NationStates Jolt Archive

Free Trade of Durable Goods

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.


Category: Free Trade


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Iron Felix

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the role that the trade of durable goods plays in the global economy;

FURTHER RECOGNIZING the role that the sale of these goods plays in providing manufacturing jobs;

NOTING the beneficial effect that these goods have on people's daily lives by making numerous home and business related activities less labour intensive, more efficient and more enjoyable;

FURTHER NOTING that durable goods includes equipment vital to medical research and that increasing access to such equipment could lead to a cure for cancer in our lifetimes;

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable goods" as goods or consumer products that have a useful life extending more than three years. Examples include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, and business, medical, electronic, and manufacturing equipment.

HEREBY

1. ENCOURAGES the sale and/or transfer of durable goods between UN nations;

2. ENCOURAGES all nations to increase their citizens access to durable goods by creating favourable business environments for retailers who market these goods;

3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;

4. DECLARES that nations may apply reasonable restrictions on trade in the following cases:

- to ensure the stability of industries supplying essential products (such as military equipment or other items vital to national security);
- in times of severe economic crisis, where such measures are required to ensure a stable supply of durable goods;
- to collect revenue for the sole purposes of economic recovery following severe collapse;

5. DECLARES it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;

6. EMPHASIZES that UN member nations reserve the right to employ retaliatory tariffs towards non-UN nations to prevent price dumping;

7. AUTHORIZES the United Nations Free Trade Commission (UNFTC) to arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the implementation of this legislation. Such arbitration may include, but is not limited to, cases involving alleged price dumping by UN members upon UN members, alleged violations of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of this legislation, and disputes over the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this legislation.

This has now reached quorum and will soon be at vote. It is based on an idea first put forth by the delegation from New Leicestershire.

The original discussions may be viewed here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=543665

And here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534708

Let the debate begin.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

When this comes to vote. Consider Zarquon Froods FOR.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites at long last casts their vote FOR this resolution, or at least will when it's up for vote.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Although the policy of the Snefaldian government is one of opposition to Free Trade on principal, in support of "Fair Trade," I have submitted for consideration the proposal text. The largest problem my superiors have had with free trade is the question of what happens when markets are flooded with cheaply made goods that undercut local industry severely- I will argue their misgivings, if you will allow me.

We have few automobiles in Snefaldia; zeppelins are the national "automobile" if you will. If this passes, let us say that the Lindai Airship Company is undercut by Mikitivity's sizeable zeppelin companies. Lindai lays of workers, and Snefaldia suffers as a result; cheaper airships notwithstanding. How does this benefit the average citizen of a UN country in a real-world situation?

Raphaël Sondrásái
First Secretary

Although the policy of the Snefaldian government is one of opposition to Free Trade on principal, in support of "Fair Trade," I have submitted for consideration the proposal text. The largest problem my superiors have had with free trade is the question of what happens when markets are flooded with cheaply made goods that undercut local industry severely- I will argue their misgivings, if you will allow me.

We have few automobiles in Snefaldia; zeppelins are the national "automobile" if you will. If this passes, let us say that the Lindai Airship Company is undercut by Mikitivity's sizeable zeppelin companies. Lindai lays of workers, and Snefaldia suffers as a result; cheaper airships notwithstanding. How does this benefit the average citizen of a UN country in a real-world situation?

Raphaël Sondrásái
First Secretary

Ah! Thank you for your question, Comrade First Secretary Sondrásái.

I'm not sure if you've noticed it, but let me direct your attention to Article 7. The Article has been changed from earlier versions by New Leicestershire. The UNFTC is now authorized to arbitrate trade disputes involving price dumping. If the Mikitivitans were dumping their zeppelins in your market at unfair prices you could appeal to the UNFTC for a ruling. If that is the case, the UNFTC would likely rule in your favor. If, on the other hand, the Mikitivitan zeppelins are cheaper simply because the Mikitivitans can build and market them more efficiently, UNFTC would likely rule against you.

I know very little about zeppelin manufacturing, but if your domestic zeppelins are of a superior quality and have established brand loyalty in Snefaldia, isn't it likely that they would adapt to changes in the market and compete successfully against the imported zeppelins? I think that they can!

Now certainly, there is the possibility of job losses. I would be lying if I claimed otherwise. But I doubt your domestic zeppelin industry would collapse simply because it is forced to compete in a market where it once enjoyed a monopoly. If it does then it probably deserves to.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Ah! Thank you for your question, Comrade First Secretary Sondrásái.

I'm not sure if you've noticed it, but let me direct your attention to Article 7. The Article has been changed from earlier versions by New Leicestershire. The UNFTC is now authorized to arbitrate trade disputes involving price dumping. If the Mikitivitans were dumping their zeppelins in your market at unfair prices you could appeal to the UNFTC for a ruling. If that is the case, the UNFTC would likely rule in your favor. If, on the other hand, the Mikitivitan zeppelins are cheaper simply because the Mikitivitans can build and market them more efficiently, UNFTC would likely rule against you.

Thank you very much for your answer, Mr. Dzherzinsky. I wonder, though- could not the cultural exemptions of the legislation be abused by nations wishing to circumvent their anti-tariff laws? We could simply place a "cultural exemption" on all of our durable goods, however little we sell, and evade the legislation this way.

I know very little about zeppelin manufacturing, but if your domestic zeppelins are of a superior quality and have established brand loyalty in Snefaldia, isn't it likely that they would adapt to changes in the market and compete successfully against the imported zeppelins? I think that they can!

Now certainly, there is the possibility of job losses. I would be lying if I claimed otherwise. But I doubt your domestic zeppelin industry would collapse simply because it is forced to compete in a market where it once enjoyed a monopoly. If it does then it probably deserves to.

Business is a well-regulated thing in Snefaldia, some would say too much so, but I sometimes question the ability of businessess to adapt quickly to market changes where they once held the top position. Should we just allow hallmark companies like Lindai and Telepę to go under if they can't adapt?

I do not think the Snefaldian people care much for concepts. The average citizen is a hard-working farmer or labourer who depends on his job to support his family. Economic theory doesn't interest him. If Shuttarna Kabahk loses his job because a foreign import outsold the airships he works on, that's one Snefaldian citizen who won't be making money to help feed his family. How does free trade help him?

R. S.
etc.

The Sacred Kingdom of Karianis will not support this proposal for two reasons, both of them having to do with clause number three. First of all, tariffs are a favored method of our government gaining funds. To require us to eliminate tariffs on such a wide variety of goods, would be severely painful to us. And secondly, but even more importantly, we require every good, of every kind, to undergo examinations to ensure it won't disrupt the purity of our nation. Anything that does that meet our requirements, is not permitted in. This would require us to eliminate that requirement.

In the name of Her Divine Majesty, I will vote against.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United Nations

Thank you very much for your answer, Mr. Dzherzinsky. I wonder, though- could not the cultural exemptions of the legislation be abused by nations wishing to circumvent their anti-tariff laws? We could simply place a "cultural exemption" on all of our durable goods, however little we sell, and evade the legislation this way.
Well you could try. However, your success with those efforts would depend on rulings by the UNFTC. If your claims to exemption have merit they will be allowed to stand. If not, they will be overruled.

Business is a well-regulated thing in Snefaldia, some would say too much so, but I sometimes question the ability of businessess to adapt quickly to market changes where they once held the top position.
Why would you think that? Do you think that these business leaders, these entrepreneurs, are children? You should give them more credit than that. Have faith in your business community.

Should we just allow hallmark companies like Lindai and Telepę to go under if they can't adapt?
They didn't get to be hallmark companies by being simpletons. If they are as talented as you claim, and I have no reason to believe they are not, then they will adapt.

I do not think the Snefaldian people care much for concepts. The average citizen is a hard-working farmer or labourer who depends on his job to support his family. Economic theory doesn't interest him. If Shuttarna Kabahk loses his job because a foreign import outsold the airships he works on, that's one Snefaldian citizen who won't be making money to help feed his family. How does free trade help him?
In the short term, it doesn't. It puts him out of a job and forces him to find a new line of work. In the long term it benefits him greatly because your economy will diversify. He may find himself building advanced aircraft systems or selling real estate.

But let's pause for a moment. Why do you assume that your airship industry will fail? Isn't it possible that it will rather expand due to expanded opportunities to export your airships? It isn't a given that the Snefaldian airship sector will be buried in an avalanche of imports. Your airships can now be exported to foreign markets where the tariffs were formerly so high that your manufacturers couldn't compete there. This Act could open up exciting new opportunities for Lindai and Telepę to sell their products abroad. Instead of being out of a job, your Mister Kabahk may have more work than he can keep up with and your zeppelin manufacturers might have to go on a hiring spree. You should be more optimistic regarding your manufacturing base.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

The nation of Skyland Mt. has little industry, but we do not want what we have being overwelmed by that of larger, more powerful nations. We do not want our people out of work. That said, we do need to import many items, so we may support a similar proposal if amended to allow tarifs imposed to protect industries key to a nation's economy.

ON further consideration, our nation cannot support this proposal. While some nations support free trade, others find economic strength in self sufficency and protecting there own. we are hardly opposed to trade, but this resolution , or anything resembling it, is unacceptable.

The reaction of Kelssek's goddamned commies as well as the fact that we have a lot of angry thoughts about this is obvious. However, we would like to highlight what we feel is the most universally applicable concern for all nations.

This concern is with regards to wages, working conditions, and employment in the sectors that will be affected by this resolution, as well as potential spill-over effects in the global economy. Protectionism exists to protect many fluffy, happy things well worth protecting. Many nations, especially developed ones, have strong employment laws and regulations which ensure the well-being of the populace as a whole, given that working people are producing income and supporting other people either directly (their dependants) and indirectly (through taxes). These measures include minimum wages, health and safety rules so people don't routinely get maimed or killed in workplace accidents and don't produce products which are dangerous, or requiring the provision of health insurance, to name a few. All this adds to the cost of production and can render local products intrinsically more expensive than imports from nations which do not have these kinds of protections.

Essentially, the implications of this resolution would seem to lead to a "race to the bottom" in which nations and businesses compete in slashing costs. Inevitably, this will lead to loss of employment, lower wages for those who retain employment, and pressure on governments to slash protections. While supporters suggest that it would provide opportunities for economic diversification, this does not hold if labour and production costs in a nation were intrinsically higher due to cost of living or regulations. Regardless, it is our belief that generally, people would be worse off as a result. What good are cheaper things in the shops when they can't buy them because they've taken pay cuts or lost their jobs?

I'm sure we are all well aware of what some refer to as the "the high cost of low prices": Countless instances of products produced at low cost, but which contain dangerous chemicals because safer options are more expensive, by a workforce paid low wages and given few benefits, working in unsafe and unhealthy conditions, for long hours. I would contend that by and large, this is the future we are faced with. And while supporters might claim that clause 5 covers all these concerns, the problem is with the exclusion of protectionist motives. It is difficult to see exactly what clause 5 allows since pretty much any cultural, safety, environmental, or ethical regulation by definition is aimed at protecting culture/safety/environment/ethics.

Let me be clear that we don't see some apocalyptic flood of cheap lead-tainted products which explode when used, and everyone gets laid off and forced to take up low paying jobs for 12 hours a day chained to a sewing machine. That probably won't happen, but we are convinced that the impact of this resolution on member nations, societies, and peoples will be profoundly negative.

And of course there's already a UN resolution about workplace safety...

...which doesn't apply to non-UN nations who we also would have to drop all protections against.

I believe that nations have the right to choose what is coming in and out of their countries, not the U.N. I don't want all my countrys' businesses switching their manufacturing to China then shipping horrible products back into Nexexen.

Why would you think that? Do you think that these business leaders, these entrepreneurs, are children? You should give them more credit than that. Have faith in your business community.

Old men have a hard time admitting to themselves that the world is changing. How many Yeldan businessess have sunk because of an unwillingness to change?

They didn't get to be hallmark companies by being simpletons. If they are as talented as you claim, and I have no reason to believe they are not, then they will adapt.

The word "talented" is your own, our airship companies are simply favored and lucky. How many Yeldan industries are just "lucky" to make a profit or sell things?

In the short term, it doesn't. It puts him out of a job and forces him to find a new line of work. In the long term it benefits him greatly because your economy will diversify. He may find himself building advanced aircraft systems or selling real estate.

But how will the economy diversify? Lindai closes down and lays off thousands- our laws are very strict regarding foreign businesses. Are the Snefaldian people expected to clamor for work in the port cities, or move to another country to find jobs?

But let's pause for a moment. Why do you assume that your airship industry will fail? Isn't it possible that it will rather expand due to expanded opportunities to export your airships? It isn't a given that the Snefaldian airship sector will be buried in an avalanche of imports. Your airships can now be exported to foreign markets where the tariffs were formerly so high that your manufacturers couldn't compete there. This Act could open up exciting new opportunities for Lindai and Telepę to sell their products abroad. Instead of being out of a job, your Mister Kabahk may have more work than he can keep up with and your zeppelin manufacturers might have to go on a hiring spree. You should be more optimistic regarding your manufacturing base.

I am dealing in hypotheticals, Mr. Dzher... may I call you Mr. Felix? I am saying that if the native industry cannot compete with foreign products.

I do see the other side of the coin, however. I am not an economist myself, but a few of my superiors are, and the question we have to ask ourselves is "are the benefits greater than the losses." I believe the Kelssekian representative is also voicing some of the same concerns we have.

R.S.
etc.

...which doesn't apply to non-UN nations who we also would have to drop all protections against.

...which isn't really true because Clause 6 allows retaliatory tariffs against non-UN nations.

Against: Free Trade destroys more lives than it saves...

And while supporters might claim that clause 5 covers all these concerns, the problem is with the exclusion of protectionist motives. It is difficult to see exactly what clause 5 allows since pretty much any cultural, safety, environmental, or ethical regulation by definition is aimed at protecting culture/safety/environment/ethics.
I'm not going to address all of your "sky is falling" claims concerning wages, benefits and working conditions. They amount to sensationalism and are examples of hypothetical situations which may or may not happen. For every hypothetical example of lower wages, benefits, working conditions you provide I could give a counter example of hypothetical higher wages, benefits and working conditions which would result from this Act's passage. Certainly some of the things you mention will happen, but not most of them and not everywhere. The overall (and particularly the long term) effect of this legislation will be to improve wages, benefits and working conditions. If I did not believe so I would not have proposed it.

But let me address your reference to Article 5. You said protectionist motives, but the actual wording of that Article says protectionist manner. What that means is that if there is a legitimate "cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other" concern you can apply regulations under Article 5. If your claims are deemed legitimate by UNFTC then you may impose tariffs, grant subsidies, or even restrict trade altogether to address those concerns. But if you're just claiming those things to shore up a failing industry then the regulations will not be allowed. The UNFTC will decide these things on a case-by-case basis.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Old men have a hard time admitting to themselves that the world is changing.

The word "talented" is your own, our airship companies are simply favored and lucky.

But how will the economy diversify?

Why all of this pessimism? If you're not careful this doom and gloom will turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is about freedom.

FREEDOM!

The Snefaldian people are quite capable of competing in the global market. Have faith in their abilities and they will flourish.

I believe the Kelssekian representative is also voicing some of the same concerns we have.
Please tell me your next move isn't the hiring of Kelssekian economists.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Against: Free Trade destroys more lives than it saves...
Would you care to elaborate on that? Provide some examples?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

...which isn't really true because Clause 6 allows retaliatory tariffs against non-UN nations.But only for certain conditions.

This is about freedom.

FREEDOM!

No, dearest Felix, this isn't about freedom. It's about money. And history has shown time and again that money accrues to those who have it at the start and away from those who most need it. Free trade (and the global economy that pushes it) more often than not results in reduced economic health for all except the very few rapine capitalists poised to take advantage of others.

No, if this proposal was about freedom, it wouldn't remove the freedom of a nation to determine its own economic policies and apply the tools necessary based on its best interests on a case-by-case basis.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador and Regional Delegate

Inevitably, this will lead to loss of employment, lower wages for those who retain employment, and pressure on governments to slash protections.

Regardless, it is our belief that generally, people would be worse off as a result. What good are cheaper things in the shops when they can't buy them because they've taken pay cuts or lost their jobs?
Let me return to this for a moment. Why are you so pessimistic? The Kelssekian people are some of the most well-educated in the world. Why don't you have faith in them? Turn them loose and there is no limit to what they are capable of. Stop making them cower behind a wall of protectionism. Let the tigers run free!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Let me return to this for a moment. Why are you so pessimistic? The Kelssekian people are some of the most well-educated in the world. Why don't you have faith in them? Turn them loose and there is no limit to what they are capable of. Stop making them cower behind a wall of protectionism. Let the tigers run free!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

It's all very well saying there is no limit what they can do, I'm sure the Kelssekian people could utilize the free-trade rule and benefit greatly from it. I'm sure your nation could benefit and I'm sure mine could too.
But we need to be thinking about the people who won't benefit from it.
I'm not one who would support something restricting the freedom of actions, but I think there needs to be a certain degree of protectionism. Although it is restricting actions, it's restricting potentially harmful ones. Think of an LEDC who totally relies on foreign export. Then think of a fat cat coming along, and making sure it's only they who benefit from the deal. Free trade would allow this to happen: for the fat cats to take advantage of those who can't do any better.
Restricted trade protects all of us, but especially the countries who need it most. Free trade might benefit all of us, but mostly the countries who need it least.

My constitution does not include an explicit delegation of my people's authority to any UN Commission, therefore for my government to acquiesce to the UN's assertion of such authority would be considered treason.

Therefore I will lead my region out of the UN if this resolution passes. My government has plenary responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of my people, as described in our laws.

It's unfortunate, since my people would prefer to participate in the international community. We intend to continue to do so on a unilateral basis wherever possible. The question we're asking is what compels the UN to drive trillions of people OUT of the most important multilateral organization?

Juan

If this resolution passes, das Gemeinwesen will be forced to leave the UN. We very strongly oppose free trade, not only for protection of our own businesses, but for protection of our nation as a whole. Free trade leads to opening trade with countries who do not have the workers' best interests at heart, which leads to lower wages. Das Gemeinwesen will not sacrifice it's workers' wages and protections for cheaper products. However, if neighboring nations do so, this will lead to an influx of illegal immigrants, and businesses using immigrant labor to keep costs at a minimum.

In the interest of protecting our nation's people, we will not be supporting this resolution.

therefore for my government to acquiesce to the UN's assertion of such authority would be considered treason.

... or UN membership, since that's pretty much what you signed up for when you applied

Therefore I will lead my region out of the UN if this resolution passes.

Sweet! We've got dibs on their offices!

Sweet! We've got dibs on their offices!

I'll be sure to leave a big turd on the floor for you when I leave.

I'll be sure to leave a big turd on the floor for you when I leave.

Sweet, then you'll be a non nation and I can charge you a tariff on it.

Nigel sat gazing at the resolution on his desk, he had read it four times. He knew what it said, he had no idea further than that.

Brenda entered the room and looked at Nigel. "You OK?"

"Notsomuch", he replied. "Free Trade resolution."

"Don't really understand it?" She said, suppressing a smile.

"No I do, I just don't know what side to come down on."

"Well you could ask the President." Brenda said. Now trying to sound too condescending to her boss.

"The president is an economist." Nigel sighed.

"He won't want to talk about free trade?"

"No, He'll want to talk for hours about free trade, he'll suck down days of my life speaking about free trade, he will talk about nothing but free trade everywhere he goes, people at the presidential compound will hate me, they will burn me in effigy, they may actually even burn me in reality, for making them listen to the President talk about free trade." Nigel laid his head down on his desk.

"So what are you going to do?"

"The only thing I can do" he reached over and pressed a button on the phone. "Bonnie... get me the President" he said, never looking up.

Being in favor of free trade, the Altanari delegation would like to express its support for this resolution.

Unfortunately, however, we cannot vote for it, as Altanar has withdrawn its delegation from the United Nations due to political issues back home. However, we certainly hope our colleagues will see fit to support this legislation.

And before anyone asks, no, we haven't vacated our office. We fully intend to return once the political dust at home settles a bit.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Although the Holy Republic strongly supports free trade, we find that this resolution is lacking a few key components, which definatly make our support impossible:

- The resolution at vote does not state how trade barriers should be lowered or abolished. reciprocity and 'most favoured nation' principles are key in this process.

-Furthermore, it does nothing to protect the rights of developing countries, which simply have less bargaining power in the international relations arena. Also, the economies of developing countries tend to be fragile and the full effect of the volatile world economy may be harmful to them.

- Also, this resolution does not consider regional internal markets, customs unions, or other regional free trade agreements. Although regional trade agreements are in fact a threat to world-wide trade liberation, all nations have arranged themselves in regional organisation with their own regional activities. Stimulating free trade at the regional level will in practise be a more tangible form of free trade.

It is not within UN RESPONSABILITIES to regulate trade. There is no basis for that mainly because various governments may have various approaches to trade in general. (regulated vs free for example).

AGAINST

Dr. Hodz looked at the copy of the resolution he possessed.

"Er, yeah... I'll get around to making up my mind on this as soon as we get things squared away in the office... We've been away for some time and I need to rid the bats out and replace the windows."

But only for certain conditions.
I'm afraid you're mistaken about that. The Article in question mentions price dumping but there really is nothing to prevent you from employing tariffs against non-members for whatever reason. Prevention of price dumping was mentioned because that would be the reason for wanting to employ tariffs in the vast majority of cases.

No, dearest Felix, this isn't about freedom. It's about money. And history has shown time and again that money accrues to those who have it at the start and away from those who most need it.
Do you honestly believe that? That the upper middle-class has a tendency over time to become middle-class, that the middle-class has a tendency to become lower-class and that the lower-class has a tendency to become destitute? I think history shows just the opposite, a trend of upward mobility. If everyone became increasingly impoverished over time until all wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, what you would end up with is feudalism. The free market system would collapse because there would be nobody left to buy anything.

Free trade (and the global economy that pushes it) more often than not results in reduced economic health for all except the very few rapine capitalists poised to take advantage of others.
Then why do nations that practice free trade always see an increase in their standard of living? Why do nations that practice free trade always see an increase in employment? Why do nations that practice free trade always see a rapid increase in overall economic growth? Why do nations that experience rapid growth always see a reduction in poverty?

No, if this proposal was about freedom, it wouldn't remove the freedom of a nation to determine its own economic policies and apply the tools necessary based on its best interests on a case-by-case basis.
Ah, a NatSov argument. Why are you more concerned with empowering your government than you are with empowering your citizens? The Rubinan people are the engine of your economy, not the government. They are hard-working, intelligent and industrious. Empower them and you will see a whirlwind of economic growth.

Ambassador Talone, I know that you are not a pessimistic person. I know that you, and your government, have the same confidence in your people that I do. Help us to remove these barriers and allow your people to excel. Unleash them and let them realize their full potential!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Do you honestly believe that? That the upper middle-class has a tendency over time to become middle-class, that the middle-class has a tendency to become lower-class and that the lower-class has a tendency to become destitute? I think history shows just the opposite, a trend of upward mobility. If everyone became increasingly impoverished over time until all wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, what you would end up with is feudalism. The free market system would collapse because there would be nobody left to buy anything.

Certainly you do not deny that in some cases, that is exactly what happens? Of course people can advance, but for most it is simply status quo. I don't want to equate "Free Market" with "Free Trade" just because they share the same adjective. A tariff isn't the product of a command economy- it's a way of protecting the livelihoods of the people from undue foreign influence.

Then why do nations that practice free trade always see an increase in their standard of living? Why do nations that practice free trade always see an increase in employment? Why do nations that practice free trade always see a rapid increase in overall economic growth? Why do nations that experience rapid growth always see a reduction in poverty?

I do not accept that free-trade nations always see an increase in the standard of living. Absolutes aren't acceptable. Certainly some nations see increases- those nations that have industries capable of sustaining high export balances do well, and those whose durable goods industries are weaker are more likely to suffer.

Ah, a NatSov argument. Why are you more concerned with empowering your government than you are with empowering your citizens? The Rubinan people are the engine of your economy, not the government. They are hard-working, intelligent and industrious. Empower them and you will see a whirlwind of economic growth.

The government is the people. At least, in Snefaldia one has to be a citizen before getting a government job. I'd wager it's the same in Yelda and Rubina. Even government employees need to buy things. Our highest Arsaþæs still have need of money- they are just as driven by the market as anyone else.

R.S.
etc.

OOC: I took a course last year and we watched a documentary which highlighted the economic problems in Jamaica, largely the result of free-trade neoliberal policies. The Jamaican economy was wracked because cheap imports flooded their markets and they weren't allowed by the World Bank or IMF to set tariffs to protect jobs if they wanted stabilisation loans. Jamaica just couldn't compete with the US, even in terms of milk production! Fresh milk was disposed of because it was cheaper to buy US powdered milk- a tariff on imported milk would help the domestic producers and stabilize the tax base.

District 69 vehemently votes against this proposal and suggests that everyone should as well.:sniper:

The Brunswick Islands has historically considered such measures as a threat to national sovereignty, security, and econominc stability. However, The Islands do support fair trade among nations as a means of growing the continually expanding global economy. The Islands also have taken an historically anti-isolationist stance with regard to trade policy.

Therefore, the Federation of Brunswick Islands feels it can support this resolution based upon the inclusion of Articles 4, 5, and 6 which we feel is the best formula for promoting international trade and at the same time protecting the sovereignty, security, and economic rights of each member nation.

The Brunswick Islands votes FOR the Free Trade of Durable Goods Resolution currently before the General Assembly.

The Republic of Delehan strongly supports this resolution and will back it accordingly.

Kenneth Riala
Ambassador
Republic of Delehan

From the Desk of President Johnson -
and the Malacype Congress

The nation of Malacype hereby votes AGAINST this proposal. Upon looking at past UN resolutions, the leadership of Malacype believes that the section of the new bill that definied limits on tariffs,
3. REQUIRES the elimination of protectionist devices restricting the trade of durable goods, including but not limited to tariffs, duties, subsidies, subventions and quotas, within eleven years;
was found to be in conflict with UN Resolution 128, Representation in Taxation, which states
In the interest of fair representation and greater democratic freedoms, that taxation of national, domestic activities and products is best dealt with, at highest, by national government:
the determination of rate, general type (progressive, flat, etc.) and specific application of such taxes (who/what is and is not taxed);
Malacype also believes that free-trade would crush the struggling economies of many nations by allowing cheaper products to flood the market, causing a closing of many small-business's which would not be able to keep up with the major manufacturers based in other countries. These small-business's would then be forced to close down or announce bankrupcy. Free Trade is a boom to larger nations, but those less industrialized will suffer the wrath of the cheapest items first, even in some cases of quality of the supplies. Even in the case of free trade,

Ambassador Torene Jones,
Chairman, Economy Commission for the League of Socialist States

*looks carefully for any fatal clauses.

While I dislike some of the language here, there are no fatal clauses in the commanding portion of the law. The arbitration here is even phrased such so as not to redefine arbitration by forcing it on people. A milder law than optimum, but phrased on a topic in such a matter so as not to bar optimum performance in the future, and certainly an improvement in the present, with no parties receiving the initiation of force.

For.

--Ambassador Willers.

The Democratic States of Stopmenow100, stands in firm opposition to this proposal. It seems that no strong reason has been provided as to why this Resolution wouldn't allow some nations to flood other nations with cheap goods. The proposal seems like it may allow bigger, more prosperous nations to crush smaller nations.

We are opposed to the level of ambiguity. The attempted solution to this seems to be to give this United Nations Free Trade Commission a wide jurisdiction in dealing with Free Trade disputes, which troubles us. Exactly who would sit on this Commission and how would they be picked?

Concerns for poorer countries aside, which are certainly present, things are going fairly well economically right now in stopmenow100, and it would seem silly to endanger this now with a resolution that may or may not help us. Please note these concerns are less pessimistic and pragmatic.

Stopmenow100 Diplomatic Offices

Why must all this debate? After all, I mean, can't we have Trade that both Free and Fair?

Don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

Anyway, we support this resolution regardless, because, as Karl Marx II once said "A rising tide rises all boats". Our question, therefore, is about implemnation of the accord, due to the rise of the Book Publishing Lobby (our gambling indursty swiftly collasped when we adopted Rubina's proposal to legalize gambling).

Part One: Now, our Book Publishers are writing cool books that they are sending to the rest of the world. But, say, one country, let call it, um, Religious Utopiastan, who belongs in the NSUN, gets angry at our country's policy of legalizing abortion. Calling it infanticde, and therefore a breach of ethics, they declare an embargo and refuse to let our books be sold in their markets.

Our police however informs us that they are really just wanting to go and protect their own book publishing industries.

So, what are we supposed to do? Is the "United Nations Free Trade Commission" allowed to overrule embargos on all UN nations, stating that embargos must only be done for "cultural, safety, environmental, [and] ethical" reasons and not for protecting one's industry? That would be the the best-case, but I am afraid of the loopholes associated with it, as some evil dictator could argue that my embargos are protectionist too, even though they are not.

Part Two: Suppose the UNFTC deadlocks on the issue, or is it rules against me by a very small margin. Would it be possible to rechallenge the issue and bring it back to UNFTC's attention, provided I wait a couple of years, gather more evidence, and exhaust every last bit of diplomacy to try and re-free the markets?

Part Three: We provide 'corporate welfare' to our small companies, to ensure that if they get in hard times, they will be able to get back up and running. Since we provide welfare for unemployed people, we should provide welfare to corporations.

Therefore, we would like for you to clarify what you mean by 'subsidy'? How exactly does a 'subsidy' act as 'protectionalism' restricting free trade? Would you claim that 'corporate welfare' is a form of subsidy, and that therefore, I have to get rid of it within 11 years? That would be very, very hard to do. Think of the corporations.

Part Four: Honestly, could some idiot decide to keep tariffs up for 10 years after the passing of this proposal (making excuses that the tariffs are hard to do and that it takes time for the tarrif reduction to be approved and that the UNFTC are biased capitalists and that there's a war every second, yadda, yadda yadda), then begin liberalizing trade during the 11the year, or just resign from the NSUN? Or would the UNFTC be able to intervene and stop such nations using this as a loophole?
---Dr. Bob

...think of a fat cat coming along, and making sure it's only they who benefit from the deal. Free trade would allow this to happen: for the fat cats to take advantage of those who can't do any better...

...free trade leads to opening trade with countries who do not have the workers' best interests at heart, which leads to lower wages. Das Gemeinwesen will not sacrifice it's workers' wages and protections for cheaper products. However, if neighboring nations do so, this will lead to an influx of illegal immigrants...

...also, the economies of developing countries tend to be fragile and the full effect of the volatile world economy may be harmful to them...

...of course people can advance, but for most it is simply status quo...

...those whose durable goods industries are weaker are more likely to suffer...

...economic problems in Jamaica...Jamaican economy was wracked...cheap imports flooded their markets...Jamaica just couldn't compete...
My God! This is taking on the atmosphere of a Requiem Mass. How did you nattering nabobs of negativism ever get yourselves appointed to high government positions? You should have been funeral directors.

Look, the arguments against free trade are made by people whose only interest is usually in perpetuating managed trade.

Two of the vilest effects of tariffs are to reduce the total amounts of the product sold, and to reduce money earned by the people making the product in both nations. The primary beneficiary of tariffs is the government, while export producers and consumers are punished.

We should have faith in the abilities of our workers, our business leaders, our industries. You are broadcasting a message of despair saying "don't even try, they're better than you". I'm standing up here with a message of hope saying "you can compete, you can excel"!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security


OOC: @ Snef, I know that bit about Jamaica was OOC but I let Felix address it because it sort of fit into his rant. Apologies.

YEEHAW!! A full-fledged free-trade agreement! By God, it's been awhile!

The Federal Republic enthusiastically supports this most worthy legislation, in the hopes it may give impoverished peoples across the globe a little taste of freedom. What's the matter with you protectionists? Don't you like freedom? Why does the banner of "sovereigntism," so detestable to you the rest of the time, suddenly seem so appealing when the issue is reversing your arcane and discriminatory economic laws? Economic freedoms are important and essential too, and we will not sit idly by while respected members of this body seek to stifle them. Individual rights mean nothing when the individual is poor and starving and suffering under a stagnant economy because the government insists upon shielding domestic industries from foreign competition. We heartily agree with our comrade Iron Felix. Remove these unfair barriers to human potential. Free the market, and thus free your people.

Vote YES on Free Trade in Durable Goods.

Jimmy Baca
Adviser to the Mission

We should have faith in the abilities of our workers, our business leaders, our industries. You are broadcasting a message of despair saying "don't even try, they're better than you". I'm standing up here with a message of hope saying "you can compete, you can excel"!

Not true. The message that most opponents of you proposal seem to be sending is that they, (or we, as Stopmenow100 is on their side), want the right to protect their citizens from the possible downsides to this proposal.

I cannot understand the willingness of so many nations to blithly through away their freedom in such a crucial matter of economic policy. Why not simply leave this choice up to individual nations? Think about who stands to gain here. Is it the smaller nations? No, it is the economic powerhouses, whose industries will inevitably swamp those of smaller nations. This is global hegemony by the economic powers, nothing more. I urge every nation to vote against this resolution; a vote against is a vote for your freedom, while a vote in favor is an abandonment of your people's, and your own, interests. If this proposal passes, we will seriously consider resigning from the UN, and we know for a fact that we wouldn't be the only ones.

Part One: Now, our Book Publishers are writing cool books that they are sending to the rest of the world. But, say, one country, let call it, um, Religious Utopiastan, who belongs in the NSUN, gets angry at our country's policy of legalizing abortion. Calling it infanticde, and therefore a breach of ethics, they declare an embargo and refuse to let our books be sold in their markets.

Our police however informs us that they are really just wanting to go and protect their own book publishing industries.

So, what are we supposed to do? Is the "United Nations Free Trade Commission" allowed to overrule embargos on all UN nations, stating that embargos must only be done for "cultural, safety, environmental, [and] ethical" reasons and not for protecting one's industry? That would be the the best-case, but I am afraid of the loopholes associated with it, as some evil dictator could argue that my embargos are protectionist too, even though they are not.
Embargoes are political, not economic, policies and this Resolution does not address them. So no, the UNFTC would have no power to overturn an embargo.

Part Two: Suppose the UNFTC deadlocks on the issue, or is it rules against me by a very small margin. Would it be possible to rechallenge the issue and bring it back to UNFTC's attention, provided I wait a couple of years, gather more evidence, and exhaust every last bit of diplomacy to try and re-free the markets?
OOC: Hmmm. You know, the UNFTC's operations have never been lain out in great detail. All we can say about it is that it has been given specific duties by past Resolutions and it is staffed by Gnomes and operates like any other UN Committee. There is nothing anywhere saying that you can't bring an issue back before it a second (or third, or fourth, or...) time. I'd say that if you want to RP doing that then go for it.

Part Three: We provide 'corporate welfare' to our small companies, to ensure that if they get in hard times, they will be able to get back up and running. Since we provide welfare for unemployed people, we should provide welfare to corporations.

Therefore, we would like for you to clarify what you mean by 'subsidy'? How exactly does a 'subsidy' act as 'protectionalism' restricting free trade? Would you claim that 'corporate welfare' is a form of subsidy, and that therefore, I have to get rid of it within 11 years? That would be very, very hard to do. Think of the corporations.
Subsidies are stupid policy and I can't see why you want to use them anyway. You could always apply to UNFTC for an exemption under Articles 4 or 5 and see what happens. Good luck.

Part Four: Honestly, could some idiot decide to keep tariffs up for 10 years after the passing of this proposal (making excuses that the tariffs are hard to do and that it takes time for the tarrif reduction to be approved and that the UNFTC are biased capitalists and that there's a war every second, yadda, yadda yadda), then begin liberalizing trade during the 11the year, or just resign from the NSUN? Or would the UNFTC be able to intervene and stop such nations using this as a loophole?
Nations can resign from the UN any time they like and the UNFTC can do nothing about that. So yes, for the first 11 years that loophole would exist. The only way to close it would have been to require elimination of protectionist devices immediately.

I can see where you're going with this: nations simply resign from the UN every ten years and then rejoin and get a "fresh" 11 period to eliminate protectionist devices. Keep in mind that the UNFTC has the authority to "arbitrate any trade disputes which may arise concerning the implementation of this legislation. Such arbitration may include, but is not limited to, cases involving alleged price dumping by UN members upon UN members, alleged violations of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of this legislation, and disputes over the interpretation of the terms and conditions of this legislation."

I'm 99.9% certain they will rule that nations get exactly one eleven year period in which to eliminate protectionist devices.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Embargoes are political, not economic, policies and this Resolution does not address them. So no, the UNFTC would have no power to overturn an embargo.

Shame, but alright.

OOC: Hmmm. You know, the UNFTC's operations have never been lain out in great detail. All we can say about it is that it has been given specific duties by past Resolutions and it is staffed by Gnomes and operates like any other UN Committee. There is nothing anywhere saying that you can't bring an issue back before it a second (or third, or fourth, or...) time. I'd say that if you want to RP doing that then go for it.

OOC: :D

Subsidies are stupid policy and I can't see why you want to use them anyway. You could always apply to UNFTC for an exemption under Articles 4 or 5 and see what happens. Good luck.

Okay, we'll check with the UNFTC, to make sure, and clarify. Maybe some 'corporate welfare' programs might be dismantled, but not all, of course. Maybe we should switch just giving out food stamps like we did before...

I'm 99.9% certain they will rule that nations get exactly one eleven year period in which to eliminate protectionist devices.

Can't be too sure though. The gnomes are perfect, but we can't predict what their perfectness would be. That being said, if the gnomes actually approve such a loophole, I'd think there would be an uproar with the human UN delegacies, so I doubt such a situation would happen.

We'll only learn for certain, in 2019, when the 'first wave' of UN nations are scheduled to have no protectionist devicies whatsoever.
***
Anyway, thanks for the clarifications. We're postive-thinking, so FOR.

---Dr. Bob.

I'm afraid you're mistaken about that. The Article in question mentions price dumping but there really is nothing to prevent you from employing tariffs against non-members for whatever reason. Prevention of price dumping was mentioned because that would be the reason for wanting to employ tariffs in the vast majority of cases.In this matter you are in error. The language of the clause in question is very precise. It lists price dumping and only price dumping as a reason for utilizing protective tools. It contains no inclusive language such as, "such as" "to include but not limited to". In addition, in your fervor for free trade you have forgotten the direction of a resolution's mandate. It is true the UN can not constrain the actions of non-members. It is not true that UN resolutions do not constrain member's actions toward non-members. The language of this proposal is crystal clear, member states are limited in the economic protections they can employ against non-members to tariffs in the event of price-dumping.
Do you honestly believe that? That the upper middle-class has a tendency over time to become middle-class, that the middle-class has a tendency to become lower-class and that the lower-class has a tendency to become destitute? I think history shows just the opposite, a trend of upward mobility. If everyone became increasingly impoverished over time until all wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few, what you would end up with is feudalism. The free market system would collapse because there would be nobody left to buy anything.Your rose-tinted glasses may be hindering your clear sight. What is observed is that wealth is concentrated by the wealthiest, the lower economic class remains stratified and the middle class tends to disappear as their earning power is stripped by loss of jobs and decreased buying power (especially housing). What is observed is an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots, whether one looks at individuals with nations slavishly adhering to the free trade/free market mantra or whether one contrasts nations locked into the same. Over a sufficiently long period of time with uninterrupted free market/free trade, one would indeed see a return to an "industrial" feudalism. This is why your resolution is so dangerous.
Then why do nations that practice free trade always see an increase in their standard of living? Why do nations that practice free trade always see an increase in employment? Why do nations that practice free trade always see a rapid increase in overall economic growth? Why do nations that experience rapid growth always see a reduction in poverty?As the good Snefaldians have asked, "Always"?! In truth, there are no pure free trade/free market economies and that alone is responsible for many of the positives you attribute to free trade. In fact, as you have admitted here, introduction of free trade frequently results in exactly the opposite of the rosy picture you paint. And the turn-around in the distant future? Mere speculation. Smaller, less economically powerful nations in fact, frequently find themselves at a trade disadvantage. It is only when fair trade provisions are instituted that all nations benefit.
My God! This is taking on the atmosphere of a Requiem Mass. How did you nattering nabobs of negativism ever get yourselves appointed to high government positions? You should have been funeral directors.Ah, you subscribe to the 'shoot the messenger' philosophy. If the outcome of an action will be negative, truth-tellers must need be as well.
Look, the arguments against free trade are made by people whose only interest is usually in perpetuating managed trade.This is a circular argument, Delegate Dzerzhinsky. Arguments for free trade are made by people whose interest is perpetuating free trade. Neither statement really says anything.
Two of the vilest effects of tariffs are to reduce the total amounts of the product sold, and to reduce money earned by the people making the product in both nations. The primary beneficiary of tariffs is the government, while export producers and consumers are punished.And the results of unfettered free trade are equally vile. We do not oppose this proposal because we are against free trade, we oppose it because it leaves nations no flexibility in crafting economic policy.
Ah, a NatSov argument. Why are you more concerned with empowering your government than you are with empowering your citizens? The Rubinan people are the engine of your economy, not the government. They are hard-working, intelligent and industrious. Empower them and you will see a whirlwind of economic growth.

Ambassador Talone, I know that you are not a pessimistic person. I know that you, and your government, have the same confidence in your people that I do. Help us to remove these barriers and allow your people to excel. Unleash them and let them realize their full potential!A NatSov argument only in that we are fully cognizant that although our people are the engine of our economy, that powerful vehicle requires a driver to ensure it does not run off into a ditch. Why would we wish to blind-fold our driver or place cheap, sub-grade oil into the engine?

We are happy that you bring up the potential of our people, for it provides us the opportunity to share what we have learned over the millennia. Working one's fingers to the bone in the name of profit leaves one with bony fingers and not much else. Rubinans are quite fulfilled, thank you very much, without the corporatization that laws such as this would inevitably engender.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador and Regional Delegate

In this matter you are in error. The language of the clause in question is very precise. It lists price dumping and only price dumping as a reason for utilizing protective tools. It contains no inclusive language such as, "such as" "to include but not limited to". In addition, in your fervor for free trade you have forgotten the direction of a resolution's mandate. It is true the UN can not constrain the actions of non-members. It is not true that UN resolutions do not constrain member's actions toward non-members. The language of this proposal is crystal clear, member states are limited in the economic protections they can employ against non-members to tariffs in the event of price-dumping.

OOC: On this point I must, regrefully, although agreeing with the proposal in general (and having cast my current UN puppet's vote in favour of its passage), agree with Rubina. That clause does look very specific in what it allows.
You know, in a way, it's a shame that that clause was actually included in the proposal: If it weren't for the presence of that clause, the wording of Clause #1 would seem to make the entire proposal applicable only to trade between UN member-nations -- and not to their trade with non-members, too -- which would solve this part of the argument...

H'mm, would placing an embargo on imports from any non-UN nation that didn't comply voluntarily with these terms be legal, or would that count as protectionism too?

...which isn't really true because Clause 6 allows retaliatory tariffs against non-UN nations.

That's only if price-dumping is involved. You can't do that if your economy has structurally higher costs.

The Kelssekian people are some of the most well-educated in the world.

Well, uhm, that's kind of why we're against this resolution. And you may also wish to consider how they got that way. The money to build a world-class public education system wherein anyone willing and able enough will be educated to the level of a bachelor's degree for free has to come from somewhere. Steep taxes which also go into free healthcare, free childcare, guarenteed pensions, nice airports, etc. are the trade-off.

Oh yes, trade-offs. You seem to believe that free trade is essentially all gain for no loss; that there aren't trade-offs to be made, but it is manifestly evident that there are, pretty major and serious ones, that deserve more consideration before they are enforced upon billions of people.

Subsidies are stupid policy and I can't see why you want to use them anyway.

To the contrary, standard economics dictates that governments should subsidise goods which produce positive externalities in order to maximise social efficiency. It's common to see the highly contentious subsidies to specific industries and overlook the invisible, accepted, everyday subsidies in the roads and public transit, police forces, postal services, which all provide benefits to the economy which would not be realised if all were left to market forces.

Why are you more concerned with empowering your government than you are with empowering your citizens?

In full knowledge that not all countries share this characteristic, in the context that you have directed that comment at a delegate representing a nation with a high level of political freedom, dividing government from and setting it against the citizens who grant it power is fallacious.

This brings us to the point raised that this resolution provides "more freedom". It's always important to ask the questions: for whom, and to do what? The average citizen is unlikely to gain much in the way of personal liberties from this resolution. The people for whom this is really liberating are those already in an economically powerful position who are in a position to take advantage of it, and they are the exception rather than the norm. On the other hand, the many who will experience the undesirable consequences of this resolution will experience less freedom in the form of less income, and hence less ability to do or get what they want. The truth is that freedom is not really about what you're legally allowed to do, but what you actually can do, a concept I'm sure both Mafia bosses and penniless vagrants can identify with readily. And from this perspective it's difficult to see how this resolution promotes freedom.

By the way, you've said that those aruging against are dark pessimists. I don't think that's the case. One theme I've seen repeated is the rather idealist and optimistic idea of "fairness". Furthermore, I would submit that perhaps it only appears pessimistic against the backdrop of a free-trade fervour that forgets too easily that in the real world, the things that have been ignored under the convenient assumption of "ceteris paribus" are in play.

Fellow members, for all thet the Kingdom of Wilfredshire supports the concept and aim of Free Trade, we have our concerns about certain aspects of this motion. In particular we oppose the right of nations to apply "reasonable restrictions" in the cases stated in part 4; the right of nations to impose cultural, environmental and ethical regulations in a non-protectionist manner as provided for in part 5; and the right to "employ retaliatory tariffs" provided for in part 6.

Any restriction on free trade, no matter how well intentioned, encourages tariff-avoidance, the black-market and smuggling; which are feeding grounds for organised crime. It is the avowed intent of the Kingdom of Wilfredshire to fight organised crime, by reducing the number of areas where they can undercut free enterprise. In short, to reduce the amount of crime, we must reduce the amounts of crime.

This measure does not go far enough, and on behalf of his majesty Wilfred I, we must oppose it.

Count Richard of Richard,
Delegate of the Day,
Kingdom of Wilfredshire

wth this thing can't pass. We here strongly oppose it being passed.

We would like to add our voice to the erudite arguments raised by the delegations of Rubina and Kelssek, whose skill in economic matters is greater than our own.

We are, as a nation, broadly in favour of fair trade, and for that reason alone we must vote against this proposal. To answer the rhetorical question that Dr Bob asked some while ago, it should be blindingly obvious why free trade and fair trade are mutually exclusive concepts. As this proposal demonstrates, free trade is about the remove of protectionist barriers between trade. Fair trade, on the other hand, is all about protection -- specifically the protection of others less fortunate than oneself. It is not our economy that we fear for in the passage of this resolution, though the loss of control of our economic policy is irksome in the extreme. Rather, it is the developing nations that we will no longer be able to support once this passes, whose economies and manufacturing sectors are still developing, and who will thus be condemned by this resolution to remain 'developing' even should they choose not to ham-string themselves by joining this allegedly inclusive organisation.

We ask that nations here pause for a moment and consult their consciences rather than their wallets, and vote down this legislation.

I rise, after an invigorating discussion with our president, to voice our approval on this matter.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador.

In this matter you are in error. The language of the clause in question is very precise. It lists price dumping and only price dumping as a reason for utilizing protective tools.

OOC: On this point I must, regrefully, although agreeing with the proposal in general (and having cast my current UN puppet's vote in favour of its passage), agree with Rubina. That clause does look very specific in what it allows.

That's only if price-dumping is involved.
This is a tempest in a teapot and I can't see why you're trying to stir it up. The Article in question is copy and pasted from GFDA. Both GFDA, NERA and God knows what else contains that exact same language. Of course it only mentions price dumping as an example! That would be the most common reason for wanting to employ retaliatory tariffs. I'm sure that if you had some other obscure reason to use tariffs against non-members you could apply to UNFTC for an exemption and it would be granted.

I will be busy this morning and afternoon and will be away. I will address the rest of your comments when I return.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

... I can't see why you're trying to stir it up. The Article in question is copy and pasted from GFDA. Both GFDA, NERA and God knows what else contains that exact same language.The issue is raised for two reasons. One, it is of concern to those nations surrounded by non-members with whom we must contend economically, and two, supporters of this resolution have asserted that UN members are not constrained in their dealings with non-members. The second point, per the language in the resolution is false. That that language appears in whole or in part in other resolutions, may if anything, point out failings of those other resolutions.

Of course it only mentions price dumping as an example!Do take a fresh look at your own proposal. Grammatically, examples are introduced with such words as, oh I don't know, "for example" for example.

...you could apply to UNFTC for an exemption and it would be granted.Why in the world should a nation have to beg another body for permission to protect its economic interests? As to whether it would be granted or not, do you have a personal line on the gnomes sitting the UNFTC?

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador and Regional Delegate

Except you don't have to beg. Under articles 4 and 5, you may impose certain reasonable restrictions on the trade of durable goods, without consulting the UNFTC; it's just that the commission may overrule you if it decides your restrictions are unfair or unreasonable. So our advice to you would be not to piss off your trading partners unnecessarily. If you do they could drag your sorry asses before the UNFTC.

Jimmy Baca
Adviser to the Mission

The problem with free trade is that it is never free trade. I mean just look in the real world. Nations always break the rules and tax things anyway. Besides, free trade can cause inflation and a steep drop in goods prices, so companies will pay less and the government will get less income tax and become inflated. Paranucci votes against,

Karshkovia rejects this proposal. Tariffs and economic sanctions are tools to be used sparingly but to be used to protect internal businesses. Unfortunately, this proposal would, if ratified, be a detriment on our nation so we would then withdraw from the UN to protect our businesses.

We must also state that any future dealings with Iron Felix will be unfavorable to their nation. They will be black listed from any future store we may create and all products from that nation are now under an economic embargo.

The Sacred Kingdom of Karianis will not support this proposal for two reasons, both of them having to do with clause number three. First of all, tariffs are a favored method of our government gaining funds. To require us to eliminate tariffs on such a wide variety of goods, would be severely painful to us. And secondly, but even more importantly, we require every good, of every kind, to undergo examinations to ensure it won't disrupt the purity of our nation. Anything that does that meet our requirements, is not permitted in. This would require us to eliminate that requirement.

In the name of Her Divine Majesty, I will vote against.

Serifina Karin
Ambassador to the United NationsFor your second complaint under section five you can inspect for the safety of the goods being imported to your country. Also the Republic of The State of New York is in favor of the resolution.

OOC: If you have attended college or any economy classes beyond high school, you'd know that this is a fantasy idea which when put to real-world practice destroys economies, jobs, and lives. Saying a factory worker can go into real-estate sales if he loses his job? What fantasy world do you live in because you can't be living on your own away from your folks if you think that it's the norm for someone to be able to 'magically' gain a skill set to allow them to move from a blue collar to a white collar job so easily.

(OOC: Max Barry however doesn't agree with you. He states, "Free Trade resolution passes, everyone's economy goes up." That's all Free Trade does, and that is how it works Gameplay-wise. NS isn't that, uh, complex, to actually deal with any consquence of Free Trade, so Max Barry states, "No consquences to Free Trade at all! Yes!".

Of course, you are free to RP however you want. But Max Barry supports free trade. He also support Protective Tariffs too, in that Protective Tariffs also increases the economy of a nation...so, it really doesn't matter.)

While the Democratic Republic of Walden and Utopia is for free trade, we cannot be for this measure.

Under this measure countries whose major export is primary or tertiary goods would be forced to lower their trade barriers to durable goods, but not receive the benefits on the other end.

Tarriff free trade only for makers of finished consumer products is not what David Riccardo and Adam Smith had in mind.

Under such a measure, suppliers of primary goods would not be able reserve significant capital to move up the goods sector chain. Basically, they would continue to get little money for agricultural and mining products, while being unable to by locally. Additionally, post-industrial countries will be hurt by this measure as the uneducated members of their nations will lose manufacturing jobs as their local industry will not be competitive anymore.

Free trade must be comprehensive, including all three major sectors of production, otherwise it creates an unfair advantage and further impoverishes the already poor!

Thus, Walden and Utopia and the Region of Nudist Dreamland must reject this measure and urge a new comprehensive measure!

Tlaxcalican Sorenson,
UN Ambassador for Walden and Utopia, Delegare for Nudist Dreamland

Karshkovia rejects this proposal. Tariffs and economic sanctions are tools to be used sparingly but to be used to protect internal businesses. Unfortunately, this proposal would, if ratified, be a detriment on our nation so we would then withdraw from the UN to protect our businesses.

We must also state that any future dealings with Iron Felix will be unfavorable to their nation. They will be black listed from any future store we may create and all products from that nation are now under an economic embargo.

OOC: If you have attended college or any economy classes beyond high school, you'd know that this is a fantasy idea which when put to real-world practice destroys economies, jobs, and lives. Saying a factory worker can go into real-estate sales if he loses his job? What fantasy world do you live in because you can't be living on your own away from your folks if you think that it's the norm for someone to be able to 'magically' gain a skill set to allow them to move from a blue collar to a white collar job so easily.

OOC: This is not the place for personal attacks. I'm opposing the resolution, but that doesn't mean I have to be mean about it.

The Brunswick Islands hereby withdrawals its support of the Free Trade of Durable Goods Resolution currently before the United Nations General Assembly.

After careful review of the resolution by the Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Department of Taxation, and the Comptroller's Office, the Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Representative Richard Andrews, introduced a non-binding resolution to Parliament expressing concern about Article 3 of the Free Trade of Durable Goods Resolution forcing the elimination of tariffs and duties on imports and urging President Bonnett to withdrawal his support. This non-binding resolution passed Parliament 36-15 and was sent to the President's desk.

At 6:35 PM, U.N. diplomat for the Brunswick Islands, Lindsey Angeli, announced that President Bonnett has ordered a withdrawal of support for the resolution and will now vote AGAINST the pending U.N. legislation.

The Brunswick Islands Parliament is currently holding hearings with the Automobile Manufacturing Industry and members of the AW Union and is expected to vote later tonight to place tariffs on automobiles imported from both U.N. and non-U.N. member nations in an attempt to curb looming economic problems. President Bonnett says he will sign into law the tariffs.

Dr. Hodz cleared his throat.

"While we are members of the Evil NatSov Conspiracy, we believe matters like this transcend national boundaries. As such we cast our vote FOR this proposal."

Dr. Hodz paused.

"However, Mr. Dzerzhinsky, this doesn't mean that all of your commie resolutions will get passed. I'm watching you."

*Prime Minister Viridio sits at his desk with his head in his hands.*

The world is going to heck in a hot-air balloon...or something to that effect. Free trade of such important goods? I think not! These items are vitally important to the corporate economy of Eaglus - I can't allow this to pass, for my economy shall fail and the entire region shall collapse in on itself, leaving it open for other nations to come in at will. No, this will never do.

--------------------
Official Press Release
--------------------

The Federation of Eaglus vehemently protests this proposal, as it will have adverse effects on the world's economy. We encourage others to follow in our example and vote NO on this resolution, in the interest of keeping economic stability.

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

Except you don't have to beg. Under articles 4 and 5, you may impose certain reasonable restrictions on the trade of durable goods, without consulting the UNFTC; it's just that the commission may overrule you if it decides your restrictions are unfair or unreasonable. So our advice to you would be not to piss off your trading partners unnecessarily. If you do they could drag your sorry asses before the UNFTC.

Uh, no. You're making it appear much more liberal than it is. Only three specific circumstances are cited: essential products, which examples show is meant to be interpreted rather strictly, severe economic crisis, and recovery from severe economic crisis. Only then are "reasonable" measures allowed. In other circumstances, you don't even beg because there isn't any mechanism by which you can do so. It is in fact a very restrictive resolution.

I can see loophole opportunities by which we can maintain our current rather extreme policy of banning trade with all non-IFTA signatories (which is a part of that treaty) because we don't believe we should have to compete on unfair terms with nations that don't have all the protections we afford to our people; Iron Felix already gifted one possibility of declaring embargo rather than just not trading. But why bother to argue at all? Well, because we care. Here, have an ice cream. It is crafted by the industriousness of the working class. Also with a machine.

(OOC: Max Barry however doesn't agree with you. He states, "Free Trade resolution passes, everyone's economy goes up." That's all Free Trade does, and that is how it works Gameplay-wise. NS isn't that, uh, complex, to actually deal with any consquence of Free Trade, so Max Barry states, "No consquences to Free Trade at all! Yes!".

OOC: We've, or rather, I've had an excruciating discussion on that subject before. I hope we don't go there again.

While the Holy Empire of Imota supports free trade and private industry, we also assert the right to manage our trade and economic policies as we see fit. It is not the place of the United Nations to dictate trade policy to us.

The Holy Empire of Imota votes AGAINST this resolution.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations

Your rose-tinted glasses may be hindering your clear sight. What is observed is that wealth is concentrated by the wealthiest, the lower economic class remains stratified and the middle class tends to disappear as their earning power is stripped by loss of jobs and decreased buying power (especially housing). What is observed is an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots, whether one looks at individuals with nations slavishly adhering to the free trade/free market mantra or whether one contrasts nations locked into the same. Over a sufficiently long period of time with uninterrupted free market/free trade, one would indeed see a return to an "industrial" feudalism. This is why your resolution is so dangerous.
How on earth would that work and why would anyone want it to work? I don't want to sidetrack this into a discussion of general economic theory but I'm puzzled by this. Basically, you're saying that throughout the history of humanity there has been a tendency for wealth to accumulate in the hands of a steadily decreasing number of individuals, that the middle class will eventually disappear, and we will reenter the era of feudalism?

If that is the case, where did the middle class come from in the first place? You realize that at one time there wasn't one, right? Why are there more millionaires now than at any time in history? If your theory is correct there should be fewer of them and the ones that exist should be richer than any men or women who ever existed. I think the fact is that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at any time in history and the trend is for it to become more evenly distributed in the future.


In fact, as you have admitted here, introduction of free trade frequently results in exactly the opposite of the rosy picture you paint.
I have never admitted that it "frequently" happens. I believe I said it "can" happen, or words to that effect.
And the turn-around in the distant future? Mere speculation. Smaller, less economically powerful nations in fact, frequently find themselves at a trade disadvantage. It is only when fair trade provisions are instituted that all nations benefit.
I could call this "mere speculation" as well.
Ah, you subscribe to the 'shoot the messenger' philosophy. If the outcome of an action will be negative, truth-tellers must need be as well.
If I subscribed to 'shoot the messenger' philosophy I would have opened fire sometime yesterday.


It's common to see the highly contentious subsidies to specific industries and overlook the invisible, accepted, everyday subsidies in the roads and public transit, police forces, postal services, which all provide benefits to the economy which would not be realised if all were left to market forces.
That's not the type of subsidization we're talking about and you know it. That's just a government building infrastructure. You're not going to be forced to privatize your roads, railways, police forces or post office by this and you know you're not so why did you bring it up?

Any restriction on free trade, no matter how well intentioned, encourages tariff-avoidance, the black-market and smuggling; which are feeding grounds for organised crime. It is the avowed intent of the Kingdom of Wilfredshire to fight organised crime, by reducing the number of areas where they can undercut free enterprise. In short, to reduce the amount of crime, we must reduce the amounts of crime.

This measure does not go far enough, and on behalf of his majesty Wilfred I, we must oppose it.
So the Resolution is too weak? It cures cancer, you know.

The delegations of Rubina, Kelssek and others say it is too strong. Someone, or perhaps all of you, must be wrong.

Rather, it is the developing nations that we will no longer be able to support once this passes, whose economies and manufacturing sectors are still developing, and who will thus be condemned by this resolution to remain 'developing' even should they choose not to ham-string themselves by joining this allegedly inclusive organisation.
But how can you be certain that will happen? I'm not going to drag a bunch of statistics in here from the mythical land of RL, but you know your assertions can be countered. Then you would counter my assertions with stats of your own and we would be reduced to "is not-is too!-is not-is too!"...ad infinitum.

While the Democratic Republic of Walden and Utopia is for free trade, we cannot be for this measure.

Under this measure countries whose major export is primary or tertiary goods would be forced to lower their trade barriers to durable goods, but not receive the benefits on the other end.

Tarriff free trade only for makers of finished consumer products is not what David Riccardo and Adam Smith had in mind.

Under such a measure, suppliers of primary goods would not be able reserve significant capital to move up the goods sector chain. Basically, they would continue to get little money for agricultural and mining products, while being unable to by locally. Additionally, post-industrial countries will be hurt by this measure as the uneducated members of their nations will lose manufacturing jobs as their local industry will not be competitive anymore.

Free trade must be comprehensive, including all three major sectors of production, otherwise it creates an unfair advantage and further impoverishes the already poor!

Thus, Walden and Utopia and the Region of Nudist Dreamland must reject this measure and urge a new comprehensive measure!

Tlaxcalican Sorenson,
UN Ambassador for Walden and Utopia, Delegare for Nudist Dreamland
And yet another call for stronger legislation. This time a call for a comprehensive free trade resolution covering all industries.

First, that would probably require us to scrap all existing free trade resolutions and start over from scratch.

Second, the delegations of Rubina and Kelssek are standing right over there.

*points in the direction of the Rubinans and Kelssekians*

Why don't you run that proposal by them? I'm sure you'll all find a lot to talk about.


It is in fact a very restrictive resolution.
But, but...we've heard from two other delegations that say it isn't restrictive enough!

Iron Felix already gifted one possibility
You're welcome.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I don't know what everyone else is saying but, I have a SERIOUS problem with the UN telling me that I can't tariff certain goods. It is none of their business what I decide to tax and whom to tax. That is completely and totally up to me and my fellow leaders. Butt out!

Please, just allow me to restate the dangers of this resolution.

1: As I said, because fine product prices are lower companies will pay people less, and thus less taxes will be collected, resulting in mass inflation, untrust and unrest in the banking system and eventually total destruction of the economy.

2: As I also said, there are always nations that do not obey the rules. Some will put tariffs in place and just one shipment of tariffed goods in exchange for non-tariffed goods could set a country back quite a bit.

3: It is quite obvious that if you relieve tariff on fine products like computers guns etc. then you have to take tariffs off of raw products as well. i.e. coal, silicon, aluminum. Otherwise, due to the absence of tariffs, a country that produces raw materials will ship a load of, say silicon, to another country to make computer chips, a necessity in today's life. The silicon will be taxed. In exchange the other country sends back the freshely made computer chips. These items, by UN code, cannot be taxed. Obviously there is a problem. Do not just say durables. If you want free trade you had better go for the kit and kaboodle not just the kit.

If you make a resolution for free trade PERIOD, paranucci may consider it.

Until then, paranucci remains AGAINST the act.

How on earth would that work and why would anyone want it to work?

I doubt many people see broadening inequality of wealth as a positive thing, but people aren't deliberately making it happen. Without sidetracking too much I can point out some of the reasons for this. Wealth tends to generate more wealth since the wealthy have the ability to "make their money work for them" through investments. Wealth also buys power and influence which all too often are used to make accruing even more wealth easier. Those without wealth have much less ability to do the same, and have much less cushioning to ride through economic blips and shocks. There doesn't have to be a conscious effort towards unequal wealth in order for vast inequalities to arise.

Basically, you're saying that throughout the history of humanity there has been a tendency for wealth to accumulate in the hands of a steadily decreasing number of individuals, that the middle class will eventually disappear, and we will reenter the era of feudalism?

If that is the case, where did the middle class come from in the first place? You realize that at one time there wasn't one, right?

The middle class as we know it in the modern context came about mainly because of the rise of organised labour as a viable force. Labour unions demanded higher wages, safer workplaces, weekends, and benefits, and they took action to secure them. It also came about from enlightened progressive politicians who pushed for and enacted the features of the welfare state, and in a time when income equality was viewed as a goal.

Why are there more millionaires now than at any time in history?

I believe you'll find that there are also more people considered to be in a state of poverty now than at any time in history. Furthermore, I would like to emphasise that some people being rich does not mean everyone also is rich. The number of millionaires tells us nothing about the well-being or prosperity of anyone except the millionaires. In several countries, in fact, wealth inequality is so stark that they have simultaneously a large number of millionaires and large numbers of poor people (OOC: The Middle East is a prime example, as well as Russia).

the ones that exist should be richer than any men or women who ever existed.

Uh... they are.

I think the fact is that wealth is more evenly distributed now than at any time in history and the trend is for it to become more evenly distributed in the future.

I will agree that the present situation is better than feudalism, but it is far from being a good situation. You're entitled to your opinion about the future, but to me it's ironic you're championing policies that I believe will render your forecast false.

That's not the type of subsidization we're talking about and you know it. That's just a government building infrastructure. You're not going to be forced to privatize your roads, railways, police forces or post office by this and you know you're not so why did you bring it up?

No, I don't know it. If they are allowing people to use roads for free when they could charge for it, the government is subsidising transport by deliberately making it cheaper/free. If they are allowing children to be educated for free when they could charge fees (or if a nominal fee is charged), the government is subsidising education by deliberately making it cheaper/free. That's what "subsidy" means, and I bring it up to counter you saying that subsidising anything is "stupid".

But, but...we've heard from two other delegations that say it isn't restrictive enough!

Well that's their problem, isn't it?

everyone talks about opening doors to trade, no one to unarmed civilians.

i would want to tariff proportionally to wages paid to workers in each place goods come from to put them on an equal footing with our own comparable sectors where aplicable (and also encourage other places to pay their workers what is a fair living wage in their own environments)

this proposal seem like it would prohibit cameroi from doing so and thus i find myself in opposition.

(hmmm, didn't see one option in the poll i could aggree with either, and i'm NOT trying to be disagreable)

=^^=
.../\...

I cannot in good conscience vote for this resolution.

It is clear that the resolution is designed to continue to shift the wealth of all UN nations upwards into the hands of the already-uber rich. The people who most benefit from a "free" trade pact, the consumers and the bourgeois capital/factory owners--certainly not the workers--don't need any extra help.

The explicit banishment of "protectionist" policies is only lifted when a nation is trying to recover from the verge of economic collapse. The main cause of economic collapse in any nation that agrees to such a ban on tarriffs would be the loss of domestic manufacturing created by the "free" market, where the bourgeois capitalists can pack their businesses off to a third-world country that cares naught about their workers, the quality of their products, or the impact that the "free" market has on domestic economies around the world.

Any nation who supports this resolution is contributing to the demise of the global economy, the environment, and the rights and freedoms of all people around the world.

In this matter you are in error. The language of the clause in question is very precise. It lists price dumping and only price dumping as a reason for utilizing protective tools. It contains no inclusive language such as, "such as" "to include but not limited to". In addition, in your fervor for free trade you have forgotten the direction of a resolution's mandate. It is true the UN can not constrain the actions of non-members. It is not true that UN resolutions do not constrain member's actions toward non-members. The language of this proposal is crystal clear, member states are limited in the economic protections they can employ against non-members to tariffs in the event of price-dumping.

This isn't really a relevant argument. Let's look at this from the consumers point of view. All UN nations have laws restricting them from doing things like using slave/child labor, dumping horrible wages on people, and trading potentially dangerous products. So you go to the local mall or store or whatever, and see a large number of products on the shelves. Some are cheap and poorly made, while others are more expensive, but clearly of higher quality. Yes, it's true some consumers will pick up the cheap product and walk away. But if it doesn't work properly, they are not likely to use it again and will most likely buy a better working product next time. You should trust that your citizens are smart enough to realize that often times one gets what one pays for. OOC: How else could you explain that the United States has a substantially larger GDP than China despite the fact that the Chinese are free to use child labor and relatively unsafe material? IC: And if this concerns you so much why don't we work on passing a resolution aimed towards creating a committee that ensures that all non UN products are safe to use and of good quality? (I would myself, but I don't have enough support as of now) I am relatively certain my own people will be smart enough to not buy information technology products from some non UN nation unless they work better. And because my nation has a strong Information tech industry I trust that this resolution will only bring prosperity to that industry, while at the same time allowing the citizens of this nation to get better products from nations that excel in other industries such as the toaster/basket weaving industry. However regardless of the fact that I differ in opinion, I respect your views and hope that you will take the time to respect mine.

John Halcyon,
UN representative for The People's Republic of Foward Unto Dawn

So you go to the local mall or store or whatever, and see a large number of products on the shelves. Some are cheap and poorly made, while others are more expensive, but clearly of higher quality. Yes, it's true some consumers will pick up the cheap product and walk away. But if it doesn't work properly, they are not likely to use it again and will most likely buy a better working product next time.

Statistical research conducted by my colleagues and I at the Trafaalgar National Association of Spending (TraNAssocS), a polypartisan think-tank which receives no private funding and is staffed by academic researchers to study consumer-level spending habits, indicated that the majority of consumers will continue to purchase "lower durability" products. When citing the reasons for their purchases, consumers often cite low cost in comparison to other products, "reasonable functionality" as determined by a Slimmons-Vargas-Kandinski Product Performance Assessment Battery completed by the consumer using the device, and cyclical replacement for reasons of upgrade, recurring replacement schedule, or loss of initial functionality.

Apparently, only hobbyists, enthusiasts, and survivalists purchased products with the "longest lifetime;" researchers believe that this is due to some esoteric knowledge these persons receive as part of their initiation into their respective social cliques.

The study, which has a twenty-year lifetime, is still ongoing.

Jonas Barnabas MacPhlurrey
Trafaalgar National Association of Spending (TraNAssocS)
Protectorate of Trafaalgar


OOC: Yes, but most of the US GDP is not from industry, it's from services. (CIA World Factbook) The United States is primarily a service economy. (CIA World Factbook) With regards to manufacturing, my understanding is that the United States has been losing many of the old master machinists, engineers, and retoolers for quite some time and there are very few people stepping up to take their places. (Anecdotal) Most of our industrial needs have been farmed out to second and third world companies to "save costs" associated with manufacturing goods here in the United States. (First-hand knowledge) What little goods-producing industry remains here in the U.S. is dominated by construction. (USBLS) The CIA World Factbook has more on this, in addition to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

You should trust that your citizens are smart enough to realize that often times one gets what one pays for. OOC: How else could you explain that the United States has a substantially larger GDP than China despite the fact that the Chinese are free to use child labor and relatively unsafe material?

OOC: I started writing out the answer to this, involving just where the United States' manufacturing industry is nowadays and the mutual efforts of China and the US to keep the yuan undervalued, and realised that my eyes were glazing over, never mind anyone else's. Can we just accept that the answer to the rhetorical question is "very easily" and move on?

I don't want cheap crap forcibly flooding my economy when I should be paying more attention to developing those products on my own, particularly when my only self-protection against it is to tell my people that local goods are "Holy" products that they should prefer over foreign versions. It'd either be that or wait for my infrastructure to actually collapse before being allowed to enact laws to protect my country.

I don't mind if there's a McDonald's in town but I'd rather know how to cook for myself. I will be leaving the UN if this looks like it will be passed.

The Glorious Nation of Okeydom stands firm in its opposition of Capitalism. This Resolution goes against the the very beliefs of this great Nation. All forms of trade should be banned. All the needs of the people should be at the determination of the Government ... as I am sure there are many Nations that would agree with us. The Government knows what is best.

Respectfully,

Okeymaw
Grand Pumba of Okeydom

The United States of Cawales supports this resolution whole heartedly, the industries of Cawales will have a larger target market as a result of this resolution and subsequently more profit will be made.

Dictated but not signed.

Ronald Roberts
Premier of the USC.

We reviewed the current resolution for ensuring "Free Trade" for "durable goods." We were inclined to support it, until we realized it is in violation of previous resolutions, by allowing for objectionable goods to be freely traded between nations. These "objectionable goods" include but are not limited to, recreational drugs, biohazards, garbage, cultural defamation materials (jewelry, vehicles with profane artwork, etc.), and lascivious materials, which have already been banned or restricted by some nations for the mental and social wellbeing of their citizens or price-restricted to stem their flow to other nations for similar reasons.

This resolution makes no note of the resolutions already in place, which protect the well being of the United Nations as a whole, which it is subverting.

Our nation, with its many freedoms already allows many of the goods to be traded mentioned above, while banning the use of others such as recreational drugs. We can not support a resolution which tries to undermine those laws, just to support the interest of free-trade.

Therefore we are voting against this resolution.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation.

These "objectionable goods" include but are not limited to, recreational drugs, biohazards, garbage, cultural defamation materials
Those aren't durable goods.
jewelry,
Maybe. I'm not certain the UNFTC would define jewelry as a durable good. If it does you could still use the cultural exemption in Article 5.
vehicles with profane artwork
Huh?
and lascivious materials, <snip-ola>
Shut the hell up.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

We have cast our vote against this. As we feel it is not clear how some parts of it will be applied.

5. DECLARES it the right of nations to impose cultural, safety, environmental, ethical or other regulations on durable goods and their manufacture, provided any such regulations are administered in a non-protectionist manner;Especialy this as we saw nothing to define 'non-protectionist manner' to a level we feel safe with it.


As we see some considering many types of weapons as durable goods thus protected here and subject to question if we ban nukes as weapons anyone may trade to replace a boat or auto in their home garages. As saw something about national security and some may think they need these in every garage to give them national security. So this for us opens door for things to be allowed we would never allow... thus be called up as protectionist for banning or limiting those items in our borders.

Does this allows us to ban products individually, or from an entire nation (un or non-un) if we feel it threatens a product that is made in our country?

Secondly, if we ban certain goods like heroin, lawn-darts, or Hanson CDs (which we believe are equally detrimental to our citizens) but other nations allow them as legal, doesn't this entire proposal state that we can not stop a country from selling that product to stores or distributors in our borders?

If this bill ties our hands in matters such as these, then NO, we are AGAINST.

heroin, lawn-darts, or Hanson CDs
I was preparing to answer your first inquiry until I came upon this absurd list and realized that you probably hadn't read the Resolution text or the earlier pages of this discussion. Either that or you did attempt to read them but lack any skills in reading comprehension.

I don't want your support. Vote against.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

OOC: Or I was in the Max Berry spirit and making a joke? Shesh, some people's children. This isn't ALWAYS have to be serious.

well, that polls are a bit... funky :cool:

***NEWS BREAK***

Addison Harbor, BI - The Bonnett Administration announced today, immediately following the ratification of the "Free Trade of Durable Goods" resolution, that Brunswick Islands laws will not change despite orders from the U.N. Compliance Ministry to do so.

A spokesperson for the President says that since the new legislation allows up to eleven years for U.N. member nations to repeal tariffs on imported goods, the Brunswick Islands intends to keep current tariffs in place indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Administration will be reviewing other parts of the resolution to ensure Brunswick Islands is in full compliance with all other articles of the bill. The spokesperson also said the President may consider appealing the resolution before the General Assembly in part or in full within the coming weeks.

A MADNESS, that is this propossal now aproved, You has left your soberain to the big factories and capitals that NOT have nation or values.

And now I am reading the most great madness ¿JEWELRY? Pretty, know the capitals can be changed to Gold, diamonds, or platinum and GO FREE for the airport.

¿Did you know that all the countries have regulations about the maximum money that you carry on?

¿How will you KNOW were the money of DROUGS, or GUNS, or PROSTITUTION, or SLAVERY IS?

OOC: Or I was in the Max Berry spirit and making a joke? Shesh, some people's children. This isn't ALWAYS have to be serious.
OOC: This is the UN. Humour is frowned upon. Except in polls. And repeals of stupid resolutions.

Our statisticians (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-browser/?resolution=236) have provided us with the following trivia:

This resolution is the:

236th resolution
138th active resolution
19th Free Trade resolution
5th Free Trade (Strength: Strong) resolution
4th resolution by Iron Felix

It passed with a majority of 56.4%, fairly low from a resolution safety (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-safety/#resolution236) perspective.

http://www.safalra.com/hotlinkable/solensina-tadefta.png

When Unkerlantum first left the UN, it was because the Congress felt the UN did not act in a manner that was beneficial to the Republic. Ironically, upon rejoining the UN, the first resolution to pass is a bill that only echoes the past.

However, this time Unkerlantum is prepared. The Eighth Amendment to the Governmental Charter revises the powers of the Unker Congress. Under Article 3, the legislature now possess the capacity to nullify any UN resolution found to be unsatisfactory to the Republic.

The Congress finds it quite humorous that the first instance where we must execute this newly granted capacity is also on the first resolution to be brought before us.

Resolution #236 is hereby rendered null and void. All recently enacted laws and regulations detailed in 236 are abolished.

~Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

oh, It's in your books anyways. Those gnomes are sneaky.

(that, and you can't choose to selective allow UN resolutions to work in your country...it's all or nothing)

Congratulations to Iron Felix; we're glad to see this passed. Now to the inevitable whining...

The Bonnett Administration announced today, immediately following the ratification of the "Free Trade of Durable Goods" resolution, that Brunswick Islands laws will not change despite orders from the U.N. Compliance Ministry to do so.

Your delegation certainly seems to have a bee in its Bonnett, if you think you can just ignore the resolution. Compliance is mandatory and enforced, whether you like it or not, and your pitiful display of defiance doesn't change that.

The Eighth Amendment to the Governmental Charter revises the powers of the Unker Congress. Under Article 3, the legislature now possess the capacity to nullify any UN resolution found to be unsatisfactory to the Republic. <snip rambling>
Resolution #236 is hereby rendered null and void. All recently enacted laws and regulations detailed in 236 are abolished.

Yeah, good luck with that. Again, compliance with passed resolutions is mandatory and enforced no matter what idiotic laws you have in place saying otherwise.

If your delegations find the passed resolution, or any others, to be so distasteful, you could just leave, you know.

Ikir Askanabath, temporarily voteless ambassador

(OOC: such uncreative efforts at resolution-avoidance-wank are really quite annoying. Can y'all come up with something better than the RP equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyaah nyaah I'm not listening I'm not listening"?)

“But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade” (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/but-in-general-the-protective-system-of-our-day/564704.html)

Whatsoe'er ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Benedictions,

After an extensive, Joebot decided that now since the vote was finally over it was best to wake Judge Norton to give him the news. After several "ahems," thee airhorns blown in his ear, and a giant fog horn that was left from the previous debate on international waters, the Judge didn't seem to move at all. Several delegations were beginning to worry that the Ambassador might have gone to the Great Place of All Things You Don't Normally See When You're Alive.

After another moment or two, a thought ran across Joebot's circuits and he leaned down to whisper, or at least attempt to whisper in his metallic voice, "The Bar will be closing in five minutes.

"Shiver my timbers, where's the rum?! Ahoy and avast ye landlubbers before the rum's gone!!" The Judge shouted as he jumped up on his desk waking from his eternal slumber.

"Ahem, the debate on the waters is closed master." The obediant robot reminded his master in an attempt to bring him back to reality.

"Oh, well where are we now?"

"Dourable Goods."

"What's the score?"

"It passed 4,572 to 3,532."

"Yahoo™" Norton exclaimed as he pulled on the levers in the the Lay-Z Delegation 9000™ and flew around the room taunting all who voted against it and hitting various delegates on the head with his cane before promptly crashing into the wall......again.

Joebot, who had been left standing beside when his delegation should be sitting simply hung his head, sighed, looked to the heavens to ask "why me" and then went about the tedious business of cleaning up the mess that Norton made.


Regardless, there will be much rejoicing in the Oasis tonight.

(OOC: such uncreative efforts at resolution-avoidance-wank are really quite annoying. Can y'all come up with something better than the RP equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyaah nyaah I'm not listening I'm not listening"?)

WHAT? Sorry... can't hear you.... :D


Congrats Iron Felix.

After some thought, we are happy that we can remain in the UN and still protect our existing Fair Trade arrangements. After all, we have serious ethical issues with anything that damages those particular charitable works, and protectionist intervention on ethical grounds is still permitted :-)

The rest, however irksome, we shall just have to put up with.

Ambassador Seigfried stood and cleared his voice. He held before him a typewritten letter in stationary of the Catawaban Miraade. "Fellow delegates, I would like to read a letter from the ruler of my nation the Alpha Miraade Jedith Errant."

The portly man cleared his throat. "To the honorable Ambassador Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky,

Congratulations are in order for a well-drafted resolution and a spirited defense of said resolution during the long debate. Through your determined statesmanship, you have done a great deal to help my nation rise from the rubble of our revered, yet nigh-ruinious revolution from the now-defunct nation of Togovia.

As a side note, I would also like to thank you for finally enabling the people of Catawaba their long held dream of being labled a 'Corporate Bordello.'

Gratefully yours,
Jedith Errant
Alpha Miraade of Armed Republic of Catwaba"

Seigfried set the letter down and reached for his glass of water. After a quick sip, he used the glass to gesture towards the Ambassador Gao Qiang. "My friend...I find it odd that you quote from communist doctrine yet use another quotation from the so-labled 'opiate of the people.' Just an odd wondering..."

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"As Regional Secretary for UN Affairs, it gives us great pleasure to congratulate our honored Delegate Iron Felix, on the passage of his fourth United Nations resolution. Moments ago we received word from the President of the Federal Republic on the Kennyites' celebration of Mr. Dzerzhinsky's success:

You tell those commie bastards that in honor my man Felix, 3,000 effigies, each representing an ass-wipe ambassador from one of the 3,000-some neocommunist shitholes that opposed this agreement, have been flung out of high windows at 10 Frowning Street, in a symbolic show of our government's angry triumph. We just as soon would have replaced those effigies with 3,000 Xt'Tap militants to throw out the windows, but some namby-pamby liberal judges decided that would be a violation of their "civil rights." We are happy to report, however, that the effigies thrown from our windows likely injured many of the Xt'Tap demonstrators making shit about some police shooting in the streets below. Take that, "independent judiciary"!Meanwhile, Mr. Dzerzhinsky, acting with the full authority of the region, its founder and its membership, voted FOR this resolution, well before the voting closed.VICTORY IS MINE!!

Prime Minister Valentina Borofsky cleared her throat while shuffling the papers in front of her. Looking up, she addressed the assembly.

"We dislike this resolution and believe it infringes on our culture. As we are a Democratic Socialist Nation, we have asked our people in a vote how they feel. The people themselves have voted and voiced their opinion that this legislation could impinge on their rights, so ethically the Karshkovian Government must work to protect the people. That is the one of the duties of Government; to protect their people. Also Karshkovia's history and culture is one of trade as far back as recorded history shows. Our culture has always worked to provide the best environment for our internal trade, business and manufacturing first. "Karshkas for Karshkovia above all others" is a saying used for over nine centuries in our nation when speaking on trade or business dealings. This legislation is not something we can force on our businesses either. If I, as part of the Government, did not work to protect Karshkovian businesses, the businesses themselves would refuse to import, purchase, or sell outside durable goods. Our people work to protect each other so durable goods, such as vehicles from outside nations that would threaten internal vehicle manufacturers would not be imported or purchased by automotive dealerships (not to mention only 'green' vehicles which are biofuel/electric are allowed for sales in our nation) to protect internal automotive manufacturers.

We also do not believe that the UN has a right to restrict our nation from providing subsidies, financial support or research grants to companies or businesses inside Karshkovia. It is Karshkovian culture for the Government to provide financial support for our businesses and providing subsidies as well. To this end, we believe this would exempt our nation from this legislation."

(OOC: such uncreative efforts at resolution-avoidance-wank are really quite annoying. Can y'all come up with something better than the RP equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyaah nyaah I'm not listening I'm not listening"?)
OoC: It's worked well thus far, so no need to improve it. (The more popular phrase being "If it's not broken, don't fix it.") So you're free to act as insulting and condescending as you please. It hurts my feelings, if that's your intent, but hurt feelings won't change the legislature.

To this end, we believe this would exempt our nation from this legislation.

Well, it won't.

Ikir Askanabath etc.

The UN has no right to impose itself on our culture when our culture does not harm any other nation or our people. I would also point out that our navy, such that it is, would turn back ships for any safety violation or deviation in paperwork. Such shipments would never make it to our shores or would never be allowed off our docks. However since we can not increase the safety tollerances of outside goods to the point they would not be allowed in and you tie the government's hands, and some ships may make it through, the People have stated that they will take this fight as well.

The dock worker's union has stated that their workers may start to damage or forget to unload shipments. The Airport Workers Union have also said the same. Not to mention that if you were able to force products into our market the Karshkovian people themselves would either vandalize (and our police forces are very overworked) or refuse to buy/sell the products in lue of Karshkovian made produces.

Finally, due to your snide comments, we must state that the nation of Altanar has been banned from all trade with Karshkovia and all news or information from that nation shall be hence forth ignored.

Good day.

Then unfortunately Karshkovia will remove itself from this assembly to protect it culture and people.Well, don't let the window-shutters hit you on the way out, mother fucker!

[Hurls Karshkovian envoy toward the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool outside.]

Susa Batko-Yovino
Incredibly bored

The UN has no right to impose itself on our culture when our culture does not harm any other nation or our people.OOC: Actually, yeah, it does. It states so explicitly in that contract you signed upon joining. Try the FAQ, try the stickies, try any resource you want: compliance is mandatory -- no matter how many delegations in this chamber you elect to ignore.

“But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade” (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/but-in-general-the-protective-system-of-our-day/564704.html)

Whatsoe'er ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Benedictions,
OOC: I think I may have quoted that very same passage during the GFDA debate, or somewhere.

<Opens a bottle of Fine Yeldan Vodka(TM) and pours a glass>


Congrats on the passage, old boy! I believe your people would say something like this,"Выпьем за то, чтобы у нас всегда был повод для праздника!"*

<drinks Vodka>
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

* translation(May we always have a reason for a party!)

((OOC: There are other ways around this legislation as laid out in my post, and you do not have to be rude. I was not rude to you and stayed IC. Please show the same courtesy.))

The UN has no right to impose itself on our culture when our culture does not harm any other nation or our people.

Actually, it does, and you gave it that right when you joined. We also fail to see how the UN is unduly imposing itself on any nation's culture.

I would also point out that our navy, such that it is, would turn back ships for any safety violation or deviation in paperwork. Such shipments would never make it to our shores or would never be allowed off our docks. However since we can not increase the safety tollerances of outside goods to the point they would not be allowed in and you tie the government's hands, and some ships may make it through, the People have stated that they will take this fight as well.

The dock worker's union has stated that their workers may start to damage or forget to unload shipments. The Airport Workers Union have also said the same. Not to mention that if you were able to force products into our market the Karshkovian people themselves would either vandalize (and our police forces are very overworked) or refuse to buy/sell the products in lue of Karshkovian made produces.

If your government, unions and citizens would truly engage in such counterproductive and childish practices, it's a wonder anyone would want to trade with you at all.

Finally, due to your snide comments, we must state that the nation of Altanar has been banned from all trade with Karshkovia and all news or information from that nation shall be hence forth ignored.

A relatively small nation we've never heard of, that we don't trade with or have diplomatic relations with, is choosing to ban us from nonexistent interactions. Consider us extremely unimpressed.

Ikir Askanabath, thoroughly amused ambassador

We can sit here and listen to insult each other - which to be honest, you have been the one's insulting us, and we have been quite reasonable toward you - or we can agree to disagree.

If your government, unions and citizens would truly engage in such counterproductive and childish practices, it's a wonder anyone would want to trade with you at all.

You would think so but that isn't the case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548348). In fact, quite a few nations are interested in trade as we are with them (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546851).

We are just concerned with trade in goods where a business from another country would try to sell durable goods well under the set market value to drive out competition or harm Karshkovian businesses. In that sense, yes, the people would refuse to purchase from that 'outsider' business and if they persist...well we can not punish our own people for protecting their brethren.

A relatively small nation we've never heard of, that we don't trade with or have diplomatic relations with, is choosing to ban us from nonexistent interactions. Consider us extremely unimpressed.

Considering your nation's past actions and behavior towards others, it's a wonder that you have been around so long yourselves. You also never know which nation ours may be allied with. There are many older, stronger and larger than yours that we have good trade and military alliances with.

On a side note, Delusions of grandeur isn't necessarily something said about smaller nations like ours. I think it fits your nation quite fine.

ooc: This is the only thing bad about a puppet nation. Small fry like you like to dismiss RPers with smaller nations because you have gotten a little bit of an edge on them in size and feel so self-important. I say small fry because compared to my main jan04 nation from, yours is a small nation we wouldn't be interested in either...nor have we really heard of you except here in the UN. Take that as you will.

We can sit here and listen to insult each other - which to be honest, you have been the one's insulting us, and we have been quite reasonable toward you - or we can agree to disagree.

Jaris Krytellin, Altanar's ambassador emeritus, walks up at this point and makes a shoo-ing gesture at Askanabath, who hastily abandons his seat for his senior colleague.

Perhaps I should intervene at this point for my more....enthusiastic colleague.

Krytellin shoots a slightly annoyed look at Askanabath as he sits down.

You would think so but that isn't the case (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=548348). In fact, quite a few nations are interested in trade as we are with them (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=546851).

We're glad to see that you in fact do have a substantial export trade going. However, I do believe my colleague did have a point, namely, that counterproductive practices such as the ones you described certainly don't encourage other nations to risk trading with you.

We are just concerned with trade in goods where a business from another country would try to sell durable goods well under the set market value to drive out competition or harm Karshkovian businesses. In that sense, yes, the people would refuse to purchase from that 'outsider' business and if they persist...well we can not punish our own people for protecting their brethren.

It's understandable that your citizens might not want to buy from a trading partner that's being exploitative or overly aggressive in your market. However, we'd disagree that your government doesn't have a responsibility to ensure that the interests of any businesses, foreign or domestic, are protected. Standing aside while people destroy the property, investments or products of another nation is hardly a fair approach; one could even consider it negligence.

Considering your nation's past actions and behavior towards others, it's a wonder that you have been around so long yourselves. You also never know which nation ours may be allied with. There are many older, stronger and larger than yours that we have good trade and military alliances with.

What past actions and behavior are you referring to? Altanar is a neutral and nonaggressive state, as our history clearly shows. As for your alliances, I'm sure you have them, but that's really not a concern to us...particularly since you've indicated you plan to ignore our nation completely simply on the basis of a few poorly chosen words by our ambassador here.

Krytellin shoots another annoyed look at Askanabath.

On a side note, Delusions of grandeur isn't necessarily something said about smaller nations like ours. I think it fits your nation quite fine.

Again, if you're basing that on some words chosen by one of our representatives, that's a hasty decision. I'd look into what Altanar actually stands for a little more before jumping to that kind of conclusion.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

ooc: This is the only thing bad about a puppet nation. Small fry like you like to dismiss RPers with smaller nations because you have gotten a little bit of an edge on them in size and feel so self-important. I say small fry because compared to my main jan04 nation from, yours is a small nation we wouldn't be interested in either...nor have we really heard of you except here in the UN. Take that as you will.

(also OOC: You're confusing a RP'd sense of self-importance with a real one. I RP Altanar as an emerging nation that, having gained a small bit of power and wealth, is feeling its oats a bit and is, admittedly, infected with a small bit of nationalism and self-importance. There are RL precedents for that, for example, the United States when it first began to emerge as a regional, and then world, power. As a player, I'm well aware that there are many, many nations out there that can crush Altanar like a bug, and not break a sweat. But I also wouldn't know anything about any other nations you have in an IC context, and when a nation that *is* smaller and that one has no relations with threatens to ignore you, a bit of scorn does seem like a reasonable RP'd response. /threadjack)

Due to our working class being reduced to poverty and also becoming unable to afford our world class health care that was free until 24 hours ago, the Commonwealth of Boca de Santa Monica has no other recourse than to withdraw effective immediately from the United Nations.

This is not a move that any responsible nation makes lightly. However, in this case the consequences of continued membership vastly outweigh the benefits.

This decision will of course be re-evaluated if the UN passes a resolution changing the terms of "Free Trade of Durable Goods" to allow its members to protect their own citizens from economic exploitation from outside our borders.

As always, those who object to our policies are completely free to emigrate and move to Brentwood.


/s/
BDSM Treaty Collective

The UN has no right to impose itself on our culture when our culture does not harm any other nation or our people.You joined the UN, ergo the UN has every right to impose itself wherever it wants to.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Karshkovian Prime Minister Valentina Borofsky nodded and smiled to Jaris Kytellin, Altanar's ambassador emeritus.

"We understand your concerns and can understand how this could look to your delegation and nation. Perhaps I was too harsh, myself, when dealing with Ambassador Askanabath so the fault would lie in allowing both of our tempers to rule over civil heads."

Valentina took a sip of water from the glass in front of her and then continued, "Our government truly does work for the people and their express concern was for the loss of jobs if another nation were to try and price goods in an attempt to push under established national businesses. My people certainly have no wish to push the international community away and after 52 years of Soviet rule in our nation we may have lost our tact when dealing with other nations. I apologize for any offense. We made an assumption based on your ambassador's words that your government felt the same as he. Mainly because he is the ambassador and would represent your nation to the world. We would very much like to see what Altanar does stand for while we learn more about your people and nation."

She paused for a moment and referred to a few papers.

"We agree that private property of another individual, country, or business should be respected, however if we can not bar, ban or stop overly aggressive or exploitative trading from occurring and have to refer to a committee that may take years to decide on if they would allows us to stop that from happening, and some Karshkovian business are forced to close, thus putting some of our people out of jobs, what do we tell our people? Some towns are built around those factories alone, so closing them down means putting an entire town out of their jobs. You can understand our concern? I do not mean this to be rude at all but this is our feelings.

Also, if a new business were to be started this bill abolishes the program that would give them a grant to start their business. We also would need to abolish programs giving tax breaks and credits to businesses opening in under developed areas of our country. Again, this is a major concern to us.

I admit, I am Russian by birth, however Karshkovia is my home and I do feel very strongly about any actions that would harm her or her people. Would we be able to perhaps talk more in a more diplomatic setting and see if we, as people and representatives of our respective governments, would be able to..ah...how is it said..."make a new first impression"? Is correct, da?"

Valentina smiled and sat down, yielding the floor.




(also OOC: I appologize if I confused IC and OOC. From my years of dealing with folks over here in the UN section, it seems that many don't separate the two so it's hard to know who is and who isn't. Or I could just be realllly tired. You did a great job of RP by the way and it impressed the hell out of me. Love to see if we could rp together some time as we have cleared the air. As a player, I decided I disliked my old nation as I found I was so big no one would RP unless they were also as large (or they were afraid to be aggressive or speak their minds as my military was larger than their entire nation even though I had no plan on ever using it). You are also correct that when a nation that *is* smaller and that one has no relations with threatens to ignore you, a bit of scorn does seem like a reasonable RP'd response. /threadjack)[/QUOTE]

The people of HawaiianFreedom are saddened at the passing of this latest resolution, which we feel is in violation of current UN resolutions. Though 11 years are available to become compliant to this resolution, we feel our time in the United Nations is limited. More resolutions like this are waiting for enough proposals to be up for vote. The nations that voted for this latest resolution are not taking this matter seriously enough in our view.

Our strong commitment to our ideals and Freedoms is what we value most and if that means putting up with further legislation like this, our fellow United Nations members are sorely mistaken. As we speak our laws are being revised to circumvent every portion of the last few passed resolutions we opposed. Our sacred values will not fall by the wayside in this more uncaring world that would rather see impoverished nations shell out money for health care and have none left to spend on anything else. They will not stand for the monitoring of our citizens like cattle in the backdrop of environmental data gathering. They will certainly not stand for the potential pollution off the coasts of our treasured Coral Reefs. Finally, they will not adhere to the loosely based definitions of "durable goods" to allow even a hint of the recreational "poisons" that we have banned from our nation.

HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

The government of Kelssek expresses its deep regret that this resolution has passed. It will be the policy of the current government to continue to bar all trade with non-IFTA signatories, in accordance with that treaty, and to continue current trade policy, in the hope that this resolution will be repealed before 2018; failing which we may be forced to recuse ourselves from further involvement in the United Nations.

OOC: Domestic-based RP here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410079&postcount=40). If you wish to start something in response please do so in that thread.

I admit, I am Russian by birth, however Karshkovia is my home and I do feel very strongly about any actions that would harm her or her people. Would we be able to perhaps talk more in a more diplomatic setting and see if we, as people and representatives of our respective governments, would be able to..ah...how is it said..."make a new first impression"? Is correct, da?"

Krytellin smiled in response. "We'd be more than willing to have a 'sit-down' with you, so to speak, and see if we can establish a better relationship with your government. Developing new relationships is ideally our goal."

(OOC: Karsh, check your TGs as you've got a message from me in your inbox.)

The people of HawaiianFreedom are saddened at the passing of this latest resolution, which we feel is in violation of current UN resolutions.

If it was in violation of existing resolutions, it would not have been allowed to come up for vote.

As we speak our laws are being revised to circumvent every portion of the last few passed resolutions we opposed.

Feel free to revise as much as you like, but compliance is still mandatory and your local laws will not circumvent that.

Our sacred values will not fall by the wayside in this more uncaring world that would rather see impoverished nations shell out money for health care and have none left to spend on anything else. They will not stand for the monitoring of our citizens like cattle in the backdrop of environmental data gathering. They will certainly not stand for the potential pollution off the coasts of our treasured Coral Reefs.

What exactly are you talking about now?

Finally, they will not adhere to the loosely based definitions of "durable goods" to allow even a hint of the recreational "poisons" that we have banned from our nation.

As has been explained to you already, recreational drugs are not a durable good. With respect, do you even know what "durable good" refers to? There's nothing "loose" about the definition at all.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

Seigfried set the letter down and reached for his glass of water. After a quick sip, he used the glass to gesture towards the Ambassador Gao Qiang. "My friend...I find it odd that you quote from communist doctrine yet use another quotation from the so-labled 'opiate of the people.' Just an odd wondering..."
Furthermore, I have very little time or respect for either and voted against the resolution (though with less vehemence than most of our regional allies). 'Tis a funny old world.

Benedictions,

If it was in violation of existing resolutions, it would not have been allowed to come up for vote.

Do I have to keep reminding you that proposals get voted on despite their violations to existing legislation or the rules... or have you forgotten our mention of the Max Barry holiday resolution again...


Feel free to revise as much as you like, but compliance is still mandatory and your local laws will not circumvent that.


Our national laws can and will circumvent that... this resolution should not have come up for vote without first repealing the previous resolutions it is in conflict with or by revising the diction used in this resolution.


What exactly are you talking about now?


I was referring to some of the more recent resolutions that have passed in the UN... Free Basic Healthcare, Air Pollution Convention, Territorial Waters, and more recently this Durable Goods resolution.


As has been explained to you already, recreational drugs are not a durable good. With respect, do you even know what "durable good" refers to? There's nothing "loose" about the definition at all.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

Durable goods are goods that have a life span of at least 3 years, according to the definition of this resolution. So, anything medicinal that lasts 3 years, including certain bottles of recreational drugs, which can be supplied in dosages that can take over 3 years to use up and slip in under this resolution's radar. We have planned for this contingency and will continue to ban the use of recreational drugs in our nation.

You think these resolutions are just words on the screen. They have meanings, implications, submeanings with further implications. If you don't think over how this resolution can be used for evil purposes you allow them to occur when you pass legislation like this. Why do you think we have no crime in our nation? We plan ahead. Can you say that you truly thought over how this resolution can be subverted, or did you just throw down a vote because you thought the words sounded pretty.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

...violations to existing legislation or the rules...

... this resolution should not have come up for vote without first repealing the previous resolutions it is in conflict with...
Please, cite the resolutions it is in conflict with as well as any rules it is in violation of. Also be certain to post links to any relevant rulings concerning the alleged conflicts and illegalities.

Durable goods are goods that have a life span of at least 3 years, according to the definition of this resolution.
That's not what it says. It says:

DEFINES, for the purposes of this legislation, "durable goods" as goods or consumer products that have a useful life extending more than three years. Examples include, but are not limited to, automobiles, home appliances, home furnishings and fixtures, and business, medical, electronic, and manufacturing equipment.

If your government wants to define recreational drugs as a durable good, feel free to do so. It doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the UNFTC, using this definition, defines them as such. I can assure you they will not.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Please, cite the resolutions it is in conflict with as well as any rules it is in violation of.I'd like to see that, too.

Durable goods are goods that have a life span of at least 3 years, according to the definition of this resolution.

OOC: You didn't read the resolution, you looked up the real world definition of "Durable Good". I know because I did the same thing, and that's the only place you could've gotten the 3 years thing, since this doesn't define it that way at all.

Would you like to play again?

Do I have to keep reminding you that proposals get voted on despite their violations to existing legislation or the rules... or have you forgotten our mention of the Max Barry holiday resolution again...

Blah blah blah Max Barry Day blah blah. Name for me some other resolutions, current or repealed, that were illegal and were still allowed to go forward. I'm genuinely interested to see if you can. Go on, go ahead. I'll give you as long as you need. I'm not saying there might not have been some, but I really want to see if you can provide any examples of this problem you seem to think is running rampant, or if you're content to engage in "sky is falling" rhetoric.

Our national laws can and will circumvent that...

No, they won't. But enjoy the view from over there in Delusionalstan.

this resolution should not have come up for vote without first repealing the previous resolutions it is in conflict with

You've been asked before to name what resolutions this is in conflict with. We're still waiting.

or by revising the diction used in this resolution.

This is the second resolution I am aware of that your delegation has chosen to complain about the resolution's wording, while not doing much of anything during the drafting process to remedy the faults you perceive before it came up for vote. Does doing the same ineffective thing over and over again bring your people some kind of joy?

I was referring to some of the more recent resolutions that have passed in the UN... Free Basic Healthcare, Air Pollution Convention, Territorial Waters, and more recently this Durable Goods resolution.

Ah yes, because all those resolutions did bad things (which you can't seem to specify) and which your delegation has apparently done nothing to prevent before they came up for vote.

Durable goods are goods that have a life span of at least 3 years, according to the definition of this resolution. So, anything medicinal that lasts 3 years, including certain bottles of recreational drugs, which can be supplied in dosages that can take over 3 years to use up and slip in under this resolution's radar. We have planned for this contingency and will continue to ban the use of recreational drugs in our nation.

Durable goods are defined in the resolution as "goods or consumer products that have a useful life extending more than three years". Name me some medicine or drugs that fit that description. You know what would happen if I rummaged through my medicine cabinet, found a prescription from 1999, and took some? Maybe nothing, maybe an excruciating and painful death, who knows. But it's not likely that the single vial of Insertnameofmedicinehere will still be "useful", at least for its intended purpose. This can be due to age, improper storage, or exposure to elements that can change the medicine or drug's chemical composition. The single vial of Oldassmedicine in your medicine cabinet is not a durable good. And are you seriously trying to argue that a prescription that lasts three years would be a durable good?

Why do you think we have no crime in our nation? We plan ahead.

That's great. It's also irrelevant.

Can you say that you truly thought over how this resolution can be subverted, or did you just throw down a vote because you thought the words sounded pretty.

We read every single resolution we vote on. You'll forgive us if we don't think you do the same, especially given the fact you still seem to think drugs are a durable good.

Ikir Askanabath, temporarily stealing Jaris' microphone