NationStates Jolt Archive

Press statement by the Knootian ambassador to the United Nations, in front of the United Nations Headquarters, NYNJ

"Oi!

I just received word that the "UN Funding Act" was defeated by 8,497 nay votes to 2,744 ayes."

Arams middle finger to the voting public

"When Knootoss left the United Nations (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=358475) to protest against an illegal proposal being moved to vote, I spoke of a worrying trend wherein the United Nations are being subverted by an active group of highly organised nations who, without taking into account more general interest, are pushing a highly ideological and, in the opinion of my government, dangerous agenda

In plain English, I thought you were commie scum. Today, I was proven wrong. May the world hear my solemn pledge today: never again will I infer that the United Nations is run by communists. Rather, I have come to believe that it is run by idiots.

8,497 votes were used today to oppose a solid financial foundation for the services offered by the the United Nations. The vast majority of these same 8,497 votes have been used, quite often, to vote in favour of resolutions that have been of distinct material benefit to these nations. These nations were all-too-happy to take our money, as much as they could get their grubby hands on.

Indeed, the behaviour of this Assembly during this vote has been entirely hypocritical. I join my Kennitite colleague in remembering that most of these these 8,497 naysayers have been only too willing to endorse countless unfunded mandates in UN resolutions, to establish all sorts of committees for conducting UN business and to defeat fiscally responsible proposals forbidding a United Nations military. As a testament to fiscal irresponsibility, this assembly has even refused to axe ridiculously wasteful commissions -- yet when they're asked to give a clear mandate to fund these operations, the answer is a resounding "no".

You suck. The vast majority of this organisation has shown itself to be a pork-eating special interest crowd who cannot not be entrusted to be left alone in a candy shop, let alone run the worlds largest international body."

Aram on the need for Fiscal Conservatism

"Fiscal Conservatism - the restraint of taxation, expenditures and deficits, and government debt - should surely be the basis for an organisation like the United Nations. The resolution that has just been defeated contained all the useful elements to ensure a fiscally conservative United Nation:

A low, flat rule-of-thumb to cap spending means there is a fair way to determine contribution fees.
Spending is capped at an extremely low percentage of member GDP, preventing the United Nations from ever gaining the clout to fund intrusive worldwide projects that could replace the member states.
A prohibition on deficit spending

All of these important guarantees have been thrown out the door today, leaving the United Nations voting cattle free to do whatever they want."

Arams message to the United Nations

"Many of the United Nations active and responsible nations have voted FOR the UN Funding Act. Hailing from vastly different ideological backgrounds, these nations have rallied behind the outlandish idea that we should actually pay for the stuff we vote ourselves.

I can imagine the disappointment, and as a representative of one of those nations I fully share a feeling of dejection as a result of this vote.

Some of the leaders of Anglosaxon nations may be familiar with the creed "No Taxation without Representation". This is only fair, but let me turn it the other way around - there can similarly be

"No Representation without Taxation."


Deny nations that are members yet who refuse to pay their UN dues the right to speak in debates by any means.
Deny the representatives of these evildoers access to the Strangers bar, to international sports events, and to whatever formal or informal forum you might be using to discuss proposals.
Demand that new proposals take account of how they will be funded.
And most of all - do not give up on the idea of passing mature financial legislation! A bright, fiscally responsibly future can be ours.


You heard my call - now make it your watchword."

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

Amen to that.

Lord Edward Black
Navanonian UN Representative

(The entire New Leicestershire delegation stands and applauds.)

Hear hear! We agree wholeheartedly and applaud the statements of our Knootian colleague.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

[The Ausserland delegation leaps to its feet and roars "Hear hear!"] :mad:

And for those of you that care, there will be a funding drive shortly.

I wholeheartedly agree with previously expressed sentiments.

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador

Brava! Brava! Bravissima!

Most courteously,

8,497 votes were used today to oppose a solid financial foundation for the services offered by the the United Nations. The vast majority of these same 8,497 votes have been used, quite often, to vote in favour of resolutions that have been of distinct material benefit to these nations. These nations were all-too-happy to take our money, as much as they could get their grubby hands on.

Indeed, the behaviour of this Assembly during this vote has been entirely hypocritical. I join my Kennitite colleague in remembering that most of these these 8,497 naysayers have been only too willing to endorse countless unfunded mandates in UN resolutions, to establish all sorts of committees for conducting UN business and to defeat fiscally responsible proposals forbidding a United Nations military. As a testament to fiscal irresponsibility, this assembly has even refused to axe ridiculously wasteful commissions -- yet when they're asked to give a clear mandate to fund these operations, the answer is a resounding "no".


Deny nations that are members yet who refuse to pay their UN dues the right to speak in debates by any means.
Deny the representatives of these evildoers access to the Strangers bar, to international sports events, and to whatever formal or informal forum you might be using to discuss proposals.
Demand that new proposals take account of how they will be funded.
And most of all - do not give up on the idea of passing mature financial legislation! A bright, fiscally responsibly future can be ours.



For once, I find myself in agreement with my distinguished Knootian colleague. I have already deplored (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12431488&postcount=257) the low level of intelligence in this General Assembly, but I could not have put it better myself. The massive defeat of the UN Funding Act shames this entire organisation.

Bravo, sir.


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

(The entire Karmicarian delegation stands and loudly applauds)

"Ahem. It seems that the Karmicarian government completely agrees with the statements made by our Knootian friends. Bravo, good man."

Dahlia Dioce
Vice President
Harem of Karmicaria

*Stands and applauds loudly*

Bravo, Mr. Koopman. The Ambrose-Douglas delegation is proud to see that this "organization", if you can call it that, is not completly made up of weak minded fools.

We joined the United Nations with a hope to better the establishment iteself and to better our nation on a world stage. The first proposal to come across my desk was that of the UNFA. I, as well the rest of my nation, wholeheartedly supported this resolution, and will be more than willing to donate come time for the funding drive.

The resounding defeat of this resolution had made our Federation seriously consider leaving this inept institution, but we have decided to stay, in hopes of better future for our Federation, the UN, and the world.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations
Representing President Justin M. Ambrose and Premier Christopher Benson
Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

Interesting. You appear to have labeled every single representative who voted against the proposal with the same brush, yet this cannot possibly be the case. Rarely are resolutions passed by a similar margin, and most, in fact, are passed with a somewhat narrower margin.

So what of those who have voted not only against this proposal, but against many of the others to date? Including many of the more expensive proposals? What would you say to them? Do you still say that they are hypocritical? Or that they 'suck'?

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

Ambassador Karin, what I would say to them is simply this:

There will come a time when even the simplest resolution will not be able to be enacted because of a lack of funding. As my father, who co-founded our great nation, said on many an occasion, "Money doesn't grow on trees."

There will come a time, Ambassador Karin, that this institution of ours will run out of money. What are you going to say then?

So, to answer your question, yes, I believe that all of the nations who voted against this proposal and vote for ANY others are hypocritical. Even the simplest resolution needs funding, Ambassador. I hope one of yours isn't on the table when the money runs out.

Benjamin J. Douglas
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Federation of Ambrose-Douglas

“We would suggest that representative Karin re-read Ambassador Koopman’s words as he did not refer to all of those that voted against. He merely stated ‘the vast majority’ or ‘most of these’ votes have been used to endorse unfunded mandates in the past which is entirely correct or else the aforementioned mandates would not have been passed.

Our delegation applauds the Knootian ambassador in both senses of the word, he has appropriately summarised the state of affairs we presently face and his comments encapsulate what we could not hope to articulate. We hope that the member nations take note of his comments so that we may begin changing the voting environment,” Anravelle crosses her arms and bows in recognition.

Anravelle Kramer

We applaud the statement of the Knootian ambassador, and fully intend to follow his admirable suggestions. In addition, by order of a Royal Writ signed today by our ruler, and ratified by the Peoples' Assembly, nations that are UN members but refuse to fund the UN shall be barred from receiving any kind of assistance, of any sort, from the state of Altanar, except in the event of a humanitarian emergency. This shall include economic, military and financial aid of any sort.

While we cannot reverse the trend of many nations to want something for nothing, we certainly can refuse to feed that mentality.

- Ikir Askanabath, Deputy Ambassador

Interesting. You appear to have labeled every single representative who voted against the proposal with the same brush, yet this cannot possibly be the case. Rarely are resolutions passed by a similar margin, and most, in fact, are passed with a somewhat narrower margin.

So what of those who have voted not only against this proposal, but against many of the others to date? Including many of the more expensive proposals? What would you say to them? Do you still say that they are hypocritical? Or that they 'suck'?

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

Most United Nations members are in favour of the United Nations taking collective action. Doing stuff, if you will. If you oppose any and all collective action by this body, why the fuck would you be a member in the first place?

I'm sorry if I just blew your mind.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

Firstly, to Ambassador Kramer, I would like to say that the few words he used to indicate he wasn't speaking of -all- those who voted nay were few and far between, and that while I understand what he was saying, there are plenty of others who may not.

And secondly, to Ambassador Koopman, we are all in favor of the UN doing what it was meant to do, and taking action. That does not mean, however, that we believe all, most, or even many of the proposals set before this body are good and proper, and we vote as we see fit. Wanting the UN to take 'collective action' does not mean blindly endorsing every single proposal that is set before us. Now, clearly, you feel quite strongly on this.. else I would imagine someone who is appointed to this body would not use such intemperate and insulting language.

For the record, my government approves of funding for the United Nations. However, we do also feel that there is merit in making sure -all- sides of an argument are spoken and heard, so that this body never forgets how many different, and possibly conflicting viewpoints are represented here. Threats, insults, and extortion levied against others simply because they failed to vote for a proposal are not the means and actions that this body should endorse.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

I accept your apology.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

I was currently not at the UN Building during the time of this vote so I couldn't voice my oppinion. Although I can say with certainty that if I was in my office and did go to the General Assembly Chambers, I would have voted yes for this piece of legislation.
~~Shazbotdom Representitive to the United Nations~~

I was currently not at the UN Building during the time of this vote so I couldn't voice my oppinion. Although I can say with certainty that if I was in my office and did go to the General Assembly Chambers, I would have voted yes for this piece of legislation.
~~Shazbotdom Representitive to the United Nations~~

You're just saying that because you don't want the Building Management to bill you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12657186&postcount=33)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Moments like these make me sad I left this body.

Someone stands up with a pair of brass balls and expresses an intelligent, free-willed opinion that makes perfect sense. Among the various amounts of drama and pure horseshit this body peddles, someone shouts out "enough."

Karm wrote a fine bill, and my nation would have happily signed on board with it. By a margin of 4 to 1, knuckleheads in this body said a resounding NO to fiscal accountability of any stripe. In other words...

We want it but we don't want to pay for it.

We as non members of the UN are glad we have the choice to ignore all of your trite, silly arguments and equally silly bills. But we wish it were different. Imagine...a UN that actually functioned as a reasonably representative body.

Since that is not forthcoming at this time, we congratulate Ambassador Koopman on his epiphany and go back into the wings watching with no joy the continued asshattery here.

Regards,

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador without Portfolio
Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

I accept your apology.

http://www.meninhats.com/images/aram.gif
Aram Koopman
Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office

I was, in no way, apologizing to you. Nor would I, as there is nothing to apologize for. I see that reason is in short supply here, however, and I think I can do no good here. Good day.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations
Sacred Kingdom of Karianis

Press statement by the Knootian ambassador to the United Nations, in front of the United Nations Headquarters, NYNJ Ambassador representing the Knootian UN Office[/i]

the ambassador from Spartan Lore is proud to see there are a select few who are not blind to the bureaucratic bullshit this system has developed, i believe that there are some willing to take these existential capitalist bastards down a notch or 5. i move to make a proposal you'll see it in the forums soon to ban political parties from making pacts for the betterment of their own countries and to encourage countries to work together by making one world currency, anyone willing to vote on it if it as submmited plz send me a telegram, ty

I don't think it was voted down by 'non-readers': people read it and didn't like it. So maybe we should make it crystal clear just why funding is important. If we all fund the UN, with what to us are negligible amounts, there will be impartialty. If voluntary contributions are relied upon, the committees are much more liable to be abused.

For example: Quintessence of Dust has a highly regulated pharmaceutical industry, that has arguably discouraged investment and development to some extent, and has inarguably led to researchers - and their research capital - going overseas. Quite probably, they head to nations like Frisbeeteria, which given past statements in the UN on such matters, has a climate much more conducive to pharmarceutical corporations. (Let's put aside for the moment that Frisbeeteria is no longer a UN member...)

If we both have an assessed contribution, a committee such as the (again, suspend objections for a moment...) UN Patent Registry will presumably decide equitably. But if we don't, perhaps the Frisbeeterian government, eager to appease lobbyists, will make large voluntary donations anyway, while we don't bother. Then a case comes up concerning a Frisbeeterian pharmaceutical company and a Quintessential law: the UN Patent Registry's officials meet in a big boardroom, with a beautiful mahogany table paid for a Frisbeeterian contribution. Hmmm, how will they decide?

Now let's imagine the scenarios are different, and the committee is The Pretenama Panel, investigating genocide.

Do we really want to kid around, and allow interests to skew the impartiality of the UN? It seems to me a lot of the opposition was on grounds bordering on accusation of corruption: the UN is taking our money for itself. So we need to make it clear the reason for compulsory funding is to eliminate corruption: maybe we even prohibit voluntary contributions. What we do about committees like the UNEAF, I don't know.

It may be a funding act is impossible to sell, and if so, so be it. We're not sure what we should do next if that's the case. But I don't necessarily think it is: it may be a matter of presentation. If we can emphasise transparency, democracy and accountability, then perhaps we can convince people so menial a contribution wouldn't be so onerous.

-- Samantha Benson

Ms. Benson, I wish I could share your optimism about the majority of those who voted down the Funding Act, I really do. But I've seen too many reasonable pieces of legislation cut down from Title-itis, or some similar affliction related to not really reading or understanding a resolution.

Also, I hereby convey the admiration of the Intangible populace to Ambassador Aram Koopman in the form of the Intangible Medal of Oration. It comes with a G$300,000 prize and an honorary seat in the Intangible House of Progress, with all rights, appurtenances, and keys to the executive sauna thereto...by...uh, right. Here y'go.

*Dangles medal around the Ambassador's neck*

Even though your oration was preaching largely to the choir in my nation, and even though many of the larger cities were beset by riots as a result of your stirring words, and yes, even though nobody really had anything to riot about, we still, once the mess was tidied, felt your excellent speech deserved Ministerial recognition...by a cell-phone vote of 1,378,450,226 to 22,591,507. Both the Intangible government and IDC (Intangible Digital Communications) thank you. Especially IDC.

Ms. Benson, I wish I could share your optimism about the majority of those who voted down the Funding Act, I really do. But I've seen too many reasonable pieces of legislation cut down from Title-itis, or some similar affliction related to not really reading or understanding a resolution.
But that's just my point. If it really were the case that people judged it on the title alone, then a different title might fare quite considerably better. No one wants to Fund the UN, but how about Eliminating Corruption or Ensuring UN Efficiency?

As to not understanding the resolution, I think in this instance it was more not understanding the context. We've passed 211 resolutions: perhaps the proposal didn't make it clear enough why, suddenly, there was a need for UN funding where for over 4 years, there - by implication - hadn't been.

-- Samantha Benson