[PASSED] On Multilateral Trade Talks

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Having read the transcript of this discussion, there is little doubt that "some" delegations would attend for the purpose of derailing the talks and trying to make them a travesty. My suspicion however is that the vast majority of delegations, including those 4,313 that have so far voted in favor, would attend in good faith for the purpose of discussing international trade. Antics in the WA chambers aside, most nations are governed by adults and tend to staff their trade delegations with adults.

Why did you put "some" in quotes? Are you suggesting we're not really here?

Apparently the 4,313 delegations that have voted in favor of this legislation need the WA to call their meetings for them and remind them that the agreements they make are binding. That's too bad. But it's no reason to condescend to the rest of us.

The WA wants to hold massive unworkable meetings, compel unwilling nations to attend, instruct them on how to negotiate, and patronize them with reminders about what it means to agree to something. All on a very dubious premise that nations would stop protecting their domestic industries if only we could get everyone together at once every ten years to make them talk about it.

The whole business is pretty insulting. The WA is treating nations like children that cannot be trusted to hold their own trade summits, negotiate in good faith, or keep their agreements without being told. It is not surprising that a substantial percentage of nations object to such treatment.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Apparently the 4,313 delegations that have voted in favor of this legislation need the WA to call their meetings for them and remind them that the agreements they make are binding. That's too bad. But it's no reason to condescend to the rest of us.

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Some delegations here view free trade as a very important function of the World Assembly. It is why there are are several free trade resolutions, and even a general agreements on tariffs and trade. There is a general trade tribunal that can settle any and all trade disputes. Is it really so surprising that some delegations here wish to make attending trade summits a requirement of membership?

And the argument that the World Assembly doesn't need to 'remind' states of various things, because all states will obviously be doing these things anyways --- that ignores the function of the World Assembly. Member states don't universally do things that a reasonable and modern state assumes all states would normally do. This is why there are resolutions on such things like genocide, slavery and child soldiers.

All on a very dubious premise that nations would stop protecting their domestic industries if only we could get everyone together at once every ten years to make them talk about it.

It may sound 'dubious,' but the World Assembly would not exist if it weren't for reluctant states meeting on regular intervals at diplomatic summits, which resulted in the very concept of international law being born into existence.

[Friendship Island]

I think is pushing the envelope a bit. There's no need for the GA to mandate that everyone participate in trade negotiations.

Very true. I would not mind it, however many of my allied nations have a different sort of economical system that this resolution would alter. I switched my vote to against after hearing of such...

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I don't understand this line of reasoning. Some delegations here view free trade as a very important function of the World Assembly. It is why there are are several free trade resolutions, and even a general agreements on tariffs and trade. There is a general trade tribunal that can settle any and all trade disputes. Is it really so surprising that some delegations here wish to make attending trade summits a requirement of membership?

And the argument that the World Assembly doesn't need to 'remind' states of various things, because all states will obviously be doing these things anyways --- that ignores the function of the World Assembly. Member states don't universally do things that a reasonable and modern state assumes all states would normally do. This is why there are resolutions on such things like genocide, slavery and child soldiers.

Forcing nations to attend trade summits against their will does nothing to promote free trade. Neither does telling them to negotiate in "good faith" at those meetings. If the Free Trade proponents want to do something about protectionism, they should try to address its causes. Forcing nations to come together in an expensive, unworkable way is not going to suddenly make them see the light.

I'll grant that there's a line to be drawn when it comes to things that nations will do on their own without WA instruction. We have felt the need to tell nations not to do a great many things. But we haven't felt the need to instruct nations to (for example) criminalize murder, rape, arson, or theft. I'm sure some delegations here consider ridding the world of those things to be very important (perhaps more-so than reducing domestic grain subsidies). And while we (mostly?) agree those things are very bad, we assume that nations will figure out how to deal with them on their own. I consider the obligation to uphold international agreements to be one of those in the "duh" category along with murder and rape.

In fact, if you think it through logically, we implicitly trust nations to uphold their agreements - the whole premise of this assembly is that a nation has voluntarily agreed to be a member of this assembly. It's logically inconsistent to say that we need to remind nations of that through legislation - member nations have to understand that their agreements are binding to even be a member of this assembly.

[Yelda]

Having read the transcript of this discussion, there is little doubt that "some" delegations would attend for the purpose of derailing the talks and trying to make them a travesty. My suspicion however is that the vast majority of delegations, including those 4,313 that have so far voted in favor, would attend in good faith for the purpose of discussing international trade. Antics in the WA chambers aside, most nations are governed by adults and tend to staff their trade delegations with adults.

Why did you put "some" in quotes? Are you suggesting we're not really here?

Those are what's known in the industry as "sneer quotes". I use them with some regularity in WA discussions.

Apparently the 4,313 delegations that have voted in favor of this legislation need the WA to call their meetings for them and remind them that the agreements they make are binding. That's too bad. But it's no reason to condescend to the rest of us.

Well it is a WA-organized meeting after all. I would expect that it would be the WA that would call it.

The WA wants to hold massive unworkable meetings,

I've heard this bandied about and I have to admit I honestly don't understand the argument. How would it be unworkable? The WA hosts meetings all the time. The General Assembly itself is a meeting, if you want to be technical about it. Are you saying that the logistics of organizing international trade talks on this scale are unworkable?

compel unwilling nations to attend,

Nobody is compelled to attend. You joined the WA voluntarily. If the WA chooses to make attendance at a trade conference, or an arms control conference, or a human rights conference, or any other type of conference mandatory, it is well within its rights to do so.

instruct them on how to negotiate, and patronize them with reminders about what it means to agree to something.

I'm not sure if you're being serious here or just casting about looking for things to complain about. The WA would be the organizing party of the trade talks. Naturally the WA would set the ground rules that would be in effect at the talks.

All on a very dubious premise that nations would stop protecting their domestic industries if only we could get everyone together at once every ten years to make them talk about it.

You're assuming that free trade policies and agreements would be the natural result of the talks. It's just as likely that protectionist or even fair trade agreements would come out of them.

The whole business is pretty insulting. The WA is treating nations like children that cannot be trusted to hold their own trade summits, negotiate in good faith, or keep their agreements without being told. It is not surprising that a substantial percentage of nations object to such treatment.

I find it baffling that anyone would feel insulted or threatened by this. Sometimes a trade conference is just a trade conference, not some grand WA conspiracy to denigrate and enslave its voluntary membership. The WA is an international organization dealing with trade, war, hunger, poverty and any number of other concerns. Do you really find it alarming that it would hold talks on these matters and require nations to send delegations?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Yeldan Office Of WA Affairs

[The Laudean Republic]

The representative from The Laudean Republic would like to express extreme shock and disappointment regarding the MTT proposal. It is ludicrous any state who believes in the idea of free sovereignty sign this. Free Trade? Outrageous, how could we possibly institute something like this? said proposal would only lead to world trading that is dominated by bigger countries with bigger clout. More regulation leads to more corruption! Protect world trade don't drive it.

[Damanucus]

Aaaah, it's great to be back. Now, let's examine this:

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;
2. Mandates that the World Assembly Trade Commission provide any financial or logistical assistance that is reasonably required to host these negotiations;
3. Requires that all member nations send at least one qualified delegate to these negotiations;
4. Further requires that, during these negotiations, delegates make a good faith attempt to cooperate with other delegates in order to come to mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved;
5. Notes that any agreement arising from these negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement.

The clauses in question are labelled in correlation.

1. I would like to know the reasoning behind the hard-coded periods here. As much as I am all for multilateral negotiations, setting them for every ten years seems a bit over-zealous. Calling them as they are needed seems more feasible; if that's more than ten years away, that's fine.
   Additionally, "with the mandate of reducing protectionist measures between all member nations": can you clarify what is meant by this statement, and its relation to this first clause?
2. No need to comment here.
3. Okay, you should be a little careful here; "delegates" in regards to the World Assembly may be different to what may be meant here. This should've been clarified.
4. This is an NSS* statement, and hence doesn't require comment.
5. ...Binding until brought under re-examination in a later negotiation, I assume.

Now, I must raise the question as to the necessity of this Act. Now, I understand, from a previous attempt (or another related Act, I do not remember which) that having the WA, specifically the WATC, oversee trade agreements means that, should anyone choose to violate their agreement prior to returning it to the table for examination, their trade reputation could be severely damaged. But this seems to be a little too overbearing (possibly the wrong word there). Having a WATC gnome present at talks upon unanimous request seems a little more feasible (operative being "on request") than discussing everything in one mass meeting.

For now, I shall abstain from vote. But I will ask everyone to examine this act with a fine tooth comb, make sure the contents of this act is truly what you want.

Stephanie Orman
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

(* NSS = No $#!?, Sherlock)

[Moudrost]

I think is pushing the envelope a bit. There's no need for the GA to mandate that everyone participate in trade negotiations.

While i do think it is a bit silly to have mandatory participation...These trade agreements would be very beneficial to the economy of many nations.

[Shen Xin Lan]

As the delegate from the Rogue Nation of Shen Xin Lan, and one of the two delegates from the Region Xin, I, Mortifera Asmodeus, National Delegate and Senator of Foreign Policy, speak for my nation and for the Camp of Lan in the Region Xin.

It is with my sincerest apologies that I announce that if this proposal passes, I shall be unable to attend, and there are no qualified delegates within Shen Xin Lan that would be able to assume my place should a summit be called. As such, I have voted against this proposal, since I would be unable to benefit in any case.

If the Rogue Nation of Shen Xin Lan is unable to benefit from a proposal, it seems that there would be other nations that will be unable to benefit as well. Therefore, unless this proposal can be reworded to benefit everyone, I feel that it should be vetoed. If it passes, I will support any attempt to repeal this proposal.

Final vote:

Against

[Louisistan]

Carl Pan, Council for the Louisistanian Delegation speaks up: Might I remind the esteemed Ambassador from Shen Xin Lan that a resolution cannot be vetoed? There is no veto mechanism and there is noone who could vetoe anything since the WA does not really have an executive.

[Shen Xin Lan]

I am sorry, esteemed Ambassador Pan, but as I am relatively new to the Assembly, I may have... misused? a word and placed it in the improper connotation. I apologize, and I hereby rephrase my statement as such: "I feel that it should be vetoed." is now "I feel that it should be rejected."

[The Union of Thoth]

[*]Requires that all member nations send at least one qualified delegate to these negotiations;

The Union of Thoth rejects this resolution based on the external nature of holidays which these negotiations might fall on. My countrymen will not be forced to work on days of rest or days in which temple attendance is mandated by Thoth's will. If this passes I can see no way in which our nation or any religious nation can continue to exist in the WA.

[Eireann Fae]

If this passes I can see no way in which our nation or any religious nation can continue to exist in the WA.

"In that case, we change our vote to FOR!"




(OOC: Joke post, still against :-)

[Kneenypanini]

I voted against this because of the clause "Requires that all member nations send at least one qualified delegate to these negotiations". A nation should be able to decide whether they wish to send trade delegates to the World Assembly. They may feel that there is nothing to be earned by renewed trade negotiations, due to reasons such as deciding that they have enough trade routes and that future trade routes may not be beneficial. Perhaps while wishing to participate in international affairs, they may wish to limit trade to strictly internal trade, particularly if they are a self sufficient nation and have no need for imports. Over-exporting can be just as much a problem as over-importing, if not more so. I personally think that a meeting of trade delegates from member nations is a great idea, however, in light of the fact that some nations may view this as a loss of sovereignty towards the WA, who may only wish for a limited participation in international politics, as opposed to an "all or nothing" approach, I have voted against

[Ecreo]

So, to clarify this resolution:
*forces all members to send a delegation to the WA TC whether they want to or not
*may legally bind those nations to fulfil trade agreements before the terms of them have been agreed
*states that trade agreements are not negotiated by member nations themselves, they are negotiated by WA delegate nations only
*states that trade agreements remain legally binding until they are renegotiated 10 years later (regardless of member states' ability to fulfil them)

The Ecrean government also raises the concern that nowhere does the resolution mention multilateral trade agreements between WA non-delegate members - are these prohibited by this agreement? Also, could this resolution be seen as an attack on national security (given that multi-nation arms trade agreements would be discussed and recorded in an open forum)?

Ecreo votes AGAINST this resolution. We will be considering our membership should this resolution pass (though we are not a protectionist nation, we don't see why a central authority needs to impose free trade economics on our people)

[Dagguerro]

As far as the "agree to share whiskey" argument goes I have to agree that it doesn't represent good faith compliance with the resolution.

However I also have to agree that this is simply a massive excuse for a WA-funded party. As stated previously by another honourable delegate:

In the context of these meetings, a party would be acting in "good faith" if they showed up and said in a clear, calm voice that they had no intention of reducing or eliminating protectionist measures which they believe to be benefiting their nation. Obviously, that does little to reduce protectionism, but it is an honest and straightforward statement of the party's position - which is all "good faith" really requires.

There is no requirement to actually work on any trade agreements, you can simply declare them as not being in mutually beneficial to your national interest. Therefore what you are effectively doing is spending a huge amount of money to bring together thousands of trade delegates many of whom will state, clearly and in good faith, that there are no trade agreements they believe will benefit their nation. And subsequently spend the rest of the conference having fun.

We have voted against. However we're not altogether against getting together every so often to throw a massive party. The WA bar is not always the best place to mingle since people are often busy.

- Lord Swift

[Bears Armed]

"So, the resolution has passed. So, now such talks will be held here at some point no more than ten years into the future... but does here anybody know when that will be? The resolution itself doesn't actually specify, after all, so the opening date could be anywhere between tomorrow and just a single day short of ten years from now..."



OOC
1.Sorry about my absence during the debate, but I was busy elsewhere.
2. Past precedent for UN/WA councils and courts and such, as I recall, says that players are free to RP such talks as happening but have no right to insist that their RP counts as canonical for the rest of us...
3. This resolution is going to be pretty pointless if we actually manage to pass resolutions guaranteeing completely free trade between all WA member nations before any such talks are held.

[Neldaria]

3. This resolution is going to be pretty pointless if we actually manage to pass resolutions guaranteeing completely free trade between all WA member nations before any such talks are held.

Or if we outright repeal it because of how useless it is, as I am already working on.

[Lysandrion]

So, now such talks will be held here at some point no more than ten years into the future... but does here anybody know when that will be? The resolution itself doesn't actually specify, after all, so the opening date could be anywhere between tomorrow and just a single day short of ten years from now..."

Now that it has been mentioned - I wonder who and how is actually supposed to call these negotiations, as the resolution does not provide any procedural solutions?
...







Well, I really do appreciate what has been done here for the the world's paper industry. Nothing like some good ol' pump priming .

There is no need to even repeal this most lamentable act. It should stay here as an example - and as a warning, too.

[Kneenypanini]

3. This resolution is going to be pretty pointless if we actually manage to pass resolutions guaranteeing completely free trade between all WA member nations before any such talks are held.

Or if we outright repeal it because of how useless it is, as I am already working on.

You have my backing. I voted against this resolution and am dismayed that it came to pass. While I agree that trade should be encouraged within the WA, this resolution does not go about it correctly. I offer my assistance in callnig for the repealing and replacement of this resolution

[Neldaria]

You have my backing [on repealing this]. I voted against this resolution and am dismayed that it came to pass. While I agree that trade should be encouraged within the WA, this resolution does not go about it correctly. I offer my assistance in calling for the repealing and replacement of this resolution

It would be my first Resolution, so I plan to look over the rules and format and present some kind of draft in the next 6 hours.

[Kneenypanini]

You have my backing [on repealing this]. I voted against this resolution and am dismayed that it came to pass. While I agree that trade should be encouraged within the WA, this resolution does not go about it correctly. I offer my assistance in calling for the repealing and replacement of this resolution

It would be my first Resolution, so I plan to look over the rules and format and present some kind of draft in the next 6 hours.

Well I'd appreciate your messaging me so that I can have some input, especially when it comes to detecting loopholes and lack of clarity. A better resolution needs to be in place instead of the one that has just been passed. BTW which resolution are you talking about, teh erplacement or the "repeal" resolution?

[Neldaria]

Well I'd appreciate your messaging me so that I can have some input, especially when it comes to detecting loopholes and lack of clarity. A better resolution needs to be in place instead of the one that has just been passed. BTW which resolution are you talking about, teh erplacement or the "repeal" resolution?

At this point just the repealing one, which should be really simple but I'll forward it to you anyway before posting for general input

[Glen-Rhodes]

"So, the resolution has passed. So, now such talks will be held here at some point no more than ten years into the future... but does here anybody know when that will be? The resolution itself doesn't actually specify, after all, so the opening date could be anywhere between tomorrow and just a single day short of ten years from now..."

OOC: I get how this makes sense as a question in-character, but we all know that these things are impossible to detail in reality. So I'm not sure this is a very productive question, especially since at least one new player has come to misunderstand how resolutions usually handle committees...

[Bears Armed]

So, now such talks will be held here at some point no more than ten years into the future... but does here anybody know when that will be? The resolution itself doesn't actually specify, after all, so the opening date could be anywhere between tomorrow and just a single day short of ten years from now..."

Now that it has been mentioned - I wonder who and how is actually supposed to call these negotiations, as the resolution does not provide any procedural solutions?

"I suppose the talks would oficially start once every member nation has appointed its delegate or delegates to them, although member governments would be actually still be in compliance with the resolution if they postpone that appointment until just before the tenth anniversary of its passage, or actually at that tenth anniversary if it comes around before every member has got around to complying...
"Unofficially, of course, those delegates could start negotiating with each other as soon as any of them meet each other here... just as some of diplomats here have already been doing, anyhows, without any need for this resolution on the first paw."