[PASSED] On Multilateral Trade Talks

[Auralia]

OOC: How would this come about exactly? Are you suggesting a new forum section? Are you suggesting we roleplay these negotiations and their agreements? How would a roleplayed agreement be accepted by players as both canonical and binding on their nations?

OOC: No. If that were the case, this proposal would be illegal for metagaming. I simply suggested a possibility for how the WATC might implement these negotiations in practice.

Ultimately, though, that's not my job. We've accepted that there are certain elements of the WA that simply don't match real life. For instance, how can the WA possibly support even a fraction of 16,132 member nations at once? The answer is that it can't, unless you suspend your disbelief. I see no reason why the same can't be done for multilateral trade negotiations.

ICly, I do consider the GA (and the SC) to be constantly in session, even though my Ambassador isn't there all the time. It's in session regardless of whether Alqania participates or not. This proposal on the other hand would obligate Alqania to participate in trade negotiations - what would happen if someone doesn't show up? Would everyone have to wait for everyone else before negotiations can commence?

If one assumes mandatory compliance, you wouldn't have to wait for anyone. If one doesn't assume mandatory compliance - well, you still wouldn't have to wait for them either.

I also don't perceive this doing much ... and what Alq said. It'd be a logistical nightmare as well.

On the contrary, I believe that multilateral trade negotiations can be extraordinarily successful. As I said before, the logistical issues are similar to those of the WA, and yet the WA is relatively productive.

[Alqania]

OOC: On one hand, Auralia, you argue this proposal has merit because of the effects of multilateral trade negotiations IRL, which I interpret as "something is good IRL, it's probably good in the NS multiverse too". On the other hand, you argue that despite the difficulties that would exist IRL if 16,000 parties were to negotiate something, we shouldn't assume there'd be any problem at all doing that in the NS multiverse.

According to your source, GATT and WTO members have held nine sessions of multilateral trade negotiations since 1947. This proposal would require such negotiations each year. Could you elaborate, OOC or IC, on why these agreements should be renegotiated annually?

[Auralia]

OOC: On one hand, Auralia, you argue this proposal has merit because of the effects of multilateral trade negotiations IRL, which I interpret as "something is good IRL, it's probably good in the NS multiverse too". On the other hand, you argue that despite the difficulties that would exist IRL if 16,000 parties were to negotiate something, we shouldn't assume there'd be any problem at all doing that in the NS multiverse.

OOC: Yes. That's how I - and many others - choose to play the game.

According to your source, GATT and WTO members have held nine sessions of multilateral trade negotiations since 1947. This proposal would require such negotiations each year. Could you elaborate, OOC or IC, on why these agreements should be renegotiated annually?

The time between negotiations is open for debate. Would five or ten years be more to your liking?

[Alqania]

OOC: On one hand, Auralia, you argue this proposal has merit because of the effects of multilateral trade negotiations IRL, which I interpret as "something is good IRL, it's probably good in the NS multiverse too". On the other hand, you argue that despite the difficulties that would exist IRL if 16,000 parties were to negotiate something, we shouldn't assume there'd be any problem at all doing that in the NS multiverse.

OOC: Yes. That's how I - and many others - choose to play the game.

OOC: Well, I don't, so my opposition stands. Your assumption that multilateral trade negotiations between all WA member states would be beneficial, or even that they would produce any agreement at all, seems unfounded and I'd prefer IC debate to OOC wiki links. And making participation compulsory makes no sense; what (IC) justification is there for that?

According to your source, GATT and WTO members have held nine sessions of multilateral trade negotiations since 1947. This proposal would require such negotiations each year. Could you elaborate, OOC or IC, on why these agreements should be renegotiated annually?

The time between negotiations is open for debate. Would five or ten years be more to your liking?

OOC: It would be more to my liking if you didn't include a completely arbitrary fixed time limit. But I suppose this one detail is rather indicative of the nature of this entire proposal and your willingness to legislate things without reasoning.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

I don't know how effective the Trade Rights and Disputes resolutions will be unless they're supplemented by periodic multilateral trade negotiations.

Could you elaborate on why?

[Auralia]

OOC: Well, I don't, so my opposition stands. Your assumption that multilateral trade negotiations between all WA member states would be beneficial, or even that they would produce any agreement at all, seems unfounded and I'd prefer IC debate to OOC wiki links. And making participation compulsory makes no sense; what (IC) justification is there for that?

I don't foresee all 16,000-odd nations creating a single agreement; I don't think that's practical. I do envision similar nations coming together to form smaller free-trade areas or customs unions, which would then merge with one another to form even larger areas or unions over time. I suppose this could happen without World Assembly intervention, but it would certainly take much longer. If we get everyone in one place at one time to talk about trade, we streamline the process significantly.

The reason why these negotiations are mandatory is to force all nations to at least consider the benefits of international trade agreements; it is my hope that nations who would have otherwise adopted misguided protectionist policies may change their minds as a result of these negotiations.

OOC: It would be more to my liking if you didn't include a completely arbitrary fixed time limit. But I suppose this one detail is rather indicative of the nature of this entire proposal and your willingness to legislate things without reasoning.

The nature of this proposal requires a fixed time limit of some kind; I want to ensure that these negotiations happen on a regular basis. I don't want it to be arbitrary, which is why I asked your opinion on what you thought might be appropriate.

One final point: your snide remarks add nothing to this debate. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

I don't know how effective the Trade Rights and Disputes resolutions will be unless they're supplemented by periodic multilateral trade negotiations.

Could you elaborate on why?

Those two resolutions set the basic rules for international trade, but they don't encourage international trade itself. This resolution is supposed to fill that gap.

[Auralia]

Resubmitted.

[Lysandrion]

While I have nothing against freedom of trade, I'd like to ask how possibly clauses 1. and 3. (which de facto force member states to participate in negotiations), can be reconciled with the ideas of sovereignty of nations, freedom of contracting and die Willensfreiheit ?

[Neldaria]

I dislike that this mandates such talks take place, and everything else in the bill seems to have little to no actual effect. Nations/Regions should be free to arrange trade however they please, there is no need to mandate participation and frequency of such discussions.

[Sanctaria]

Every ten years, the World Assembly pays for 16,000+ people to sit around in big rooms, talk to each other about trade, and then go away again with any agreements made only binding if you wish it to be. Right.

The idea is good, but I'd prefer it be more ... meaty. Right now, it feels a little redundant. Opposed.

[Alyekra]

As a strict NatSov I approve of this proposal.

[Grand Soviet Union]

it would be impossible for every nation in the GA to get together and talk about trade agreements. This won't do much. The Grand Soviet Union is voting against this resolution.

[Imperium of Tanith]

it would be impossible for every nation in the GA to get together and talk about trade agreements. This won't do much. The Grand Soviet Union is voting against this resolution.

If I remember correctly Comrade Commander, it was Jonathan Winters who said "Nothing is impossible. Some things are just less likely than others".

It's absolutely possible, Perhaps we could use IRC to get everyone there, the only issue is with Timezones...

Imperium of Tanith votes FOR this Resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

Believing that this proposal will improve the economic well-being of World Assembly member states, my nation has cast a vote in favor of this free trade proposal.

[Lysandrion]

Believing that this proposal will improve the economic well-being of World Assembly member states,

How exactly - except for generating additional workplaces for some bureaucrats? Someone will have to pay for these enormous and most likely pointless meetings and "someone" means us - member states. What precisely will be those improvements? All the deals we can possibly make during massive compulsory talks, we can also make while negotiating voluntarily. Besides, since when the freedom of trade is achieved by actually imposing regulations on the market? According to such a logic, forcing our citizens to visit supermarkets at least once a month should be perceived as promotion of the free market.

[Norsklow]

We have voted against. There are only 3 Jarls, and the others are busy running armies and such.
The Clerics are likewise needed in their Parishes.
We HAVE no spare bureaucrats. ( check our factbook )

[Silician]

Our Senate will be voting against this proposal due to the fact that both resolutions 208 and 209 cover multilateral trade fairly well. This proposal is deemed unnecessary.

[Tjennewell]

I am all for the WA to promote ideals - even in the sector of trade and commerce - and it is nice to have the offer of a forum for people genuinly interested in talking about certain subjects. But mandatory multilateral trade talks? What good can come from forcing us into talks? The moment you added force on something that isn't a necessity, but merely a boon for those interesting in capitalism, all the good you might wanted to do with your resolution went right out of the window.

To work in 'good faith' for my fellow countrymen in your forum will mean to friendly divert all actual trade agreements involving us away from that forum. In a friendly way, mind you. We don't want to disrupt things for those of you loving a forced wedding to multilateral trade. Still hoping this will get voted down, though.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

This proposal does absolutely nothing aside from forcing nations to send delegates to meetings. The author seems to think that member nations would change their foreign trade policies if they could just figure out how to call a meeting. But, sadly, they can't; the WA must call the meeting for them. Also, they might try to sleep-in that day, so the WA must compel their attendance.

Not only do nations need the WA to call the meeting, they need the WA to command them to negotiate "in good faith" toward "mutually beneficial agreements which are in the best interests of all national populations involved." I can see why Auralia felt the need to include this provision - obviously, most nations are going to be pissed off that they have to send someone to these pointless meetings and will not want to negotiate on principle. But you can't just command someone to negotiate and expect results. This proposal does NOTHING to actually address the underlying problems that prevent negotiated settlements. It's just stupid to think that commanding nations to negotiate "in good faith" is going to magically bridge the gap that has prevented agreement in the past.

The last provision sums up the pointlessness of this proposal quite nicely: "Notes that any agreement arising from these negotiations is binding on all member nations which consent to that agreement." Have we really come so far that we need to be told to honor the agreements we freely consent to? At its best this provision is useless and at its worst, it's insulting.

This whole bill is an exercise in condescending, pointless bureaucracy. I'm vehemently opposed. Rest assured that my nation will be sending the drunkest teenager in the land to these meetings; such a person would be more than qualified to sit-in on this useless endeavor.

AGAINST

[Moronist Decisions]

Who's organizing this set of extremely large-scale, unworkable meetings?

--Dr. Frick

[Sanctaria]

Who's organizing this set of extremely large-scale, unworkable meetings?

--Dr. Frick

I'm assuming the WATC since it's tasked with logistics, but now that you mention it, I'm not 100% sure.

[The Dourian Embassy]

These "trade negotiations" sound suspiciously like a "huge party". Will there be alcohol?

I'm just not seeing that it makes me do anything except send at least one person to a party every ten years. It says qualified, but qualified in what? Vice Chairmen Subotka can do handstands, so I guess we'll send him.

You know what's even better still? There's no upper limit to how many people I can send. We're going to bankrupt somebody.

[Zaklen]

On the grounds that Zaklen is not interested in appointing a random government official to be stuck at the WAHQ constantly, and that we are running out of Zyvex family members to properly fill these positions, Zaklen stands against this.

Also, we find the idea of forcing nations into a meeting to make trade agreements in "good faith" ridiculous.

And for the record, to illustrate my point about government ministers and Zyvex family members, since none of my ministers can be spared, I am not appointing more, and there are no other Zyvex family members available, if this is passed, my four-year-old little brother will be our representative.

[Silician]

There's really no point in having an international meeting about trade. As far as I'm concerned, meetings between nations in trade with each other are nonstop. It's not like we're all of a sudden going to forget one day that we are exporting/importing goods. If this proposal passes, I will vote to repeal it. If it doesn't repeal, I won't bother to waste my time in sending a diplomat to quite possibly the most disorganized sounding event possible.
-Chancellor Primi Novissimi

[Auralia]

After reading some of the debate, I think I need to answer some frequently asked questions:

Is this resolution really necessary? Can't nations come up with trade agreements on their own?

It is my belief that it takes much longer to form larger free trade areas when nations are left to their own devices to negotiate agreements without any sort of international support structure. Free trade simply isn't that high on some nations' lists of priorities, even though it would probably be in their best interests.

What's more, if an agreement that is negotiated without any international support structure isn't honoured by one or more of the nations who signed onto it, there will very possibly be little to no repercussions for the offending party. That can dissuade some nations from entering into free trade agreements at all.

Both of these issues are remedied by providing international support framework for trade negotiations. This resolution ensures that:

1. nations consider the benefits of free trade every so often, thereby increasing the chances that they'll adopt a trade agreement, and
2. nations will be less likely to renege on their trade agreements, since they will have signed it under the auspices of the WA, which has declared that, as a matter of international law, these agreements are binding. ((OOC: In fact, if you accept mandatory compliance, then this resolution would eliminate any chance of that whatsoever.))

Isn't this resolution impractical? How are we going to get 16,000+ delegates in one room?

The same way we fit 16,000+ delegates into the WA headquarters as it is. ((OOC: This is one of the idiosyncrasies of this game that we simply have to accept.))

It's worth noting, though, that the negotiations do not have to be structured as though the goal is one giant pan-WA free trade agreement, where 16,000+ delegates each speak in turn to all the others. Nations could be free to negotiate exclusively with smaller sub-sets of nations at their discretion. Perhaps certain nations could represent existing trade blocs which would negotiate with other trade blocs, to maximize the number of nations who benefit while minimizing the number of delegates.

The point is that this resolution can be easily implemented, even with 16,000+ delegates.

Isn't this resolution an unjust infringement on national sovereignty?

No. This resolution doesn't force you to sign onto any agreement that you feel is not in the best interests of your nation and its population.