NationStates Jolt Archive

All nations who voted against the original bill, please view this proposal and bring it up to the floor for a vote. Thanks.

http://www.nationstates.net/35672/page=UN_proposal/start=10


Description: WA Resolution #14: Neutrality of Nations (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: BELIEVES that:
- The original passed bill "Neutrality of Nations" places guidelines upon the term “neutral” that are illogical and damaging to neutral nations.
- The guidelines placed upon “neutrality” would be both harmful to the neutral country and nearly impossible to regulate.

DEFINES for the purpose of this bill:
- Nation A as being a neutral nation currently involved in a war to protect its borders.
- Nation B as being allied with Nation A and currently under attack by
- Nation C, a belligerent nation with no alliances.


ARTICLE 1. Asks delegates to consider a hypothetical situation in which Nation B is subjected to unwarranted and vicious attack by Nation C. Nation A cannot afford to be attacked by another hostile nation as it is currently engaged with a prolonged fight on its borders. However, Nation A is obligated to assist Nation B as allies. But, under the current Neutrality bill, Nation A can do nothing to assist Nation B otherwise Nation A will lose its “neutral” status. This delegation finds fault in preventing any form of weapons or monetary assistance by neutral nations to warring nations, when the neutral nation is unable to maintain a military conflict.


ARTICLE 2. Asks delegates to consider a separate hypothetical situation. If neutral nation A’s economy is highly dependent upon import of foreign goods for survival, namely goods from Nation C, the neutral nation will suffer unfairly due to unnecessary restriction placed upon the neutral nation. “Neutrality of Nations” prevents any form of trade between Nation A and Nation C of goods both domestic and military obtained through military operations. However, it would be nearly impossible to determine which good were obtained due to warfare, creating a blanket embargo upon all goods from Nation C.


CONCLUSION. The delegation asks all WA members to vote for this proposal to repeal this bill on the grounds that it is highly damaging to neutral nations due to unfair restrictions both economically and militarily.

Maybe you could sum up in simple words and short sentences what you yourself find as so "damaging to neutral nations" with the current resolution.
I'd like specifics before even thinking of making a judgment call on the repeal.
After all, Malfactopia is not a nation of blood-thirsty war-devils, though we do view it as a necessary evil at times.
Of course, I am not going to argue for Malfactopia's position on war. I will argue solely for/against this repeal based on the author's reasoning and viewpoint/conclusions.

While Scotchpinestan voted against the original resolution, we cannot support this justification for repeal. Specifically, Article 1:

Asks delegates to consider a hypothetical situation in which Nation B is subjected to unwarranted and vicious attack by Nation C. Nation A cannot afford to be attacked by another hostile nation as it is currently engaged with a prolonged fight on its borders. However, Nation A is obligated to assist Nation B as allies. But, under the current Neutrality bill, Nation A can do nothing to assist Nation B otherwise Nation A will lose its “neutral” status.

If nation A provides any sort of assistance to a nation at war, then nation A most certainly is not neutral, nor should it be considered neutral even without WA 14 being there. Neutrality means exactly that - you stay out of it entirely.

ARTICLE 1.
Same thoughts as the representative from Scotchpinestan.
ARTICLE 2.
This is more worth worrying about, but two things make me think it's not much of a concern. First of all, while it may be very difficult in certain cases to determine if goods have been obtained through military operations, it is never impossible. In any case, if Nation C goes to so much trouble to disguise the goods' origin, Nation A can hardly be blamed for letting some such goods slip into its imports, provided it does the best it feasibly can to prevent such goods from entering the country. I think the majority of the World Assembly would agree with me on this point. Second, if Nation A is really that highly dependant on imports from Nation C, I would say it's not exercising very sound trade policy. If a country must depend on imports, it should at least provide itself with some alternative sources in preparation for such cases. A poorly-managed government will probably cause some disaster to befall its people regardless of what happens to its allies.

I opposed the Neutrality of Nations resolution as a proposal because I thought section 2a granted inappropriate powers to the World Assembly by allowing it to sanction invasion of a Neutral Nation, and because that power was not well-defined in terms of what constituted official WA approval. I still think that constitutes a potentially fatal weakness in the resolution, but now that it has passed, I'd like to see if it can function as intended despite that obvious flaw before I go supporting attempts to repeal it.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE