NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

The United Nations,

Believing that slavery violates the most basic principles of individual liberty,

Rejecting the notion that any nation has the right to permit persons to be subjected to slavery,

Further considering that international cooperation is required to eliminate the slave trade,

Therefore strongly desirous of enacting firm prohibitions on slavery,

Further wishing to deal with the problems presented by freed slaves, such as repatriation, economic restitution and the prevention of discrimination,

Realizing that where slavery persists, all forms of diplomatic and economic pressure, including exclusion and embargo, should be directed at ending the practice,

Noting that trafficking in persons constitutes a form of slavery that has proved particularly resilient to attempts at abolition and that special vigilance is required in this regard,

Also calling for future legislation on the subject of unfree labour in order to fully prevent de facto slavery from persisting:

1. Declares that all persons are free, and that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts;

3. Condemns slavery in all its forms;

4. Prohibits member nations from returning persons to countries still practicing slavery, where there is probable cause to believe such persons will be returned to a condition of slavery or punished for attempting to escape from such conditions;

5. Permits member nations to require such persons to leave their territory for other nations willing to accept them;

6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;

7. Requires member nations to take criminalise and take reasonable action to prevent reprisals against freed slaves;

8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude;

9. Encourages member nations to contribute assistance to areas previously reliant on slavery, in order to facilitate the transition of economic and social structure;

10. Prohibits the importation into any member nation of goods produced, in whole or in part, through slavery;

11. Further prohibits investment in companies using slavery;

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;

13. Requires nations to examine possible causes of and catalysts to trafficking in persons and to work, on their own and with other nations, towards the elimination of them;

14. Encourages even those nations having already abolished slavery to remain vigilant to forms of de facto slavery that may return and to fully assist in international efforts to totally eliminate all forms of slavery.

Outstanding job Quod. I've never seen a proposal go through so quick. Zarquon Froods will vote FOR.

I am pleased to see this reach quorum so quickly. Congrats on such a well written replacement. My nation will be suporting this and will be urging our region's delegate to vote for.

I vote for.... unless my allies vote against, then I change my vote.

(voting blocks do exist y'know)

Excellent. We look forward to the exercising of righteous indignation with great enthusiasm, and commend all concerned on their sterling work.

Thread stuck.

While I support the spirit of this resolution, I am concerned that the provisions will weaken the power of the individual national governments, particularly with regards to trade and refugee/immigration policy. I will consult with other members of my region and my regional delegate before formalizing a position.

We vote FOR this resolution.

But we have to notice separate the concept of "slavery" from "forced labour" make this resolution ineffective preventing most of the forms of slavery of the modern world, and that's what this resolution does.

So without a clear resolution about forced labour we can't really ban slavery from the United Nations.

But to have two resolutions closely dependent upon each other in order to be truly effective in prohibiting slavery don't make stronger the international law about this theme.

Thank you for all the positive comments.
While I support the spirit of this resolution, I am concerned that the provisions will weaken the power of the individual national governments, particularly with regards to trade and refugee/immigration policy. I will consult with other members of my region and my regional delegate before formalizing a position.
On trade, I accept there is a minor restriction of national powers, although the UN requiring an embargo seems little different to its prohibiting one (as per Resolution #33, or the assorted sectoral free trade resolutions). But I cannot accept this weakens national power on 'refugee/immigration policy': you are not required to let anyone enter your territory, and should they do so you are given explicit permission to require them to leave. The only exception is that you cannot return them to a nation where they might be enslaved; but that still leaves many, many options, given such would exclude all compliant UN nations (over 20,000).
But we have to notice separate the concept of "slavery" from "forced labour" make this resolution ineffective preventing most of the forms of slavery of the modern world, and that's what this resolution does.

So without a clear resolution about forced labour we can't really ban slavery from the United Nations.

But to have two resolutions closely dependent upon each other in order to be truly effective in prohibiting slavery don't make stronger the international law about this theme.
That's a valid point, although I don't agree that this proposal is 'ineffective'. What I would say is that, from the start, we recognised that both slavery and forced labour needed to be addressed. Given the 3,500 character limit on proposals, and that both concepts needed full attention, they had to be separated; we are pleased that another nation took on the project with forced labour (and informally consider their proposal, "Abolition of Forced Labour" (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=forced), still in need of approvals!, to be a sister proposal to this one). But the two proposals are not 'dependent upon each other': you might note ours contains no reference to 'forced labour' nor theirs to 'slavery'.

Obviously, full discussion of the forced labour should be addressed elsewhere, but we don't consider splitting the legislative load a particular problem in this case, although obviously it isn't an efficient tactic for all projects.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador and Secretary of State for UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts;We fail here to see how one can end a legal contract between two parties if it legal. Since this doesn't define what is not legal one has no way of knowing what it means here. Also since this has not defined slavery clearly it leaves that open to individual national interpitation. So how does this end it,, slavery,, we see you become a citizen of a nation you are a slave to it, since it provides you a place to work, play, and just live. Thus you are given payment for your following the rules of citizenship and are bound to protect those rights as such thus a slave to the system or society you might select to live in. As leaving it you loose all citizenship rights and protections of that nation and only keep them if you follow the laws of that nation you choose to be part of. So if a person becomes a citizen of a nation then decides he don't like things he says he is a slave and leaves.. Okay with us but could get messy when nobody wants all those trying to run to one place dumping themselves on a region or nation because they have it better. So far have not seen any resolution that says any nation has to let those if feels are a treat to their social system in and in time with this in place many will lock their borders to others, be they free or once slaves and if this lets once-slaves have rights never grant others then it is discrimination and needs to end as all must have same equal rights or not have them at all.

Also if they free then they under existing laws are protected from discrimination and this needs not give them more protection... or new protections might have been left off existing discrimination proposals that are active. It to us is discrimination to single out once-slaves and say they have these rights if they are not given to all people, that should be done in one resolution to cover all people not just parts of them.

We fail here to see how one can end a legal contract between two parties if it legal.
I fear you're confusing 'legal' as in 'of or pertaining to the law' (what it means in this context) with 'legal' as in 'sanctioned by the law' (what it doesn't mean in this context). At worst, the word 'legal' is extraneous, but a 'legal contract' is a reasonably familiar term, nah, so I'm not too worried about any confusion.

-- George Madison

Why is slavery needed, to let obesity grow and make our nations the laziest? NO! i extremely disagree with slavery! It should be gone and never come back!

Why is slavery needed, to let obesity grow and make our nations the laziest? NO! i extremely disagree with slavery! It should be gone and never come back!
I'm going to have to admit, I think diet and regularity of exercise may be more important factors in producing obesity.

But I agree with the sentiment.

-- George Madison

I perfectly agree that slavery is a barbaric practice, but what of those who are barbaric themselves? My contry is currently looking at alternatives and detterants to imprisoning criminals, and having them serve their time working as slaves to the betterment of society seems like an excellent alternative! It wouldn't be slavery for life, nor would it be heriditary, but making the above practice illegal is something that the above resolution will do. Therefore, Ice Forge is voting Against this proposal, and i am certain many in my region will follow my lead (small though we are)

I disagree. This proposal does not prohibit forced labour by prisoners (nor does "Abolition of Forced Labour"). You remain free to require prisoners to work; you simply cannot own them as slaves, that is, they may be wards of state but they retain their essential rights as a person. I deliberately avoided prohibiting forced labour as punishment, because a previous resolution (#180) would have prevented me from banning it in any case.

-- George Madison

That's a valid point, although I don't agree that this proposal is 'ineffective'. What I would say is that, from the start, we recognised that both slavery and forced labour needed to be addressed. Given the 3,500 character limit on proposals, and that both concepts needed full attention, they had to be separated; we are pleased that another nation took on the project with forced labour (and informally consider their proposal, "Abolition of Forced Labour" (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=forced), still in need of approvals!, to be a sister proposal to this one). But the two proposals are not 'dependent upon each other': you might note ours contains no reference to 'forced labour' nor theirs to 'slavery'.

Obviously, full discussion of the forced labour should be addressed elsewhere, but we don't consider splitting the legislative load a particular problem in this case, although obviously it isn't an efficient tactic for all projects.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador and Secretary of State for UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

Of course, we agree, but is THIS the point: we believe it is possible for a nation change the previous condition of slaves into forced labour without breaking the law.

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts;

In fact as this to prevent a nation to issue a law wich changes previous contracts of ownership of person into "lifetime contracts of gratis work" ?

8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude

Yes but if the nation is a dictatorship without political freedom this improves the living conditions and civil rights of slaves without actually release them out of their labor, so in facts without a UN resolution about forced labor this resolution is partially ineffective.

As well as obviously a resolution about banning of forced labor without this resolution don't stop for example to use people as bargaining and market goods.

But we agree, This on the one hand makes the two resolutions partially ineffective alone, but on the other hand makes it even more difficult for slave abolish both to fully restore slavery, and then you have our full support.

Gloria di Proton, UN Ambassador of the The Federation of Lucanian Shires.

My nations economy will plummet because of this, cheap labor is what makes a country great, good exporting etc. And free is better than cheap.

I vote against and take all those that voted for as slaves!:sniper:

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;


UN Resolutions are not to be imposed on Non-UN Nations

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;


UN Resolutions are not to be imposed on Non-UN Nations

That clause basically states that we'd like non member nations to comply, they don't have to, but we'd like them to. Something which is perfectly legal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Besides, even if it weren't legal, it's too late to do anything about it now, it's up for vote.

I disagree. This proposal does not prohibit forced labour by prisoners (nor does "Abolition of Forced Labour"). You remain free to require prisoners to work; you simply cannot own them as slaves, that is, they may be wards of state but they retain their essential rights as a person. I deliberately avoided prohibiting forced labour as punishment, because a previous resolution (#180) would have prevented me from banning it in any case.

-- George Madison

Ahh yes sorry about that. I suppose i wasn't quite sure how you were going to define Slavery. As far as the idea of owning them goes, the idea is simply wrong, paticulerly in the case of children being born into slavery. I'll admit to being new to the international scene, but then the Legion of Democratic nations was only formed a few months ago and Ice Forge a month ago.
On that note, We of Ice Forge shall be chaning our vote on [I]this[I] proposal to for. As for the forced labor one mentioned, ill have to read it before i make any recomendations of my regions U.N Delegate.

~Sadrin Darkfire, HighLord of Ice Forge, Senetor of the Legion of Democratic States.

--snip--
Um, you've lost me, I'm afraid. Could you rephrase your point at all? In the meantime, you need to consider that the forced labour contains provisions against coercion. In the absence of coercion, why on earth would anyone agree to such a contract?
UN Resolutions are not to be imposed on Non-UN Nations
I agree. But if you look at that clause, you'll notice it's telling members what to do: the non-members are only affected passively inasmuch as the efforts are directed at them. It's like a law that says 'you must clean up after your dog': it doesn't actually make a law dogs have to follow.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Just thought id mention that in light of the revelation that this bill will not preclude the use of my nations prisoners as a free labor force, i am changning my vote to this proposal to for. As for the whole endoresing groups against slavery clause, its not forcing the non-members to do a thing. Its just encouraging members to work against slavery whereever it may be found.

~Sadrin Darkfire
UN Rep. Of Ice Forge

Argh! I so very much want to grant my approval this proposed resolution, but the error in article 7 prohibits me from doing so in good conscience. There is an additional, unnecessary, and confusing insertion of the word "take" before "criminalise". My sincere apologies, although it appears that the resolution will pass nonetheless, and I doubt that so minor a typo will be problematic enough to warrant a repeal and replacement.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

Um, you've lost me, I'm afraid. Could you rephrase your point at all?


OT: I'm sorry for my english so bad. END-OT

We agree with you, we are FOR your resolution and FOR the proposal about Forced Labour.

We were simply expressing our concern that your resolution without the resolution about forced labour is not really effective in banning ALL forms of slavery, the two resolutions are interdependent, in our opinion of course.
They are not interdependent, obviously, from the formal point of view, but one without the other have only a limited (or "particular" if you want) area of effect and only together they can really achieve the goal of banning slavery.

For example without the resolution about forced labour we notice that could be currently a perfectly legal solution for countries that practiced slavery adapt its laws to your resolution issuing laws that translates previous contracts of "ownership" of slaves in new forms of lifetime-contracts of forced labour that do not require that these "workers" are the property of their previous owners.
That's not good...

We hope this make clearer our point of view.

Gloria di Proton, UN Ambassador of the Federation of Lucanian Shires

Argh! I so very much want to grant my approval this proposed resolution, but the error in article 7 prohibits me from doing so in good conscience. There is an additional, unnecessary, and confusing insertion of the word "take" before "criminalise". My sincere apologies, although it appears that the resolution will pass nonetheless, and I doubt that so minor a typo will be problematic enough to warrant a repeal and replacement.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia
What!?

Am I to understand that you refuse to vote for this legislation simply because of a minor typographical error which doesn't impact the meaning of the clause referenced?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I vote that for ONCE, the U.N. does the evil thing and refutes this bill. Honestly, we should make slavery legal in EVERY country, instead of being goody goody's. Sure, slavery is a barbaric and vile practice, but thats what makes it interesting if we legalize it.

We could be like, the dark U.N. We could repeal all are nice acts and create a dark evil world.

Yes. Poorly written proposals, even if understandable, are intolerable by Twafflonian standards, especially given the difficulty--nay, impossibility--of correcting errors in passed resolutions without a complete repeal. If the proposal is resubmitted with the error corrected it will have my full support.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

Yes. Poorly written proposals, even if understandable, are intolerable by Twafflonian standards, especially given the difficulty--nay, impossibility--of correcting errors in passed resolutions without a complete repeal. If the proposal is resubmitted with the error corrected it will have my full support.

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia
http://209.85.12.227/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

Well I am truly sorry that this Resolution does not measure up to Twafflonian standards. I intend to lose much sleep over that and I'm sure the Quodite delegation will too.

Will you promise to vote against Abolition of Forced Labour when it comes to a vote? Please?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We rise in support of this proposal. We find it an eminently sensible and satisfactory replacement for the badly flawed Resolution #6.

7. Requires member nations to take criminalise and take reasonable action to prevent reprisals against freed slaves;

I'm still not entirely convinced that criminalise isn't some sort of drug.

Will you promise to vote against Abolition of Forced Labour when it comes to a vote? Please?

Sorry, I didn't notice any typos in Abolition of Forced Labour. It meets Twafflonian standards in every regard!

Affectionately,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

*Strathfield goes back to drinking*

I vote that for ONCE, the U.N. does the evil thing and refutes this bill. Honestly, we should make slavery legal in EVERY country, instead of being goody goody's. Sure, slavery is a barbaric and vile practice, but thats what makes it interesting if we legalize it.

We could be like, the dark U.N. We could repeal all are nice acts and create a dark evil world.

Could the first act of this dark new world be the elimination of your sovereignty? I often meet people who wish for a darker world without realizing that if their wish came true, that they'd be its first victims.... World is dark as it is with people striving to bring it out of darkness, no need to encourage a downward dive.

1. Declares that all persons are free, and that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;Noting the no person shall be held, under law of any nation,,,,, one may consider a person sentenced to prison to be held under the laws of that nation and thus once in prison a slave to the legal system of that nation... Thus since there is no clear place in this that says you can put them in prison they not slaves then, this leaves it questionable and up to interpitation as to it being slavery or not being slavery. Some will to promote their nobody should be locked up ideals will yell slavery... those want to abuse the resolution will be locking a lot of folks up for looking at somebody the wrong way just to get a free labor force or keep their current slave force in place just now they criminals serving life for some crime.

I know the key here is the term possession or property but call it what ever if you can't go and do as please because you are locked in chains and behind barbed wire and have to do what tolk or else... then it slavery and you belong to those hold the keys to open the doors/gates and let you free.


Also think folks miss the term Freed slaves and once they are free there is no need to start making special efforts to give them rights anyone free might have as they have them. However as pointed out before any effort to give them rights that have not been clearly given everyone in areas such as discrimination against them is in itself discrimination since they will get special protection here in issues others don't have the same protections simply because they were once slaves and are now freed. As long as call them freed slaves they will be discriminated against if they come in demanding specail treatment as such. If they come in as citizens of a nation and demand their rights it one thing.. to demand it as a freed slave they may here find themselves in prison and not slaves but working for the state like a slave might.

We were simply expressing our concern that your resolution without the resolution about forced labour is not really effective in banning ALL forms of slavery, the two resolutions are interdependent, in our opinion of course.
They are not interdependent, obviously, from the formal point of view, but one without the other have only a limited (or "particular" if you want) area of effect and only together they can really achieve the goal of banning slavery.
That would be why the authors of the two proposals have consulted deeply with one another, and have succeeded in gathering considerable support for the resolutions as a pair. We, for one, intend to see both pass.

On a more practical side, there is a limit on the length of any given resolution (OOC: imposed by the game code, so there's no getting round it). By splitting the issue into its two component parts, both can be addressed in more detail, giving the better legislation you see before you, than can be done if a single resolution is used.

Ambassador Strathfield rereads the proposal, relaxing in his somewhat uncomfortable chair.

"Hm. Closer examination of Article 1 does present a small problem, primarily in the statement that "all persons are considered free". This statement seems to extend the resolution's authority beyond the issue of slave labour, prohibiting, say, mere imprisonment of criminals. It also directly contradicts the idea that criminals, in breaking the laws of their nation of residence, have forfeited their right to 'freedom'."

"But that is mere knitpickiness; I doubt that the UN gnomes would be so tenacious and literal as to destroy all member-nation prisons upon the adoption of this resolution. Here's hoping."

Strathfield takes a swig of porter.

Thank you for all the positive comments.

On trade, I accept there is a minor restriction of national powers, although the UN requiring an embargo seems little different to its prohibiting one (as per Resolution #33, or the assorted sectoral free trade resolutions). But I cannot accept this weakens national power on 'refugee/immigration policy': you are not required to let anyone enter your territory, and should they do so you are given explicit permission to require them to leave. The only exception is that you cannot return them to a nation where they might be enslaved; but that still leaves many, many options, given such would exclude all compliant UN nations (over 20,000).


Thank you for this clarification. The Holy Empire of Imota will put forward a favorable reccommendation to our regional delegate.

As the Flibbleite UN Representative, and Regional Delegate of Final Fantasy it is my honor and my privilege to cast my vote FOR this fine resolution. I look forward to the day when the blight on humanity called slavery is nothing but a distant memory.

Having said that, I bid you all farewell for now as I am on my back to The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites to spend Christmas with my family. My assistant Mr. Schmidt will be filling in for my in my absence.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Ambassador of Baltarvia:

I have been instructed by the Chancellor of Baltarvia to vote against this resolution, as articles 10 and 11 would have a profound impact on Baltarvia's GNP. Whether we trade with or invest in countries that practice slavery is not the concern of the UN. If this Resolution is passed with those two articles not removed, Baltarvia will not abide by it.

Slavery shouldn't be outlawed. It is an excellent way to make use of POWs as well as punish criminal offenders. Slavery based on race, or gender, however, is rediculous. But hear me out. Slavery isn't bad. It was the execution of it in the past that has demonized it in our eyes. Enemies of the state should be FORCED to be productive members of society or die for their rebellion.

I doubt that the UN gnomes would be so tenacious and literal as to destroy all member-nation prisons upon the adoption of this resolution.
I doubt so too, especially since if you look at it In Context it clearly means "free, as in not owned", not "free, as in unrestrained". Or maybe you think it could mean "free, as in available without charge"?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

That clause basically states that we'd like non member nations to comply, they don't have to, but we'd like them to. Something which is perfectly legal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Besides, even if it weren't legal, it's too late to do anything about it now, it's up for vote.I don't know the term Endorse in it may be in violation as it to me means the UN Endorse actions to make non members fall in line. Encourages alone on the other hand simply means it does just that.

It's legal.

*Prime Minister Viridio, having returned from his marvelous vacation to the Easter Islands, walks into work whistling a cheerful tune. He sits at his desk and notices two pieces of paper on his desk. The first, an announcement, saying that in his absence, "End Slavery" was repealed. The second, the proposal for "Abolition of Slavery." Quizzically, he pokes his head out the office door.*

Helen? What's been going on?

*Wha wha, wha wa wha waah, wha wha wha wwa waa wha wha wha wa*

Ah, thanks.

*Having no idea what he's doing, Viridio decides he's going to simply ignore the first piece of paper and focus on the second. After deliberating for some time, he prepares his official statement.*

The Federation of Eaglus congratulates the Quintessence of Dust for a marvelously written document. We vote FOR, and hope other nations do the same.

Prime Minister Viridio
The Federation of Eaglus
Founder of the Hegemony of Music

(OOC: For those who are confused at Helen's response, think Charlie Brown. If you still don't get it, I pity you.)

I vote against and take all those that voted for as slaves!Be carefull as they still have prisons for such as you who make threats and then try to act on them. As many members find this type dialog is that of a terrorist... You are free to vote as you see fit on this just don't act on your threat.

Slavery shouldn't be outlawed. It is an excellent way to make use of POWs as well as punish criminal offenders. Slavery based on race, or gender, however, is rediculous. But hear me out. Slavery isn't bad. It was the execution of it in the past that has demonized it in our eyes. Enemies of the state should be FORCED to be productive members of society or die for their rebellion.
Well, um, I wouldn't want to impose, but isn't there a slight problem with you having that view? Doesn't the... what is it called... Wolfish Convention stop you doing anything like that to POWs?

~ Hari Desana

We have a question on how far this section goes:

10. Prohibits the importation into any member nation of goods produced, in whole or in part, through slavery;We buy certain parts of items produded in full here and then are shipped to other members from nations that use slave labor.

I understand we can no longer bring in those parts and will need to find new sources for them.

My question is based on; we have stocks of these parts already in place to be installed in the products and those will be shipped to member nations...: What do we do with those products with slave labor produced parts and the parts waiting to go into products to be later shipped? Also any repair parts for those products that might have slave labor produced parts in them or themselves be products of slave labor?

Failure to meet contract deadlines in getting the product to the person ordered them will cost all a great deal. This may shut down key production lines in some industries due to products are not currently available elsewhere to upgrade and keep those lines going or to open new lines. Also medical devices to be used in hospitals are included so lives may be lost because these items can't be shipped between member nations due to one part was made by slave labor some where along the production line.

OOC: Just on the what if side... a mechanical heart was inplanted in a person and they traveled between nations.. and it was made with slave labor parts or the metals/materials in it obtained by slave labor.. as the person would be importing the item in each nation they visited. Maybe not for trade or sale but still importing it for personal use. Then like so many items one can only use a special say battery in it that comes from only one source.... that uses slaves labor...

OOC: Just on the what if side... a mechanical heart was inplanted in a person and they traveled between nations.. and it was made with slave labor parts or the metals/materials in it obtained by slave labor.. as the person would be importing the item in each nation they visited.Don't be silly.

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;


UN Resolutions are not to be imposed on Non-UN Nations

I agree with you, not only that but it would be calling for Non-UN Nations to see all UN Nations as Dictatoral and while no Nation can Declare War on The UN, they can go to war against UN Nations.

Oh and I Vote against it.

against!!!!!!!!!!!! we are not all the same... there are kings and slaves...and thats the way it should be!!!!!!!!!!!

against!!!!!!!!!!!! we are not all the same... there are kings and slaves...and thats the way it should be!!!!!!!!!!!

There are also Queens and Douches. Erm.....I mean Duchesses. That's it Queens and Duchesses.

The Great Prophet Zarquon
Emperor/UN Ambassador
The Empire of Zarquon Froods

We were simply expressing our concern that your resolution without the resolution about forced labour is not really effective in banning ALL forms of slavery, the two resolutions are interdependent, in our opinion of course.
They are not interdependent, obviously, from the formal point of view, but one without the other have only a limited (or "particular" if you want) area of effect and only together they can really achieve the goal of banning slavery.
Ok. Sorry for snapping: it's fine if your English isn't perfect, and I'm sure you're a lot more proficient than I would be in your language.

I do understand your point; I think, in fact, I agree with it. It's a shame that it had to be done this way, but given how much content had to be packed into both proposals, it was inevitable. Were there a way of officially 'twinning' them, we would have done it.
I vote that for ONCE, the U.N. does the evil thing and refutes this bill. Honestly, we should make slavery legal in EVERY country, instead of being goody goody's. Sure, slavery is a barbaric and vile practice, but thats what makes it interesting if we legalize it.

We could be like, the dark U.N. We could repeal all are nice acts and create a dark evil world.
We could. But I'm not sure you've thought this through fully: if we went along with your plan, we'd end up being thwarted at the last moment, just after laughing evilly and placing our finger on the giant red button, by an eclectic couple of reluctant but plucky heroes with a constant will-they/won't-they chemistry, the male of whom is probably our long-lost son.
I'm still not entirely convinced that criminalise isn't some sort of drug.
You've made your point. I've apologised. Smugness is an unbecoming quality in a diplomat.
Hm. Closer examination of Article 1 does present a small problem, primarily in the statement that "all persons are considered free". This statement seems to extend the resolution's authority beyond the issue of slave labour, prohibiting, say, mere imprisonment of criminals. It also directly contradicts the idea that criminals, in breaking the laws of their nation of residence, have forfeited their right to 'freedom'.
Um, no it doesn't, but I can accept that if you put in lots of extra words that don't actually appear in the proposal, you could get that interpretation. Sadly, that's a common problem: proposals often have unintended consequences when their text is completely ignored and some imaginary construction substituted in.
I have been instructed by the Chancellor of Baltarvia to vote against this resolution, as articles 10 and 11 would have a profound impact on Baltarvia's GNP. Whether we trade with or invest in countries that practice slavery is not the concern of the UN. If this Resolution is passed with those two articles not removed, Baltarvia will not abide by it.
1. It's unlikely it will negatively affect your economy, because you will still have thousands of potential trade partners; in addition to this, you may well find the quality of freely produced goods superior to their slave equivalents, given they are more likely to be constructed by skilled workers with an incentive to achieve good results.

2. It is very much in the UN's interests (or rather, those of the other members of the UN) who you trade with, because as an embargo provides an incentive to emancipation, so continued trade provides one against it. Your continuing to trade with slavers would mean they would be less likely to convert to free economies.

3. Compliance is mandatory: should you not comply, I think it likely many nations would extend their embargo to cover you (and they would probably have to on Baltarvian re-exports, anyway). That's not a threat, but a piece of advice: I'd envisage it running counter to your economic interests to pursue such a strategy.
Slavery shouldn't be outlawed. It is an excellent way to make use of POWs as well as punish criminal offenders. Slavery based on race, or gender, however, is rediculous. But hear me out. Slavery isn't bad. It was the execution of it in the past that has demonized it in our eyes. Enemies of the state should be FORCED to be productive members of society or die for their rebellion.
I'm not sure, as was suggested by another representative, that the Wolfish Convention does preclude the use of prisoners of war, although that depends on one's interpretation of 'coercion'.

I cannot stress this enough: this proposal would not prohibit the use of forced labour as a judicial punishment. Applying that to prisoners of war I admit I would strongly object to, but that's a separate issue insofar as I'm concerned.
I agree with you, not only that but it would be calling for Non-UN Nations to see all UN Nations as Dictatoral and while no Nation can Declare War on The UN, they can go to war against UN Nations.

Oh and I Vote against it.
If any nation faces actual armed attack as a result of this proposal passing...well, we're sorry?

Such a preposterous act would likely only be perpetrated by a nation operating a relatively unstable foreign policy anyway, though, so I'm not particularly inclined to take the blame. And, of course, non-members really are entirely free to continue practicing slavery: the moment they try to force the products of such on UN nations, however, their callow appeals to national sovereignty rather dwindle away.
against!!!!!!!!!!!! we are not all the same... there are kings and slaves...and thats the way it should be!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree we are not all the same, but we are all equal; that some backwards continue the quaint practice of monarchy should be no obstacle to universal emancipation. And this resolution doesn't abolish all social stratification: it simply frees slaves.

Thank you for everyone making positive comments; we're pleased with the voting so far.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

The Nation of Ki Baratan affirms this bill to be of utmost importance, and as such, we have begun petitioning the neighbouring nations of our fair region to enact this law.

I vote that for ONCE, the U.N. does the evil thing and refutes this bill. Honestly, we should make slavery legal in EVERY country, instead of being goody goody's. Sure, slavery is a barbaric and vile practice, but thats what makes it interesting if we legalize it.

We could be like, the dark U.N. We could repeal all are nice acts and create a dark evil world.

you should join gatesville

U.N.:mp5:

The tax cost of everything this resolution demands is ridiculous. I will not allow my economy to take such a hit. This is not the way to get rid of slavery. Providing housing for former slaves? My country has enough housing problems already. Language lessons? Come on.

We could. But I'm not sure you've thought this through fully: if we went along with your plan, we'd end up being thwarted at the last moment, just after laughing evilly and placing our finger on the giant red button, by an eclectic couple of reluctant but plucky heroes with a constant will-they/won't-they chemistry, the male of whom is probably our long-lost son.
:D:)
Very nice.

One thing that worries me is the lack of a provision for prison labor. But, at the same time, I don't see anything prohibiting it. And obviously, with any UN law, there's a way around it. So it doesn't really matter.

Anyway, I say FOR!

The Republic of Roddyville supports this resolution 100% and is glad to see it pass so quickly.

The tax cost of everything this resolution demands is ridiculous. I will not allow my economy to take such a hit. This is not the way to get rid of slavery. Providing housing for former slaves? My country has enough housing problems already. Language lessons? Come on.

Tell me exactly where it says you are required to provide housing for former slaves. Section 6 states:

6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;

It does not say mandates or requires. Endorses means the UN approves of any steps member nations take to implement these programs. By no means is any nation bound by law to create them.

I agree we are not all the same, but we are all equal; that some backwards continue the quaint practice of monarchy should be no obstacle to universal emancipation.

On behalf of His Majesty's Government, we respectfully protest the description of monarchies as "backwards". We would like to note that some monarchies, such as our own, are actually quite progressive and open-minded states. We hope that the inane ramblings of the representative of RedNS will not tarnish the reputation of states such as Altanar.

That minor quibble aside, we wholeheartedly support this resolution and urge our colleagues to do the same.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

The tax cost of everything this resolution demands is ridiculous. I will not allow my economy to take such a hit. This is not the way to get rid of slavery. Providing housing for former slaves? My country has enough housing problems already. Language lessons? Come on.
1. We'd be willing to pay quite a large price to eliminate. It's disappointing that the receipts are the initial priority when it comes to matters of such basic integrity.

2. As observed, provision of housing is optional.
On behalf of His Majesty's Government, we respectfully protest the description of monarchies as "backwards". We would like to note that some monarchies, such as our own, are actually quite progressive and open-minded states. We hope that the inane ramblings of the representative of RedNS will not tarnish the reputation of states such as Altanar.
I'm aware that there are some monarchies whose respect for civil rights exceeds certain republics; apologies for any aspersions cast on the Altanari system.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

The United Nations,

Believing that slavery violates the most basic principles of individual liberty,

Rejecting the notion that any nation has the right to permit persons to be subjected to slavery,

Further considering that international cooperation is required to eliminate the slave trade,

Therefore strongly desirous of enacting firm prohibitions on slavery,

Further wishing to deal with the problems presented by freed slaves, such as repatriation, economic restitution and the prevention of discrimination,

Realizing that where slavery persists, all forms of diplomatic and economic pressure, including exclusion and embargo, should be directed at ending the practice,

Noting that trafficking in persons constitutes a form of slavery that has proved particularly resilient to attempts at abolition and that special vigilance is required in this regard,

Also calling for future legislation on the subject of unfree labour in order to fully prevent de facto slavery from persisting:

1. Declares that all persons are free, and that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts;

3. Condemns slavery in all its forms;

4. Prohibits member nations from returning persons to countries still practicing slavery, where there is probable cause to believe such persons will be returned to a condition of slavery or punished for attempting to escape from such conditions;

5. Permits member nations to require such persons to leave their territory for other nations willing to accept them;

6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;

7. Requires member nations to take criminalise and take reasonable action to prevent reprisals against freed slaves;

8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude;

9. Encourages member nations to contribute assistance to areas previously reliant on slavery, in order to facilitate the transition of economic and social structure;

10. Prohibits the importation into any member nation of goods produced, in whole or in part, through slavery;

11. Further prohibits investment in companies using slavery;

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;

13. Requires nations to examine possible causes of and catalysts to trafficking in persons and to work, on their own and with other nations, towards the elimination of them;

14. Encourages even those nations having already abolished slavery to remain vigilant to forms of de facto slavery that may return and to fully assist in international efforts to totally eliminate all forms of slavery.

Such a good plan! Birchforest is strongly with this topic with all our hearts! We are with this plan!:)

Don't be silly.

The last time I checked I believe this is Nation States. I do not think not being silly is an option.

Could the first act of this dark new world be the elimination of your sovereignty? I often meet people who wish for a darker world without realizing that if their wish came true, that they'd be its first victims.... World is dark as it is with people striving to bring it out of darkness, no need to encourage a downward dive.

keep in mind, i didn't say i wanted the real world to be darker or eviler. This is just a game, we can all be wild cards here.

against!!!!!!!!!!!! we are not all the same... there are kings and slaves...and thats the way it should be!!!!!!!!!!!

I know what you say is true but you don't see me insisting that you surrender your nation to me because of a well established self-evident truth. Sometimes the elite imposes limitation upon itself for a better outcome, so follow our example and you may acquire the wisdom of kings.


keep in mind, i didn't say i wanted the real world to be darker or eviler. This is just a game, we can all be wild cards here.

Real world? Ahh I get it, you subscribe to the religious myth of the "real world". Yes, I have read some stuff in those mythical textbooks. It almost seems more real than this NationStates world. But I think Shakespeare from these mythical texts would say, that how one plays a game indicates how one strives to be in reality.

Okay, well-proposed issue, but how do we even have slavery in our NationState? It's not like we even have the option. Apparently some people have way too much time and think this game is more than it is. I use NationStates to kill about, 3 minutes a day to look at my issues and get off. Someone please fill me in. Why are we voting on this?

Okay, well-proposed issue, but how do we even have slavery in our NationState? It's not like we even have the option. Apparently some people have way too much time and think this game is more than it is. I use NationStates to kill about, 3 minutes a day to look at my issues and get off. Someone please fill me in. Why are we voting on this?

OOC: Because some of us do spend more than 3 minutes a day here.

OOC: Because some of us do spend more than 3 minutes a day here.

OOC: And some of us enjoy coming here so we can throw people out of windows.

Okay, well-proposed issue, but how do we even have slavery in our NationState? It's not like we even have the option. Apparently some people have way too much time and think this game is more than it is. I use NationStates to kill about, 3 minutes a day to look at my issues and get off. Someone please fill me in. Why are we voting on this?

OOC-->

Some take chess sets and play with the little horsey and its fun and that's fine, some play using the chess rules as they are meant to be played and its fun and that's fine and there are others who modify what some of the rules are and play variants.... again its fun and its fine.... You wish to only use NationStates in one possible way? Cool! Just don't look down on others if they get other enjoyment out of it, cool?

Okay, well-proposed issue, but how do we even have slavery in our NationState? It's not like we even have the option.

Sure we do. There are 'issues' that allow you to actually enslave other people, either in prison labor or in actual 'capturing POWs and sending them off to work'.

Mind you, of course, that if the UN does ban slavery, you can still use those issues to actually continue to enslave, so you got a point. :)

I am concerned that there is no definition of "person" included in this proposal. This leaves open the possibility of countries deciding that those they enslave are not persons, or conversely, others interpreting all living beings as persons.

In such an important topic, such definitions seem to me to be critically important.

Personhood should be addressed, but in a different resolution. And, St. Edmund has a proposal to go and grant sentients (non-humans who are just as smart as humans) the same rights as humans, so personhood can be addressed via that definition.

Hm. But, that resolution is abanonded. Maybe it should get resurrected...

I am concerned that there is no definition of "person" included in this proposal. This leaves open the possibility of countries deciding that those they enslave are not persons, or conversely, others interpreting all living beings as persons.

In such an important topic, such definitions seem to me to be critically important.
I somewhat agree; it's simply that the definition of 'person' is important to a number of issues, not just this one; hence, we believe the UN should tackle it in its own right, in a proposal to define personhood. Also, there are so many difficulties in doing so, character count alone would necessitate separate treatment.

-- George Madison

Did I mention QoD that this is an excellent Christmas present to the world you're giving? I don't think I've spoken on the issue quite yet, but suffice to say, this measure has my full support, even though it doesn't need it.

Well yeah, even if slavery is "banned," and I choose to continue slavery in my NationState through allowing it in my decisions on issues, it's not like the UN is going to hunt me down and invade, impose embargoes, or do anything else that's listed in that proposal. I know what you're saying about having "extra" fun with NationStates, which is cool, but seeing as all of these debates have no influence on the actual game and your performance in it, it seems a little fruitless to me. Even if I did spend more than just 3 minutes per day on here (which I do occasionally, but I spend only looking at my friend's Nations), making typing up a whole proposal in legal language for the thrill is definitely one of the last things I would do. But that's just me. Just me and my social life.

Well yeah, even if slavery is "banned," and I choose to continue slavery in my NationState through allowing it in my decisions on issues, it's not like the UN is going to hunt me down and invade, impose embargoes, or do anything else that's listed in that proposal. I know what you're saying about having "extra" fun with NationStates, which is cool, but seeing as all of these debates have no influence on the actual game and your performance in it, it seems a little fruitless to me. Even if I did spend more than just 3 minutes per day on here (which I do occasionally, but I spend only looking at my friend's Nations), making typing up a whole proposal in legal language for the thrill is definitely one of the last things I would do. But that's just me. Just me and my social life.

Well, the Model United Nations, which I belong to, do think that debating over legal text is fun. :)

But yeah, play the game however you want. And in the end, if you don't have fun playing in one way, don't play in that way. And I probraly won't play in this way either...if it doesn't get fun.

Personhood should be addressed, but in a different resolution. And, St. Edmund has a proposal to go and grant sentients (non-humans who are just as smart as humans) the same rights as humans, so personhood can be addressed via that definition.

Hm. But, that resolution is abanonded. Maybe it should get resurrected...

You intend to make definitions clearer, but what now what is the definition of "smart". How does one measure "smart"? With a stick?

You intend to make definitions clearer, but what now what is the definition of "smart". How does one measure "smart"? With a stick?

A commiteee of senitents, plus common sense.

Trust me, it'll work.

---Dr. Bob.

Did I mention QoD that this is an excellent Christmas present to the world you're giving? I don't think I've spoken on the issue quite yet, but suffice to say, this measure has my full support, even though it doesn't need it.
Given the multicultural nature of Quodite society, we'd really prefer to think of it as a 'Winterval present' or a 'festive holiday season present' or a 'non-denominational secular day of different but equal preferences present'.

-- Samantha Benson
Department of UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

OOC: I should probably add, the timing was not deliberate; in fact, I would have wished to avoid having it run so close to Christmas, for fear it might upset the voting tallies.

Previous Christmas votes have been: Scientific Freedom, Increased Access to Medicine, NS HIV AIDS Act, Repeal "Right to Divorce", and Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act".
Just me and my social life.
:rolleyes: Not this one again. There is literally nothing more pitifully sad than the person who spends their time telling others not to waste their time doing blah blah blah... Some people have fun playing this game, and having a RL life. Maybe we're just better organized than you?

Yeah? Is that why your title is "superior gamer?"

While myself and fellow members of the Zeracs' Government agree with the said UN proposal and I have already wagered my vote to see this resolution passed. I couldn't help but note one of the requirements of the resolution is providing "sanctuary" to escaped slaves. Is the UN prepared to protect its smaller member nations via military or political means to back someone providing safe havens?

Zeracs' UN Delegation

While myself and fellow members of the Zeracs' Government agree with the said UN proposal and I have already wagered my vote to see this resolution passed. I couldn't help but note one of the requirements of the resolution is providing "sanctuary" to escaped slaves. Is the UN prepared to protect its smaller member nations via military or political means to back someone providing safe havens?

Zeracs' UN Delegation
Not quite. It's not a requirement to provide sanctuary: you can require them to leave so long as it's not back to a place they will be enslaved. The answer to your question, quite incidentally, is 'no'; individual members or blocs might take it upon themselves to do so, as per other extradition issues, but there would be no mechanism for the UN, collectively to do so.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Yeah? Is that why your title is "superior gamer?"

No, it's due to the fact that he got more posts. In most forums, the more posts you get, the higher the ranks, and one of the ranks just happens to be "Superior Gamer". There are higher ranks, including "Honorary Spam-Forum Moderator".

Gwr just allow slavery, why not? We will still inport products from other countries who have slavery. Oh well.

I agree we are not all the same, but we are all equal; that some backwards continue the quaint practice of monarchy should be no obstacle to universal emancipation. And this resolution doesn't abolish all social stratification: it simply frees slaves.

Thank you for everyone making positive comments; we're pleased with the voting so far.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

We would like to state that not all monarchies are "backwards" nor is monarchy a "backwards"' system. It has functioned for several thousand years through the rise and fall of great empires.

But I digress. As previously stated, this proposal has our full support and accompanying vote. We would also like to extend an offer of safe haven to any former slaves of bestial descent whose parent nation requires their exodus after the enacting of this proposal into law. Also, we would offer a place in our region to any rogue states that should come about. Thirdly, we would offer aid to states that relied heavily on such slaves to support their economy.

We are a small nation, in a small region, but we have strong convictions. This issue in particular engenders rather strong emotional responses. We thank Quintessence of Dust for providing this proposal and look forward to future relations.

We need slavery in our nation. We have strict laws in place to regulate the treatment of slaves. The UN should take a tip from our nation.

OOC:
The resolution Abolition of Slavery was passed 5,721 votes to 1,807, and implemented in all UN member nations.
I shall endeavour to be brief, but I would like to say a few words of thanks.

First, to Iron Felix, whose proposal, which is considered at least by me to be a companion to this resolution, will hopefully get a vote soon. I didn't want to have to draft the forced labour one myself as well, so his taking it on was much appreciated.

Second, to those who helped with telegramming on the repeal (OMGTKK/Iron Felix/Rubina/Gobbannium/The Dourian Embassy) and also Rubina for collecting the list of approvals, so I could quickly telegram for the replacement.

Third, to all those who assisted with drafting. In addition to the other above posters, Ausserland was particularly helpful, and this replacement might well have borne his name as co-author (he said I should only do so if I felt it would aid the passage of the replacement; plus I made some subsequent changes he didn't look over).

Fourthly, to everyone who approved the repeal and the replacement, and who then voted for them; and to those who offered constructive criticism, or simply sent messages of support.

I would also like to say that while I don't think every resolution needs replacing, and that a repeal need not promise or deliver a replacement, if you want to do a repeal/replace this effort, without being immodest, has worked out reasonably well (so far). So I would recommend that if you're planning such a project, you take note of the following:
- draft the replacement and get it into absolutely final form before submitting (or even writing) the repeal;
- make clear your aim in the repeal, rather than nit-picking the old resolution;
- try to publicise it sufficiently that people actually get sick of you talking of nothing else;
- be friendly with all delegates who ask about the method when telegramming for the repeal and explain clearly and concisely;
- save the names of those who approve the repeal and hit them first when telegramming for the replacement;
- ignore people who say 'why can't u just amend it': they. will. not. learn.

Well, it worked for me.

And might I add that it worked quite well. Congratulations Quod, it is a stunning piece of work.

And quite effective, too. Our nation went overnight from a "Corporate Police State" to a "Compulsory Consumerist State".

"Thanks to this repeal and resolution, you got us from a Capitalist Paradise into total Anarchy, with no form of government whatsoever. I hope all those civilians being terrorized by biker gangs are happy now."
---Dr. Bob

I'm "Capitalizt" now; don't ask me how that happened, 'cause I have no freakin' idea! Somehow my PF dropped to Moderate and my CR jumped to Libertarian in one fell swoop.

We relay our congratulations to the Quodite delegation on the passage of this sweeping and most necessary resolution to ban slavery and the slave trade in all UN nations. In addition, we are pleased to announce our very first vote FOR a human-rights proposition to come before this Assembly. A dramatic development, to be sure, and quote controversial among Kennyite politicos, but bearing the full support of our corporate sponsors. It's a simple matter of economics, really. As a general rule, the Federal Republic does not trade with nations who still engage in the despicable practice of bonded labor (with special exceptions made for regional partners under the AOEAA (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=59)). I mean, we vote for free-trade resolutions like no one's business, but what's the point, really, of flooding foreign markets with our cheaply made and bargain-priced goods when a sizable portion of a nation's population is held as chattel and don't have a lot of spending money to take advantage of these deals? Our corporate sponsors had grave concerns about the weak and ineffectual slavery ban that still allowed situations like these to occur, and sought action. Well, it appears today they got it.

As a special Christmas gift to our newly freed brethren, our government is sending $25 FEDMÖG MART (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=637&view=findpost&p=7163813) gift cards to all those formerly held as property in UN nations across the globe. The first few bullets to shoot your former slavemasters are on us, emancipated comrades! Beyond that, you're on your own. But now that we can trade with your home nations presently abandoning slavery, the new entry-level jobs our businesses bring with them should make it easier for you to attain gainful employment. We wish you best of luck!

[State Department staffers begin to hum "Battle Hymn of the Republic"]

Thank you all for listening on this historic day for freedom in the United Nations. God bless you all this New Year.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Rechburg votes to end slavery