UN Delegate Office

[Drogue]

I like to have a thread for the UN delegate where I can alter the first post, so that I can update the resolution at vote. Please make any comments about the UN, be they about resolutions, proposals or anythign else UN related.

The Current Resolution

REQUIRED BASIC HEALTHCARE

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

CUrrent Basic Healthcare Resolution

Zetaris's position is FOR, but we will change this if many people are against it.

Thank you for reading, please post your views. This first post will be updated with a new resolution each time, and it will also be posted as a post.

[Drogue]

I went through some of the resolutions, and while most either deal with moral or purely national issues (like gay rights, gun control, etc.) which I do not think is the UN business, a few caught my eye, and I would like opinions on them, if you would like me to endorse them.

Ones that I have endorsed, but will recind if you wish me to:

Geneva Convention

Be it resolved that all nations conform to the Geneva Conventions.

I think this has already been done, but with much fewer UN members. I think the Geneva Convention ratifies some important laws with regards to war and basic human rights, something that the UN should uphold - very basic human rights.

Star Wars

Let's put a couple of lasers into space and shot down any missles those crazy commies try firing our way.

A joint UN initiative to create a nuclear shield, for the whole UN. A very worthy proposal IMHO, despite the language with which it was proposed. Let us remove the threat of nukes from UN nations


These are ones I have not endorsed, and it is up to you whether I do or not:

Resolution 1442

This resolution is to decommision arms so global stability is increased. No country should spend more on arms than on anything else (USA i'm looking at you.)Decreased arm stocks should also mean less war.
PEACE AND LOVE MAN
PS
This resolution has nothing to do with Iraq.

It does not necessarily reduce arms spending, but means that you must spend as much on other things. I am against it because it is forcing things, but it is the UN, and it is an international affairs issue. I'll go by what people think.

End Racism

We need to stop racism in every way, shape, and form. By stopping racism, we bring ourselves that much closer to a perfect world. Plus, the end of racism would bring about the end of many other problems in our world.

Say's it all really. Ending racism is good, but is it inflicting too much on sovereignty? It does not force laws on anyone, but it is forcing political opinion, thus we vere slightly against. What do people think?

Peaceful Debates

My fellow diplomats. The year is 2003. We have entered a golden age of enlightment. But the world is not entirely safe. Issues are debated far to violently these days. We are on the verge of having violent debates escilate in to full blown out war, genocide, and nuclear holocaust. We must move quickly to enforce peacful and succesful ways of debateing issues. Thank you for your time.

While this is a game mechanics one, it looks good to me. What do others think?


These are ones that I am against, but would like opinions on, in case others feel differently. If there i much support for them, I will endorse, but personally I am against:

George Bush Containment Act

It is noted in the world community that George W. Bush is a complete and utter fool and it is also noted that for the world to be a better place the Democrats must be in power.

Therefore, I am proposing the George Bush Containment Act. Member nations must pledge to refuse George W. Bush admittance to their country and imprison, expel, and violently deter any and all George W. Bush's supporters. Each coutry should begin investigations into any and all known members of the Republican party and act accordingly.

Ridding the world of Republican influence will ultimately make the world a much safer place to live in. I want my children to grow up in a democratic world led by Democrats. My heart is on the left and I hope yours is too.

Yes I know this is silly, and I know we cannot affect real world politics. I know you won't want me to endorse it. But I couldn't resist posting it, I foudn it quite funny

Required Welfare

This resolution states that every country within the U.N. will have some form, even if minimal, of Welfare program. That citizens in the countries of the U.N. will always be able to receive some form of aid from their government, (regardless of their social backround or monetary situation)when aid is needed. This includes affordable health care and social security.

This I am against due to it's forcing of political opinions. However, some might see basic education and healthcare as a fundemental human right. I don't, but then I don't see much as fundemental human rights. Is this violating soverignty too much (as is MHO) but I will go by what the people want on this.


I hope that give you all something to think about and discuss. Please be quick if you want me to endorse or withdraw endorsement of any, since they don't seem to be up there long.

[CapitanGarlic]

George Bush Containment Act

I like.

[GeneralTacticus]

Zetaris has voted For this in line with the general consensus, and our own views. If you disagree, please post, stating reasons.

As I said on the regional board on NS, I'm against the resolution on two grounds:

1) It goes much too far, mandating that "all paper, glass, aluminum and batteries [must] be recycled by all UN member states", even when this would be a waste of time and resources (paper gets less and less useful each time it's recycled, but this resolution would force states to recycle it ad infinitum, wasting valuable resources), and obliges states to recycle even if they find a better solution to their rubbish problems.

2) This issue has no relevance to the UN at all; it involves neither an issue of international affairs (many environmental issues are international ones, but rubbish disposal isn't, unless it's done on another nation's territory or in such a way as to pollute other nations) or of fundamental human rights.

[Urban Ranger]

I support the George W. Bush Containment Act. I am curious if our UN already have treaties as Landmine Ban and NNPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty)? If not, we could submit those.

[Sava]

I'm against the recycling thingy. It isn't government's position to mandate such a thing. In fact, the melting of such resources can often damage the environment more by the use of fossil fuels. Clean recycling should be encouraged, but forcing legislation would increase the likelihood of causing more pollution.

[Drogue]

GT: As I and Guardian posted on the NS region page, I believe rubbish recycling reduces pollution, which is an international issue. I accept it goes too far, but I would rather it went that far, than not at all. Moreover, sinve you have not endorsed me, my vote does not include your vote. Thus you may vote as you wish, but you are trying to alter the voting of nations that I am voting on behalf of (by endorsements). While I will obviously still accept your arguments and opinions, I only vote with the number of endorsements I have, and thus if you have not endorsed me (which of course they is no obligation to, I don't mind at all) then it is not your place to decide how I vote. Each person that I am voting of behalf of gets an equal say in how I vote (1/23 of my vote). I just wanted to make that clear, not very well said at all, but I hope it is clear

Sava: This is recycling not reclaiming. Recycling is where that material is crushed, or reused as it is. Reclaiming is when it is burned to release the energy from it, to make electricity usually. No fossil fules need be used to recycle, nor would they provide any use IMHO.

[Drogue]

The Mandatory Recycling resolution has been passed, by a majority of some 17000 to 4000. No other proposal looks to have enough support, and thus will not be voted upon yet. Please look at proposals and post any you would like to draw my attention to. I have been through 10 pages, and have posed the ones I like. Thank you

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Drogue
GT: As I and Guardian posted on the NS region page, I believe rubbish recycling reduces pollution, which is an international issue.

*SIGH* I see both of you have completely missed the point here. Reducing pollution that affects other countries is an international issue. However, unless rubbish is dumped on another nation's territory or in (for insantce) a river leading into another country, how it is disposed of has no relevance whatsoever to other nations.

I accept it goes too far, but I would rather it went that far, than not at all.

Going too far can be just as bad as doing nothing, especially when there are far better alternatives available for everyone.

Sava: This is recycling not reclaiming. Recycling is where that material is crushed, or reused as it is. Reclaiming is when it is burned to release the energy from it, to make electricity usually. No fossil fules need be used to recycle, nor would they provide any use IMHO.

You still need to use energy to do the recycling, not to mention spend money which could potentially be used more productively on some other initiative.

Anyway, it seems that the whole discussion is now moot, given that the resolution sailed through and we now have to face the consequences. I guess it's time to fire up my legal teams and start redefining a few key terms used in the resolution...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
*SIGH* I see both of you have completely missed the point here. Reducing pollution that affects other countries is an international issue. However, unless rubbish is dumped on another nation's territory or in (for insantce) a river leading into another country, how it is disposed of has no relevance whatsoever to other nations.

No, we get your point. Our point was that not recycling reduces the worlds capability to handle CO2, and the pollution from decaying waste. It creates pollution.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Going too far can be just as bad as doing nothing, especially when there are far better alternatives available for everyone.

It can be better, but my point was that in this case, I feel it isn't. As I said, I would ratehr have this resolution than none at all, which is the choice. If you would like to table a less blanket resolution, I would be happy to endorse it for you.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
You still need to use energy to do the recycling

Yes, but is is very small. Indeed, usually less than the energy to create a new one of that product, thus saving energy.

[Drogue]

New Resolution

CHILD LABO[U]R

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

GIVEN that many nation states see fit to employ children under age 12 in manual labor and industry, GIVEN that these industries and labor are often highly detrimental to a child's body and health, BELIEVING that it is a fundamental right to be given the chance to grow up educated and free from unneccesary disease, injury, and possible death from industrial work, ASSERTING that it is immoral and atrocious to force children , by manipulation, authority or raw strength, to work for corporation or state, Be it hereby resolved that the UN shall guarantee the rights of children to NOT work in any mines, factories, chemical plants or ANY OTHER industrial occupation; moreover, it shall be prohibited for a child to take up labor in such an occupation.

Zetaris is thinking a strong FOR vote at the moment. How do others feel about that? Opinions please.

[Drogue]

I have voted for this resolution, due to opinions posted on NS forum. However, I have received this telegram asking me to vote against. Here is the telegram:

" [compliments snipped]

I would ask you to seriously reconsider your position on Child Labor. Child Labor can be niether Dangerous nor Cruel, even in an industrial environment. It can also be used as a boon to struggling young economies, in their need to compete with more industrialized nations. Consider the real world Bangladesh, as I pointed out at:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25625&start=20&sid=8830af44053f26f41bcb360b85f57d6a

A post on the UN forum. The wording, of the current resolution is a little vague. At first it seems good, but then upon rereading it, it can become very obtrusive. Please, I beseach you, think it over again."

And here is my (long winded, but it is 2am) reply:

Thank you for the message. I have read your post, and re read the resolution. At first I agreed with you, I believed that it was an affront to sovereignty, much like the gay rights resolution. However, this resolution only affects industrial work. The first bits, about the right of a child not to work I very much agree with, it is the later stages, about the prohibiting of children to work that I am a little sceptical about. Saying that, I still believe that, since it only affects "mines, factories, chemical plants" and industrial work, it is beneficial. While I believe that it should be up to a state if it has gay marriage, or the minimum wage, I think general human rights, such as the UN in real life has, are an acceptable breach of sovereignty, bearing in mind the option to join the UN or not. I believe child industrial labour to be such a human right.

You state that "Child Labor can be niether Dangerous nor Cruel, even in an industrial environment", which I disagree with. In any industrial complex, even with the strictest safety precautions, accidents happen. Heavy machinery is not suitable to be operated by children, IMHO. I think the danger to the child is high enough for the UN to rule for the safety of the child, as a human right.

Personally, I believe the UN should be concerned with 3 things, Foreign Policy, Things that affect more than one nation, and basic human rights. The 3rd there is much debate as to what is included. I believe safety regulations to be one of those things. While I agree with the persons right to choose, I would ask what kind of choice they have, in a nation where they have to work to feed themselves and their families.

You say "It can... be used as a boon to struggling young economies" which is true, but at what cost? The economy is only there for a purpose, not just economic growth, but the prosperity that comes with it. If economic growth means that children are being put in unsafe conditions, then that economic growth has little point IMHO. Do developing economies need to use child labour for industrial jobs? I think not. A developing nation can compete if it provides worker intensive goods, as long as developed countries do not have unfair competitive practices. If we remove those, and provide aid for developing nations, then they do not need to use child labour. Indeed, It is our opinion that even without, child labour is unnecessary.

Sorry for being so long winded, in short, while we accept the position that it is an affront to national sovereignty, and does take rights away from states, we see child safety as a basic human right. It is not like Gay Rights, or the Minimum Wage, where there is still debate as to whether they are good or not, it is a basic human right. While we feel nations who do not have gay rights should be allowed in the UN, we feel that nations who have child labour should not. This is a rare resolution, in that it is one where we believe that it is such a serious safety issue that it is worth violating national sovereignty for.

Your arguments are persuasive, and I agree that national sovereignty should be upheld in all but the most extreme cases. However you must accept that in joining the UN, you must give up *some* small part of your right to rule, in that you must be bound by a few basic human rights. While this amount should be very small, IMHO, child labour is one thing that should be included. We would look to the RL UN for guidance, which although would not rule on something such as Gay Rights, would rule on safety issues. If you have anything you would like to reply, please feel free, I will post your message on our message board.

Opinions please

[AdamTG02]

Admaria sympathizes to some extent with the plight of the families, who feel they must put their children to work or starve. However, we feel that the society which forces these hard choices on families is to blame. Children should be free of strenuous labor which prevents education. Therefore, Admaria supports this resolution.

[Drogue]

Exactly our opinion. This resolution may even force basic welfare fro children, to stop them from working. However, due to the effect on soem developing economies, we do feel the UN should provide aid to developing economies, to help them so they do not need to have child labour. We need the carrot and the stick. Not just help so they don't have to, and not just legislation to prevent it, but both together.

[GeneralTacticus]

Centralis gives it's full support to this resolution. Not only would banning child labour actually leave adult workers in Third World countries actually better off (they no longer have to compete with children, and hence are in a better position to demand higher wages and better conditions), but having children working in industry also means that they cannot exercise their right, under past UN Resolutions, to a free education until they are sixteen (and to be blunt, are they worth more, economically, now as a source of cheap labour, or a few years down the road when they have an education and can do things beyond manual labour?).