NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant/Strong?

Description: Abolish the use of embargoes (except on weapons) as a mean to deter non-conformist nations.

RECOGNISING the use of embargoes as a means to get certain governments to conform the UN norm

AWARE that embargoes have never been successful to achieve such goal. Governments have always been able to obtain resources they want from the black market. It has always been the civilians of such countries who suffer most.

CONVINCED that boycott actions such as embargoes are not as effective solutions as dialog, trade and inter-dependence between nations.

DEEMING the lack of effect on targeted governments, while the innocent civilians are often hit hardest by embargoes,

HEREBY mandates that the UN shall never impose embargoes of all sorton any country under any circumstances.

EXCEMPTIONS are provided to the categories:
1, Weapons, for it provides minimal benefits, if any, to the civilian population
2, Medicine, as it was covered by Resolution #33 ("No Embargo on Medicine")

---

This is my very first proposal. Looking forward to your input! :)

---

Submitted for the first time (17.04.07) to test the water. Still looking forward to your ideas on this proposal.

Sorry you will never get my support on this. Sometimes an embargo is the only peaceful way to get a nation to conform to the wishes of the UN. If you take that power away then the UN becomes more toothless then it already is.

What have embargo achieved?

Take North Korea as an example.

1, Embargo did not stop the military from burgeoning.
Embargo did not stop nuclear and other weapons being developed.
Embargo did not stop the government from strict control over their people.

2. Embargo created a great famine of the country for years.
Embargo created a general power shortage of the country.

3. Embargo allows the government to view the UN with anger and skeptism.
Embargo is used by the government as a "reason" to gather support of their people against the UN.

I see little merit in imposing embargo to a country, as it is ineffective, even counter-productive.

2. Embargo created a great famine of the country for years.
Embargo created a general power shortage of the country.

Right, right. Blame the international community. The fact that the mythical land of North Korea is ruled by a psycho who cares more about building nuclear weapons than feeding his people couldn't have anything to do with it.

Sorry... this would not get our vote.

I think this proposal is illegal, you can't make all embargoes illegal.


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

Right, right. Blame the international community. The fact that the mythical land of North Korea is ruled by a psycho who cares more about building nuclear weapons than feeding his people couldn't have anything to do with it.

Sorry... this would not get our vote.

Those who have visited North Korea have commented that the country is like China in the 70s (in the midst of Cultural Revolution). Our stand is that isolation means such as embargo will not get any country to succumb to the international norm. It is through trade and diplomacy a change can be made. Look at how China has become after more than two decades of "open door policy (i.e. Trade). For this reason, I believe embargoes should be abolished.

May I ask those who oppose to this proposal for any successful example of embargoes?

I think this proposal is illegal, you can't make all embargoes illegal.Expand, please. What rule do you think it violates?

The Office of Special and Economic Warfare fully supports embargoes, privateering, and other necessary acts of economic competition when necessary. We are opposed to this bill.

Regards,

Rex Smiley

Expand, please. What rule do you think it violates?

Truth be told it was really more of a gut instinct, but wouldn't this proposal interfere with this resolution? or would it just act as an annex or something?

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #33

No Embargoes on Medicine
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Cherry cola

Description: We assert that modern medicine can vastly improve quality of life, and is beneficial to all. Not having access to modern medicine and modern medical supplies can cause unnecessary suffering and death.

Therefore we propose that in the course of war, no nation make embargoes restricting the sale of medicine or medical supplies. We also propose that any controlling authority, be it a government, a rebellion, or an occupying force, make no restrictions in times of war preventing doctors from entering the retion to treat the sick, wounded, and dying.

Modern medicine is one of our societies modern accomplishments. We urge all nations to adopt this resolution to ensure that it is made freely accessable in times of war - times when it is needed most


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

Well, as long as it exempts medicine...

My take on embargoes is that they're useless. You may think you're helping the people of the country, but that's not the case. If you look at all incidences of embargoes, when has any of them been helpful? All you do is tank the country's economy and screw the people even more. If you want to get rid of a dictator, do you think he's going to care about the people or shortages of important goods? I mean, even with the people suffering, Kim Jung-Il has a reported seventeen palaces and residences. He also gets (illegally or legally) tons of luxury goods imported. Embargoes are not the answer.

My take on embargoes is that they're useless. You may think you're helping the people of the country, but that's not the case. If you look at all incidences of embargoes, when has any of them been helpful? All you do is tank the country's economy and screw the people even more. If you want to get rid of a dictator, do you think he's going to care about the people or shortages of important goods? I mean, even with the people suffering, Kim Jung-Il has a reported seventeen palaces and residences. He also gets (illegally or legally) tons of luxury goods imported. Embargoes are not the answer.

Well, the example itself is a bit flawed- in the hypothetical Real World, the North Koreans actually get billions of dollars in aid from countries all over the world, it just gets embezzeled away by the communist leadership. Juche hasn't worked for them.

Embargoes have been very successful in forcing nations to their knees, it is only when exemptions to those embargoes are made that things go wrong. When aid for food or medicine, or money itself is sent it, the embargoed nation is emboldened to hold out even longer, knowing that those who are opposed to it don't have the stones to keep it up.

Consider this hypothetical example: the mythical land of Palestine elected a ruthless terrorist government. The mythical western world immediatly embargoes them and freezes their assets. The shit, to put it crudely, begins to hit the Palestinian fan as people go without food, pay, medicine, etc. The Hamas government is quite literally on its knees, with opposition gunmen shooting up their ministers and inpaid service workers not showing up for work.

That is, until (hyopthetically, of course) foreign nations begin to weaken and send in food aid, and money gets carried across the borders in suitcases. Hamas is back on its feet, even though the embargo is still in place.

To summarize our unnecessarily long and completely hypothetical example (tee hee) we oppose this legislation, understanding that embargoes are a valid tool.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

Well, the example itself is a bit flawed- in the hypothetical Real World, the North Koreans actually get billions of dollars in aid from countries all over the world, it just gets embezzeled away by the communist leadership. Juche hasn't worked for them.

Embargoes have been very successful in forcing nations to their knees, it is only when exemptions to those embargoes are made that things go wrong. When aid for food or medicine, or money itself is sent it, the embargoed nation is emboldened to hold out even longer, knowing that those who are opposed to it don't have the stones to keep it up.

Consider this hypothetical example: the mythical land of Palestine elected a ruthless terrorist government. The mythical western world immediatly embargoes them and freezes their assets. The shit, to put it crudely, begins to hit the Palestinian fan as people go without food, pay, medicine, etc. The Hamas government is quite literally on its knees, with opposition gunmen shooting up their ministers and inpaid service workers not showing up for work.

That is, until (hyopthetically, of course) foreign nations begin to weaken and send in food aid, and money gets carried across the borders in suitcases. Hamas is back on its feet, even though the embargo is still in place.

To summarize our unnecessarily long and completely hypothetical example (tee hee) we oppose this legislation, understanding that embargoes are a valid tool.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

This example, again, actually supported the motion to ban embargoes!

It is never possible not to pour humanitarian aid while civilians are suffering. Neither is it ethical to see thousands, millions (or even billions in NS) die just to bring a government on its knees!

Embargoes have been very successful in forcing nations to their knees, it is only when exemptions to those embargoes are made that things go wrong. When aid for food or medicine, or money itself is sent it, the embargoed nation is emboldened to hold out even longer, knowing that those who are opposed to it don't have the stones to keep it up.
My question is then, what are your examples in real life? When has an embargo worked without also thoroughly hurting the common people it was theoretically set up to help?

The Dominion is in favor of this proposal, since this clause:
HEREBY mandates that the UN shall never impose embargoes of all sorton any country under any circumstances.
Disallows the UN as a whole from placing embargoes, but not individual countries...

In any case, it is spelled "Exemptions."

The Dominion

This example, again, actually supported the motion to ban embargoes!

It is never possible not to pour humanitarian aid while civilians are suffering. Neither is it ethical to see thousands, millions (or even billions in NS) die just to bring a government on its knees!


No, it hasn't. Complete embargoes work, partial ones don't.

We had not noticed, either, until the Reardinian ambassador pointed it out, that this proposal only bans UN embargoes. Our initial thought was "yay!" but our subsequent considerations yielded further opposition. Without collective action, individual embargoes rarely work to pressure a political system. While they are usually successful in sending a stern message of disapproval, that's about all they're good for.

We continue to oppose this proposal.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Ambassador Pro Tempore

From what I can see, all that banning embargoes would do is remove one option of a diplomatic route to take in areas of international conflict. Simply put, if one nation can't place an embargo on another, then war becomes a more likely course of action. And, quite frankly, I'd rather live in an embargoified nation then one that is being a tad flattened by a few squadrons of B52s...

Is the UN even allowed to make embargos? Anyways....there's a few comments I have about it:

What have embargo achieved?

Take North Korea as an example.

2. Embargo created a great famine of the country for years.
Embargo created a general power shortage of the country.

Debatable. One of the issues to consider is that, in many dictatorships, one of the most powerful weapons against their own population is hunger. Many nations have had issues where our donation dollars have been diverted and none of them ended up in the hands of the actual people. We don't know whether there would or wouldn't be a famine in there had we not been there.

Admittedly, though, we certainly made a situation where we could say they were the only ones at fault....

3. Embargo allows the government to view the UN with anger and skeptism.

I note that a large portion of (in particular) Americans view the UN with anger and skeptism and they AREN'T suffering from an embargo

I see little merit in imposing embargo to a country, as it is ineffective, even counter-productive.

Simple.

"We have something that could make the lives of your people and your nation as a whole better. If you wish to be our friend, you will have access to these things. If you do not wish to be our friend, we will not give these to you. We don't believe you should get it if you aren't going to align with our beliefs".

It is a form of encouragement through economic and political impedment and isolation. You let one person get away with it because they don't care enough about the consequences, then no one will listen because they know that eventually you'll stop pressuring them.

The theory is extraordinarily multifaceted and, unfortunately, you have only looked at two elements:
1) The hindering of the nation improving itself - which was effective despite the fact that North Korea developed nuclear weapons. Her industrial capacity and technological advancements is well behind and if it weren't for her ally of China, she'd be behind militarily as well.
2) The false claim that it's being done for the improvement of the lives of the people - trust me, they aren't not looking for the dictatorship to give way to a democracy but rather an anti-American dictatorship to give way to a pro-American government (dictatorship or democracy or anywhere in between - it doesn't really matter). The actual policy doesn't give a damn about civilians.

---------------

Now that we've shed some light into the complexity of the actual issue at hand, we turn our attention to the reality that comes out of NS =/= RL. While it doesn't toss out your arguments by any means, what it does do is it severely complicates the entire issue of embargos to the point that they are, quite frankly, useless to the NSUN.

Why?

Embargos are, largely, a method to isolate someone you disagree with. HOWEVER, 3/4 of the world is not part of the UN, so a UN mandated embargo means that only 1/4 of the world can no longer be traded with

Oh
My
God

Pretty much, it isn't worth the effort or time and, quite frankly, the UN would find little purpose or help in utilizing embargos.

Why do I point this out? Because it is a key element to the theory and if you're going to ban UN sanctioned embargos, THAT will be a key component. We wouldn't be isolating these people - we would really just be saying that our business communities can't make deals with these people. In effect, we'd be hurting ourselves more than we'd be hurting the nation in question.

As for a legality question: Hack: how does this actually change the stats of member nations? As it stands, it is merely a blocker without really doing anything to stats. I think it's illegal under rules of blockers not doing anything.

As for a legality question: Hack: how does this actually change the stats of member nations? As it stands, it is merely a blocker without really doing anything to stats. I think it's illegal under rules of blockers not doing anything.Well, it's kinda tenuous, but all blocker-types are. It should probably have something about eliminating all existing embargoes, though.

Well, it's kinda tenuous, but all blocker-types are.

Yeah, but you guys deleted ELC for not doing anything to nations, saying that you needed at least an "encourages" clause that directly relates to nations. This proposal is only looking at UN mandated embargos so it isn't meeting that requirement yet....

Yeah, but they still must have at least an encouragement It should probably have something about eliminating all existing embargoes, though.

Or discouraging nation-initiated embargos or something and then you can stick it in free trade.....

Yeah, but you guys deleted ELC for not doing anything to nations, saying that you needed at least an "encourages" clause that directly relates to nations. This proposal is only looking at UN mandated embargos so it isn't meeting that requirement yet....



Or discouraging nation-initiated embargos or something and then you can stick it in free trade.....

If banning UN madated embargoes has been this controversial, banning nation-initiated embargoes will never get passed....
If the proposal fits better in some other category, I am happy to get some suggestions...

If banning UN madated embargoes has been this controversial, banning nation-initiated embargoes will never get passed....
If the proposal fits better in some other category, I am happy to get some suggestions...

I'm not saying you need to ban nation-oriented embargos. I'm saying you should put in a line like:

DISCOURAGES the use of embargos by nations as a means to punish other, uncooperative nations.

Obviously, it needs to be reworded, but stick that in and it addresses the legality concern.

From what I can see, all that banning embargoes would do is remove one option of a diplomatic route to take in areas of international conflict. Simply put, if one nation can't place an embargo on another, then war becomes a more likely course of action. And, quite frankly, I'd rather live in an embargoified nation then one that is being a tad flattened by a few squadrons of B52s...

Or annihilated by, oh, say, a Death Star perhaps?

Now, before everyone jumps to the conclusion that we're threatening Takasia with our Death Star, let me just say that is certainly not the case. Takasia isn't worth the effort.

However, it will take little effort -- well, none really -- for us to enact an embargo on said nation, and we encourage other nations to join us in this until such time as this ridiculous notion of a resolution banning embargoes is withdrawn.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

This piece of crap would not get the vote of the Autocratic Commonwealth.

As I see it, embargoes are a peaceful way to force a nation's hand. We don't enjoy war because of the resources it requires, so we just stop sending our resources to other countries, which works because we are Antarctic Oasis' largest coconut exporter.

On an OOC note: What effect would this have? Embargoes can only really be imposed in II... would this make it illegal to do that for UN nations? As it was stated previously, this would only affect 1/4 or so of the world, enabling 3/4 to put embargoes on the UN nations (the 1/4, in case you're confused) and that would leave the UN nations with very little diplomatic options.

Furthermore, we have joined Cluichstan's blockade to Takasia. Say goodbye to your coconuts, lightbulb jokes and Derivative Sodas™.

Not very Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Undersecretary of Akimonad
Doctorate of Political Sciences

If everyone would back up and re-read the proposal, this proposal isn't for the banning of embargos by UN members, but rather the banning of embargos by the UN General Assembly. THIS IS A BLOCKER RESOLUTION.

If everyone would back up and re-read the proposal, this proposal isn't for the banning of embargos by UN members, but rather the banning of embargos by the UN General Assembly. THIS IS A BLOCKER RESOLUTION.

Still, how would this do anything? We don't pass embargoes; that would have to go through a proposal and that wouldn't really work as it's not legislation.

Still, how would this do anything? We don't pass embargoes;

I've already argued that. I'm more concerned about the fact that two straight posts were CLEARLY misreading the proposal

that would have to go through a proposal and that wouldn't really work as it's not legislation.

Er....it could be attached to legislation as a manner to pressure non-compliant nations or something along that line. It is, technically, possible, but the probability of a proposal doing that successfully going through the General Assembly is really low.

Er....it could be attached to legislation as a manner to pressure non-compliant nations or something along that line. It is, technically, possible, but the probability of a proposal doing that successfully going through the General Assembly is really low.

So then what is the point of passing a blocker resolution for something the UN would most likely never do?

So then what is the point of passing a blocker resolution for something the UN would most likely never do?
About the same as trying to pass a resolution saying that the UN doesn't get to have an army.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So then what is the point of passing a blocker resolution for something the UN would most likely never do?

Speak of the fucking devil. Quod's slavery proposal includes an embargo.