NationStates Jolt Archive

If you voted against World Assembly Resolution #8 "World Assembly Headquarters", please approve my proposal to repeal (http://www.nationstates.net/69169/page=UN_proposal/start=22):

The ambassadors and observers to the NationStates World Assembly:

NOTING that Resolution #8 passed by only a small majority;

CITING the lack of professional and diplomatic language in many sections of the resolution;

OBSERVING the superfluity of multiple World Assembly Headquarters;

FURTHER OBSERVING that the time and resources allocated to the World Assembly Office of Building Management could be allocated to worthier projects;

NOTING the tendency toward inefficient bureaucracy inherent in the Resolution's language, i.e. that the OBE will entail "ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end";

CONCERNED about the possible eorsion of national sovereignty caused by the establishment of World Assembly Headquarters in every nation;

ALSO CONCERNED by the fact that "regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation";

CONCLUDING that the World Assembly Headquarters is a needless, expensive intrusion upon national sovereignty, and moreover that the resolution establishing the WA Headquarters is poorly worded and unpopular with a significant portion of the World Assembly;

Hereby render World Assembly Resolution #8, "World Assembly Headquarters" Null and Void.

NOTING that Resolution #8 passed by only a small majority; Actually, over 60% of those who voted were in favor. It's just that a few Regional Delegates with a lot of votes (including four delegates controlling over 1,000 votes between them) all voted against.

Besides, "It only passed by so much" is not an argument for removing an active resolution. It's spin to obfuscate the fact that the WA legally made a decision you didn't like. George W. Bush won the 2000 election by 537 votes; does that make him any less the president?

You lost, get over it.

CITING the lack of professional and diplomatic language in many sections of the resolution; [gestures over head.]

Wwwwwwwhoosh!

OBSERVING the superfluity of multiple World Assembly Headquarters; The resolution only establishes one of them.

FURTHER OBSERVING that the time and resources allocated to the World Assembly Office of Building Management could be allocated to worthier projects; It would be awful damn hard for the WA do any worthy projects if it doesn't have a building in which to conduct business.

NOTING the tendency toward inefficient bureaucracy inherent in the Resolution's language, i.e. that the OBE will entail "ignoring or delaying requests for office space for weeks on end"; "Inefficient bureaucracy" is a terribly redundant phrase. Mr. Smithers, the director of the WA Building Management, formerly the UN Building Management, assured us beforehand that his office would continue to be bumbling, inefficient and snail-paced, even if a resolution contained language ordering it to work faster. It's a rule of big government bureaucracy; it's supposed to be slow. We play the hand we're dealt.

CONCERNED about the possible eorsion of national sovereignty caused by the establishment of World Assembly Headquarters in every nation; Again, it only establishes a single international headquarters to be located on neutral territory. If nations want to establish satellite offices for future WA programs and agencies, it's up to them. But the international diplomatic arm of the WA operates out of a single source. You are mistaken.

ALSO CONCERNED by the fact that "regular WA facilities shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any nation"; Why are you concerned that the WA and its HQ will be independent?

CONCLUDING that the World Assembly Headquarters is a needless, expensive intrusion upon national sovereignty, and moreover that the resolution establishing the WA Headquarters is poorly worded and unpopular with a significant portion of the World Assembly;I hardly know where to start...

"needless" - False. The WA needs a central headquarters, just like any other organization.
"expensive" - False. The funding mechanism is written right into the proposal. The WA General Fund needn't contribute a dime to the HQ since it is a self-sustaining entity.
"intrusion upon national sovereignty" - False. The WA is no more an enemy of national sovereignty than it was already just because it has a building now. Use some common sense.
"poorly worded." - False. I R A GUD RITER!!!11 :mad:
"unpopular with a significant portion of the World Assembly" - So is the Compliance Ministry. But it ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

The numerous false arguments contained in your resolution text deem it illegal, and subject to deletion by moderators. I would urge you in the future to post your proposals here before you submit, to screen for errors and other flaws.

Nonetheless, thank you for taking interest in World Assembly Resolution #8.

Love, Kenny http://209.85.48.9/10503/140/emo/kiss2.gif