[Draft Necromancy] Repeal 'On Multilateral Trade Talks'

[Tinfect]

Repeal 'On Multilateral Trade Talks'

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA #221

---

The General Assembly,

Recognizing that the target resolution was written in an attempt to lower trade barriers between member states,

Noting that many Member States would suffer severe and lasting economic damage due to the removal of trade barriers,

Disturbed by the Resolution's failure to account for the varied economic systems and statuses in it's mandates to reduce trade barriers,

Appalled, by the failure of the resolution to account for a situation in which a trade agreement achieved during the World Assembly Negotiations becomes toxic to an involved Member-State, and in which other involved Member-States refuse renegotiation until the next World Assembly Negotiations,

Further noting by the Resolution's failure to ensure that its mandates and goals are upheld by the inclusion of a loophole allowing Member States to refuse any form of trade negotiation on the grounds that it would not constitute a 'mutually beneficial agreement',

Believing that Member States that wish to engage in International Trade are able to do so, in a more productive and safe manner, without obligations from the World Assembly,

Declaring that the resolution is a colossal waste of the time and resources of all Member States, as well as the World Assembly itself,

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution # 221: On Multilateral Trade Talks

OOC:
Obviously, criticism is appreciated.

Recognizing that the target resolution was written in an attempt to lower trade barriers between member states,

Noting that many Member States would consider such a thing damaging,

Disturbed that the Resolution goes so far as to mandate the reduction of trade barriers, disregarding the varied economies of Member States,

Confused that the Author would do such a thing, while including a loophole allowing Member States to maintain protectionist measures if their removal would not constitute a "mutually beneficial agreement which are in the best interests of all national populations involved".

Equally disturbed that the Resolution would allow a Member State engaged a Trade Deal which has become damaging to another Member State, to refuse renegotiation until the next event, effectively locking the first member state into an economically damaging agreement for 10 years,

Believing that Member States that wish to engage in International Trade are perfectly able to do so without the interference of an International Body,

Declaring that the resolution is a colossal waste of all Member State's time, and of World Assembly Resources,

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution # 221: On Multilateral Trade Talks

Repeal: On Multilateral Trade Talks

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that the target resolution was written in an attempt to lower trade barriers between member states,

Noting that many Member States would consider such a thing damaging,

Disturbed that the Resolution goes so far as to mandate the reduction of trade barriers, disregarding the varied economies of Member States,

Confused that the Author would do such a thing, while including a loophole allowing Member States to maintain protectionist measures if their removal would not constitute a "mutually beneficial agreement which are in the best interests of all national populations involved".

Equally disturbed that the Resolution would allow a Member State engaged a Trade Deal which has become damaging to another Member State, to refuse renegotiation, locking the first member state into an economically damaging agreement for 10 years,

Believing that Member States that wish to engage in International Trade are perfectly able to do so without the interference of an International Body,

Declaring that the resolution is a colossal waste of all Member State's time, and of World Assembly Resources,

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution # 221: On Multilateral Trade Talks

Repeal: On Multilateral Trade Talks

The World Assembly,

Recognizing that the target resolution was written in an attempt to lower trade barriers between member states,

Noting that many Member States would consider such a thing damaging,

Disturbed that the Resolution goes so far as to mandate the reduction of trade barriers, disregarding the varied economies of Member States,

Confused that the Author would do such a thing, while including a loophole allowing Member States to maintain protectionist measures if their removal would not constitute a "mutually beneficial agreement which are in the best interests of all national populations involved".

Believing that Member States that wish to engage in International Trade are perfectly able to do so without the interference of an International Body,

Declaring that the resolution is a colossal waste of all Member State's time, and of World Assembly Resources,

Hereby Repeals General Assembly Resolution # 221: On Multilateral Trade Talks

Original Resolution:
viewtopic.php?p=11260510#p11260510

Changes from previous draft:
Hey, remember that rewrite I promised?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Support.

It is a pointless practically do-nothing resolution which never should have been passed.

[Celsuis]

"While we note that protectionist trade policies are always detrimental to the economy, my delegation can support this resolution."

[Caracasus]

Well ambassador, we note that you have left this stack of photocopies of the original resolution by the reprographics offices. Do not worry though, ambassador, we have them here. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=11260510#p11260510

Now, for the repeal itself. We note in the original resolution, we find this particular clause:

1. Declares that multilateral trade negotiations must be hosted at the World Assembly at least once every ten years, with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations;

We are in broad agreement that removing the ability of nations to enforce protectorate trade barriers comes from an economic point of view that many nations may disagree with.

We would also draw the good ambassador's attention to these two following clauses:

1. Declares that multilateral trade negotiations must be hosted at the World Assembly at least once every ten years, with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations;

and

5. Notes that any agreement arising from these negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement.

We would argue that a great deal may occur in the space of a decade. At present it is conceivable that two or more nations may be bound to a damaging trade agreement that no longer fits the current status quo. Whilst nations are required to negotiate under good faith, there is no clause within this resolution that allows an affected nation to force talks earlier than ten years - thus allowing for one nation to essentially refuse to renegotiate a now damaging trade agreement for a decade.

[Tinfect]

Well ambassador, we note that you have left this stack of photocopies of the original resolution by the reprographics offices. Do not worry though, ambassador, we have them here. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=11260510#p11260510

OOC:
Thanks for that.

We would argue that a great deal may occur in the space of a decade. At present it is conceivable that two or more nations may be bound to a damaging trade agreement that no longer fits the current status quo. Whilst nations are required to negotiate under good faith, there is no clause within this resolution that allows an affected nation to force talks earlier than ten years - thus allowing for one nation to essentially refuse to renegotiate a now damaging trade agreement for a decade.

IC:
"A statement recognizing that has been added to the draft.
The Imperium thanks you all for your support."

[Cornelia]

Despite the author's assurances that its contents have been accounted for, the Ambassador from the Simuran Federation notes his agreement with the preceding assessment of the proposal at hand, particularly over the futuristic time frame set for certain of its features.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Believing that Member States that wish to engage in International Trade are perfectly able to do so without the interference of an International Body,

This form of argument could be used against most resolutions... however, for this one it makes a lot more sense than in other cases which I have seen it used.

[Tinfect]

"Will there be any further comments on the Proposal? If not, we will be submitting quite soon."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: This repeal is completely nonsensical, to the extent it makes me question whether the author has even noticed the existence of World Assembly Trade Rights.

[Tinfect]

OOC: This repeal is completely nonsensical, to the extent it makes me question whether the author has even noticed the existence of World Assembly Trade Rights.

OOC:
Well, I tried to keep this IC.
I am fully aware of World Assembly Trade Rights, and, for the record, it is another horrid resolution that I fully intend to repeal at a later date. However, I fail to see how it has any relevance to this specific proposal. On another note, I'd like it if you elaborated on your claim that my arguments are nonsensical.

[Railana]

This repeal is probably illegal for violating the "Honest Mistake" rule; it contains a number of blatant misinterpretations of the target resolution. It's also simply a bad argument.

Recognizing that the target resolution was written in an attempt to lower trade barriers between member states,

Noting that many Member States would consider such a thing damaging,

Actually, very few would. ((OOC: This is especially true in real life, where the international community decided that trade barriers were such a bad idea that it was necessary to create an international organization responsible for facilitating their gradual elimination. Curiously enough, one of the ways this organization works toward this goal is by hosting periodic multilateral trade negotiations of the same nature as those envisioned by the resolution you are trying to repeal.))

Disturbed that the Resolution goes so far as to mandate the reduction of trade barriers, disregarding the varied economies of Member States,

No, it doesn't. The summits are held with that purpose in mind. The resolution only requires nations to negotiate trade agreements with other nations, so long as such agreements are in the best interests of national populations. If no such agreement can be negotiated, then nations are not required to do anything.

By the way, pretty much any economy will (ultimately) benefit from freer trade (see comparative advantage).

Confused that the Author would do such a thing, while including a loophole allowing Member States to maintain protectionist measures if their removal would not constitute a "mutually beneficial agreement which are in the best interests of all national populations involved".

This simply contradicts your earlier clause.

Equally disturbed that the Resolution would allow a Member State engaged a Trade Deal which has become damaging to another Member State, to refuse renegotiation, locking the first member state into an economically damaging agreement for 10 years,

Uh, where does the resolution say that trade agreements negotiated at a WATC summit can only be renegotiated or terminated at a WATC summit? The resolution does not regulate the content of trade agreements drafted at the summits at all; they can contain whatever termination provisions the parties want.

Believing that Member States that wish to engage in International Trade are perfectly able to do so without the interference of an International Body,

Declaring that the resolution is a colossal waste of all Member State's time, and of World Assembly Resources,

Member states are also free to do all sorts of things without World Assembly assistance, but that doesn't mean that such assistance isn't helpful. The negotiations hosted under the auspices of the target resolution will result in freer trade than there would be otherwise, and that makes them worth it.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Tinfect]

Actually, very few would.

"Any nation, such as the Imperium, which does not bow to corporate interests would. From what I have seen, there are great numbers of Socialist nations in this Assembly, and I am certain most, if not all of them, would find forced reduction of trade barriers to be quite damaging."

((OOC: This is especially true in real life, where the international community decided that trade barriers were such a bad idea that it was necessary to create an international organization responsible for facilitating their gradual elimination.))

OOC:
And would you look where that has gotten us? Economic dependence on near-slave labour, and terrifying levels of corporate power over national governments.

No, it doesn't. The summits are held with that purpose in mind. The resolution only requires nations to negotiate trade agreements with other nations, so long as such agreements are in the best interests of national populations. If no such agreement can be negotiated, then nations are not required to do anything.

"Perhaps you should read a bit further before commenting? That is addressed in a later statement. If you like, I can provide the exact quotation this line is referring to, however. I find it quite interesting that you seem to forget aspects of a resolution written by your own delegation."

This simply contradicts your earlier clause.

"Not at all."

Uh, where does the resolution say that trade agreements negotiated at a WATC summit can only be renegotiated or terminated at a WATC summit?

"I never said that it did, had you actually read the draft, you would have noticed that it makes particular mention of the fact that a Nation can simply refuse to renegotiate until such time as the next World-Assembly Mandated Trade Summit."

Member states are also free to do all sorts of things without World Assembly assistance, but that doesn't mean that such assistance isn't helpful. The negotiations hosted under the auspices of the target resolution will result in freer trade than there would be otherwise, and that makes them worth it.

"You seem to misunderstand, the stance of the Imperium on the matter of "Free Trade" is rather negative. The "assistance" as you put it, of the world assembly in matters of international trade is by no means helpful.

And, to prevent further misunderstanding, at this time, the Imperium maintains no International Trade, everything is produced, sold, and used Internally. All resources, Agricultural, Mineral, or otherwise, are obtained and controlled by the Imperium, Private Industry holds no power over the Imperium, as all things required for the continued function of the Imperium are constructed internally, by the Imperium. Allowing private interests control over our Economy would be catastrophic, especially if said private interests are based outside of the Imperium."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: This repeal is completely nonsensical, to the extent it makes me question whether the author has even noticed the existence of World Assembly Trade Rights.

OOC:
Well, I tried to keep this IC.

OOC: That's very difficult in the current WA forum environment, as this very thread shows. For example, you chide "Railana" as author of a resolution written by "Auralia". Sorry, but I'm a bit reluctant to get involved IC. If though that means you'd rather I didn't participate at all, I will respect that.

I am fully aware of World Assembly Trade Rights, and, for the record, it is another horrid resolution that I fully intend to repeal at a later date.

Oh good grief.

However, I fail to see how it has any relevance to this specific proposal.

Because even if this resolution were repealed in its entirety and you jumped up and down on its corpse a few times - with each WA nation enjoying MFN status most of the arguments in this repeal would have no validity.

On another note, I'd like it if you elaborated on your claim that my arguments are nonsensical.

OK. The arguments fail on several levels:

1. Interpretation. The resolution does not require "locking in" of damaging agreements. The only thing that could bring that about is if nations are stupid enough to negotiate a deal on those terms, and believe me, whatever the WA can do it can never save its members from their own incompetence. Otherwise, the "10 year" schedule is simply the absolute minimum, basement floor. You also argue that nations wanting to trade can do so without the WA - which no one is disputing. It would be the same as arguing that nations that want to legalise abortion are capable of doing so without the WA telling them to.

2. Internal consistency. You argue both that the resolution removes protectionist measures, and allows them to keep them; you also argue that 10 years are far too infrequent to account for changing economic circumstances but also that holding one every decade is a "colossal waste of resources". Imagine the cost of holding them more frequently!

3. Basic economic sense. You repeatedly rail against "corporate" interests. Nothing in the resolution requires that nations legalise capitalism, incorporation, or private enterprise. Under the WATR regime so long as all "corporate" goods and services are treated on a MFN status, there's nothing to prevent their being restricted. You are also literally advocating autarky!

[Tinfect]

OOC: That's very difficult in the current WA forum environment, as this very thread shows. For example, you chide "Railana" as author of a resolution written by "Auralia". Sorry, but I'm a bit reluctant to get involved IC. If though that means you'd rather I didn't participate at all, I will respect that.

OOC:
I'll chalk it up to a mistaken identity. Probably do the same for the inevitable conflict with CP's new account.
I any case, I never said you had to leave.

Because even if this resolution were repealed in its entirety and you jumped up and down on its corpse a few times - with each WA nation enjoying MFN status most of the arguments in this repeal would have no validity.

Would you prefer it if I took down World Assembly Trade Rights first? I can do that if you'd like.

1. Interpretation. The resolution does not require "locking in" of damaging agreements. The only thing that could bring that about is if nations are stupid enough to negotiate a deal on those terms, and believe me, whatever the WA can do it can never save its members from their own incompetence. Otherwise, the "10 year" schedule is simply the absolute minimum, basement floor.

My IC response to Auralia Railana looks to cover this one.

You also argue that nations wanting to trade can do so without the WA - which no one is disputing. It would be the same as arguing that nations that want to legalise abortion are capable of doing so without the WA telling them to.

That's not what this is like, at all. Abortion, is not only entirely irrelevant to this discussion, it is also a National concern, generally. International Trade, is just that, International. The target resolution creates international interference where none is necessary.

2. Internal consistency. You argue both that the resolution removes protectionist measures, and allows them to keep them; you also argue that 10 years are far too infrequent to account for changing economic circumstances but also that holding one every decade is a "colossal waste of resources". Imagine the cost of holding them more frequently!

Fair point about internal consistency, I'll look into that, but I am loathe to drop any valid arguments against the repeal for fear of being accused of misrepresenting the target resolution. As for your second statement here, if we repealed the Resolution, we would not be holding them at all. Thus, saving WA Resources, and the time of National Delegations.

3. Basic economic sense. You repeatedly rail against "corporate" interests. Nothing in the resolution requires that nations legalize capitalism, incorporation, or private enterprise.

Mostly in the IC arguments against Auralia's Railana's attempt to dismantle the Proposal. I do not think I have any statement on Corporate Interests in the Draft.

You are also literally advocating autarky!

I'll be honest, this is the first time I've ever heard that term. However, from what I can tell, it just seems to be an extreme focus on economic self-sufficiency, something the Imperium, as an FT Interstellar Dicatorship can afford to do. Besides that, I don't really see anything wrong with the concept, besides its obvious failings for more realistic situations.

[Caracasus]

Ambassador, there are many reasons why a nation may not wish to promote free trade and the removal of trade restrictions. A struggling, poorer nation may wish to, for example, promote internal industries by restricting trade to allow for internally produced products to gain a foothold. Said nation may also feel that the influence exacted on it by another, more powerful, economy may wish to protect their own interests. We feel that the current resolution, with its focus on removing barriers to trade neglects the fact that for some nations, certain barriers to trade may prove an advantage, in some circumstances. We would like to see this legislation re-drafted with a stronger focus on remaining neutral, encompassing different economic models and nation's economies and not taken from the point of view that removing trade barriers is always a good idea.

As for the concept of inconsistency - we do not see an inconsistency. The ambassador from Tinflect is merely pointing out the following:

"We wish to repeal this legislation that attempts to do X. We are opposed to X, for reason Z. We also note that said legislation does not even do X well."

It is not unusual for repeals to tackle more than one argument, to appeal to a larger voting base. Perhaps the good ambassador may work more closely in making this distinction clearer.

We are still rather concerned that a piece of legislation aimed at promoting multilateral trade talks (which we broadly feel are a good idea - in practise) legislates the absolute maximum amount of time that must pass before new talks, enforces agreements made between nations and yet does not make allowances should one party wish to call a meeting at an earlier date.

We are broadly in favour of promoting multilateral trade talks - however we would like to see the removal of ideological bias that often benefits more powerful economies at the expense of weaker, or developing nations - in particular the focus on removal of barriers to free trade. We would also like to see proper safeguards put into place to avoid a potential situation where one nation is left in an economic stranglehold for a decade before another trading partner is forced to come to the table to renegotiate a now harmful trade deal. As we have stated, a lot can happen in a decade.

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: That's very difficult in the current WA forum environment, as this very thread shows. For example, you chide "Railana" as author of a resolution written by "Auralia".

OOC: I don't think it was an unfair point made by Tinfect given that there is fine print asserting that 'Railana represents the interest of Auralia in the World Assembly' by Railana/Auralia themselves.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Incredibly minor edits to the draft for clarity.

READ: An excuse to bump this back up again.

[John Turner]

Why are you even bothering to try and repeal this? It is a harmless resolution that benefited everyone. Just leave it be and ride the high of your WSA repeal, as I assure you Auralia will fight you on this, and he has far more sway than you will ever have.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Dammit, you make it quite difficult to determine what is IC, and what is OOC.

Why are you even bothering to try and repeal this?

Read the draft. It is a colossal waste of World Assembly Resources, and everyone's time. I'll not let a bad proposal sit on the books simply because it doesn't really do much.

It is a harmless resolution that benefited everyone.

Read the damn repeal.

Just leave it be and ride the high of your WSA repeal, as I assure you Auralia will fight you on this, and he has far more sway than you will ever have.

The WSA Repeal is irrelevant to this Repeal. I fully expect to have to fight Auralia tooth-and-nail to pass this repeal, and if my plans turn out, I will be doing that for quite a while yet.''

If no one can be bothered to come up with an argument more intelligent than 'lol why bother" I will be submitting this in short order.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Bump to keep this on the front page.

[Tinfect]

Submitted, and Delegate Campaign running.

[Railana]

Actually, very few would.

"Any nation, such as the Imperium, which does not bow to corporate interests would. From what I have seen, there are great numbers of Socialist nations in this Assembly, and I am certain most, if not all of them, would find forced reduction of trade barriers to be quite damaging."

That would be rather difficult, as the target resolution only requires that member nations reduce trade barriers as part of "mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved."

((OOC: This is especially true in real life, where the international community decided that trade barriers were such a bad idea that it was necessary to create an international organization responsible for facilitating their gradual elimination.))

OOC:
And would you look where that has gotten us? Economic dependence on near-slave labour, and terrifying levels of corporate power over national governments.

((OOC: No, sorry, don't see it. Extreme poverty has declined dramatically worldwide over the last twenty years, largely thanks to free market capitalism, foreign investment and international trade. Western liberal democracy remains quite healthy.))

No, it doesn't. The summits are held with that purpose in mind. The resolution only requires nations to negotiate trade agreements with other nations, so long as such agreements are in the best interests of national populations. If no such agreement can be negotiated, then nations are not required to do anything.

"Perhaps you should read a bit further before commenting? That is addressed in a later statement. If you like, I can provide the exact quotation this line is referring to, however. I find it quite interesting that you seem to forget aspects of a resolution written by your own delegation."

...what? Please do.

This simply contradicts your earlier clause.

"Not at all."

Yes, it does. You claim that the resolution requires member nations to reduce trade barriers in one clause, then admit that it doesn't actually do that in the next. That's a contradiction.

Uh, where does the resolution say that trade agreements negotiated at a WATC summit can only be renegotiated or terminated at a WATC summit?

"I never said that it did, had you actually read the draft, you would have noticed that it makes particular mention of the fact that a Nation can simply refuse to renegotiate until such time as the next World-Assembly Mandated Trade Summit."

I'm not sure why you think that. As I said, the target resolution says absolutely nothing about the renegotiation or termination of trade agreements negotiated at WATC summits. It all depends on the negotiation and termination provisions in the actual trade agreements.

For instance, if a particular trade agreement states that it expires after one year, then after a year it expires and must be renegotiated. In fact, clause 5 of the original resolution requires that all parties respect such termination clauses, as "any agreement arising from [the] negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement."

I don't understand why you believe the frequency of the negotiations necessarily has anything to do with the time limits associated with any agreements that arise from the negotiations.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Railana]

((OOC: I'm pretty sure this proposal is illegal, so I've filed a GHR:

It is my belief that a proposal in the queue, Repeal "On Multilateral Trade Talks" (tinfect_1440791390), grossly misrepresents the resolution it is attempting to repeal and therefore violates the Honest Mistake rule.

1) Clause 5 of the proposal states:

"Equally disturbed that the Resolution would allow a Member State engaged a Trade Deal which has become damaging to another Member State, to refuse renegotiation until the next event, effectively locking the first member state into an economically damaging agreement for 10 years,"

This is false. The resolution says nothing about whether trade agreements negotiated at a WATC summit must be renegotiated or terminated at another WATC summit. In fact, the resolution does not regulate the content of such agreements at all; accordingly, they can contain whatever renegotiation or termination provisions the parties want. The resolution only requires that all parties to such agreements respect the terms of the agreement. The 10 year interval for negotiations is completely irrelevant.

As such, the clause is doubly wrong: wrong for asserting that the resolution somehow *blocks* renegotiation or termination of agreements for 10 years, and wrong for asserting that the resolution somehow *compels* renegotiation or termination of agreements every 10 years.

2) Clause 3 of the proposal states:

"Disturbed that the Resolution goes so far as to mandate the reduction of trade barriers, disregarding the varied economies of Member States,"

This is again false. It is true that the *trade summits* hosted by the World Assembly Trade Commission are held with that purpose in mind, but the resolution only requires *nations* to negotiate trade agreements with other nations, so long as such agreements are in the best interests of national populations. If no such agreement can be negotiated, then nations are not required to do anything.

The proposal itself admits that this is the case in clause 4:

"Confused that the Author would do such a thing, while including a loophole allowing Member States to maintain protectionist measures if their removal would not constitute a "mutually beneficial agreement which are in the best interests of all national populations involved"."

The argument is therefore nonsensical. A proposal cannot argue that a resolution does something while later acknowledging that it does not, in fact, do that thing.

))

[Tinfect]

It is my belief that a proposal in the queue, Repeal "On Multilateral Trade Talks" (tinfect_1440791390), grossly misrepresents the resolution it is attempting to repeal and therefore violates the Honest Mistake rule.
1) Clause 5 of the proposal states:
"Equally disturbed that the Resolution would allow a Member State engaged a Trade Deal which has become damaging to another Member State, to refuse renegotiation until the next event, effectively locking the first member state into an economically damaging agreement for 10 years,"This is false. The resolution says nothing about whether trade agreements negotiated at a WATC summit must be renegotiated or terminated at another WATC summit. In fact, the resolution does not regulate the content of such agreements at all; accordingly, they can contain whatever renegotiation or termination provisions the parties want. The resolution only requires that all parties to such agreements respect the terms of the agreement. The 10 year interval for negotiations is completely irrelevant.

OOC:
I've already explained this. The belligerent nation does not have to do anything until the next World Assembly Mandated meeting. Until that point, they can ignore whatever issues the trade agreement is causing and have World Assembly support behind them.

2) Clause 3 of the proposal states:
"Disturbed that the Resolution goes so far as to mandate the reduction of trade barriers, disregarding the varied economies of Member States,"
This is again false. It is true that the *trade summits* hosted by the World Assembly Trade Commission are held with that purpose in mind, but the resolution only requires *nations* to negotiate trade agreements with other nations, so long as such agreements are in the best interests of national populations. If no such agreement can be negotiated, then nations are not required to do anything.

Here is the bit this line refers to.
With emphasis because you apparently didn't read your own resolution.

1. Declares that multilateral trade negotiations must be hosted at the World Assembly at least once every ten years, with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations;

The proposal itself admits that this is the case in clause 4:
"Confused that the Author would do such a thing, while including a loophole allowing Member States to maintain protectionist measures if their removal would not constitute a "mutually beneficial agreement which are in the best interests of all national populations involved"."
The argument is therefore nonsensical. A proposal cannot argue that a resolution does something while later acknowledging that it does not, in fact, do that thing.

It is perfectly valid when that is exactly what the target resolution tries to do.

In any case, if this gets pulled I am still pursuing it. Perhaps it'd be better next time around if y'all don't make a concerted effort to ignore the damned thing.

[Wallenburg]

Unequivocable support.