NationStates Jolt Archive

UNDERSTANDING the need of all peoples to have certain items necessary for life such as food or medicine, and that these needs of the people should be prioritized over an individual nation's economic gain;

REALIZING these certain items should be unrestricted in the way of trade to better serve the people of the World Assembly;

THINKING the most efficient way to increase the free trade of these items is to eliminate tariffs on such items;

UNDERSTANDING that it would be beyond the power of the World Assembly to force any nation to actively trade with any other nation;

HEREBY:

1) DECLARES the following items necessary for life;
A) Medicinal goods defined such as any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties for treating or preventing disease in human beings; or Any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis
B) Foodstuffs defined such as any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans; Food shall not include medicinal products
C) Water suitable for drinking

2) ELIMINATES all trade tariffs between WA members on all items necessary for life as defined by this Resolution;

3) ADVISES WA nations to lower or eliminate tariffs on good coming from non-member nations, but understands that non-member nations may impose tariffs on their own and so leaves this decision to individual member nations;

4) EXEMPTS all other products not defined as necessary for life from this Resolution and leaves the issues of tariffs on such products to the discretion of individual member nations;

5) REAFFIRMS an individual nations right to refuse to trade at all, and as such this Resolution will not force any nation to trade against its will;

Hmmm. A couple of points:

I suggest a rephrasing of the opening sentence. It comes off as somewhat... hostile, so to speak, and needs to be toned down.

Also I would remove the term 'Human Being'. On one side, not all nations are populated by humans, and on the other, in the case of medical supplies, animals should be taken into account too, especially in the case of livestock which provides food.

One thing that I have noticed is the lack of mention of subsidies. I am unsure of your position on that, but as far as Tai Lao is concerned there needs to be something to protect the usage of subsidies, not abolishing them, though we are willing to give ground to the extent that the subsidies only help the local providers compete, not defeat, imports.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

It was the purpose of introducing this to the forums in the hopes that such countries such as yourself would offer tips to help edit and make it more appealing.

So your opinion is definitely being taken into account.

I suggest a rephrasing of the opening sentence. It comes off as somewhat... hostile, so to speak, and needs to be toned down.

I second this. Less langguage that feel like colloquialisms, or cultural-specific may aid your cause. Perhaps something more akin to:

>UNDERSTANDING the need of all people to have certain items (such as food, medicine, add other things here), and that the needs of the people should be prioritised over that of any individual nations economic gain.

In addition I am slightly ambiguous about the phrase "reasonably expected to be ingested"; it does not appear to take into account the actual content of the foodstuffs. Many things that could be reasonably ingested may not necessarily be what you are thinking of when you are planning to suggest that we eliminate all trade tariffs on such items.


— The Empire of Honeyable

The first sentence was edited to make it less hostile and to reduce colloquialisms. My humble thanks to Tai Lao and Honeyable for their help and guidance.


Also I would remove the term 'Human Being'. On one side, not all nations are populated by humans, and on the other, in the case of medical supplies, animals should be taken into account too, especially in the case of livestock which provides food.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I see your point, but what could it be changed to? "any living organism" came to mind, but then that would cover a whole range of products I never meant to cover, including fertilizers and such.

n addition I am slightly ambiguous about the phrase "reasonably expected to be ingested"; it does not appear to take into account the actual content of the foodstuffs. Many things that could be reasonably ingested may not necessarily be what you are thinking of when you are planning to suggest that we eliminate all trade tariffs on such items.

I see your point, and I'm working on a revised definition to make it more specific to food.

Thank you for your suggestions.

I see your point, but what could it be changed to? "any living organism" came to mind, but then that would cover a whole range of products I never meant to cover, including fertilizers and such.

I humbly suggest that "citizen", "inhabitant", or "denizen" may be suitable replacements, for the present moment.

The first sentence was edited to make it less hostile and to reduce colloquialisms. My humble thanks to Tai Lao and Honeyable for their help and guidance.




I see your point, but what could it be changed to? "any living organism" came to mind, but then that would cover a whole range of products I never meant to cover, including fertilizers and such.



I see your point, and I'm working on a revised definition to make it more specific to food.

Thank you for your suggestions.

I agree with all the suggestions made thus far by the Honorable delegations of Tai Lao and Others, my suggestion on the 'living organism' part: Instead of that would somethin like 'any organism, living or not' that way it covers your organic foods and your non-organic foods.

Also what about feed for livestock; cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, etc. Would it be covered in the essential for life? We believe that it should because some people or nations depend on their livestock industries, sales, farming, etc in means to make money to buy these 'essential foodstuffs' of which you have so eloquently spoken about prior.

Again these are just our thoughts

Studly Penguins
Ambassador to the WA Assembly, Region of Texas

We feel it may be important for the authors of this proposal to fully acquaint themselves with the details of resolution #26 The World Assembly Economic Union, before they continue the drafting process.

The provisions of the World Assembly Economic Union must be respected by any free trade statutes which may be proposed in future.

A link to the statute in question - http://www.nationstates.net/78825/page=WA_past_resolutions/start=25

Yours,

Good Point Urgench. I forgot all about that one!!