NationStates Jolt Archive


The Prime Conference Concerned about UN Expansionism

The Prime Conference
19-10-2003, 01:01
The Prime Conference is somewhat concerned at what appears to be a growing number of proposals which, as written, would appear to be expanding UN authority to cover non-member nations.

Two such proposals in particular the so-called "Leadership Accountability Act" and the so-called "Anti-terrorism Act"

The Prime Conference, having already decided to spurn the tyranny of the United Nations, is therefore concerned by this effort to interfere with the sovereignity of other nations. Considering the past history of the United Nations, such interference, once begun, is likely to increase without bound.

Do the freedom loving nations of the world intend to allow the UN to overthrow our own governments and replace it with its endless misguided legislation?
Crookfur
19-10-2003, 01:11
Well if you aren't in the UN then it doesn't really concern you.

Of course such proposals have to come to a vote before implmentation and judging by recent voting trends would be unlikely to pass.
Talkos
19-10-2003, 01:13
As the UN does not have the power to enforce those on non-member nations we do not see it as a danger. If they were to attempt to enforce them through force on non-members, which would be very unlikely, we are sure that there will be a good showing of opposition against them, The Dominion of Talkos for one would be on the front lines.

Also given that they have not yet gained enough support to become resolutions they might well fade away on the winds of time, lost and forgotten as the world continues on it's way.
The Prime Conference
22-10-2003, 23:10
As yet further proof of the UN's ill-intent, I point out the current "Anti-Monopoly Resolution" wherein they explicitly state their intent to force their policy on non-member nations via embargo.

Embargo is an act of war.

How long will the free nations of the world stand silently by as the UN becomes ever more aggresive in its intent to subject the entire world to it's creeping socialism?
SilveryMinnow
23-10-2003, 21:46
As yet further proof of the UN's ill-intent, I point out the current "Anti-Monopoly Resolution" wherein they explicitly state their intent to force their policy on non-member nations via embargo.

Embargo is an act of war.

How long will the free nations of the world stand silently by as the UN becomes ever more aggresive in its intent to subject the entire world to it's creeping socialism?

If the U.N. attempts to embargo those nations whose only crime is to recognize sovereignty, then that act could be seen as an act of Tyranny. The Libertarian Republic of SilveryMinnow will not tolerate Tyrants, and stands with those that oppose the use of force by tyrant nations to advocate rape by Democracy. :tantrum:
Heyhey
23-10-2003, 23:17
Wow... HeyHey is official. Well, I will make this brief, but as the nations not so resident socialist, I would just like to point out that you are constantly mentioning how demcracy is inefficient in the UN, and not to mention that those who are "free nations" are getting "raped" by the UN. The UN is made up of a good part of the nations of the world. Yes, It is expected to have differening viewpoints, and not to mention, if you are part of a voteing minority (ie. you guys, as you are constantly complaining about the outcomes), it does suck, but that is no reason to give up on the UN. Infact, if you give up on the UN it means you only like the idea of working together as world, not individual bickering nations, if your ideas are being acknowledged... I have a hard time supporting those types of values.
Arribastan
23-10-2003, 23:26
in my region, if you are UN, you get the boot-'n-ban :twisted:
The Prime Conference
23-10-2003, 23:55
The UN is made up of a good part of the nations of the world. Yes, It is expected to have differening viewpoints, and not to mention, if you are part of a voteing minority (ie. you guys, as you are constantly complaining about the outcomes), it does suck, but that is no reason to give up on the UN. Infact, if you give up on the UN it means you only like the idea of working together as world, not individual bickering nations, if your ideas are being acknowledged... I have a hard time supporting those types of values.

The Prime Conference has never been a member of the United Nations, nor do we plan to become one. And we don't particular care what portion of the world's "nations" make up the UN. If the ever person in the world save us lived under UN control, we still would not cede to their demands.

The fact is their plan to impose embargo on non-member nations is an illegal act of war. No amount of drivel about working together, popular opinion, or other such pap will change that fact.
Goobergunchia
24-10-2003, 00:02
We are unable to locate the proposals mentioned.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
The Prime Conference
24-10-2003, 00:03
We are unable to locate the proposals mentioned.

The "Anti-Monopoly Resolution" is currently the third one on the UN Proposal List.
Goobergunchia
24-10-2003, 00:08
Anti-Monopoly Resolution

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Significant Proposed by: Baudrillard

Description: BE IT RESOLVED,

In understanding that the development of national, regional, or international monopolies or cartels of raw or finished goods reduce competition and thereby injures the premise and practice of free trade;

That members of the United Nations pledge to remain non-aligned with multi-national industrial cartels of raw or finished products;

That members of the United Nations pledge to closely self-regulate their industries so that monopolies, interlocking directorates, or cartels be dissolved;

That members of the United Nations pledge to practice tarriffs and/or embargoes with any existing monopoly or cartel, including those who are sponsored by nations not affiliated with the United Nations.

I don't see how this directly impacts non-UN nations...requiring UN member nations to not deal with non-UN monopolies does harm non-UN monopolies indirectly but does not force the non-UN countries to shut them down.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
The Prime Conference
24-10-2003, 00:15
I don't see how this directly impacts non-UN nations...requiring UN member nations to not deal with non-UN monopolies does harm non-UN monopolies indirectly but does not force the non-UN countries to shut them down.

The UN refusing to deal with non-UN companies is certainly whithin their perogative. The Prime Conference does not object to the tariff proposal for exactly that reason.

That, however, is not the limits of this proposal. This proposal calls for embargo, which would mean the UN actively interfering with the shipping of non-UN nations. Even when trading with other non-UN nations.
SilveryMinnow
25-10-2003, 22:49
A embargo by the U.N. is not unexpected, as it has become clear that those nations that do not "toe the line," would be forced to do so by the majority.

This resolution is tyranny, and those nations that do not recognize the threat, do so at their own risk.

A statement given by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge to the Congress of SilveryMinnow.

The Republic of SilveryMinnow is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interest through quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of the U.N., you will destroy her powerful good, and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come, as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance--this great land of ordered liberty. For if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin.