NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

Believing that notable articles of cultural heritage constitute a legacy for all people,

Noting the heightened risk to such articles during armed conflict,

Convinced that the preservation of cultural heritage for all is a goal both worthy of and requiring international action and agreement,

Equally not wishing to unduly infringe upon the sovereign territory and right to self-defence of its member nations:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "cultural heritage" as:
- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic, historical or religious significance;
- areas and buildings primarily used for the storage and display of such items, such as galleries, libraries and museums;
- sites officially recognised as being used solely for archaeological excavation;
- any other articles agreed on by parties to the armed conflict as protected cultural property, or designated as such in international law;

2. Declares that this resolution shall be considered to apply in times of armed conflict, which shall include:
- armed conflict between two or more state parties;
- civil war recognised as such by both internal and external parties;
- armed insurrection or civil disturbance leading to a declaration of a state of emergency;

3. Requires member nations to refrain from, and prevent to the best abilities their forces and the civilian populations of areas under their control from engaging in:
- the deliberate and targeted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;
- the desecration, vandalism, theft or taking as reparations of cultural heritage;
- the use of sites of cultural heritage for any military purposes, excepting the treatment of casualties;

4. Condemns all acts in contravention of this resolution and calls upon member nations to investigate, try, and where found guilty punish those involved in such acts.
Although this has been submitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=heritage), it is not intended to reach quorum: the submission is simply to gauge support. More work needs to be done on drafting, and to that end, we present it here for comment. We would very much prefer constructive attempts to improve the wording than simple statements of support or opposition.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

My government has mentioned it to our current regional delegate.

The Self-Serving have considered the proposal, and respectfully decline to support it.

We suggest that a threat of damage to cultural artifacts may be an effective way of encouraging co-belligerents to sit down to the negotiation table, or otherwise avoid hostilities.

We are of the mind that it is better for a museum to be leveled, than for a human life to be lost.

From the Desk of the Selfish One

The Self-Serving have considered the proposal, and respectfully decline to support it.

We suggest that a threat of damage to cultural artifacts may be an effective way of encouraging co-belligerents to sit down to the negotiation table, or otherwise avoid hostilities.
This seems to ignore context. If they're so keen to avoid hostilities, wouldn't the threat of any form of armed assault be enough to induce negotiations? Similarly, if they're so simultaneously war-happy and yet attached to their cultural artifacts, they would surely do anything to limit the risk of war, because even with resolutions such as this, accidental destruction would be more likely in case of fighting. If they're willing to negotiate, then we don't believe this proposal would colour that willingness.
We are of the mind that it is better for a museum to be leveled, than for a human life to be lost.
Requires member nations to refrain from and prevent the deliberate and targetted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except...where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;
-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

We are of the mind that it is better for a museum to be leveled, than for a human life to be lost.


We must vehemently disagree with the representative from Self-Serving. It is our strong belief that cultural artifacts, records of historical matters, that are of the utmost importance. In a sense, they are even more fragile than the life of a single person.

Mr. Madison- this may have been discussed elsewhere, but we're still unsure of the inclusion of this clause, particularly the highlighted words:

- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic, historical or religious significance

The point has already been made in another fora, but I think it's worth mentioning here. Wouldn't important religious areas be covered under the previous three adjectives, them being archaeological or historical in and of themselves?

Consider the Temple of the Sapphire in the Empire. It's one of the oldest operating religious sites in the Core Worlds, having been built some 30,000 years ago. It is, for all intents and purposes, a work of sheer art, demonstrating architectural styles from many periods, and bearing the marks of the ages. The fact that it is a religious site is secondary to the fact that it is such an ancient and fascinating site.

Is it really necessary to make the distinction for religious sites?

Most courteously,

The point has already been made in another fora, but I think it's worth mentioning here. Wouldn't important religious areas be covered under the previous three adjectives, them being archaeological or historical in and of themselves?

Consider the Temple of the Sapphire in the Empire. It's one of the oldest operating religious sites in the Core Worlds, having been built some 30,000 years ago. It is, for all intents and purposes, a work of sheer art, demonstrating architectural styles from many periods, and bearing the marks of the ages. The fact that it is a religious site is secondary to the fact that it is such an ancient and fascinating site.

Is it really necessary to make the distinction for religious sites?
Clearly, this is going to be an issue, so I'll start out by pointing out Quintessence of Dust at one point legally prohibited religion and remains strongly secular, so we're certainly not trying to grant religions special privilege.

The example you cite certainly would fit under other criteria; needless to say, it's other possible artifacts we're considering. For example, the birthplace of a religious figure might not be architecturally or artistically significant, but still of profound importance to followers of that religion. The original copy of some sacred text might not be richly embroidered and in fact rather drab by artistic evaluation, but still be revered by followers. Destruction of such articles is unjustifiable.

To sum up our position: with respect, we're not especially concerned with artifacts that could be protected anyway; we're more concerned by obvious ways in which the inclusion of 'religious' is excessively disadvantageous to militaries or risks abuse in some way. If an example of that could be furnished, we'd obviously consider revising the language.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

we're more concerned by obvious ways in which the inclusion of 'religious' is excessively disadvantageous to militaries or risks abuse in some way. If an example of that could be furnished, we'd obviously consider revising the language.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I seem to recall hearing a story when I was a child about a mythical land called the Vatican. It is a very small and devoutly religious nation, almost the entirety of which is devoted to the temple/palace, where the ruler, a man known as "the Pope" resides. Were Vatican to enter into hostilities, that Palace might well be a fairly primary target for their opponents, as destruction of it would leave the nation without a capital building, and possibly without a ruler. If we set aside the artistic and achitectural splendour of the palace, it is still of religious import to the denizens of the land. Where the catch comes in, is that the palace/temple is also where the nation's military is garrisoned, making it a perfect military target. Almost everyone within the building will be an active member of the government, or a military personnage of some sort. When it comes down to it, that building is just about the only viable military target in the whole nation, but it would be off-limits by this resolution, as it is a landmark of incredible cultural import to the locals, as well as millions abroad. All that Vatican need do to gain this protection is regarrison their troops outside the palace walls.

That isn't really the best example, but considering that the palace in Vatican takes up most of their landmass, it renders the war nearly impossible to pursue onto their homeland.

OOC: Sorry, I couldn't really come up with a better example. Vatican City is the only thing I could really think of that people might identify with.

I seem to recall hearing a story when I was a child about a mythical land called the Vatican. It is a very small and devoutly religious nation, almost the entirety of which is devoted to the temple/palace, where the ruler, a man known as "the Pope" resides. Were Vatican to enter into hostilities, that Palace might well be a fairly primary target for their opponents, as destruction of it would leave the nation without a capital building, and possibly without a ruler. If we set aside the artistic and achitectural splendour of the palace, it is still of religious import to the denizens of the land. Where the catch comes in, is that the palace/temple is also where the nation's military is garrisoned, making it a perfect military target. Almost everyone within the building will be an active member of the government, or a military personnage of some sort. When it comes down to it, that building is just about the only viable military target in the whole nation, but it would be off-limits by this resolution, as it is a landmark of incredible cultural import to the locals, as well as millions abroad. All that Vatican need do to gain this protection is regarrison their troops outside the palace walls.

That isn't really the best example, but considering that the palace in Vatican takes up most of their landmass, it renders the war nearly impossible to pursue onto their homeland.

OOC: Sorry, I couldn't really come up with a better example. Vatican City is the only thing I could really think of that people might identify with.

In such an instance we'd be looking at a different avenue of military action- siege. Starve them out, force them to surrender.

I understand your point, Mr. Madison. I was more concerned with the ability of nations to declare their entire landmass a religious site; I see you've had the same thought.

Most courteously,

There's also the matter of this little clause:

3. Requires member nations to refrain from and prevent:
...
- the use of sites of cultural heritage for any military purposes, excepting the treatment of casualties;Your objections are moot.

Quite: if you want to declare a site of religious significance, you forfeit your right to use it for any military purpose. So it, by definition, bestows no military advantage.

In the example of the Vatican, there's a key phrase: 'If we set aside the artistic and achitectural splendour of the palace'. We're not. If those buildings are being used in a military context, this resolution does not protect them; if not, then there is no justification for their destruction.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

There's also the matter of this little clause:

Your objections are moot.

Not objections so much as questions. And we find them amply answered.

Most courteously,

We are glad this proposal has resurfaced and sincerely hope it reaches quorum so that we can vote for it.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We hope this proposal reaches quorum as well, and will be most pleased to vote in favor if it does.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

4. Condemns all acts in contravention of this resolution, further condemns all acts prejudicial to the preservation of cultural heritage ...

Respecting the wishes of the proposer, I had intended to refrain from posting a simple "good one" comment; but I cannot stop myself from expressing my admiration for one of the most spectacularly broad condemnations I have seen in this body.

Not only does it have the UN effectively condemning war, it even condemns dangerous preservation efforts, such as the act of breaking up a significant collection of artworks to send individual components to safer destinations (with the risk that such individual components will be lost or damaged en route).

I am awed.

-- Dicey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

Grumble, alright. Nixed. Thanks for pointing that out; got a little carried away there.

-- George Madison

You have the full support of Cookesland on this proposal, Ambassador Madison.

The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

The Culture Minister just relayed to me that this is an excellent resolution.

Carina Talchimio-Spicolli (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Carina_Talchimio-Spicolli)
Permanent Representative of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations

We'd vote for this.

Dr. Jules Hodz
Too lazy to type the whole dang signature.

Our attempts to find anything else wrong have met with extreme resistance, and our delegation's sleep deprivation isn't helping matters. An excellent resolution, one that the Empire would be happy to support. The preservation of cultural history and heritage is of the utmost importance.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

Can't see anything wong with it, seems like a good idea for a wesolution.

2nd Lieutenant The Honourable Douglas Farqueson Leopold Nectarpoint Carruthers-FitzPewbik, 1st Battalion of the 34th Segrenas Pioneers
Defenece Attache to the UN

What happens if one side in the conflict is using a cultural hertiage site as a military base (like non-UN nations)? Are we allowed to bomb that site then and not get punished for the act? I'm also wondering of the possiblity of a historical document also being a top-secret document as well, and what if that top-secret document is necessary for fighting in a war? Would the looting of the top-secret document be okay, even if it is located in or is protected by a being a cultural hertiage.

We see no issues with this resolution and wholeheartedly support this reasoned endeavour protect the cultures of member nations.

What happens if one side in the conflict is using a cultural hertiage site as a military base (like non-UN nations)? Are we allowed to bomb that site then and not get punished for the act?

We’d like to direct the representative to the clause we have quoted below, it clearly illustrates that in such instances it would be perfectly legitimate to attack the culture site. However, we would encourage the representative to advocate the use of other tactics prior to an all out attack unless such action is deemed unavoidable.


3. Requires member nations to refrain from and prevent:
- the deliberate and targetted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;

We also believe “targetted” is in need of being corrected unless this is a technical term we have simply not encountered.

Anravelle Kramer.

What happens if one side in the conflict is using a cultural hertiage site as a military base (like non-UN nations)? Are we allowed to bomb that site then and not get punished for the act? I'm also wondering of the possiblity of a historical document also being a top-secret document as well, and what if that top-secret document is necessary for fighting in a war? Would the looting of the top-secret document be okay, even if it is located in or is protected by a being a cultural hertiage.

Ah yes, the old "grasping at straws" -- i.e., just making random shite up in an attempt to muddle things -- approach. :rolleyes:

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We also believe “targetted” is in need of being corrected unless this is a technical term we have simply not encountered.

Anravelle Kramer.
'Targetted' is an acceptable variation on 'targeted', similar to 'focussed' and 'focused'. While the latter is more common, the former is still sometimes used.

Sebastian Ennuk

I've changed it to 'targeted' anyway to avoid the issue recurring; thank you for pointing that out.

As noted, the provisions of this resolution are void if the site is being used for military purposes. As to the issue of secrecy, I can't understand a word you're saying. If you can provide a more concrete example, I'll try to address it.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

I'm also wondering of the possiblity of a historical document also being a top-secret document as wellAs to the issue of secrecy, I can't understand a word you're saying.It appears he's asking about if a protected document also contained secret plans. To borrow from the mythical land of RL, I think it would be as if, say, nuclear launch codes were printed on the back of the Magna Carta.

Why someone would do that is beyond me, but it certainly seems to be yet another instance of using something for a military purpose, and thus voiding the protection this law would give.

For what it's worth, the prohibition seems pretty clear to me. I don't understand the confusion so many people seem to be experiencing.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

You have our support.

It appears he's asking about if a protected document also contained secret plans. To borrow from the mythical land of RL, I think it would be as if, say, nuclear launch codes were printed on the back of the Magna Carta.

Why someone would do that is beyond me, but it certainly seems to be yet another instance of using something for a military purpose, and thus voiding the protection this law would give.
Ah, I see.

Well, the following exceptions are allowed:
- 'where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces'
- 'where damage to such articles is unavoidable'
- where such actions are 'necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life'

We consider that fairly ample leverage, and certainly, deliberately encoding military intelligence into artifacts would seem to be using them for a military purpose; equally, if interception of that military intelligence is vital to the prevention of an attack, it would be permitted. So as the proposal stands, we think it makes adequate accommodation for this wildly unlikely scenario.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Whilst our knee-jerk reaction is to call for even more protection for irreplaceable heritage sites and objects, we believe that the case has been amply made that such would be unwise. We would therefore happily support this proposal once it reaches the floor.

So destroying the holy Ark would be okay because it melts enemy eyeballs (not to mention flesh) upon exposure and is the superest weapon of all? Cool, we're on board.

We do have a bit of an internal problem as a large cult religion has grown up around the worship of our holy missile silos. We've been trying to discourage that--a mass of naked people jumping up and down in one spot does little to contribute to secrecy and all that.


Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN

An excellent proposal; good luck.

Benedictions,

I consider this to be the final draft now. I'll try to submit it next week; if anyone is going to be willing to send any TGs, let me know.

Comments and corrections still welcome before then, obviously.

What category were you intending to use? I don't see that on the first post.

Ah, right. I was thinking of Education and Creativity -> Cultural Heritage. The category description is 'A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts': I think this fits in that it would probably require some funding to police, and encourages development because it will (hopefully) limit the destruction of cultural artifacts in war zones. If not, I'll either try to make it fit (by adding in some language about funding cultural heritage preservation projects, possibly) or use Global Disarmament -> Mild.

This proposal has been submitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=heritage). Tell your friends.

We have written to our regional delegate, and hope that soon (as we say) you will be walking downstream with an otter.

Ambassador Madison, in the event of this proposal being passed, would you consider drafting similar protocols restricting the use of heritage sites for military purposes during peacetime?

Ambassador Madison, in the event of this proposal being passed, would you consider drafting similar protocols restricting the use of heritage sites for military purposes during peacetime?
I wouldn't. Whether we'd vote for one drafted by someone else, I couldn't say.

In the meantime, thanks to all delegates who've given their approvals.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Ambassador Madison, in the event of this proposal being passed, would you consider drafting similar protocols restricting the use of heritage sites for military purposes during peacetime?
My government is considering submitting a proposal on the 'World Parks' theme, inspired by several earlier suggestions by various nations, that would give some sites of environmental importance international protection -- in peace and war -- if the governments of the nations where those areas are located requested this and were themselves willing to foreswear various forms of activity (including military operations, except as needed to remove any non-complying forces who tried to use those areas) within those parks' boundaries. Might your government be interested in supporting this idea, if we can get a workable draft written?

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)

All this ---> some other thread

In relevant news, the proposal is up to 93 approvals. If you haven't approved it already, please consider doing so; if you haven't castrated your delegate for not doing so, likewise.

If you haven't approved it already, please consider doing so; if you haven't castrated your delegate for not doing so, likewise.

Approvals: 116
Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Congratulations to you, and congratulations to me, because now I don't have to consider what action to take if a female Delegate didn't endorse it.

I'm just wondering whether this should be stickied now it's at vote; if not, then maybe a fresh thread for it.

However, for the resolution at hand, I'm just uncertain about it. I like the proposal, however, the final point of Paragraph 3 raises a little concern in me. The use of an historical site as a makeshift medical facility (a MASH, if you so desire) may, in effect, destroy the cultural or historic significance of the site, even if temporarily; this is especially true for (religious) sites where only sacrificial blood can be spilled. You can debate me if you so desire; I'm not too up to scratch with army surgery--or any surgery for that matter, since the only operation I've had was virtually bloodless--so what I'm saying here can be questioned.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

The Confederate Union of The Sith Clan votes in favour of this proposal. We believe in the preservation of the History and culture of a nation even in war time. We strongly support this proposal.

-Diana Huxley Ambassador to the U.N.

After reading through this proposal, it is the position of The United States to SUPPORT this piece of legislation. Best of luck getting it passed, Ambassador Madison.

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

After reviewing transcripts from previous discussions that addressed questions raised by the proposal, the Nation of Cortalund supports this measure.

However, for the resolution at hand, I'm just uncertain about it. I like the proposal, however, the final point of Paragraph 3 raises a little concern in me. The use of an historical site as a makeshift medical facility (a MASH, if you so desire) may, in effect, destroy the cultural or historic significance of the site, even if temporarily; this is especially true for (religious) sites where only sacrificial blood can be spilled. You can debate me if you so desire; I'm not too up to scratch with army surgery--or any surgery for that matter, since the only operation I've had was virtually bloodless--so what I'm saying here can be questioned.
Yes, they possibly could. But, this resolution doesn't endorse damaging cultural heritage. I included the medical exemption because, to be honest, if a posh art gallery gets blood on its carpet in the process of someone having their life saved, that's fine by me. Further, this proposal doesn't advocate using such places as medical facilities: in order to qualify, they are probably held, and hence unsuitable anyway. So I basically recognise what you say, but I would hope it would not prove enough to vote against. In the specific example of blood being spilled: it's more than likely it would be home forces setting up such places, so they would be aware of such taboos and themselves avoid breaching them.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Following the repeal of the World Heritage List, my government is very pleased to see a replacement resolution reach the UN floor after a significant amount of work on behalf of the people from Quintessence of Dust. Mikitivity has voted in favour of this well-written resolution.

George,

This is an absolutely splendid resolution. You have my deepest respects and wholehearted support. I will communicate to my regional delegate the importance of this resolution and encourage all within my region to support it.

Excelsior!

Warmest personal regards,

Sir Geoffrey Allen Gosford; KGCB, KGCMG
Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Ooh! Another resolution what t' vote on while the boss is gone.

*Presses "FOR" button*

Rather. We tend to like Quodite resolutions.

The Great Star Empire supports.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

this is a amendment that will only allow "non-state " military entities to hid in these "cultural landmarks" and wage war against states. While Bigargonia respects the value of cultural landmarks, our people are our greatest cultural landmark, therefore the security of our people come first. So we will reject this amendment.

Big Ed
Grand Poobah
Bigargonia

Recently, Alstituan spies seem to be trying to stop me from getting in here. (OOC: Jolt isn't working for me.) Nonetheless, here I am, and I happen to be voting FOR. I have no particular reason, but it seems like a good idea.

Roderick Spear
Paradican Ambassador to the oh shit the Alstituans are coming!

Jorador doesn't believe in culture and has none. This would only make it easier for Jorador's enemies to hurt her. Besides, Total War, while a regrettable method to use, ends wars faster. Holding back in war only prolongs the encounter and leads to more lives being lost. The only way to win a war is to make it so horrible that your enemies lose the will to fight. Whether that involves burning civilian buildings and possesions or smashing culutural relics, the point of war is to end it in your favor, the quicker the better.

Jorador opposes.

this is a amendment that will only allow "non-state " military entities to hid in these "cultural landmarks" and wage war against states. While Bigargonia respects the value of cultural landmarks, our people are our greatest cultural landmark, therefore the security of our people come first. So we will reject this amendment.

Big Ed
Grand Poobah
Bigargonia

Sorry Ed, we can't do amendments.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Jorador doesn't believe in culture and has none. This would only make it easier for Jorador's enemies to hurt her. Besides, Total War, while a regrettable method to use, ends wars faster. Holding back in war only prolongs the encounter and leads to more lives being lost. The only way to win a war is to make it so horrible that your enemies lose the will to fight. Whether that involves burning civilian buildings and possesions or smashing culutural relics, the point of war is to end it in your favor, the quicker the better.

Jorador opposes.

Is Jorador a member of the United Nations?

Ausserland has voted FOR the resolution. It is a carefully thought out, well crafted, and highly worthwhile piece of legislation.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Is Jorador a member of the United Nations?

If Jorador wasn't, I wouldn't be posting here.

If Jorador wasn't, I wouldn't be posting here.

Well non-member states and NGOs are also welcome to post in the UN debates, they simply do not get a vote. However, they DO get a choice to ignore UN resolutions. Your earlier statement, "Whether that involves burning civilian buildings and possesions", suggests that your nation is NOT a UN member, as burning civilian buildings when the civilians are still in those buildings is essentially been condemned in other UN resolutions.

My point is, this is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that the UN has discussed coming up with standards to better protect nations. While war certainly is not banned, there are a series of UN resolutions that have spelled out the rules of conduct in war.

Surely a nation that might boost that a quick end to war is the only way to fight a war, would realize that by speaking out in FAVOR of universal rules of conduct that you actually give your own nation a short term advantage ... of course I should stress short term, because there are many peaceful nations that do not look favorably to nations that essentially engage in reckless warfare.

Howie T. Katzman

there are many peaceful nations that do not look favorably to nations that essentially engage in reckless warfare.And some of us have very big guns.


Doctor Denis Leary
UN Ambassador
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Jorador doesn't believe in culture and has none. This would only make it easier for Jorador's enemies to hurt her. Besides, Total War, while a regrettable method to use, ends wars faster. Holding back in war only prolongs the encounter and leads to more lives being lost. The only way to win a war is to make it so horrible that your enemies lose the will to fight. Whether that involves burning civilian buildings and possesions or smashing culutural relics, the point of war is to end it in your favor, the quicker the better.

Jorador opposes.

Complete and utter nonsense. You have a culture, whether you realize it or not, even if it happens to be on the level of plant lice. The culture of a nation promotes national identity, which in turn enhances esprit of the nation's military.

Further, your notion of total war is ridiculous. Destroying the will of an enemy to fight does not have to include destruction of cultural and historical artifacts. You attack the military capability of the nation and its infrastructure. Attacking the cultural symbols of an enemy is far more likely to increase their will to fight than to reduce it.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Yes, they possibly could. But, this resolution doesn't endorse damaging cultural heritage. I included the medical exemption because, to be honest, if a posh art gallery gets blood on its carpet in the process of someone having their life saved, that's fine by me. Further, this proposal doesn't advocate using such places as medical facilities: in order to qualify, they are probably held, and hence unsuitable anyway. So I basically recognise what you say, but I would hope it would not prove enough to vote against. In the specific example of blood being spilled: it's more than likely it would be home forces setting up such places, so they would be aware of such taboos and themselves avoid breaching them.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Thankfully, I'm not voting against, however, because of my aforementioned concern, I'm not voting for either, so that leaves just one option--abstainment.

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peioples of Damanucus

I war, one's first priority must be to secure the strategical points vital to win the war, My troops are instructed to fire at the enemy, they are allowed to use heavy weapons, even if those troops are hiding in a Libary/chuch/mosque/museum/whatever.

for the time that we could fight the entire wars out of the city is long past, it's something from the medieval times.

therefore I conclude that the loss of cultural items/buildings shall always and ever occur in modern warfar, the only way to prevent this is by letting the wars end as quick as the forces are able to.

This proposal doesn't prohibit firing on a building in which enemy troops are quartered.

As for the rest: the whole point of this proposal is that these places have an irreplacable cultural value. Destroying them is unlikely to be a wonderful idea, then, and I'd venture that those suggesting it would have even less of a conception of militray strategy than I do. Damage cultural heritage, and you risk politicising a conflict and invoking the rage of a previously civilian population. That always turns out well.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

You have our full support.

Benedictions,

It appears he's asking about if a protected document also contained secret plans. To borrow from the mythical land of RL, I think it would be as if, say, nuclear launch codes were printed on the back of the Magna Carta.

Why someone would do that is beyond me, but it certainly seems to be yet another instance of using something for a military purpose, and thus voiding the protection this law would give.

For what it's worth, the prohibition seems pretty clear to me. I don't understand the confusion so many people seem to be experiencing.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

OOC: Come now, surely you've seen Nicholas Cage's stellar performance in the film National Treasure, haven't you?

IC: This is an excellent idea and an outstanding resolution. You have my full support.

LAE voted FOR.

Not surprisingly, my delegation has voted in favour.


Christelle Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This proposal doesn't prohibit firing on a building in which enemy troops are quartered.

As for the rest: the whole point of this proposal is that these places have an irreplacable cultural value. Destroying them is unlikely to be a wonderful idea, then, and I'd venture that those suggesting it would have even less of a conception of militray strategy than I do. Damage cultural heritage, and you risk politicising a conflict and invoking the rage of a previously civilian population. That always turns out well.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs


Well said.

Cultural sites, buildings, and monuments are all very irreplaceable things which make a nation's culture, their culture. Tightening military support of these things ensures a nation's heritage and culture are preserved, and they're destruction contributes to the erasing of a nation's history and culture.

When the Inquisition was in Mesoamerka, they destroyed all Scripts, written by the Mayas. The feard there would be heretic stuff or something. Only three books survived the BBQ. One of them mentioned the sun calendar which was exactly like our, that we use today. What secrets the Mayas possesed, we will never know, because of some stupid,antiscincetifical Zealots who had not better to do than kill a bunch of people they explained "strange".
This shouldn't happen again. Never.
FOR

this is a amendment that will only allow "non-state " military entities to hid in these "cultural landmarks" and wage war against states. While Bigargonia respects the value of cultural landmarks, our people are our greatest cultural landmark, therefore the security of our people come first. So we will reject this amendment.

Hey there, Big Ed! If you're worried about the safety of your people, you might wanna deal with those non-state actors you're so worried about in your own nation. They're your problem. Deal with 'em. You really don't want us to do it for you...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The opposition seems to swarm in my region, Autropolis.

The primary objection was easily countered by using QOD's own words and the words of the resolution itself. They tried to use the "quartering troops in a pyramid" type of argument, which Article 3 neatly squelches.

The only other main (serious) objection was the idea that non-UN members would not be bound by this resolution. After I clocked my own skull with a resounding "DUH", I tried to see things their way. In a conflict between a UN and non-UN nation, the non-UN nation could garrison troops inside of a cultural heritage site without fear of UN censure. If the UN nation attacked, for whatever (hopefully justified) reason, it would be bound by this resolution, but Article 3 would still apply. A national treasure is shown contempt by its own government/citizenry if it is allowed to become a military installation.

Have I got it right?

War is a drastic measure, and so by definition, drastic measures must be taken during war. It is therefore my governments decision to vote against this proposal.

The main arguement used in opposistion to this proposal was this. Buildings of cultural value are often large - just by nature, well built - to be classed a cultural marvel above average masonry and architecture is required (The vast majority of the time), and easily defensible and/or in a defensible area - to have survived the years.

The buildings that are objectively important in war are large - to garrison a lot of troops, well built - to avoid pointless casulties and protection from bombing, and easily defensible - for obvious reasons. I take it you see the point.

My government wishes to point out that if we handcuff our armies in this way, or any other, wars will be longer and less efficient causing greater loss of life, greater expense and make post war relations even worse.

My government therfore sees the most logical path as voting aginst the proposal

War is a drastic measure, and so by definition, drastic measures must be taken during war. It is therefore my governments decision to vote against this proposal.

The main arguement used in opposistion to this proposal was this. Buildings of cultural value are often large - just by nature, well built - to be classed a cultural marvel above average masonry and architecture is required (The vast majority of the time), and easily defensible and/or in a defensible area - to have survived the years.

The buildings that are objectively important in war are large - to garrison a lot of troops, well built - to avoid pointless casulties and protection from bombing, and easily defensible - for obvious reasons. I take it you see the point.

My government wishes to point out that if we handcuff our armies in this way, or any other, wars will be longer and less efficient causing greater loss of life, greater expense and make post war relations even worse.

My government therfore sees the most logical path as voting aginst the proposal


You have missed a very important piece of the resolution: that culturally significant buildings that are being used for military purposes become legitimate targets, as per this resolution.

I'll say it big:

It's a legitimate target if it's being used for military purposes

The opposition seems to swarm in my region, Autropolis.

The primary objection was easily countered by using QOD's own words and the words of the resolution itself. They tried to use the "quartering troops in a pyramid" type of argument, which Article 3 neatly squelches.

The only other main (serious) objection was the idea that non-UN members would not be bound by this resolution. After I clocked my own skull with a resounding "DUH", I tried to see things their way. In a conflict between a UN and non-UN nation, the non-UN nation could garrison troops inside of a cultural heritage site without fear of UN censure. If the UN nation attacked, for whatever (hopefully justified) reason, it would be bound by this resolution, but Article 3 would still apply. A national treasure is shown contempt by its own government/citizenry if it is allowed to become a military installation.

Have I got it right?

Exactly right! Bless you heart, good ambassador, but I wish more were able to see the plain fact of it so well.

Oh dear, Allech-Atreus, you appear to be, for lack of a better word, an idiot. I'll explain why, in big,


IF A BUILDING IS NOT BEING USED FOR MILLITRY PURPOSES, WE CAN'T SHOOT IT, JUST GREAT, BUT WHY WOULD I ANYWAY. I WILL NOT BLOW THINGS UP POINTLESSLY, SHOOTING EMPTY BUILDINGS IS NOT HOW THEY DO THINGS IN REAL ARMIES.

I WANT TO SHOOT AT IT IF IT HAS TROOPS INSIDE IT, I ALSO WANT TO PUT MY TROOPS INSIDE IT BECAUSE, AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE, THEY ARE QUITE HANDY FOR THIS PURPOSE.

do you understand, dear fellow?

Because we can tend to be quite nosy in Athanian, we are going to stick our large schnozes into this argument.

If you put your troops into a cultural location, they will surely be shot at, whether you are under the protection of this resolution or not.

ALSO! You CAN shoot at the location if it DOES have troops inside of it. That's part of a provision of this resolution. This has been explained several times over the past few pages and its a shame that more cannot grasp this concept. Or read the resolution. Or both.

As to our vote, we will happily support this resolution. It does quite a good job of covering all aspects of the situation presented.

Sincerely,
Alexander Kerro
UN Representative for Athanian

IF A BUILDING IS NOT BEING USED FOR MILLITRY PURPOSES, WE CAN'T SHOOT IT, JUST GREAT, BUT WHY WOULD I ANYWAY. I WILL NOT BLOW THINGS UP POINTLESSLY, SHOOTING EMPTY BUILDINGS IS NOT HOW THEY DO THINGS IN REAL ARMIES.

I WANT TO SHOOT AT IT IF IT HAS TROOPS INSIDE IT, I ALSO WANT TO PUT MY TROOPS INSIDE IT BECAUSE, AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE, THEY ARE QUITE HANDY FOR THIS PURPOSE.So you're against this... why? If you don't want to blow up buildings pointlessly, how does this "handcuff" your nation? If you want to blow something up because troops are inside, you can. If there's no troops, you can't, but you just stated that you don't plan to "blow things up pointlessly".


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Oh dear, Allech-Atreus, you appear to be, for lack of a better word, an idiot. I'll explain why, in big,

Your "big" is not as "big" as theirs is. That probably explains your petulance a bit...

IF A BUILDING IS NOT BEING USED FOR MILLITRY PURPOSES, WE CAN'T SHOOT IT, JUST GREAT, BUT WHY WOULD I ANYWAY. I WILL NOT BLOW THINGS UP POINTLESSLY, SHOOTING EMPTY BUILDINGS IS NOT HOW THEY DO THINGS IN REAL ARMIES.

If you can't blow up a building that you wouldn't blow up anyway, then why exactly do you care again?

I WANT TO SHOOT AT IT IF IT HAS TROOPS INSIDE IT, I ALSO WANT TO PUT MY TROOPS INSIDE IT BECAUSE, AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE, THEY ARE QUITE HANDY FOR THIS PURPOSE.

In regards to wanting to "shoot at it" if it has troops inside it, please refer to this part of the resolution...

3. Requires member nations to refrain from, and prevent to the best abilities their forces and the civilian populations of areas under their control from engaging in:
- the deliberate and targeted destruction or damage of cultural heritage, except where such articles are being used for military purposes by opposing forces, or where damage to such articles is unavoidable, or necessary for the preservation of military or civilian life;

Does that clear it up for you? As for the desire to place your troops inside structures of heritage because it's "useful", then you're exactly the sort of nation whose lack of morals requires passage of such a resolution.

do you understand, dear fellow?

A better question would be if you understand the resolution. Hopefully, this will help.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I have to admit, we appear to have read something that was not there. We assumed that there was the understanding that the troops avoided these areas entirely, which does not seem to actually be there.

This has changed the matter somewhat, but our millitary leaders still wish this country's vote to be against the resolution, for reasons of undiscloseable possible stratagies.

I apolagise for our misunderstanding.

I have to admit, we appear to have read something that was not there. We assumed that there was the understanding that the troops avoided these areas entirely, which does not seem to actually be there.

This has changed the matter somewhat, but our millitary leaders still wish this country's vote to be against the resolution, for reasons of undiscloseable possible stratagies.

I apolagise for our misunderstanding.

I'd also like an apology for the personal attack, but I won't hold my breath.

It's good to see that you're big enough to admit your mistake. That's good, and it means you'll fit right in.

It's good to see that you're big enough to admit your mistake. That's good, and it means you'll fit right in.

Not entirely. I've noticed some here aren't big enough to admit mistakes.

The opposition seems to swarm in my region, Autropolis.

The primary objection was easily countered by using QOD's own words and the words of the resolution itself. They tried to use the "quartering troops in a pyramid" type of argument, which Article 3 neatly squelches.

The only other main (serious) objection was the idea that non-UN members would not be bound by this resolution. After I clocked my own skull with a resounding "DUH", I tried to see things their way. In a conflict between a UN and non-UN nation, the non-UN nation could garrison troops inside of a cultural heritage site without fear of UN censure. If the UN nation attacked, for whatever (hopefully justified) reason, it would be bound by this resolution, but Article 3 would still apply. A national treasure is shown contempt by its own government/citizenry if it is allowed to become a military installation.

Have I got it right?

I disagree. Just because a non-UN nation might not choose to voluntarily follow UN established conduct on warfare, does not mean: (1) that UN members can't condemn failure to comply as a hostile act, and (2) that it isn't in there best interest.

Imagine this ... if the argument is good enough for two UN members, why would it also not be good enough for two non-UN members? The value of the resolution will in large part be represented by the final vote. If a supermajority is established, then clearly most governments have figured out that by leveling the playing field that they too will benefit.

Another way to put it, if UN members adopted a free trade agreement and their economies benefited from this (it has happened), then non-members would have more reason to sign up too and enjoy the benefits.

Mikitivity didn't join the UN until 2004 (a year and plus after it was established). Eventually our isolationist cantons saw the benefits. I'm confident non-UN members will see the value in some resolutions (including this one).

Howie T. Katzman

The Hirotan government has directed me to vote FOR this legislation.

Dear government leaders and ambassadors,

The Confederacy of Leikeze votes against Cultural Heritage proposal due to it's several "cultural" disadvantages and militaristic patterns.

We're not living in the jungle, are we? We're civilized people. So why should "The strongest take it all"? And I mean military strength and not cultural.

This proposal is just another way of getting and not gaining cultural artifacts. This means new wars. That's right W-A-R-S. I'm asking you to listen to me for your own sake.

Leikeze the ll
The President of the Confederacy of Leikeze.

<Lights fire to the above strawman, then defenestrates Leikeze>

Makes for a nice effect, although I think Mr. Tarquin fin bim lim bin whim bin F'tang F'Tang Ole Biscuitbarrel (Gods I hope I got his name right) would have done a nicer job.

My thanks to those who dealt with one argument in opposition while I was away from the Assembly; I hope the objection has been answered satisfactorily. The latest objection I cannot understand, so cannot respond to. In answer to the region of Autropolis:
The only other main (serious) objection was the idea that non-UN members would not be bound by this resolution. After I clocked my own skull with a resounding "DUH", I tried to see things their way. In a conflict between a UN and non-UN nation, the non-UN nation could garrison troops inside of a cultural heritage site without fear of UN censure. If the UN nation attacked, for whatever (hopefully justified) reason, it would be bound by this resolution, but Article 3 would still apply. A national treasure is shown contempt by its own government/citizenry if it is allowed to become a military installation.
If the non-UN nation used such a site as a military installation, the UN nation would be permitted to attack it. In that sense, preservation of national security ranks above preservation of cultural heritage. (And while saying this may ameliorate some of those concerns, it'll probably bring a few new ones from the other side: sigh, so it goes.)

The other thing to bear in mind is that, with all due modesty, the UN likes this proposal, and is voting it in by a healthy margin. That suggests that any non-UN nation that did attempt to exploit cultural heritage for military gain would meet with the disapproval and even outright opposition of those supporting this legislation (and I note some UN-nations have spoken in support here too). UN members rank as a minority in the world and the power of the UN over the majority is non-existent, but they are a far more sizeable, by several orders of magnitude, minority than any other organization in the world. The largest regions have maybe five thousand members, the largest alliances rarely one hundred. The UN has over 25,000, and thus their opinion does carry some weight. I suggest the strength of opinion behind this resolution would weigh unfavourably against those who attempted to exploit it.

That's the hope, anyway. If I've unknowingly disadvantaged the entire UN...oops?

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Jorador Suggested that Total War is the optimal means for shortening conflict, stating that making the war so horrible that people do not want to fight it.

This is false.

Arthur Thayer Mahan's Rule was exactly that, disproven time and again in World War II, If you carpet bomb cities, and cultural location, all you do is unite the people. Revenge is what total war provokes. The Japanese did not surrender when we killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens and large sections of their cities after the incindiary attacks leading up to the Drop of the Nuclear weapon, Germany did not surrender after we carpet bombed their cities.

If people have nothing else but death to fear, Unity is what arises, for total war threatens their one last thing to hold on to.

-The Big Eater

Jorador Suggested that Total War is the optimal means for shortening conflict, stating that making the war so horrible that people do not want to fight it.

This is false.

Arthur Thayer Mahan's Rule was exactly that, disproven time and again in World War II, If you carpet bomb cities, and cultural location, all you do is unite the people. Revenge is what total war provokes. The Japanese did not surrender when we killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens and large sections of their cities after the incindiary attacks leading up to the Drop of the Nuclear weapon, Germany did not surrender after we carpet bombed their cities.

If people have nothing else but death to fear, Unity is what arises, for total war threatens their one last thing to hold on to.

-The Big Eater

I think you mean Alfred Thayer Mahan, author of "The Influence of Sea Power upon History."

The Aryan nations of the National Socialist Alliance express their disappointment at the passage of this resolution. The passage of this resolution is yet another step on this organizations promotion of a one world government.

The UN was formed with the intent of serving member states, yet somehow member states must now serve the UN.

It was said that, "War is hell." This is true. In warfare the worst comes forth from both attacker and defender. We believe that current conventions and treaties address this matter without making complaince mandatory on all member states.

Many National Socialist states being mistrustful of this organization have witheld their support and participation. We hope to encourage all our kindred Aryan nations to come into this forum and take their seats in this body. We also look forward to forming alliances and voting blocks with other nations who share our concerns.

We are back!

Baron von Bismark
Ambassador to the UN
National Socialist Alliance

^ <looks up at previous post>

Hoo, boy, another junior Hitler. Grand, they'll let anybody in.

^ <looks up at previous post>

Hoo, boy, another junior Hitler. Grand, they'll let anybody in.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/squorn/givemepoland.jpg

Thanks for the needed laugh, Sheik.

Thanks for the needed laugh, Sheik.

That was an OOC post, but you're most welcome. ;)

OOC: I'm working on the NSWiki article.

IC:
My government is very pleased with the strong showing of support that this resolution had both in these discussions and in the final vote. In order to comply with the first operative clause:

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "cultural heritage" as:
- articles of great cultural value, and especially those bearing archaeological, artistic, historical or religious significance;
- areas and buildings primarily used for the storage and display of such items, such as galleries, libraries and museums;
- sites officially recognised as being used solely for archaeological excavation;
- any other articles agreed on by parties to the armed conflict as protected cultural property, or designated as such in international law;

Mikitivity's Council of Mayors will convene to ask each canton to adopt a list of sites that we feel are of cultural significance not only to our nation but others as well and my office will maintain a copy of the complete list for Mikitivity that we will freely distribute upon request.

We also would be interested in working with other nations to help identify sites that we feel are worth protecting outside of our borders and also working out arrangements for temporary relocation of articles outside of Mikitivity that are at risk as situations warrant.