NationStates Jolt Archive

Safeguarding Our History Act

Category: Education & Creativity
Area of Effect: Cultural Heritage
Strength: None

NOTING the repeal of UNR#15 primarily on the grounds of ineffectually.

ASSERTING that truly significant historical sites are effective tools in the education of citizens both of the accomplishments and the failures of the past. So that the future may build on or learn from them.

FURTHER ASSERTING that in many cases the location of these sites makes them vulnerable to demolition for expanding business and population growth.

CONCERNED that this growth of the future will come at the expense of the past.

UNDERSTANDING that the only the nations themselves can truly determine the sites that are historically significant.

DEFINING a Historic Site as any building, cemetery, battleground, area, or other specific location or object whose significance to the nation can be attested to through historical research.

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Historical Site Preservation Committee (UNHSPC). To oversee the classification and proper preservation of historical sites the nations deem worthy of protection.

REQUESTS all nations identify locations within their uncontested boundaries that meet the definition of historical sites and submit them to the UNHSPC for cataloging.

FORBIDS unless by an act of nature, the destruction of cataloged sites for any purpose but the restoration thereof, or if the condition of the site is one that poses a threat to the health and welfare of the citizens.

FORBIDS the sale, trade or other transfer of those properties to any individual or company whose intent is not the restoration and protection thereof.

RECOMMENDS whenever practical that in the event of restoration, materials closest to the original materials used in construction of the site be used.

ALLOWS the modification of historical sites for the purposes of adding tourism services including but not limited to gift shops, bathroom facilities, ranger stations, only if an alternate, suitable area is not available, and only to the smallest extent necessary.

You can post all the forum threads about proposals that you want, without any regard to legality. You just can't post contradictory proposals to the Proposal queue until the other one has been repealed.

Well what can I say.

I absolutely hate this draft. First it creates yet an other UN committee. I can't speak for anyone else but I do not think that the UN is an employment program for gnomes.

We personally hate the little buggers, particularly when they get caught in our tank's treads whilst trying to cross our boarders. Ever had to clean a gnome out of tank treads? Not pretty.

Secondly it smacks of the world heritage list. It does not prohibit foreign nations at all from declaring parts of an other nation to be historically significant. For example lets say that the author and I had a war and it was fought mostly on his land area. I could declare half of his territory (assuming of course we penetrated that far into his interior) to be a historically significant battlefield or something, and historical research could verify this.

Third, this resolution does not cover areas of cultural significance. Lets say a nation wanted to protect its churches and was a very religious nation. They couldn't under this resolution unless it was declared to be historically significant through research and approval by a UN body.

About the only thing that I can think of from this draft that is at all useful is the definition of historical sites. However the definition alone is not enough to cause us to support this resolution. Further it has totally ignored our arguments in the debate over the repeal of UNR15 that protections over locations and objects of historical or cultural significance are best left to the Various UN Member nations to decide for themselves.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador,

*With some inspiration from Vladimir Alexandrovich, Janitor for the Zyrwickian UN Delegation.

Well what can I say.

I absolutely hate this draft.

I can hardly contain my shock.

Secondly it smacks of the world heritage list. It does not prohibit foreign nations at all from declaring parts of an other nation to be historically significant. For example lets say that the author and I had a war and it was fought mostly on his land area. I could declare half of his territory (assuming of course we penetrated that far into his interior) to be a historically significant battlefield or something, and historical research could verify this.

A good point, we will ponder a rewording.

Third, this resolution does not cover areas of cultural significance. Lets say a nation wanted to protect its churches and was a very religious nation. They couldn't under this resolution unless it was declared to be historically significant through research and approval by a UN body.

The nation is absolutely able to declare any church, museum, mound of dirt it wishes to declare a historically significant, no where in this draft does it state the UNHSPC is in charge of approving them, only cataloging them. No where in the draft does it state the UNHSPC is even in charge of the research that deems the site significant.

Further it has totally ignored our arguments in the debate over the repeal of UNR15 that protections over locations and objects of historical or cultural significance are best left to the Various UN Member nations to decide for themselves.

I'm not sure how the Understands clause falls short of doing this. It states the nations themselves can truly determine the sites that are historically significant. By which we mean the nation is the one making the decision.

The understands clause is part of the preamble and as such is not in the actual meat of the proposal. Rather its shoved to the side as if it were beets or something.

Also in regard to UN Committees no real live person, as a nation, moderator or otherwise sits on these committees.

So in effect:

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Historical Site Preservation Committee (UNHSPC). To oversee the classification and proper preservation of historical sites the nations deem worthy of protection.


Who exactly will be doing the deeming? Gnomes? Or would whatever site listed be automatically protected as was the case with the World Heritage List. And we know how that turned out.

We would argue that the best solution is to allow nations to protect what they want, and to prevent foreign interference in the matter. Which is what our Draft in Reclamation is aiming for.

Also I would urge my colleague to read their Telegram In-box.

Also I would urge my colleague to read their Telegram In-box.

I would urge my colleague to do that same.

The understands clause is part of the preamble and as such is not in the actual meat of the proposal. Rather its shoved to the side as if it were beets or something.

Also in regard to UN Committees no real live person, as a nation, moderator or otherwise sits on these committees.

So in effect:



Who exactly will be doing the deeming? Gnomes? Or would whatever site listed be automatically protected as was the case with the World Heritage List. And we know how that turned out.

We would argue that the best solution is to allow nations to protect what they want, and to prevent foreign interference in the matter. Which is what our Draft in Reclamation is aiming for.


It probably would be served by Gnomes but in response,

* Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.


Also this proposal has never said anything about reinstating the World Heritage List

Richard York, Ambassador, et al.

Ambassador York,

As you should well know, the draft does not have to explicitly say it reinstates the World Heritage List to have the same consequences.

If a committee ran by gnomes just blindly accepted any site as historically significant I could for example say that your genitalia were historically significant, for whatever flimsy excuse. And could cause them to be protected.

It was for these abuses that the WHL was repealed. And I think I can speak for many here. We have been there, repealed that.

As a fellow national sovereingnist you should recognize that there are many different variables as to what is and is not historically significant. For example I doubt that the Birthplace of Comrade Ulyanov would be historically significant to you or your population, you might view it as nothing but a shack to be demolished to make room for a automobile factory for example.

However, to us it is a location of great significance. It is the birthplace of our Revolutionary Leader and Glorious General Secretary of the People's Communist Party.

Likewise the burial place of a great prophet to a very religious people might be very significant where as to us we would probably want to either demolish it for a tractor factory or something.

The point is that what is and is not historically significant is relative to the nation in question, and their political ideology and culture. As such a one size fits all solution will not work to protect anything, and will be subject to abuse.

We do not feel that a committee will be sufficient to prevent this abuse either. They are add ons to a resolution rather than the main point.

That we found the definition of historical sites worthy of consideration is a great step forward, however, in this area.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

[QUOTE=Third, this resolution does not cover areas of cultural significance. Lets say a nation wanted to protect its churches and was a very religious nation. They couldn't under this resolution unless it was declared to be historically significant through research and approval by a UN body.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador,

*With some inspiration from Vladimir Alexandrovich, Janitor for the Zyrwickian UN Delegation.[/QUOTE]

Churches and other religous and cultural buildings or sites. Deserve a different resolution than this. If you want to protect cultural and religous sites you should write a separate resolution.

Mind you I do beleive as you do that we need to protect our culture and religon.

Yuru Namari UN Representative

I call everyone attention to the draft... I have made some slight changes to it. They are in bold.


JPD

I know that such a change would come up in reclamation but I doubt it will here. But Sovereignty should be changed to maybe territory or something similar.

Soverignty deals with the nation's right to determine for itself something, where as territory is a spacial limitation. Unless I'm missing something your aiming at.

Churches and other religous and cultural buildings or sites. Deserve a different resolution than this. If you want to protect cultural and religous sites you should write a separate resolution.

Mind you I do beleive as you do that we need to protect our culture and religon.

Yuru Namari UN Representative

We would disagree. Would you not consider a birthplace of a national religious leader of historical or cultural significance? Even while Zyrwick as a rule would not as we are an atheist nation, we can see many religious nations saying that a church or birthplace of a religious leader to be of great cultural significance.

I removed the sovereignty part from the definition... in that really doesn't fit there.

I added the words "within their uncontested boundaries" to the requests clause. We feel that should clarify that a nation can't submit sites in other nations as historically significant.


- JPD

Ambassador York,

As you should well know, the draft does not have to explicitly say it reinstates the World Heritage List to have the same consequences.

If a committee ran by gnomes just blindly accepted any site as historically significant I could for example say that your genitalia were historically significant, for whatever flimsy excuse. And could cause them to be protected.

The WHL failed and was abused so badly because it didn't define anything or give examples, it just let anyone put on anything. This draft proposal on the other hand avoids that problem.


As a fellow national sovereingnist you should recognize that there are many different variables as to what is and is not historically significant. For example I doubt that the Birthplace of Comrade Ulyanov would be historically significant to you or your population, you might view it as nothing but a shack to be demolished to make room for a automobile factory for example.

However, to us it is a location of great significance. It is the birthplace of our Revolutionary Leader and Glorious General Secretary of the People's Communist Party.

this proposal wouldn't stop you from preserving it

The point is that what is and is not historically significant is relative to the nation in question, and their political ideology and culture. As such a one size fits all solution will not work to protect anything, and will be subject to abuse.

UNDERSTANDING that the only the nations themselves can truly determine the sites that are historically significant.

It already says that in the proposal. How will it be subject to abuse?

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Historical Site Preservation Committee (UNHSPC). To oversee the classification and proper preservation of historical sites the nations deem worthy of protection.

Who exactly will be doing the deeming?

Let's do that quote again, only with more shouting:

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Historical Site Preservation Committee (UNHSPC). To oversee the classification and proper preservation of historical sites the nations deem worthy of protection.

Do try to keep up, comrade.

Do try to keep up, comrade.

It's still an extra-territorial body determining what is and is not historical in my nation. Try to keep up, hut-uun.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

It most certainly is not. The intent of the UNHSPC is only the cataloging of the site the nations pick themselves. It make no sense on a world wide platform to pick the site if no one is writing down what the nations picked.

Plus we have changed one of the clauses in the resolution to clarify that point.

It now reads.

REQUESTS all nations identify locations within their uncontested boundaries that meet the definition of historical sites and submit them to the UNHSPC for cataloging.

With the revision, it's better, but...

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Historical Site Preservation Committee (UNHSPC). To oversee the classification and proper preservation of historical sites the nations deem worthy of protection.

I'd assume if the committee is overseeing the classification of sites, it can quite easily say, "No, Nation X, the UN won't accept that as a historical site."

And if it can't...

FORBIDS unless by an act of nature, the destruction of cataloged sites for any purpose but the restoration thereof, or if the condition of the site is one that poses a threat to the health and welfare of the citizens.

If we're ever attacked again, we'll just classify all of our holdings as historical sites and then invoke that clause.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

I'd assume if the committee is overseeing the classification of sites, it can quite easily say, "No, Nation X, the UN won't accept that as a historical site."

That assumption is incorrect. "Classification" is categorization, not designation. The committee is clearly required to include whatever sites "the nations deem worthy of protection".

But that does raise the issue of illicit "deeming" by nations.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

REQUIRES that any and all restoration of the site be certified by the UNHSPC as historically accurate and performed with tools genuine to the time of original construction whenever practical.

Could you please explain what you mean because it seems to be saying that that megolithic monuments should be dug up with stone tools.

Could you please explain what you mean because it seems to be saying that that megolithic monuments should be dug up with stone tools.

That would not be practical as the resolution states it should be. I will discuss clarifying with the other members of the delegation but the spirit of the clause is for the educational aspects, allow others to see how the monuments might have been built.

It was not intended to force anyone to dig up their monuments with spoons, however should one of those monuments be in need of repair we would think it would be best to use a hammer and chisel as opposed to an air hammer to complete the job.

-- JPD

If we're ever attacked again, we'll just classify all of our holdings as historical sites and then invoke that clause.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Esteemed colleagues, I must admit I fail to see the logic in this argument or the like. If you are being attacked I would suspect your government would have bigger things to worry about. Also I would suspect the nation doing the attacking could give a rat's left buttock about what you hold near and dear to your history. Finally I would hope the UN would condemn the attacking action as opposed to just the destruction of your historical sites.

I can assure you that if the USP is ever attacked we would spend less time arguing about the historical significance of the old battlefields, than we would making new battlefields to be classified after our victories.



-- JPD

My understanding is that the host nation would submit a site for consideration, the UN committee would consider it, and then approve or reject it? If approved, it's recognized internationally and benefits from obligations set into this treaty. If rejected, well a nation could still protect it on it's own.

My concern is that nations might not submit sites which they intend to demolish, but which would be considered very suitable sites. Does it have to be the host nation making the request?

I appreciate this has the chance to thread on more than a few toes. I've never been one to avoid doing so from time to time.

The nations deem the sites they feel are historically significant and the UNHSPC then catalogs (the UNHSPC does not approve, the UNHSPC does not recommend, the UNHSPC does not classifies, the UNHSPC does not put a sign on, the UNHSPC does not draw a picture of, the UNHSPC does not visit, the UNHSPC does not anything else) those sites or any other for protection under the act.

If a country intends to demolish a site instead of submitting it, while others may think it's sad, they may do so, if a country intends to turn a site into a parking lot instead of submitting it, if a country intends to turn it to a land fill instead of submitting it they may do any of the above. It is the countries prerogative an not the UN's.

It stipulates in the Understanding clause that only the country can deem what is truly significant in it's history. That truly is a matter of national sovereignty and that is not something which we in the USP would ever have any inclination to tread on.

Javar Perez Deqar
Ambassador – At – Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

It stipulates in the Understanding clause that only the country can deem what is truly significant in it's history. That truly is a matter of national sovereignty and that is not something which we in the USP would ever have any inclination to tread on.My governments stance is that it is not a matter of what a nation in it's own (potentially) narrow self-interest deems is significant, but what is of significance for history in general.

Whilst some historical and cultural sites are protected through other resolutions, there are many locations where the peoples responsible for that site have long since passed. It is these buildings which are unprotected by existing legislation, or by this legislation. On that basis, my government cannot express it's support for this proposal. Perhaps we should have faith in other governments, past experiences suggest we shouldn't.

My governments stance is that it is not a matter of what a nation in it's own (potentially) narrow self-interest deems is significant, but what is of significance for history in general.

Whilst some historical and cultural sites are protected through other resolutions, there are many locations where the peoples responsible for that site have long since passed. It is these buildings which are unprotected by existing legislation, or by this legislation. On that basis, my government cannot express it's support for this proposal. Perhaps we should have faith in other governments, past experiences suggest we shouldn't.

So in this case who's history are you seeking to protect? This is not an Act to safeguard world history. It is an act to safeguard a nations history. Unfortunately you are correct, it's possible that a nation may not honor the history of the people before it. In my country that would be frowned upon, however in a land such as Zyrwick (if I may drag my esteemed colleague in to this debate) it is accepted. Who is right? The answer is both, because that is how history works. However what each of us holds dear in our history should be respected and to an extent protected by the other nations of this body.

If I may twist an adage to fit my need, history is in the eye of the beholder. Our nation is rich in history, with both positive and negative connotations, we choose to honor that history no matter what, but it is not for any delegation or committee to decide what we should and should not hold dear. Should we be over-thrown, the next rulers can decide on their own what parts of history they hold dear, they may also decide on their own if they wish to remain a part of this body. If they do than yes it is protected if they do not then so be it. History as much as we don't like to believe it... is written by the victors.

Javar Perez Deqar
Ambassador – At – Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

History as much as we don't like to believe it... is written by the victors.That's not history - thats propaganda.

History isn't owned by someone or some people, it's for everyone. That's why I don't like the idea of people modifying history as part of an agenda. History maybe in the eye of the beholder, but it never hurts to have as good a look as you possibly can.

Anyway, this is all rhetoric now. I've said why I'm not going to support this.

That would not be practical as the resolution states it should be. I will discuss clarifying with the other members of the delegation but the spirit of the clause is for the educational aspects, allow others to see how the monuments might have been built.

It was not intended to force anyone to dig up their monuments with spoons, however should one of those monuments be in need of repair we would think it would be best to use a hammer and chisel as opposed to an air hammer to complete the job.

-- JPD

Though it is educational and sometimes better to use the tools of that period. More often it is modern archeological excavasion technuiqes that are most efficiant. I'm not disagreeing with you, mind. I agree with your opinion wholeheartedly. I just think this is a fact that should be brought to the debates attention.

Anyway, this is all rhetoric now. I've said why I'm not going to support this.

One mans rhetoric can be another's debate, however we thank you for your input and understand your position.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

Though it is educational and sometimes better to use the tools of that period. More often it is modern archeological excavasion technuiqes that are most efficiant. I'm not disagreeing with you, mind. I agree with your opinion wholeheartedly. I just think this is a fact that should be brought to the debates attention.

Then by all means if you find it efficient to use those techniques then you should, which is the purpose of the "whenever practical" stipulation in the clause.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

That's not history - thats propaganda.

We would like to point out to our esteemed colleague that History is in fact propaganda. It always has been.

In the mythical land of the United States of America for example the history text books have been revised to portray a "classless" society where anyone can become very wealthy and powerful thru their own merits. Indeed that mythical nation has gone so far as to use examples such as Helen Keller and her victory over her disabilities of blindness, deafness and muteness. However, they intentionally leave out the accomplishments of this person who was not only a disabled woman who conquered her disabilities but was also a card carrying Communist.

And this tendency is not only evident in that mythical nation, but many other mythical nations. The Mythical United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Norther Ireland for example down plays in their history overt acts of oppression and religious persecution.

The Mythical Federal Republic of Germany wont even discuss Adolf Hitler.

Indeed our colleague from Philimbesi is correct to state that History is written by the victors. As such, history is relative to the nation in question and that nation's culture and political ideology. Naturally a monarchist nation will revere places where their Kings/Queens do whatever those Kings/Queens do. Where as a Communist Nation like Zyrwick would consider the Birthplace of our General Secretary (and after his death his tomb) places of great historical significance. And I would imagine in a capitalist oligarchy that the homes of the rich and powerful would be protected.

Also we do not mind our colleague dragging us into the thread at all. In fact we have already discussed what happened to the palaces of the tsars after they were disposed of. They were turned into flats for Factory Workers. Well after all the gold, silver, platinum, and precious stones were removed to serve as backing for the Leke.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

On the issue of using period tools in restoration, we think there is confusion between restoration and historical demonstration. If the purpose is solely to restore or preserve the site, there's no advantage or benefit to using period tools. Period tools only come into play when the purpose is to demonstrate how the site or structure was originally created. (A similar situation would be the artisans working in the mythical town of Colonial Williamsburg.) The use of period tools for restoration simply raises cost and difficulty. We recommend deletion of that provision.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

On the issue of using period tools in restoration, we think there is confusion between restoration and historical demonstration. If the purpose is solely to restore or preserve the site, there's no advantage or benefit to using period tools. Period tools only come into play when the purpose is to demonstrate how the site or structure was originally created. (A similar situation would be the artisans working in the mythical town of Colonial Williamsburg.) The use of period tools for restoration simply raises cost and difficulty. We recommend deletion of that provision.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Excellent point, we will remove it. We have such requirements in our version of the act the "Observe the Past Act" Which the text of this bill is based on. We do see however that this does not always apply

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

On the issue of using period tools in restoration, we think there is confusion between restoration and historical demonstration. If the purpose is solely to restore or preserve the site, there's no advantage or benefit to using period tools. Period tools only come into play when the purpose is to demonstrate how the site or structure was originally created. (A similar situation would be the artisans working in the mythical town of Colonial Williamsburg.) The use of period tools for restoration simply raises cost and difficulty. We recommend deletion of that provision.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We disagree. The requirement for use of period tools ensures that historical sites are kept historical. What advantage is there to preserving history if that "history" wasn't actually created during the historical period it represents? If it was restored using modern tools, it's really more of a museum than a historical site.

Obviously, modern tools should be allowed to be used for protection, like installing safeguards for the weather. But some serious thought should be given to destroying a site's historical validity through "restoration."

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

The important part for restoration is the use of period materials wherever practical, otherwise you are making significant changes. This is enough of a nuisance (OOC: I have friends who own a Grade 2 Listed building) that it should be included in the proposal.

We disagree. The requirement for use of period tools ensures that historical sites are kept historical. What advantage is there to preserving history if that "history" wasn't actually created during the historical period it represents? If it was restored using modern tools, it's really more of a museum than a historical site.

Obviously, modern tools should be allowed to be used for protection, like installing safeguards for the weather. But some serious thought should be given to destroying a site's historical validity through "restoration."

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

Like Ausserland I fail to see the necessity of using historical tools to preserve a location. The use of historical tools would only increase costs of preservation as well as the difficulty.

Now as for demonstration that is a different matter. The area where Our General Secretary's birthplace is in, a village known as Ulyanovsk is a living historical site.

While we have preserved the wattle and daub hut that General Secretary Ulyanovsk was born in a red granite superstructure to protect it from the elements. Other buildings are often either preserved by feudal methods, as well as the farming area is farmed using feudal practices. It is in short a pre-revolutionary village whole and intact excepting the following alterations: The Granite Ulyanov Museum, the Ulyanovsk tram system (for easier travel within the village),train station (so visitors can come and see what life was like in pre-revolutionary Zyrwick, and also the workers can commute to their jobs there and live in the modern town some 5 kilometers away), and public comfort stations (so that citizens and workers at the facility may be able to perform necessary bodily functions in a sanitary manner).

Our use of period tools and techniques is relegated to the study of past methods of production, which interests some of our economics majors greatly.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador

We disagree. The requirement for use of period tools ensures that historical sites are kept historical. What advantage is there to preserving history if that "history" wasn't actually created during the historical period it represents? If it was restored using modern tools, it's really more of a museum than a historical site.

Obviously, modern tools should be allowed to be used for protection, like installing safeguards for the weather. But some serious thought should be given to destroying a site's historical validity through "restoration."

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

We cannot agree with the honorable representative of Quallegnia. Using his logic would prevent any restoration of historical sites at all. They could only be preserved in their current (non-historical) state, not restored to their original state, since the restoration would not have taken place "during the historical period it represents". Is that what the representative suggests?

Also, we respectfully suggest he has confused means and result. It is perfectly possible to replicate the effects of period tools using modern tools. As long as the restoration carefully reproduces the appearance of the original, the nature of the tools used is transparent. The purpose of restoration, we believe, is to return the site, as closely as possible, to its original state. The accuracy of that restoration is what counts, not how it is done.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

We disagree and believe that, ideally, sites should not be restored at all. If you want to show people what the sites look like, build a replica or something. The point of a historical site is to preserve the site, not to take it over with a restoration.

Malcolm K. Pratt
Interim Secretary to the United Nations

I apologize for my absence from the floor yesterday I was feeling a bit under the weather.

We agree with our esteemed colleagues from Ausserland and Gobbannium the distinction between preservation and restoration was blurred in the last clause and we hope the new clause fixes that.

I have added a new clause to the bill which reads:

RECOMMENDS whenever practical that in the event of restoration, materials closest to the original materials used in construction of the site be used.

As to the issue of the need for restoration, the purpose of the act is to designate the site for education, we feel as though a tour guide pointing to a structure is more educational that a tour guide pointing to an empty foundation saying "this used to be where the house stood".

Of course there is no clause in the act stating that you must restore only outlining the way restoration should happen.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

While we have preserved the wattle and daub hut that General Secretary Ulyanovsk was born in a red granite superstructure to protect it from the elements. Other buildings are often either preserved by feudal methods, as well as the farming area is farmed using feudal practices. It is in short a pre-revolutionary village whole and intact excepting the following alterations: The Granite Ulyanov Museum, the Ulyanovsk tram system (for easier travel within the village),train station (so visitors can come and see what life was like in pre-revolutionary Zyrwick, and also the workers can commute to their jobs there and live in the modern town some 5 kilometers away), and public comfort stations (so that citizens and workers at the facility may be able to perform necessary bodily functions in a sanitary manner).

I must inform the ambassador from Zyrwick that upon reading this our President as asked me to discuss with you the prospects of a trip to your country to see this. He is a bit of a history buff. Ok actually he a large history buff.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi

Acting Ambassador Mosse;

I shall inform the General Secretary at once. While Zyrwick rarely has foreign guests outside of our Regional Comrades this may prove interesting. Plus I am sure there are security measures that our People's Commissariat of Internal Security must put in place for the arrival of a foreign dignitary for someplace other than the Kremlin. I am sure that your President would not wish to be trampled upon by crowds wanting to gawk at him.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador.

I rise to inform the General Assembly that I have submitted the "Safeguarding Our History Act" for approval.

Thank you to everyone who helped shape it.

Donatella Mosse
Secretary Of International Affairs
Acting UN Ambassador At Large
The United Sates of Philimbesi