NationStates Jolt Archive

UN Access to Literacy Project

A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.

Category: Education and Creativity | Area of Effect: Educational | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The United Nations,

Applauding its previous Resolution #79, "Reformed Literacy Initiative", for making literacy "the critical priority" for national educational systems,

Recognising that access to a wide range of suitable reading materials is central to the realization of that goal,

Considering that the relative cost of redistributing surplus reading materials compares favourably in economic and environmental terms with that of mass reprinting,

Pleased that the existence of the UNEAF precludes the necessity of creating additional bureaucracy for the administration of the Project:

1. Inaugurates the "UN Access to Literacy Project", to be run as a voluntary and not-for-profit initiative to include all member nations;

2. Invites all nations to collect surplus reading materials and make them available to the Project for redistribution to those in need;

3. Designates "surplus reading materials" as including donated, unwanted, used, second hand or remaindered books, magazines, journals and other written sources, including print rejects that are still usable but that cannot be sold;

4. Stipulates that materials may be used but must be of a reasonable quality, or capable of being returned to a reasonable quality at minimal cost, particularly with regard to their utility in literacy projects;

5. Grants nations reasonable discretion in organizing collection of the materials, including in the degree of centralisation: the collections could, for example, be organized within educational institutions, as part of waste collection, or through charity events;

6. Permits agencies and authorities involved in literacy programmes to petition the UNEAF for assistance in supplying a range of reading materials;

7. Authorises the UNEAF to:
- take inventory of collected materials;
- allocate the materials, and otherwise acquired through additional UNEAF initiatives, to petitioners;
- make contributors aware of particularly dire needs;
- grant small rewards to institutions that prove particularly responsive and helpful in collecting surplus reading materials;
- advise nations on strategies to improve their collections;

8. Declares that the UNEAF may make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship.

This has been submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=literacy). And, if I do say so myself, if any part of this seems complicated, you are probably reading too much into it. To quote the literary critic and social policy advocate Glog Firemaker, [ethnically insensitive remark removed at the request of the Quintessence of Dust Department for National Identity and Cultural Enterprise]

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

In the case of any other type of proposal I would probably be less irritating, but... I would recommend consistency with regard to the use of 's' vs 'z' in the text. There seems to be an even spread at the moment.

Or perhaps this was cunningly intended to rile pedantic old windbags such as myself?

Benedictions

In Quintessential English, 'realize', 'organize', 'civilize' are opposed to 'recognise', 'authorise', 'sodomise'. It's just how we write.

-- George Madison

(OOC: It is also how I write: just one of those things. The latter two are definitely the 'correct' British English spellings; the former may just be a quirk. I've never got into habit of spelling consistently, because I don't think it's ungrammatical, and don't really care. Which is not meant to be a rude brush-off, but simply an explanation.)

Hayden Seigfried leaned forward to speak clearly into his microphone. "It is the initial reaction of the Catawaban government to support this proposal. We place a great importance on literacy and might wish to take advantage of the initiative to supplement our very meager publishing and printing industries. Catawaba applauds Ambassador Madison and, indeed, the Quintessential people for putting forth this measure."

He leaned back. "We only await more debate on the matter before we levy our region's approval FOR the proposal. However, I have with me a distinguished professor of sociology from the University of Graceland, Doctor H. Heidelbergensis. Doctor Heidelbergensis would like to say a few words on this matter.

Dr. H. Heidelbergensis stood from the chair behind Ambassador Seigfried. He straightened his scholarly tweed jacket which comfotably fit his tall 5'10" frame. His normally wild black hair was tied back into a pony tail hanging down from his considerable occipital bun. He turned his attention to Ambassador Madison. His forehead furrowed over his massive browridge. He clenched his strong, heavy jaw. The nostrils flared on his large nose.

He stopped for a moment and took a deep breath, taking a moment to run through a few calming meditation techniques. "Ambassador Madison, I and the rest of the faculty at the University applaud the good and admirable work you have done in the furtherance of education. There can be no doubt that you and your people are at the forefront of education."

He hesitated for a moment. "However, it is deplorable that you would use overly simplistic statements from such uncouth 'experts,' if I were to use the term loosely, as Mister Firemaker. Statements like "Books good" or "So easy a caveman could do it" only emphasize and further unfounded and bigotted stereotypes against those amongst the proto-hominid community. So many of us have worked to overcome our lack of brain complexification, highly specialized culture, and other barricades against advancement...only to have exploitists make all our accomplishments vain and worthless! We did not stand for the corporate bigotry perpetrated by an insurance company that shall remained unnamed, and we will certainly not stand for it in the august and hallowed halls of the United Nations!"

"And, you, Dr. H. Heidelbergensis, are perperatuing racism against the fine delegate, Mister Glog Firemaker. Glog Firemaker is an intelligent and smart person, who has written a repeal for 'Rights of Minorities and Women', which was narrowly approved by the NSUN. Glog Firemaker has been discriminated against by many people in this fine hall, for his unique speaking styles, forgetting the fact that unlike most humans, Glog Firemaker avoids using superfluous langauge in order to get his point across. Stating "Books good" reveal all that is needed to be said about books, after all.

All humans are equal, gotcha? No caveman is superior to any other.

Anyway, we're FOR this proposal. Much more reasonable, in retrospect, than having the UN control libraries."
---Dr. Bob

Dr. H. Heidelbergensis narrowed his eyes and turned his long, sloping face towards Dr. Bob. "Racist? All humans are equal?" His big lips rolled up in a sneer. "You make my point for me, sir. If I am correct in my estimation of Mister Firemaker, he is in fact a specimen of Homo neanderthalensis as they were the first to develop fire, not humans. Though we share the genus Homo, we are not alike. Mister Firemaker and I are earlier, better established hominids. You, sir, are a Homo sapiens sapiens and a specieist by your very words."

Seigfried frowned and mumbled under his breath.. "Wow...someone got up on the wrong side of the cave...."

Minister of Public Relations and acting UN Deligate for the Shazbotdom Empire, Mrs. Charrel Cralom, looked over at Dr. Heidelbergensis as she leaned forward to her microphone.

"Supperior? This comming from someone who seems to be speaking in a run on scentence?"

She took a sip of water.

"I'm sorry but 'You, sir, are a Homo sapiens sapiens and a specieist by your very words' seems like a run on sentence to me. You seem to be missing a period between the two 'sapiens'. That and one should be spelled 'Sapien'."

She then slid a paper in front of her.

"Although, we are not here to discuss what 'species' is supperior to eachother. We are here to discuss the proposal at hand. So Dr. Heidelbergensis, I suggest that you stick to the matter at hand and not the intellectual capacity of the different sub-groups of the 'Homo' species."

She then leaned back in her chair and took another sip of water.

OOC: I've had my GEICO caveman fun, so I'm done with the sideshow, but Shaz, you're a bit off.

First, "You, sir, are a Homo sapiens sapiens and a specieist by your very words" is one complete sentence. Homo sapiens sapiens is his species, and a "specieist," which I'm sure isn't a word, is a pejorative term describing Dr. Bob. There is no verb in the second half of that sentence that might denote two sentences run together.

Second, Homo sapiens sapiens is correct. We are Homo sapiens of the variety sapiens. Of the species Homo sapiens there are currently considered to be two varieties, us and Homo sapiens idaltu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu). It a very recent change in taxonomy, but all my physical anthropology, bioanthroplogy, and prehistoric archaeology professors are excited about it.

IC:

Ambassador Seigfried leaned forward to place a hand on Dr. Heidelbergensis's elbow. The Doctor seethed at the Shazbotdom delegate. He muttered to himself and collected his briefcase, wondering why he forfeited his team's curling match against the anthropology department for an imbrogolio with a gaggle of frail-boned, vertical-faced sapiens sapiens.

Seigfriend turned in his wheelchair as he watched the doctor stalk out of the floor. He only wondered how big a thesaurus and dictionary he would need to understand the language of the angry letters he was going to recieve from Heidelbergensis and his hominid colleagues.

I actually studied anthropology myself, back in the day, both in Quintessence of Dust and Ariddia, so I'm certainly receptive to your argument. However, I have been personally acquainted with Mr. Firemaker for several months, and have it on good authority that he does generally express his preferences in such a manner. I am not going to haggle the point, however; for now, I'd rather concentrate on any concerns people have about what is less than good about this proposal.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Time to roll out the standard 'free cookie/nookie/wookie for that one delegate whose approval will push this into quorum' offer.

Edit: ...and it's Setswana.

-- George Madison

Shucks. Missed out on the c/n/wookie.

If in the unlikely chance this doesn't pass, we would suggest some language clarification in article 7 and additional language in article 8.

- advise nations on strategies to improve their collections;"Collections" is most frequently used within the book community to refer to the reading materials themselves. We suspect, Mr. Madison, that you are primarily referring to the processes of collecting reading materials and any advisement toward that end the UNEAF could give, rather than any advise the committee could give a nation on their reading material purchase decisions.

8. Declares that the UNEAF may make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship.In addition to the authority provided the UNEAF, we would suggest a clear right to refuse gifts at the committee's discretion. Such a proviso is useful to prevent dumping of unwanted materials and stressing the committee's ability to perform its function.

We apologize for not being more timely with our suggestions, and feel that neither article's weakness is enough to warrant an "against" vote.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

There's no way you could have been more timely with suggestions as we submitted this prior to posting it for comment, so the fault is all ours. If any major flaws are pointed out, we will ask for it to be withdrawn.

You're entirely correct about 7, and thinking about it, it was stupidly worded and would have been easily rectified; however, it's not going to be so confusing that that it will cause problems with compliance. Regarding 8, I think that can be abstracted anyway: 'dumped' materials are neither relevant nor appropriate, so the UNEAF would have authority not to bother with them anyway.

-- George Madison

5. as part of waste collection,

We think this is an oversite on the part of the writer of this as most of us don't want used reading materials collected for waste reasons.
As some nations still don't have indoor plumbing and thus still use those reading materials for many things in the outhouses.

There's no way you could have been more timely with suggestions as we submitted this prior to posting it for comment, so the fault is all ours. If any major flaws are pointed out, we will ask for it to be withdrawn.Tsk, Mr. Madison, tsk. We certainly appreciate your intent should any critical flaws be revealed.

We think this is an oversite on the part of the writer of this as most of us don't want used reading materials collected for waste reasons.
As some nations still don't have indoor plumbing and thus still use those reading materials for many things in the outhouses.Don't be ridiculous. It takes incredibly convoluted logic to not see that that passage is referring to incorporating collection of reading materials with the collection of other recyclables, such as newspapers and aluminum cans, and their diversion, where appropriate from landfills. Should your nation still be wiping your derrieres with pages ripped from the Slears catalog, be assured you will be able to continue to do so after this legislation is passed.

Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador, Rubina
Regional Delegate, User Friendlia

Aoi Kiru Usagi Minzoku has always laid emphasis on education. I would like to add that we, as a nation, are wholly for this resolution, and will contribute substantially to this cause. However, if I may make a few suggestions:

A. If all this information is made available on computers, it would do wonders for the global library, as it were. It would also aid translation, printing and online reading, which is no doubt useful in any and all cases.
B. If recycling is suitable, as it is in several nations here, it is not environmentally harmful to reprint books. It further raises the quality of the material, makes it easy to read, and far easier to circulate.

A. If all this information is made available on computers, it would do wonders for the global library, as it were. It would also aid translation, printing and online reading, which is no doubt useful in any and all cases.

7. Authorises the UNEAF to:
- take inventory of collected materials;
- allocate the materials, and otherwise acquired through additional UNEAF initiatives, to petitioners;
- make contributors aware of particularly dire needs;
- grant small rewards to institutions that prove particularly responsive and helpful in collecting surplus reading materials;
- advise nations on strategies to improve their collections;

Surely, it isn't too much of a stretch to petition the UNEAF to allocate some reading materials to the global library, and then allocate the reading materials back?
---Dr. Bob

A. If all this information is made available on computers, it would do wonders for the global library, as it were. It would also aid translation, printing and online reading, which is no doubt useful in any and all cases.
I'm sure that's the case, but there's the small issue of copyright. Not to mention a country too poor to buy books is probably going to have trouble shelling out for a whole bunch of computers. I'd rather tackle spreading information availability in a separate proposal andnoDrBobthatisnotaninvitation.
B. If recycling is suitable, as it is in several nations here, it is not environmentally harmful to reprint books. It further raises the quality of the material, makes it easy to read, and far easier to circulate.
Mmm, be careful. A lot of recycling systems are false economy in environmental terms; I also find your assertion that recycled paper is of a better quality...questionable.

Thank you for your comments; however, I don't feel they desperately need be incorporated, particularly given the reasonable latitude on offer anyway.

-- George Madison

The Federal Republic votes in favor of this legislation. Such abject fluffiness has never really been our cup of tea, and our people never took much a likin' to all this "readin'" mumbo-jumbo, but this resolution is a rarity in that it manages to do a lot of good without becoming too intrusive on member states' internal education policies. That it complies with Resolution #171's mandate to let nations alone in that regard is a testament to the author's diligence.

We commend the Quodites on yet another thoughtful and well-written resolution to come to vote at the United Nations.

Jimmy Baca
Adviser to the Mission

No offense to people as an individual, but this UN sucks, all the proposals that go to a vote pass, is it too much to ask not to just pass a law, because others pass it. I for 1 am against this proposal and it should be stopped, but it probably won't because of people that only go with what others think

No offense to people as an individual, but this UN sucks, all the proposals that go to a vote pass, is it too much to ask not to just pass a law, because others pass it. I for 1 am against this proposal and it should be stopped, but it probably won't because of people that only go with what others think

OOC:
Hey buddy. Not all proposals that reach quorum pass.

Goobs has a Wiki up for NationStates and that had all the Info. Here's a link to the information you seek.

http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/un_timeline.html

You should have been here a few months ago when we were shooting down proposal after proposal...just because we've passed the last few doesn't mean we pass them all (the failed bills don't get recorded in a lot of places, and of course stupid stuff can't get the endorsements necessary to come up for vote).

As for this resolution, we applaud heartily everything it stands for. As for the Kennyites seemind disregard for readin', perhaps they will change their mind after hearing the newest rumors floating around inside Tanular: the owner of several....riske...publishing firms is supposedly working on a plan to donate a large quantity of 'educational' material alongside his own personal collection of fine and traditional literature in over 300 languages. It's only rumors right now though...

We, the people of The Dominion of The Popotan, the newly formed and recently inducted UN member, endorse this measure. It does not try to over-reach and what it does do we approve of. We are prepared to vote in favor of it after some further debate.

No offense to people as an individual, but this UN sucks, all the proposals that go to a vote pass, is it too much to ask not to just pass a law, because others pass it. I for 1 am against this proposal and it should be stopped, but it probably won't because of people that only go with what others think

We are moderately certain that saying, "I am against this" will have no effect whatsoever on the result. Should the honoured ambassador care to elucidate his reasons for opposing the proposal, he might meet with a better reception.

The Republic of Youteria approves and has voted FOR this resolution. Education is one of its principal concerns, thus making any proposal regarding it that is build upon constructive premises and needed solutions will be unconditionally supported by our great nation.May God save Youteria.

Leo Garnierum, Ministry of Education.

We of The Narnian Council support the proposal. Our Government puts much emphasis on Education, and is currently undergoing extensive reforms to help strengthen it further - and the UNEAF will of course do much to assist the cause.

We have one slight concern, however. Our support for the UNEAF stands only for educational reasons, and may be enough to secure our vote. But we are concerned about the fact that this project may have the potential to eventually, and legally, distribute material we consider objectionable - namely pornography.

I understand "that the UNEAF may make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship." However this does not specifically address what material is appropriate or not - and therefore the UNEAF may have the potential to be used indecently.

We'll put our region's vote on hold to give us additional time to deliberate over this issue.

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

This may be the greatest "feel-good" proposal we have had in a very long time. Why can't politicians in non-UN nations (and real nations) think like this from time to time?

The Empire of New Chalcedon supports this resolution, recognising the need for literacy programs in less fortunate nations.

[signed]

Andronikos Diogenes,
Ambassador for New Chalcedon to the United Nations.

As a zealously religious nation, our nation of Kirkylinis is always in need of holy texts with which to spread to Lord's word. And for those who deny it, we use guns to get the message across...

A rather scantily-dressed woman wearing a sexy business suit took the podium for Brutland and Norden. She was indeed quite new to the United Nations General Assembly, in fact, she was just visiting the kingdom's permanent mission to the UN. She scanned the audience for a moment, and then tried to appose the top of her blouse that was gaping wide open (and showing her cleavage, though that was intentional). She didn't succeed in covering herself, but she succeeded in drawing some of the male delegates' attention to her voluptuous bosom. She placed a paper on the podium, held it down with a book, and began to speak. "The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes FOR the resolution. We in our country are being swamped with reading materials, probably due to the intelligence of our people, or probably due to the proliferation of the Internet. Therefore, it is very nice that we see that we are helping other people learn by donating these books. Should this pass, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden would like to donate 1,000,000 books to this new bureaucracy." She swallowed the bitter taste associated with that word, for she had always hated bureaucracy back home. But this one's for something good, she reminded herself. "Also, I would like to personally donate 1,000 copies of my new book, 100 Ways of Improving Your Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy* Life." She was puzzled why the delegates did not react, but she carried on with her plug. "It is available in bookstores, and you can approach me to autograph it for you. Or if you ask me real nice," she said, the tone of her voice going seductive, "I can give it to you for free."

"My book also contains a Self-Instructional Video on how to - " An aide interrupted her, snatched her speech, and whispered something on her ear.

"Well, my time is up, I think - " she smiled appealingly and flicked her long blond hair backwards with her hand " - and thank you."

*100 Ways of Improving Your Happy-Happy-Joy-Joy Life - The Nord-Brutlandese title was 100 Vizi Migliecche nostra Vite Sessa (100 Ways of Improving Your Sex Life). The Nord-Brutlandese translator translated the title differently, so as not to debase Brutland and Norden's reputation in the UN...

First, our thanks to all those who have kindly spoken in favour of the proposal. To address a couple of concerns:
No offense to people as an individual, but this UN sucks, all the proposals that go to a vote pass, is it too much to ask not to just pass a law, because others pass it. I for 1 am against this proposal and it should be stopped, but it probably won't because of people that only go with what others think
1. You are factually incorrect in that proposals that go to vote do fail. You also need to bear in mind that proposals need to acquire a number of approvals (6% of all UN delegates) in order to go to vote in the first place; doing this requires a considerable effort, and thus there is a built-in check against proposals that would be crushingly defeated ever going to vote at all. In theory.

2. Until you furnish your reasons for opposing this proposal:
- we cannot attempt to answer concerns or engage in debate;
- you are exceedingly unlikely to convince anyone to change their minds, thus setting up something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...We have one slight concern, however...we are concerned about the fact that this project may have the potential to eventually, and legally, distribute material we consider objectionable - namely pornography...However this does not specifically address what material is appropriate or not - and therefore the UNEAF may have the potential to be used indecently...
I think your nation's predicament illustrates exactly why we avoided setting any precise standards or trying to define what is indecent, because it is likely some national cultures will exhibit higher tolerances than others. (While we are no fans of censorship, and supported the failed "Freedom of Expression Act", we don't consider that a matter for this proposal.)

The way we see it, the UNEAF will exclude material that is purely pornographic, as I can't imagine how it would have any educational value. The materials, remember, need to be relevant as well. I accept a small, very small, cadre of art historians or other media scholars might research such materials, but frankly, that forms such a tiny academic phalanx as to be of neglible concern. As for more general material that might be considered pornographic - the famous Quodite novel Lady Twatterley's Glovebox, for example, or biology textbooks - bear in mind the UNEAF decision is to be made in consultation with the nation receiving the materials. If they don't want to use such books, then they won't ask for them, and consequently won't receive them. Given the aim is to supply nations with what they want, I don't see there being any place for the UNEAF to start peddling smut.

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

2. Invites all nations to collect surplus reading materials and make them available to the Project for redistribution to those in need; We thank you for inviting us to this issue and feel we can't take it under consideration. Since there is nothing here to mandate we do anything here then we again thank you for the invitation and decline to act on it.

As far as what we will place in our education systems for learning materials we have a long list of items students must use to pass required standards that they might become citizens once they do so. We feel we need no additional materials to add to these... So we will not be seeking them through this program as set up.

We also feel during this time that with all the repeals to get rid of toothless resolutions we need not add another that will need pulling later once folks wake up and see how decayed it is.

So we say no to this one and hope other members will see the weakness here and also say no to it now and move on to more important issues that face this body...

5. Grants nations reasonable discretion in organizing collection of the materials, including in the degree of centralisation: the collections could, for example, be organized within educational institutions, as part of waste collection, or through charity events;Two things about this do not suit us in general terms. As noted above we have standard references we use in our education system and are not looking to add more to the listing as it stands now.. Especialy 'waste collection' materials.... that others have no desire to use so they dump them in this 'waste collection'... waste we burn as do we most things that can't be recycled into something better... or more useful than the original object. Then that word 'reasonable' bothers us as what to some is 'resonable' is simply foolish even criminal... Just look at some recent issues brought before this body...

Zarta Warden,
UN Ambassador Cavirria Township;
Garnilorn Empire First Vicar Royal

Your vapid tittering about compliance notwithstanding, how could you see this proposal being made more toothsome? Let's set aside the fact that, if it were beefed up, you'd vote against it as being an infringement of sovereignty. Are you seriously suggest we mandate a global book redistribution project? Doesn't that a) seem a little plausible and b) strike you as setting an abominably dangerous precedent?

Yes, this proposal is rather mild. Pointing that out is an invalid criticism without some measure of how and why it could be strengthened.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Is there anyone who can explain just where the funding for this project is to come from and how that said funding does not violate resolution 4? As was said earlier, this is nothing more than feel good government, which is both wasteful and malsighted. I vote no and encourage others to explain what would happen if this project does not receive the funding it requires in donations? If the only answers are forced taxation or a defunct project then this resolution is pointless or illegal.

A tall Mediterranean man donned in an all black suit, shirt, and tie with a decorative pin of the national flag of the Holy Republic of Massello pinned to his lapel leans towards the microphone, flashing a practiced smile of glistening white teeth.

"Hail to the United Nations. I am the Holy Communique Matthew Spencer representing the HRM. ((Holy Republic of Massello)) While the Holy Republic of Massello understands and shares the..." with a struggle, "compassion for
literacy in all nations... it is in the view of the Glorious Leader of our Holy Republic that the Access to Literacy Program is nothing more than petty idealism dressed up in a heavily impractical proposal.

How exactly will these books and other reading materials be redistributed?
An explanation of the allocation of materials, in further detail, is needed.
What sort of reading materials would be beneficial, educationally, for the populace of completely separate nations? Each nation celebrates its own culture, history and often times, sciences. Aside from universal entertainment texts, such as outdated sports magazines or dare I say pornography, what sort of books, magazines, editorial journals, or other texts from a different nation are really going to be taught in a classroom or distributed in a book store?
Where will these surplus texts be held? With millions of printed articles circulating, does it not seem unrealistic to lack the capacity or manpower to sort through these endless texts? Not to mention the extra funding it would require on the part of each nation to maintain such a system.
In addition, our Holy Republic finds it difficult to comprehend how nations with different languages would benefit from the trading of these sorts of reading materials, when the ultimate goal is not to contribute to a multilingual nation, but a literate one.

The influx of written works also raises questions in regards to the safety of this program.
There are certain harmful or even heretical texts that the HRM simply will not tolerate entering our borders, regardless of whatever "inventory" records are kept. The threat of these alarming, smutty, and dubious texts entering our borders through mistakes in allocation is of great concern to the HRM.
Our citizens have our history books and newspapers to keep them literate and informed. I think I speak for many nations when I ask, 'What else should they need?' Therefore, the Holy Republic of Massello votes, and urges all nations to vote, against this proposal. Thank you."

I think your nation's predicament illustrates exactly why we avoided setting any precise standards or trying to define what is indecent, because it is likely some national cultures will exhibit higher tolerances than others.

And because of that, I believe you will be granted success. Simply because this does not address controversial ideas, and it really is refreshing to have a sensible and kindly proposal such as this pass through our halls.

However, the problem enters when we address the issue of pornography. The situation is - those who endorse that form of material in their nations can freely distribute through other methods, and are not disadvantaged at all - whether or not the UNEAF forbade the distribution of pornography.

But, nations like mine, who find such material socially harmful (our totally criminal-free cities a result of our heavy handed approach to such activities) - will be put at an unnecessary disadvantage.

The Narnian Council would very much like to use the UNEAF, however we can see a loophole through which money-hungry porn tycoons could easily manipulate this worthy cause to their own ends. And as a result, we would be forced to shut down UNEAF operations in our nation, and it would have been no use to us at all - and it has the potential to introduce something we are completely free of.

I can't imagine how it [porn] would have any educational value.

Neither can I. But unfortunately the UNEAF doesn't clearly limit reading material for educational purposes only - and even if it did, unless defined, the term ‘educational’ is relative. You’ll be surprised at what some folks consider to be of ‘learning value’.

So my point it – I would have liked to have seen the term ‘educational purposes only’, with a definition of that term following it. Besides pornography, the UNEAF may also have the potential to distribute clearly non-educational material such as tabloids, comics, international newspapers, advertisements etc, if fallen into the wrong hands. And ultimately, to me, it seems that its possible it may wind up serving as just another branch of the media.

Although I clearly understand that this was certainly not the intent of the proposal, I do believe that there should have been more solid restrictions upon the material the UNEAF would provide – given that it no way imposes the those same restrictions upon member nations anyway. It might have even sparked a much stronger revival on the importance of educational literature (in contrast to tabloids) for many governments.

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of the Council of Narnia

This is exactly the sort of progressive legislation I like to see at vote. You have the vote of my government.

Harmalan Shandreð

However, the problem enters when we address the issue of pornography. The situation is - those who endorse that form of material in their nations can freely distribute through other methods, and are not disadvantaged at all - whether or not the UNEAF forbade the distribution of pornography.

But, nations like mine, who find such material socially harmful (our totally criminal-free cities a result of our heavy handed approach to such activities) - will be put at an unnecessary disadvantage.
We cannot for a moment imagine how. The proposal in no way requires your nation to accept materials from the UNEAF, and in clause 8 goes out of its way to require consultation with yourselves as petitioners as to the suitability of materials.

The Narnian Council would very much like to use the UNEAF, however we can see a loophole through which money-hungry porn tycoons could easily manipulate this worthy cause to their own ends.
This claim is simply incredible. Any individual capable of making considerable money from the provision of "donated, unwanted, used, second hand or remaindered" reading matter is a commercial genius we would be somewhat in awe of.

And as a result, we would be forced to shut down UNEAF operations in our nation, and it would have been no use to us at all - and it has the potential to introduce something we are completely free of.
The honoured ambassador is still to demonstrate a way in which this assertion is true.

Neither can I. But unfortunately the UNEAF doesn't clearly limit reading material for educational purposes only - and even if it did, unless defined, the term ‘educational’ is relative. You’ll be surprised at what some folks consider to be of ‘learning value’.
We are constantly surprised at what people don't consider to be educational.

So my point it – I would have liked to have seen the term ‘educational purposes only’, with a definition of that term following it.
No doubt the ambassador would have liked a neat list of all things that might be of educational value. There being a clue in the term "all things", we can but suggest that any such definition would either be woefully inadequate or more open to abuse than its lack.

Besides pornography, the UNEAF may also have the potential to distribute clearly non-educational material such as tabloids, comics, international newspapers, advertisements etc, if fallen into the wrong hands. And ultimately, to me, it seems that its possible it may wind up serving as just another branch of the media.
Again, we must point out that nations are not obliged to accept so much as a limerick written on the back of an envelope should they so choose.

To start with, ambassador for Gobbanium, I would like to question your unfailingly inhospitable nature towards me from the moment we shook hands many months ago.

If it is simply in your nature to conduct yourself in such a discourteous, unprofessional, loud-mouthed and arrogant fashion - then please let me know. If you have continually held a grudge against me, God-knows for whatever reasons, then I suggest you assume a more disciplined manner and leave behind any conflicts we may have had with me in other discussions. Or if you cannot summon enough self control for this – please at least muster the audacity to contact me privately.

And yes, I have continually been restrained by my retinue from lashing out at you, and even now I am getting disapproving looks – but you’ve pushed me to the edge this time, Mr. Ambassador.

But now, I’ve had my say, and I will continue this discussion civilly.


We cannot for a moment imagine how. The proposal in no way requires your nation to accept materials from the UNEAF, and in clause 8 goes out of its way to require consultation with yourselves as petitioners as to the suitability of materials.

You’ve misread my statement. I never once indicated that I believed the UNEAF requires my nation to accept its materials. What I explained was:

A UNEAF allowing only educational material (term defined) would protect the organization and its participating nations from pornographic exploitation. But if member nations were comfortable with pornography, then this won’t be a problem, since no one needs the UNEAF to supply this material.

A UNEAF that allowed any form of literature (as it is) would not protect the organization and participating nations from such material - and therefore many nations would be disadvantaged. They may like to use UNEAF, but are not happy with the content that is being pumped through.

Therefore, if the UNEAF included a protection, it would have easily catered for far more nations.

Imagine if all the TV networks began running pornographic TV shows day and night. Do you think they'd lose business and compatibility very quickly?

And this isn’t about the legality of pornography. This is about a very unnecessary loophole.

Any individual capable of making considerable money from the provision of "donated, unwanted, used, second hand or remaindered" reading matter is a commercial genius we would be somewhat in awe of.

It is a GRAVE mistake to underestimate the capabilities of powerful businessmen. And be sure not to use your own Gobbannium businessmen as a benchmark. I for one am not willing to take the risk. For example, if we see that a specific corporation, trading internationally with us, has very loose health regulations, we would immediately sever its operations. Because we're not willing to risk letting rooster-flu penetrate our borders.

No doubt the ambassador would have liked a neat list of all things that might be of educational value.

Quite the contrary – we would have liked a neat list of things that shouldn’t be considered as educational value to the UNEAF. I’ve already stated that.


Again, we must point out that nations are not obliged to accept so much as a limerick written on the back of an envelope should they so choose.

And again, I’ve never said otherwise. However, we should have liked the UNEAF to have possessed even a very brief set of literacy guidelines.


CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of the Council of Narnia

Perhaps the Narnian representative should spend less time insulting the honorable Prince and spend more time making sure his comments are clear? Please elaborate on your statements- I don't understand them one whit.

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

Is there anyone who can explain just where the funding for this project is to come from and how that said funding does not violate resolution 4? As was said earlier, this is nothing more than feel good government, which is both wasteful and malsighted. I vote no and encourage others to explain what would happen if this project does not receive the funding it requires in donations? If the only answers are forced taxation or a defunct project then this resolution is pointless or illegal.
It'd be helpful if you spelled out a little more fully, with textual reference, how the voluntary funding system established by Resolution #171 violates the rule on direct taxation of individuals.
--snip--
My general response is that you need to think about what you are demanding. You are asking that the proposal be more specific while at the same time emphasising that different nations will have different needs. Had it not occurred to you that the two might be related, and that we might have left it to the discretion of individual nations, in consultation with the UNEAF, to determine the appropriateness of texts, precisely because we wanted to avoid a, and I shudder to say it but see no alternative, 'one size fits all' policy?

Furthermore, I simply reject some of the grounding of your argument. Yes, each nation has its own culture. But, save in extreme cases, a Quodite algebra textbook is going to be useful in Massello. The only nations that will truly be unable to participate in the scheme are those that use a unique language and which do not need foreign texts for language classes. I imagine they form a pretty small bunch.
And because of that, I believe you will be granted success. Simply because this does not address controversial ideas, and it really is refreshing to have a sensible and kindly proposal such as this pass through our halls.
Thank you for your kind words; I'll try to address your concerns.
However, the problem enters when we address the issue of pornography. The situation is - those who endorse that form of material in their nations can freely distribute through other methods, and are not disadvantaged at all - whether or not the UNEAF forbade the distribution of pornography.
Well, no, the UNEAF isn't, so far as I see, forbidden from distributing pornography: but it's not really empowered to do so either. It's not forbidden from distributing rusty nails - but no one would think that it would do so. So why assume a situation where pornography would be distributed in the first place?

I see three possibilities:
- Nations collect and offer pornography; but why would they do this? The main value of this project will concern books for which there exist a large number of copies, such that they can be incorporated into an educational system. This mainly means textbooks and 'set texts'. Perhaps a few sorry individuals will chuck an old copy of Playquod into their collection bin. But I don't see why the UNEAF wouldn't weed this out, any less than it would a badly damaged book or some bit of rubbish.
- Nations actually request pornography, a request I imagine the UNEAF would rank relatively low in priority terms. This would clearly not be a problem in your case.
- Something intermediate. I mentioned before the book Lady Twatterley's Glovebox. This was once banned as smut, but was subsequently allowed back into circulation, and has fared well in subsequent critical - and commercial - terms. Yet whenever it is adopted as a set text for English courses, there is a bit of hubbub about whether or not it is appropriate. But, once again, given it is the nation's prerogative to request the books, and the UNEAF can remove 'inappropriate' ones, I can't imagine it becoming a problem in practice.
So my point it – I would have liked to have seen the term ‘educational purposes only’, with a definition of that term following it. Besides pornography, the UNEAF may also have the potential to distribute clearly non-educational material such as tabloids, comics, international newspapers, advertisements etc, if fallen into the wrong hands. And ultimately, to me, it seems that its possible it may wind up serving as just another branch of the media.

Although I clearly understand that this was certainly not the intent of the proposal, I do believe that there should have been more solid restrictions upon the material the UNEAF would provide – given that it no way imposes the those same restrictions upon member nations anyway. It might have even sparked a much stronger revival on the importance of educational literature (in contrast to tabloids) for many governments.
Ok, I see where you're coming from here, but I have to admit I disagree. The greatest dramatist in Quintessence of Dust was Johanne Wolfgang von Quothe, famous amongst other things for his adaptation of Faust. He once wrote 'alles traegt zu unserer Bildung bei', or, 'everything contributes to our understanding'. Personally, I hope some of the non-educational reading materials you have mentioned will be included.

If we're aiming for literacy - and that is the primary aim of this proposal - then academic texts alone can never suffice. Using other forms of media acquaints students with vernacular. It's good practice to introduce them to journalistic style so they can, for example, be shown how newspapers sometimes distort facts for the purposes of 'a story'. Comics show how ideas are assimilated into and represented in popular culture.

Which is not to suggest pulp fiction and fashion magazines should make up the bulk of the content. But I don't think it should be the policy of the UNEAF a priori to reject reading materials based on their generic type, so long as they are put to good use. Nations not sharing this catholic view are of course free not to request them in the first place.

-- Samantha Benson

If it is simply in your nature to conduct yourself in such a discourteous, unprofessional, loud-mouthed and arrogant fashion - then please let me know.
All we can offer is that we do not believe that we have acted improperly in any of the multitudinous disagreements that have occured between our delegations. Certainly, we haven't resorted to shouting. It is entirely natural that we should find ourselves regularly on opposite sides of discussions in this chamber, since our nations appear to take philosophically incompatible views of life. We grant that we may have been more snappish than is strictly polite when faced with assertion in place of fact, but we can assure the ambassador that while do regard some few embassies in this assembly as being wastes of good oxygen, his nation is not one of them.

You’ve misread my statement. I never once indicated that I believed the UNEAF requires my nation to accept its materials. What I explained was:

A UNEAF allowing only educational material (term defined) would protect the organization and its participating nations from pornographic exploitation. But if member nations were comfortable with pornography, then this won’t be a problem, since no one needs the UNEAF to supply this material.

A UNEAF that allowed any form of literature (as it is) would not protect the organization and participating nations from such material - and therefore many nations would be disadvantaged. They may like to use UNEAF, but are not happy with the content that is being pumped through.

Therefore, if the UNEAF included a protection, it would have easily catered for far more nations.
What you have not established, sir, is how there can be any risk involved that the organisation needs protecting from. Some materials it gathers will be unsuitable for some petitioners, that is inevitable. From our conversations so far, for example, it would seem likely that Gobbannaen textbooks intended for sexual education classes would be rejected with horror by Narnian educators, while Narnian texts intended for the same end would probably only be of interest to comparative sociology courses. Given a little discussion, we would expect to be able construct a similar situation with the roles reversed.

The guarantee that the honoured ambassador seeks is precisely that the UNEAF is enjoined to consult with petitioners on the suitability of donations. The only disadvantaging that we can conceive of under these circumstances is that not all materials will be suitable for all nations, but as we have pointed out that is an entirely inevitable consequence of the diversity of NationStates.

We would also like to point out that there are nations which regard some material the ambassador would label as pornographic to be educational. Contrary to the ambassador's assertion, such nations would be likely to have no less need of such material from the UNEAF than they would geometry textbooks.

Imagine if all the TV networks began running pornographic TV shows day and night. Do you think they'd lose business and compatibility very quickly?
Yes, actually. The boredom threshold of the average human being is very low. We would give it a month at the outside before DVD rentals of documentaries became a very lucrative business.

And this isn’t about the legality of pornography. This is about a very unnecessary loophole.
We still don't understand where the ambassador believes this loophole to be.

Quite the contrary – we would have liked a neat list of things that shouldn’t be considered as educational value to the UNEAF. I’ve already stated that.
We've stated, though by implication rather than explicitly, that we don't believe that such a list can be constructed with any rigour without arriving at distinctly perverse results.

Disclaimer - I have not read the debate, merely the proposal. (Is there an abbreviation we can use to say that?)

I agree that the cause is noble. The method also seems to be fairly sound. Still, I wonder if this is the place for it. Should the NSUN be enacting such proposals? We are a governing body, not a library or charity organization.

Might this not be -- and I dread the words coming from my mouth will paint me as some sort of conservative -- better left as a function of the private sector?

That is exactly my point Boggy, though I would question your fear at being called a conservative as if that was somehow a bad thing. As for the question regarding the rules violation this makes as per resolution 4. All government money is tax money from its people, there by all external taxation is a direct taxation of the people of that nation by proxy as the government itself never had ownership of said profits but was rather to spend it through public trust. The idea that you can separate the two is simply absurd. My question was very basic, if it is voluntary, what is to happen if this organization does not receive the funding it requires? Is it to request funding? Something which it cannot do from its member nations, or is it to go defunct?

This proposal is little more than a high school fantasy with absolutely no foresight into implementation. Consider for a moment that if this were to be a successful venture, it would already exsist.

Also on whos part is this voluntary? The part of the nation? Would I be free to not adhere to this proposal if I so choose? If so, why pass it at all?

As much as it is clear that a great many here desire an imagined utopia, resolutions like this show a complete lack of knowledge on how to achive that state. This resolution is at its very best a do nothing piece of legislature, and at its worst a violation of both sovereignty and the UN's own resolutions.

Wolfgang looked at IX and Kyle, and the trio silently communicated as they drafted a vote, then uploaded it to the Commonwealth. They waited a few minutes, as the three and a half billion citizens thought it out, and cast their own votes. Viewing the results, Wolfgang and IX nodded to Kyle, and the Guardian 'pup' stepped forward.

"By almost unanimous decision, the Great Commonwealth can find no reason to oppose this measure, and many reasons to support it. We believe strongly in the free distribution of information of all varieties, and will gladly share virtually anything with any nation that requests it, and will probably upload everything we have to the global library thing - even our porn, what we do have of it. Or things that are 'questionable,' though that has little meaning in the Commonwealth. I mean, we can't forget that people don't read solely for education, although that is a large portion of it. While the spirit of the resolution seems to be geared towards edu-texts and the like, we, at the very least, would collect fiction entertainment works, as well, because a great number of our citizens and probably a great number of citizens across Existence read even educational things for entertainment or personal enjoyment. Learning is but one facet of written media, and we feel that we might as bloody well take advantage of another huge one in the process."

8. Declares that the UNEAF may make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship.


What measures are in place to ensure the body who makes these judgments, the UNEAF, will make appropriate and just decisions about the reading materials in the first place? The words "in consultation with petitioners for assistance" doesn't really give the petitioners any say nor does it allow any sort of arbitration.

Would anyone care to point me where the UNEAF receives this authority? If there is a previous resolution please let me know and I'll be happy to accept this proposal.

What measures are in place to ensure the body who makes these judgments, the UNEAF, will make appropriate and just decisions about the reading materials in the first place? The words "in consultation with petitioners for assistance" doesn't really give the petitioners any say nor does it allow any sort of arbitration.

Would anyone care to point me where the UNEAF receives this authority? If there is a previous resolution please let me know and I'll be happy to accept this proposal.

Fiat in the United Nations is derived from the Secretariat and the Holy Hackian Protocols, which dictate how things should be done, how things are done, and how things will be done hence. The UNEAF recieves it's authority from the passage of this resolution, which empowers it to make such decisions. The UNEAF itself was called into being by Resolution #79, "Reformed Literacy Initiative."

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

Fiat in the United Nations is derived from the Secretariat and the Holy Hackian Protocols, which dictate how things should be done, how things are done, and how things will be done hence. The UNEAF recieves it's authority from the passage of this resolution, which empowers it to make such decisions. The UNEAF itself was called into being by Resolution #79, "Reformed Literacy Initiative."

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens



Am I wrong to not see it? Nowhere in UN R79 do I see any mention or statement enacting the UNEAF body nor handing anything any authority.


...DECLARES, as a right for all, the opportunity to learn how to read and write in the official language(s) of a nation and extend this right to all citizens with in member nations;

ENACTS the following to ensure this right be maintained:

1.Literacy, and the attainment thereof, is established as the critical priority in the secular education granted by member nations, in accordance with “free education”, to its citizens;

2.Member nations are to take measures to increase both the skills of teachers of young children and the profitability of careers in teaching: such has tax cuts for educators, grants for teaching organizations, and loans to aspiring or studying teachers;

3.Children with a deficiency in literacy of any kind have at their disposal increased efforts and attention (with respect to a non-deficient child) of well-trained educators, proportional to the severity of the deficiency;

4.Education in literacy and in the norms of communication (an expanding vocabulary, syntax, writing conventions) of the official language(s) shall begin with the earliest stage of secular schooling granted by a member nation possible, and shall continue to be a substantial factor in students’ education throughout their education;

5.Adults who lack the ability to read and write (or are verifiably deficient at reading and writing) are given the opportunity to become literate (or more “adequately” literate) without fee or stipulation;...

Those are the only paragraphs which dictate a member nation's expected requirements.

Am I wrong to not see it? Nowhere in UN R79 do I see any mention or statement enacting the UNEAF

We believe Ambassador Shandreð is in error on that one point. The UN Educational Advancement Fund was established with Resolution 171 "UN Educational Aid Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11663193&postcount=172)."


We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Madison for a fine proposal. We have cast our vote "for".

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador, Rubina
Regional Delegate, User Friendlia

We believe Ambassador Shandreð is in error on that one point. The UN Educational Advancement Fund was established with Resolution 171 "UN Educational Aid Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11663193&postcount=172)."




Then my point stands.

8. Declares that the UNEAF may make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship.

What are the checks and balances to the UNEAF? This is a great resolution but it seems to want to give authority to something that was not intended entirely to do so in the first place. Let us remember what the UNEAF stands for. It's not a committee.


Our region stands against this resolution.

What are the checks and balances to the UNEAF? This is a great resolution but it seems to want to give authority to something that was not intended entirely to do so in the first place. Let us remember what the UNEAF stands for. It's not a committee.
Despite the name, UNEAF is indeed a committee. It was created as such under the current binding rules. One does not have to have the word "committee" in the name of a committee for it to be one. Much in the same way one doesn't have to have the words "rat poison" in the name of a product that will kill them dead.

As with all UN committees, it is staffed by magical gnomes who live and breath to serve on said committee tirelessly, ethically and perfectly. Thus checks and balances per se are unnecessary. The limitations on the committee consist in its nature--it will undertake nothing that has not been mandated by the assembly.

As with many committees of the UN, the UNEAF has had additional functions added to it--why create additional committees when one already exists in the area of interest.

--L.T.

What are the checks and balances to the UNEAF?You mean, aside from nations' freedom not to accept any materials offered by the Fund?

But I don't see why the UNEAF wouldn't weed this [porn] out, any less than it would a badly damaged book or some bit of rubbish.

I'd expect the same too. But you must forgive my strictness of protocol...too many times have we seen resolutions been misused to do more harm than good.

Personally, I hope some of the non-educational reading materials you have mentioned will be included.

Yes, so do I. However I was alluding to the fact that these items still have the potential to be distributed in a much higher percentage than should be acceptable.

In conclusion, I believe the UNEAF will do wonders for those who have the heart to manage it with decency and respect. Although I don't like to support proposals that depend on a person's specific heart or intentions (without a strict set of guidelines) - I will say that the UNEAF can be an exception. And you do deserve congratulations for the insightful proposal - I'm sure it'll do alot to boost education overall. You've my support in the matter.

we can assure the ambassador that while do regard some few embassies in this assembly as being wastes of good oxygen, his nation is not one of them.

We're pleased that you regard us in that way - and the same can certainly be said of your own embassy. I trust that, in the future, our nations may be able to cooperate with less hostility.

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

You mean, aside from nations' freedom not to accept any materials offered by the Fund?

No. I mean the wastefulness of this resolution and its funding by an unauthorized "committee" to "make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship."

It doesn't seem right to add that there. I see the good will and trust in future times but this is an easy one to crack. And a shame this board cares so much about other wording but blatantly misses this unnecessary declaration. Not only dangerous but a waste.


What does it matter anyway? Pretty much all resolutions pass. Talk about illiteracy.

Those are the only paragraphs which dictate a member nation's expected requirements.
And this is why The Popotan endorses it. It is a narrow proposal that seeks only to promote literacy and the exchange of literary material. The UNEAF does have scrutiny of such material being shared of course between nations as well.

Anything more would cloud the issues. This is a well written and good proposal. It should be supported.

I do not agree with the proposal being that in a real world situation the nations of the UN would have several different languages, making the proposal mostly useless.

Don't think about gameplay and think about how you would vote in the real world, and likely we would have a more accurate vote.

But we all know this won't happen...

Why Does the international community feel the need to usurp the administrative prerogative of individual member-states?

The right to set a national agenda rests solely with the nation itself.

This United Nations is not the European Union. Stop exceeding the mandate.

I fully endorse Quintessence of Dust's propsal and have already voted accordingly. Strong literacy is vital for the econic and social wellibeing of all regions, nations and people. I strongly recommend that as jmany nations (especially regional delegates) as possible vote in favour of this proposal. Thank you.

Very good proposal. It is specific and gives also freedom to the UN members to devolope it whit their owm means. The creation of an international institutions to run it, is also a current way of facing this kind of initiatives in international law.

Very well quintaesence of dust!!

*Ambassador Gryphonne takes the floor*

The matter of the Literacy Project proposal comes as a welcome new bill to the UN, and the Empire of Zakuvia has placed its support behind it.

However...there are a few things troubling my Imperial Security advisors. What is to keep this legislation from being abused by member nations of the UN? Yes, tabloids, pornography, and outright offensive materials can, in theory, be rejected by our fellow nations, but what if they choose not to? What if the goal of the member nation is to incite hatred and distrust via showing its people only the printed news and information it wants its' people to see? Surely more radicalized nations would leap at the chance to garner free copies of certain tabloids and entertainment media to show its' people how 'debauched' and 'hedonistic' more liberal member nations are, while at the same time censoring or refusing access to other, more rational print media.

This has raised a number of disquieted eyebrows in the War Council, and, based on your response to this query, the Imperial Senate may choose to rescind its' backing of the bill, for the good of us all.

May peace and sanity guide your hand.

Bacork has voted against this proposal on the grounds that it would impose the language of the more developed countries on to the poorer ones. Also by shareing literature the 'rich countries' will change the original cultures and local literature and printing might become even less important for governments of these countries. Also national languages will disappear with time... I feel this project is more to show how charitable the UN's wealthier countries are rather than to, in any way, help the less advantaged.

No. I mean the wastefulness of this resolution and its funding by an unauthorized "committee" to "make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship."

It doesn't seem right to add that there. I see the good will and trust in future times but this is an easy one to crack. And a shame this board cares so much about other wording but blatantly misses this unnecessary declaration. Not only dangerous but a waste.The UNEAF is funded by voluntary contributions from member states. If you think it's such a wasteful bureaucracy, don't contribute to it. Cut off its funding at the source.

What does it matter anyway? Pretty much all resolutions pass.Trust me, we are not the ones you want to be griping to about that. Really.

Why Does the international community feel the need to usurp the administrative prerogative of individual member-states?

The right to set a national agenda rests solely with the nation itself.

This United Nations is not the European Union. Stop exceeding the mandate.This "usurps" nothing, nor does it "set" any "national agendas" for anyone. It merely renders assistance to nations who request it. Besides that, there is no "mandate" limiting the UN's power; it can legislate pretty much in any area it pleases, and your nation is powerless to resist. If you don't like it, well, like my mom always used to say, "You know where the damned door is!"

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad46lz.png

Sammy Faisano
Adviser to the Mission

This is nothing more than United Nations medeling in the affairs of their member states. A country has a right to choose weather or not to do this, and it is therefore also up to their own initiative. I urge everyone greatly to vote against this, and any other United Nations resolution, and support ever vote to repeal a resolution. The United Nations must be a place for countries to talk to each other, and nothing more. Prevent UN intervention!

- President of the Senate of the Armed Republic of Torgistan

though I would question your fear at being called a conservative as if that was somehow a bad thing.

Not a bad thing. Just an inaccurate thing.

This is nothing more than United Nations medeling in the affairs of their member states.Welcome to the UN, by the way "medleing" is what we do (http://www.nationstates.net/91287/page=faq#UN).
A country has a right to choose weather or not to do this, and it is therefore also up to their own initiative.You're quite correct, in fact that right is written directly into this resolution.
I urge everyone greatly to vote against this, and any other United Nations resolution, and support ever vote to repeal a resolution.What are you, a former Gatesvillain? The United Nations must be a place for countries to talk to each other, and nothing more. Prevent UN intervention!

- President of the Senate of the Armed Republic of Torgistan

If you have a problem with how the UN works around here, there's the door don't let it hit you on the way out.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Also by shareing literature the 'rich countries' will change the original cultures...We would ask that the representative from Bacork show evidence of his culture never being influenced by outside forces.

What is to keep this legislation from being abused by member nations of the UN? Yes, tabloids, pornography, and outright offensive materials can, in theory, be rejected by our fellow nations, but what if they choose not to? What if the goal of the member nation is to incite hatred and distrust via showing its people only the printed news and information it wants its' people to see? Surely more radicalized nations would leap at the chance to garner free copies of certain tabloids and entertainment media to show its' people how 'debauched' and 'hedonistic' more liberal member nations are, while at the same time censoring or refusing access to other, more rational print media.
We thank the honoured ambassador for sharing his concerns with this chamber, but we are inclined to think that they fade to mere phantasms under the light of scrutiny. Should particular nations wish to 'prove' to their population the corrupt nature of a particular enemy, we are quite sure that the availability of free copies of sensationalist tabloids would have approximately no effect on the situation; at worst the nation has been saved the equivalent of a few hundred ceiniogs in actually buying the magazine.

More pertinantly, we note that the enemy nation (for want of a better term) is in no way obliged to provide such material to the UNEAF for redistribution. We doubt that many would wish to offer material they considered gave an inaccurate or misleading impression of their nation, or would waste time on donations of trivial educational worth in the first place. We would be unlikely to burden the UNEAF with deliveries of the current issue of Ave! magazine, for example, unless some other nation expressed a particular interest in using it in comparative analysis of what we consider to be 'high society'.

*The General Secretary Of The United Social States Of Spirithaven stands up furious and screams:*

This is an outrage!The United Nations now vote on creating an organization and a library!A library? Imperialism spreads , revolutions are drowned,civilizations are falling to new world order oblivion of stupidity and all you care about is gathering papers with the acceptance of the UN? Don't we already have internet? Didn't we already passed free speech and free knowledge resolutions? I question the funding of UN non-profit organizations as well as the usability of the current legislation.The USSS is against!Of course in a UN where everyone votes FOR because nice warm fuzzy pink vegan feelings spring from the title what can we expect.

Cultures are always affected by other cultures. Naturally. But cultures languages etc. Has to be protected to a level from influence. This is not to say that change is bad but in my opinion flooding a nation with the waste literature of an other country, presuming that what is handed down is not needed anymore, can have a really negative effect on the recieving countries literature, print, culture etc. Also living with a closer example inheriting clothes from older family members all the time makes you own personal taste and style become harder and harder to access and makes buying of new clothes unnecessary or if you do you will buy so it matches you handed down collection... This example applied to literature also works and I do believe it is an exploitation of the recieving nation.

Also I understand Zakuvia's concerns one only has to look at countries with dictatorship where people's opinion regarding countries with different political systems are very much influenced by the leadership of their country. Where I come from for example not too long ago capitalist was a swearword...

Ok, sorry I took some time away: I went to see a gig by the popular beat combo, 'The New Quornographers'. George, meanwhile, is still under his desk. Thank you to everyone who's spoken in support of or defended the proposal.
I agree that the cause is noble. The method also seems to be fairly sound. Still, I wonder if this is the place for it. Should the NSUN be enacting such proposals? We are a governing body, not a library or charity organization.
This is a reasonable objection to it, and I don't particularly have an answer to it, inasmuch as if you flat out believe this isn't for the UN to do, then, well, it isn't for the UN to do. But, consider that there are around 70,000 nations in the world, a third of which are in the UN. Any project to distribute books is going to be absolutely colossal. The UN commands hundreds of times more members than the very largest alliances do. I really don't think any charitable organization could muster the resources to even approach the project, except on a very, very small scale.
As for the question regarding the rules violation this makes as per resolution 4. All government money is tax money from its people, there by all external taxation is a direct taxation of the people of that nation by proxy as the government itself never had ownership of said profits but was rather to spend it through public trust. The idea that you can separate the two is simply absurd. My question was very basic, if it is voluntary, what is to happen if this organization does not receive the funding it requires? Is it to request funding? Something which it cannot do from its member nations, or is it to go defunct?
I'm not going to get sidetracked on this. I'm not I'm not I'm not.

Alright.

First, the UN is not a 'government'. Second, there is, very obviously, such a thing as indirect taxation. A direct tax is assessed by the taxing authority: 'pay 10% of your income'. An indirect tax is levied by an intermediary: 'pay 10% extra of the price of this chocolate bar'; the government then collects the tax from the intermediary. Third, there is such a thing as deficit spending. Fourth, the UN has in the past voted on a UN Funding Act (which failed) after tortuous legal discussions.

If you would like to ask someone about the correct interpretation of Resolution #4, this is not the thread. This is the thread to discuss what will hopefully soon become Resolution #242. But, in brief, it has been ruled that the UN can require nations to pay sums. How they raise that capital would be up to them, as per Resolutions #4 and, arguably, #128. Bear in mind, also, there are other sources of government revenue: state owned resources such as energy supplies or companies, for example.

None of this is relevant, because, once again, the UNEAF is funded through voluntary donations.
This proposal is little more than a high school fantasy with absolutely no foresight into implementation. Consider for a moment that if this were to be a successful venture, it would already exsist.
Well, that's just the stupidest thing that's ever been said. By that logic, the UN Taxation Ban is a bad idea, because if it had been a good one it would have been Resolution #2, not #4. This project does not exist, on this scale, because it has not - yet - been established by the UN. We are now debating the merits of establishing it.
Also on whos part is this voluntary? The part of the nation? Would I be free to not adhere to this proposal if I so choose? If so, why pass it at all?
Yeah, I got the sense you'd be one to argue both ways. The point of passing it is to help those nations that would rather make a substantive contribution to increasing global literacy than waffle about irrelevancies while trying to worm out of any obligation to help others.
As much as it is clear that a great many here desire an imagined utopia, resolutions like this show a complete lack of knowledge on how to achive that state. This resolution is at its very best a do nothing piece of legislature, and at its worst a violation of both sovereignty and the UN's own resolutions.
Thank you for getting it on record that you consider this both too strong and too weak. You have rebutted both of your own arguments with the opposite ends of your speech, and I thank you for your vigorous defence of the proposal!
What measures are in place to ensure the body who makes these judgments, the UNEAF, will make appropriate and just decisions about the reading materials in the first place?
Absolutely none.

The way UN committees work (any committees that attempt to deviate from this would be illegal) is that they can effect only what is granted them authority to effect by the authorising proposal(s). Before this proposal, the UNEAF would not have had authority to set up this project, although it did have certain other tasks assigned by prior legislation. This resolution now allows it to do so. What it does not permit it to engage in is indiscriminate censorship. No other legislation allows it to do this. Therefore, it is prohibited from doing this.
What are the checks and balances to the UNEAF? This is a great resolution but it seems to want to give authority to something that was not intended entirely to do so in the first place. Let us remember what the UNEAF stands for. It's not a committee.
Ah, I think there may be a bit of confusion about 'committee'. By virtue of the UN rules, all UN agencies, organizations, bodies, boards, funds, authorities, networks, and whatever else, are 'committees'. It's a common, and perhaps not entirely accurate, frame of reference, but it's what we're stuck with. So the UNEAF is a committee, in the sense of UN rules; you are entirely accurate, however, in that neither this proposal nor Resolution #171 gave it the duties of consideration and executive decision we might associate with other 'committees'.

As to checks and balances, we have to reiterate that the UN operates a default check and balance system. Committees cannot exceed their authority. That is simply how it works. For reference, the UN rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) section on committees may be helpful.

OOC: Sorry if my answers aren't totally clear: as should be obvious, this is all a bit difficult to discuss IC! We have been assured in the past to assure reasonable competence by UN staffers - although how you RP it is really your prerogative - and this seems fair, given we couldn't reasonably write legislation to eliminate UN corruption; resolutions have to affect member nations, not the Secretariat alone.
Yes, so do I. However I was alluding to the fact that these items still have the potential to be distributed in a much higher percentage than should be acceptable.

In conclusion, I believe the UNEAF will do wonders for those who have the heart to manage it with decency and respect. Although I don't like to support proposals that depend on a person's specific heart or intentions (without a strict set of guidelines) - I will say that the UNEAF can be an exception. And you do deserve congratulations for the insightful proposal - I'm sure it'll do alot to boost education overall. You've my support in the matter.
Yes, obviously, when I mentioned the proposal being 'demand-side', that doesn't eliminate the need for a good supply in the first place. I think given the overwhelming support for the proposal, at least some nations can be relied upon.
No. I mean the wastefulness of this resolution and its funding by an unauthorized "committee" to "make judgments on the reading materials, in consultation with petitioners for assistance, based on how appropriate and relevant they will prove, but that it will refrain from indulging in or abetting political censorship."
I find it a little silly to call this resolution 'wasteful...' given it is redistributing waste books: throw all the negative epithets you like, it is at least trying to reduce waste. Second, I don't understand why you are saying 'committee' in that tone, or why it is 'unauthori[s]ed': the UNEAF set it up, and this proposal expands its powers. Both are perfectly within the framework of rules for UN committees, and given you are of course familiar with these, your assertion seems a little wild. It'd be helpful if you showed how the UNEAF exceeds its authority here.
It doesn't seem right to add that there. I see the good will and trust in future times but this is an easy one to crack. And a shame this board cares so much about other wording but blatantly misses this unnecessary declaration. Not only dangerous but a waste.
Again, you haven't shown how redistributing unused books to needy sources is 'waste[ful]'; and I don't understand 'an easy one to crack'. What is you're trying to crack? Perhaps, actually, that's the problem: there's no ulterior motive here. We want to give books to people who can't afford to buy them new. And...that's it.
What does it matter anyway? Pretty much all resolutions pass. Talk about illiteracy.
Temper, temper. First, proposals need to reach quorum in order to be voted on. Only a tiny percentage of proposals do so, so in that sense, there is an incredibly low pass rate. Second, you have offered no evidence that, as is usually said, people don't read the proposals they vote for. (The very fact Repeal "Metric System" recently passed, while it failed last year, would seem to indicate 'they' do read them.) Third, defeatism is unlikely to change anyone's mind.
Why Does the international community feel the need to usurp the administrative prerogative of individual member-states?

The right to set a national agenda rests solely with the nation itself.

This United Nations is not the European Union. Stop exceeding the mandate.
How does it 'usurp the administrative prerogative'? I'm not going to push this too far, because I'm pretty sure you'll begin screaming the proposal is too weak if it's really spelled out, but basically, this proposal does not require you to accept texts, or to give them out; it '[I]nvites' your involvement. How that exceeds the UN's 'mandate' (I admit I do not know what the UN's mandate is, though) I don't know. Perhaps you could show us what the mandate is, and then we can compare?
However...there are a few things troubling my Imperial Security advisors. What is to keep this legislation from being abused by member nations of the UN? Yes, tabloids, pornography, and outright offensive materials can, in theory, be rejected by our fellow nations, but what if they choose not to? What if the goal of the member nation is to incite hatred and distrust via showing its people only the printed news and information it wants its' people to see? Surely more radicalized nations would leap at the chance to garner free copies of certain tabloids and entertainment media to show its' people how 'debauched' and 'hedonistic' more liberal member nations are, while at the same time censoring or refusing access to other, more rational print media.
Censorship is really a separate issue. "The Universal Bill of Rights" and "Artistic Freedom" really cover this, although in light of the (disappointing) failure of "Freedom of Expression Act" there is probably more to be none. But this is meant to be a modest proposal.

Furthermore, the scenario you envision seems somewhat unlikely. Inherently 'radical' materials are unlikely to be supplied in the first place: there is too low a chance of their finding a susceptible target, when they could simply be scanned into the Internet anyway. And if some 'radical' nation wants to show a Quodite tabloid to its citizens, then...I don't really see what the UN can or should do to stop that. This proposal certainly doesn't help them (the aim, remember, is literacy) but it doesn't really hinder them either (in my view appropriately: there's no guarantee the reaction you posit would occur; perhaps the people would yearn for freedom and reform their government instead).
Bacork has voted against this proposal on the grounds that it would impose the language of the more developed countries on to the poorer ones. Also by shareing literature the 'rich countries' will change the original cultures and local literature and printing might become even less important for governments of these countries. Also national languages will disappear with time... I feel this project is more to show how charitable the UN's wealthier countries are rather than to, in any way, help the less advantaged.
Well, remember that it's the receiving (and yes, presumably 'poorer') nation that makes the request. If they genuinely don't want to use foreign language sources, they don't have to. Yes, there is a charitable element to this; but it is not forced charity. Countries that wish to retain a hopelessly outdated and nostalgic (and ultimately immensely damaging) approach to the problem of global culture are entirely free to do so (within this proposal; obviously, their languages will, thankfully, die out soon anyway).
A country has a right to choose weather or not to do this
Spelling aside, you are corrent. It does have the right to choose.

-- Samantha Benson

But, consider that there are around 70,000 nations in the world, a third of which are in the UN. Any project to distribute books is going to be absolutely colossal. The UN commands hundreds of times more members than the very largest alliances do. I really don't think any charitable organization could muster the resources to even approach the project, except on a very, very small scale.


As you point out, only about 1/3 of NS nations are in the UN. I think you're underestimating the power of charitable organizations when you say they could not cover more ground than the UN.

I still think this is a noble cause but not the calling of the NSUN. I feel such projects belong in the private sector primarily because the UN could abuse it to promote political purposes, using it as incentive or removing it as punishment.

My apologies about the spelling in my previous post, I was in a bit of a hurry.

Now, the argument used by people who want the UN to do this seems to be consisntently, "if you don't like this being done, there's the door." This argument doesn't make any sense. It would be like me saying to those insisting that the UN dictate the rules of their countries "too bad, the UN shouldn't do anything, if you want activity, there's the door." This argument is horribly flawed, and a majority of the people voting on this seem to vastly agree that it is not the UN's right to do this. The UN's only reason for existing is to prevent another world war, not to take and redistribute second hand books. If people want to do that, I'm sure there are charities enough. The UN doesn't need to also do it. Name a single UN policy (which wasn't militaristic) that had any effect on the world. Point: Any UN charity is just a waste of member states money, which will be quickly embezzelled, the media will cover it up, and the charity will cease to exist. So let's just save time and money and just not let it exist in the first place.

-President of the senate of the Armed Republic of Torgistan

Now, the argument used by people who want the UN to do this seems to be consisntently, "if you don't like this being done, there's the door." This argument doesn't make any sense. It would be like me saying to those insisting that the UN dictate the rules of their countries "too bad, the UN shouldn't do anything, if you want activity, there's the door."Without speaking for all supporters of this resolution (and we were only mildly in favor of this, meh), I think the general reaction is, if you consider this mildest of mandates to be unnecessary "meddling" on the part of the United Nations, what will your reaction be when the UN actually passes something that has a tangible legislative effect on your nation? This is not the RL United Nations, you know, that powerless bureaucracy that everyone loves to mock; this is the NSUN, and when the General Assembly passes something in NationStates, your national laws will change as a result, whether you like it or not. This bill is nothing compared to what the UN can and will do to "meddle" in your internal affairs. And I say this as one of the most ardent defenders of national sovereignty in this body.

This argument is horribly flawed, and a majority of the people voting on this seem to vastly agree that it is not the UN's right to do this.You mean the 85% who voted in favor? I'm sure I don't follow.

The UN's only reason for existing is to prevent another world war,...Uhh, nope. You're confusing NS with RL again. The RL U.N. was created to prevent another world war (and so much for that); the NSUN was created to "improve the world, one resolution at a time."

... not to take and redistribute second hand books. If people want to do that, I'm sure there are charities enough. The UN doesn't need to also do it.The UN didn't need to commemorate Max Barry Day or pass a law paying lip-service to dolphin-lovers, either, but it did so. This resolution is miles wide of the pointlessness of many UN laws. Go and read, for example, Mutual Recognition of Borders, then come back and tell me how much better that resolution is than this one. You won't be able to.

Name a single UN policy (which wasn't militaristic) that had any effect on the world. Point: Any UN charity is just a waste of member states money, which will be quickly embezzelled, the media will cover it up, and the charity will cease to exist.Again, you're confusing RL with NS. The NS United Nations is run by gnomes, who bear no allegiance to any nation, corporation or industry. They just do their jobs. (And occasionally get pumped full of lead whenever they approach the shores of the Antarctic.)

So let's just save time and money and just not let it exist in the first place.You're a bit late. Voting has already ended.