NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

1) NOTING an increasing concern of its members for terrorism, military agressive neighbouring countries and other possible continuance threats,

2) BEING AWARE that a union is as strong as its weakest border,

3) REALIZING the fact that about two-third of the nations of this world are no UN member,

4) EXPECTING its members to feel safer with a guaranteed safe border,

5) ACKNOWLEDGING the Passport Standardisation Act (UNR #226),

The United Nations hereby:

6) REQUIRES its members to intensely monitor their borders with non-UN nations,

7) MANDATES its members to deny access to (suspectingly) criminal, terrorist, illegal and/or arms-bearing individuals and/or organisations,

8) ENSURES that member nations with insufficient military power and/or financial possibilities for this one purpose, be supported by other UN members,

9) However CALLS UPON these nations to put effort in creating and maintaining their own border control,

9) RESERVES to the respective member nation the right to make an exception to the above for people carrying UN Passports.

This proposal has not been filed in officially yet. We want to give other nations the chance to further nuance the above. Please refrain from unconstructive policies such as "the hell we ain't" or "wrong category, I'm against!", in stead give a better alternative.

Regards,
On behalf of the Miniconomy region,

OOC: The UN is not an alliance in the way that you seem to assume, it is just an association of nations that have agreed to accept majority-voted resolutions on some matters... and some UN member-nations have very close political ties to nations that are outside the UN, and consequently may well see much less reason to guard their borders with those countries than they do to guard their borders with some other UN nations.

OOC: The UN is not an alliance in the way that you seem to assume, it is just an association of nations that have agreed to accept majority-voted resolutions on some matters... and some UN member-nations have very close political ties to nations that are outside the UN, and consequently may well see much less reason to guard their borders with those countries than they do to guard their borders with some other UN nations.

I second this. Please change the wording on "intensely monitoring" borders with all non-UN nations.

"My dearest colleagues," the Setswana ambassador frowned, "what makes you so worried? This proposal merely urges countries to pay attention to their borders and keep all threats out. I can't imagine any nation opposing this stance?

Of course you may have close political ties to your non-UN neighbours and the last thing we want, is for nations to have to choose between old and new friendships. However you must understand that global protection of UN borders also keeps out the," and he thought for a moment on how to put it, "the agressive nation across the street that always refuses to return the football.

Intense monitoring does not necessarily imply locking the borders. A nation might decide so, but can also limit oneself to a passport and vehicle check, just like most of us are already doing right now. This proposal simply makes sure that no border of the UN is unprotected in any way."

"The problem that we have with it is that the UN should not dictate boarder policy to it's member nations. If a nation wants fully open boarders without any checks or anything, that is their right. What your trying to do is tell them to run checks and other such nonsense." The Shazbotdom Deligate then takes a sip of water. "And anyways. it is the stance of the Shazbotdom Empire that all international traffic goes through three major airports and the sea port in Shaz Bay. No one can 'walk across the boarder' per say into the Empire."

Of course you may have close political ties to your non-UN neighbours and the last thing we want, is for nations to have to choose between old and new friendships. However you must understand that global protection of UN borders also keeps out the," and he thought for a moment on how to put it, "the agressive nation across the street that always refuses to return the football.

Honoured ambassador, we fear that this proposal falters upon the same conceptual rock that your previous proposal did. It assumes, and your comments reinforce that preconception, that UN nations are friendly towards one another. This is most assuredly not so. We consider ourselves a relatively open and friendly nation, but there are other member nations whose citizenry we would not willingly allow across our borders except for reasons of asylum or humanitarian aid. The concept of "UN borders" in the global sense you use it is a very fragile construct, though one which can bear the light load placed upon it by this proposal.

We too take issue with the requirement to "intensely monitor" our borders with non-member nations with whom we may have more friendly relations than some of our fellow UN members.

We note that clause 7 is something of a cypher; it mandates that member nations be allowed to do something which they already do, and for which there is no conceivable reason to suppose that should not do. Certainly the list cannot be exhaustive -- it does not, for example, reference individuals who do not possess valid passports and visas -- and any attempt to be exhaustive would be doomed to failure.

All in all, we cannot see that this proposal does any good, and are confident that it does a small amount of harm.

"And anyways. it is the stance of the Shazbotdom Empire that all international traffic goes through three major airports and the sea port in Shaz Bay. No one can 'walk across the boarder' per say into the Empire."

We've got you beat, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is a midair archipelago. There is absolutely no way to walk across our borders. Well, I suppose you could walk out, but the fall would probably kill you.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Holy Empire of Imota concludes that this resolution is both useless and offensive. It is useless because most of its mandates are already carried out by existing states. It is offensive because it takes away a nation's right and responsibility to determine and implement its own border control policies, rights and responsibilities that we take very seriously.

The Holy Empire of Imota unconditionally, unequivocably, and uncompromisingly refuses to support this proposal, encourages all civilised states to do the same, and will refuse to comply with this measure should it come to pass.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations for the Holy Empire of Imota

There is absolutely no way to walk across our borders. Well, I suppose you could walk out, but the fall would probably kill you.Speak for yourself.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I fail to see any need whatsoever to implement this policy which might spur instability and insecurity in our state.I am all for free trade ,yes,but not to vote for something that doesn't distinguish citizenry is foolish.
Hence,our region is fully against this policy which seeks to denounce our peoples pride in their own respective countries.Also with this ,security would be of paramount concern because everything is passport-free! Imagine terrorists infiltrating our borders and bombing key headquaters for our MNCs and Government offices! Billions of dollars would be lost!
I urge countries here who value pride in thier citizens citizenry and who values peace,to support this idea.

Lord Norman Wolfowitz
Prime Minister
TheElitists
UN delegate
ConservativeRepublicans

The Holy Empire of Imota concludes that this resolution is both useless and offensive. It is useless because most of its mandates are already carried out by existing states. It is offensive because it takes away a nation's right and responsibility to determine and implement its own border control policies, rights and responsibilities that we take very seriously.

The Holy Empire of Imota unconditionally, unequivocably, and uncompromisingly refuses to support this proposal, encourages all civilised states to do the same, and will refuse to comply with this measure should it come to pass.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations for the Holy Empire of Imota

I am personally against this because our local security would be undermined.
Dr Joshua Cedric
Cheif Police Constable
For Prime Minister and UN delegate of TheElitists/ConservativeRepublicans

I am personally against this because our local security would be undermined.
Dr Joshua Cedric
Cheif Police Constable
For Prime Minister and UN delegate of TheElitists/ConservativeRepublicans

I accept my Police Cheif's argument wholeheartedly and I would like to add that with no boder controls,our citizens won't be our citizens.It's like there'll be huge influx and reservoirs of people coming in and out of our lands ,since there's no passports whatsoever*as stated in this particular suggestion.There won't be patriotism,and active citizenry and we can't induldge in incalcating values in our citizens.
Terrorists too might iniltrate our borders and destroy our large Business districts and Economic Zones.No to this suggestion.Our region intends to see this suggestion shot down before it becomes a resolution!
Lord Norman Wolfowitz
Prime Minister
TheElitists
UN Delegate
ConservativeRepublicans

The Setswana ambassador ignored an upcoming headache when Bob Flibble spoke. Carefully he formulated: "Mr. Flibble, why bother responding here when your only intention is to bo counterproductive? Obviously, when your country has impassible borders or when you are already complying to this proposal you don't have to change anything. This proposal however is not limited to land borders only. When flying to another country you also pass a border, and the same counts for sailing."

He glanced back at the previous arguments, preparing a reaction. "There are people claiming that this proposal suggests that UN nations are to be trusted and non-UN nations aren't. I have no idea where this argument came from since we have never said such a thing. This proposal changes nothing to the relations between UN countries.

Mr. Alsonis of Imota is offended by this proposal because he believes his country already takes border control seriously. And this, my dear colleagues, is what this proposal is all about! Remember UNR #226 states that nations should always allow UN citizens a free passing of the border. Whether we like it or not, the borders between UN countries already are increasingly opened, and to protect ourselves we have to make sure the outer UN borders are protected!"


EDIT: I believe the representatives of TheElitists actually agree with the proposal, judging from their words. They might want to read this proposal more carefully and find out they will support it!

UNR #227 states that nations should always allow UN citizens a free passing of the border. Whether we like it or not, the borders between UN countries already are increasingly opened, and to protect ourselves we have to make sure the outer UN borders are protected!"!

I rise to inform the esteemed ambassador from Setswana that there are currently 226 resolutions on the books, and not 227. Also if he is referring to UNR 226 it says nothing of the sort.

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador

We thank mr. Youlkin for his attentiveness.

Of course we meant UNR #226, which specificly says:
9. AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation (...)

We will correct it right away.

Actually it says specifically

AFFIRMS that any national of a United Nations member state, carrying a valid passport and visa cannot be denied entry to a nation, except where either the security of that nation is at stake or for reasons of medical quarantine,

Leaving the nations with the ability to deny or accept conditionally.

Nigel sat down as USoP UN Military Liaison Joshua Hutchenson stood up.

We oppose this resolution of yours mainly as our boarder control is just fine without international law meddling in it. Plus it is the right of each country to decide how secure they wish to make their boarder.

Further we aren't about to spend any of the money in our defense budget on other countries UN or not. Should any ally require help we will of course respond to any reasonable request. We will not be required by international law to do so.

Finally, UN Passports or not if our Department of Security believes you are a threat, you will not enter our nation.

"We are aware of the full text of this resolution. We merely want to point out that there already are steps taken by the UN to open up the borders to each other. Only when the national security is threatened you can keep people out.

The by Setswana proposed resolution is aiming at those nations who let those national threats pass their borders, into the protected zone of the UN - a zone where, once you get a passport and a fake identities, can easily infiltrate all UN countries. I realize that the same problem with fake identities might happen at the outer UN borders, but a forced control is always better than countries willingly accepting these threats.

We realize that many nations feel they can judge the situation themselves, and most of them are right about it. However with the legislation saying all UN citizens (except known threats) must always be able to enter your nation, we should also look at the nations who can't, or don't want to, judge the situation theirselves, or who willingly let anyone enter even when this might cause danger for the UN as a whole.

See this resolution NOT as an attack on your border policy, but as way to protect yourself from threats by other nations' security leaks."

The count sat listening to the discussion, and once again rose to take the word; "We wonder, first, how one nation letting in suspicious individuals that can harm their safety, can possibly threaten the NSUN as a whole.
Naturally, then, the question ensues, how any other nation that willingly lets these persons cross their borders can possibly threaten any nation that is more careful, closely monitoring their frontiers.
It is our strong belief that if nations do not wish to monitor the traffic of individuals in and out of their own country, foolish though it is, should bear the consequences of their choice. That other countries then should be more careful because of that one nation's decision, only seems like a counterargument, as it is, in what we think, and hope to be the general opinion, every nation's duty to protect its citizens, and therefore, should at all times be careful in who to allow entrance to the country.
Let me end my intervention by stating that in this matter, we are strongly in favour of applying the subsidiarity principle."
The count regained his seat, and looked over his desk, and in the drawers thereof, for something to drink; this search being in vain, he sent off his aid to fetch something suitable.

We've got you beat, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is a midair archipelago. There is absolutely no way to walk across our borders. Well, I suppose you could walk out, but the fall would probably kill you.

"We were wondering where some of the Tourists from Shazbotdom went while they were in your nation. I guess they got drunk and walked a little too far, huh?"

"We were wondering where some of the Tourists from Shazbotdom went while they were in your nation. I guess they got drunk and walked a little too far, huh?"

Yeah, our legislature has tried several times to pass a bill requiring fences be put up along the edges of the islands, but they keep getting voted down as being "too expensive."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

"This proposal has been added to the database. We are aware that there are nations opposing this, however we would like the opinion of all delegates in this matter, not only those 10 nations active on the forum.

The Free Land of Setswana wishes to thank all participants of this discussion for their input."

8) ENSURES that member nations with insufficient military power and/or financial possibilities for this one purpose, be supported by other UN members

Technically, isn't this a backwards way of making a UN army? I say this as a delegation not normally active on the jolt forum.

Jainey Slate
Mavenu UN Rep

"I understand your concern, however that is why I have added the phrase 'for this one purpose'. I hope that clears this up."

7) MANDATES its members to deny access to (suspectingly) criminal, terrorist, illegal and/or arms-bearing individuals and/or organisations,

I spy a minor loophole here, all we'd have to completely close our borders is declare everyone at a crossing a suspect terrorist/UN gnome.

Thanks

Kari Kagrosi
UN Pirate

The Setswana Ambassador smiled. "Well if you want, you can close the borders without having to use a loophole. The strictness of the border control is still completely a nation's own policy! This resolution merely obliges nations to have a border control."

"I understand your concern, however that is why I have added the phrase 'for this one purpose'. I hope that clears this up."

On the contrary, that phrase draws attention to the fact that this attempting to dodge around the UN military rule. Mandating this cooperation in our opinion contravenes this rule, no matter the caveats or window-dressing.

"The difference between a UN police force and the deal to help another country when it's having a problem controlling its borders, is that the latter is no organized attempt to unite military forces. I see where you're going, however the resolution is, from my point of view, very clear in this:

- Only when for this purpose the nation is unable to comply, other nations might be requested by that nation to help out this particular nation
- The nation with the border security problems is being called upon to take matters in their own hands as soon as possible

It will always be the responsibility of the nation in which the borders are situated."

8) ENSURES that member nations with insufficient military power and/or financial possibilities for this one purpose, be supported by other UN members,
How does it ensure this?

6) REQUIRES its members to intensely monitor their borders with non-UN nations,
The implication here is that non-UN nations are rogues and not to be trusted. I disagree, and submit to you that 'intense monitoring' will only foment distrust and bad relationships between nations. Shooting oneself in the foot, perhaps.

7) MANDATES its members to deny access to (suspectingly) criminal, terrorist, illegal and/or arms-bearing individuals and/or organisations,
Who defines 'criminal', 'terrorist', or 'illegal'? Individual nations or the UN? If the latter, then how? And surely an exemption is required for some arms-bearing individuals; those engaged in peace-keeping, for instance?

More generally, I cannot foresee an instance where Dashanzi will support a proposal that seeks to divide peoples and breed suspicion rather than foster collective respect and dignity.

Benedictions,

"Many Non-UN members can be trusted, and some UN-members can't be. However UN-nations have to comply to UN legislation, so that is why the 'border' of this resolution is drawn between the nations that have UN legislation and those who don't.

I have heard this argument before," and the Setswana ambassador flipped open a dictionary, "yet we would like to point out that monitoring is not necessarily a physical term. A country has the freedom to interprete this in the way it finds most appropriate and most politically correct."

"Regardless of trust, it is article eight of this proposal that I find most concerning. I call your attention to the section that reads: 'member nations with insufficient military power and/or financial possibilities for this one purpose, be supported by other UN members'. The people of Leinchester have their own problems, and we cannot be expected or mandated to support the countless other nations within the U.N. This is an organization of diplomacy, not of economic pooling.

If we choose to aid another nation, that is out business, however, the Republic of Leinchester will not be mandated into foreign aid."

Colin Gallagher
Leirish Ambassador to the United Nations
Republic of Leinchester

OK.

After all, we can conscript whole nations if need be into our Forces.

From
The King of Dukeburyshire
UN Delegate and former Dictator.

I disagree, just because our neigbors aren't in the United Nations doesn't mean that we shouldn't trust them.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Agregorn, for once, is for the spirit of this bill, if not for the proposal as a whole. We see that the majority of nations out there pose a threat to the greater good of commerce and decency. Terrorism is a real threat, and the union is only as strong as its weakest link.

Yes, we are aware that the UN isn't an alliance, and to be honest, with allies like many of the members, who needs enemies! However, we are far more comfortable with a nation who may dislike our people on a general level but agree to trade, than we are with nations that cannot manage to feed their people, yet train them to strap bombs to their chests and run inside hospitals. We'd like to see an end to every man, woman, and child in these terrible nations, but not at the risk of loosing our trading partner... despite any scruples or differences we may have with those we trade with freely.

There is a problem, however. Suppose a good nation is struggling to keep degenerates out of her borders, yet wishes to maintain peaceful and willful trade with the rest of us. We should encourage them to fish for themselves by securing their own borders, but also aid when requested, lest they starve. If we do not offer our support in eradicating the world of these fundamentalists, more nations will fall to them. It is in our interest both financially and for the survival of our civilization to do all we reasonably can.

We have one other point to bring to this, and that is on the UN vs Non-UN. Not all Non-UN nations are evil, nor do we want to pretend that they are. We trade with many nations, and within the region of Novale Agregorn is the only UN member and at peace with her neighbors. That is not to say that everyone should be trusted. Local discretion can dictate what is a threat and what isn't. UN nations have the advantage of a voice, allowing us a face before we choose to wipe them off the earth. Terrorist cells don't afford us such a luxury, so having an eye to those we don't know can only serve to help. Besides which, an eye doesn't have to mean a loaded gun either... so we see no pragmatic harm here. To add to that, if a non-un nation wishes to cooperate with a UN nation, I see reason to treat them the same as a commercial partner within the UN.

Delighted, the Setswana ambassador rose from his chair. "I want to thank the Agregorn delegacy for their words, since they completely match with what we try to say here.

I will repeat them once more since some delegates seem to not fully understand:
- Non-UN-members are not necessarily dangerous
- UN-members are not necessarily harmless
- Keeping an extra eye out can't harm us
- A nation can use the same level of security at borders with UN-members, no need for discriminationg your neighbours because of UN-membership
- Temporary help to our fellow UN-members who can't get their border security up and running, is in our best interest

Please, before placing your comment here (and yes, Mr. York from Cookesland, I am refering at you) consider the above first."

Ambassador York, please. I have taken your last remarks into account, and still I disagree. I'm not at all one to always hid behind the NatSov Banner, but I do have problems when the UN starts to change my border policy. Particularly concerning our neighbors who aren't in the UN. I fear this will only further spred mistrust amoungst non-member nations. Granted, nations not having the ability to properly defend their borders are at risk. However there are currently *looks to note* 72,240 nations and certainly at least one would be willing to assist them.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

I disagree, just because our neigbors aren't in the United Nations doesn't mean that we shouldn't trust them.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

I read article 8 with utmost concern.
I would like to re-iterate the UN's primary role is to foster more cultural/social roles between the UN countries,and not economic pooling.Call me stingy but I wouldnt want to waste my Government's budget into countries that have no value at all to us.No free lucnh in this world.
Regards
Jack Straw
UN Delegate
ConservativeRepublicans

- Only when for this purpose the nation is unable to comply, other nations might be requested by that nation to help out this particular nation
Were this the case, your argument might well be deemed valid. However it is not; there is no 'might' in the proposal, other nations are required to help out. The manner of the military help is unclear, but its compulsory nature is not.

Is it just me, or has NationStates be unavailable for the past 24 hours?

Sadly this has effected my proposal, and the amount of approvals will now not be enough to reach queue.

My thanks anyway for those approving it.

OOC: Judging by this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550376) in the Tech forum, it wasn't just you.

(ah, so there is a thread about it. Tried to find one but couldn't ;))

Delighted, the Setswana ambassador rose from his chair. "I want to thank the Agregorn delegacy for their words, since they completely match with what we try to say here.

I will repeat them once more since some delegates seem to not fully understand:
- Non-UN-members are not necessarily dangerous
- UN-members are not necessarily harmless
- Keeping an extra eye out can't harm us
- A nation can use the same level of security at borders with UN-members, no need for discriminationg your neighbours because of UN-membership
- Temporary help to our fellow UN-members who can't get their border security up and running, is in our best interest

Please, before placing your comment here (and yes, Mr. York from Cookesland, I am refering at you) consider the above first."
Quite apart from the fact that my earlier concerns have not been addressed in a satisfactory manner - indeed, it would appear that, for the most part, they have been casually ignored - the above statements simply are not convincing arguments in favour of this proposal.

"Keeping an extra eye out can't harm us"

I disagree with this assertion and, even if this were not the case, I cannot see that this is a positive justification for adopting these measures. There are many things that cannot harm us; this does not mean that we should mandate them through UN legislation.

The other statements still imply that border surveillance is intrinsically a good thing. I still see no evidence to support this argument.

Benedictions,

Being out of character for the past few posts:

Why respond, the proposal was killed by (the server downtime and/or) a lack of approvals. As far as I'm concerned, this topic can be closed down.