NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Description:
These United Nations:

RECOGNIZING the barriers that are placed between nations,

NOTING the negative effects that such tariffs can have on both developing and developed nations,

FURTHER NOTING that the elimination of tariffs between United Nations members can help prevent coercive regimes from dominating any international trade,

REALIZING that the elimination of international tariffs will allow for international competition that will fuel the development of new technology,

ABHORRED over the use of tariffs by nations to establish a monopoly over the free market within their own nation,

CONDEMNING the use of economic sanctions (through the use of tariffs and embargoes) as a means of warfare between warring countries, which can lead to detrimental effects on neutral parties,

DOES HEREBY outlaw the use of tariffs between any two United Nations members regardless of the reason in an effort to expand the free market.

No. I wish had more advice to offer, but, realistically, just N-O.

Can you explain? Are you saying that it is unrealistic or that you just disagree with it?

I just don't really agree that the removal of all tariffs is a good idea. As far as I can see it's legal, though I could be wrong. There are others who may be more interested in refining points and the like with you.

These United Nations:

ABHORRED over the use of tariffs by nations to establish a monopoly over the free market within their own nation,


The United Nations are abhorred?

If they approve the Resolution then in effect they are.

The United Nations are abhorred?

This one is. (points in the general vicinity of the seventeenth floor)

That said, I don't think Ceorana will be able to support this. It's just a tad extreme, and too big a target for a repeal. I'd advocate doing this sector by sector, like has been done in the past.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

Yes, I can understand that, it's just my style to go for it all in one sweep :)

I believe this is illegal.

Duplicates United Nations Resolutions #130 (“Global Food Distribution Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=129)”), #154 (“Nuclear Energy Research Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=153)”), and #158 (“UN Recycling Commission (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Recycling_Commission)”), along with a bunch of others I haven't had a chance to dig up yet, and contradicts United Nations Resolution #128 (“Representation in Taxation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=127)”).

Looks like you've got a lot of repealing to do.

#130:REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, etc.

That is a reduction of tariffs, my version is simply a continuation of that reduction.

#154: EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-member nations to prevent price dumping;

Retaliatory tariffs, which are tariffs in response to tariffs essentially so this does not guarantee the right to put a tariff into place in the first place.

#159: remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;

Yet again this is promoting the removal of tariffs, which is exactly what I am proposing.

#128: (b) taxes imposed upon businesses which engage in strictly intra-national trade, and taxes imposed on items and services which are made and sold strictly within a member nation

My tariff elimination scheme addresses international tax on goods not intra-national so this does not apply to my proposal.

NO NO NO AND A THOUSAND TIMES OVER AGAIN NO!

We stand opposed to any free trade agreements that can not be removed by member countries.

And besides...with this article...i can just see a big blaring repeal coming if it ever by some off chance got passed.

Tariffs protect infant industry in the developing world, If the regions or groups of nations want to set up free trade zones...or limit tariffs on specific items as has been done in the past that is fine. However, eliminating all tariffs would kill industry in industrialized countries, unless they cut living standards and pay rates drastically.

What this would do is institute a race to the bottom requiring the reduction of the costs of labor, most likely through a reduction in the living standard, by the large developed countries. And allow Huge multinationals to gobble up the labor markets in the smaller industrializing ones with lighter environmental regulations (as until the point of a society's industrialization they are not really needed).

This would not fuel the development of new technology either as far as I am aware. I mean who needs new technology when you have billions in the undeveloped world aching to get a job in a sweatshop because their family is poor. Indeed, using the market formula, there would be no need for it. Why invest billions of *whatever your currency happens to be* to develop new technology when you can still make tons of profit using old technologies and cheaper labor.

This proposal would be a disaster for the working people of the world.

5. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of nuclear power generation technology, equipment and fissionable materials, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;Duplication, as I said.3. REQUIRES the gradual reduction, in stages, of all protectionist mechanisms in the trade of food including, but not limited to, Tariffs, Duties, Farm Subsidies and Subventions. Exception will be made for protectionist mechanisms which are based upon legitimate Religious, Cultural, Medical, or Ecological concerns;

4. ESTABLISHES the following schedule for reducing protectionist mechanisms:

Years 1 thru 6: 36% cut over six years (6% per year)
Years 7 thru 11: 50% cut over five years (10% per year)
Year 12: 14% cut (total elimination of protectionist mechanisms) 36%-50%-14%=0%. Duplication, as I said.4. REQUIRES member nations to:
- promote the creation of recycling schemes and facilities, of appropriate technological and economic viability;
- make every reasonable effort to separate recyclable waste materials from others, in order to facilitate efficient recycling practices;
- remove all protectionist devices in the trade of recycled goods and recycling technologies between UN nations, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies and import quotas, emphasising that member nations retain the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations;
- take appropriate steps towards ensuring recycled goods and recycling technologies meet agreed safety standards;Duplication, as I said.

I erred on the contradiction charge; but you still have three duplication problems to contend with.

Next you'll be saying the resolution is self-amending. :rolleyes:

This is not illegal. Dumb, but not illegal. As far as I know, duplication requires more specificity. In that vein, UNCoESB was ruled not to be a duplication of Protection of Dolphins Act or Banning Whaling, even though it purported to protect all endangered species.

This proposal would go entirely too far in restricting the trade practices of member nations, and we do not feel the problem it is attempting to resolve merits such a heavy-handed "fix". We would be opposed, and can't think of anything that would fix the proposal, quite frankly.

First, the premise of tariff removal is based mainly on the blind application of economic theory without regard for economic reality.

NOTING the negative effects that such tariffs can have on both developing and developed nations,

Yes, there are negative effects, but you fail to recognise the beneficial effects, like preserving domestic employment, and allowing economic development through the building of new industries (the infant-industry argument, basically), among others.

FURTHER NOTING that the elimination of tariffs between United Nations members can help prevent coercive regimes from dominating any international trade,

Of course there are some benefits to free trade, (and there are some tariffs in the Real World which I think should be dropped), but you don't seem to recognise the problems it can cause.

REALIZING that the elimination of international tariffs will allow for international competition that will fuel the development of new technology,

Not necessarily, and neither is this the best way to facilitate innovation and technological advancement.

ABHORRED over the use of tariffs by nations to establish a monopoly over the free market within their own nation,

For most of our economy, we don't have any "free market". And that just raises the question of why other nations should have any right to participate in another nation's economy.

Furthermore, we already embargo any nation not signatory to the International Fair Trade Agreement; the resolutions you outlined forced us to declare such a formal embargo to allow us to fulfil treaty commitments. We do this not because we're hostile or at war with them, on the contrary we welcome tourists from all over the world with our lenient visa requirements and establish formal relations with pretty much anyone who asks. We simply don't care to trade with nations which might undermine the work successive governments over the years have done to protect our people's living standards, rights and freedoms.

In conclusion, this is too sweeping, even if we choke back our vehement opposition to such resolutions, and fails to recognise economic realities.

I think this is too vague. Sectoral agreements have generally fared better - the aforementioned GFDA, NERA and UN Recycling Commission (and the cute rider in Waste Disposal Covenant) - so maybe concentrating on a single area would be a more productive approach.

As a signatory of IFTA (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/International_Fair_Trade_Agreement), Ariddia obviously opposes.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA