NationStates Jolt Archive

I particularly like this idea. I need help with the proposal though.

Worldwide Tariff Ban

Category: Free Trade

Strength: Strong

RECOGNIZING the detriment of tariffs in our society

COGNIZANT OF the impact that other free trade agreements have had

CONVINCED THAT free trade will increase the economy of every participating country

SEEKING to take the global economy to another level

HEREBY:

1) DEFINES a tariff as any duty imposed on traded goods from one country to another by the government of either country.

2) EXTENDS this definition to cover any charges for arbitrary charges ex: “security checks, etc.”

3) MANDATES that all member nations must forthwith eradicate all tariffs from their countries trading system

4) ENCOURAGES member nations to engage in diplomatic discussion with non-member nations with the aim of eliminating their tariffs

Where's number 3?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Call me a bigot, but when people who can't count to 5 try to write proposals, I'm never inclined to rabidly optimistic expectation.

There are a number of problems with this proposal, and I say this as a supporter of free trade and of UN efforts to eradicate protectionism. I'll put them in a numbered list:

1. This only applies to UN members. That means you're forcing UN members to remove tariffs on imports from non-members, but that those non-members - two-thirds of the world - don't have to remove their tariffs. That's completely unfair and will disadvantage UN memebrs. You're going to need to allow them to instate reciprocal tariffs to prevent dumping.

2. Tariffs are only one form of protectionism. It's unfair on developing nations to force them to remove tariffs while permitting richer nations to keep subsidies, so you need to phase both of these out. Further, you're not eliminating import quotas, which renders the entire concept utterly facile.

3. There is no third problem.

4. The extension makes no sense, and sneer quotes aren't a valid form of differentiation. Port fees, for example, are exactly the kind of extra charge that should be allowed even within a free trade system.

5. You've made no provision for disagreement, which is inevitably bound to arise given the vapidity of the definition. There is a perfectly good committee on hand to resolve such disputes: the UN Free Trade Commission. Why not use it?

6. You are quite obviously not 'cognizant' of past free trade resolutions, most of which have dealt with these issues. And because of that, this resolution would contradict them (by banning the tariffs they allow) and hence be illegal; you'll need to make accommodation for the existence of Resolutions #130, #154 and #158.

With these issues unresolved, we can do nought but vigorously oppose this proposal.

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

George sat down, and turned to Samantha, grumbling in a low voice, "Now all we need is the representative of Kelssek to turn up, and then the fun can really begin."

By saying:

COGNIZANT OF the impact that other free trade agreements have had

I was more referring to the impact of tariff banning in the real world, such as NAFTA and the EU

However, I cant mention them by name in the proposal because then it refers to real life!

Oh, well, if that's what you're referring to, those are regional agreements. If you want a regional free-trade agreement, take it up with your region, not the UN.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN