The Autumn Clans wrote:RECOGNIZING that due to war, development and lack of public interest, historical monuments are being damaged, destroyed or entering a state of disrepair.
So? It's the nation in question that's allowing it to happen. Let them deal with it.
NOTING that historical monuments represent history and the formation of our cultures and that their worth surpasses that of monetary value.
I can agree with this. Culture is important as is history.
DEFINES “historical monument” as a structure or location older than 250 years that symbolises a major historical event or the formation of a culture.
250 years is a long time to some nations and a very short time to others. For the Imperial Republic, if it's over a thousand, it's historical. Anything under that and it's still very modern.
DEFINES “protection” as the prevention or illegalisation of damage in any form
You don't really need a definition of protection. It's an obvious term.
REQUIRES the protection and repair of historical monuments by the government to whom the monument belongs and any invading forces, unless doing so would directly lead to the harm of civilians.
If the nation is at war, I don't think the enemy is really going to care if they destroy a monument or not. How would you suggest they protect it? Just shake a finger and say 'can't target this'? I guarantee that if this is passed, monuments will be destroyed by an air strike rather than a ground attack in an attempt to demoralise the enemy, if the nation really cares about the monument in the first place.
ENCORAGES the condemning of countries that damage historical monuments during war.
Encourages is what you want here. Sure, condemn the country. Well, if they're not a WA member, a lot of good that's going to do. They're not going to care.
REQUIRES the prevention of development within a 1 kilometre radius of the monument and that the monument be made government property and can not be owned by a private party.
That's a pretty large radius. If you've got an overpopulated country, you need every meter of space you can get. Putting a one kilometer radius that can't be developed isn't right. I don't think the WA needs to determine whether or not an area can be developed. Particularly if it's right in the middle of a city block. Or someone's privately owned farmland.
CREATES the Historical Monument Protection Committee (HMPC) to identify historical monuments and supervise the protection and management of historical monuments.
Yet another committee that'll go into nations. Better yet, this one gets to determine what is and is not a historical monument! Never mind the fact that the committee probably has no clue what the culture or history of the nation is and is likely to make mistakes at what the nation wants as a historical monument. Best to leave the identification of the monuments up to the nations.
ENCOURAGES tourism to the historical monuments in order to educate people about their significance and to generate funds for maintaining the monument.
I would think most nations already do this.
REQEIRES that if tourism and donations are insufficient, the money must be obtained from income taxes.
Requires is the word you want here. I severely dislike the WA telling nations that they must spend their own income tax money for maintaining the monument. I think you should strongly encourage. A nation may not have enough tax money to sustain them, particularly if the WA goes in and determines what is and is not a historical monument. A nation could end up with numerous monuments and not enough money to support all of them and go broke.
You're asking too much of nations in this. The creation of monuments and determining where to come up with the money for maintaining them really should be left up to the individual nation. Protecting them, however, is a noble effort.
Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador