capitalist pig-dogs seeking the exploitation and degradation of the proletariatYou say that like it's a bad thing...



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

But sovereignty is really a means to an end - not an end in itself. I am not for or against sovereignty, it depends if the result of the advancement or restriction of sovereignty is in tune with larger goals - like advancing human/sapient rights or dignity, social justice, etc. I see the achievement of those goals as the main guiding principle of governance, not sovereignty. Which is also why I tend to steer away from pure NatSov, because it assumes sovereignty itself should be an issue. It is indeed an issue, but only in combination with other things, not by itself.
You're losing track of where this all stems from. The representative of Xikuang was stating a national right to determine trading partners based on the "principle of national sovereignty". So, a lot of this strikes me as pretty, but irrelevant to my initial point, which is that where one is invoking a legal principle, one should be doing so consistently. The regulation of economic matters is a national concern, according to the representative of Xikuang. So let's be consistent on that with regard to other economic matters, such as workplace safety regulation or giving unions specific striking rights.

And in this context things like 40HWW, Education For All, Required Basic Healthcare, etc. tend to be seen as human rights matters, particularly by the left - with social justice being seen as a subset of human rights. So for me, at least, there isn't really a contradiction because those aren't primarily economic issues, but human rights issues.
Again, I don't care. I'd see something on property rights, including intellectual property rights, or the right to own and bear arms, or the right to beat your wife with a slipper if your tea's not ready when you get home, as matters of basic human rights. Should I start forcing them upon your nation?

Now, for those 100 to get new jobs making machines, there needs to be a lot of machines. Logically, automation only works if the cost of buying (and so making) the machines is LESS than the price of doing without the machines. So the making machines industry must be smaller that the making clothes industry. (Doesn't it?) This means there will be less jobs.
But let's take this through to its conclusion. In the richer country, they already have to pay higher wages to those in the textiles industry. The cost of running the machinery, on the other hand, is quite low, as they increasingly specialise in it. Therefore, to assume that there are many jobs to be lost is not necessarily reasonable. Further, the machinery industry is going to expand as trade becomes freer, thus creating more jobs.

So will there be a rise in unemployment? Quite possibly. Is that bad? Yes. But will employment recover? I think so. Having a uniform rate of high employment is not a goal in itself. For example, when mechanisation was first introduced, quite a lot of people lost their jobs. Over time, new jobs emerged. I think having machinery is a net gain, so the up-down in unemployment, from my perspective, was worth it.

The poor contry now has a larger clothing industry. There are bigger markets, ecconomies of scale mean that more clothes are produced cheaper. However there is still a price issue, in that the rich country can pay more, so the clothes sellers are more likely to sell to the better market. The locals now have more money, but still not as much as the rich country (if they did then the jobs would not have moved). So where do the cheaper clothes for the poor contry come from? Also, the clothes being produced are those appropriate for another country/climate, which might be an issue as well.
You say that the rich country can pay more. But here transportation costs come in: to export costs money. Can you be sure that it will always be more profitable to sell abroad, rather than settling for lower prices, but lower incidental costs, at home? As to the issue of climate appropriate clothing, that's where specialisation again comes in. In general, there is no reason why countries are going to be producing goods completely unsuitable for internal consumption, because there would be unlikely to be any base from which they would become superior at it.

Have you read anything on the introduction of tariffs in the first place? i would like to know why they were initially introduced, and what effects they had at that point, before concluding they are bad (but am too lazy to go look up the sources!)
Initially they were primarily used as sources of revenue, I believe.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer

You're losing track of where this all stems from. The representative of Xikuang was stating a national right to determine trading partners based on the "principle of national sovereignty". So, a lot of this strikes me as pretty, but irrelevant to my initial point, which is that where one is invoking a legal principle, one should be doing so consistently. The regulation of economic matters is a national concern, according to the representative of Xikuang. So let's be consistent on that with regard to other economic matters, such as workplace safety regulation or giving unions specific striking rights.

But that's not my argument, is it? That's Xikuang's, and I'm not answering for what Xikuang says. I didn't invoke NatSov, at least I don't think I did, and it's not as if you find this idea so repulsive, since clause 5 seems to partially acknowledge this right. What's the problem?

Again, I don't care. I'd see something on property rights, including intellectual property rights, or the right to own and bear arms, or the right to beat your wife with a slipper if your tea's not ready when you get home, as matters of basic human rights. Should I start forcing them upon your nation?

So we disagree what "basic human rights" are. Way to state the obvious. That doesn't make any effort on my part to advance them or bemoan the erosion of them inconsistent, except in your mind.

But that's not my argument, is it? That's Xikuang's, and I'm not answering for what Xikuang says. I didn't invoke NatSov, at least I don't think I did, and it's not as if you find this idea so repulsive, since clause 5 seems to partially acknowledge this right.
Then shut up.

I responded to the point by the representative of Xikuang, and you then replied to me. So far as I'm concerned, this line of argument goes back to those initial comments. If you won't defend them, then we're done.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer

No, you responded to the "IFTA signatories".

EDIT: Even so, what does it matter? I'm not trying to speak for Xikuang here, but crying out "Ha! Inconsistency! How come we can't do the same natsov thing you did? Gotcha! Zing bam boom!" doesn't work because national sovereignty or the lack thereof isn't the goal of the left wing in general - it's things like human rights and social justice.

You're losing track of where this all stems from. The representative of Xikuang was stating a national right to determine trading partners based on the "principle of national sovereignty".

Yes that is what they say, but what do they really mean? They just don't want to trade except with nations whose representatives have personally greased the palms of the national officials in order to establish a "good old boy" trading block. It's personal greed, plain and simple, and it stinks. It stinks like Stinking Bishop and it's just as tasty - God how I love it so.

But where was I? I am as much a national sovergnist as the next guy, but I can't see the argument for good old boy bigotry. It is one thing to say that a nation has a right to restrict sweatshop products, and this resolution does that, but it's another thing to say that Nation A who uses sweatshops is somehow bad but nation B who uses the same sweatshops is somehow good. Standards must be across the board, or they are no standards at all.

More importantly I can't see how anyone can prefer creating complex webs of bilateral trading agreements. It is extreemely costly to maintain and to monitor. You could, for example have an agreement with Nation A only to find out that Nation A established an agreement with Nation C (that you don't like) that undercuts your relationship with A. Isn't it easier to all be on a leel playing field? Isn't it cheaper? Why spend all the money on people making and monitoring trade agreements when you can just get rid of the expense and give youself a nice fat raise instead?

And remember it cures 1/12th of the zodiak!

The IFTA is basically a workers' rights agreement, and part of it is signatories agreeing not to trade with nations which do not meet the standards of its worker and human rights regime and has mechanisms to reward those going above and beyond the requirements. It is not a closed bloc for the sake of being so, it is to remove the incentive for the erosion of the standards as a result of competition from nations without such protections. It is hardly what you describe it as. Behold: http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=536

The Chair recognizes Gaean abrov.

"It seems that the overall loss of funds prohibits this motion. Starting off with resolutions that are less broad than this one to secure clothing is an excellent measure. Certainly all humans need adequate food, shelter, and clothing. However, their governments need funds to run themselves. At this time I cannot support this motion because of the loss of funds. If it were re-written and implemented in several stages across a period of time, I can see it passing with my approval. Gaean abrov thanks the council for hearing him."

The man bows to the Chair, and quietly sits.

More importantly I can't see how anyone can prefer creating complex webs of bilateral trading agreements.

In this day and age the trade agreement is one of the most powerful weapons of a nation. The international community tends to frown on military genocide. If you want to utterly destroy a nation the weapon of choice these days appears to be a trade embargo. Nation A talks as many people as it can, using it's economic power as leverage, into embargoing nation B. Nation B goes into an economic spiral.

Is this not the purpose of complex webs of bilateral trading agreements? Well I guess another purpose is to protect against such an action.

The Republic of Aquilonius Gloria applauds this proposal!

This proposal offers poor countries the chance to buy more modern equipment and therefore modernise. Modernization will bring them prosperity wich is good for the welfare of the people.
In return consumers in the Republic of Aquilonius Gloria will get to purchase cheaper clothing wich is good for the poorest in our nation. There will be available jobs in the retail and transport industry for those that lose their jobs in the textile industry. Furthermore there is nothing that tells us that our industries will suffer in a more competitive enviroment, because the market will supply buisness with sollutions.
A proposal such as this will give the beter off nations oppertunity to export more of the machinery required for textile production and also produce higher quality wares than the poor countries, wich means that textiles produced can be sold at a higher price.

Gunnar i Krossinum
Aquilonius Gloria Ambassador to the U.N.

Ohmygodtheykilledkenny - You heard it here first ... increasing trade is a bad thing!

Is everything black or white in ohmygodblabla-land? what would be your answer? increasing trade is by definition good? Trade, like most other things, have positive and negative effects upon the world around us. But for pure enviormental issues, don't you think an increase of transport pollutiong would be... bad.Pretty fucking lame; you conveniently ignored the rest of my post, wherein I told you exactly how your concerns about environmentalism were misplaced ... points you later conceded to Gruenberg. ... Which I suppose entitles me to claim an indirect victory. Yay. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Kelssek
Also it's the evil, subversive work of capitalist pig-dogs seeking the exploitation and degradation of the proletariat

You say that like it's a bad thing...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

LOL! You Tell 'em Dr Leary!!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The IFTA is basically a workers' rights agreement, and part of it is signatories agreeing not to trade with nations which do not meet the standards of its worker and human rights regime and has mechanisms to reward those going above and beyond the requirements. It is not a closed bloc for the sake of being so, it is to remove the incentive for the erosion of the standards as a result of competition from nations without such protections. It is hardly what you describe it as. Behold: http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=536
It is with some regret that the Cloud-Water Community recently resigned from the UN, a course of action recommended by the government and endorsed by the populace by means of referendum. Legislation we found distasteful we could stomach; legislation that compromised our position as an IFTA signatory proved our undoing. Put simply, we're saving ourselves a lot of hassle by removing the cause of a lot of administrative and legal grief. That, and we do not have the appetite for a battle at the UNFTC, a body we have next to no respect for.

We're tempted to propose to all IFTA signatories that they decide which is more important to them: the UN or IFTA. It's our view that membership of both organisations will soon become untenable.

The very best of wishes to our former comrades-in-arms. We will take happy memories from our time in the UN, regardless of the manner of our departure.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

This bill is nothing but an attempt of the more developed countries trying to use their leverage to lower the bottom line in their dealings with less developed countries.:headbang:

...or anyone else who is FOR this resolution:

I believe my concerns were overshadowed by the anthropomorphic lupid delegation and a few others. Might I have my concern addressed? I shall repeat it. If this particular tpoic was addressed earlier, you needn't elaborate -- merely direct me to the relevant page or post. Thank you.

Colleagues of The Assembly:

I must counsel a vote against the current UN Resolution, the Clothing Supply Pact. While the proposal is generally laudable, it does prohibit collecting any customs and excise duties on clothing or a broad range of vaguely-related goods. The nations of Greater Seattle levy a uniform but minuscule excise duty on imports to cover port and shipping security, goods inspections and related matters. This resolution would prohibit collection of that duty on its subject goods.

Proponents might argue that clause 5 would allow for collection of such duties but it speaks only of "regulations". That would permit agricultural controls on incoming shipments, for instance, but not collection of duties.

As ever, I am welcome to refutation and rebuttal.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Benjamin Royce
UN Minister
Intangelon

It is with some regret that the Cloud-Water Community recently resigned from the UN, a course of action recommended by the government and endorsed by the populace by means of referendum. Legislation we found distasteful we could stomach; legislation that compromised our position as an IFTA signatory proved our undoing. Put simply, we're saving ourselves a lot of hassle by removing the cause of a lot of administrative and legal grief. That, and we do not have the appetite for a battle at the UNFTC, a body we have next to no respect for.

We're tempted to propose to all IFTA signatories that they decide which is more important to them: the UN or IFTA. It's our view that membership of both organisations will soon become untenable.

The very best of wishes to our former comrades-in-arms. We will take happy memories from our time in the UN, regardless of the manner of our departure.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UNWe are deeply saddened to learn of this fine nation's departure from this body, even if it is out of spite. Resigning because you don't get your way surely isn't something the Federal Republic would ever condone (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467922). [Looks around nervously.] Ahem, and it is never pleasant to see friends go, even if these particular "friends" only submitted their historic resolution (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=114) last year so they could get back at us for threatening to nuke them. The history books don't lie, folks; not even the Kennyite ones. They have really pretty pictures. We wish our soon-former colleagues well in whatever future endeavors they may pursue: Vergniaud at his winery (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11262841&postcount=3889), and Chakrabarti in the Paradise City porn industry ... no, really! It's true! We saw her name as an "Up-and-'Comer'" on adultsportsdigest.kny! It's all a big coincidence, I'm sure; there must be thousands of women with the name 'Lata Chakrabarti'!

Regarding this International Fair Trade Agreement, we must say, it greatly intrigues us. We in the Federal Republic are famously disposed toward conventions of international cooperation and economic stewardship; we will certainly examine this treaty, weigh our options and consider signing it-- [snorts] I'm sorry; I can't even finish this sentence! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

As to Eeaeacopeiaouoiaia's misguided concerns over fair trade, we can only remind them that this agreement, like one or two before it, contains provisions reserving the rights of sovereign nations to impose ethical, moral, religious and other restrictions on the trade of materials, so long as such restrictions are applied equitably. This and other agreements preceding it are not hostile to fair trade, nor are they hostile to the development of domestic industries. We must say, we are disappointed at many of our colleagues (including this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11670909&postcount=16)) who so suddenly have developed weak stomachs for economic-advancement protocols at the United Nations. (Were we not being lectured over advancing trade opportunities within the UN when the topic was the metric system?) Free trade is a wonderful tool that modernizes third-world nations, burgeons growth in poorer economies, fosters increased cultural understanding and cross-national exchange of ideas, and promotes democracy. Removing barriers on the exchange of essential products between nations in the UN-sphere is a good thing for national economies. And it gives regular guys like me more opportunities to buy lots of really cool shit at bargain prices!

In short, free trade good, fair trade bad, FAIRTRADE (s12.invisionfree.com/FAIRTRADE) good, and ... ya shake it all about. Whatever. I'm done. Now, my predecessor at the United Nations would like to share a few words with his former Ecopoeian counterparts.

[Clicks a remote turning on a monitor carrying a live feed of Riley from Sanrio City. Wearing a ridiculous-looking hat, Riley points an accusatory finger on the Ecopoeians: "STONE THEM!! Stone them for heresy! The time of purification is nigh; the streets shall run red--"]

Thank you, Ambassador. We wish you well.

[Riley turns his finger on Sammy: "STONE HIM!!!" Sammy quickly clicks the monitor off.]

Erm, yeah. We are very sorry to see you guys go. Ecopoeia's presence is one that will be sorely missed in these hallowed halls. God bless you.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

--snip
Sorry - I did see your comments, but I must have overlooked the response. Which is:

You are probably correct that such a system would have to be abolished. But, this would absolutely not prohibit ports from levying service or administrative charges. Perhaps that is some consolation.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer

Nice proposal, except hypothetically couldn't citizens simply claim they have no clothes to get them for free. Then they could be greedy and use the other money elsewere. Other than that, very well written and thought out proposal.
AncientDragonWarriors U.N. Delegate For Liberty Alliance

Nice proposal, except hypothetically couldn't citizens simply claim they have no clothes to get them for free.
No. There's certainly no clause about free clothing in here. Oh wait, I see it...just after the one that says that

THIS PROPOSAL CURES CANCER.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer

Colleagues of The Assembly:

I must counsel a vote against the current UN Resolution, the Clothing Supply Pact. While the proposal is generally laudable, it does prohibit collecting any customs and excise duties on clothing or a broad range of vaguely-related goods. The nations of Greater Seattle levy a uniform but minuscule excise duty on imports to cover port and shipping security, goods inspections and related matters. This resolution would prohibit collection of that duty on its subject goods.

I don't want to sound arrogant or rude, but I am constantly surprised by people who go out of their way to avoid doing the obvious. Port taxes should be levied not on goods but on the ships that use the port. (And don't forget the "required" goods and services for example prohibiting ships from using their own generators in port and requiring them to hook up into the local electric grid ... which of course is taxed by the government.)

Now there is another question, that of a customs duty. That is indeed a tricky question, and I'm not sure I have a good answer. Most would call it a tariff. My question is whether or not this would even fall under the radar of clause 3 in the first place. Such a fair use fee would hardly fall under the notion of protectionist barriers any more than that above requirement to hook into the port's electric grid while in port. The UNFTC would probably laugh a person out of court who tried to repeal such small fees based on this reslution.

The problem with resolutions are there are two types, the completely horrid, where everything is so bad that one wonders how one will continue to even live after the resolution passes, and the slightly imperfect, where one wonders how to make the proper argument before the arbritration panel. Unfortunately we tend to debate about the latter and let the former pass with high approval ratings. The Perfect is the enemy of the Good. This reslution is not perfect, but it's pretty good.

OOC: Besides this is nation states, if anything was perfect, it wouldn't be as fun!

New Ixion's vote is AGAINST the proposal.

We feel that, whilst free trade may be an admirable pursuit in the eyes of some:

1. A free trade resolution should bear a title declaring it as such and, whilst this is made obvious in both the text and the subheading, using an emotive appeal for such a resolution is out of order. Aid, not trade, is required in such situations. In addition to this, the overly loose definition of 'clothing' means that far more barriers to trade are removed than is necessary for clothing to be supplied - bedsheets and machinery do not dress people.

2. I believe that the imposition or removal of tarriffs and other barriers to trade (barring sanctions) is not the business of the United Nations, especially given the variety of economic circumstances in which the nation states may find themselves. Essentially a National Sovreignity argument.

3. Free Trade is not good for developing economies, instead making them dependant upon those of nations with well established industries. Furthermore, those nations such as would be greatly helped by donations of clothing would be those most harmed by free trade. Free trade does not help a developing economy to reach desirable levels: it harms it. Fair trade is the only way that this can realistically happen.

Were it not for New Ixion's regional responsibilities, we would give serious consideration to withdrawing from the United Nations should this resolution pass.

New Ixion;11677275']1. A free trade resolution should bear a title declaring it as such and, whilst this is made obvious in both the text and the subheading, using an emotive appeal for such a resolution is out of order. Aid, not trade, is required in such situations. In addition to this, the overly loose definition of 'clothing' means that far more barriers to trade are removed than is necessary for clothing to be supplied - bedsheets and machinery do not dress people.
No, but including machinery was important. A problem with sectoral agreements is they tend to favour a specific set of nations - those who can specialise in the covered industries. If it were solely on clothing, that would favour developing nations, leaving little that developed nations could be competitive in. By broadening it, we ensure the reciprocity of the agreement.

As to the stuff about the title...voting against it on that basis is as bad as voting for it because of the fluff. Your argument negates itself.

New Ixion;11677275']2. I believe that the imposition or removal of tarriffs and other barriers to trade (barring sanctions) is not the business of the United Nations, especially given the variety of economic circumstances in which the nation states may find themselves. Essentially a National Sovreignity argument.
Why not? That there is a variety of economic circumstances means the UN should refrain from interfering in their domestic policies. International free trade, though, is different: it's an international matter, and the appropriate level to decide on it is the international stage, not the national, by its very nature.

New Ixion;11677275']3. Free Trade is not good for developing economies, instead making them dependant upon those of nations with well established industries. Furthermore, those nations such as would be greatly helped by donations of clothing would be those most harmed by free trade. Free trade does not help a developing economy to reach desirable levels: it harms it. Fair trade is the only way that this can realistically happen.
Quite the reverse. Free trade is good for developing economies because it allows them to break free of dependency and develop their own industries. Nations whose industries are well established because they are propped up by protectionism will not be so able to compete with these developing nations. As to simply donating clothes...what happens when they wear through? When the next generation comes along? We should be promoting economic development, not exactly the sort of dependency you are decrying.

Forgive me, but I'd rather mend the hole in the pocket than keep pouring pennies into it.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer

OK, Jhopland will vote for this motion.

Is seems to us that free trade will have the effect of narrowing the divide between rich and poor. Now, the rich will probubly come down further than the poor go up, but on the whole that is probably what is needed.

We note that caution should be taken to ensure that exploitation of people and the environment are not simply 'outsourced' to poorer countries, leaving rich countries with a clear consience. That however is for another resolution (or has there already been one?

On behalf of the people of Embrough, I, Raymond Gordon, would like to state that our country is against this proposal. While we are consistently seeking ways to narrow the rich-poor divide, taking revenue away from the government on something as arbitrary as clothing does not appear a viable solution. The poor need food, shelter, and medicine as well, so why not apply this resolution to building materials, foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals?

In our nation, fully geared towards redeveloping and improving poor areas, no problems have been encountered with clothing for the poor. The poor buy cheap clothing, while the rich buy more expensive, but not necessarily better quality garments. We feel that there is not adequate justification for specifically imposing this legislation on the textile industry, which may be an important power in some countries and less important in others.

As far as Embrough is concerned, there is no problem to address, so there is not a need for such a 'solution'.

This bill is nothing but an attempt of the more developed countries trying to use their leverage to lower the bottom line in their dealings with less developed countries.:headbang:

You clearly forget the fact that this will give the poorest of countries oppertunity to develope industry, get a higher export income, and therefore a higher quality of life.
Denying poor countries access to the big markets is denying poor countries the possibility to develope, something that truly will make the rich richer, and the poor poorer.

Trade not Aid!

So many misconceptions, so little time...

First, a disclaimer. We are a very humble (some people would read that as “poor”) tropical nation, but our government is run in accordance with communist principles; some have described our nation as the world's largest hippie commune. So we obviously have no love of capitalism or free trade. But at the same time we recognize that many nations do, and unlike some communist regimes, we have no interest in forcing our ideology on them. From that point of view comes our position.So? Sovereignty can be used for good or bad. If people restrict it to prevent sovereignty being used in an abusive way, it means they must also support the restriction of positive uses of sovereignty? If you want to restrict a nation's sovereign right to gas its population to death, you must also restrict it from protecting its population's rights?There's a huge difference between gassing your population to death and embracing laissez faire and free trade. That may be hard for some of our socialist brethren to understand, but on reflection, you'll see that it's true.Nevertheless, our crack Loophole Search Team ... has found that article 5 allows us to use ethical concerns to ban the import of any good which is not produced in a nation which has signalled its dedication to labour rights by sending the IFTA. It just annoys me that you would accuse the left wing of inconsistency.Yes and no.

You can certainly say that it's unethical to trade with nations that don't adhere to the principles of the IFTA. But you can not require membership in the IFTA on ethical grounds.

After all, while we're sure that Community Property meets all of the criteria needed to become a member of the IFTA, it is immoral for the IFTA to insist on penalizing us for not “signalling (sic) our dedication to labour rights” by joining. There are some 30,000 NSUN Members. Do we have to hunt down all of the arcane trade associations they have formed to “prove our dedication” to our principles? The IFTA should have always allowed non-members who meet their criteria to trade with its membership and restricted the benefits of membership to policy-making. We have no sympathy for your position, and in no way can you call it ethical.Yes that is what they say, but what do they really mean? They just don't want to trade except with nations whose representatives have personally greased the palms of the national officials in order to establish a "good old boy" trading block. It's personal greed, plain and simple, and it stinks. It stinks like Stinking Bishop and it's just as tasty - God how I love it so.We suspect the same is true; if it wasn't, they'd adapt their organizational rules to be more aligned to their stated ends, rather than remain a closed club.The IFTA is basically a workers' rights agreement, and part of it is signatories agreeing not to trade with nations which do not meet the standards of its worker and human rights regime and has mechanisms to reward those going above and beyond the requirements. It is not a closed bloc for the sake of being so, it is to remove the incentive for the erosion of the standards as a result of competition from nations without such protections. It is hardly what you describe it as. Behold: http://invisionfree.com/forums/CACE/index.php?showtopic=536Fine. Then walk the walk instead of just talking the talk, and permit trade with all nations that meet your criteria, regardless of whether they are members or not.If you did enact such policies, we'd probably challenge them with the UNFTC to get a ruling, but here's what I think would happen: it would be ruled legal, so long as you didn't embargo nations that met the standards of the IFTA, but hadn't actually signed it. So if a nation were in inadvertent compliance with IFTA, you would not be able to block their imports. That would be my interpretation, anyway.That would be our interpretation as well.I mean that is the principle of sovereignty is to be upheld, then it must apply both ways. If one protests the UN meddling with national economic matters when free trade proposals come up, but is happy to allow the UN to meddle with national economic matters when social justice proposals do, it doesn't lend much credence to any perceived support of sovereignty. Rather, you're simply saying, "I don't like it." Well sure - but that's not based on any principle of governance.Absolutely. Texas Hotrodders has already referred to his excellent essay on this subject. We for one do not want to see our social system torn to shreds by the inevitable right-wing reaction when the worm turns. Trying to use the NSUN to jam your ideology down the throats of nations who don't share it is the legal equivalent of thermonuclear war: the only way to win such an exchange is not to play.But sovereignty is really a means to an end - not an end in itself. I am not for or against sovereignty, it depends if the result of the advancement or restriction of sovereignty is in tune with larger goals - like advancing human/sapient rights or dignity, social justice, etc. I see the achievement of those goals as the main guiding principle of governance, not sovereignty. Which is also why I tend to steer away from pure NatSov, because it assumes sovereignty itself should be an issue. It is indeed an issue, but only in combination with other things, not by itself.We disagree.

Sovereignty is like true democracy: we respect the differences within this global society of ours because it is the best way to keep the peace. What you advocate is mob rule, and that will only lead to endless conflict as the political advantage swings back in forth from faction to faction. We have no interest in being caught the the crossfire.And in this context things like 40HWW, Education For All, Required Basic Healthcare, etc. tend to be seen as human rights matters, particularly by the left - with social justice being seen as a subset of human rights. So for me, at least, there isn't really a contradiction because those aren't primarily economic issues, but human rights issues.We share your views – but not your arrogance. Don't you think that our right-wing rivals see their views as human rights matters, too? Haven't you read their philosophers speak of the morality of property rights, of economic freedom and deregulation?

You act as though yours is the only valid opinion. But did it ever occur to you that the other side may not know that they're the Bad Guys™?

Get off your high horse and choose: arrogant righteousness and ideological war, or universal understanding and peace. In the vernacular of Community Property's street talk, “Man, if capitalism is their bag, let them do their own thing.”So let's be consistent on that with regard to other economic matters, such as workplace safety regulation or giving unions specific striking rights.We agree.The primary objective of the resolution is to provide adequate clothing to all. However, the resolution recommends opening up the market to the world textile industry. This will result in big multinationals swarming smaller amd economically backward states and subsequently taking over their industries.We can assure you that multinationals will not take over our economy, nor will they take over the economies of those who share our ideology. As for everyone else, the multinationals have already taken their textile and capital goods industries over, so what does it matter?And also i do not believe that U.N is the most appropriate forum to discuss trade related issues.And why not?

If the NSUN has any purpose, it is facilitating international cooperation. If this body doesn't handle trade, who will? Surely you can't be advocating bilateral agreements: do you really think we have the time to negotiate 29,978 bilateral trade agreements?!?Have you read anything on the introduction of tariffs in the first place? i would like to know why they were initially introduced, and what effects they had at that point, before concluding they are bad (but am too lazy to go look up the sources!)Tariffs were introduced by capitalists to protect their profits from foreign competition.

We though everybody knew that. Look up “mercantilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism)”.Initially they were primarily used as sources of revenue, I believe.That was a felicitous side-effect; but the main reason was protection of profit.In this day and age the trade agreement is one of the most powerful weapons of a nation. The international community tends to frown on military genocide. If you want to utterly destroy a nation the weapon of choice these days appears to be a trade embargo. Nation A talks as many people as it can, using it's economic power as leverage, into embargoing nation B. Nation B goes into an economic spiral.Give us one example of a trade embargo actually working. Just one.

You can't.

Besides, trade embargoes harm innocent people as much as wars do: people lose their livelihood, their pride in work, their sense of usefulness to society. We see embargoes as just another way to coerce other countries, and as such condemn these measures as aggression.It is with some regret that the Cloud-Water Community recently resigned from the UN, a course of action recommended by the government and endorsed by the populace by means of referendum. Legislation we found distasteful we could stomach; legislation that compromised our position as an IFTA signatory proved our undoing. Put simply, we're saving ourselves a lot of hassle by removing the cause of a lot of administrative and legal grief. That, and we do not have the appetite for a battle at the UNFTC, a body we have next to no respect for.Why don't you seek some kind of compromise instead of ideological war?

Wouldn't it be better to reform the IFTA and stay in the NSUN than stick your nose in the air and withdraw into your isolated club of nations?We're tempted to propose to all IFTA signatories that they decide which is more important to them: the UN or IFTA. It's our view that membership of both organisations will soon become untenable.Do that and your cause will be lost. You can only advance your position by remaining engaged. Gatesville learned this lesson; why can't you?

[ @Hack: Since the "very few" bit was not spoken, you'll understand if I disregard your associate's first few statements. My observation was based upon personal OOC experiences--having only seen two furry regions, and perhaps three or four other furry nations scattered about. I apologise if I sound rude, but I still hold to that observation until and unless I can find a significant number of furry nations. ]

+++Sarah flicked her ear in the direction of various delegates as they spoke, in a gesture anagalous to a courteous nod. Noting the prevalence of a particular idea, she begins her rebuttal with a sweeping gaze about the UN's General Assembly.
+++"First, I would like to apologise for not clarifying my position--" Another flick of her left ear, this time as a concessive shrug. "What I am concerned about is the circumvention of this resolution, and further, whether the United Nations has any right not to place restrictions on tariffs to protect local industries at all." She pauses for a hair of a second, before continuing. "To elaborate, I worry about my country, which I represent--" She is careful to put a fine point on the fact that the view is not a personal one, but one of the government of Szőrösistan. "--would be forced to ship not neccessarily clothing itself, which we would have no issue with, but the machinery and other paraphernalia. I scarcely need to remind you of the Kraven Corporation and the continual threat it poses, as The Aeson's delegate will surely inform you. I and my country take exception to helping provide the Corporation, and pseudo-nations like it, with anything it can possibly use to further its military. Perhaps this is a paranoid position, but perhaps not. Next, I would like to elaborate on another of my concerns: that of the definition of proper clothing." She winces ever so slightly, recalling just how many of the General Assembly will likely fall into the category she is about to describe--yet continues, as the diplomatic immunity of the UN comes to the forefront of her mind. "While I feel most of our governments would, indeed, make fair and good judgements on their own initiative, I fear that others would not. I do not accuse any particular nation of oppression, nor do I attempt to laud democracy as a superior tool of governing, but I am not so blind as to ignore the state of the world today." She leaves it at that, letting the other delegates complete the implied meaning.


[ If I've missed anything, TG me and I'll gladly append my post. <3 ]

If I may weigh in, I'd like to point out that free trade and comparative advantage theory assumes homogenous products, that supply will create its own demand, and perfect mobility of labour, among other assumptions. These are not realistic assumptions, of course, and while in some cases they are not that big a problem, there are a lot of cases where these assumptions are big enough a problem to create results much different from those expected.

Listening intently to the UN Floor debate, a tired Howie Katzman pauses from his note taking upon hearing the opening of one of the Kelssek ambassador's rebuttals to Gruenberg. Instead of rushing to the floor, the ambassador waits to hear if anybody else would address the rebuttal, but eventually leaves the UN chambers.

Hours later he returns, looking refreshed. Shortly after returning to the Mikitivity delegation table, he raises his placard and waits his government's turn to address the UN again. Several speakers get up and address the body, until eventually his turn returns.

"First, I'd like to commend this body as a whole for a much more civil discussion. I personally was worried last week that our ability to respectfully disagree on points raised in our debates might have had a lasting negative impact on the productivity of future UN debates, so thankfully I see that this is not the case here and now.

That said, I specifically wanted to address a point that the honorable delegate representing Kelssek raised regarding the differences between theoretical and practiced free trade. I too agree that in practice free trade and macroeconomic theory makes many assumptions on not only the equivalency in products or services, but that utility theory itself is idealistic and assumes that even the ability to purchase a product or service is non-stochastic.

Obviously that is not the case ... but I actually see the heterogenity in our markets as an argument in favour of this particular resolution. Without being so rash as to make assumptions about the finer workings of various other national economic systems, I'd like to talk about my experiences with the market in the Confederated City States and our extended trading partners in the IDU. What makes it worthwhile for Hawkins canton to purchase Miervatian manufactored goods and for businesspeople in either canton to vacation in Solacewald is a diversification of products and services. Miervatia can not feed itself. The climate and land simply are not suitable to support the population that call the valleys along the Risden River their home, but by utilizing the cheap energy and materials carried along the mountains, Miervatians have historically been well suited to supporting an agricultural based economy in the eastern foothills of the Thuvians.

With respect to clothing, Miervatia and many of the other cooler cantons in Mikitivity do in fact export wool and wool based products to the warmer, more hospitable cantons. It is the imbalances in natural resources that drive trade ... and promote specialization.

While my analysis of this resolution does not suggest that the passage of this resolution will cripple Miervatia by opening Hawkin canton's market to Gnjesian wool or Ceoranian leather boots, any free trade resolution is going to open national industries that might not be operating at peak effeciency into finding whatever competitive edge it may take to maintain a stable profits. Increased Gnejsian wool to Hawkins would likely result in a "MiM" ad campaign in which Miervatian firms might just appeal to the Hawkins market by advertising which products were "Made in Mikitivity".

Now for the Hawkins based farmer, they also might begin to realize that keeping a stable Miervatian ecomony might also mean that they'll be able to sell their potatos, corn, rye, and most importantly hops for a fair profit. In short, I just do not foresee a significant long-term shifting of major trading partners, but I do foresee removal of trade barriers as a chance for smaller companies to diversify not their products, but their own markets ... so should a shortfall in Miervatian wool occur (which happens in unseasonable warm years), then Hawkins canton might turn to Gnejsian ranchers.

In a very real sense, I'm seriously suggesting that free markets simply result in larger markets that are composed of mix of large and small producers, which in the model I'm thinking of results in a more stable large-scale market.

Danke,
-Howie T. Katzman

This resolution makes me sick, another excuse for the globalist transnational oligarchs to buy themselves a better life at the expense of the hard working middle. I call upon all sovereignty loving and socialist delegates such as myself to vote AGAINST this illegal resolution and boycott these corrupt-businessmen (compliance ministry).

This resolution makes me sick, another excuse for the globalist transnational oligarchs to buy themselves a better life at the expense of the hard working middle. I call upon all sovereignty loving and socialist delegates such as myself to vote AGAINST this illegal resolution and boycott these corrupt-businessmen (compliance ministry).

While I am a sovereignty loving (former) delegate, I have cast my vote FOR this resolution and furthermore I decry your spurilious allegations that this resolution is somehow illegal. The mere fact that it was queued for several weeks prior to coming up for vote without the secretariat (mods) deleteing it is proof that this resolution is legal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

furthermore I decry your spurilious allegations that this resolution is somehow illegal.
*drums fingers on desk*
So, what do you propose we do with him? Do you have your fish handy?

@Hack: Since the "very few" bit was not spoken, you'll understand if I disregard your associate's first few statements.*squints* Must have been the small type... eyes ain't what they used to be. For what it's worth, the Hack has seven distinct "furry" races, as well as many other non-human types. Anyway, moving on.[/ooc]


Dr. Leary leaned over -- and up -- and whispered in Erik's ear, before they both peered at the laptop between them. A few quick keystrokes to look up some tidbits of information before the large Wolfen nodded in recognition.

"Ah, yes. Pardon our rudeness, we just haven't heard much from the Kraven Corporation in quite some time." He chuckles softly, "I remember when they were just a bunch of upstarts. You say they're still around? Hm. My how the fractal world turns..."

He cleared his throat, "Ahem, yes. It seems to me, however, that you are ignoring the very loopholes provided to you by this resolution. To say nothing of the insistance that it is toothless, save for when it comes to personally screwing over your nation. Nowhere does it force you to export a single thing. Furthermore, it sounds like you have a clear ethical reason to not trade with Kraven. I do believe that's protected under Clause 5? Besides, do you honestly thing the Trade Council would force you to give machinery to a nation you are in a state of near-open hostility with? While I would never besmirch a lady's honor, that certainly seems rather paranoid to me."

Dr. Leary started to add something about tinfoil hats, but was silenced by a quick look from Erik. "Now then... moving on.

"Ah yes. Proper clothing. And democracy. Something of a mixed bag. Let me expand on the second part a little...

"The Most Glorious Hack is a semi-autonomous nation, ultimately under the control of the Supreme Command of the Invincible Peoples' Federation of GMC Military Arms. While our little shell-game has the UN thinking we have 'superb' Political Freedoms, don't kid yourself. Ultimate power rests in one man's hands. Further, we are a member of The Non-Democratic Alliance. In other words, don't expect me to heap praises on democracy; direct or otherwise.

"Still, all of this is largely irrelevent, isn't it? Currently, what keeps a corrupt government from saying that potato sacks are 'proper clothing'? Nothing. Likewise, without this resolution, there is nothing preventing said corrupt government from putting a duck in charge of national defence. Just because a resolution doesn't specifically address something, doesn't mean the resolution is lacking.

"If nothing before the resolution defines proper clothing, why does it matter that the resolution doesn't define proper clothing? Status quo." Pausing to flip through his notes, he realises that he has nothing more to respond to. He bows slightly to the Szőrösistani delegation and sits back down.

*drums fingers on desk*
So, what do you propose we do with him? Do you have your fish handy?

Do you honestly think that I travel anywhere without it?http://www.notworksafe.com/picshare/troutwhack.gif

http://www.notworksafe.com/picshare/troutwhack.gif
*nods approvingly*
Never have I seen a trout wielded with such ferocity. These people must be made to show some respect.

Ohmygodtheykilledkenny - ... Which I suppose entitles me to claim an indirect victory. Yay.

that would not be wrong of you. I was way off on some of my claims. But I still think you were wrong twisting my words to the conclusion that trade is ALL bad.

Please don't kick me while im down, or I'll poke you with a stick.

You can certainly say that it's unethical to trade with nations that don't adhere to the principles of the IFTA. But you can not require membership in the IFTA on ethical grounds.

Why not? It's a very clear list of what we require of a nation if they want to trade with us. If you don't comply with the provisions, which include trading only with other countries which follow the provisions, we consider it unethical to trade with you. We're willing to give up potential monetary benefits from trade in favour of the socioeconomic benefits of not trading.

After all, while we're sure that Community Property meets all of the criteria needed to become a member of the IFTA, it is immoral for the IFTA to insist on penalizing us for not “signalling (sic) our dedication to labour rights” by joining. There are some 30,000 NSUN Members. Do we have to hunt down all of the arcane trade associations they have formed to “prove our dedication” to our principles?

That's entirely up to you.

The IFTA should have always allowed non-members who meet their criteria to trade with its membership and restricted the benefits of membership to policy-making. We have no sympathy for your position, and in no way can you call it ethical.We suspect the same is true; if it wasn't, they'd adapt their organizational rules to be more aligned to their stated ends, rather than remain a closed club.

Anyone can sign it. It isn't a closed club. Yes, you have to close off trade with non-signatories, that turns many people off from signing. But it's necessary to protect from having to compete with, say, a country which has fabulous rights protections but trades for all its raw materials with EveryoneButTheDearLeaderIsASlaveia.

Fine. Then walk the walk instead of just talking the talk, and permit trade with all nations that meet your criteria, regardless of whether they are members or not.That would be our interpretation as well.Absolutely.

Yes. If you can prove that you and all your trading partners, and their trading partners, and their trading partners, etc. are in full compliance with the IFTA provisions then we really won't have any choice but to say "send in the clothes". That I concede.

Sovereignty is like true democracy: we respect the differences within this global society of ours because it is the best way to keep the peace. What you advocate is mob rule, and that will only lead to endless conflict as the political advantage swings back in forth from faction to faction. We have no interest in being caught the the crossfire.We share your views – but not your arrogance.

Wha-? Explaining the reasoning for my views is "arrogance"?

Don't you think that our right-wing rivals see their views as human rights matters, too? Haven't you read their philosophers speak of the morality of property rights, of economic freedom and deregulation?

Yes. We differ on that. You won't get 100% agreement. Fact of life, deal with it, yadda yadda yadda.

You act as though yours is the only valid opinion. But did it ever occur to you that the other side may not know that they're the Bad Guys™?

Well, I apologise if you interpreted it that way but that was never my intention.

Get off your high horse and choose: arrogant righteousness and ideological war, or universal understanding and peace. In the vernacular of Community Property's street talk, “Man, if capitalism is their bag, let them do their own thing.”We agree.We can assure you that multinationals will not take over our economy, nor will they take over the economies of those who share our ideology. As for everyone else, the multinationals have already taken their textile and capital goods industries over, so what does it matter?And why not?

That's the reason I explained my point of view to be perfectly clear about the motivations behind opposing or supporting different things which might appear to be inconsistent viewed from the issue of NatSov, when in fact it's a consistent desire to advance the Commie Agenda®.

Of course the right wing disagrees, that's why I don't bother trying to argue them over on these basic assumptions which lead you to whatever view you hold. I recognise these differences which is why I tried explain why all us commies, in my view, think this way.

On behalf of the people of Embrough, I, Raymond Gordon, would like to state that our country is against this proposal. While we are consistently seeking ways to narrow the rich-poor divide, taking revenue away from the government on something as arbitrary as clothing does not appear a viable solution. The poor need food, shelter, and medicine as well, so why not apply this resolution to building materials, foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals?
Because there is already UN legislation on free trade in food, a ban on embargoes on medicine...and because this is an agreement for the textiles industry? Want one on building materials? Go write it yourself...

In our nation, fully geared towards redeveloping and improving poor areas, no problems have been encountered with clothing for the poor. The poor buy cheap clothing, while the rich buy more expensive, but not necessarily better quality garments.
Ok.

How is this relevant to the proposal?

We feel that there is not adequate justification for specifically imposing this legislation on the textile industry, which may be an important power in some countries and less important in others.
That's precisely the point - specialisation. Now, the preamble is the justification - it is up to you to demonstrate, not simply state, that it is not adequate.

"To elaborate, I worry about my country, which I represent--" She is careful to put a fine point on the fact that the view is not a personal one, but one of the government of Szőrösistan. "--would be forced to ship not neccessarily clothing itself, which we would have no issue with, but the machinery and other paraphernalia. I scarcely need to remind you of the Kraven Corporation and the continual threat it poses, as The Aeson's delegate will surely inform you. I and my country take exception to helping provide the Corporation, and pseudo-nations like it, with anything it can possibly use to further its military. Perhaps this is a paranoid position, but perhaps not."
The Kraven Corporation is not a UN member, so the terms of this proposal regarding them are inapplicable.

More generally, nothing in this proposal forces your governemtn to ship clothing, machinery or anything else to anyone.

"Next, I would like to elaborate on another of my concerns: that of the definition of proper clothing." She winces ever so slightly, recalling just how many of the General Assembly will likely fall into the category she is about to describe--yet continues, as the diplomatic immunity of the UN comes to the forefront of her mind. "While I feel most of our governments would, indeed, make fair and good judgements on their own initiative, I fear that others would not. I do not accuse any particular nation of oppression, nor do I attempt to laud democracy as a superior tool of governing, but I am not so blind as to ignore the state of the world today."
But this proposal only requests - not requires that governments provide adequate clothing for their people anyway. It's not a command, it's a pretty-please. So providing a definition would be completely redundant anyway.

This resolution makes me sick, another excuse for the globalist transnational oligarchs to buy themselves a better life at the expense of the hard working middle. I call upon all sovereignty loving and socialist delegates such as myself to vote AGAINST this illegal resolution and boycott these corrupt-businessmen (compliance ministry).
Next time, try responding to the actual proposal text.

Votes For: 6,644

Votes Against: 6,681

Fuck.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Just thought I might show why this proposal is failing. Here are some of the feeder voters.

first off, Im all for nakedness, nakedness is what seperates us from the Animals,
they are always wearing fur, but we have beautiful Pink or Brown, or whatever colors constitute our beings, a trait that far too few of Gods varmits possess, and we should flaunt it and be proud of our skin.,

Second off,
point 1, does this mean that the governments of South America New Guinie, Africa, ect, have to secure clothing for all the nekid natives there, who will deliver thses clothes, surely they wont conscript National Geographic into forcibly clothing these poor savages, why the subscription revenue alond lost from the now gone "Naked Natives" issues of National Geographic will bankrupt them in a scant year,
And what if the Naked Natives like being naked? did the author consider that?

point 2, jsut as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to clothe a Naked native, In Japan and France advancements in technology have made clothing out of paper and plastic, this could snow ball this bill into a resources eating monster as trees fall into its scope, as do fields of Corn, and oilwells,
Too much to consider, it staggers the mind,

point 3, this point is the most disturbing, as it seems that the author is using their desire for cheap clothing and abundant shopping to fuel political change, a frivolity that is best left to middle ages nobility,
Tarriffs exist to protect local markets, what will become of the local demin plant if this passes, workers who make $10/ hour making Levi's for you will soon be on the welfare line as clothing from Aisa and Mexico enter the borders made by workers getting perhaps $10 a week. Can you Truly Afford those cheap Lavis Jeans now?

point 4 Well that is all nice and well, but what if your local representative Owns a clothing botique, where those Cheap Lavis Jeans will sell well and turn him a nice profit when marked up? I dont see him applying for exemptions.

point 5 Here is the best part This point completely Takes the bill's teeth away,
because it allows nations to forgo step 4 and apply for exemption and just start declaring stuff to be culturally important,
President : "Levi's are part of my naitons Identity, therefore They are Culturally Protected, and we will not allow Cheap Mexican Lavis, or Cheap Asian Revis jeans on our marktes."
See, completely kills the bill,

point 6 Now wait a minit, I thought that I could declare somethign protected, now you say the UN can override my nations Cultural Identity????!!!!
What you say, we are no longer White Anglo Saxon Protestants, We are now Yiddish Gypsies from the Ural Mountain Area? Damnit

point 7, Now wait, if Im being encouraged to do all this then why does your bill Make me do it, then tell me I dont have to do it, then tell me that Im now a Gypsie?
I think your bill may well be suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder.

point 8, WOw, only 10 years, so soon, what ever will I do until then?
Perhaps encourage my textile companies to buy out Lavis and Revis and move their operations there so that they can make stuff a lot cheaper because soon they will not have to pay any tarrifs?

Final thought
This bill is stupid, poorly thought out and well, contradictory of itself
and is most liely just the authors idea as to how to immortalize his name in the game,, I suggest voting against it, unless you have MPS then it will probably make perfect sense to ya,

I as leader of my nation Elrondor, vote NO on this resolution. Reason being:
1. Requests that nations secure for their people access to adequate clothing;
Let the populace get their own clothing, if they want it.

I, as leader of both Inkfriknfrak and my puppet regime (TheKBP) vote no. If people need clothing, they can buy it, or make it for themselves.

4. makes everything pretty useless.

Kitabo votes NO.

I vote nay because in some nations nudity is compulserary.
This is not worth UN time!

It's a sort of UN in-joke. It started from a joke res by Witchcliff, but turned into a straight one via Gruenberg tarting it up into a full-on free trade resolution.
This is the only one I'll comment on. Did it??? I don't remember this...

I only have three things to say about this pact.

1) Polyester would fall under this pact and be non-taxable. Polyester is used WAY more than for clothing. Use Wikipedia.

2) A poor non-UN nation can trade with a UN nation, receive a tax break in purchase; re-manufacture the clothing in nationa factories, altering buttons and logos; and then turn around and sell the same clothing to another non-UN national at a higher price without a tax break and make a profit while not giving the clothing to the needy in their poverty-stricken nation.

3) WhyTF is the UN trying to balance tax laws for clothing?? Relief aid is what the UN has the NGO's for!! If you want better relief, get better resources and funding to the NGO's!



This pact is just straight silly.

1) Polyester would fall under this pact and be non-taxable. Polyester is used WAY more than for clothing.
I see that. I don't see how it's problematic.

Use Wikipedia.
No. You bring a claim to the table, you provide the reference.

2) A poor non-UN nation can trade with a UN nation, receive a tax break in purchase; re-manufacture the clothing in nationa factories, altering buttons and logos; and then turn around and sell the same clothing to another non-UN national at a higher price without a tax break and make a profit while not giving the clothing to the needy in their poverty-stricken nation.
Trade between UN non-members is not covered by this proposal, and is no concern of the UN.

3) WhyTF is the UN trying to balance tax laws for clothing?? Relief aid is what the UN has the NGO's for!! If you want better relief, get better resources and funding to the NGO's!
This proposal is not about relief aid. It's about international trade. If I wanted relief aid, I would go to a charitable NGO. But I don't - I want a trade agreement in textiles.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer
Killer of puppies
Tired of this shit

...have you seen the totals today?

Votes For: 6,658

Votes Against: 6,746

Let the "your vote really DOES count" posts begin!


'Cause it does....

Hey. I tried to vote on this issue using the new Diebold machines, and I got a 20,000-volt shock! Also, the official paper copy of my vote came out printed on limburger cheese.

No you vote really doesn't count at all. If it wasn't for a major rejection by the feeders this wouldn't even be close. The Pacific feeder deligate votes count for 1,217 votes as it is, not counting the individual votes from the members of those regions.

As I said eariler, this whole thing smells worse than Stinking Bishop. I wish to say that the Continent of Niftyonia is fully behind this resolution. Our regional deligate with his (3) votes has voted FOR this resolution. I have voted FOR this resolution. Yea my vote doesn't count at all, when swamped by nearly the entire Pacific.

Give us one example of a trade embargo actually working. Just one.

You can't.

Besides, trade embargoes harm innocent people as much as wars do: people lose their livelihood, their pride in work, their sense of usefulness to society. We see embargoes as just another way to coerce other countries, and as such condemn these measures as aggression.Why don't you seek some kind of compromise instead of ideological war?

Um, yeah that was my point :) I was comparing a full trade embargo to genocide. Someone asked if trade embargo's had a purpose, I gave a purpose. What do you think a "working" trade embargo would accomplish? Painless regime change, followed by nation building?

An embargo is an act of war. Nations don't seem to have trouble justifying their acts of war.

Why don't you seek some kind of compromise instead of ideological war?

Wouldn't it be better to reform the IFTA and stay in the NSUN than stick your nose in the air and withdraw into your isolated club of nations?

Do that and your cause will be lost. You can only advance your position by remaining engaged. Gatesville learned this lesson; why can't you?
OOC note: Ecopoeia refused to sign IFTA for a long time and proposed reforms CP would probably find acceptable. However, economic circumstances forced the nation into signing.

Besides, I've been meaning to sign off from the UN for ages. I don't have the time any more. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd issue a rebuttal concerning the 'ideological war' - consider Eco appalled at such an accusation. Their view is that they're fleeing from such a conflict.

Finally, Eco has furthered its cause: human rights, freedom of expression. Economic issues were never really its concern. And note that there may already be an irrevocable clash between UN and IFTA strictures - non-compliance is a dicey game to play, you know...

--snip--
OOC: Coffee all over my screen, desk and laptop, you beautiful crazy nutball, you!

Chakrabarti in the Paradise City porn industry ... no, really! It's true! We saw her name as an "Up-and-'Comer'" on adultsportsdigest.kny! It's all a big coincidence, I'm sure; there must be thousands of women with the name 'Lata Chakrabarti'!
Ms Chakrabarti is glad to see the Kennyites are putting Photoshop to good use.

[Clicks a remote turning on a monitor carrying a live feed of Riley from Sanrio City. Wearing a ridiculous-looking hat, Riley points an accusatory finger on the Ecopoeians: "STONE THEM!! Stone them for heresy! The time of purification is nigh; the streets shall run red--"]
That's pretty much the perfect sign-off, cheers!

Erm, yeah. We are very sorry to see you guys go. Ecopoeia's presence is one that will be sorely missed in these hallowed halls. God bless you.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations
IC: Mathieu and I are most touched by your kindness, comments concerning pornography, stoning and general mockery notwithstanding. May your and our God(s) bless you, should they exist - it would be nice, wouldn't it? well, unless they're Levitican/Islamist in nature... - and no matter what tensions and disputes may arise within these not-so-hallowed halls, let's hope delegates remember that each and every one of us is a real person*, irrespective of our political or economic beliefs.

And at least we can leave in the knowledge that citizens of UN member states can't get locked up for expressing a [non-violent] opinion, eh?

Lata

*penguin, dolphin, troll, dwarf, yadda yadda...

Fudgetopia's gone against. This'll fail now.

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted AGAINST this resolution in accord with the wishes presented to her by a majority of the citizens of the region, after reviewing both the Civic HQ and the offsite poll. This position is also shared by the current majority of UN voters, interestingly.

Hellar Gray

Aren't you anti-UN? Doesn't that mean you should vote FOR? :p

Um, yeah that was my point :) I was comparing a full trade embargo to genocide. Someone asked if trade embargo's had a purpose, I gave a purpose. What do you think a "working" trade embargo would accomplish? Painless regime change, followed by nation building?

An embargo is an act of war. Nations don't seem to have trouble justifying their acts of war.

The people of Cluichstan are pleased to announce that we have placed a complete and total trade embargo on the nation of Discoraversalism. We won't bother with establishing a no-fly zone or naval blockade of that annoying nation, though. We will simply enforce our embargo using our Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).

Respectfully,
Defense Minister Sheik Nottap bin Cluich

The people of Cluichstan are pleased to announce that we have placed a complete and total trade embargo on the nation of Discoraversalism. We won't bother with establishing a no-fly zone or naval blockade of that annoying nation, though. We will simply enforce our embargo using our Death Star.
We will consider challenging such a blockade with the UNFTC, as it clearly violates at least five articles of international law.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

We will consider challenging such a blockade with the UNFTC, as it clearly violates at least five articles of international law.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

Technically, it's not a blockade. It's an embargo... ;)

Technically, it's not a blockade. It's an embargo...
Well, that gets you round No Blockades on Medicine (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029664&postcount=34). I'll have to look over the others.

Aren't you anti-UN? Doesn't that mean you should vote FOR? :p

Gatesville has traditionally been and still is anti-UN because of this body's longstanding policy of squashing national sovereignty in its quest for what the majority of members see as a better world, which is actually a destructive and disrespectful act of cultural imperialism. However, Gatesville and other pro-sovereignty organizations have created positive change in the United Nations, and as a result Gatesville may not vote strictly in opposition to the majority. There have been numerous cases of Gatesville voting with the majority, particularly on the successful repeals of low-quality and anti-sovereignty resolutions, and a few other resolutions as well.

Hellar Gray

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentally Flawed
It's a sort of UN in-joke. It started from a joke res by Witchcliff, but turned into a straight one via Gruenberg tarting it up into a full-on free trade resolution.

This is the only one I'll comment on. Did it??? I don't remember this...

It was my impression that you developed it after commenting that there was the idea for a good proposal in Witchcliff's Warmth in Winter jest about black cats hogging the heater. I haven't time to check it right now, so I apologise in advance if that's wrong.

All the same, it's clear, from the cogency of Kandarin's argument on the regional forum, that it wasn't my puppet's throw-away line -- correct or incorrect -- that turned the scale in the Rejected Realms.

It was my impression that you developed it after commenting that there was the idea for a good proposal in Witchcliff's Warmth in Winter jest about black cats hogging the heater. I haven't time to check it right now, so I apologise in advance if that's wrong.
I didn't comment in that thread...

The inspiration, inasmuch as there was, was that one of the main agreements of the RL WTO concerns textiles.

All the same, it's clear, from the cogency of Kandarin's argument on the regional forum, that it wasn't my puppet's throw-away line -- correct or incorrect -- that turned the scale in the Rejected Realms.
No, I know that. Besides, it no longer matters: Insane Power has gone against, so Kandarin's vote is material only to the final scale of defeat.

No you vote really doesn't count at all. If it wasn't for a major rejection by the feeders this wouldn't even be close. The Pacific feeder deligate votes count for 1,217 votes as it is, not counting the individual votes from the members of those regions.

As I said eariler, this whole thing smells worse than Stinking Bishop. I wish to say that the Continent of Niftyonia is fully behind this resolution. Our regional deligate with his (3) votes has voted FOR this resolution. I have voted FOR this resolution. Yea my vote doesn't count at all, when swamped by nearly the entire Pacific.

Pardon my naivete, but if this is the case, shouldn't something be done about it? What exactly IS the "Pacific feeder delegate"? If this makes every vote a foregone conclusion, what's the point in drafting legislation at all? If one side is guaranteed to have a 1200-vote handicap, this is not democracy in any sense of the word.

Pardon my naivete, but if this is the case, shouldn't something be done about it? What exactly IS the "Pacific feeder delegate"? If this makes every vote a foregone conclusion, what's the point in drafting legislation at all? If one side is guaranteed to have a 1200-vote handicap, this is not democracy in any sense of the word.
He means the five delegates of the feeder (Pacific) regions. It's not 1200 vote block: it's five sets of about 250 votes. The feeders tend to oppose things; when they do so en masse, it is harder to get proposals passed, but by no means impossible.

Because there is already UN legislation on free trade in food, a ban on embargoes on medicine...and because this is an agreement for the textiles industry? Want one on building materials? Go write it yourself...
My meaning may not have been clear. If these industries are one by one relinquished from government controls, taxes, etc. where do we draw the line at what is considered "essential"? If we continue too hastily we may find that non-essential goods are being liberated from regulation because they are deemed important by a number of people.


That's precisely the point - specialisation. Now, the preamble is the justification - it is up to you to demonstrate, not simply state, that it is not adequate.
The people of Embrough is an independent nation with its own government and believes that it is free to formulate its own opinions on global issues, instead of being obliged to agree with fellow members of the UN because of peer pressure. Our message was a statement that we will be voting against the proposal, and our argument is justified enough for us. It is not our concern how you make your decision, nor is it yours to comment on the inner workings of our government. It is fair to pass comment on points we make in the debate, and perhaps these arguments will persuade us, but it is not cricket to criticise the way in which our government participates in such debates simply because the end result is that we are disagreeing with you.


Fuck.

It is the weaker vessel that becomes frustrated when everything is not going how they planned. It is also ungentlemanly to voice one's views so explicitly and without constraint when, as you were quick to point out earlier, one does not have sufficient justification for this opinion. I do hope that your given response to the debate is more balanced in future, regardless of what it is.

Your obedient and humble servant,

My meaning may not have been clear. If these industries are one by one relinquished from government controls, taxes, etc. where do we draw the line at what is considered "essential"? If we continue too hastily we may find that non-essential goods are being liberated from regulation because they are deemed important by a number of people.
Except, this proposal doesn't remove these industries from regulation, or from taxes. So, it's a bit of a non-question.

The people of Embrough is an independent nation with its own government and believes that it is free to formulate its own opinions on global issues, instead of being obliged to agree with fellow members of the UN because of peer pressure. Our message was a statement that we will be voting against the proposal, and our argument is justified enough for us. It is not our concern how you make your decision, nor is it yours to comment on the inner workings of our government. It is fair to pass comment on points we make in the debate, and perhaps these arguments will persuade us, but it is not cricket to criticise the way in which our government participates in such debates simply because the end result is that we are disagreeing with you.
What? I'm not allowed to point out that your arguments are poor, because you have an inate right of participation?

If that's your attitude, there's little point coming to speak in the GA. It is meant for discussion and debate, you know?

It is the weaker vessel that becomes frustrated when everything is not going how they planned. It is also ungentlemanly to voice one's views so explicitly and without constraint when, as you were quick to point out earlier, one does not have sufficient justification for this opinion. I do hope that your given response to the debate is more balanced in future, regardless of what it is.
Shut the fuck up.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of cancer
Killer of puppies

He means the five delegates of the feeder (Pacific) regions.

I generally count The North, South, East and West Pacifics, all of which have far more than 250 votes for the deligate. The Pacific has 252 which actually places it out of the league of the four major feeder powers, and more in line with the other super regions like gatesville.


The West Pacific - 484 - The Democratic Republic of Shasoria
The South Pacific - 413 - The Holy Guacomole of Fudgetopia
The North Pacific - 404 - The Salty Dogs of Great Bights Mum
The East Pacific - 330 - The Holy Empire of Gnidrah
The Pacific - 252 - The New Pacific Order Juggernaut of Pierconium


In theory I suppose the Pacific bloc could throw out 1,883 votes not counting the individual members, but in practice I tend to notice East, West, and South voting for or against specific resolutions, and often they will not always be on the same side of the voting fence.

Delegate.
Delegate.
Delegate.
Delegate.
Delegate.

Ok.

I noticed that The Lexicon is against it too, and as the 2nd biggest "regular" region, its delegate has 192 endos.

The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar has 329 endorsements.

4 minutes ago: The resolution "Clothing Supply Pact" was defeated 7,620 votes to 6,780. However, we are pleased to report that we have now cured cancer.

I will give a more in-depth response later.

I wonder, just out of curiousity, if any resolution has ever passed if all the BIG players (feeders, Gatesville, Lexicon) were against it.

Love and esterel regret the outcome of this proposal, but we are reconforted by the fact that more UN members (and also more UN delegates) voted FOR it than AGAINST it. This particular events happened twice in the last 12 month ("Worldwide Media Act" and "Anti-Terrorism Act")


STATS TIME:
http://test256.free.fr/clothing.jpg

Love and esterel regret the outcome of this proposal, but we are reconforted by the fact that more UN members (and also more UN delegates) voted FOR it than AGAINST it. This particular events happened twice in the last 12 month ("Worldwide Media Act" and "Anti-Terrorism Act")


STATS TIME:
http://test256.free.fr/clothing.jpg


OOC: Thanks for posting those stats. I'll represent those numbers in both graphical and tabular format using Adobe Illustrator and put them in the NSWiki article I hope to write about this resolution. Would you like me to reference the stastics as coming from your government or perhaps some sort of NGO based in L&E? They are very interesting and will be great in the voting analysis section. :)

IC:
The people of Mikitivity, whom for over two years, have campaigned for tariff reductions on luxury items, particularly alcohol based beverages, is extremely disappointed in the fact that this resolution failed. At this time, we'd like to announce that Mikitivity is prepared to join any United Nations free trade based organizations, with the intent of promoting stronger UN markets.

I am however somewhat optimistic based on the regional comments posted by the government of Gruenberg and the close vote, that this was not a complete failure. Furthermore, there have been serveral instances when failed UN resolutions have been revisited and passed. I've spoken to my government, and the Office of International Affairs will be happy to donate staff time into an international effort to see to it that this idea is revisited. In short, I'm recommending that other freedom loving nations work together to see this topic return sometime in early 2007.

Howie T. Katzman

I wonder, just out of curiousity, if any resolution has ever passed if all the BIG players (feeders, Gatesville, Lexicon) were against it.

I think all the big players voted against Individual Self Determination, and it still passed by around 3,000 votes. The big wigs do have a strong influence, and can swing a vote one way or the other, but that isn't always enough.

Gruenberg, sorry to see this fail by such a small margin. Maybe if you give it a few months, and try again, it may have a better chance. For the record, I abstained, but you know I'm not a huge free trade advocate, and in the case of textiles, even less so.

We are disappointed to see this proposal fail, but more because we are not convinced it was voted down based on an informed decision, than that we were devoted to seeing it pass. Perhaps there were slight flaws in it, and this will give us a chance to correct them. But we do wish voters would read the proposal thoroughly, and make sure they understand what it means, before casting their vote or voicing their opinion on it. My usually short manner notwithstanding, I have always made myself available to respond to comments or criticisms. That so many have jumped to completely unfounded conclusions is saddening.

Nonetheless, I have learned some lessons. Should I attempt this proposal again, I will:
- include an explanatory note that it does not mandate that clothing be worn (and possibly a clause determining public nudity/decency laws to be a national right)
- order the exemptions schedule differently, such that the proposal appears less "contradictory"
- tone down the fluffiness, which on this occasion seems to have actually worked against it - perhaps by making this more clearly a proposal to develop textile trade
- lobby in the feeders, where possible, instead of relying on the fine intellects at work there to determine what words like "requests", "adequate", and "read the fucking proposal already" mean
- consider the comments of the representative of Intangelon, and perhaps stress that small, non-protectionist fees for service are not to be abolished
- generally undertake more thorough drafting.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

We are disappointed to see this proposal fail, but more because we are not convinced it was voted down based on an informed decision, than that we were devoted to seeing it pass. Perhaps there were slight flaws in it, and this will give us a chance to correct them. But we do wish voters would read the proposal thoroughly, and make sure they understand what it means, before casting their vote or voicing their opinion on it. My usually short manner notwithstanding, I have always made myself available to respond to comments or criticisms. That so many have jumped to completely unfounded conclusions is saddening.

Nonetheless, I have learned some lessons. Should I attempt this proposal again, I will:
- include an explanatory note that it does not mandate that clothing be worn (and possibly a clause determining public nudity/decency laws to be a national right)
- order the exemptions schedule differently, such that the proposal appears less "contradictory"
- tone down the fluffiness, which on this occasion seems to have actually worked against it - perhaps by making this more clearly a proposal to develop textile trade
- lobby in the feeders, where possible, instead of relying on the fine intellects at work there to determine what words like "requests", "adequate", and "read the fucking proposal already" mean
- consider the comments of the representative of Intangelon, and perhaps stress that small, non-protectionist fees for service are not to be abolished
- generally undertake more thorough drafting.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of PuppiesOur condolences, Rono. As you know, we're indifferent to free trade, but there were enough fair trade elements in this proposal to make it worthwhile. We were appalled, however, at the number of poor arguments given against the proposition; public education will definitely be needed before another attempt is made.

Good luck.

OOC: Thanks for posting those stats. I'll represent those numbers in both graphical and tabular format using Adobe Illustrator and put them in the NSWiki article I hope to write about this resolution. Would you like me to reference the stastics as coming from your government or perhaps some sort of NGO based in L&E? They are very interesting and will be great in the voting analysis section. :)

Of course you can use those stats, if you want you can state that they come from the independant news information portal Vagatorpost.lae (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Vagatorpost.lae), thanks, but but don't feel to have to.

Of course you can use those stats, if you want you can state that they come from the independant news information portal Vagatorpost.lae (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Vagatorpost.lae), thanks, but but don't feel to have to.

Actually I like that a great deal. It has a great roleplay element attached to it. :)

The people of Cluichstan are pleased to announce that we have placed a complete and total trade embargo on the nation of Discoraversalism. We won't bother with establishing a no-fly zone or naval blockade of that annoying nation, though. We will simply enforce our embargo using our Death Star (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=142).

Respectfully,
Defense Minister Sheik Nottap bin Cluich

That's a shame. We were going to offer to ship material to your Death Star whenever it was in range of our Rail Guns. Would you no longer like us to fling stuff at your Death Star? (Strictly speaking our nation has no weapons that don't have a non military purpose).

For example, you may need help getting around the newly established Clothing Supply Cartel?

He means the five delegates of the feeder (Pacific) regions. It's not 1200 vote block: it's five sets of about 250 votes. The feeders tend to oppose things; when they do so en masse, it is harder to get proposals passed, but by no means impossible.

Ah, I see. Thank you for the explanation. It still seems to unfairly tilt the playing field, but not as badly as I'd first imagined.

We are disappointed to see this proposal fail...
*snip*


Eloquent as ever, Chief Pyandran. Thank you for your continued effort.

OOC: Apparently, there was some confusion as to whether this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11680505&postcount=169) was in-character. It was - hence it being signed by Rono Pyandran. I usually signal the status where there might be confusion. I don't generally put [/joke] at the end of jokes, because when people do that I want to [/shotgun]. Evidently, I should have done to the final line, too. So let me do it now: it was a joke.

Mefinks you are just a silly old git who's envious of the so-called chavs!

Sincerely,
Minister of Sub-Cultures
Molessa Birmingham