|
|
Post by claptonpond on Sept 29, 2004 7:50:28 GMT -5
Following on from that other thread, we should start debating UN resolutions. So, to get the ball rolling, here's the current one:
It doesn't appear to actually do anything, since it doesn't define terrorist organisations, but it seems broadly reasonable.
I'm tentatively in favour.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Sept 29, 2004 8:26:37 GMT -5
One person's terrorist, is another person's freedom fighter.
Still, this resolution is against the proliferation on nuclear weapons, which is a good thing.
"Boosting Police and Military" is a cause for concern, could be used as a tool for oppression.
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Sept 29, 2004 8:31:29 GMT -5
I'd define most governments as terrorist organisations. In fact, I think it'd be safe to say anyone who wants to use nukes is a terrorist, so I'd interpret the resolution as prohibiting the sale of nukes to anyone who wants to use them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter and Theodor on Sept 29, 2004 10:32:23 GMT -5
We'd vote against as we think it is kind of meaningless and pointless and so all it really does is affirm the menace of 'terrorism'. In short, it looks like little more than propaganda to us and not the kind of propaganda we wish to put our names to. So a no vote from us but we see the positive intent and like the idea about stricter administration and records so if most of the AnachoCA is for it we will not try to block support.
Walter
The Non-Binding Council of the Theocracy of Walter and Theodor
|
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Sept 29, 2004 10:54:34 GMT -5
We agree with Walter and Theodor - the resolution achieves nothing but a propaganda victory over alleged "terrorists" whilst defining the "nation" as being a non-terrorist.
It's aim is not the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons but the retention of the control of nuclear weapons by ruling classes throughout the world.
We should vote against this jargon.
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Sept 29, 2004 16:49:31 GMT -5
I agree, we should vote against this resolution. Only the state can benefit from the boosting of police and military budgets.
|
|
|
|
Post by zigtag on Sept 29, 2004 18:38:50 GMT -5
Agee with the above. I would vote against.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Sept 30, 2004 4:28:44 GMT -5
Seeing as it is likely that the ruling classes would not be included in the implementations of this resolution, together with a promise of police and military strengtnening should resolution be enforced, AIM will vote against.
|
|
Loe
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Loe on Sept 30, 2004 5:46:27 GMT -5
FNR will also vote against this resolution! Nukes should be banned, not regulated. And as it was pointed out above, it´s not quite clear who is the terrorist...
Current UN issues liason Loe Ragnestyd
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Sept 30, 2004 6:50:38 GMT -5
In nations such as ours, boosting military and police budgets would presumably mean something along the lines of allocating more resources to people's militias or self-defence collectives or what have you.
However, as this could be abused by less progressive nations, we have reviewed our position and are now against.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Sept 30, 2004 9:45:25 GMT -5
Clapton, as anarchists there are so many different ways to interpret the United Nations issues in NationStates because they are simply not suitable.
I agree entirely that boosting "police and military" could mean better equipment and training for militias.
You're right, all too often we have to consider the impact of UN decisions in other countries rather than our own.
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Sept 30, 2004 10:27:37 GMT -5
I've just voted against the resolution but it looks like it's going to pass anyway...
|
|
theyellowspot
Junior Member
still ignored, the fuse burned on...
Posts: 88
|
Post by theyellowspot on Oct 4, 2004 11:14:40 GMT -5
Do i actually have to do anything to my country to comply with a UN resolution? I've already banned nuclear power and weapons, so this resolution can't really effect me too much, but will the decisions i can make on issues be affected by UN resolutions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 4, 2004 11:23:50 GMT -5
I don't believe UN resolutions have an impact on what issues states receive or on the choices available.
My understanding is that resolutions have varying degrees of impact on the Civil Rights, Economy and Political Freedoms of all states which are members of the UN.
The degree of impact on each area is decided by the UN resolutions panel.
Therefore, the new resolution Good Samaritan Laws, will have a "mild" impact and is categorised as moral decency. It will have an impact on the economies of members (ie funding first response teams) political freedoms (ie the right to refuse aid from certain states) and maybe civil rights because there is an impact on individual rights during the distribution of foreign aid.
Thus UN resolutions can mean the level of each member's three attributes (Civil Rights, Economy and Political Freedoms) may improve or deteriorate.
|
|
|
|
Post by vequalsv0plusat on Oct 4, 2004 17:14:54 GMT -5
Therefore, the new resolution Good Samaritan Laws, will have a "mild" impact and is categorised as moral decency. It will have an impact on the economies of members (ie funding first response teams) political freedoms (ie the right to refuse aid from certain states) and maybe civil rights because there is an impact on individual rights during the distribution of foreign aid. Eh, from what I gather, "Good Samaritan Laws" would do nothing but decrease civil rights. forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176 |
|
